AMC Bianca and Sarah

Cutebug2

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 6:02:54 PM12/27/00

to

>Or, is it OK for her to see major, drawn out hetero soft porn, but
>not gay hand holding???

Yeah? And?

>I pity your kid having such a dumbass
>for a mother.

Ouch. Maybe you can do a better job. Go get yourself artificially
inseminated.

>Joan.

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 7:40:18 PM12/27/00

to

On 27 Dec 2000 23:02:54 GMT, cute...@aol.com (Cutebug2) wrote:

>>Or, is it OK for her to see major, drawn out hetero soft porn, but
>>not gay hand holding???
>
>Yeah? And?

I just have to hear the back story for this one. Someone here is
worried about their little one seeing POTENTIAL same gender hand
holding?!! That's rich. I hope there are details!

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas! Happy Birthday, Marlene Dietrich!

O Come All Ye Thirsty

Edna

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 8:35:46 PM12/27/00

to

What was the original post about? They leave those political posts on
from Dec. 18th, and they take our soap posts off as fast as they can.
Edna

Cutebug2

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 10:18:05 PM12/27/00

to

I'm not worried about anything, Donna. Last week a couple of posters said that
the writers had better treat this story like any other romance, with kissing
and hand holding, or else they'd be p.o.'d. I responded by daring to make the
comment that my little girl won't be watching any longer if that happens, and
oh boy! See what happens when someone dares to be politically incorrect?
Don't bother answering that, because I'm outta here.

Joan

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 11:10:00 PM12/27/00

to

Hi Edna. The original thread was entitled "AMC: Bianca & Sarah today
...". Cutebug2 wrote how she watches with her 5 year old daughter and
that she'd quit watching if any lesbian hand-holding took place. I gave
her a ration of s*** for letting her toddler watch soap operas. I've
cut-and-pasted the following for your info...

=========

Subject: Re: AMC: Bianca & Sarah today ...
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:26:13 -0800
From: Joan <dark...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc

Cutebug2 managed to spew forth the following:
>
> As for physical contact between Sarah and Bianca, I think the show has handled
> it well so far. At the risk of getting flamed, I have to say I will quit
> watching if there is kissing, hand holding, etc. going on. My 5 year old
> daughter has watched this show with me since birth, first passively, now
> actively.

Hey, DumbBug, put your asbestos suit on cuz here comes that flame . . .

Soap operas are for ADULTS, not children, and you are an idiot if you
are letting your FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD watch this show! You're going to
be upset at the powers that be if your daughter sees any
hand-holding?!?!?! Jeezus H., lady, how the hell do you feel when she
sees the soft porn sex between: Ryan and Gillian, Leo and Greenlee,
David and Dixie, David and Erica, etc.????? Or, is it OK for her to see
major, drawn out hetero soft porn, but not gay hand holding??? I pity

your kid having such a dumbass for a mother.

Joan.

> She has watched attentively while Bianca proclaims her love for
> another girl. I draw the line at allowing her to watch them get physical in a
> romantic way. I am entitled to my opinion. I have been very complimentary of
> this storyline. If the intent of the writers has been to get parents to be
> more open to their children telling them something they might not want to hear,
> then I believe they have succeeded. I for one, believe, the writers will
> continue to keep the physical stuff offscreen.
>
> You knew the subject of kids had to come up eventually, right?

Truckcanopy

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 11:14:16 PM12/27/00

to

for those that missed it here's what Joan <dark...@yahoo.com> posted:

Truckcanopy

unread,

Dec 27, 2000, 11:54:15 PM12/27/00

to

Joan and others,

Isn't it enough that you're getting the innuendo and recognition of your "bent"
from society and this poor excuse for real life drama?

Don't get me wrong, to each his/her own *in private*. I personally take a
non-PC position that heterosexual society has been too permissive in allowing
public display of DEVIANT (look up the word before you react) sexuality in the
name of getting votes. Keep a low profile, do not offend the keepers of
children and you'll keep the hard earned rights given to you. Parenting is a
set of personal choices - you cross a rather powerful lobby by stepping between
mamma bear and her cub. More exposure is not equivalent to more acceptance -
you may actually fuel a taking of what you already have.

In the case of AMC, putting on teeniebopper bands, visible minorities, and
deviants is a desperate attempt to compensate for a reduced audience. Better
writing and acting is the key to retaining or growing an audience - not
trolling for minorities or new segments in blatant fashion - any gays reading
this should not take offense to this post, but rather to the pandering by the
writers of the show. Where does it stop? I can see it now: In an effort to
keep from upsetting the Lesbian viewership, AMC has decided to invoke a policy
of not allowing anyone to call the character "Dix" or to have snapper served in
any restaurant scene.

A desire to expose as many as possible to DEVIANT behavior (handholding and gay
passion) IMHO is no different than the following creation:

a) needs another organism to reproduce
b) doesn't care about anything but its own cause, including destroying its
host
c) isn't satisfied with "enough"
d) spreads easily };-)
........a "virus"

constructively,

Truck

p.s. I have filters on so emails will not be read or answered - post here...thx

Scoutmol

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 12:59:55 AM12/28/00

to

>Don't get me wrong, to each his/her own *in private*.

I assume you object to heterosexual PDAs as well, then?

>Keep a low profile, do not offend the keepers of
>children and you'll keep the hard earned rights given to you.

This has always fascinated me -- why do you think you have the right to tell
someone else to "keep a low profile"? Parenting may be a set of personal
choices, as you state, but deciding how other people carry out their
relationships is not one of them.

Also, I've always seen rights as something one always possesses -- they're not
earned or given. Perhaps it is hard to earn other people's respect or
recognition of them, but they are always present and aren't dispensed by
another person. They exist for their own sake.

>In the case of AMC, putting on teeniebopper bands, visible minorities, and
>deviants is a desperate attempt to compensate for a reduced audience.
>Better
>writing and acting is the key to retaining or growing an audience - not
>trolling for minorities or new segments in blatant fashion - any gays reading
>this should not take offense to this post, but rather to the pandering by the
>writers of the show.

Personally, I think this story has been incredibly well-written and acted
across the board. And as far as pandering to an audience -- I think Daytime
(and most of the entertainment industry) has been pandering to your mindset for
decades. What I see going on now is a more even-handed approach to sexuality
which you may see as "pandering," but I see as a far more tolerant, fair, and
accurate interpretation of the world around us.

>A desire to expose as many as possible to DEVIANT behavior (handholding
and
>gay
>passion) IMHO is no different than the following creation:
>
>a) needs another organism to reproduce
>b) doesn't care about anything but its own cause, including destroying its
>host
>c) isn't satisfied with "enough"
>d) spreads easily };-)
>........a "virus"
>

Afraid people will "catch" homosexuality? I assume that's what you're
inferring. That argument has always seemed ludicrous to me.

And a fun fact before I go -- a psychological study once discovered that men
with extremely homophobic worldviews were far more likely than other
"heterosexual" men to demonstrate latent homosexual tendencies. I often wonder
if this is where the idea of "catching" homosexuality came from -- people see
it in themselves, repress it, and fear it being discovered or brought out, and
therefore fear any exposure to homosexuality. (I'm not directing this at you
personally, Truck, this is just something I've thought about and since you
brought it up I thought I'd talk about it here)

Just my POV.

