Support your local BSA troop!
MorganPark
show its children the way to morality and leadership- qualities that have
become rarer in todays world of slime, filth and the "anything goes if you can
get away with it" attitude that prevails from President Clinton all the way
down to Eminem. I would suggest that any of you ask yourselves if this is
really what you want for a country. If you do, your future is bleak. Now the
BSA, having right on its side in a Supreme Court case, are under political
attack by the same bunch that have vowed to stamp out any shade of morality and
decency in America. The "usual suspects" of the ACLU (American Criminal
Liberties Union), the militant homosexual lobby, the child molesters, and, of
course, the God hating Madlyn Murray Ohare Athiest. Having had their asses
kicked in Court, they now turn to the political arena to try and destroy this
fine organization that has served America well for over 100 years. It is time
for you to draw a line in the sand and quit sitting on the sidelines and
watching these slimeballs wreck every institutuion the country has. You can
help by donating your time and money to the BSA cause. I have already increased
my check off from 10% to BSA to 20% for BSA. You can help too!
Kev in Atlanta GA USA
paghat
morga...@aol.com (MorganPark) wrote:
> For over 100 years, the Boy Scouts have been there for our country.
Actually, for 90 years. But if you count precursors that Ernest Thompson
Seton got started on in 1902, then NEARLY a hundred years. The rest of
your facts & assumptions are equally devoid of intelligence.
You expect anyone to believe you have an income?? Ha! 20% of an eviction
notice tacked to your trailer door isn't going to add up to a cent.
-paghat the ratgirl
>
> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
--
And God said unto Moses, "Thou shalt see My buttocks
but My face thou shalt not see." Exodus 33:23
MorganPark
>notice tacked to your trailer door isn't going to add up to a cent.
>
You can be mad all you want. The fact is that you liberals, atheist and
homosexuals have picked a fight that you are going to lose. Enough is enough.
paghat
morga...@aol.com (MorganPark) wrote:
Pretty funny trolling. I happen to know you ARE a commy pinko faggot
pretending to be a butt-ignorant bigot as an evil trick to make
intelligent conservatives look back. It ain't gonna work cuz it's too
obvious you have a hard-on everytime you see President Clinton's fat
maggoty-white ass jogging to MacDonalds & your fantasies about his cigar
so foolishly charming.
-paghat the ratgirl
Clave
news:20000715151637...@ng-fx1.aol.com...
> >You expect anyone to believe you have an income?? Ha! 20% of an eviction
> >notice tacked to your trailer door isn't going to add up to a cent.
> >
>
> You can be mad all you want. The fact is that you liberals, atheist and
> homosexuals have picked a fight that you are going to lose. Enough is
enough.
The fight's over, Sherlock, and despite the fact that the court ruled in
their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel once
they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
I give them five years before you can't tell the difference between the BSA
and any other church camp.
Jim
Paul Mitchum
> >The fight's over, Sherlock, and despite the fact that the court ruled in
> >their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel once
> >they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
>
> In 5 years they will be more healthy. They will lose nothing because the vast
> majority of people are on the side of the BSA in this matter.
>
> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
If they're more healthy on their own, without the 'public tit,' then
more freakin' power to 'em.
--
"A speck of dust now blows away/Epiphanies can never stay."
Shea F. Kenny
stanl...@aol.comSlamSpam (StanlyKupp) announced:
}Am I reading this correctly... You begin by accusing Morgan of trolling?
Come on Stan, give ol perv a break. It's pretty clear she's a little
limited in her understanding of people.........
--
Shea F. Kenny (Moonbear, Lunar Development Corp)
This has been, Lunar Network News
Moonbear, the Ultimate in Lunar Base Construction
Quote: "When I was in Congress, I took the initiative,
to create the internet" - Al Gore Jr.
Lunarchy's home page: http://www.fanz.net/~lunarchy/sculpture.htm
Last updated 6/27/00
StanlyKupp
>I have already increased
>my check off from 10% to BSA to 20% for BSA.
Every year they take away my Christmas tree for "free". I suspect this is going
to be the best Christmas ever for them.
-Stan Czervik
(posted via aol - no crossposting)
StanlyKupp
In article <SPAM-ME-NOTpaghat...@soggy70.drizzle.com>,
SPAM-ME-...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>In article <20000715151637...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,
>morga...@aol.com (MorganPark) wrote:
>
>> >You expect anyone to believe you have an income?? Ha! 20% of an eviction
>> >notice tacked to your trailer door isn't going to add up to a cent.
>> >
>>
>> You can be mad all you want. The fact is that you liberals, atheist and
>> homosexuals have picked a fight that you are going to lose. Enough is
>enough.
>>
>> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
>
>Pretty funny trolling. I happen to know you ARE a commy pinko <bleep>
>pretending to be a <bleep>-ignorant bigot as an evil trick to make
>intelligent conservatives look back. It ain't gonna work cuz it's too
>obvious you have a <bleep> everytime you see President Clinton's fat
>maggoty-white <bleep> jogging to MacDonalds & your fantasies about his cigar
>so foolishly charming.
Am I reading this correctly... You begin by accusing Morgan of trolling?
MorganPark
>their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel once
>they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
In 5 years they will be more healthy. They will lose nothing because the vast
majority of people are on the side of the BSA in this matter.
StanlyKupp
In article <vVRxOewba0y8aR...@4ax.com>, Shea F. Kenny
<luna...@kvi.fanz.net> wrote:
>Having shed several pounds of relevancy on the trollmaster,
>stanl...@aol.comSlamSpam (StanlyKupp) announced:
>}Am I reading this correctly... You begin by accusing Morgan of trolling?
>
> Come on Stan, give ol <paghat> a break. It's pretty clear she's a
little
>limited in her understanding of people.........
Maybe milky-white, live in 'burbs, swingset and inflatable pool in the backyard
people. Other than that she can give you brutally candid descriptions of every
"type" of person imaginable.
Shea F. Kenny
stanl...@aol.comSlamSpam (StanlyKupp) announced:
}people. Other than that she can give you brutally candid descriptions of every
}"type" of person imaginable.
Well now that's true isn't it? However, it's a bit amazing how many
shoe lickers there are in the world........ I mean, it's about every third
post or so she "finds" another one.....
Gregory Gadow
> For over 100 years, the Boy Scouts have been there for our country. Helping to
> show its children the way to morality and leadership- qualities that have
> become rarer in todays world of slime, filth and the "anything goes if you can
> get away with it" attitude that prevails from President Clinton all the way
> down to Eminem. I would suggest that any of you ask yourselves if this is
> really what you want for a country. If you do, your future is bleak. Now the
> BSA, having right on its side in a Supreme Court case, are under political
> attack by the same bunch that have vowed to stamp out any shade of morality and
> decency in America. The "usual suspects" of the ACLU (American Criminal
> Liberties Union), the militant homosexual lobby, the child molesters, and, of
> course, the God hating Madlyn Murray Ohare Athiest. Having had their asses
> kicked in Court, they now turn to the political arena to try and destroy this
> fine organization that has served America well for over 100 years. It is time
> for you to draw a line in the sand and quit sitting on the sidelines and
> watching these slimeballs wreck every institutuion the country has. You can
> help by donating your time and money to the BSA cause. I have already increased
> my check off from 10% to BSA to 20% for BSA. You can help too!
For over 100 years, the Catholic Church has been here for our country. Helping to
show its children the way to morality and leadership.... Therefore the Catholic
Church should be granted exclusive right to your children in their schools,
regardless of whether or not you teach your children that discrimination and
bigotry is wrong. The Church should be granted exclusive use of former military
bases maintained at public expense. The Church should have government employees, in
their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths of the Church
to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve the noble goals
of the Church... some, but not all, because there are some people who are
inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people, agnostics,
atheists, Unitarians.
--
Gregory Gadow
Email: tech...@serv.net
Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Gregory Gadow
Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is receiving from
public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate them.
Jammer Six
<tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>€ And I intend to educate them.
I love seattle.general.
Sometimes, people say truely funny things!
--
"C'mon, you sons of bitches, you want to live forever?"
-First Sergeant Dan Daly
michael
news:39730C79...@serv.net...
> [snipped a defense and an attack of the BSA]
> some, but not all, because there are some people who are
> inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people,
agnostics,
> atheists, Unitarians.
Isn't it interseting that by the BSA's standards, the following people would
not have been allowed to join (assuming Mr. Gadow's assertation that
Unitarians are not allowed to join to be true).
George Washington, Father of our country but not good enough for the boy
scouts (he was a Unitarian & a Free Mason).
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft
(all of the previous guys were also Unitarians)
Thomas Jefferson (a Freethinker)
Abraham Lincoln (a Deist)
William Henery Harrison
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Simpson Grant
Rutherford Birchard Hayes
(none of these guys went to church at all)
Teddy Roosevelt was well-known for skipping church in favor of other things,
like hunting, and was not considered by any of his peers to be a very
religious man either.
--michael
SMITH29
> their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths of the Church
> to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve the noble goals
> inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people, agnostics,
> atheists, Unitarians.
xxxxxx
I don't think so.
29
SMITH29
>
> MorganPark wrote:
>
> > >The fight's over, Sherlock, and despite the fact that the court ruled in
> > >their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel once
> > >they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
> >
> > In 5 years they will be more healthy. They will lose nothing because the vast
> > majority of people are on the side of the BSA in this matter.
>
> Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is receiving from
> --
xxxxx
You will do anything to make trouble for the scouts!
You are truly a brave noble man.
