[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Suddenly, acknowledging the arbitrariness of consent laws has one
"supporting NAMBLA" to you bozos. LOL!

OK, let's examine this. Neither of you have a problem with an 80-year-
old man having sex with an 18-year-old. However, a 24-year-old having
sex with a 15-year-old is criminal.

What would you say about a 16-year-old having sex with his 14-year-old
girlfriend? Is that criminal? And if they stayed together for a few
years, should the now 18-year-old stop having sex with her for a few
years until she turned 18? Or should the law nab him the minute he
turns 18 if he doesn't?

Think about this (if you can) without the messed up confusion of
religiosity that neither of you is even aware possesses you. LoL.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 13, 1:51*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Suddenly, acknowledging the arbitrariness of consent laws has one
"supporting NAMBLA" to you bozos. LOL!

OK, let's examine this. Neither of you have a problem with an 80-year-
old man having sex with an 18-year-old. However, a 24-year-old having
sex with a 15-year-old is criminal.

What would you say about a 16-year-old having sex with his 14-year-old
girlfriend? Is that criminal? And if they stayed together for a few
years, should the now 18-year-old stop having sex with her for a few
years until she turned 18? Or should the law nab him the minute he
turns 18 if he doesn't?

Think about this (if you can) without the messed up confusion of
religiosity that neither of you is even aware possesses you. LoL.

It's similar to the prudes who think a young woman instantly becomes
beautiful and attractive on her 18th birthday, but when she's 17 years
and 364 days, she's "just a kid" so they "can't go there." Sort of
like the idiots who think American Beauty is about a pedophile. I
can't trust people like that because they're repressing their true
feelings.

The law is the law and it's there for a reason. But Art (and now
Dip****) possess the same sort of provincial thinking that would make
all sex under the age of 18 illegal. Yeah, try to enforce that.

[hoser1605]

On Oct 13, 9:00*am, Boon wrote:
On Oct 13, 1:51*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"



wrote:
Suddenly, acknowledging the arbitrariness of consent laws has one
"supporting NAMBLA" to you bozos. LOL!

OK, let's examine this. Neither of you have a problem with an 80-year-
old man having sex with an 18-year-old. However, a 24-year-old having
sex with a 15-year-old is criminal.

What would you say about a 16-year-old having sex with his 14-year-old
girlfriend? Is that criminal? And if they stayed together for a few
years, should the now 18-year-old stop having sex with her for a few
years until she turned 18? Or should the law nab him the minute he
turns 18 if he doesn't?

Think about this (if you can) without the messed up confusion of
religiosity that neither of you is even aware possesses you. LoL.

It's similar to the prudes who think a young woman instantly becomes
beautiful and attractive on her 18th birthday, but when she's 17 years
and 364 days, she's "just a kid" so they "can't go there." Sort of
like the idiots who think American Beauty is about a pedophile. I
can't trust people like that because they're repressing their true
feelings.

The law is the law and it's there for a reason. But Art (and now
Dip****) possess the same sort of provincial thinking that would make
all sex under the age of 18 illegal. Yeah, try to enforce that.

Some jurisdictions have made exceptions for your 16 year old guy and
his 14 year old girlfriend. Usually a 2 or 3 year age gap.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 11:27*am, hoser1605 wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:00*am, Boon wrote:





On Oct 13, 1:51*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Suddenly, acknowledging the arbitrariness of consent laws has one
"supporting NAMBLA" to you bozos. LOL!

OK, let's examine this. Neither of you have a problem with an 80-year-
old man having sex with an 18-year-old. However, a 24-year-old having
sex with a 15-year-old is criminal.

What would you say about a 16-year-old having sex with his 14-year-old
girlfriend? Is that criminal? And if they stayed together for a few
years, should the now 18-year-old stop having sex with her for a few
years until she turned 18? Or should the law nab him the minute he
turns 18 if he doesn't?

Think about this (if you can) without the messed up confusion of
religiosity that neither of you is even aware possesses you. LoL.