~Jess

Joan

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 2:10:35 AM12/28/00

to

Truckcanopy wrote:

>Joan and others,

>Isn't it enough that you're getting the innuendo and recognition of your "bent"
>from society and this poor excuse for real life drama?

Not sure what you mean by my "bent" -- Ah, do you think because gay
hand-holding does not make me squirm or run from AMC ala Cutebug2, that
means I'm gay? Do you not think it's possible for a heterosexual person
to be OK with, and even enchanted by, the Bianca storyline?

>Don't get me wrong, to each his/her own *in private*. I personally take a
>non-PC position that heterosexual society has been too permissive in allowing
>public display of DEVIANT (look up the word before you react) sexuality in the
>name of getting votes.

Since you believe homosexual = deviant (dictionary definition of
deviant), then can I assume you also agree with Dr. Laura that
homosexuality = biological error, because it doesn't lead to the
reproduction of children? Have you ever thought that God/Mother Nature
*purposefully* creates a certain percentage of human beings as
homosexual as a means of population control? Just another theory, no
more or less valid than yours of homosexuality = deviancy, for you to
consider.

>Keep a low profile, do not offend the keepers of
>children and you'll keep the hard earned rights given to you.

Oh good lord, that has got to be one of the stupidest sentences I've
ever read in my entire freakin' life! Get real, Truck! Any "rights" I
have are God-given and no one, including "keepers of children", can take
them away!

>Parenting is a
>set of personal choices - you cross a rather powerful lobby by stepping between
>mamma bear and her cub.

I know all about the powerful mommy lobby -- they have their grubby
little hands all over my paycheck, stealing my money to fund their
special tax cuts and family-friendly benefits, etc; making me work
overtime so they leave work to attend to their darling brat's soccer
game; etc. Puh-leeze don't get me started on *that* topic! That's a
conversation for another time and another place!

The rest of your post makes no sense whatsoever. I'm leaving it in as
an example of your inability to put together a cogent argument. Good
luck, and get well soon Truck.

Joan.

>More exposure is not equivalent to more acceptance -
>you may actually fuel a taking of what you already have.

>In the case of AMC, putting on teeniebopper bands, visible minorities, and

>deviants is a desperate attempt to compensate for a reduced audience. Better
>writing and acting is the key to retaining or growing an audience - not
>trolling for minorities or new segments in blatant fashion - any gays reading
>this should not take offense to this post, but rather to the pandering by the

>writers of the show. Where does it stop? I can see it now: In an effort to
>keep from upsetting the Lesbian viewership, AMC has decided to invoke a policy
>of not allowing anyone to call the character "Dix" or to have snapper served in
>any restaurant scene.

>A desire to expose as many as possible to DEVIANT behavior (handholding and gay

>passion) IMHO is no different than the following creation:

>a) needs another organism to reproduce
>b) doesn't care about anything but its own cause, including destroying its
>host
>c) isn't satisfied with "enough"
>d) spreads easily };-)
>........a "virus"

>Truck

Joan

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 2:31:40 AM12/28/00

to

IdiotBug is yet again neglecting her child so she can play on Usenet and
spew forth yet more inanities:

> >Or, is it OK for her to see major, drawn out hetero soft porn, but
> >not gay hand holding???
>

> Yeah? And?

>
> >I pity your kid having such a dumbass
> >for a mother.
>

> Ouch. Maybe you can do a better job. Go get yourself artificially
> inseminated.
>
> >Joan.

Thank you, StupidBug; your lame replies completely prove my original
point about you -- i.e., that you are one stupid bint and that your
miserable little yardape has no chance in hell with you as its mother.

As for your suggestion that I get artificially inseminated: No thanks.
I have higher aspirations for myself than being a broodmare. Now why
don't you turn off your soaps and quit posting to RATSA and focus your
attention on raising your little crotchdropping so that it can be a
decent human being when you finally unleash it on society. I don't want
to be footing the bill for its jailtime and/or welfare checks just
because *you* screwed up on *your* parenting job!

Joan.

(This is possibly the second posting of this message. If so, I
apologize to all RATSA'ers. I was having problems at deja so I am now
using my email account to post.)

Turner Arrington

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 11:40:41 AM12/28/00

to

Scoutmol wrote:
>
> >Don't get me wrong, to each his/her own *in private*.
>
> I assume you object to heterosexual PDAs as well, then?

God I hope so. I've never gotten why hetero couples are free to walk
around tonguing each other, but gay hand-holding is some huge statement.

> >Keep a low profile, do not offend the keepers of
> >children and you'll keep the hard earned rights given to you.

And Truck, which rights are these? I haven't noticed a whole lot of
rights coming my way, nor do I expect many more any time soon.

> Personally, I think this story has been incredibly well-written and acted
> across the board. And as far as pandering to an audience -- I think Daytime
> (and most of the entertainment industry) has been pandering to your mindset for
> decades. What I see going on now is a more even-handed approach to sexuality
> which you may see as "pandering," but I see as a far more tolerant, fair, and
> accurate interpretation of the world around us.

I never found the Michael/Kevin stories to to be pandinering, per se. I
think they were just well-intentioned stories that, either due to
network inteference or to hesitation on the part of the
actors...anyhoo...

> And a fun fact before I go -- a psychological study once discovered that men
> with extremely homophobic worldviews were far more likely than other
> "heterosexual" men to demonstrate latent homosexual tendencies.

Ah, the good ole penile strain-gauge study. I actually wanted to
replicate it for my senior thesis, but could never get it past my
school's Human Subjects Committee. I don't necissarily agree with the
conclusions the study drew (I actually agree with the conclusions, but
not that the data support it). And I probably couldn't have afforded a
penile straing-gauge, if even I got permission.

turner

--
"The chances of us getting out of here are a million to one."
"Then there's still a chance."
--Bunty and Ginger, Chicken Run

Glynis

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 11:46:57 AM12/28/00

to

Joan wrote

I gave>her a ration of s*** for letting her toddler watch soap operas. I've
>cut-and-pasted the following for your info...

What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad as
the Simpsons....

***Ben Franklin wanted the turkey, not the eagle, to be the U.S. national
symbol. He considered the eagle a "bird of bad moral character

Spoilers and Info
http://www.geocities.com/glynisan

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 11:33:00 AM12/28/00

to

On 28 Dec 2000 03:18:05 GMT, cute...@aol.com (Cutebug2) wrote:

>I'm not worried about anything, Donna.

Okay, glad to hear it.

>Last week a couple of posters said that
>the writers had better treat this story like any other romance, with kissing
>and hand holding, or else they'd be p.o.'d.

And, in fact, I'm sure many people will be PDd if they don't
eventually give Bianca a girlfriend & have her pursue a romantic
relationship onscreen. However, I hope we all know that they've
already said that they won't be pursuing that YET, not anytime soon,
etc. One thing at a time, etc. [Oh, and, yes, I also will have to
count myself among the ones annoyed mightily if they never give Bianca
a romantic relationship, but I want it done as sensitively &
tastefully as the whole rest of this has been.]