29
U.S. Expedition
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> For over 100 years, the Catholic Church has been here for our
country. Helping to
> show its children the way to morality and leadership.... Therefore
the Catholic
> Church should be granted exclusive right to your children in their
schools,
> regardless of whether or not you teach your children that
discrimination and
> bigotry is wrong. The Church should be granted exclusive use of
former military
employees, in
> their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths
of the Church
> to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve
the noble goals
> of the Church... some, but not all, because there are some people who
are
> inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people,
agnostics,
> atheists, Unitarians.
> --
leather buttplug because the shit's coming out of your mouth.
A few years ago right-wingers were fulminating against public funding
of the arts, holding up examples like a snapshot of a crucifix in a
bottle of piss that some grant-funded Village idiot tacked on a wall in
a lame attempt to be creative. Big fucking deal, right?
Well, p.c. liberals are just as thin-skinned when your sensibilities
are bruised. It's narrow-minded and disgusting. You can join forces
with Jesse Helms in yanking away public funding for all cultural or
recreational amenities, but it's a step toward a world where access to
those amenities is dependent on financial means, for kids as well as
adults. Is that your vision?
Charlie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James C. Nevermann
>
> >The fight's over, Sherlock, and despite the fact that the court ruled in
> >their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel once
> >they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
>
> In 5 years they will be more healthy. They will lose nothing because the vast
> majority of people are on the side of the BSA in this matter.
>
I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
reprehensible.
--
Jim Nevermann [usual disclaimers]
"The Internet is an elite organization. Most
of the world has never even made a phone call."
U.S. Expedition
"James C. Nevermann" <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>
> I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
> reprehensible.
>
and that's what they'll remember as adults, not the political bullshit.
Clave
news:8kvf3h$1e7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
<...>
> A few years ago right-wingers were fulminating against public funding
> of the arts, holding up examples like a snapshot of a crucifix in a
> bottle of piss that some grant-funded Village idiot tacked on a wall in
> a lame attempt to be creative. Big fucking deal, right?
<...>
If the grants had gone to a *religious* organization, you'd have a point.
They didn't, and you don't.
Get it yet?
Jim
Clave
> In article <3973398B...@qtip.ca.boeing.com>,
> "James C. Nevermann" <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance
> > is reprehensible.
> >
> Good for you. Show the kids a good time and the best side of
> yourself and that's what they'll remember as adults, not the
> political bullshit.
Right. Shield the kids from the hate policies of their leaders, if you can.
All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's getting hurt
except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
Jim
paghat
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:39730C79...@serv.net...
> > [snipped a defense and an attack of the BSA]
> > some, but not all, because there are some people who are
> > inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people,
> agnostics,
> > atheists, Unitarians.
>
> Isn't it interseting that by the BSA's standards, the following people would
> not have been allowed to join (assuming Mr. Gadow's assertation that
> Unitarians are not allowed to join to be true).
Unitarian scout troops exist. The previously awarded Unitarian religious
badge has been deleted by BSA for Boy Scouts, and the Love in Life Badge
for Religious activity among Cub Scouts is no longer permitted to be given
to Unitarian cubs & tigers. This was done by BSA specifically to punish
Unitarian and Unitarian Universalist scouts for having followed their
church teaching to NOT be prejudiced in any way against gay people. Here's
one of many articles on the web about this:
http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/pullout.html
So yeah, BSA explicitely punishes even Christian scouts if they are not
rightwing little bastard-clones. And BSA has been doing this shit for
about a decade without much public scrutiny, which is the reason their big
"win" in favor of bigotry has not been such a big win after all, since ALL
their vicious behavior has this year come under so much scrutiny & ALL
good people find BSA deplorable. But we may turn to the Unitarian troops
for reassurance that it is BSA leadership per se, & not something inherent
to scouting, that makes BSA evil.
-paghat the ratgirl
> George Washington, Father of our country but not good enough for the boy
> scouts (he was a Unitarian & a Free Mason).
>
> John Adams
> John Quincy Adams
> Millard Fillmore
> William Howard Taft
> (all of the previous guys were also Unitarians)
>
> Thomas Jefferson (a Freethinker)
>
> Abraham Lincoln (a Deist)
>
> William Henery Harrison
> Andrew Johnson
> Ulysses Simpson Grant
> Rutherford Birchard Hayes
> (none of these guys went to church at all)
>
> Teddy Roosevelt was well-known for skipping church in favor of other things,
> like hunting, and was not considered by any of his peers to be a very
> religious man either.
>
> --michael
--
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow wrote:The Church should have government employees, in
> > their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths of the Church
> > to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve the noble goals
> > of the Church... some, but not all, because there are some people who are
> > inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people, agnostics,
> > atheists, Unitarians.
> > -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> > Gregory Gadow
> > Email: tech...@serv.net
> > Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
> xxxxxx
> I don't think so.
It is correct in essence. Scouting had always left the teaching of religion to
churches... until the Unitarian Universalist Association began denouncing the BSA's
bigotry against gays. In May 1998, the UUA received a letter from the Boy Scouts of
America's "Religious Relationship Committee" at
http://www.uua.org/news/scouts/scouts_to_uua.html Please note where the BSA explicitly
calls itself a religious organization), which authorizes the religious emblems a scout
may wear on his uniform. This letter informed the UUA that it's Religion in Life award
may no longer be worn on a scouting uniform because the Association had recently changed
its materials to indicate that the UUA, unlike the BSA, recognizes homosexuals as equal
members of society worthy of human dignity and respect, and that the UUA, unlike the BSA,
accepts atheism and agnosicism as valid, morally defensible philosophies of life. (You
may be interested in the UUA's Priniples and Purpose, http://www.uua.org/principles.html)
In effect, this official committee of the Boy Scouts of America stated, very clearly,
that the moral teachings of the Unitarian Universalist Association are not compatable
with the current moral teachings of the BSA.
paghat
wrote:
> Gregory Gadow wrote:The Church should have government employees, in
> > their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths
of the Church
> > to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve the
noble goals
> > of the Church... some, but not all, because there are some people who are
> > inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people,
agnostics,
> > atheists, Unitarians.
> > -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> > Gregory Gadow
> > Email: tech...@serv.net
> > Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
>
> xxxxxx
> I don't think so.
> 29
Take the word "so" off that sentence smitty & you'll be right for a change.
-paghat
paghat
<captain...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> A few years ago right-wingers were fulminating against public funding
> of the arts, holding up examples like a snapshot of a crucifix in a
> bottle of piss that some grant-funded Village idiot tacked on a wall in
> a lame attempt to be creative. Big fucking deal, right?
> Well, p.c. liberals are just as thin-skinned when your sensibilities
> are bruised. It's narrow-minded and disgusting. You can join forces
> with Jesse Helms in yanking away public funding for all cultural or
> recreational amenities, but it's a step toward a world where access to
> those amenities is dependent on financial means, for kids as well as
> adults. Is that your vision?
>
> Charlie
It's hard to tell sometimes when you're being intentionally thick for the
sake of jest, or really are that stupid. Government based funding cannot
be given for religious purposes because of separation of church & state.
In exchange for this separation the government cannot tax religious
organizations though many of them are rather profitable & would otherwise
be paying LOTS of taxes. Tax exemption is the bigger subsidy in any case,
so religious organizations should count their lucky stars & stop trying to
intrude into civil & public areas where they are prohibited from funding.
This is a case where the status quo benefits their institutions SO much
that they really shouldn't be fucking with that system, or constitutional
law just might end up with amendments that permit them to be funded AND
taxed into the ground.
That is quite a different matter from government funding excluding for
political reasons anyone who is gay, or liberal, or certain types of
artists whose works are confrontational rather than banal, or certain
races -- all of which would be JUST as illegal as selectively combining
State with Religion through government funding. And the equivalent of
right-wing conservative boobs trying to stop avante gard art projects by
art-faggots (which is what the Maplethorp and the Piss Christ controversy
was about) would have to be found in some thus far totally mythological
area of art-faggots fighting to keep conservatives from getting funding to
document life in their trailer parks. If you can find such cases they
would be equally misguided, fugheaded, & wrong. Sad for you, that degree
of fugheadedness seems to be all but exclusively the province
conservatives. A better comparison would be the far-left organizations
that bombed Safeway stores in the 1960s, from whom the far-right today
learned to bomb women's clinics.
I for one when I see lies about the far-right, I correct those lies when I
know the facts. Not necessarily because I'm so fair, but because the truth
is so condemnatory that I see no purpose in clouding the truth with lies,
red herrings, & false comparisons like the one you just trumped up.
-paghat the ratgirl
SMITH29
>
> In article <39732EFC...@home.com>, SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow wrote:The Church should have government employees, in
> > > their role as government employees, administering the religious oaths
> of the Church
> > > to some (but by no means all) of the young men who wish to achieve the
> noble goals
> > > of the Church... some, but not all, because there are some people who are
> > > inherently unworthy and incapable of being moral leaders: gay people,
> agnostics,
> > > atheists, Unitarians.
> > > -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> > > Gregory Gadow
> > > Email: tech...@serv.net
> > > Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
> >
> > xxxxxx
> > I don't think so.
> > 29
>
> Take the word "so" off that sentence smitty & you'll be right for a change.
> -paghat
>
This is how I learn Paggy, Your comments are welcome any old time. I can
depend on you to squirt shit thru your front teeth at the drop of a
colon, and no advance notice required.
YourPal,
29
SMITH29
xxxx
Jim, would you .....bend over please?
29
Clave
news:397369AE...@home.com...
As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
Now for the last time, stop asking.
Jim
paghat
wrote:
> > > xxxxxx
> > > I don't think so.
> > > 29
> >
> > Take the word "so" off that sentence smitty & you'll be right for a change.
