allison fischer
raist
Allison and Gerda are gay. I was just wanting to know if this was true or
not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even saying that
it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would just like
to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another. Either way
Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close second).
thanks,
raist
Joey
watch. Jeanette isn't gay or at least that's what her husband says.
The only ones who know if the other two are gay are themselves. Ask them at the
tournament and let me know ;-) I'm a bit curious too, don't want to know that
bad. Asking them directly is the ONLY way I know to find out for sure. So I
guess I am just as bad as any gossiper because I am willing to listen too,
unfortunately. Knowing the "real" truth can be pricey. I don't mind paying. I
just don't like the price on that piece of information.
Either way, their careers are SOLID as long as they treat their fans (all of
them) well, continue playing top pool and not bring their sexual preference (gay
or otherwise) into their profession.
For now it seems Allison has the best stroke of all of the women including MY
FAVORITE: Jeanette Lee. But Jeanette has a competitive torch that I love to
see. Watch out for Tammy Wesley and Linda Martin. They are not on the tour
regularly but may be a factor in years to come.
J.L.'s biggest fan, unless Smorg is one of hers too. Then maybe I am a close
second.
Joey
raist wrote in message <3749...@news.fidnet.com>...
Frank in Richmond, Va.
me asking the entire world if the rumor that are an insensitive
boob is true?
raist <rai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3749...@news.fidnet.com...
| Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I
Frank
Patrick Johnson
> The only ones who know if the other two are gay are themselves. Ask them at the
> tournament and let me know ;-) I'm a bit curious too, don't want to know that
> bad.
I don't care to know or discuss who, but I think that the proportion of gay women in
the WPBA is more than in the general population. IF this is true, first I
congratulate gay women for their success, and second I have these questions about
it:
1. Why?
2. Is it related to the fact that male players are generally more accomplished
than female?
3. Will they always be a disproportionate faction, or will they get closer to the
general percentage as more women enter the game?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Deno J. Andrews
> Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
> not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even saying that
> it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would just like
> to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another. Either way
> Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close second).
Well if it doesn't matter...why do you ask? If you were not going to
make a judgement, you would not care one way or another. Oh...I heard a
rumor that you were gay...will you tell us the truth so I can categorize
you in my own mind so I can sleep at night :) You are a fan...continue
to be one and try to ignore rumors...they are a waste of time. And
trying to prove a rumor true is an even bigger waste of time.
Deno J. Andrews
Joey
to discuss this.
But for the record, your questions are very similar to the ones in my mind.
Joey
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <3749ED05...@concentric.net>...
Patrick Johnson
> Pat, I have the answers to most of your questions, but I see that you don't want
> to discuss this.
>
> But for the record, your questions are very similar to the ones in my mind.
I just don't want to discuss names. What answers do you have other than that?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Ron Shepard
suspension (two tournaments, I think) for Helena Thornfeld that is
mentioned in the latest Billiards Digest?
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Bob Johnson
anything to do with anything! I'm not gay, but I have many close friends,
including my secretary, who are openly gay, and I'm very comfortable with my
relationships with them.
If it's just curiosity that's making you ask this question, I've noticed
that Allison and Gerda, even though I don't believe either are married, both
wear what appears to be a plain gold wedding band once in awhile. It
actually looks like it could be the same ring. They do live together in NC,
I believe in Allison's house.
As I mentioned, my office secretary is gay, and is married to another woman.
Both are cuter than hell too! It's a lot of fun to go out with them and
watch guys try to hit on them. They have as much fun with it as I do
watching. A real exercise in frustration for guys. Quite frankly they make
a very cute couple, and a lot of fun to be around. If Allison and Gerda are
gay, not that it matters, I think they would also make a great couple, and
wish them the best. I guess that also means Smorg has no chance of marrying
Allison, even if Barbarachnid said it was OK, (from an earlier string). ;>))
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
Home of the back to back World Champion Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
raist <rai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3749...@news.fidnet.com...
> Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
> Allison and Gerda are gay. I was just wanting to know if this was true or
> not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even saying
that
> it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would just
like
> to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another. Either way
> Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close
second).
>
> thanks,
> raist
>
>
sam
Bob Johnson wrote in message <7ig3p2$8...@chronicle.concentric.net>...
>First of all, I feel that sexual preference is completely irrelevant to
>anything to do with anything!
Bob, I have to agree with you. Who cares!! They shoot great pool and their
personal life is their business. If you want to talk statistically, most
female sports have a higher incidence of Gay participants and followers than
the national average. Go to the Dinah Shore Classic in Palm Springs
sometime and you will learn. I still say, who cares!! Sincerely, Sam
Joey
Sorry, I have no answers for you.
My final comment is that if the person is an alien and can play competitive
pool, I will watch, learn and be a fan as long as they treat me with respect or
maybe a little tolerance. :-)
Joey
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <374B5BDC...@concentric.net>...
Fred Agnir
wrote:
>Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
>Allison and Gerda are gay.
Even if it were true, it wouldn't change a thing. I would follow both
of them around everywhere and anywhere, until the police drag me away.
BTW, June 10-13, Rochester, NY in two weeks!!
Regards,
Fred Agnir <---- #1 Gerda Hofstatter stalk...er, fan
Templeton, MA
newage
>
> Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
> Allison and Gerda are gay.
VERY subtle raist. You sir, must be up for some sort of tact and
discretion award. The members of this ng have managed to skirt around
this hornet's nest for some time, but you are the champ of laying it
right out on the table.
I was just wanting to know if this was true or
> not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even saying that
> it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would just like
To watch? There, I said it.
> to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another.
Maybe we should call and ask. Their number is listed. Or, you could
get on Allison's website and ask her. Or maybe we could get Brad Pitt to
ask them out and see if they deny him. Or we could just pass a note to
Karen Corr at lunch and see what she says. I really doubt though that we
can ascertain the truth on this ng just by voicing our opinions.
Either way
> Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close second).
I like Allison too, but I'm not sure how Loree John would feel about her
lifestyle!
newage
>
> Pat, I have the answers to most of your questions, but I see that you don't want
> to discuss this.
>
> But for the record, your questions are very similar to the ones in my mind.
How about the answer to Question #4-Can I watch?
newage
>
> Patrick, I failed to add a smiley face or chuckle to my last post to you.
> Sorry, I have no answers for you.
>
> My final comment is that if the person is an alien and can play competitive
> pool, I will watch
Joey, can I watch too?
newage
> As I mentioned, my office secretary is gay, and is married to another woman.
> Both are cuter than hell too! It's a lot of fun to go out with them and
> watch guys try to hit on them. They have as much fun with it as I do
> watching.
Bob you don't suppose that I too could...ah, forget it.
rai...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Well if it doesn't matter...why do you ask? If
you were not going to
> make a judgement, you would not care one way or
another. Oh...I heard a
> rumor that you were gay...will you tell us the
truth so I can categorize
> you in my own mind so I can sleep at night :)
You are a fan...continue
> to be one and try to ignore rumors...they are a
waste of time. And
> trying to prove a rumor true is an even bigger
waste of time.
> Deno J. Andrews
>
even start rumors, I just know what someone told
me and I thought I'd ask if you guys knew the
truth one way or the other (it's not really a big
deal). Besides maybe the only reason I really
wanted to know was so I'd know whether I had a
chance at getting a date or not. No sense asking
if she's not even playing the same game. :-)
raist
p.s. sorry about that feeble attempt at humor
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
rai...@my-deja.com
de...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> raist wrote:
> > Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard
that
true or
> > not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even
saying that
> > it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would
just like
> > Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close
second).
>
> make a judgement, you would not care one way or another. Oh...I
heard a
> rumor that you were gay...will you tell us the truth so I can
categorize
> you in my own mind so I can sleep at night :) You are a
fan...continue
> to be one and try to ignore rumors...they are a waste of time. And
> trying to prove a rumor true is an even bigger waste of time.
> Deno J. Andrews
>
Ok hold on it's not that big of a deal really. I was just curious
because somebody told me that while we were down in vegas this last
weekend for BCA North American 8-ball Championships, we were watching
her play and I made a comment that I thought she was really cute and a
buddy of mine said don't get your hopes up she's gay (he said he read
in pool and billiard magazine or something like that). That's all there
is to it, so I was curious and thought I'd see if anybody out there new
the truth one way or the other. So the truth be known it all comes down
to my libido and the wishfull thinking of some poor idiot in the
midwest as to whether he has a chance in hell (ok no I'm not that hard
up but hey, she is pretty cute). So everybody quit going off on me it
was a simple question like I wonder what her favorite color is, if she
says it's pink and I'm not that fond of pink it isn't gonna make me
like her any less, it's just a question.
raist
Joey
Joey
newage wrote in message <374BF4...@cellone.net>...
Ron Shepard
bit of RSB hypocricy here. Jeanette Lee was called all kinds of names
because she appears in ads in pool magazines (for Imperial cloth, balls,
etc.) wearing black pants rather than a dress. Now, the same people are
defending Fisher's right to privacy. Maybe RSB is starting to mature (or
grow up, or get liberal, or something) after all? :-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Raist Chin
monger??
With Regards
Raist Chin
btw, i dont like ppl to use my name to ask such a senseless question
thus i repy myself here to avoid any misundertanding ppl who know me,,
raist wrote in message <3749...@news.fidnet.com>...
>Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
>Allison and Gerda are gay. I was just wanting to know if this was true or
>not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even saying
that
>it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would just
like
>to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another. Either way
>Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close second).
>
>thanks,
>raist
>
>
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
(please don't flame (though I do expect a bit :-))
anyway,
Who Cares!!!!!
if she is, good for her.
if she isn't good for her.
She's a great player. She's quite attractive (personal opinion, by
all means, feel free to disagree if you wish). Gay, straight, bi,
into animals, whatever, doesn't matter.
-Jeffrey <-- wishing I could shoot as good...
: --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Fred Agnir
D. Scorsone) wrote:
>Apology for jumping in, since I don't like to do it...
>(please don't flame (though I do expect a bit :-))
>
>anyway,
>Who Cares!!!!!
>if she is, good for her.
>if she isn't good for her.
>
>She's a great player. She's quite attractive (personal opinion, by
>all means, feel free to disagree if you wish)
I disagree. I think she's hot.
>. Gay, straight, bi,
>into animals, whatever, doesn't matter.
>
"Into animals" might matter. .... No it doesn't. :-)
Regards,
Fred Agnir <------ Animal
Templeton, MA
Jerry Terrell 2
MUCH LESS YOUR LOVE OF POOL NOWDAYS .IF THEY ARE A COUPLE THEY ARE
FORTUNATE TO FIND SOMEONE WITH THE SAME INTEREST EACH SHARE .