It's similar to the prudes who think a young woman instantly becomes
beautiful and attractive on her 18th birthday, but when she's 17 years
and 364 days, she's "just a kid" so they "can't go there." Sort of
like the idiots who think American Beauty is about a pedophile. I
can't trust people like that because they're repressing their true
feelings.

The law is the law and it's there for a reason. But Art (and now
Dip****) possess the same sort of provincial thinking that would make
all sex under the age of 18 illegal. Yeah, try to enforce that.

Some jurisdictions have made exceptions for your 16 year old guy and
his 14 year old girlfriend. *Usually a 2 or 3 year age gap.

2pid and Clyde better research those areas so they don't accidentally
move there. LoL.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 13, 11:27*am, hoser1605 wrote:
On Oct 13, 9:00*am, Boon wrote:





On Oct 13, 1:51*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Suddenly, acknowledging the arbitrariness of consent laws has one
"supporting NAMBLA" to you bozos. LOL!

OK, let's examine this. Neither of you have a problem with an 80-year-
old man having sex with an 18-year-old. However, a 24-year-old having
sex with a 15-year-old is criminal.

What would you say about a 16-year-old having sex with his 14-year-old
girlfriend? Is that criminal? And if they stayed together for a few
years, should the now 18-year-old stop having sex with her for a few
years until she turned 18? Or should the law nab him the minute he
turns 18 if he doesn't?

Think about this (if you can) without the messed up confusion of
religiosity that neither of you is even aware possesses you. LoL.

It's similar to the prudes who think a young woman instantly becomes
beautiful and attractive on her 18th birthday, but when she's 17 years
and 364 days, she's "just a kid" so they "can't go there." Sort of
like the idiots who think American Beauty is about a pedophile. I
can't trust people like that because they're repressing their true
feelings.

The law is the law and it's there for a reason. But Art (and now
Dip****) possess the same sort of provincial thinking that would make
all sex under the age of 18 illegal. Yeah, try to enforce that.

Some jurisdictions have made exceptions for your 16 year old guy and
his 14 year old girlfriend. *Usually a 2 or 3 year age gap.

When I first moved to Virginia in 1985, I met a 23-year-old guy with a
16-year-old girlfriend. I thought that was creepy until I found out it
was the age of consent. That didn't really change my mind, but it does
underline how state governments presume to tell us what's right and
wrong when it comes to sex...even if they can't agree among themselves
what that is.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Boon said:

it does
underline how state governments presume to tell us what's right and
wrong when it comes to sex...even if they can't agree among themselves
what that is.

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 1:07*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

it does
underline how state governments presume to tell us what's right and
wrong when it comes to sex...even if they can't agree among themselves
what that is.

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

Oh, there are other examples as well. IIRC there was a town in
Illinois that banned handguns. A town in Georgia passed a law in
response *requiring* residents to have a handgun.

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

There's no shortage of ignorance in the US. There's no shortage of
dimwits like 2pid either. The only reason the republicans enjoyed some
momentary success is because their marketing department figured out
how to reach and manipulate them. LoL.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

On Oct 13, 1:07*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

it does
underline how state governments presume to tell us what's right and
wrong when it comes to sex...even if they can't agree among themselves
what that is.

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

Oh, there are other examples as well. IIRC there was a town in
Illinois that banned handguns. A town in Georgia passed a law in
response *requiring* residents to have a handgun.

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." You mean crap like that?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless. Not that it matters much.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 7:22*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:





On Oct 13, 1:07*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Boon said:

it does
underline how state governments presume to tell us what's right and
wrong when it comes to sex...even if they can't agree among themselves
what that is.

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

Oh, there are other examples as well. IIRC there was a town in
Illinois that banned handguns. A town in Georgia passed a law in
response *requiring* residents to have a handgun.

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

That, and that homosexuality isn't "natural", using the "gays can't
procreate therefore they shouldn't be able to marry" argument, & etc.
& etc.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 7:23*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal. Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!
And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless. Not that it matters much.

"People of 2pid's ilk."

IMO Clyde is a fully-qualified member. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 9:28*pm, ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Well, 2pid, as I've pointed out recently you have a drunk, a neo-Nazi
and someone named Sugar who fantasizes about jism and smegma.