> > -paghat
> >
> xxx
> This is how I learn Paggy, Your comments are welcome any old time. I can
> depend on you to squirt shit thru your front teeth at the drop of a
> colon, and no advance notice required.
> YourPal,
> 29
Between the lines there, all you've really done is admitted you're a
blue-ass-flashing mandrill.
-paghat
paghat
wrote:
> paghat wrote:
> > So yeah, BSA explicitely punishes even Christian scouts if they are not
> > rightwing little bastard-clones. And BSA has been doing this shit for
> > about a decade without much public scrutiny, which is the reason their big
> > "win" in favor of bigotry has not been such a big win after all, since ALL
> > their vicious behavior has this year come under so much scrutiny & ALL
> > good people find BSA deplorable. But we may turn to the Unitarian troops
> > for reassurance that it is BSA leadership per se, & not something inherent
> > to scouting, that makes BSA evil.
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
> >
> xxx
> Since when is being against sodomy evil?
> 29
If you're honestly saying YOU believe sex between consenting adults (of
whatever kind they chose) SHOULD cause gays all the prejudice, hatred,
murder, bigotry, & exclusion suffered because of their manner of loving,
then you, smitty, are one of the most evil persons I have ever elected to
care even one little smidgen about, & that would make even my pal,
murderer Rupe Mitchell, your moral superior. And I'm NOT joking so if you
are you'd better make yourself understood a little better.
paghat
stanl...@aol.comSlamSpam (StanlyKupp) wrote:
> In article <39730CC2...@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is receiving from
> >public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate them.
>
> And another thing... My brother was a boyscout, I was for a year and my
son was
> a cub... Where is all this government money going? Not to any troupe
I've seen.
> It's stinkin' expensive.
The majority of their funding comes from charging the kids' parents up the
wazoo for all & sundry. The profits go to the national organization who
get BIG salaries on the backs of local volunteers & kids. The side-benefit
of charging kids for every scouting gimcrack & geegaw they wear or stick
to themselves is that this keeps the great majority of inner-city poor --
read "spics" & "niggers" -- out of scouting. Intentionally. Which is a
great reason for more private dollars being given to Boys & Girls Clubs
instead.
Methodists aren't notoriously liberal but they're not crazy mormons or
baptists either. One of the largest donors to Boy Scouts of America has
long been the United Methodists. But late last year, the Methodists'
national board officially censored Boy Scouts of America in a "Statement
of Non-Support" for BSA's bigotry against gays.
The statement says in part: "While the General Board of Church and Society
would like to enthusiastically affirm and encourage this continuing
partnership of the
church and scouting, we cannot due to the Boy Scouts of America's
discrimination against gays. This discrimination conflicts with our Social
Principles. The United Methodist Church, the largest single supporter of
the Boy Scouts of America, strongly condemns discrimination based on
sexual orientation."
However, Methodists are not dictatorial toward their membership, and a
group of methodist men joined forces with mormon men on a "friend of the
court" brief villifying queers in scouting. Still, the General Board is
the majority voice for Methodists I& their Social Principles don't permit
bigotry. Neither does the Scouting Code & Law of course, not that that
stopped them.
Major donors dropping off like flies. I'm glad to see the religious
community is NOT the big right-wing jerk-off bunch of villains BSA would
prefer them to be.
-paghat the ratgirl
> And if it comes down to BSA disbanding *OR* not fixing up a hiking trail I
> think self-preservation is going to win.
>
>
> -Stan Czervik
> (posted via aol - no crossposting)
--
paghat
wrote:
> It's quite simple. I do not believe in SODOMY.
> I don't have any hatred against buggers but I don't want to associate
> with them either.
> I prefer to associate with men who prefer women and women who prefer
> men.
Too bad for you they can't stand to associate with you.
Maybe you'll have better luck hanging out with your ant farm.
I prefer hanging out with artists & authors, & if their sweeties come
along, it matters not a bit what gender their sweety is.
I tend, rather, to avoid hang with creeps. So we'll never be pals, & what
little fondness I'd built up for you as a regular poster -- evaporated
with your confession of profound bigotry.
-paghat
SMITH29
>
> In article <39736914...@home.com>, SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > > xxxxxx
> > > > I don't think so.
> > > > 29
> > >
> > > Take the word "so" off that sentence smitty & you'll be right for a change.
> > > -paghat
> > >
> > xxx
> > This is how I learn Paggy, Your comments are welcome any old time. I can
> > depend on you to squirt shit thru your front teeth at the drop of a
> > colon, and no advance notice required.
> > YourPal,
> > 29
>
> Between the lines there, all you've really done is admitted you're a
> blue-ass-flashing mandrill.
> -paghat
>
Lets see you give us a ba! I think you are a big chicken. All gas and no
flash.
I promise not to laugh or call you thunder thighs.
29
SMITH29
xxxx
I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
Strange how you automatically think of fudge packing......
29
SMITH29
Jim String
>
>Right. Shield the kids from the hate policies of their leaders, if you can.
>All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's getting hurt
>except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
So just what organization can someone put their into if would prefer
that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless liberal
commie scum are evil? Really now, you can't say that that is an unacceptable
viewpoint and must be stamped out everywhere it is found, that'd be, um,
intolerant of you.
Best,
Jim
Clave
>
> Clave wrote:
> >
> > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:397369AE...@home.com...
<...>
> > > Jim, would you .....bend over please?
> >
> > As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
> >
> > Now for the last time, stop asking.
>
> I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
> Strange how you automatically think of fudge packing......
There are only two reasons a man would want to see my ass, and you're not my
proctologist.
Jim
Clave
You never got a hummer in your whole sorry life, did you?
Jim
StanlyKupp
>Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is receiving from
>public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate them.
And another thing... My brother was a boyscout, I was for a year and my son was
a cub... Where is all this government money going? Not to any troupe I've seen.
It's stinkin' expensive.
And if it comes down to BSA disbanding *OR* not fixing up a hiking trail I
StanlyKupp
>MorganPark wrote:
>>
>> >The fight's over, Sherlock, and despite the fact that the court ruled
>in
>> >their favor, the loser is the BSA. We'll see how special they feel
>once
>> >they see the effects of having the public tit pulled away.
>>
>> In 5 years they will be more healthy. They will lose nothing because
>the vast
>> majority of people are on the side of the BSA in this matter.
>>
>> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
>
>I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
>reprehensible.
Why don't you quit?
SMITH29
>
> In article <3973B30E...@home.com>, SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > paghat wrote:
> > > So yeah, BSA explicitely punishes even Christian scouts if they are not
> > > rightwing little bastard-clones. And BSA has been doing this shit for
> > > about a decade without much public scrutiny, which is the reason their big
> > > "win" in favor of bigotry has not been such a big win after all, since ALL
> > > their vicious behavior has this year come under so much scrutiny & ALL
> > > good people find BSA deplorable. But we may turn to the Unitarian troops
> > > for reassurance that it is BSA leadership per se, & not something inherent
> > > to scouting, that makes BSA evil.
> > >
> > > -paghat the ratgirl
> > >
> > xxx
> > Since when is being against sodomy evil?
>
> If you're honestly saying YOU believe sex between consenting adults (of
> whatever kind they chose) SHOULD cause gays all the prejudice, hatred,
> murder, bigotry, & exclusion suffered because of their manner of loving,
> then you, smitty, are one of the most evil persons I have ever elected to
> care even one little smidgen about, & that would make even my pal,
> murderer Rupe Mitchell, your moral superior. And I'm NOT joking so if you
> are you'd better make yourself understood a little better.
>
> -paghat
>
> --
It's quite simple. I do not believe in SODOMY.
I don't have any hatred against buggers but I don't want to associate
with them either.
I prefer to associate with men who prefer women and women who prefer
be politically correct.
I believe in live and let live. I feel that private organizations should
be left to operate as they wish and I find it deplorable that gays think
there's something wrong with the scouts while the scouts have no desire
to allow buggers in the troop. The gays can start there own organization
and leave others alone. If the gays want to raise hell about government
spending they should take it up with the government and not the scouts.
The scouts want to be left to there own goals without others on there
backs telling them how to run there lives and what's right and what's
wrong.
I have customers who are gay and we get along great because we respect
each others territory. So that's it Pag.
29
SMITH29
> > > So yeah, BSA explicitely punishes even Christian scouts if they are not
> > > rightwing little bastard-clones. And BSA has been doing this shit for
> > > about a decade without much public scrutiny, which is the reason their
> big
> > > "win" in favor of bigotry has not been such a big win after all, since
> ALL
> > > their vicious behavior has this year come under so much scrutiny & ALL
> > > good people find BSA deplorable. But we may turn to the Unitarian troops
> > > for reassurance that it is BSA leadership per se, & not something
> inherent
> > > to scouting, that makes BSA evil.
> > >
> > > -paghat the ratgirl
> > >
> > xxx
> > Since when is being against sodomy evil?
>
>
> Jim
xxx
Bend over.
29
SMITH29
>
> <...>
>
> > > > Jim, would you .....bend over please?
> > >
> > > As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
> > >
> > > Now for the last time, stop asking.
> >
> > I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
> > Strange how you automatically think of fudge packing......
>
> There are only two reasons a man would want to see my ass, and you're not my
> proctologist.
>
> Jim
xxx
My boot knows of a third.
29
Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
Whew! I was getting worried about you, Smith.
I don't have to worry about protecting Clave's virtue though. His ass
is sprung so tight he shits linguini.
Charlie
Charlie Wilkes
(paghat) wrote:
>In article <8kvf3h$1e7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, U.S. Expedition
><captain...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> A few years ago right-wingers were fulminating against public funding
>> of the arts, holding up examples like a snapshot of a crucifix in a
>> bottle of piss that some grant-funded Village idiot tacked on a wall in
>> a lame attempt to be creative. Big fucking deal, right?