IT DOESN`T SEEM TO HAVE HURT THEIR GAME ANY! AND WHOSE BUSINESS IS
IT IF THEY ARE ARE GAY? DOESN`T EFFECT ME EXCEPT MY CHANCES OF A GETTING
A NUMBER ! THAT AND MY WIFE!!
JUST LET THEM PLAY THEIR GAME AND WE WILL WATCH AND LEARN.
AND HOPE TO BE AS GOOD SOMEDAY .NOT WORRY ABOUT WHO THEY SHARE TIME
WITH!!
HAPPILY MARRIED JERRY 2
Jossq
HERE, HERE !!!!!!
John Walkup
>
> THINK ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND SOMEONE WHO SHARES YOUR INTEREST
> MUCH LESS YOUR LOVE OF POOL NOWDAYS .IF THEY ARE A COUPLE THEY ARE
> FORTUNATE TO FIND SOMEONE WITH THE SAME INTEREST EACH SHARE .
> IT DOESN`T SEEM TO HAVE HURT THEIR GAME ANY! AND WHOSE BUSINESS IS
> IT IF THEY ARE ARE GAY? DOESN`T EFFECT ME EXCEPT MY CHANCES OF A GETTING
> A NUMBER ! THAT AND MY WIFE!!
> JUST LET THEM PLAY THEIR GAME AND WE WILL WATCH AND LEARN.
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Oh, you meant POOL. (It's hard to tell with all the shouting.)
--
John Walkup The Cue Gallery (http://www.cuegallery.com)
Authorized Dealer: Verl Horn Cues Russ Espiritu Custom Cues
Peter Ainsworth
should be ignored, this seems to be developing into a very long
thread.
If you support the view you have expressed, I suggest you just
refrain from joining in. ... oops
On Thu, 27 May 1999 16:40:38 -0500 (CDT), JERRY...@webtv.net
(Jerry Terrell 2) wrote:
> THINK ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND SOMEONE WHO SHARES YOUR INTEREST
>MUCH LESS YOUR LOVE OF POOL NOWDAYS .IF THEY ARE A COUPLE THEY ARE
>FORTUNATE TO FIND SOMEONE WITH THE SAME INTEREST EACH SHARE .
> IT DOESN`T SEEM TO HAVE HURT THEIR GAME ANY! AND WHOSE BUSINESS IS
>IT IF THEY ARE ARE GAY? DOESN`T EFFECT ME EXCEPT MY CHANCES OF A GETTING
>A NUMBER ! THAT AND MY WIFE!!
> JUST LET THEM PLAY THEIR GAME AND WE WILL WATCH AND LEARN.
Mountain Mike^^
orientation is until they make it my business. They make it my business by
putting it in my face. (Think Ellen). Or by becoming a celebrity and thereby
being a role model for "the children".
Someone here mentioned that his 2 secretaries were "married." By that
one sentence, he not only disparaged the institution of marraige, his tacid
approval of this grotesque mis-application of "being married", debases the
integrity of marraige for all the rest of us. Is this what we have come to?
Is this what we want our children to learn? That marriage is simply another
"old fashioned" idea and should be dispatched to the dust bin of history? If
so, let's tell people the REAL reason. That nothing in this world is sacred
or honorable if it contributes to legitimizing the life-styles of the
politicolly correct. I had no idea that this twisted mentality was so
common. It makes me sick to my stomach.
MM^^<---one voice of reason in a bizzare world
sam
another that was closely related), I said "Who cares" and "what they do in
their personal life is their business". What I should have said was "as
long as they keep their affections for each other behind closed doors, who
cares". If they flaunt it in my face or in front of minors, I'm afraid I
have to care. At that point they are influencing young minds. Also, I
should have said "what they do in their personal life is between them and
their God, and none of my business, unless they are doing it in a way that
affects young minds." Sorry I copped out. Accepting the fact that the Gay
life style exists and that certain people will be drawn to it, and that
these are still fine people is one thing. Legitimizing or promoting that
which is not natural to human existance is another. You made very good
points. Sincerely, Sam
Mountain Mike^^ wrote in message <7imq5k$dg7$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
Tom Bellhouse
Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> Sorry, but I must dissent here. It's not my business what a persons sexual
> orientation is until they make it my business. They make it my business by
> putting it in my face. (Think Ellen). Or by becoming a celebrity and thereby
> being a role model for "the children".
> Someone here mentioned that his 2 secretaries were "married." By that
> one sentence, he not only disparaged the institution of marraige, his tacid
> approval of this grotesque mis-application of "being married", debases the
> integrity of marraige for all the rest of us. Is this what we have come to?
> Is this what we want our children to learn? That marriage is simply another
> "old fashioned" idea and should be dispatched to the dust bin of history? If
> so, let's tell people the REAL reason. That nothing in this world is sacred
> or honorable if it contributes to legitimizing the life-styles of the
> politicolly correct. I had no idea that this twisted mentality was so
> common. It makes me sick to my stomach.
>
> MM^^<---one voice of reason in a bizzare world
> -----------------------
Mike,
Guard against whiplash.Tom
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
"Grotesque mis-application of 'being married'"???
Does this mean that two people who are in love with each other,
choosing each other as a partner in life is grotesque? Or is
it just grotesque because in some cases they happen to be of the
same sex? Personally I've been looking for the person I want to
spend the remainder of my life with for quite a while and will continue
the search until that person is found. I congratulate somebody who has
done this no matter what the sex of their partner is. Its a hell of
a search. Look at history. Many cultures in the past were far more
accepting of couples of the same sex for varying reasons. One of those
being poplulation control. I don't think anybody was trying to knock
marriage by using the term referring to the secretary as being married
to her partner. Sorry to remind you, but some places, even some states
within the US, recognize same sex marriages.
Jeff <-- who believes in live, let live, and leave the happy people alone...
Joe Santos
j...@sunshine.concentric.net (Jeffrey D. Scorsone) wrote:
I have to agree with Jeff. He makes valid points. I understand MM's position and respect it.
I disagree with it, but respect it.
The Disagreement is twofold.
1. Conventional marriages (men/women) are only conventional for two reasons. It's been around
a hell of a long time, and two, because the act of sex has the chance of producing offspring.
Try as they may no homosexual couple can produce a child.
2. This country was founded, built, and governed in one sole principal. That principal is
held together by the constitution. That principal basically is that it makes no other rule
other than it's faith in it's people to govern themselves. If homosexual couples are of a
consenting age, then they should enjoy the same freedom as any other citizen. If exercising
their basic First Admendment Right of free speech, either by words or actions, then it should
be allowed. For instance if a gay woman wanted to exercise her right to free speech, and say,
"I love this woman", and if she chose to do this by demostration,i.e. by holding her hand. I
have to say she is protected by the constitution. Morality, the church, our own gut feelings,
should never enter the picture. Unless it infringes on one of my rights. Homosexuality
revolts me, however, as long as I am not in anyway thwarted of my rights by thier actions then,
we as a peaceful society, must learn to co-exist. I personally have no problem walking arm in
arm with my wife in the mall (other than she is going to drain the bank account dry) and seeing
two people of the same gender in the same position. It doesn't bother me. It further doesn't
bother me if my children are with us at the time. In fact I consider it a great opportunity to
advise them of my beliefs, while explaining to them why they ( the gay couple) can do that. I
just threw in a history, civics, sociology, and civilization lesson all in one shot. Remember,
that just because gays may embrace in your presence does not mean they have violated your
rights in any way. If you don't want to see that kind of stuff, simply turn around. It's as
simple as turning the radio dial from that damn rap station.
It is up to me as a parent to teach my children my values, and what knowledge I pocess onto
them. Beyond that, there is little I, nor anyone else, can do. Homosexuality is a conscience
decision. No one is born gay. If after reaching the age of consent and reason (consent = 18,
reason is usually 73), someone decides to be gay, there is little anyone can or should do. In
the simpliest terms. They decided to be gay, just like we decided to be pool players.
sam
all opinions especially when they are sincere.
Jeffrey D. Scorsone wrote in message ...
>Damn. And I was ready to stop commenting... oh well
>
>"Grotesque mis-application of 'being married'"???
>Does this mean that two people who are in love with each other,
>choosing each other as a partner in life is grotesque?
Grotesque is not a good word to describe any love relationship.
Or is
>it just grotesque because in some cases they happen to be of the
>same sex?
Again, grotesque is not a good choice of words. In the case of same sex
relations, VIOLATION of nature or of your God, might be better. NATURE if
you will, did not design relationships (sexual in nature) to be same sex
oriented (A penis was not designed to enter the anal canal). Neither did
your God or mine intend for relationships of this kind. Now, don't get
excited, let me explain. I many times go 80 miles per hour down the
freeway. Is this a Violation? Yes. Am I a horrible person? No Can I
claim that what I am doing is right? No Can I say that while I know that I
am not doing the right thing, that I am probably not hurting anyone but
potentially myself? Yes. If I do it in lots of traffic could I be
potentially endangering others? Yes Should I promote that other people
should follow my example? I don't think so.
Personally I've been looking for the person I want to
>spend the remainder of my life with for quite a while and will continue
>the search until that person is found.
That is a good thing. And if you have love for someone of the same sex,
that is also a good thing until it becomes sexual in nature. No writing of
any kind (including the Bible) frowns on you having love for someone of the
same sex. I have love for many of my buddies. I do not have sex with them.
I congratulate somebody who has
>done this no matter what the sex of their partner is.
I do not have a problem with this because NO ONE has to answer to me. I am
glad they are happy on the one hand, and am sad that they have chosen this
path on the other (if it is sexual in nature).
Its a hell of
>a search. Look at history. Many cultures in the past were far more
>accepting of couples of the same sex for varying reasons.
Pleases give examples. The ancient Romans? Absolutely. A very self
indulgent society which fell through lack of moral fiber. I can give you
all the examples you want, including MURDER to obtain the papacy. The
ancient Greeks? Same story.
One of those
>being poplulation control.
Bad example.
I don't think anybody was trying to knock
>marriage by using the term referring to the secretary as being married
>to her partner.
I don't think so either. That person was trying to portray commitment to
one another.
Sorry to remind you, but some places, even some states
>within the US, recognize same sex marriages.