Out of the four of you, who doesn't meet the criteria? LoL.

Good job Jenn.

I thought so too. She sees through your barks about how different you
are and looks at your words and actions.

Once...again, Jenn hits it out of the park.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 6:30*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:01*pm, MiNe 109 * wrote:

In Texas, married gays can get divorced but not married.

How about remarried? I bet there's a loophole somewhere.

Texas is a very enlightened state. Gays can remarry any member of the
opposite sex they choose to.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. Bring it up with him.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 13, 10:53*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

I think what 2pid was trying to yap was that he had an epiphany and he
is now 100% behind gays being able to marry just like white folks are.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

This is not normal, healthy behavior. You need some sort of
intervention,

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

ilk 1 (lk)
n.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 14, 10:32*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:18*pm, Boon wrote:





On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal..
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

*It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. *It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

So you see, I'm really a pretty tolerant person.

Except for the stupidity of thinking that Jenn isn't actually a decent
person. You see, 2pid, it isn't you that's totally disgusting. It's
your being oblivious to exactly how stupid you are that is. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 14, 10:34*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:43*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal..
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.
It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

ilk 1 (lk)
n.
Type or kind

You and Clyde are of the same ilk, 2pid. You don't support gay
marriage for dumb reasons. Get over it. LoL.

*You and your ilk don't pay much attention and stoop to ill-informed
stereotypes too often. *If you paid attention I am less opposed to gay
marriage than I am opposed to it being implemented at the expense of
democracy.

So you're in favor of gay marriage. That's great!

Who knew? That runs exactly counter to your trumpeting when the
amendment in California passed though, dum-dum.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 14, 10:48*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 8:36*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:32*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 14, 7:18*pm, Boon wrote:

On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the "DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

*It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. *It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

So you see, I'm really a pretty tolerant person.

Except for the stupidity of thinking that Jenn isn't actually a decent
person.

*It's all relative.

Oh, a moral relativist. What a refreshing change for you!

She's far more decent than you.

Why? Because she's too 'polite' to call you an imbecile?

Everyone here must be a charicature in your twisted view of reality.

Hm. No, that's reserved for you, 2pid. If you're not a caricature you
should be. That would be a step up.

If you're anything like you are here in real life you should consider
euthanasia. And I say that with all the best intentions.

Anyway She's not nearly as decent as she puts on and
when her prejudice and bigotry escape her cover, it's all denial.

LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless runs afoul of Mrs. Grundy's language lessons.

charicature

I think your spellchecker lied to you again, Scoots.

BTW, how many of your real-life acquaintances believe you're a closet
case? I have to admit I don't subscribe to that theory, but other RAOers
embrace it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 14, 10:54*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:
Witless runs afoul of Mrs. Grundy's language lessons.

charicature

I think your spellchecker lied to you again, Scoots.

BTW, how many of your real-life acquaintances believe you're a closet
case? I have to admit I don't subscribe to that theory, but other RAOers
embrace it.

I don't think he's a closet case, but people who hide behind material
success and kept trophy wives tend to have small weenies and smaller
'brains'. They also tend to be unattentive parents who end up with
criminal offspring. LOL!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

BTW, how many of your real-life acquaintances believe you're a closet
case? I have to admit I don't subscribe to that theory, but other RAOers
embrace it.

I don't think he's a closet case, but people who hide behind material
success and kept trophy wives tend to have small weenies and smaller
'brains'. They also tend to be unattentive parents who end up with
criminal offspring. LOL!

Witless is always barking plaintively that we're ganging up on him, or
making him sit alone at the Nerds' Table, or being more fun than he is.
Well, I have a gesture to make the pooch feel less ostracized: I say we
each go out and piddle on a tree or bush this weekend.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

Witless runs afoul of Mrs. Grundy's language lessons.

charicature

I think your spellchecker lied to you again, Scoots.

BTW, how many of your real-life acquaintances believe you're a closet
case? I have to admit I don't subscribe to that theory, but other RAOers
embrace it.