>I responded by daring to make the
>comment that my little girl won't be watching any longer if that happens, and
>oh boy!

Yes, and apparently that would be what I meant when I talked about
someone worrying about something. Of course, this gets into the
age-old fan argument over whether children should be watching or not.
I try to leave that decision to the parents but if a child 'should' be
watching a soap, then, there's certainly no reason that same gender
hand holding should change that & people are going to have to wonder
what that says that someone would immediately *then* usher a child out
of the room, sorta like how ridiculous it was for ABC to label the
heck, warning-wise out of the last year & a half of ELLEN when it
showed nothing graphic at all!

> See what happens when someone dares to be politically incorrect?

Well, what is or isn't politically correct changes with the times &
has been so many different things since the 1940s or earlier that it's
not necessarily the best way for us to let each other know what we
mean. Right now being politically correct pretty much revolves around
that American Indian saying about walking a mile in the other guy's
moccasins. Were you meaning you were being un-PC by bucking the crowd
& letting your little one watch soaps? <G> Probably not. I don't find
it to be very daring however to be intolerant & bigoted & I'm sure
that's what's in question here.

>Don't bother answering that, because I'm outta here.

Hey, if that's what floats your boat. No need to leave just because
people don't agree with you. If I left everytime someone disagreed
with me, I could never hang out with soap fans at all. We have too
many diverse opinions. <G>

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas!

Paranoia: Santa Claus is Coming ... To Get Me. (Cracked Christmas
Carol)

dark...@yahoo.com

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 12:29:29 PM12/28/00

to

In article <k7K26.965$Qq1.20...@news2.pvt.primus.ca>,
"Glynis" <glyn...@iprimus.ca> wrote:

> What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad
as
> the Simpsons....

As I tried to tell DumbBug (whom you, Glynis, are apparently the
intellectual twin of), soap operas are intended for ADULTS, not FIVE
YEAR OLDS! And, what the heck are you bringing The Simpsons up for? No
one ever claimed that was a show intended for children either!

The parent friends I have who are *responsible* parents do NOT let their
children watch soaps or The Simpsons -- but I guess that's the
difference between them and you. Maybe all you dumbass parunts (Glynis,
IdiotBug) ought to turn off the boob-tube, turn off your newsgroups, and
spend some quality and quantity time with your kids!

Joan.

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/

Jana Peterson

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 12:25:57 PM12/28/00

to

Ok, well all homo/hetero stuff aside...when Bianca said 'we were lovers'
to Erica, my first thought was "she's 16!!!! and she had a lover?"
I would be horrified as a mom if my kid had any kind of sex at 16. (sorry
if that sounds old fashioned, but hey) If she had hetero lovers at 16
wouldn't she be trying to hide that from her mom?

dark...@yahoo.com

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 12:50:04 PM12/28/00

to

In article <t5qm4ts5q8ru8atd5...@4ax.com>,

DonnaB, Your above comments are very well stated and offer great balance
without getting all emotional (like some of *my* replies have been!).
Thanks for adding your reasonable voice to this discussion!

Joan :)

Brad Filippone

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 1:11:59 PM12/28/00

to

Joan (dark...@yahoo.com) wrote:

: Edna wrote:
: >
: > What was the original post about? They leave those political posts on
: > from Dec. 18th, and they take our soap posts off as fast as they can.
: > Edna

: Hi Edna. The original thread was entitled "AMC: Bianca & Sarah today
: ...". Cutebug2 wrote how she watches with her 5 year old daughter and
: that she'd quit watching if any lesbian hand-holding took place. I gave
: her a ration of s*** for letting her toddler watch soap operas. I've
: cut-and-pasted the following for your info...

I see. Apparently she wants to teach her child hatred of others. How
warm and loving.

Brad

Scott Lindstrom

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 1:17:35 PM12/28/00

to

dark...@yahoo.com wrote:

> "Glynis" <glyn...@iprimus.ca> wrote:

> > What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's
> > still not as bad as the Simpsons....

> As I tried to tell DumbBug (whom you, Glynis, are apparently the
> intellectual twin of), soap operas are intended for ADULTS, not FIVE
> YEAR OLDS! And, what the heck are you bringing The Simpsons up for? No
> one ever claimed that was a show intended for children either!

> The parent friends I have who are *responsible* parents do NOT let their
> children watch soaps or The Simpsons -- but I guess that's the
> difference between them and you. Maybe all you dumbass parunts (Glynis,
> IdiotBug) ought to turn off the boob-tube, turn off your newsgroups, and
> spend some quality and quantity time with your kids!

Ah yes. The Simpsons. Shameless TV that will GRAB
your son, YOUR daughter in the arms of a jungle
ANIMAL instinct. Mass HYSTERIA!

Well, as a parent who watched the Simpsons with my
kids, I gotta ask: What is wrong with the Simpsons?
dd (7) and ds (4) love 'em. I doubt they understand
a lot of what's going on, and they probably don't
get all the various pop references, but...

Sometimes dd also watches the soaps with me. Know
what? She knows it's a story. If she sees kissing
she either says "Gross" or dives under the comforter
cover.

Call me irresponsible. Call me unreliable, too.
(Do my constant alibis bore you?)

Scott, dumbass parunt
--
Scott S. Lindstrom | A lawyer can be disbarred; Can
sco...@ssec.wisc.edu | a meteorologist be disgusted?
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~scottl/homepage1.html

dark...@yahoo.com

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 1:57:07 PM12/28/00

to

In article <3A4B83BF...@ssec.wisc.edu>,

Hi, Scott. With all due respect, I was not trying to call you or anyone
else OTHER THAN GLYNIS AND CUTEBUG2 a "dumbass parunt". They both seem
to be so hysterical over the idea of their children seeing Bianca
holding another girl's hands, that I think the best solution for these
two women (and them only!) is to turn off their TV sets, push themselves
away from their keyboard, and spend more time with their overly
impressionable and apparently fragile children.

I am genuinely sorry if I offended you, or any other parent! Please
accept my apologies.

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 2:12:38 PM12/28/00

to

On 28 Dec 2000 05:59:55 GMT, scou...@aol.com (Scoutmol) wrote:

>>Keep a low profile, do not offend the keepers of
>>children and you'll keep the hard earned rights given to you.
>

>Also, I've always seen rights as something one always possesses -- they're not
>earned or given. Perhaps it is hard to earn other people's respect or
>recognition of them, but they are always present and aren't dispensed by
>another person. They exist for their own sake.

Aren't rights & responsibilities either inherent or earned while
privileges or boons are granted?

>Personally, I think this story has been incredibly well-written and acted
>across the board. And as far as pandering to an audience -- I think Daytime
>(and most of the entertainment industry) has been pandering to your mindset for
>decades. What I see going on now is a more even-handed approach to sexuality
>which you may see as "pandering," but I see as a far more tolerant, fair, and
>accurate interpretation of the world around us.