This is a bad thing. Sorry. To allow two people of the same sex to live
together and enjoy each others company is fine. To legitimize, condone,
applaud, or in anyway promote this relationship as RIGHT, CORRECT, or the
proper thing to do, is the start of a Society that will next legitimize
racial cleansing, elimination of the weak, and any other self-gratifying
policy that fits the situation.
Please, Please, remember that I said we ALL do things that are INCORRECT.
It does not mean we are bad people. It is only when we try to make the
INCORRECT, "CORRECT" (lie to ourselves) that damage results. I am far more
incorrect than a loving GAY person. I sin (if you will) and VIOLATE our
laws (usually traffic laws) on a daily basis. I am not worthy to look down
on anyone. On the other hand, I am not ALLOWED (if you will) to call my
actions or theirs CORRECT and RIGHT. The human mind does not deal well with
Cognative Dissonance. It must try to make that which it is doing, RIGHT.
Even if that means MAKING what is known to be WRONG, RIGHT. Just my opinion.
(Boy, is the shit going to hit the fan. Ha Ha)
>
>Jeff <-- who believes in live, let live, and leave the happy people
alone...
>
Sincerely, Sam (Who believes that, while we all choose our path in life,
let's not try to call that which is incorrect, correct. Even if we have
chosen to live the incorrect.)
Jimbo Ct
DID I miss something ?? I was gone for 2 minutes and I missed it.
JIM <---Wondering what he missed
marvelrossner
> decision. No one is born gay. If after reaching the age of consent and
reason (consent = 18,
> reason is usually 73), someone decides to be gay, there is little anyone
can or should do. In
> the simpliest terms. They decided to be gay, just like we decided to be
pool players.
You were doing great up until this point. Science is uncovering more & more
proof that homosexuallity is biologically based. Sure, there are some people
who decide to experiment, but the vast majority of gays & lesbians have not
made a concious decision to adopt that lifestyle. The only decision that
they have made is whether or not to be open about their sexual orientation.
I can't say that I am totally comfortable with same sex orientation, but I
will say that it is not their fault. Most, if not all, homosexuals pay a
very high emotional price for their difference.
I could write a lot more about this subject but I have to go to work. Don't
flame me too badly while I'm gone <G>!!
Marvel
Smorgass Bored
There were these two college roommates (both male) that fell in love
with each other while they were on the football team. After college they
each joined the Pro's, but on seperate teams. They will meet again this
coming January.............
SUPER BOWL !
Green Bay 30 vs. Denver 17
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
Joe Santos
"marvelrossner" <marvel...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>.. Homosexuality is a conscience
Marvel, I would never flame a good article or post, such as yours. But your data is wrong.
Proof from the scientific community is nothing. For every report you can provide showing
homosexuality is biologically based; I can produced one that reports the opposite. When I was
in college and as a pre-req I had to take what I fondly call mental-101. In this course my
professor hammered home the point that when all children are born they are like a blank tape.
Everything that is experienced by this child or is told to this child unfolds a certain
characteristic. For example if you get the baby of prominent traditional southern family
complete with accent and drawl and from day one have that child raised and nurtured by a Korean
or Japanese family, that child will not speak Japanese or Korean with a southern accent. That
child will not have a hereditary taste for Sasparillas, or BarBQue'd chicken. That child will
not have the foggiest concept of that lifestyle. If you take a child from day one, and have
that child raised by homosexual parents, regardless of the gender of the child or gay parents,
then that child is and will be taught that this is an acceptable life style. Now, before I
receive a gajillion posts or emails, I am not agreeing with this lifestyle, but I am creating a
hypothetical scenario to illustrate a point.
My last point is your statement that said: gays and lesbians have not made a choice. Let's
examine that for a momnent. Yes, they have decided to be gay. I submit to you that a gay man
can very easily decide not to be gay. It's a decision. Fish or burger? Steak or Chicken?
Baked potato or fries? Everything in life is a decision based usually on many facets, but it
can also be a choice between two aspects. Ted Bundy, had a choice, to kill or not. John Elway
made a choice to retire, he could have played. Dave Thomas made a choice to introduce the
Monterrey Jack Burger, though I don't know why, he could have spared us.
I find it hard to believe that a child is sitting around one day and the light bulb goes off,
oh yeah I'm gay. What probably happens is that the child is attracted to a member of the same
sex for whatever reason. At this point he has a decision. The curious issue here is why or
what caused this attraction to be observed or noticed. Was it a walk, a phrase, a look, a
smile, a wink? There is like 3.5 billion girls in this world. Surely one in 3.5 billion can
accomplish the same feat. Another factor to consider is what if the attractor the attractee
was attracted to is not gay him/herself? The gay would then have to find a substitute. But
why necessarily a member of the same sex? I'll tell you why. Because they are choosing to be
gay. If it wasn't a choice then they would sit and wait for a person, regardless of their sex,
to come by and spark the same nerves and attractions as the first attractee. JMHO
John Walkup
>
> <snipped Sam's History of the World>
>
> There were these two college roommates (both male) that fell in love
> with each other while they were on the football team. After college they
> each joined the Pro's, but on seperate teams. They will meet again this
> coming January.............
Care to name these players? I am unaware of any pro football player
that is homosexual. Maybe some are that we don't know about, but
that would be sheer speculation. So kindly fill us in.
John Walkup
to associate with them.
But if that is the way they want to live their life, there is nothing
I can do (or should do) about it.
But I don't have to respect it.
--
John Walkup
BobJ1767
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.,
Home of the back to back World Champion Broncos
Smorgass Bored
<snipped Sam's History of the World>
There were these two college roommates (both male) that
fell in love with each other while they were on the football team. After
college they each joined the Pro's, but on seperate teams. They will
meet again this coming January.............
Walkup wrote :
Care to name these players? I am unaware of any pro football player that
is homosexual. Maybe some are that we don't know about, but that
would be sheer speculation. So kindly fill us in.
(*<~ Whoaaa,Nellie Bell.... Don't go trying to get me started.
You know my motto, " No gossip mongering or starting trouble in a
newsgroup"........IMO I will not name these players publicly
(but,they're both offensive players....IMO) (oh, and one talks with a
lisp) (which gives a whole 'new' meaning to," I weighed my cue".....IMO)
ta-ta,
marvelrossner
Joe Santos <jon...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:7ip2l4$k1e>
> Marvel, I would never flame a good article or post, such as yours. But
your data is wrong.
> Proof from the scientific community is nothing. For every report you can
provide showing
> homosexuality is biologically based; I can produced one that reports the
opposite. When I was
> in college and as a pre-req I had to take what I fondly call mental-101.
In this course my
> professor hammered home the point that when all children are born they are
like a blank tape.
> Everything that is experienced by this child or is told to this child
unfolds a certain
> characteristic.
Joe,
Now your talking "Nature vs Nurture," one of the oldest arguments in
psychology & one that I usually find myself on the "nurture" side of as
well. But, I am actually talking about straight biology. BTW, homosexuality
does occur in other forms of nature also, albiet very rarely.
Marvel
sam
and I think that we will be hearing police sirens any minute, I will give
you the short version of where your thinking can lead. According to your
thinking (which is self-gratifying in nature regardless of the norm or the
consequence) many other types of relationships should also be allowed, and
considered acceptable.
1. A marriage between father and daughter, both of consenting age as long
as Dad has been fixed.
2. A marriage between mother and son. (same as above).
3. A marriage between brother and sister. (same as above).
4. A marriage between sisters.
5. A marriage between brothers.
6. Sexual relations with my German Shepard. (Certain people with certain
fixations, actually fall in love with their animals. This was not a joke)
I am honestly not trying to be a smart ass. All of the above exist in this
world (the marriages are not on paper, but the love and commitment is still
there), but it does not change the fact that it goes against the laws of
Nature and God and the norm for a healthy society. Yes, we accept the Gay
lifestyle as one that will always be with us, and that the people involved
are most times fine upstanding human beings, but I doubt if you are going to
get very many of us to say that it is the CORRECT thing to do. If we
honestly believed it was, we would TEACH our children to select their mate
from either sex. I doubt that many parents are currently teaching that to
their children. Just my opinion. Sincerely, Sam (I agree to disagree and
respect your opinion)
Jeffrey D. Scorsone wrote in message ...
>First,
>I love (though not gayly :-) the comment about fish or chicken... *thumbs
up*
>
>Time to go back to my psyche training. Warning: I'm a Jungian.
>There is the theory (yes theory) of archtypal memory within the species
>that does bring down certain traits and behaviours. Similar to how
>fish know to swim, birds know to fly when dropped from the nest, we know
>to cheat on a test when we forgot to study (ok, bad example, that was a
joke)
>
>If you transplant a child of the deep south to an asian family, he may not
>have an instinctive draw to the south, or to an accent, or to certain types
>of foods. But that won't make that child any more like the Asian family
>that is raising him either, aside from moral values imparted by parenting.
>
>Now for an exercise left to the readers....
>
>think back
>No, I mean way back
>when you were young, and you hadn't really noticed the opposite sex, or
same
>if thats your preference, as a sexual being. For guys this usually meant
that
>frogs and snakes were cool, and girls were yucky and played with dolls.
For
>the ladies, you realized then what you later got proof of, boys goofs and
>need to be knocked on the head to realize stuff. Now, at some point, you
>hit that magic stage called puberty, and one morning you woke up and said
>Hey, She or He is cute...
>
>This is more of a biological reaction than a mental one. Attraction is
>subjective to the person involved. So if that person you are suddenly
>attracted to is of the same sex, you are (by a number of arguements that
>have been stated in this thread) violating the natural order of things
>and nature itself.
>
>Are you sure!? Maybe some people were not meant to mate and have
offspring.
>We have sex, primarily for the preservation of the speicies. (Yes I know
the
>other reasons too). But, maybe that person or those people can give more
>back to the spieces by not reproducing, but contributing in other ways.
>
>Ok, a few odd thoughts, a few strange thoughts
>and I'm sure, more comments will follow.
>
>
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
I think your comments are valid, though I do have one argument, that is more
the basis of obvious personal belief systems.
sam (s...@lasercom.net) wrote:
: Jeff, I want to be VERY careful in answering your post, because I respect
: all opinions especially when they are sincere.
glad to hear :-)
: Jeffrey D. Scorsone wrote in message ...
: >Damn. And I was ready to stop commenting... oh well
: >
: >"Grotesque mis-application of 'being married'"???
: >Does this mean that two people who are in love with each other,
: >choosing each other as a partner in life is grotesque?