It would explain some of his spontaneous outbursts that can resemble
that famous Onion report.

Stephen

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 14, 7:18*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:25*pm, ScottW wrote:





On Oct 13, 8:53*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the
"DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid
and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just
like
others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. *Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

OK, I'll bite, troll. What, according to you, am I bigoted about?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid
and his ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just
like others." *You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

OK, I'll bite, troll. What, according to you, am I bigoted about?

I think Clyde has more reason to be offended by the lumping together than
Witless has. But the pooch has an insatiable need to be the center of
attention, so it's yap-yap-yap about "ilks".

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 14, 10:51*pm, ScottW wrote:

*And some claimed to file police reports when they didn't.

Gee, who would that be, dip****?

Funny thing is, you've been told the story and yet you still choose to
recycle these lies on RAO.

What's your motive here? Are you trying to get in good with the group?
Still trying to explain yourself and your despicable behavior?

That ship sailed a long time ago, Internet whacko. Maybe Bob, Bwian or
PLF will pat you on your back. Most of the group has killfiled those
three losers, too. Misery loves company. LoL!

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 15, 1:56*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 10:10*pm, Boon wrote:





On Oct 14, 11:19*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 14, 9:05*pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Shhhh! said:

BTW, how many of your real-life acquaintances believe you're a closet
case? I have to admit I don't subscribe to that theory, but other RAOers
embrace it.

I don't think he's a closet case, but people who hide behind material
success and kept trophy wives tend to have small weenies and smaller
'brains'. They also tend to be unattentive parents who end up with
criminal offspring. LOL!

Witless is always barking plaintively that we're ganging up on him, or
making him sit alone at the Nerds' Table, or being more fun than he is.

*I could give a crap about any of that. *The total disregard for the
truth you all have is what I find perplexing.
You're one big bunch of liars and proud of it trying to one up each
other.

All I have to do is bring a glimmer of reality in this virtual
gathering
that doesn't fit your paradigm....and watch you all go freaky.

Stephen's the ultimate coward having KF'd me but still sniping
like a 2nd grader who can't pass the class. *Yet that pathetic
behavior leaves him a standup guy compared to you.

The fact that you consider killfiling an act of cowardice is just
another way of saying that you need our abuse.

Wrong again dirtbag. *KF all you want, but to keep sniping
after is really the essence of chicken.

Not really. Who made the rule that once you killfile someone, you can
no longer acknowledge their existence? No, it just really bugs you
because you can't wage your petty little wars the way you want to. If
you don't like it, you can always leave. But you can't.

Really, if you think killfiling has anything to do with cowardice or
bravery, you're an idiot. This is Usenet. It's supposed to be somewhat
enjoyable. There's no bravery involved, you lunatic.


*You thrive on it.

If you think I'm bull****ting you, ask a mental health professional.

*LoL. * You seem to claim a lot of experience with mental health
professionals.

You've asked me this before, dum dum.

*It's just more dirtbag debating trade nonsense you've used before
in the only thing that makes you happy on usenet.

No, not really. It bothers me that Usenet seems to attract those with
mental disorders. I would like to talk to people. kid around and even
possible trade jabs with people who AREN'T suffering from a variety of
personality disorders.

Rest assured, I do not think that you suffer from one. No, I think
like Bratzi you are somewhere on the ASD scale. That explains why you
can't figure out why people are so put off by your behavior.

(snip the repetitious argument that I've read at least a dozen times
before with different subjects).

Look at that. Your penis is in little ribbons on the ground. Talk
about cowardice. LoL.

[Boon[_2_]]

On Oct 15, 2:04*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:03*am, Boon wrote:

On Oct 14, 10:51*pm, ScottW wrote:

*And some claimed to file police reports when they didn't.

Gee, who would that be, dip****?

* I think that was you on RAO though you've also told
me you didn't really do it.
* Just more lies on RAO.

*I doubt you...well actually I hope you didn't really drive
by his house...beause that's pretty creepy even for you.



Funny thing is, you've been told the story and yet you still choose to
recycle these lies on RAO.