And, what about the age-old tradition of soaps tackling the edge of
social issues? AMC's still trying to do so but now it's pandering? I
don't think so.

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas!

"Christians awake, salute the happy morn, Whereon the Saviour of the
world was born." - John Byrom (1692-1763) British poet and hymn
writer. Hymn for Christmas Day

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 28, 2000, 2:12:37 PM12/28/00

to

On 28 Dec 2000 05:59:55 GMT, scou...@aol.com (Scoutmol) wrote:

>This has always fascinated me -- why do you think you have the right to tell
>someone else to "keep a low profile"? Parenting may be a set of personal
>choices, as you state, but deciding how other people carry out their

>relationships is not one of them. ...

And, what's the point in coming out of the closet if one is going to
keep a low profile? <G>

Or, what's the point in doing a coming out storyline if with its
reveal suddenly fans applaud it as long as it is very quiet about
itself?

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas!

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 9:14:10 AM12/29/00

to

Jana, you need to watch more Maury Povich and Jenny Jones and Sally Jesse!
You'd REALLY be horrified! (ok, just kidding, but trying to make a
point...) The best you can do is instill some values, and some common
sense in your kids, and hope for the best; that they don't have sex early
just to "fit in" or because "everyone else does". And if they do,
despite your words of wisdom, hope that they'll protect themselves.

Seriously, kids are becoming sexually active at a much younger age than
"we" ever did.. Heck, I eat lunch with a bunch of women who are about my
age (40-50+), and I think they were all "horrified" when I revealed when I
had become sexually active. To them, it was very young; they were all
over 18 or waited til marriage. To me, it was just about the norm, at
least amongst my peer group. When I see kids just barely 13 or 14 on tv
who are already very sexually active, _I'M_ horrified!

The point I'm making is that while it may be horrifying, it's not all that
unrealistic to portray a 16 year old becoming sexually active. It may not
be what we wish for our kids, but it happens all the time. (That's why
it's important to talk to kids EARLY... Don't wait til they're 14 or 15.
It's too late. And don't deny that they're bodies are changing... _I_
was horrified when one of my lunch friends described how she took her
daughter to the gyne for the FIRST TIME when she was 21! An older
daughter of hers went away to college and married before graduating
because she was pregnant... You'd think this mom would have gotten a clue
with that one...)

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 9:43:44 AM12/29/00

to

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:10:10 -0700, Marty Hood <hoodl...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:21:33 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
>wrote:
>>Is that whats sticking out of your bikini? Go get a wax.
>
>Hey, quit talking to DonnaB like that. She's not Kelly Ripa, you know!

Heaven forbid! I couldn't even be in the same room with Mark
Consuelos!

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas!

"A Very Merry Christmas Everyone And for those who don't celebrate
Christmas; a Very Merry Humbug!" - Brian Abshire

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 9:51:23 AM12/29/00

to

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 14:17:33 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:10:10 -0700, Marty Hood <hoodl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey, quit talking to DonnaB like that. She's not Kelly Ripa, you know!
>

>Drat! :) Ya'll need to plant some humor seeds.

Victoria, see Marty joke. Joke, Marty, joke. Repeat as needed.

--
DonnaB <*> Y!: shallotpeel, ICQ: 308592 8^> Merry Christmas, back home
from the Carolinas!

"What he was, he laid aside; what he was not, he assumed. He takes
upon himself the poverty of my flesh so that I may receive the riches
of his divinity." - Gregory Nazianzen

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 6:05:20 PM12/29/00

to

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:46:57 -0500, "Glynis" <glyn...@iprimus.ca>
wrote:

>What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad as
>the Simpsons....

Soap operas have traditionally been way ahead of other tv
shows when it comes to dealing with subjects. There is something to be
said about being careful about letting children watch them. Oh, I
wouldn't let 5 year olds watch the Simpsons.

--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 6:05:21 PM12/29/00

to

On 28 Dec 2000 03:18:05 GMT, cute...@aol.com (Cutebug2) wrote:

> I responded by daring to make the
>comment that my little girl won't be watching any longer if that happens, and

>oh boy! See what happens when someone dares to be politically incorrect?

Polictically incorrect doesn't bother me, I hate PC, however,
being sensless in one's hatred is silly. What is wrong with letting
your child know that your way is not the "one true way" in the world?
Next you'll not let her see shows that portray people of different
religions, politcal or philosophies?

--
A. Jerk

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 6:05:23 PM12/29/00

to

On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:25:57 -0800, Jana Peterson
<jp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>"she's 16!!!! and she had a lover?"

Unfortunately, not that rare. Especially for women.
--
A. Jerk

Jana Peterson

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 7:43:18 PM12/29/00

to

My son is 9 and I still don't like him to watch the Simpsons. The only
soaps I've brought him in to see is a quick of Carly to show him what his
former VRTroopers Kaitlin was up to.

I don't get the bit about not censoring childrens tv watching. When my son
was little, I felt I had to give up all my 'grownup' TV watching while he
was awake. I endured years of Barney and Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network
(sometime, cartoon nw had to be censored too because some of that stuff is
for older folks) Thank Bob for the Disney channel, not the cartoons but
shows like Jett Jackson and the movies they have. That is at least better
than Barney and you know there will be good themes and no sleeze.
(except for the occasional Brittany Spears vid, but my son is over her)

To each their own, but I censor my kid and I DO expect him to be sexually
moral in future.

(but as for this topic, I told him the other meaning of 'gay' a long time
ago. I said it was a word like God. If you use it for what it means, it's
not a bad word, if you use it to curse or insult, its a bad word)

Lady Taker

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 8:13:53 PM12/29/00

to

>>"she's 16!!!! and she had a lover?"
>
> Unfortunately, not that rare. Especially for women.
>--
>A. Jerk

Of course, no one asked her to define "lover". It makes me think of those 24
year old women who have done every single sexual thing except intercourse but
call themselves virgins. Maybe it's just a problem with definition.

Volfie -> maybe she thinks heavy petting is having a lover. Who knows?

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Dec 29, 2000, 10:52:41 PM12/29/00

to

On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:43:18 -0800, Jana Peterson
<jp...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>I don't get the bit about not censoring childrens tv watching.

I think it is every parent's responsability to determine what
their children are watching, and to make sure they are ready to see
something before they see it. This varies from child to child of
course.
--
A. Jerk

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 2:16:59 PM12/30/00

to

I don't think it's that rare either, but, I would guess it's *less*
rare for guys of that age even than it is for gals of that age.

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"Rain is the skys [sic] way of saying, I've got clouds and I know how
to use em." - Jacob Bounton, age 9

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 2:19:50 PM12/30/00

to

On 30 Dec 2000 01:13:53 GMT, vol...@aol.comBV12 (Lady Taker) wrote:

>Of course, no one asked her to define "lover". It makes me think of those 24
>year old women who have done every single sexual thing except intercourse but
>call themselves virgins. Maybe it's just a problem with definition.
>
>Volfie -> maybe she thinks heavy petting is having a lover. Who knows?