>
>> Well, p.c. liberals are just as thin-skinned when your sensibilities
>> are bruised. It's narrow-minded and disgusting. You can join forces
>> with Jesse Helms in yanking away public funding for all cultural or
>> recreational amenities, but it's a step toward a world where access to
>> those amenities is dependent on financial means, for kids as well as
>> adults. Is that your vision?
>>
>> Charlie
>
>It's hard to tell sometimes when you're being intentionally thick for the
>sake of jest, or really are that stupid.
I won't give you any more clues than are already in the tone of the
above tirade.
>Government based funding cannot
>be given for religious purposes because of separation of church & state.
>In exchange for this separation the government cannot tax religious
>organizations though many of them are rather profitable & would otherwise
>be paying LOTS of taxes. Tax exemption is the bigger subsidy in any case,
>so religious organizations should count their lucky stars & stop trying to
>intrude into civil & public areas where they are prohibited from funding.
>This is a case where the status quo benefits their institutions SO much
>that they really shouldn't be fucking with that system, or constitutional
>law just might end up with amendments that permit them to be funded AND
>taxed into the ground.
>
>That is quite a different matter from government funding excluding for
>political reasons anyone who is gay, or liberal, or certain types of
>artists whose works are confrontational rather than banal, or certain
>races -- all of which would be JUST as illegal as selectively combining
>State with Religion through government funding. And the equivalent of
Yes yes yes. But the BSA discussion spread out over half a dozen
threads now has not really focused on Constitutional law. It has
largely been about whether the BSA is a "hate group." I think it is a
mainstream group set up mostly to provide kids with outdoor
recreational opportunities, and not as a religious or political group.
Its leadership has taken a stance that liberals don't like. That's
what the fuss is really about.
Let me try a different comparison since you liked the first one so
much. Old growth firs really seem to be what treehuggers want to hug.
But the Endangered Species Act and diminishing owl habitat provided a
means to save some trees using an owl-based legal argument.
Similarly, in the case of the BSA, the church/state argument has
proven legally sound, but it is secondary to the main concern.
>right-wing conservative boobs trying to stop avante gard art projects by
>art-faggots (which is what the Maplethorp and the Piss Christ controversy
>was about) would have to be found in some thus far totally mythological
>area of art-faggots fighting to keep conservatives from getting funding to
>document life in their trailer parks. If you can find such cases they
You have this thing about trailer parks, don't you?
>would be equally misguided, fugheaded, & wrong. Sad for you, that degree
>of fugheadedness seems to be all but exclusively the province
>conservatives. A better comparison would be the far-left organizations
Open your eyes, sleepyhead. Profound fugheadedness is everywhere on
the political spectrum, from Al Sharpton to Ellen Craswell. I suppose
it is partly a matter of taste. I tend to think it's a bit fugheaded
for someone to march down a major urban thoroughfare wearing a leather
jockstrap and blue paint on his ass, but I have no doubt you find it
inspirational and uplifting.
>that bombed Safeway stores in the 1960s, from whom the far-right today
>learned to bomb women's clinics.
>
>I for one when I see lies about the far-right, I correct those lies when I
>know the facts. Not necessarily because I'm so fair, but because the truth
>is so condemnatory that I see no purpose in clouding the truth with lies,
>red herrings, & false comparisons like the one you just trumped up.
>
But the truth, as Churchill famously observed, is rarely pure and
never simple. You did a fine job with my red herring. But you did
not address my main question regarding how far we should go in the
political sanitizing of public funding, so that cultural resources --
whether identified with the right or the left -- belong more and more
to the affluent. Whether this process occurs through court rulings or
legislation, it has a similar effect.
I think your loyal paglet James C. Nevermann is on a better track than
the BSA's legal opponents: infiltrate the organization with
scoutmasters who dislike the policy and turn it into an empty vessel
until it can be abolished.
Charlie
SMITH29
xxxx
Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all we
don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no big
deal.
29
StanlyKupp
In article <crQc5.1382$Zw4.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, "Clave"
<ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>"SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>news:3973B146...@home.com...
>>
>> Clave wrote:
>> >
>> > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>> > news:397369AE...@home.com...
>
><...>
>>
>> I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
>> Strange how you automatically think...
>
>There are only two reasons a man would want to see my @#$, and
>you're not my proctologist.
The other's your phrenologist.
Big, big smiley emoticon after that one.
SMITH29
>
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:19:03 GMT, SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3973B146...@home.com...
> >> >
> >> > Clave wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
> >> > > news:397369AE...@home.com...
> >>
> >> <...>
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
> >> > >
> >> > > Now for the last time, stop asking.
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are only two reasons a man would want to see my ass, and you're not my
> >> proctologist.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >
> >xxx
> >My boot knows of a third.
> >29
>
> Whew! I was getting worried about you, Smith.
Not to fear..... I ride hard, shoot straight and tell the truth! I am a
lot like my old favorite scribe Elmer Keith.
> I don't have to worry about protecting Clave's virtue though. His ass
> is sprung so tight he shits linguini.
>
> Charlie
Well he certainly runs a loose key board. If he could turn left any
harder he would bugger himself. If he would wear two right shoes for a
while he might be able to see farther than the politically correct
manure mountain he's located behind.
29
SMITH29
>
> >"SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:3973B146...@home.com...
> >>
> >> Clave wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:397369AE...@home.com...
> >
> ><...>
> >>
> >
> >There are only two reasons a man would want to see my @#$, and
> >you're not my proctologist.
>
>
> Big, big smiley emoticon after that one.
>
> -Stan Czervik
> (posted via aol - no crossposting)
xxx
That is the best come back I have read in weeks. It fits the situation
so perfectly.
The analogy of the R.C.I. should shed light on CLAVE'S problem.
29<G>
Clave
news:slrn8n7hth....@molly.hh.org...
> In article <OzIc5.274$Zw4.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, Clave wrote:
> >
> >Right. Shield the kids from the hate policies of their leaders, if you
can.
> >All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's getting
hurt
> >except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
>
> So just what organization can someone put their into if would prefer
> that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless liberal
> commie scum are evil?
I think the BSA is exactly the right place.
Jim
SMITH29
snip
> I think your loyal paglet James C. Nevermann is on a better track than
> the BSA's legal opponents: infiltrate the organization with
> scoutmasters who dislike the policy and turn it into an empty vessel
> until it can be abolished.
>
> Charlie
xxxxx
Along those lines would be the argument that there are no Scouts anymore
so why can't the government help start an organization that accepts
anybody. The steps to entitlement would have been fulfilled and the
question would not be "should the govt. pay in?" but "how much money do
we get?" Clever!
People like Gadow would rather destroy the organization than leave it
alone and do there own thing. The reasoning is that federal money may go
into Scouts. Yet ignores the federal money spent trying to cure AIDS.
That irony I don't understand. The world gains 16,000 new cases of AIDS
daily.(an NBC figure) We are working with Africa to quell the onslaught
but I think only the people themselves can do that. Otherwise they will
continue to die like flies. A sorry case of stupidity.
29
U.S. Expedition
(Other than the scabrous mutants who slither up from the Bremerton
sewer for a dose of flesh flossing and fake smegma... but that's purely
commercial, and, alas, a single lady must command what means are
available to support her livelihood.)
So we'll never be pals, & what
> little fondness I'd built up for you as a regular poster -- evaporated
> with your confession of profound bigotry.
>
Smith, you abominable cad, you have hurt her feelings, I can tell.
Typos are one thing, but for a *professional writer* to drop a
participle ending...
She's distraught, man! She may be a caustic old bulldagger, but she's
still of the fairer sex, and you must apologize at once.
Charlie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
U.S. Expedition
"Clave" <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
> "U.S. Expedition" <captain...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8kvgh0$2gt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > "James C. Nevermann" <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance
> > > is reprehensible.
> > >
> > yourself and that's what they'll remember as adults, not the
> > political bullshit.
>
you can.
> All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's
getting hurt
> except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
>
SMITH29
>
> In article <3973DA4B...@home.com>, SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's quite simple. I do not believe in SODOMY.
> > I don't have any hatred against buggers but I don't want to associate
> > with them either.
> > I prefer to associate with men who prefer women and women who prefer
> > men.
>
Now where did you ever get that idea? It's one thing to cast dispersions
and another thing to remote view. Since you busted your glasses you have
had a rather fuzzy outlook on life.
>
> Maybe you'll have better luck hanging out with your ant farm.
Cute but silly.
>
> I prefer hanging out with artists & authors, & if their sweeties come
> along, it matters not a bit what gender their sweety is.
That's nice.
>
> I tend, rather, to avoid hang with creeps. So we'll never be pals, & what
> little fondness I'd built up for you as a regular poster -- evaporated
> with your confession of profound bigotry.
Speaking of bigotry, I think you just gave me a blast <G> you old
trickster.
I was going to order some books butt since you have a poor outlook on
our relationship I have second thoughts. There's always Amazon.com for
browsing the titles. You don't have anything on Keith and probably don't
have Hatcher, Ackley or Ayoob either.
Not being pals with you won't be tough to take. I didn't know we were
pals to begin with. I am truly sorry you feel this way but what the
hell, you're over the hill and gravity has got the best of you anyway.
If you want to look down your long nose at us heterosexual white anglo
saxon fair haired men that's fine with me. I didn't have any romantic
plans for us anyway.
Your ex-pal
29:-(
SMITH29
>
> In article <SPAM-ME-NOTpaghat...@soggy70.drizzle.com>,
> SPAM-ME-...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> >
>
> sewer for a dose of flesh flossing and fake smegma... but that's purely
> commercial, and, alas, a single lady must command what means are
> available to support her livelihood.)