*Lies? *LoL. *As you say it's a story that I retell.
If the story was largely fiction...well I'll have to give you credit
for
that.

Well, first show where I said I filed a police report.

[Jenn[_4_]]

On Oct 15, 12:00Â*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:14Â*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,

Â*ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:18Â*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:25Â*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53Â*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

Â*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37Â*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Â*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the
"DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid
and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just
like
others." Â*You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

Â*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. Â*Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

Â*It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. Â*It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

OK, I'll bite, troll.

Â* More debating from Jenn. Â*You're naked enough, please stop exposing
yourself.

Â*What, according to you, am I bigoted about?

Anyone who talks about people of an "ilk" are bigots.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance

The group does not have to be racial or ethically defined. Â*That's
just the easiest example to portray.

ScottW

A common definition of "ilk" is "member of a group". The group of
people who share the beliefs thar you and Clyde share about SSM often
use the sentence that I quoted. It's really that simple, Scott. If you
wish to believe that I'm a bigot, feel free. It only adds fuel for
those who laugh at you though.

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

A common definition of "ilk" is "member of a group". The group of
people who share the beliefs thar you and Clyde share about SSM often
use the sentence that I quoted. It's really that simple, Scott. If you
wish to believe that I'm a bigot, feel free. It only adds fuel for
those who laugh at you though.

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

Of course not. Scottie has already stated that Gays are pervs, so he's
allowed to generalize about them in any way he wants to.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 15, 2:00Â*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 11:14Â*pm, Jenn wrote:





In article
,

Â*ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:18Â*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:25Â*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53Â*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

Â*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37Â*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Â*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the
"DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid
and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just
like
others." Â*You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

Â*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. Â*Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

Â*It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. Â*It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

OK, I'll bite, troll.

Â* More debating from Jenn. Â*You're naked enough, please stop exposing
yourself.

Â*What, according to you, am I bigoted about?

Anyone who talks about people of an "ilk" are bigots.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance

The group does not have to be racial or ethically defined. Â*That's
just the easiest example to portray.

So someone who agrees on the same issue for stupid reasons cannot be
referred to as "being of the same ilk" without being a "bigot".

I see, 2pid, I see.

BTW, 2pid: "ridicule" is not synonymous with "hatred and intolerance".

Duh. LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 15, 5:52*pm, Jenn wrote:

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

People who live the Gay lifestyle deserve whatever they get. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 15, 11:12Â*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 3:52Â*pm, Jenn wrote:





On Oct 15, 12:00Â*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 14, 11:14Â*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

Â*ScottW wrote:
On Oct 14, 7:18Â*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 14, 6:25Â*pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 13, 8:53Â*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article
,

Â*ScottW2 wrote:
On Oct 13, 5:37Â*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article ,
Â*George M. Middius wrote:

Jenn said:

Remember what happened right after Clinton signed the
"DADT" law? A
couple
of states immediately passed laws making sodomy illegal.
Eighteenth-century
enlightenment, here we come!

And then there's the whole anti-gay marriage crap that 2pid
and his
ilk get all flustered over.

"Gay people can marry those of those of the opposite sex just
like
others." Â*You mean crap like that?

Clyde said that, not Witless.

He would be the "ilk" that was mentioned.

Â*Jenn falls victim to the same stereotype mentality
that she claims persecutes her.

Good job Jenn.

ScottW

It's a direct quote from Clyde. Â*Bring it up with him.

It's your naked "ilk" bigotry that is most repulsive
though I'm sure you lack the self-awareness to see it.

Which begs the question...if you're so repulsed by us, why do you
stay?

Â*It's not your repulsiveness that is repulsive. Â*It's more the facade
of
Jenn's decency that really disgusts.
That's a facade you've never mastered in spite of all your efforts.

Once I realize how prone to bigotry she really is...She's not
intolerable.

OK, I'll bite, troll.

Â* More debating from Jenn. Â*You're naked enough, please stop exposing
yourself.

Â*What, according to you, am I bigoted about?

Anyone who talks about people of an "ilk" are bigots.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the
members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance

The group does not have to be racial or ethically defined. Â*That's
just the easiest example to portray.