I don't really have any problem thinking that Sarah & Bianca were
lovers in rehab. I also have no problem seeing Bianca as the more
bold, more forward, etc. one, as she is so brave. She's like Erica in
how brave she is in a certain way. <G> They're really so much alike &
so different, just like a real mother/daughter dynamic. Cracks me up,
though, as Erica explores the idea of Binky being so impressionable &
so young & presumes it was the other person who somehow had this
affect on her, to sway her. Yeah, right. NOT. <G>

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"A rainy day is the perfect time for a walk in the woods." - Rachel
Carson

Dana Kiehl

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 4:41:50 PM12/30/00

to

Joan wrote:
>
> Since you believe homosexual = deviant (dictionary definition of
> deviant), then can I assume you also agree with Dr. Laura that
> homosexuality = biological error, because it doesn't lead to the
> reproduction of children? Have you ever thought that God/Mother Nature
> *purposefully* creates a certain percentage of human beings as
> homosexual as a means of population control? Just another theory, no
> more or less valid than yours of homosexuality = deviancy, for you to
> consider.
>

Personally, I see that as a bogus theory. To me, it would make more
sense and be much easier to control overpopulation by making the man or
woman infertile for awhile (don't women with anorexia or who are
starving have reproductive problems?). Or just kill off many folk with
starvation/famine or an epidemic of something nasty. I don't think
anyone has been able to show that a greater percentage of children born
in overpopulated areas (or those suffering from famine) turned out to be
gay. It just seems to me that nature/God would have humans respond to
environmental pressures in a temporary fashion (like infertility) than
making it permanent by having several members of the *next* generation
being gay and not wanting to get with members of the opposite sex for
the rest of their lives (especially if the environmental pressures were
alleviated).
--

Dana in MD

Tante Joan

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 4:57:44 PM12/30/00

to

Well, that doesn't wash for me, since nature/God's traditional way of
controlling population has also included disease and war. It is no
stretch for me to add homosexuality to the list, especially since part
of the alarming rise of population statistics can be laid at the door
of medical advances and the reduction of global warfare. Why wouldn't
keeping a portion of the world non reproductive be a viable part of
The Plan?
TJ

Glynis

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 5:22:15 PM12/30/00

to

Some Anonymous Jerk wrote

>>What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad as
>>the Simpsons....
>

Oh, I
>wouldn't let 5 year olds watch the Simpsons.
>
>--
>A. Jerk

Maybe not, but they do....

***The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide
everything.

Spoilers and Info
http://www.geocities.com/glynisan

Dana Kiehl

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 5:42:48 PM12/30/00

to

Tante Joan wrote:
>
> Why wouldn't
> keeping a portion of the world non reproductive be a viable part of
> The Plan?

But...if you want to get right down to it, gays are not
non-reproductive. If they wanted to keep the population going, they can
get with the opposite sex (or use medical means nowadays) and reproduce
as much as straight couples. Plus, in past centuries, gays would try to
fit in by marrying and having children, so how did that limit
population? I think making people infertile for a time is a much more
viable way to control population. And I ask again, does the rate of
homosexuality go up during times of famine? Assuming homosexuality is
biological (and it very likely is), then my feeling is, it's probably
either a glitch or a simple deviation (variation) from the norm in the
genes that cause sexual attraction and related items (I know there's
probably more to it than that; I'm just keeping it simple). Or it's
environmental, to the affect that something happens with hormones to the
fetus in the womb, again because of either a glitch or a simple
variation from the norm (I'm using deviation/variation in this instance
to mean something like, most people are right-handed but a small
percentage of people are left-handed).
--

Dana in MD

Tante Joan

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 5:56:02 PM12/30/00

to

Sorry, Dana. This kind of discussion doesn't interest me, even though
I made a (probably poor) effort to enter into the spirit of your
previous post. I blame the snowy day for that; there were fewer
posts than usual and I wanted to keep going, but the reasons for
homosexuality, if there are any (I tend to think there just are gay
people, period), isn't what moves me. Psychology, not biology, is my
thing. Next!
TJ

MamaLana

unread,

Dec 30, 2000, 10:45:06 PM12/30/00

to

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 22:42:48 GMT, Dana Kiehl <dki...@home.com> wrote:

>most people are right-handed but a small
>percentage of people are left-handed).

Did you know that there is a "right-handed gene" but there is no
"left-handed gene?"
<http://www.seattletimes.com/news/health-science/html98/althand_102898.html>

FWIW, I remember a study in the 50's of the effects of overcrowding on
lab rat populations. At first, the rats were living normal lives, but
as more and more rats were added to the lab rat "village," deviant
(not usual) behavior occurred. There were more cases of baby rats
being killed by their mothers. More female rats became fertile at a
younger age. Young male rats formed packs and preyed on older and
weaker rats, and male rats (though not females) began to form
homosexual relationships. The conclusion was thar overcrowding and
overpopulation upsets a society's delicate balance.

--MamaLana

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Dec 31, 2000, 12:05:19 AM12/31/00

to

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:55:33 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>This story about Bianca and her lesbianism is clearly for parents AND children.
>I know it is a touchy subject, but gay people make up a pretty goood percentage
>of society and I think this is a very necessary story line. They are handling
>it very well, so far.

I agree.
--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Dec 31, 2000, 12:05:20 AM12/31/00

to

On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 14:16:59 -0500, DonnaB <dl...@delphi.com> wrote:

>I don't think it's that rare either, but, I would guess it's *less*
>rare for guys of that age even than it is for gals of that age.

Nope, I'm pretty sure that more girls of that age are having
sex than boys of that age. Can't recall the actual statistics though.

--
A. Jerk

DonnaB

unread,

Dec 31, 2000, 12:49:13 AM12/31/00

to

unread,

Dec 31, 2000, 5:58:04 PM12/31/00

to

dark...@yahoo.com wrote in message <92ft9g$jf2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <k7K26.965$Qq1.20...@news2.pvt.primus.ca>,

> "Glynis" <glyn...@iprimus.ca> wrote:
>
>> What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad
>as
>> the Simpsons....
>
>

>As I tried to tell DumbBug (whom you, Glynis, are apparently the
>intellectual twin of), soap operas are intended for ADULTS, not FIVE
>YEAR OLDS!

Soaps are not intended for adults...If it was it would be on at night. I
don't remember seeing anything really damaging on a soap, that kids don't
see in other places on tv.

And, what the heck are you bringing The Simpsons up for? No
>one ever claimed that was a show intended for children either!

I am bringing it up because it is something else that makes more sense to
bitch about instead of soaps...Are you an idiot?

>
>The parent friends I have who are *responsible* parents do NOT let their
>children watch soaps or The Simpsons --

..that's probably what you think. Every body out there professes that their
children don't watch television. They all sit around the kitchen table
under a lamp doing their multiplication tables and coloring. Bullshit!
Soaps are not a threat to children. They can see worse things in magazines,
outside their houses and on their computers.

but I guess that's the
>difference between them and you. Maybe all you dumbass parunts (Glynis,
>IdiotBug) ought to turn off the boob-tube, turn off your newsgroups, and
>spend some quality and quantity time with your kids!
>
>Joan.