>
> > little fondness I'd built up for you as a regular poster -- evaporated
> > with your confession of profound bigotry.
> >
Gosh, I didn't mean too.
> Typos are one thing, but for a *professional writer* to drop a
> participle ending...
xxxx
I think she has some dangling thingies too.
>
> She's distraught, man! She may be a caustic old bulldagger, but she's
> still of the fairer sex, and you must apologize at once.
xxxx
Apologize for what? Not being gay?
29
>
> Charlie
U.S. Expedition
SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > She's distraught, man! She may be a caustic old bulldagger, but
she's
> > still of the fairer sex, and you must apologize at once.
> xxxx
> Apologize for what? Not being gay?
Of _course_ you haven't done anything wrong, but right and wrong have
nothing to do with it. They aren't rational creatures like you and I,
Smith.
Trust me, I am an expert on the subject of women. The more insincere
your contrition, the more gratefully it will be received.
Stan Czervik
> stanl...@aol.comSlamSpam (StanlyKupp) wrote:
>
> > In article <39730CC2...@serv.net>, Gregory Gadow
<tech...@serv.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is
receiving from
> > >public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate
them.
> >
> > And another thing... My brother was a boyscout, I was for a year and
my
> son was
> > a cub... Where is all this government money going? Not to any troupe
> I've seen.
> > It's stinkin' expensive.
>
the
> wazoo for all & sundry.
My point being that public donations are rare.
Joshua_Putnam
>Yes yes yes. But the BSA discussion spread out over half a dozen
>threads now has not really focused on Constitutional law. It has
>largely been about whether the BSA is a "hate group."
Nice strawman -- it's about whether they discriminate, and
whether they should get public subsidies if they do.
There's a difference between discriminating and being a
hate group. The Klan is a hate group -- spreading fear and
hatred is its core purpose. Segregated country clubs
weren't hate groups, but they discriminated against
minorities they didn't like. Still profoundly immoral, but
a different sort of evil.
>I think it is a
>mainstream group set up mostly to provide kids with outdoor
>recreational opportunities, and not as a religious or political group.
That's what I thought when I was a kid in scouting, but
that's not what the leadership of scouting now claims.
>Let me try a different comparison since you liked the first one so
>much. Old growth firs really seem to be what treehuggers want to hug.
>But the Endangered Species Act and diminishing owl habitat provided a
>means to save some trees using an owl-based legal argument.
Environmentalists like old-growth forest ecosystems, but an
ecosystem isn't a species, so it isn't covered by the
Endangered Species Act. Since Congress hasn't seen fit to
protect any class of ecosystem as a whole, people who want
to protect an ecosystem must instead find particular
instances where destruction of that ecosystem violates
existing laws. A spotted owl or an old-growth fir by
itself isn't worth much, they're just the particular
instances that have been brought forward to protect the
system as a whole.
>Similarly, in the case of the BSA, the church/state argument has
>proven legally sound, but it is secondary to the main concern.
Correct as far as it goes. Similarly, you can't actually outlaw
race-based hatred, so the Civil Rights Act had to address
specific concrete acts of racism, depriving racists of the
support of government in the hope that eventually this would
foster a society in which race hatred vanished.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/
Clave
Heh. Sarcasm, dude.
Jim
U.S. Expedition
> Methodists aren't notoriously liberal
And Paggie thinks I'm a jokester. Methodists are beyond liberal: they
are Communist Sympathizers who also provide aid and comfort to Child
Molesters. I know because I _personally_ saw Commie Pedophile Daniel
Ortega at the Park Slope Methodist Church, Brooklyn U.S.A., in 1985.
He was quite the hit of the party with all the Birkenstock-wearing
Methodist church ladies, I assure you.
I triple-dare the pinko pervert Paghat to say it never happened because
I WAS GODDAMN THERE. And you better believe I took a long and very hot
shower afterwards. With bleach.
Charlie
Stan Czervik
jo...@WolfeNet.com wrote:
> In <sj77nsk3i56q18b61...@4ax.com> Charlie Wilkes
<charlie...@easynews.com> writes:
>
> >threads now has not really focused on Constitutional law. It has
> >largely been about whether the BSA is a "hate group."
>
> whether they should get public subsidies if they do.
> There's a difference between discriminating and being a
> hate group. The Klan is a hate group -- spreading fear and
> hatred is its core purpose. Segregated country clubs
> weren't hate groups, but they discriminated against
> minorities they didn't like. Still profoundly immoral, but
> a different sort of evil.
I think the miscommunication here is that some people believe these
threads have precipitated from the recent SC ruling. The stuff about
public subsidies (not yet heard by the SC) is the next attack on BSA.
--
"President Clinton told Democrats in California it's not necessary to
say anything bad about Republicans. He said if Democrats just look
voters in the eye and tell the truth, they will win. Of course, he's
just speculating." --Argus Hamilton
Peter Hartikka
> Isn't it interseting that by the BSA's standards, the following people would
> not have been allowed to join
<snip>
You forgot James Buchanan...
Jim String
>"Jim String" <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn8n7hth....@molly.hh.org...
>> >
>> >Right. Shield the kids from the hate policies of their leaders, if you
>can.
>> >All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's getting
>hurt
>> >except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
>>
>> that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless liberal
>> commie scum are evil?
>
>I think the BSA is exactly the right place.
But if I'm not misunderstanding you, you'd like to change that, correct?
Or is it merely a matter of not having BSA supported by public monies
in any way? I would support that position, no need for public monies.
Best,
Jim
Clave
<...>
> But if I'm not misunderstanding you, you'd like to change that, correct?
> Or is it merely a matter of not having BSA supported by public monies
> in any way? I would support that position, no need for public monies.
Never have I once advocated that the BSA should change their reprehensible,
holier-than-thou hate-policies. All I've ever said is that *if* they want
to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, that the
public subsidies should cease.
Jim
SMITH29
Yeah, I have noticed that.
Ole Pag is fun to rant with. She has more story's and a longer line of
bullshit than just about anybody I know around here. She champions at
insults and can run at least 3 Usenet battles at once and write a book
at the same time. I would not be surprised to find her as straight as
they come. She doesn't want any Usenet people to meet her because it
will blow her cover as a phony queer. Probably married with kids.
29
Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
>Clave wrote:
>>
>> "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:3973B146...@home.com...
>> >
>> > Clave wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:397369AE...@home.com...
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > > > Jim, would you .....bend over please?
>> > >
>> > > As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
>> > >
>> > > Now for the last time, stop asking.
>> >
>> > I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
>> > Strange how you automatically think of fudge packing......
>>
>> There are only two reasons a man would want to see my ass, and you're not my
>> proctologist.
>>
>> Jim
>
>xxx
>My boot knows of a third.
>29
Whew! I was getting worried about you, Smith.
I'm not worried about protecting Clave's virtue though. His ass is
Charlie Wilkes
Yes yes yes. But the BSA discussion spread out over half a dozen
threads now has not really focused on Constitutional law. It has
largely been about whether the BSA is a "hate group." I think it is a
mainstream group set up mostly to provide kids with outdoor
recreational opportunities, and not as a religious or political group.
Its leadership has taken a stance that liberals don't like. That's
what the fuss is really about.
Let me try a different comparison since you liked the first one so
much. Old growth firs really seem to be what treehuggers want to hug.
But the Endangered Species Act and diminishing owl habitat provided a
means to save some trees using an owl-based legal argument.
Similarly, in the case of the BSA, the church/state argument has
proven legally sound, but it is secondary to the main concern.
>right-wing conservative boobs trying to stop avante gard art projects by
I think your loyal paglet James C. Nevermann is on a better track than
Charlie Wilkes
Charlie Wilkes
wrote:
>Clave wrote:
>>
>> "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:3973B146...@home.com...
>> >
>> > Clave wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "SMITH29" <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote in message
>> > > news:397369AE...@home.com...
>>
>> <...>
>>
>> > > > Jim, would you .....bend over please?
>> > >
>> > > As you ought to know, pervert, I don't swing that way.
>> > >
>> > > Now for the last time, stop asking.
>> >
>> > I didn't have sex in mind....sorry.
>> > Strange how you automatically think of fudge packing......
>>
>> There are only two reasons a man would want to see my ass, and you're not my
>> proctologist.
>>
>> Jim
>
>xxx
>My boot knows of a third.
>29
Whew! I was getting worried about you, Smith.
I don't have to worry about protecting Clave's virtue though. His ass
paghat
pla...@not.replyable.com (Jim String) wrote:
> In article <l6Sc5.1555$Zw4.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, Clave wrote:
> >"Jim String" <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote in message
> >news:slrn8n7hth....@molly.hh.org...
> >> In article <OzIc5.274$Zw4.1...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, Clave wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Right. Shield the kids from the hate policies of their leaders, if you
> >can.
> >> >All that matters is that they're having a good time. Nobody's getting
> >hurt
> >> >except faggots and godless liberal commie scum.
> >>
> >> So just what organization can someone put their into if would prefer
> >> that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless liberal
> >> commie scum are evil?
> >
> >I think the BSA is exactly the right place.
>
> But if I'm not misunderstanding you, you'd like to change that, correct?
> Or is it merely a matter of not having BSA supported by public monies
> in any way? I would support that position, no need for public monies.
>
> Best,
> Jim
Since BSA's main position is that they make their decisions on "moral"
bases it would be nice if they were actually moral in their policies. As
the religious right takes over the national leadership, it places BSA at
greater & greater odds even with their fellow christians, Methodists &
Unitarians most notoriously, without even broachign the increased outsider
status of Jews & other nonChristians, & the utter ban on agnostics or any
child who refuses to pray in the BSA christian-dominated context.