: Grotesque is not a good word to describe any love relationship.
agreed
: Or is
: >it just grotesque because in some cases they happen to be of the
: >same sex?
: Again, grotesque is not a good choice of words. In the case of same sex
: relations, VIOLATION of nature or of your God, might be better. NATURE if
: you will, did not design relationships (sexual in nature) to be same sex
: oriented (A penis was not designed to enter the anal canal). Neither did
: your God or mine intend for relationships of this kind. Now, don't get
: excited, let me explain. I many times go 80 miles per hour down the
: freeway. Is this a Violation? Yes. Am I a horrible person? No Can I
: claim that what I am doing is right? No Can I say that while I know that I
: am not doing the right thing, that I am probably not hurting anyone but
: potentially myself? Yes. If I do it in lots of traffic could I be
: potentially endangering others? Yes Should I promote that other people
: should follow my example? I don't think so.
How can it be a "violation" of your god or of nature if two people
are right to be together? (I didn't capitalize the word god, not to offend
the Christians, or the moral majority of the group, but only to specify
a reference to a god and not to any god in particular. Should your saviour
or believed supreme being be called God by your beliefs, then so be it.)
As for the speeding, I'm guilty on a daily basis, especially when I'm running
late to work. :-)
: Personally I've been looking for the person I want to
: >spend the remainder of my life with for quite a while and will continue
: >the search until that person is found.
: That is a good thing. And if you have love for someone of the same sex,
: that is also a good thing until it becomes sexual in nature. No writing of
: any kind (including the Bible) frowns on you having love for someone of the
: same sex. I have love for many of my buddies. I do not have sex with them.
I love my best friend since high school sincerely. I consider him to be
family, a brother if you will. Does that mean there is a sexual relationship?
No. Don't confuse love with sex, I think that is part of the problem here.
When two people love each other (flash back to the classic lecture)
its common to be expressed in a physical nature, eg: sex. But that kind
of love is obviously different than the love you have for your child, your
sister/brother, family pet, etc. But of course you still love them. There
is love and there is love, let not the two be confused.
: I congratulate somebody who has
: >done this no matter what the sex of their partner is.
: I do not have a problem with this because NO ONE has to answer to me. I am
: glad they are happy on the one hand, and am sad that they have chosen this
: path on the other (if it is sexual in nature).
: Its a hell of
: >a search. Look at history. Many cultures in the past were far more
: >accepting of couples of the same sex for varying reasons.
: Pleases give examples. The ancient Romans? Absolutely. A very self
: indulgent society which fell through lack of moral fiber. I can give you
: all the examples you want, including MURDER to obtain the papacy. The
: ancient Greeks? Same story.
: One of those
: >being poplulation control.
: Bad example.
true, its not the best example, but without going back to my bookshelf
and quoting chapter & verse from my history texts, it wasn't too bad for
off the top of my head.
and Yes. Romans, Greeks, etc. Not too many people take this and consider it
a good thing, but it's a point of contention that it was a socially acceptable
norm. for that period. Which makes my point of: Is the looking down upon
homosexual activity anything more than a social taboo? Now, WHY?!
I have a number of friends who are pagan, who's primary belief in life
is "if it harm none, do what thou wilt". In a same sex relationship, assuming
it is consentual(sp?) harm comes to noone. This is a different mode of
thinking than most most people are brought up with obviously.
: I don't think anybody was trying to knock
: >marriage by using the term referring to the secretary as being married
: >to her partner.
: I don't think so either. That person was trying to portray commitment to
: one another.
: Sorry to remind you, but some places, even some states
: >within the US, recognize same sex marriages.
: This is a bad thing. Sorry. To allow two people of the same sex to live
: together and enjoy each others company is fine. To legitimize, condone,
: applaud, or in anyway promote this relationship as RIGHT, CORRECT, or the
: proper thing to do, is the start of a Society that will next legitimize
: racial cleansing, elimination of the weak, and any other self-gratifying
: policy that fits the situation.
I think this is a bit overexagerated personally. Accepting of human behaviours
and human nature (different from the mean) is not the path to racial cleansing.
Killing me and or anyone else who didn't fit the Aryan Race stereo type of
6 foot, blonde hair, blue eyes, was racial cleansing. I think people in this
world are seeking to be happy, and find what makes them happy. The more
tollerant a society is to someone who doesn't necessarily fit into the mold
will aid that person in finding their happiness, and not thinking that their
path to happiness is wrong.
: Please, Please, remember that I said we ALL do things that are INCORRECT.
: It does not mean we are bad people. It is only when we try to make the
: INCORRECT, "CORRECT" (lie to ourselves) that damage results. I am far more
: incorrect than a loving GAY person. I sin (if you will) and VIOLATE our
: laws (usually traffic laws) on a daily basis. I am not worthy to look down
: on anyone. On the other hand, I am not ALLOWED (if you will) to call my
: actions or theirs CORRECT and RIGHT. The human mind does not deal well with
: Cognative Dissonance. It must try to make that which it is doing, RIGHT.
: Even if that means MAKING what is known to be WRONG, RIGHT. Just my opinion.
: (Boy, is the shit going to hit the fan. Ha Ha)
I don't think anybody thinks you're a bad person because you break
laws on occasion, and have opinions you hold dear. (please! nobody say he's
a bad person, I don't wanna get blamed for pouring gas on the fire :-)
Seriously, you do make one comment in that paragraph that I think
will help to shed some additional light from other directions.
You refer to "sin".
Sin is a very subjective concept, but it is a concept that we base our
beliefs of right and wrong on. If you are a follower of the Bible, then
you have one definition of sin. That does not mean that you have THE
definition of sin. I was raised with a very strong religeous belief, but
it wasn't christian in nature. For me, sin is restriction. The only sin
I can commit, is to not follow my true will and my true nature. To go
against what I believe to be right would be a sin. This doesn't make me
a necessarily bad person, but it is a different view point. I still think
killing is wrong, and laws should be obeyed, etc. don't freak out that
I'm gonna hold some kind of weird sacrifice at a pool hall :-)
But really, each person has their own path that they must follow. To deny
that person the right and the ability to follow that path is the true
sin.
Jeff <-- I'm starting to think we may not all agree, but we may be close to
agreeing to disagree. Now, on to read the rest of the followup...
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
other girl mentioned?...?
oh well...
I"m sure somebody will mention it sooner or later.
-Jeff
Jimbo Ct (jim...@aol.com) wrote:
: Who's GAY ??????
Jeffrey D. Scorsone
John Walkup
>
> Smorgass Bored wrote:
> <snipped Sam's History of the World>
> There were these two college roommates (both male) that
> fell in love with each other while they were on the football team. After
> college they each joined the Pro's, but on seperate teams. They will
> meet again this coming January.............
>
> Walkup wrote :
> Care to name these players? I am unaware of any pro football player that
> is homosexual. Maybe some are that we don't know about, but that
> would be sheer speculation. So kindly fill us in.
>
> (*<~ Whoaaa,Nellie Bell.... Don't go trying to get me started.
> You know my motto, " No gossip mongering or starting trouble in a
> newsgroup"........IMO
You have already started the gossip mongering.
> I will not name these players publicly
> (but,they're both offensive players....IMO)
Sounds to me as if you have NOTHING. In fact, I think you just made it
up.
I tell you what. To counter your claim I will make my own.
THERE ARE NO GAY PLAYERS IN THE NFL.
Care to dispute that? If so, based on what?
My gut feeling is you bought into the "Troy Aikman is gay" baloney
that got started about two years ago. (It has the same credibility
as the "J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser" crap.)
rai...@my-deja.com
> Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
>
Ok guys it seems I do owe this news group an apology because boy have I
stirred something up (which honestly wasn't my intention). However
let's keep in mind here that all this stuff about them being gay is at
this point "hear say" anyways. I'm not taking a stand as to whether
it's morally or imorally wrong "for them" to be gay because at this
point I simply don't know whether it's true or not and from the looks
of things neither does anyone else. My point is try not to judge them
before you really know the facts, especially because some poor sod like
me inadvertantly started a rumor that isn't necessarily based on facts.
all apologies,
raist23
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
bp
>Jeff, Since I believe that this discussion has gone beyond the scope of RSB
>and I think that we will be hearing police sirens any minute, I will give
>you the short version of where your thinking can lead. According to your
>thinking (which is self-gratifying in nature regardless of the norm or the
>consequence) many other types of relationships should also be allowed, and
>considered acceptable.
>
>1. A marriage between father and daughter, both of consenting age as long
>as Dad has been fixed.
>
>2. A marriage between mother and son. (same as above).
>
>3. A marriage between brother and sister. (same as above).
>
>4. A marriage between sisters.
>
>5. A marriage between brothers.
>
>6. Sexual relations with my German Shepard. (Certain people with certain
>fixations, actually fall in love with their animals. This was not a joke)
>
>I am honestly not trying to be a smart ass. All of the above exist in this
>world (the marriages are not on paper, but the love and commitment is still
>there), but it does not change the fact that it goes against the laws of
>Nature and God and the norm for a healthy society.
You seem to be confusing Love with sexual attraction.
John Walkup
>
> > Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
> >
>
> Ok guys it seems I do owe this news group an apology because boy have I
> stirred something up (which honestly wasn't my intention). However
> let's keep in mind here that all this stuff about them being gay is at
> this point "hear say" anyways. I'm not taking a stand as to whether
> it's morally or imorally wrong "for them" to be gay because at this
> point I simply don't know whether it's true or not and from the looks
> of things neither does anyone else. My point is try not to judge them
> before you really know the facts, especially because some poor sod like
> me inadvertantly started a rumor that isn't necessarily based on facts.
If it makes you feel any better, this rumor wasn't really started
by you. We have talked about it here on many occassions. You
just brought it back up again.
Bradicall
fell compelled to say something. First of all I dont care if any of the female
players are gay. I know for a fact there are many of them that are. But are we
as a newsgroup going to disscuss the sexual orintation, and theological views
of the players? Or, are we hear to talk about pool?
Just wondering,
Bradical
Ron Shepard
brad...@aol.com (Bradicall) wrote:
>[...] But are we
>as a newsgroup going to disscuss the sexual orintation, and theological views
>of the players? Or, are we hear to talk about pool?
There are dozens of newsgroups devoted to gays, lesbians, religion, and
lifestyle. If the participants are really interested in following these
discussions, which seem to have strayed pretty far from anything related
to pool, they can take them to the appropriate newsgroups. Or to ASP, for
that matter. ;-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Smorgass Bored
[...] But are we
as a newsgroup going to disscuss the sexual orintation, and theological
views of the players? Or, are we hear to talk about pool?