Really...the anger you display..do the kids in your neighbourhood a favour
and let them watch the soaps......talking to you is a lot more abusive, than
anything the television could display.

Glynis!

Glynis

unread,

Dec 31, 2000, 6:03:46 PM12/31/00

to

Jana Peterson wrote in message ...
>Ok, well all homo/hetero stuff aside...when Bianca said 'we were lovers'
>to Erica, my first thought was "she's 16!!!! and she had a lover?"
>I would be horrified as a mom if my kid had any kind of sex at 16. (sorry
>if that sounds old fashioned, but hey) If she had hetero lovers at 16
>wouldn't she be trying to hide that from her mom?
>

Kids are having babies at 12 now. 16 isn't such a bad age to start having
sex. Everyone that I went to school with did it at about that time.

***You are what you eat. So stay away from the jerk chicken

Satu

unread,

Jan 1, 2001, 12:20:51 PM1/1/01

to

DonnaB dl...@delphi.com writes: >So, if in fact, that has changed & now it is

more common to find sexually experienced 16 yr i girls instead of more common
to find sexually experienced 16 yr o boys, then, as I said, I am astonished.<

No need to be astonished, Donna. According to the 1995 National Survey of
Family Growth and 1995 National Survey of Adolescent Males, at age 16 45% of
males have had sex but only 39% of females.

Susie

DonnaB

unread,

Jan 1, 2001, 12:45:29 PM1/1/01

to

Okay, that's what I expected, that more boys have done it at that age
than girls. Y'all are just turning me in circles, right?

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"How many observe Christ's birthday! How few, his precepts! O! 'tis
easier to keep holidays than commandments." - Benjamin Franklin
(1706-1790)

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 1, 2001, 3:14:17 PM1/1/01

to

On Sun, 31 Dec 2000 17:58:04 -0500, "Glynis" <glyn...@iprimus.ca>
wrote:

>Soaps are not intended for adults...If it was it would be on at night

You mean, as opposed to the afternoon where school age
children are in school and younger ones are supposed to be napping or
taken care of?
--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 1, 2001, 3:14:18 PM1/1/01

to

On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 12:45:29 -0500, DonnaB <dl...@delphi.com> wrote:

>Okay, that's what I expected, that more boys have done it at that age
>than girls. Y'all are just turning me in circles, right?

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. I would have sworn the
statistics were the other way around, my bad.

--
A. Jerk

DonnaB

unread,

Jan 1, 2001, 11:38:26 PM1/1/01

to

On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 15:14:18 -0500, Some Anonymous Jerk
<now...@who.com> wrote:

> Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. I would have sworn the
>statistics were the other way around, my bad.

And, I've been hoping that someone would actually post them so I could
stop just rewording things until I became terminally confused. <G>

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

Mania: Deck the Halls & Walls & House & Lawn & Streets & Stores &
Office & Town! (Cracked Christmas Carol)

Brad Filippone

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 9:59:28 AM1/2/01

to

: I agree.

Me too. I've never been a regular viewer of All My CHildren before, but i
got curious. In real life I'm a strong supporter of gay rights even
though I myself am 'straight' (I hate that term, it implies that the
others are 'crooked') I have many homosexual friends, so it's become my
cause as well as theirs)

Now if everyone could tell me what is happening in all the other
storylines so I could figure out who everyone is...

Brad

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 12:40:14 PM1/2/01

to

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:59:28 +0000 (UTC), al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
Filippone) wrote:

>In real life I'm a strong supporter of gay rights

I don't...HOWEVER, I believe in universal rights and am
against laws that discriminate based on the sexuality of the person.
So, I don't believe that homosexuals need special rights [but am open
to being shown where I am wrong], but am against the current marriage
laws that discriminate against homosexuals. To me it's not an issue of
creating laws to protect homosexuals, it's about ensuring that no law
discriminate against any group. There are exceptions, for example I
have no problem with minimum age laws, even if they discriminate
against the young.

--
A. Jerk

DonnaB

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 12:50:44 PM1/2/01

to

On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:59:28 +0000 (UTC), in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc
al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:

>Me too. I've never been a regular viewer of All My CHildren before, but i
>got curious.

I've watched off & on over the years but it would tend sooner or
later, to lose me, if ya know what I mean.

>In real life I'm a strong supporter of gay rights even
>though I myself am 'straight' (I hate that term, it implies that the
>others are 'crooked') I have many homosexual friends, so it's become my
>cause as well as theirs)
>
>Now if everyone could tell me what is happening in all the other
>storylines so I could figure out who everyone is...

Okay, when did you tune in? And, who are you mostly unsure of, so far?
And, just because I'm curious, what's your typical soap bio read like?
By that I mean what's the path you've taken on soaps? Like mine begins
way back in the late 60s & was over several channels, networks,
producing companies & groups then, was almost exclusively NBC's total
lineup at one point & is now, again all over the place except NBC. <G>

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"Celebrity is good for kick-starting ideas, but often celebrity is a
lead weight aroung your neck." - Sting, interview in Mojo, Feb 1995

Kathy Monroe

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 5:21:11 PM1/2/01

to

>> >What is wrong with children watching the soaps? It's still not as bad as
>> >the Simpsons....

Yes, the world has changed greatly. Here was my heavy-duty thought when
I watched GH back in perhaps 1962-63ish. On GH, Phil Brewer (I believe)
put a gun in the toilet tank to hide it. All I could think of was what
if someone dumped a load and flushed, and that the gun would get all "gunked
up" (putting it gently). How could Phil pick up this "coated" gun out
of the toilet (not understanding that the tank is not where the sewage
went). My sister and I practically wet our pants on the grossness of it all
and that's as far as our young thoughts went...

Kathy "and now it's drugs that go in the toilet... <sigh>"
--
Sweetie Evil Kathy "Money centers me"
1998 Crystal Frango
kmo...@engr.wisc.edu (not address in header)

mary b

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 7:39:41 PM1/2/01

to

In article <c9ms4tgmsf1qk83bb...@4ax.com>, Tante Joan
<tant...@nettaxi.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 21:41:50 GMT, Dana Kiehl <dki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Joan wrote:
> >>
> >> Since you believe homosexual = deviant (dictionary definition of
> >> deviant), then can I assume you also agree with Dr. Laura that
> >> homosexuality = biological error, because it doesn't lead to the
> >> reproduction of children? Have you ever thought that God/Mother Nature
> >> *purposefully* creates a certain percentage of human beings as
> >> homosexual as a means of population control? Just another theory, no
> >> more or less valid than yours of homosexuality = deviancy, for you to
> >> consider.
> >>
> >
> >Personally, I see that as a bogus theory. To me, it would make more
> >sense and be much easier to control overpopulation by making the man or
> >woman infertile for awhile (don't women with anorexia or who are
> >starving have reproductive problems?).