ScottW

A common definition of "ilk" is "member of a group". The group of
people who share the beliefs thar you and Clyde share about SSM often
use the sentence that I quoted.

It's your presumption of common beliefs that is the basis for all
bigotry.

You are against gay marriage. Clyde is against gay marriage. The
reasons are illogical.

You are of the same ilk no matter how much you weep and wail. Duh.
LOL!

It's really that simple, Scott. If you
wish to believe that I'm a bigot, feel free.

Â*You've proven it. Â*You group people and assert beliefs
they do not equally hold.

So IY(S)O there are "good" reasons to be anti-gay and "bad" reasons
and yours are "good" reasons. LOL!

It only adds fuel for
those who laugh at you though.

Â* Are you so spineless that you care what
the we-minded think?

We all laugh at you for various reasons, 2pid. We are "of the same
ilk" in that regard, dum-dum.

Â* I gave you more credit than that, but I guess I
was wrong.

Wah.

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

Â*No. Â*That's the problem with bigots. Â*Everything is so full
of blanks. Â*Try understanding people as individuals and
stop stereotyping. Â*That only results in you invariably being wrong
and a bigot.

So which gays do you individually support for the right to marry in
California? And whom do you oppose for that right?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Oct 15, 5:52*pm, Jenn wrote:

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

People who live the Gay lifestyle deserve whatever they get. LoL.

Apparently Jenn is stupid enough

lol You really want to go there? OK, I'll play along for awhile.

to be influenced by the lies
you two.

Explains why Obermann confuses her so.

He doesn't confuse me at all. I have at average comprehension skills.
Between you and me, that makes one of us.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 15, 11:14*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:03*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Oct 15, 5:52*pm, Jenn wrote:

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

People who live the Gay lifestyle deserve whatever they get. LoL.

Apparently Jenn is stupid enough to be influenced by the lies
you two.

What "lies", 2pid? Those stupid ****ing Gays all go to "pos-pos"
parties as a result of their "lifestyle", right?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless barked:

People who live the Gay lifestyle deserve whatever they get. LoL.

Apparently Jenn is stupid enough to be influenced by the lies
you two.

You claim to be educated and to have a job with considerable responsibility,
and yet you are incapable of writing a 10-word sentence without ****ing it up.
A Smart Person would be ashamed of such poor expression, but all you can do is
bark and chase your tail.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 15, 2:12*pm, Boon wrote:
On Oct 15, 2:04*pm, ScottW wrote:





On Oct 15, 6:03*am, Boon wrote:

On Oct 14, 10:51*pm, ScottW wrote:

*And some claimed to file police reports when they didn't.

Gee, who would that be, dip****?

* I think that was you on RAO though you've also told
me you didn't really do it.
* Just more lies on RAO.

*I doubt you...well actually I hope you didn't really drive
by his house...beause that's pretty creepy even for you.

Funny thing is, you've been told the story and yet you still choose to
recycle these lies on RAO.

*Lies? *LoL. *As you say it's a story that I retell.
If the story was largely fiction...well I'll have to give you credit
for
that.

Well, first show where I said I filed a police report.

2pid already "proved" that beyond a shadow of a doubt: "I think that
was you on RAO".

Learn to read. Geez.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Witless is on a tear.

By the way, would those who say things like. "Gay people ____." be
bigots in your view?

No. That's the problem with bigots.

I have here a quote from one of your earlier yapdowns. As usual, it's little
more than word salad, but I suspect you were yapping about your own bigotry:

The George needs a new liver cuz his gay lifestyle
killed his but he can't pay for the operation kind of
healthcare that is a problem.

You upchucked that glob of malformed yapping in August 2008. That probably
means you'll deny responsibility for translating it. My question is why did
you refer to me as "The George", or in the alternative, were you referring to
somebody else?

Don't worry about translating the rest of the gibberish. It's enough that you
did, in fact, use the odious term "gay lifestyle" to cloak your bigotry.

Shall we revisit your rants about "pos-pos parties"?