There are dozens of newsgroups devoted to gays, lesbians, religion, and
lifestyle. If the participants are really interested in following these
discussions, which seem to have strayed pretty far from anything related
to pool, they can take them to the appropriate newsgroups. Or to ASP,
for that matter. ;-)
$.02 -Ron Shepard
(*<~ And, that is was I was 'trying' to point out in my
'football-Super Bowl' post...Would someone explain it to Walkup (who
seems to be getting more dense the more time that spends in ASP)
sheesh,
Wyo.Stick
thinkers"...are Pool Shooters. Kind a disappointed in
R.Shep,,,,,as I'm still waiting for him to break out a
slide rule....pull some logorithm stuff....and
scientifically PROVE the un-provable. Oh well. Cant
spell...just a working man from Wyoming...but.....have them
nights, now and then...when I hit the Zone. When that
happens...dont really care about your sexual makeup....as
long as you keep your clothes on.....unless you look like
J.Lee
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
hadler
point is try not to judge them before you really know the facts" is a
perfect example of stupidity. You should NOT be trying to judge them AT
ALL........You people need to GET A LIFE.
rai...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7irhgb$qqh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard that
>>
>
>Ok guys it seems I do owe this news group an apology because boy have I
>stirred something up (which honestly wasn't my intention). However
>let's keep in mind here that all this stuff about them being gay is at
>this point "hear say" anyways. I'm not taking a stand as to whether
>it's morally or imorally wrong "for them" to be gay because at this
>point I simply don't know whether it's true or not and from the looks
>of things neither does anyone else. My point is try not to judge them
>before you really know the facts, especially because some poor sod like
>me inadvertantly started a rumor that isn't necessarily based on facts.
>
Nixon
> Jeff, I want to be VERY careful in answering your post, because I respect
> all opinions especially when they are sincere.
Sam,
And, you did a very good job of answering his post in a very rational
and cogent way. Your opinion reflects the majority (IMHO) in the
U.S.A.
It's just not politically correct to
screw your buddy, your mother, your sister,
or your children. Those who do should not necessarily be
unduly persecuted, rather they should be corrected and disciplined
in very emphatic ways. MIstakes happen. No one is perfect.
But that does not mean that society should approve these
mistakes.
Your points are well taken.
Dave
--
/s/David Nixon n...@att.net or n...@m-y.net
Optimism; the only attitude that makes any sense in this world-
(guarded optimism).
Tom Bellhouse
>
> sam wrote:
>
> > Jeff, I want to be VERY careful in answering your post, because I respect
> > all opinions especially when they are sincere.
>
> And, you did a very good job of answering his post in a very rational
> and cogent way. Your opinion reflects the majority (IMHO) in the
> U.S.A.
> It's just not politically correct to
> screw your buddy, your mother, your sister,
> or your children. Those who do should not necessarily be
> unduly persecuted, rather they should be corrected and disciplined
> in very emphatic ways. MIstakes happen. No one is perfect.
> But that does not mean that society should approve these
> mistakes.
>
> Your points are well taken.
>
> Dave
> --
Dave,
You forgot the part about Sam's German Shepard. Sam never calls her
any more, never writes -- the dog is heartbroken. But like you say,
mistakes happen.
On a lighter note, we decided to wait to come to Foscoe until you are
free for at least an afternoon of one pocket. Allison and her fans
would have been under foot and in the way anyhow. ;<)
Practice up!
Tom
-----------
John Walkup
>
> This thread is really insulting to the intelligent readers. Your comment "My
> point is try not to judge them before you really know the facts" is a
> perfect example of stupidity. You should NOT be trying to judge them AT
> ALL........You people need to GET A LIFE.
If the person is repulsed by homosexual behavior, then I see no problem
being interested whether a public figure engages in such behavior.
You may call it "judging," but we all have to judge.
In fact, you judged when you told him to get a life. After all,
you insinuated that he has no life, which is an act of judgment on
your part. There is nothing wrong with that, just give him the same
freedom.
hadler
other people....you are embarrassing yourselves now.
John Walkup wrote in message <375236...@telepath.com>...
John Walkup
>
> LOL...this is amusing now...all the homophobes should simply STOP judging
> other people....you are embarrassing yourselves now.
Homophobe? Sounds like more judging to me. The politically
correct are the biggest hypocrites in the world.
"Don't judge people, you Nazi!" LOL!
BTW, do you ever read what you write before posting it? Most normal
people would have sensed the huge hypocrisy in your argument, but you
just blissfully post away.
Darwin Clegg
>LOL...this is amusing now...all the homophobes should simply STOP judging
>other people....you are embarrassing yourselves now.
>
Judging?.....I can state some facts, but I'll let the BIG GUY do the actual
judging!
Amazing....I have never seen any group worse than homosexuals when it comes
to judging. According to them (and the idiots they have been able to
convince) we heterosexuals have all of the following problems.
#3 judgement) We're being politically incorrect for not accepting them.
>> Why should you care when someone says that you should be politically
correct, when they are morally corrupt? Which is more important, politics
or morals? (I guess I'll ask Bill Clinton for clarification on that one.)
#2 judgement) We're not with the times...this is the 90's.
>> Not with the times?....Sodom and Gommorah were several thousand years
ahead of you. Why should anyone be forced to accept what is obviously wrong
just because of the date? Too many of us today are giving up way too easily
instead of fighting for what is moraly correct. Our children and our
posterity will be paying for our apathy for years to come!
And the #1 judgement) We're all homophobes.
>> This is the ultimate 'catch all' phrase by all homosexuals, stating
that WE have a problem, and THEY don't. This takes ALL responsibility for
any of their immoral and perverted actions off of them, and attempts to put
it on the shoulders of the innocent. We should not accept this and should
explain it for what it is! It is a feable attempt to clear their conscience
of THEIR wrongdoing and make YOU feel guilty for not liking them. Phobic
means an unusually strong fear. Just because you disagree with someone, or
don't like something doesn't mean you fear it. I definitely don't like
cauliflower, but I don't run from it at the grocery store!
Speaking of phobias or fear, there are way too many people (Hadler?) today
that are afraid of being branded with these three problems stated above,
that they are willing to accept and submit to the new status-quo instead of
standing up for what is right. I say don't be phobic....be brave, fearless,
and righteous and help change the world for the better. Some are afraid
that if they judge someone else's morality, that they may have to look at
themselves, therefore they'll just tell everybody to turn a blind eye. I'm
very far from perfect, but I was raised in a way that my conscience keeps me
from doing a whole lot of things! Apparently we've abandoned some of these
ideals, and kids with no conscience, like the ones in Littleton Colorado, or
people who condone gays, are the result!
I at least give some respect to those homosexuals who respect me as well and
don't try to force me to accept their brand of lifestyle as normal. You can
work with, socialize, or be around homosexuals without having to condone or
even respect their lifestyles.
But then there are those who attempt to display and flaunt their lifestyles
in public in order to get a reaction from others around them. They are
thumbing their noses at you, daring you to try and stop them!
The really sad part about this is that so many of you have accepted this as
normal there is not much we can do! When will you raise your standards and
start expecting more from yourselves? Sometimes you get what you ask for!
Darwin < Stepping off of my soapbox......
Global Snooker Centre
and I hasn't to say in a non physical sense!
We have the same discussions over here regarding the Ladies Snooker -
in fact they have been going on for many years now - quite often
featuring Allison.
There are undoubtedly some "gay" ladies on the snooker circuit - but
as far as I'm concerned that is their business, unless and until they
1) try to influence or "cop on" to another or particularly new young
player
2) their lifestyle is paraded in front of all and sundry, thus causing
embarressment etc but more importantly bringing the whole game into
some disrepute
On an interesting note, from watching this over more than 14 years on
theladie circuit. Some of the girls were perfectly straight when they
joined the circuit as young players, later becoming gay. Now was this
because of the influence of other outwardly gay players, or is a
contributory factor because they are in a very small minority, usually
one, in their clubs and have to suffer the very worst kind of male
chauvinism and bigotry towards them - thus pushing them the other way
Or is there some factor - gene, hormone or whatever, that ties
together lady pool or snooker players and being gay - are the gay
girls (or those that might turn out to be gay) more disposed to
breaking into a male dominated environment etc.
It's been a very long thread - but with some very interesting
comments....
not thoroughly convinced from my viewpoint in the UK of all the
current preoccupation with political correctness - not sure if we got
it from you or the other way round!
If people had always been politically correct, then that little ole
cave man smartass, would never have come out of his cave and invented
the wheel. Political correctness hinders free thinking, initiative,
and progess. imho! Anyway better push off back to alt.sport.snooker
where I belong!
Send my regards to Karen (and Allison) - we miss them both over here.
--
Janie Watkins - Global Snooker Centre
globalsno...@lineone.net
http://website.lineone.net/~janiew
Paw-Print - The Snooker Consultancy
paw-...@lineone.net
CUE CASE MAN: http://websites.ntl.com/~q.case.productions
newage <new...@cellone.net> wrote in message
news:374BF3...@cellone.net...
> raist wrote:
> >
> > Ok I'm not trying to stir anything up or start rumors but I heard
that
> > Allison and Gerda are gay.
>
> VERY subtle raist. You sir, must be up for some sort of tact and
> discretion award. The members of this ng have managed to skirt
around
> this hornet's nest for some time, but you are the champ of laying it
> right out on the table.
>
>
> I was just wanting to know if this was true or
> > not. Please don't flame me or anything like that as I'm not even
saying that
> > it matters to me or that I'm making any sort of judgement. I would
just like
>
>
> To watch? There, I said it.
>
>
>
> > to know the truth, so as to quell the rumor one way or another.
>
> Maybe we should call and ask. Their number is listed. Or, you
could
> get on Allison's website and ask her. Or maybe we could get Brad
Pitt to
> ask them out and see if they deny him. Or we could just pass a note
to
> Karen Corr at lunch and see what she says. I really doubt though
that we
> can ascertain the truth on this ng just by voicing our opinions.
>
>
>
> Either way
> > Allison is still my favorite (with Loree Jon Jones running a close
second).
>
> I like Allison too, but I'm not sure how Loree John would feel about
her
> lifestyle!
Joey
your post.
Concerning choices of gay lifestyle Vs. being biologically oriented toward gay
lifestyle.
I just wanted to share this with you.