(snippers)

> Well, that doesn't wash for me, since nature/God's traditional way of
> controlling population has also included disease and war. It is no
> stretch for me to add homosexuality to the list, especially since part
> of the alarming rise of population statistics can be laid at the door
> of medical advances and the reduction of global warfare. Why wouldn't
> keeping a portion of the world non reproductive be a viable part of
> The Plan?

A cousin of mine used to speculate that homosexuality was nature's way
of saying "this particular gene line has run it's course." A cruel theory
but not necessarily invalid until we know more.

Mary

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 2, 2001, 11:22:33 PM1/2/01

to

On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 21:56:05 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>You just described someone who supports gay rights. Gays don't want special
>rights, but the same rights afforded every other human being. Health insurance
>for their significant other, marriage rites, etc...the list is endless of things
>that are common in heterosexuality, but which are banned to gays.

To me the difference in the way I put it and your way [a
perfectly valid way BTW] is more than a semantic difference. The
reason I don't want to call them gay rights is that I want to ensure
that everyone gets those rights. Whenever we create a list of who can
do something, we inevitabably leave off someone. Maybe not
immediately, but eventually. Look at the US constitution and voting.
Due to the way who was allowed to vote was written in the constitution
they had to ammend it a number of times just for voting. At least two
that I can recall of hand, to include blacks, and others they ammended
it to allow all male citizens of the age of majority. Then they had to
include women.

In the marriage laws, if we ammend it to allow gays to marrry,
then one day we have to ammend to allow multiple partners. Why not
avoid the problem by removing all restrictions except those that
matter, such as age.

--
A. Jerk

Turner Arrington

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 1:49:42 AM1/3/01

to

Some Anonymous Jerk wrote:

> I don't...HOWEVER, I believe in universal rights and am
> against laws that discriminate based on the sexuality of the person.
> So, I don't believe that homosexuals need special rights

I am the last homo to be debating you on this one, since the mainstream
gay rights lobby and I are so very far apart, but there you go.

As far as I know, no one associated with the mainstream gay rights
movement would argue that we (as a collective) are seeking any special
rights, as the right to live, to work, etc aren't any kind of special
rights, but it's a basic right that gets denied us.

Personally, from growing up in Redneck Central, where it's enough of a
struggle to survive day in and day out, I cannot see why some things,
like the right to marry need to be the number one priority. So we when
the right to marry; big deal. That's the beginning of the road, not the
end.

>[but am open
> to being shown where I am wrong], but am against the current marriage
> laws that discriminate against homosexuals.

See, and that's an issue I could probably care less about. But for the
economic benifits, I don't see why this is an issue I need to get myself
all worked up over. Just because we've got suddenly got the right to
marry in one state, doesn't change things for 9/10ths of the people out
there.

>To me it's not an issue of
> creating laws to protect homosexuals, it's about ensuring that no law
> discriminate against any group.

Which, many would say, can't happen unless you've got laws specifically
created to protect homosexuals.

turner

--
"The chances of us getting out of here are a million to one."
"Then there's still a chance."
--Bunty and Ginger, Chicken Run

Brad Filippone

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 10:14:15 AM1/3/01

to

Some Anonymous Jerk (now...@who.com) wrote:

: On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:59:28 +0000 (UTC), al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
: Filippone) wrote:

Actually I agree with you. By 'gay right' I mean that I believe that
homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. Until they are
legally considered couples in every sense, this will not happen.

Brad

Brad Filippone

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 10:22:35 AM1/3/01

to

DonnaB (dl...@delphi.com) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:59:28 +0000 (UTC), in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc
: al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:

: >Me too. I've never been a regular viewer of All My CHildren before, but i
: >got curious.

: I've watched off & on over the years but it would tend sooner or
: later, to lose me, if ya know what I mean.

: >In real life I'm a strong supporter of gay rights even
: >though I myself am 'straight' (I hate that term, it implies that the
: >others are 'crooked') I have many homosexual friends, so it's become my
: >cause as well as theirs)
: >
: >Now if everyone could tell me what is happening in all the other
: >storylines so I could figure out who everyone is...

: Okay, when did you tune in? And, who are you mostly unsure of, so far?
: And, just because I'm curious, what's your typical soap bio read like?
: By that I mean what's the path you've taken on soaps? Like mine begins
: way back in the late 60s & was over several channels, networks,
: producing companies & groups then, was almost exclusively NBC's total
: lineup at one point & is now, again all over the place except NBC. <G>

Well, I started watching General Hospital early in 1979 (before the
infamos rape happened) as something to keep me from being bored after
school. I didn't admit it to anyone outside my family at first because as
far as I knew I was the only male watching the show (I was a teenage boy
trying not to be stereotyped, I know, I was being silly).

That was the only show I watched (only soap anyway) for years. from about
1986-1992 I wsn't watching any soap, since I was busy with other things.
Then I started with General Hospital again, as well as Young and the
Restless, and Days of Our lives. The latter I stopped watching with the
incredibly silly possession storyline and I havn't look back at that show
since. Young and the restless I still look at occasionally but I'm not a
regular viewer anymore. I still watch General Hospital but also Port
Charles, since I consider them to be pretty much the same show anyway,
dispite the fact that they're handled differently.

And now I've been taking a gander at All My CHildren.

I'm starting to get a handle on everyone in bianca's storyline (Erica I
was familiar with already, hard to avoid her even whenyou DON'T watch her
show). I could use a background on Greenlea and the others. The
characters in the other storylines I don't know at all other than bits and
pieces I've heard over the years (Tad and Dixie for example, but I still
don't know much about them)

Brad

DonnaB

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 11:03:23 AM1/3/01

to

On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:39:41 -0600, in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc
cor...@mindspring.com (mary b) wrote:

>A cousin of mine used to speculate that homosexuality was nature's way
>of saying "this particular gene line has run it's course." A cruel theory
>but not necessarily invalid until we know more.

Wow, Yikes, I've never heard that one put foward & I have to say that
my kneejerk reaction is how harsh it is. Plus, I guess the current
trend of gays having children & often getting as close to their own
DNA as possible for a sperm donor, egg donor, etc. pretty much flies
right in the face of that.

Personally I would be mightily surprised if nature was saying anything
nearly so BIG, so cataclysmic, so decisive, as this or as a method of
birth control per se, by affecting what seems to be about 10-12% of
the population forever & ever & in almost every species known. Just
seems like statistical variation to me, no big deal, at all, in the
big picture. I'd love to see the fertility figures on gay people,
since that would seem to me to be a better argument for nature getting
done with a particular part of the gene pool & I don't think that
could be "proven" either! LOL

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"Women tackle me all the time." - Luke GH 3/18/99

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 11:56:18 AM1/3/01

to

On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:23:49 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>Oh, I don't know. I don't know any multiple partners wishing to be married.

So? No offense Victoria, but whom you know if not the issue.
In fact, this proves my point. If you were making the laws you'd not
allow multiple partner marriages because, "I don't knw any multiple
partners...." Well, I do. Look at Mormons, for example.