If they were the religiously & humanly inclusive organization they often
pretend to be, they would not be fighting against their own ranks of the
faithful; they would've left these issues as regional policies rather than
national, & there'd be no conflict between mormon scouting officials
leading mormon tribes & methodist scouting officials leading methodist;
but in categorically instructing each tribe who they MUST exclude, they
have created a terrible friction, & BSA is most definitely on the dark
side of the argument.
It would've been nice if BSA valued civil law that prohibits bigotry, but
since they do not, it's even more tragic that their idea of a
religion-based "private organization" had to be defined by fearful &
insular christianity rather than tolerant & inclusive christianity --
chosing the worst over the best elements among christian peoples so that
BSA now despises its best.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
wrote:
Actually I hang out with about a dozen UseNet regulars on at least a
twice-monthly basis, but they're exclusively from the literary newsgroups
I post in. My paranoia about UseNet otherwise is partly because someone I
might accidentally agree to get together with someone who would turn out
to be like you, a bummer & a bigot -- being a right-leaning jerk is okay,
I know & love several wh oare, but they're not bummers & bigots, they're
jolly & amusing. The reason I'm such a big cynic much of the time is
because I do rather trust people & because of it am often reminded to be a
big cynic. If I was really all that reclusive I'd start imagining the
world's a nice place, as do most dumbasses who don't know squat & haven't
done anything interesting in their lives.
U.S. Expedition
Yes. I thought I made a very nice strawman, right down to the mean
look on his face.
All your points are well taken.
Charlie
MorganPark
>public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate them.
Since when did the homosexual community become the arbitrator over what public
funds are or are not spent on? Last I checked ALL of us have some say in that.
Kev in Atlanta GA USA
MorganPark
>Helping to
>show its children the way to morality and leadership....
Not always but mostly
>Therefore the Catholic
>Church should be granted exclusive right to your children in their schools,
They do have an exclusive right to teach children Catholic teachings in a
Catholic school (which, I might point out, outperform public schools in every
city).
MorganPark
>with them either.
>I prefer to associate with men who prefer women and women who prefer
The homosexual will never ever be happy with live and let live. They feel that
the must shove their lifestyle down everybody else's throat.
SMITH29
> >
> > Ole Pag is fun to rant with. She has more story's and a longer line of
> > bullshit than just about anybody I know around here. She champions at
> > insults and can run at least 3 Usenet battles at once and write a book
> > at the same time. I would not be surprised to find her as straight as
> > they come. She doesn't want any Usenet people to meet her because it
> > will blow her cover as a phony queer. Probably married with kids.
> > 29
>
> Actually I hang out with about a dozen UseNet regulars on at least a
> twice-monthly basis, but they're exclusively from the literary newsgroups
> I post in. My paranoia about UseNet otherwise is partly because someone I
> might accidentally agree to get together with someone who would turn out
> to be like you, a bummer & a bigot -- being a right-leaning jerk is okay,
> I know & love several wh oare, but they're not bummers & bigots, they're
> jolly & amusing. The reason I'm such a big cynic much of the time is
> because I do rather trust people & because of it am often reminded to be a
> big cynic. If I was really all that reclusive I'd start imagining the
> world's a nice place, as do most dumbasses who don't know squat & haven't
> done anything interesting in their lives.
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
>
But Pags, when it comes to bigotry, you are one of the biggest.
You're fixed in your ways and anyone different is a bigot. And you
assume entirely too much to be very accurate. Of course, this being
Usenet, accuracy means little.
What counts here is volume and exageration. Both of which you are quite
good at.
You are right about one thing. You and I have very little in common, but
there's nothing wrong with that and it must be totaly invigorating
living in the cultural center of the state............Bremerton<G>
WasYourPal,
29
Clave
news:20000718180123...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
You are, as is becoming all too customary, wrong. Once the Supreme Court's
had its say, that's the final word, unless and until they decide to say
something else, and they're not going to in this case.
Jim
paghat
morga...@aol.com (MorganPark) wrote:
> >Once they find out the special, exclusive perq that the BSA is receiving from
> >public funds, they will not be so genial. And I intend to educate them.
>
> Since when did the homosexual community become the arbitrator over what public
> funds are or are not spent on? Last I checked ALL of us have some say in
that.
>
> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
Actually, like most felons, YOU lost your voting privileges for life,
after you were sent off for that stint in the Georgia State Prison.
-paghat the ratgirl
Paul Mitchum
> "Jim String" <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn8n7hth....@molly.hh.org...
> > So just what organization can someone put their into if would prefer
> > that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless liberal
> > commie scum are evil?
>
> I think the BSA is exactly the right place.
>
> Jim
You managed to parse that sentence?
Wow.
--
"A speck of dust now blows away/Epiphanies can never stay."
Paul Mitchum
> xxxx
> Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
> room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all we
> don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no big
> deal.
> 29
It's a big deal to me if you're teaching kids to distrust and hate me.
Which is what the BSA is doing: Teaching kids to distrust and hate *me*,
as an out bisexual.
Paul Mitchum
> I believe in live and let live. I feel that private organizations should
> be left to operate as they wish and I find it deplorable that gays think
> there's something wrong with the scouts while the scouts have no desire
> to allow buggers in the troop.
I personally don't have any problem with the scouts being a private,
exclusionary organization, which doesn't receive any special treatment
from government. That's what I've been saying all along, and I don't
really think any of the other folks arguing against the BSA's policies
have said otherwise, either. I would wish that they'd change those
policies, but it's not my place to do the changing. You'd know this if
you'd go to the trouble of trying to remember what's been said in the
thread already.
> The gays can start there own organization
> and leave others alone.
They have. Again, you'd know this if you bothered to retain anything
from the thread.
> If the gays want to raise hell about government
> spending they should take it up with the government and not the scouts.
> The scouts want to be left to there own goals without others on there
> backs telling them how to run there lives and what's right and what's
> wrong.
Hmm. The scouts want WHAT exactly?? :-) To not be TOLD WHAT IS RIGHT AND
WRONG? Wow... Where have I heard THAT before?
There's an old Christian saying; maybe you've heard of it. "Judge not
lest ye be judged."
Anyway, I seriously doubt you're in a position to say what BSA wants, as
an organization.
Paul Mitchum
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 12:38:49 -0700, SPAM-ME-...@my-deja.com
> (paghat) wrote:
> > [...]
> Yes yes yes. But the BSA discussion spread out over half a dozen
> threads now has not really focused on Constitutional law. It has
> largely been about whether the BSA is a "hate group." I think it is a
> mainstream group set up mostly to provide kids with outdoor
> recreational opportunities, and not as a religious or political group.
Tell that to the BSA. They claim to be a religious organization. In
fact, this claim is the very fulcrum on which they leverage their
bigotry against homosexuals.
> Its leadership has taken a stance that liberals don't like. That's
> what the fuss is really about.
And why shouldn't it be?
> Let me try a different comparison since you liked the first one so
> much. Old growth firs really seem to be what treehuggers want to hug.
The ecosystems in which old growth firs live are what treehuggers want
to preserve. Without the ecosystem, there's no point in having the tree;
it'll die.
> But the Endangered Species Act and diminishing owl habitat provided a
> means to save some trees using an owl-based legal argument.
> Similarly, in the case of the BSA, the church/state argument has
> proven legally sound, but it is secondary to the main concern.
Owls are part of the old growth forest ecosystem. Protecting the owls
means protecting a lot more than just the owls and the trees. Read up on
it sometime.
Likewise, gays have worked hard to regain their own civil rights while
being out. The 'social ecosystem' has a small but growing niche for out
queers (meaning, queers who desire the 'luxury' of being honest about
their identity). Any time this part of the social ecosystem is
threatened, the queer equivalent of Earth Firsters show up and raise a
ruckus, and this is as it should be.
Because as with the trees: Without some degree of social acceptance,
gays will die.
[..]
> >would be equally misguided, fugheaded, & wrong. Sad for you, that degree
> >of fugheadedness seems to be all but exclusively the province
> >conservatives. A better comparison would be the far-left organizations
>
> Open your eyes, sleepyhead. Profound fugheadedness is everywhere on
> the political spectrum, from Al Sharpton to Ellen Craswell. I suppose
> it is partly a matter of taste. I tend to think it's a bit fugheaded
> for someone to march down a major urban thoroughfare wearing a leather
> jockstrap and blue paint on his ass, but I have no doubt you find it
> inspirational and uplifting.
Seeing people speaking truth to power is always inspirational, even if I
disagree with their specific politics. However, the right in this
country is more reactionary than actionary. The position of the right
these days is more about whining than upholding the notions of local and
personal sovereignity. 'Those nasty gays want to be able to walk down
the street without fear of being beaten up by good Christian Boy Scouts.
How DARE they!'
And if you think that's unfounded hyperbole, then you truly don't
understand the situation.
[...]
> >I for one when I see lies about the far-right, I correct those lies when
> >I know the facts. Not necessarily because I'm so fair, but because the
> >truth is so condemnatory that I see no purpose in clouding the truth with
> >lies, red herrings, & false comparisons like the one you just trumped up.
> >
> But the truth, as Churchill famously observed, is rarely pure and
> never simple. You did a fine job with my red herring. But you did
> not address my main question regarding how far we should go in the
> political sanitizing of public funding,
The BSA defended themselves as a religious organization. They apparently
WANT the controversy. You're right to imply that it's a slippery slope,
but the slope falls in the opposite direction from the one you're
seeing. How far do we want to go in providing government resources to
religious groups which preach intolerance?