Eighteen years ago my wife and I noticed that one of the neighborhood male
children (age 4) was inclined to
play more often with the girls and with the girl type toys. He also was
inclined to role play feminine
roles (cheer leader, baton twirler etc. never cowboys and Indians boy games) I
chose to carefully limit my son's time with this young man as I too believe that
the gay lifestyle can ALSO be chosen. But the difference between you and I is
that I believe based upon this first hand experience, that homosexuality can
ALSO be a biologically set inclination.
The young man came from a typical heterosexual family with siblings that all
grew up and remained heterosexuals. He announced his lifelong predisposition
one year ago. He received much condemnation for this predisposition which was
not public knowledge (from other school age children). My son, was taught at an
early age not to hate anyone. He was not in that number of children who gave
this young man hell. The young man was a straight A student ALL OF HIS ACADEMIC
life, going to the most difficult schools. He is an accomplished actor, singer,
dancer, an educator with degrees to boot. He is destined for many more
accomplishments. I wish him well. He is a fine person. Do I condone his
homosexuality? NO. I feel sorry that he has had to endure so much pain and
prejudice including my own. And because I too believe that homosexuality is
morally wrong, I wish that he could have made a choice. Unfortunately for him,
I believe he had none.
I hope I have not offended anyone with this post. It was not my intention, just
an observation to share. This isn't science and it is not a clinical study.
BUT:
In summary, based upon my first hand observation: Some people ARE biologically
pre-disposed to the gay life. Others make a choice. And this is just my humble
opinion.
Joey
Joe Santos wrote in message <7ip2l4$k...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>>.. Homosexuality is a conscience
>>> decision. No one is born gay. If after reaching the age of consent and
>>reason (consent = 18,
>>> reason is usually 73), someone decides to be gay, there is little anyone
>>can or should do. In
>>> the simpliest terms. They decided to be gay, just like we decided to be
>>pool players.
Fred Agnir
wrote:
>
>I find it hard to believe that a child is sitting around one day and the light bulb goes off,
>oh yeah I'm gay.
This is the downfall of your argument. Since you are obviously not
gay, and you don't believe scientific studies, you cannot make any
truly informed unbiased opinion of what goes on through a gay persons
mind. I know many gay people. I grew up 15 minutes away from
Northamton, MA, the reported "Lesbian Capital of the World" by 20/20
or PrimeTime Live. I haven't met one gay man or woman that "chose"
homosexuality. They've all told me they knew they were gay or
bi-sexual from their earliest thought.
Regards,
Fred Agnir
Templeton, MA
woo...@ccf.org
Finally.... some talk about pool....
I'd like to take this moment to quote a famous actor (Bill Murry) when
he said those immortal words "It just doesn't matter, it just doesn't
matter..."
Bill <-- I just want to shoot pool
Jasper Janssen
<globalsno...@lineone.net> wrote in
<2wL43.22$hg1...@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>:
>On an interesting note, from watching this over more than 14 years on
>theladie circuit. Some of the girls were perfectly straight when they
>joined the circuit as young players, later becoming gay. Now was this
>because of the influence of other outwardly gay players, or is a
>contributory factor because they are in a very small minority, usually
>one, in their clubs and have to suffer the very worst kind of male
>chauvinism and bigotry towards them - thus pushing them the other way
>Or is there some factor - gene, hormone or whatever, that ties
>together lady pool or snooker players and being gay - are the gay
>girls (or those that might turn out to be gay) more disposed to
>breaking into a male dominated environment etc.
Well, considering that (apparently) 10% of all people are gay, it would
be a very big statistical anomaly if _none_ of the pros, in either
gender, were. Also, there's the difference between "becoming" gay, and
"finding out" that you're gay. Could it be that possibly, these players
just "found out", possibly helped by the example set, or not? Also, what
age groups are we talking about? Most gay people seem to "come out" only
after they reach 18 (or majority) and get out of the grip of the
parents. That could also be a factor in the "conversion" you describe.
Jasper
Thread marked as TAN for tangential to the subject of the newsgroup.
Ron Shepard
lamest, most malicious, and most offensive threads that have ever graced
RSB. These are better than even the Jeanette Lee threads of last year,
which I also thought were a new low at the time. Far better than any
TW/Smorgasbord thread, or even a Jimbo/Walkup thread, and my own past
exchanges with Mountain Mike over the meaning of "civil liberty" pale by
comparison.
I personally don't care about anyone's sex life. That's just me. But in
Fisher's case, even if she is guilty (if that's the right word) of what
she is being accused of in this rumor mongering, she is still "in the
closet". That means that she has chosen to keep her private life
private. And she has not been hypocritical about this matter herself, so
she has not exposed herself as a target for that reason either (as many
politicians often do). This is not something that should be discussed
publically, not just because there are libel laws against it, but because
we should respect other people's privacy.
Please folks, give us a break. Let these threads die. Or at least have
the decency to take Fisher's name out of the title, and take them to a
newgroup that cares.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Joe Santos
woo...@ccf.org wrote:
And even if they cream us....IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER....
I love that scene....
Joe Santos
"Joey" <agu...@cmq.com> wrote:
Joey, as long as people post sincerely and what they feel then I don't think insulting anyone
is a problem. You posted your article articulately and with sincerity. Good job.
>Joe, I wasn't going to respond to this thread again but felt compelled to by
>your post.
>
>Concerning choices of gay lifestyle Vs. being biologically oriented toward gay
>lifestyle.
>
>I just wanted to share this with you.
>
>Eighteen years ago my wife and I noticed that one of the neighborhood male
>children (age 4) was inclined to
>play more often with the girls and with the girl type toys. He also was
>inclined to role play feminine
>roles (cheer leader, baton twirler etc. never cowboys and Indians boy games)
First I like to respond to this by saying that I don't think that judging a child's masculine
or effeminate quality by the toys they played with is not fair. Which among us have not known
the tom-boy girl who turned into the prom queen? Taking that argument one step further that a
little boy who plays with dolls is apt to be gay is the same as saying a little who plays with
tonka toys is going to be construction worker. I've no doubt that the company the little boy
in your neighborhood had a lot to do with his homosexuality. I think that it is more the
company he kept than the toys he played with. Though you didn't go into detail, other than to
say you limited your sons playing time with him, I would venture to guess that the little boy
enjoyed the company of the little girls than the little boys. So instead of playing baseball
and sliding into home he was playing Barbis' and Easy Bake Ovens. The fact that he hung around
the girls originally gave him the traits and mannerism of a female. As the years progressed he
began to realize this. In this isolated case he may have thought himself gay, and those said
he was gay. I still feel that it is a free choice. I could chose (hypothetically) never to
have sex with a female again and only chose males as a sex partner. I have now chosen to be
gay. The argument was made earlier that sex and love should not be confused. Open
permiscuious (sp) gay sex is not about love. A one night stand is a one night stand regardless
of the participants.
I
>chose to carefully limit my son's time with this young man as I too believe that
>the gay lifestyle can ALSO be chosen. But the difference between you and I is
>that I believe based upon this first hand experience, that homosexuality can
>ALSO be a biologically set inclination.
Again, I just don't feel that playing with toys aim at a female target is a clue to
homosexuality. In this case it turned out that because of the effeminate characteristics
picked up by the young man, by predominately having female friends influenced his decision.
>
>The young man came from a typical heterosexual family with siblings that all
>grew up and remained heterosexuals.
If homosexuality is biological and his entire family is heterosexual, where did the biological
jump to homosexuality originate? Certainly could not have come from either parent or sibling.
He announced his lifelong predisposition
>one year ago. He received much condemnation for this predisposition which was
>not public knowledge (from other school age children). My son, was taught at an
>early age not to hate anyone. He was not in that number of children who gave
>this young man hell.
Children can be cruel at times. I applaude you and the superb job you did in raising your son.
The young man was a straight A student ALL OF HIS ACADEMIC
>life, going to the most difficult schools. He is an accomplished actor, singer,
>dancer, an educator with degrees to boot. He is destined for many more
>accomplishments. I wish him well.
As do I
He is a fine person.
I am sure he is.
Do I condone his
>homosexuality? NO. I feel sorry that he has had to endure so much pain and
>prejudice including my own. And because I too believe that homosexuality is
>morally wrong, I wish that he could have made a choice.
He still can.
Unfortunately for him,
>I believe he had none.
>
>I hope I have not offended anyone with this post.
As stated above, I don't believe you have.
It was not my intention, just
>an observation to share. This isn't science and it is not a clinical study.
>BUT:
>
>In summary, based upon my first hand observation: Some people ARE biologically
>pre-disposed to the gay life. Others make a choice. And this is just my humble
>opinion.
>
>Joey
I enjoyed your article and hope to read more of you in the future.
John Walkup
> There are undoubtedly some "gay" ladies on the snooker circuit
Why do you say that? It is perfectly possible that none of the
women on the snooker circuit are gay. It wouldn't surprise me,
at least.
John Walkup
>
> Well, considering that (apparently) 10% of all people are gay, it would
> be a very big statistical anomaly if _none_ of the pros, in either
> gender, were.
You assume that the average applies to the individual. Not so. This
mistake
is made when people claim that some NFL players must be gay, but
obviously
NFL players do not have average characteristics all around. No NFL
player
has ever admitted to being gay that I am aware of, and none have ever
been
seriously accused of it.
jbs...@bellatlantic.net
>>
>> Well, considering that (apparently) 10% of all people are gay, it would
>> be a very big statistical anomaly if _none_ of the pros, in either
>> gender, were.
>You assume that the average applies to the individual.
He is also off about 9%, as only around 1% of the population is gay.
>Not so. This mistake is made when people claim that some NFL players must be gay, but
>obviously NFL players do not have average characteristics all around. No NFL
>player has ever admitted to being gay that I am aware of, and none have ever
>been seriously accused of it.
On the same line, female pool experts are not likely to have average
characteristics all around either. I imagine the average female pro
billiards chick is far more likely to be gay than the norm. Whether true
or not is important mainly if trying to determine the future of women in
pool, particularly in mixed company. Those that think women will soon be
equal to men in shooting are in for a surprise I think. I think it will
take 3 million years of evolution, and that for a sport with no apparent
advantage for the muscle bound.
I believe it has something to do with the angle of the dangle...
-----------------------------------------------------------
jbs...@bellatlantic.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
JanieWatkins
nothing to do with rumour or anything....