--
A. Jerk

barbara trumpinski-roberts

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 5:11:47 PM1/3/01

to

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Victoria wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 23:22:33 -0500, Some Anonymous Jerk <now...@who.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the marriage laws, if we ammend it to allow gays to marrry,
> >then one day we have to ammend to allow multiple partners. Why not
> >avoid the problem by removing all restrictions except those that
> >matter, such as age.
>

> Oh, I don't know. I don't know any multiple partners wishing to be married.

> Heterosexuals are allowed to marry one person. That's all. I think we should
> all be able to marry legally and have all the benefits of life that others have
> in same situations. I suppose we don't have to call it Gay Rights. With that I
> agree, but whatever it is called, it is way overdue.

well, victoria (and anonymous), y'all know me. i have 2 husbands. we got
married in november of 1997 (of course we called it a handfasting, and it
isn't legal, but we are, by the goddess, married. sean doesn't get tax
benefits (tc and i are also legally married) but when sean's appendix
burst the hospital let me stay with him and let tc into his room as
immediate family.

tc is also married to a woman who has not married the rest of us (also not
legal, but it was a beautiful wedding).

tc, sean and i are going to marry cheron in april. (also not legal but
there will be people there from all over the united states and canada to
witness it.) i will consider myself to be just as married to cheron as i
am to the boys (who consider themselves married to each other, even though
they have been described as VERY heterosexual by various women.)

it would be nice to be recognized by the state...but it's not going to
happen...and as long as the state doesn't get in my way...who cares? if
the state tries to make me and my family into criminals they will have a
fight on their hands.

hugs,

kitten....not a mormon but a pagan

/\ /\ 'ah, but you don't have to know everything. you
{=.=} just have to know where to find it.' john brunner
~ kit...@uiuc.edu _shockwave rider_
http://members.tripod.com/~barbarakitten smotu

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 11:38:11 PM1/3/01

to

On Wed, 3 Jan 2001 16:11:47 -0600, barbara trumpinski-roberts
<kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>kitten....not a mormon but a pagan

Same here, kind of.

--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 11:38:08 PM1/3/01

to

On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:23:45 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>Mormons no longer practice polygamy.

You need to get out more. There are many people, myself
included, who would practice polygamy were it legal to do so. So to
say, as you do, that no one you know practices it, ir silly since it
is unlawful to do so.

--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 3, 2001, 11:38:05 PM1/3/01

to

On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 20:21:40 GMT, Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0>
wrote:

>. Equal rights seems too
>overall.

That's the whole point, rights _should_ be overall.

--
A. Jerk

Linda Nemir Speer

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:18:41 AM1/4/01

to

Victoria <ani...@animaux.net0> wrote in message
news:8q855t0pqplbienc6...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 18:39:41 -0600, cor...@mindspring.com (mary b) wrote:
>
> >A cousin of mine used to speculate that homosexuality was nature's way
> >of saying "this particular gene line has run it's course." A cruel theory
> >but not necessarily invalid until we know more.
> >
> >Mary
>

> Then why say it if you thought it was cruel? Geesh this subject attracts
some
> of the most vile ignorance on the earth.

I understand and respect that you disagree, but *must* you always be so
nasty?

Linda Speer
lsp...@austin.rr.com
FAC Valley Inn Ladies Room
"Who died and made you Elvis?"

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 12:14:41 PM1/4/01

to

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:46:39 +0000 (UTC), al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
Filippone) wrote:

>: kitten....not a mormon but a pagan
>
>A fellow Wiccan? Blessed Be!

Nice jump to conclusion there. Not all Pagan's are Wiccan. Was
thu hal.
--
A. Jerk

DonnaB

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 1:45:01 PM1/4/01

to

On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:18:41 GMT, in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc "Linda
Nemir Speer" <lsp...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> I understand and respect that you disagree, but *must* you always be so
>nasty?

Apparently she must. [sigh]

--
DonnaB coming to you from a winter wonderland <*> Y!: shallotpeel,
ICQ: 308592 8^>

"Good King Wenceslas looked out, On the Feast of Stephen; When the
snow lay round about, Deep and crisp and even." - John Mason Neale
(1818-66) British churchman. Good King Wenceslas

Scott Lindstrom

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 3:22:54 PM1/4/01

to

In article <63u75tsfef81f1nhm...@4ax.com> Some Anonymous Jerk <now...@who.com> writes:

>>kitten....not a mormon but a pagan
>
> Same here, kind of.

So is your real name Morgan? :))

Scott, GD&R
--
Scott S. Lindstrom | A lawyer can be disbarred;
sco...@ssec.wisc.edu | Can a meteorologist be
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~scottl/homepage1.html | disgusted?

barbara trumpinski-roberts

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 4:18:35 PM1/4/01

to

On 4 Jan 2001, Scott Lindstrom wrote:
>
> >>kitten....not a mormon but a pagan
> >
> > Same here, kind of.
>
> So is your real name Morgan? :))

barbara ann, just like the beach boys song...

hugs,

kitten

Aisling Willow Grey

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 4:39:20 PM1/4/01

to

>>Brad Filippone wrote:

Aherm. Not all pagans are Wiccans!

(Sorry Brad, it's just my pet peeve!) :-)

Aisling (an eclectic Celtic polytheist whose main practice is shamanism)

FAC Pine Valley Ghostbusters Local #707

barbara trumpinski-roberts

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 5:02:38 PM1/4/01

to

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 8:34:48 PM1/4/01

to

In article <h0u75t4alptr5ucva...@4ax.com>, Some Anonymous
Jerk <now...@who.com> wrote:

Two-three (?) years ago, NY Times ran a two page story on modern
day Mormon polygamy. Most people didn't notice it because it ran
in the Architecture section. The slant, of course, was on the design
and livability of family quarters. No moral judgements or points
anywhere in the story, just practical matters such as 'how many
bathrooms,' etc.

Mary

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:07:17 PM1/4/01

to

On 4 Jan 2001 20:22:54 GMT, sco...@ssec.wisc.edu (Scott Lindstrom)
wrote:

>> Same here, kind of.
>
>So is your real name Morgan? :))

Nope.
--
A. Jerk

Some Anonymous Jerk

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:07:18 PM1/4/01

to

On Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:18:35 -0600, barbara trumpinski-roberts
<kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:

>> > Same here, kind of.
>>
>> So is your real name Morgan? :))
>
>barbara ann, just like the beach boys song

Hey, he was talking to me.

--
A. Jerk

unread,

Jan 4, 2001, 9:18:52 PM1/4/01

to

well, since you are spam trapped i can't take this to email, but you are
welcome to email me...i'm facinated. why norse, if you don't mind my
asking?

unread,

Jan 5, 2001, 11:09:47 AM1/5/01

to

On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Some Anonymous Jerk wrote:
>
> >i'm not sure there was any....but his ceremonialist group draws from the
> >golden dawn folks, who are definitely wiccan.
>
> Not a freakin chance of that being true. Especially
> considering that Wicca wasn't invented till much after the Golden Dawn
> was. Many of the stuff in Wicca, magical practices, was taken from
> the Golden Dawn. Being a ceremonial mage does not make you a Wiccan.

you're right, i'm sure...

like i said, he is with the annex wife this week and i'm not part of his
group. if you like i will have him explain it to you...