> so that cultural resources -- whether identified with the right or the
> left -- belong more and more to the affluent. Whether this process occurs
> through court rulings or legislation, it has a similar effect.
You're attempting to play a class card, except again, the slippery slope
goes uphill where you think it goes down. The BSA *is already* the realm
of the affluent, excluding the poor on purpose. There are a number of
other, less bigoted groups which aren't religious organizations, which
provide similar services for children, which are worthy of government
resources.
Paul Mitchum
> People like Gadow would rather destroy the organization than leave it
> alone and do there own thing. The reasoning is that federal money may go
> into Scouts.
Federal funding of Scouts is small in comparison to it's private
donations and sales of Scouting stuff. It could vanish and they'd hardly
notice. Being upstanding citizens who ostensibly work towards obeying
the letter and spirit of the law, Scouts would understand that the loss
is for the betterment of society, and would accept it gladly.
> Yet ignores the federal money spent trying to cure AIDS.
> That irony I don't understand.
Maybe you'd understand it if it had anything to do with anything at all
in this arguement. AIDS isn't a gay-only disease.
>[..]
paghat
<captain...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8l22fi$s1f$1...@sparky.wolfe.net>,
> jo...@WolfeNet.com wrote:
> >
> > Nice strawman
>
> Yes. I thought I made a very nice strawman, right down to the mean
> look on his face.
>
> All your points are well taken.
>
> Charlie
You mispelled "pants."
Clave
news:1edyqfs.r4j9dlqvjfk3N%mil...@usa.net...
> Clave <ClaviusNo...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> > "Jim String" <pla...@not.replyable.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrn8n7hth....@molly.hh.org...
> > > So just what organization can someone put their into if would prefer
> > > that their kids are taught that homosexual behavior and godless
liberal
> > > commie scum are evil?
> >
> > I think the BSA is exactly the right place.
> >
> > Jim
>
> You managed to parse that sentence?
>
> Wow.
I have a Stringlish dictionary.
Jim
James C. Nevermann
>
> In article <3973398B...@qtip.ca.boeing.com>, "James C. Nevermann"
> <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
> >I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
> >reprehensible.
>
> Why don't you quit?
I have no reason to.
Our group is part of what used to be called Explorer Scouting --now
split into two, new named types of groups/posts called Venturing
Crews-- the one side of which are "specialty or hobby focus posts" [my
term; I forget the exact words] of which ours is a drum & bugle corps
[I'm the percussion arranger/instructor].
Because of our new Scouting affiliation [we had none when we formed up
in mid-'98], the question of homosexuality briefly came up at one of
our Board meetings early last year, but essentially was addressed with
a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Corps members sexual
orientation --staff and performers [some of whom are both]-- otherwise
seems not to be of any particular concern one way or the other, at any
level that I'm aware of.
Apart from the Corps, my reaction to the BSA's national stance was one
of disgust. To me, sexual orientation is as much a non-issue as is
gender, race, etc. So to me, the BSA's position --however they
rationalise it-- represents nothing but mindless, sexually-bigoted,
anachronistic fear on their part: a social value from an earlier, less
enlightened and clearly much less tolerant era.
--
Jim Nevermann [usual disclaimers]
Clave
news:3974DDDA...@qtip.ca.boeing.com...
> StanlyKupp wrote:
> >
> > In article <3973398B...@qtip.ca.boeing.com>, "James C. Nevermann"
> > <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>
> > >I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
> > >reprehensible.
> >
> > Why don't you quit?
>
> I have no reason to.
>
> Our group is part of what used to be called Explorer Scouting --now
> split into two, new named types of groups/posts called Venturing
> Crews-- the one side of which are "specialty or hobby focus posts" [my
> term; I forget the exact words] of which ours is a drum & bugle corps
> [I'm the percussion arranger/instructor].
<...>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that your organization is
no longer officially affiliated with the BSA -- that is to say that it's not
subject to the BSA's policies.
Jim
Stan Czervik
mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote:
>
> > xxxx
> > Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
> > room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all
we
> > don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no big
> > deal.
> > 29
>
> It's a big deal to me if you're teaching kids to distrust and hate me.
> Which is what the BSA is doing: Teaching kids to distrust and hate
*me*,
> as an out bisexual.
Interesting... You're the first that has elucidated the what some of us
may have concidered (I did anyway) but probably disregarded as
paranoia. Is the culmination of this fear a troup of gay-bashing
boyscouts? Is this a legitimate concern?
On the otherhand, you are inviting almost certain loathing (by
non-scouts as well) by attacking them.
--
"President Clinton told Democrats in California it's not necessary to
say anything bad about Republicans. He said if Democrats just look
voters in the eye and tell the truth, they will win. Of course, he's
just speculating." --Argus Hamilton
paghat
<jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
> StanlyKupp wrote:
> >
> > In article <3973398B...@qtip.ca.boeing.com>, "James C. Nevermann"
> > <jcn...@qtip.ca.boeing.com> wrote:
>
> > >I AM part of a Scouting group, but I think the BSA's stance is
> > >reprehensible.
> >
> > Why don't you quit?
>
> I have no reason to.
>
> Our group is part of what used to be called Explorer Scouting --now
> split into two, new named types of groups/posts called Venturing
> Crews-- the one side of which are "specialty or hobby focus posts" [my
> term; I forget the exact words] of which ours is a drum & bugle corps
> [I'm the percussion arranger/instructor].
>
> Because of our new Scouting affiliation [we had none when we formed up
> in mid-'98], the question of homosexuality briefly came up at one of
> our Board meetings early last year, but essentially was addressed with
> a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. Corps members sexual
> orientation --staff and performers [some of whom are both]-- otherwise
> seems not to be of any particular concern one way or the other, at any
> level that I'm aware of.
>
> Apart from the Corps, my reaction to the BSA's national stance was one
> of disgust. To me, sexual orientation is as much a non-issue as is
> gender, race, etc. So to me, the BSA's position --however they
> rationalise it-- represents nothing but mindless, sexually-bigoted,
> anachronistic fear on their part: a social value from an earlier, less
> enlightened and clearly much less tolerant era.
Nice report. If it weren't a clumsy phrase, then "BSA National Leadership"
rather than just "BSA" should probably be the brunt of any negative
sentiments, as regionally many scouting tribes, including J-Scouts,
Methodist tribes, Unitarian tribes, & many that are more generic, have
made bold stands against BSA national leadership's bigotry & human
indecency. There is a scouting organization called Scouting For All that
reflects the fuller, greater, more wonderful aspects of what it means to
be a scout. You can visit them at www.scoutingforall.org -- I enjoyed
reading through their site.
-paghat the ratgirl
Jim String
paghat wrote:
>Since BSA's main position is that they make their decisions on "moral"
>bases it would be nice if they were actually moral in their policies. As
Morality is always of the nature of an opinion, and opinions differ. The
only group I know of who claim ethics and morality are scientificly
described and derived are the scientologists and they too consider homosexuality
to be deviant and debased, not to mention all their other shortcomings and
crimes.
>the religious right takes over the national leadership, it places BSA at
>greater & greater odds even with their fellow christians, Methodists &
>Unitarians most notoriously, without even broachign the increased outsider
>status of Jews & other nonChristians, & the utter ban on agnostics or any
>child who refuses to pray in the BSA christian-dominated context.
>
>If they were the religiously & humanly inclusive organization they often
>pretend to be, they would not be fighting against their own ranks of the
>faithful; they would've left these issues as regional policies rather than
^^^^^^^^
>national, & there'd be no conflict between mormon scouting officials
>leading mormon tribes & methodist scouting officials leading methodist;
>but in categorically instructing each tribe who they MUST exclude, they
>have created a terrible friction, & BSA is most definitely on the dark
>side of the argument.
I hadn't expected this argument from you but I support it. Most things are
best resolved at a local or regional level because cultures vary. Get too
annoying in viewpoint or morality and people vote with their feet, sort of
a self correcting mechanism.
>It would've been nice if BSA valued civil law that prohibits bigotry, but
>since they do not, it's even more tragic that their idea of a
>religion-based "private organization" had to be defined by fearful &
>insular christianity rather than tolerant & inclusive christianity --
>chosing the worst over the best elements among christian peoples so that
>BSA now despises its best.
The thing is though, bigotry isn't illegal or prohibited, people may
hold whatever opinions they deem fit. Certainly it's within a community's
perogative to cease attending boy scout meetings should it become known
that there are things about the scoutmaster (or whomever) that are not
acceptable to the prevailing community standards. Vote with their feet,
perhaps establish another troop. Conceivably the same process could occur
if the scoutmaster was butt ugly and had an annoying voice.
Oh and it does seem like society has decided that dumping on and hate
speech toward christians, gun owners and whites (particularly males)
is acceptable and desirable in this day and age. I doubt BSA has much
more of a problem in this regard than anyone else.
Best,
Jim
Jim String
paghat wrote:
>jolly & amusing. The reason I'm such a big cynic much of the time is
>because I do rather trust people & because of it am often reminded to be a
>big cynic. If I was really all that reclusive I'd start imagining the
>world's a nice place, as do most dumbasses who don't know squat & haven't
>done anything interesting in their lives.
The world is a nice enough place, pretty cool really, but a fair
percentage of the people in it really suck.
Best,
Jim
paghat
<stanl...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <1edyqil.10vqsu71bzn9ukN%mil...@usa.net>,
> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > xxxx
> > > Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
> > > room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all
> we
> > > don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no big
> > > deal.
> > > 29
> >
> > It's a big deal to me if you're teaching kids to distrust and hate me.
> > Which is what the BSA is doing: Teaching kids to distrust and hate
> *me*,
> > as an out bisexual.