I agree with you Jasper, about the odds etc, but there are probably more gay
people about than the statistics account for - cos of comments (see later
posts) like accused of being gay - how can they be accused - it's neither a
crime nor a sin, otherwise we'd say I accuse you of being a bloke or
whatever... so the poster that said 1% is probably way off the mark, no
wonder so many people don't "come out" in some of the puritanical political
correct societies that they are supposed to conform to. It's amazing really
that a brave little cave man ever ventured out of his cave to invent the
wheel, I bet he got loads of stick!
I still subscribe to the theory that there is something that ties together
between women in sport - a competitive gene, or whatever and the fact that
are far as I can tell (re the ladies snooker, I know nothing about the pool
in the US although I have seen similar trends in the pool in the UK) there
are a disproportionate amount of gay ladies, in terms of the overall numbers
competing... there must be a reason.
Janie
John Walkup wrote in message <3754D9...@telepath.com>...
>Global Snooker Centre wrote:
>
>> There are undoubtedly some "gay" ladies on the snooker circuit
>
>Why do you say that? It is perfectly possible that none of the
>women on the snooker circuit are gay. >--
Patrick Johnson
>
> It might be possible, but isn't - they are open about being gay, it's
> nothing to do with rumour or anything....
>
> I agree with you Jasper, about the odds etc, but there are probably more gay
> people about than the statistics account for - cos of comments (see later
> posts) like accused of being gay - how can they be accused - it's neither a
> crime nor a sin
Yes, that offhand comment ("accused" of being gay) is typical of the
often unconscious prejudice that exists toward our gay citizens, and
I'd like to assure the many who are reading this reprehensible thread
that these are not the views of all who participate here. While these
few are happily patting one another on the back for dressing their
bigotry up in civilized tones, many of the rest of us are sitting in
stunned silence, waiting for this "discussion" to cave in under the
weight of its own ignorance.
If anything "violates the laws of nature or your god," it's this
bible-thumping fear and loathing of the unknown which, dress it up as
you will, still spells brainless bigotry.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
John Walkup
>
> It might be possible, but isn't - they are open about being gay, it's
> nothing to do with rumour or anything....
Exactly whom are you speaking of? What are their names?
> I agree with you Jasper, about the odds etc, but there are probably more gay
> people about than the statistics account for - cos of comments (see later
> posts) like accused of being gay -
The statistics already extrapolate to include those that are unwilling
to admit it.
John Walkup
>
> JanieWatkins wrote:
> >
> > It might be possible, but isn't - they are open about being gay, it's
> > nothing to do with rumour or anything....
> >
> > people about than the statistics account for - cos of comments (see later
> > crime nor a sin
>
> Yes, that offhand comment ("accused" of being gay) is typical of the
> often unconscious prejudice that exists toward our gay citizens, and
> I'd like to assure the many who are reading this reprehensible thread
> that these are not the views of all who participate here. While these
> few are happily patting one another on the back for dressing their
> bigotry up in civilized tones, many of the rest of us are sitting in
> stunned silence, waiting for this "discussion" to cave in under the
> weight of its own ignorance.
I don't think that ignorance is the word to use here, because I
don't know of any facts that those who oppose homosexuality
are unaware of.
I am repulsed by homosexual behavior, personally. But
it is a matter of opinion, and I think that you come off as being
authoritarian when you declare that those who disagree with you
are ignorant.
> If anything "violates the laws of nature or your god," it's this
> bible-thumping fear and loathing of the unknown which, dress it up as
> you will, still spells brainless bigotry.
The unknown? I know very well what it is. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out.
Speaking of ignorant, you display your own ignorance when you
imply that those who oppose homosexuality must be Bible thumpers.
Or that those who oppose homosexuality must live in fear.
Not so. I think you come off as every bit as bigoted as those you
rail against.
--
John Walkup
Mountain Mike^^
Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net> wrote in message > Yes, that offhand
comment ("accused" of being gay) is typical of the
> often unconscious prejudice that exists toward our gay citizens,
I have been trying to ignore this thread lately for the same reasons you
have, Pat. It is clearly off-topic, and does nothing to change anyone's
mind. But a bit of clarification is in order here. I don't think the posters
of this NG are ignorant nor bigoted. At least not about this issue. We each
have our own opinion, and, so far as I know, are entitled to them. Some of
us are opposed to mainstreaming deviant behavior. I don't deny that. For the
same reasons I oppose mainstreaming of any deviant behavior. I get to
define "deviant" in any way I choose. So do you. I also oppose mayhem, rude
behavior, theft, government intrusion, and incest to name a few more.
However, the tactic of labeling all who oppose the "new morality" as
being unenlightened or prejudiced won't work with everyone. And certainly
not with me. As I have said many times before, just because an idea is
popular, doesn't make it correct. My moral yardstick doesn't change with the
latest poll results.
MM^^
sam
Patrick Johnson wrote in message <37554D22...@concentric.net>...
>If anything "violates the laws of nature or your god," it's this
>bible-thumping fear and loathing of the unknown which, dress it up as
>you will, still spells brainless bigotry.
>
>Pat Johnson
>Chicago
Ron Shepard
In article <37551f4c$1$wofgrva$mr2...@news6.bellatlantic.net>,
jbs...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
.[...] Those that think women will soon be
>equal to men in shooting are in for a surprise I think. I think it will
>take 3 million years of evolution, and that for a sport with no apparent
>advantage for the muscle bound. [...]
I remember people saying the same thing about running and swimming sports
when I was growing up. "These are records that women will never
achieve." "A woman can never swim as fast as Johnny Weismuller". And so
on. Yet now, women's performance records in every event exceed those of
the men of 40 years ago. And in some areas, such as distance swimming,
they exceed even the current men's records. I don't know all the reasons
why (better training, better diet, more opportunities, cultural attitude
changes, and so on), but they do. As far as pool goes, there may well be
some kind of biological or physical difference that keeps the men ahead,
but I think the general level of achievement at present is so far from
what is possible that it is useless to form opinions based on present
performance. Just as it was foolish to say that a woman could never swim
as fast as Johnny Weismuller.
When trying to use arguments based on genetics and biology, you have to
remember that men and women are the same species. We all share the same
genes. Many of the arguments that are used might apply if men and women
drew characteristics from different gene pools (like comparing humans with
gorillas), but we don't, we are all the same. Modern man has only been
here for a few hundred thousand years, and our most recent common ancestor
lived probably no more than 35K years ago (based on differences in
mitacondral DNA comparisons). That's not very long is it, at least
compared to "3 million years"? There just isn't that much difference
among humans even now. Many of the differences we do see are nurture, not
nature, and that probably applies as much to male/female differences as to
differences in people from different parts of the world.
The problem we face in society is to find ways for individuals to achieve
what they are capable of, not ways to hold people back. Genetically
(physically) we are about the same as we were 35K years ago. But humans
have many more oppoutunities now than we did 35K years ago, so we achieve
more. It is our nurture (our environment) that has changed in that short
time, not our nature (our genes).
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mountain Mike^^
Ron Shepard <she...@tcg.anl.gov> wrote in message news:shepard-> I remember
people saying the same thing about running and swimming sports
> when I was growing up. "These are records that women will never
> achieve." "
While pointing out the different achievement levels of men vs. women a
while back, many labeled me a "sexist." Just for pointing out the facts, one
gets a label nowadays. Not exactly a strategy designed to stimulate an
honest discussion, would you say?
Anyway, few would deny the different abilities in some endeavors of
women vs. men. I'm still at a loss to explain it. I can understand when,
say, muscle mass is required, such as football, but have no rational
explanation for why women can't compete at the same level as men in such
activities as poker, combat flying, chess, and of course pool. There are
exceptions of course, but the rare anomalies prove nothing.
The argument that women haven't had the cultural opportunities don't
hold water for me. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now. There are plenty of
examples of young girls raised for competition that convince me that this
view is wrong. Possibly a DNA difference or a different methodology of
reasoning may explain it, but the jury is still out on this one. MM^^
Patrick Johnson
>
> I don't think that ignorance is the word to use here, because I
> don't know of any facts that those who oppose homosexuality
> are unaware of.
> I am repulsed by homosexual behavior, personally. But
> it is a matter of opinion, and I think that you come off as being
> authoritarian when you declare that those who disagree with you
> are ignorant.
I think you come off as trying to discredit by name-calling when you
declare that those who disagree with you are authoritarian.
"Facts" aren't all there is to knowledge. I was giving you the
benefit of the doubt. You're either ignorant of the victimizing
effect of publicizing your "repulsion" for these entirely innocent
activities or you're malicious about it. I think it's self-evident
that baseless prejudice is rooted in ignorance, if not stupidity. If
you're successful in legitimizing it, one day it will be turned on you
or your descendants.
> you imply that those who oppose homosexuality must be Bible thumpers.
"Bible-thumpers" is a generic term for those who justify a personal
prejudice by reference to a "higher authority," like religion,
"nature" or popular morality. Maybe yours is purely personal. Good
for you.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Patrick Johnson
>
> Some of us are opposed to mainstreaming deviant behavior.
I'm opposed to mainstreaming prejudice. Nobody around here (or
anyplace else that I know of) was promoting homosexuality. Keep your
intolerance at home.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Dane Brammage
>
>Speaking of ignorant, you display your own ignorance when you
>Not so. I think you come off as every bit as bigoted as those you
>rail against.
>
>
>--
>John Walkup
>>>
Dear John,
If Pat is a bigot, I suppose that I'm a bigot too. I have always been bigoted
against bigots. Pat, I suppose that we will have to live with our burden of
bigotry, just as John has to live with his.
Yours in bigotry,
Dane <-- semi-serious for once, and sorry to learn that the "8-Ball Sage of
Norman" is a bigot :-(
P.S. Some of my best friends are bigots, but I wouldn't want my daughter to
marry one. ;-)
newage
. No NFL
> player
> has ever admitted to being gay that I am aware of, and none have ever
> been
> seriously accused of it.
Don't tell Kenny Stabler's boyfriend that!
Robert Finney
It's probably less than that.
>I imagine the average female pro billiards chick is far more likely to be
>gay than the norm
What on earth would cause you to think that? I imagine people that post
to newsgroups are far more likely to have a sub-par I.Q., bad teeth, and an
offensive body odor. I, of course, being an exception. :)
Finney
Joe Santos
she...@tcg.anl.gov (Ron Shepard) wrote:
Ron I agree and disagree on seperate points. The thread did transcend Allison Fischer and
pool in general and went off topic. The thread evolved away from the original topic. You are
right the topic name/thread should have been changed out of respect for Miss Fishcer.