>
> Interesting... You're the first that has elucidated the what some of us
> may have concidered (I did anyway) but probably disregarded as
> paranoia. Is the culmination of this fear a troup of gay-bashing
> boyscouts? Is this a legitimate concern?
>
> On the otherhand, you are inviting almost certain loathing (by
> non-scouts as well) by attacking them.
Actually, BSA national leadership is attracting support chiefly from the
insane right, while their own decently religious ranks are embarrassed by
BSA (ie., Mormon) leadership's repulsive & narrowminded attacks first on
gays, pagans & agnostics, currently on the Methodists & Unitarians. That
these crackpot adults have won their way into political positions
specifically to push an arch-conservative agenda on young minds might not
have won them loathing if they'd stuck to gays, but the hatred they
express for their own Unitarian and Methodist members is making them look
like just what they are -- bunch of crazy-ass bigots. Scouting legal
counsil James Randall has said point blank BSA will not change its
position "mainly because of the Mormon church" & admitted that when Gregg
Shield's statement "you can't be gay and a scout" was ammended to a "don't
ask don't tell" policy, it was "just window dressing" to try to fight off
an unexpected & severe backlash that has destroyed scouting's image. Fully
ONE-TENTH of the Boy Scouts Advisory Council live in Salt Lake City, not
even counting those Mormon advocates who live elsewhere in the country.
Even some conservativees within scouting are horrified. Scouting advocate
Bob Kerr, an anti-Clintonite who cannot resist comparing all things evil
to Clinton, said, "Boy Scouts are, potentially, too good an organization
to be pulled down by leaders who insist on clinging to an idea of sexual
exclusion that denies reality," & laments that because of a few prejudiced
people at the top, "Boy Scouts are being pulled apart at the seams." If
Bob were a Mormon he'd be called before an excommunication committee & get
a couple threats to shut him up.
The Methodist & Unitarian tribes NEVER tried to impose their will on
Mormon tribes who've been hating & persecuting queer Mormons & non-Mormons
for a long time & will never quit. But the Mormons were not satisfied with
their own private religious scouting units, they are actively striving to
impose their will on Methodists & Unitarians. When Mormon President Gordon
B. Hinckley (who has been at the forefront of the anti-gay battle AND the
assaults on non-Mormon troops) said: "we cannot condone immoral practices
on your part any more than we can condone immoral practices on the part of
others," the "us" & "we" in that statement meant Mormon scouts, & the
"others" meant Mormons would continue to interfer with the religious &
moral teachings & freedoms of religious units they perceive as too
liberal.
Both the Methodist and the Mormon scouting leaders have issued statements
claiming their faith is the largest donor faith to scouting. In fact
Mormons give thrice as much money to scouting as do Methodists, &
Methodists have had to look at their century-long relationship to Scouting
to up their total. Methodists are right only in that they give more money
to specific individual scouts than do Mormons -- most of the Mormon
dollars being aimed at national power & Mormon units as a whole, rather
than targeted to assist the actual condition of young individual scouts.
In some regions, such as New Jersey, Mormons have very little power so
far, & Catholics are the biggest donors. Mormons in activist positions
worked with Catholic & Lutheran organizations to defeat gay rights &
privileges, so for the time being there is unity between these faiths that
dwarfs the historically more significant Methodist influence. While
Methodists focused their attention on the needs, material & moral, of the
children, Mormons were busy buggering the system for purely political
might.
Since money is power, Mormons are thrice as powerful POLITICALY within BSA
than are Methodists, & they are using their power to slowly but surely
driving out any faith or individual they disapprove of. In the Pacific
Northwest the Mormon vice-grip on scouting is worse than any other
location outside of Utah. Of 1,600 Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts & Explorer posts
in Oregon & Washington, 40% are sponsored by Mormons (compared to
nationally, where they sponser 12% of scout troops), so whatever Mormons
say goes. Another 35% are sponsored by other religious organizations so
even if they all magically united with the Methodists & Unitarians &
J-Scouts, the Mormons would still out-power everyone & get their way. If
this weren't so, the Unitarian Religious Badge could never have been
squelched by BSA though it had been awarded Unitarian scouts for years;
while there are SEVEN religious award patches for Mormon units.
The Northwest Mormon wards routinely assign men to volunteer for scouting
as a religious responsbility equal to any other missionary work. They are
very organized with the express intent of taking full control of BSA.
Mormon participation in interfaith organizations has never been one of
mutuality. They have their hand in the majority of interfaith
organizations & are constantly a problem since they never participate in
anything that does not explicitely support Mormon causes & have been very
destructive of real interfaith exchange. BSA has historically been one of
the more effective & tolerant interfaith organizations. So the current
friction with Methodists & Unitarians & Universalist Unitarians, &
outright banning of some faiths, is strictly the doing of Mormon
machinations, & misguided Catholic support for Mormon positions that will
NEVER be reciprocated if Catholics ever feel they need Mormons for some
political issue that lacks a Mormon agenda. Lutherans we won't discuss;
they're honkies anyway & if they want to kiss the bums of some Catholic or
Mormon bishop, that's coming up in their world for their fat Norwegian
asses.
At Camp Yawoog, a photograph of a gay scout was used for armed target
practice. That's what BSA's "mormonly moral" teachings have led to within
scouting.
Now I'm pretty convinced Mormons suck, & a good many probably also suck
cock; but even if someone regards them as good & pure, ho ho har, is it
really a good idea for a historically inclusive organization to be taken
over & re-defined by a very well organized very narrowly agendized single
faith? I would think the religious among us would be the most horrified of
all.
-paghat the ratgirl
paghat
wrote:
> I was beginning to think I was the only sane one in here
> 29
Most of your peers in the loony bin have that same problem.
-paghat
Paul Mitchum
> Paul Mitchum wrote:
> >
> > SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > xxxx
> > > Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
> > > room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all we
> > > don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no big
> > > deal.
> > > 29
> >
> > It's a big deal to me if you're teaching kids to distrust and hate me.
> > Which is what the BSA is doing: Teaching kids to distrust and hate *me*,
> > as an out bisexual.
> >
> xxx
> Do you have specific cases where scouts have openly done something to
> discredit you?
I'm queer. Because I'm open about it, I run the risk of being
discriminated against on that basis alone. Having BSA leadership openly
calling queers immoral and unclean doesn't help my predicament.
> I don't go for that kind of behavior and Scouts certainly are not trained
> to point out people as being of one persuasion or another.
...unless they're queer or agnostic or members of other religions, in
which case they are ostracized.
> Scouts are supposed to have respect for everyone in the community.
> 29
...except for queers and agnostics and members of other religions, who
they fear and distrust.
Perhaps you can begin to see why it's a big deal to me.
Paul Mitchum
> In article <1edyqil.10vqsu71bzn9ukN%mil...@usa.net>,
> mil...@usa.net (Paul Mitchum) wrote:
> > SMITH29 <"smith29(not)"@home.com> wrote:
> >
> > > xxxx
> > > Scouting can't be all things to all people and some will quit making
> > > room for the people who believe same as the BSA. I mean, after all
> > > we don't all go to the same church or worship the same GOD. It's no
> > > big deal.
> > > 29
> >
> > It's a big deal to me if you're teaching kids to distrust and hate me.
> > Which is what the BSA is doing: Teaching kids to distrust and hate *me*,
> > as an out bisexual.
>
> Interesting... You're the first that has elucidated the what some of us
> may have concidered (I did anyway) but probably disregarded as
> paranoia. Is the culmination of this fear a troup of gay-bashing
> boyscouts? Is this a legitimate concern?
The culmination of this fear is the notion that to some degree it's OK
to discriminate against gays. Even if scouts grow up and give their
merit badges to Goodwill and go on to be happy little centrists, they'll
hold, somewhere inside them, the knowledge that their leaders and elders
said it was OK to be exclusive of homosexuals.
Which I said earlier in one of the many threads on this topic. It took
saying that it was *me* they were speaking out against to get anyone to
pay any attention to this point.
> On the otherhand, you are inviting almost certain loathing (by
> non-scouts as well) by attacking them.
I would like for you to point out how I am attacking the BSA.
Be specific.
All I've done here is point out exactly what kind of example is being
set by the leadership of BSA. They've had many opportunities to rectify
whatever evils they wish to perpetuate, but choose not to. I've also
demonstrated to whoever reads this newsgroup why a person might be
offended by BSA leadership.
All I've done in other threads is to point out the same thing, and to
offer that the BSA can do whatever the hell they want to as long as they
truly are a private religious organization, which they aren't right now.
Paul Mitchum
> >Seeing people speaking truth to power is always inspirational, even if I
>
> Doing an ad hoc imitation of an early John Waters movie on main street
> just makes everyone think all gays are immature losers.
>
> Charlie.
So?
Am *I* doing an ad hoc imitation of an early John Waters movie here and
now with *you*? You're certainly doing an ad hoc imitation of someone
who can't argue a point.
I'll take your silence as tacit acceptance of all of my arguements. It's
been nice sparring with you, and THE BEST MAN WON EVEN THOUGH HE'S
QUEER. Yay for our side. How's it feel to lose to an 'immature loser?'
Seeya.
Paul Mitchum
> Kev in Atlanta GA USA
You're not NEARLY that attractive, Kev. And you can't come up with a
troll to save your life.
SMITH29
xxxx
I also have the feeling that being a white anglo saxon GOD fearing man
is NOW socially un acceptable. And the word bigot is now worn out.
So to all you moaners and politically correct people I say "Go jump in
the lake<G>!"
I still like girls and I still think sodomy is a sin against nature and
GOD.
It certainly is expensive and lethal. Shit! (pun) that would tell
someone with a brain that something is wrong with poop shoot punching.
29