Joey
I have second hand information that Jeanette Lee (my heroine) slayed a few
SUPER, MALE professional pool players in the straight pool tournament at
Amsterdam Pool Hall (Seinfeld's place) recently. I may have the location or
name off, so shoot me. I wasn't there but talked to someone who was and that
person can play some decent straight pool and said that Jeanette PLAYS! If you
have different information, post it. I'm interested...
The game was straight pool and she played every bit as good or better than many,
dominant male pool players. She had some HIGH runs as well.
I don't know if that means that women can play pool better than men or just as
well as men. ;-]
It is obvious to me that the gap, if there is any, is closing.....
Joey
Bob Johnson
evidently good.
--
Bob Johnson, Denver, Co.
Home of the back to back World Champion Broncos!
bo...@cris.com
Joey <agu...@cmq.com> wrote in message
news:7j42cr$klc$1...@nntp.gulfsouth.verio.net...
Fred Agnir
>Can women compete with men?
>
>I have second hand information that Jeanette Lee (my heroine) slayed a few
>SUPER, MALE professional pool players in the straight pool tournament at
>Amsterdam Pool Hall (Seinfeld's place) recently.
Does Jerry have his hand in Amsterdam? I didn't think so, though he
was at the tournament. Now, David Brenner, on the other hand...
> I may have the location or
>name off, so shoot me. I wasn't there but talked to someone who was and that
>person can play some decent straight pool and said that Jeanette PLAYS! If you
>have different information, post it. I'm interested...
>
Several of us were there. Off to Deja for you. Lots of write ups.
Lots of laughs.
>The game was straight pool and she played every bit as good or better than many,
>dominant male pool players. She had some HIGH runs as well.
>
Her high run was in the 60's for the tournament. Since I was there, I
can say this. She had a weak draw, and some of the legends that she
played did not play against her very well, for whatever reason. She
sold out a lot, but no one cashed in. Dallas West dogged a virtual
hanger (less than a foot to the pocket, easy cut) at 147 or so. Don't
get me wrong, she played great. But not as great as I'd hope, and not
as great as her 9th-12th place would suggest.
Jay
straight pool. Jeanette had the high run (women's) of 76 IIRC.
Joey wrote:
> Can women compete with men?
>
> I have second hand information that Jeanette Lee (my heroine) slayed a few
> SUPER, MALE professional pool players in the straight pool tournament at
> Amsterdam Pool Hall (Seinfeld's place) recently. I may have the location or
> name off, so shoot me. I wasn't there but talked to someone who was and that
> person can play some decent straight pool and said that Jeanette PLAYS! If you
> have different information, post it. I'm interested...
>
> The game was straight pool and she played every bit as good or better than many,
> dominant male pool players. She had some HIGH runs as well.
>
Jay
"..." wrote:
> In article <7j42cr$klc$1...@nntp.gulfsouth.verio.net>, "Joey"
> <agu...@cmq.com> wrote:
>
> >Can women compete with men?
> >
> >I have second hand information that Jeanette Lee (my heroine) slayed a few
> >SUPER, MALE professional pool players in the straight pool tournament at
> >Amsterdam Pool Hall (Seinfeld's place) recently. I may have the location or
> >name off, so shoot me. I wasn't there but talked to someone who was and that
> >person can play some decent straight pool and said that Jeanette PLAYS! If you
> >have different information, post it. I'm interested...
> >
> >The game was straight pool and she played every bit as good or better
> than many,
> >dominant male pool players. She had some HIGH runs as well.
> >
> >I don't know if that means that women can play pool better than men or just as
> >well as men. ;-]
> >
> >It is obvious to me that the gap, if there is any, is closing.....
> >
> >Joey
>
> Jeanette Lee is one of the best straight pool players I've ever seen. I
> didn't get to see her at the tournament but from what I've seen of her
> game at Amsterdam Billiards, she is very consistent and plays a smart
> game.
>
> I've often seen her run 70's and 80's on some pretty good straight pool
> players. I've seen her improve her game from the late 80's through today.
> She's a hundred ball runner, and is in the middle of the high run board at
> the club with a high run of 124. I'm sure she will break 200 soon.
>
> I hope to match up against her one day but as a touring pro, she's not
> around the city much.
Patrick Johnson
>
> The argument that women haven't had the cultural opportunities don't
> hold water for me. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now. There are plenty of
> examples of young girls raised for competition that convince me that this
> view is wrong.
But there are still way more men than women being "raised for
competition," even now. I like Mike Page's analogy: Consider the
best male player in (say) North Dakota against the best male player in
the rest of the world. Who would you expect to win? Why?
It seems clear to me that you'd expect the best in the rest of the
world to win because he comes from a vastly larger talent pool. I
think that still describes the difference between the male and female
pool-playing talent pools, especially when you consider that you're
talking about the past twenty years or more, when today's players were
coming up.
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Jasper Janssen
<globalsno...@lineone.net> wrote in
<14a53.94$%X1....@newreader.ukcore.bt.net>:
>I agree with you Jasper, about the odds etc, but there are probably more gay
>people about than the statistics account for - cos of comments (see later
Well, the 10% figure appears to be fairly valid. Most independent
studies I am aware of come out (pun unintended) to around that mark,
with variations running between 5 and 15%. I doubt it's 1%, I very
highly doubt it's less than that. In my high-school final year, there
were at least 1-2 guys openly gay out of 106 students in my year (though
we were fairly tolerant, we all know what it's like to be significantly,
or even unisgnificantly, "different" from the others..).
Out of my personal ring of acquaintances, there's at least 10 or so I
_know_ about, and probably more that I don't know about - it's not a
topic that comes up in conversation often, and I don't really care.
>posts) like accused of being gay - how can they be accused - it's neither a
Indeed.
>crime nor a sin, otherwise we'd say I accuse you of being a bloke or
Well, it is a crime in several US states, and actually practicing gay
sex is a crime in a _lot_ of states. Then again, there are several US
states that make kissing "and other lewd behavior" outside of wedlock
illegal. The US - Archaic Laws 'R' Us.
>It's amazing really
>that a brave little cave man ever ventured out of his cave to invent the
>wheel, I bet he got loads of stick!
Hmm.. The first known wheel was used in battle chariots (wouldn't you
know this was yet again an innovation spurred on by war?) in
Mesopotamia, approx... 4-5 kiloyears BC, or 4-5 kiloyears BPresent, I
forget which.
I marked the thread subject with a TAN for tangential, or offtopic, to
the groups' subject for ease of killfiling.
On the subject of killfiling, I thought you had me killfiled, Janie?
Jasper "Okay, so I post too much off-topic crap - killfile me for _that_
instead of perceived slights.." Janssen
Mountain Mike^^
Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net> know of) was promoting
homosexuality. Keep your> intolerance at home.
Sorry, Pat. First ammendment and all that. You DO know about that don't you?
But again, you are right here. It's the attempt at mainstreaming
homosexuality that most offends me. What a person does behind closed doors
is none of my business. That's not intolerance. It's showing respect for the
values and moralities that made this country what it is. If the
mainstreaming of deviant behavior continues much longer, you'll soon see
what this country will become. I doubt you'll be so tolerant then. But,
naturally, by then it will too late. (Probably already is for that matter).
Let's see, let's be tolerant of drug addicts, babies having babies, gangs
taking over the cities, and same sex marriages, too. Throw in a little
tolerance for the Nazi movement and maybe a dash of anarchy. Sounds like
fertile ground for facism to me. All we need do then is elect Slick Willy,
King of the World. He already leads in the polls now, right?
MM^^<---has a right and duty to speak up
Mountain Mike^^
Patrick Johnson <pjm...@concentric.net> wrote in message > But there are
still way > It seems clear to me that you'd expect the best in the rest of
the
> world to win because he comes from a vastly larger talent pool.
You could be right about this. MM^^
Jay
speaking, there would have been, by now, one woman who could compete with the
best men. Isn't that a bit strange? I'm not sure that a smaller sample size
fully explains this.
Patrick Johnson wrote:
> Mountain Mike^^ wrote:
> >
> > The argument that women haven't had the cultural opportunities don't
> > hold water for me. Maybe 30 years ago, but not now. There are plenty of
> > examples of young girls raised for competition that convince me that this
> > view is wrong.
>
> But there are still way more men than women being "raised for
> competition," even now. I like Mike Page's analogy: Consider the
> best male player in (say) North Dakota against the best male player in
> the rest of the world. Who would you expect to win? Why?
>
> It seems clear to me that you'd expect the best in the rest of the
Tom Bellhouse
>
> Thump. Thump. Ha Ha Sincerely, Sam
>
That thumping you hear is Sam and his German Shepard, at it again.
Glad you two made up, Sam!
Tom
Smorgass Bored
SUPER BOWL
Denver 38 vs. Hitler 10
Doug W.
~>*)))>< Big fish eat Little fish ><(((*<~
Ron Shepard
jbs...@bellatlantic.net wrote:
[...]
> Having watched my now 15 year old daughter, and 13 year old son grow up, I
> can say for sure there is a hell of a lot more going on than social
> engineering. They start out very different at birth, and all you can do
> is react to them, unless you want to battle nature, which will surely
> screw up your kids. I went into child rearing with an opened mind, but
> came out of it rather closed minded on this subject, and a lot wiser. --
On the other hand, I remember the first day my son was home. After he
ate, my wife handed him to me and I threw him up on my shoulder to burp
him. Then after a loud burp, I told him what a good job he did. Then it
occured to me that if he had been a girl, I would have been much gentler
with him, and I might not have been so enthusiastic with my praise for the
volume of the burp. That's my conditioning, of course, there is no
physical difference in a one week old boy and a girl that would require me
to hold, hug, or burp them any differently. If boys are treated
differently from girls when they are only a few days old, and continue to
treat them differently from then on, how can we not expect them to grow up
differently as a result? And how can we possibly claim to raise them the
same? It just doesn't happen. We begin passing on our culture,
discriminations and all, both good and bad, only hours after babies are
born.
$.02 -Ron Shepard
Mask
Does this mean that I have a good chance of being gay????
Should I start looking at Allison Fisher in a romantic way now that I'm
18??? Damn Damn I'm all confused now........I think I should let my
male friend know that the chances of me being straight arent good! :(
This comment about Women never being as good as men on the table......Its my
opinion its because women have these damn hormones racing around their
bodies that men dont. These hormones causing ups and downs in mood swings
and emotions. Not because men were supposed to be better at sports!!! I'm
determined to prove it to you all one day :)
Samantha