[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

Yup...if we'd implemented mandatory testing and quarantines
AIDS would be a non-issue in America today.

And if we quarantined people for stupidity you'd be childless and alone
in a pen somewhere.

[MiNe 109]

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
paul packer said:

I would guess that since it is a 'gay disease' or an 'African
disease'
that other cures take priority.

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because
AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

http://www.fairfoundation.org/factslinks.htm

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending with the
appearance of cherry-picking.


http://70.84.59.4/~pcacoal/advocacy_research_home.htm

Nope. You're off the mark. A hint: does "per death" include Africa?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Kidnapped and put on ice by the AP.

Does that one-strike standard for credibility apply to right-wing
bloggers?

Stephen

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 17 Jan 2007 16:05:01 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Most likely they just want to cut people's hair, note.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

[paul packer]

On 17 Jan 2007 08:26:24 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


paul packer wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 00:43:04 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

Packer already capitulated and stated he's not against gays marrying. I
don't sense that from you, which is fine, but then please restate the
above argument so that it reflects your logic.

That's no capitulation but a re-statement of the position I've held
all along--I consider it a non-issue. I just wonder why gays even care
about such an outmoded "straight" institution.

Incidentally, I was thinking about the apparent contradiction in the
word "tolerance" as defined by conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives view it--and I know I do--as meaning letting people do
what they want without interference; letting them be themselves.
Liberals seem to demand more, namely, a measure of approval. In short,
if I say that I disapprove of homosexuality but would not interfere
with homosexuals or even express my disapproval aloud, I'm branded a
bigot---it seems my quiet disapproval is unacceptable and I should
take a more approving stance to be truly progressive. Well, I reject
that. I have a right to disapprove, as I have a right to maintain my
own set of values. So I reject any demand to express approval of what
I do not approve of.

Nice strawman, Paul.

Say, do you think that homosexuality is a choice someone makes, like
choosing what color to dye your hair?

Nope. Generally speaking you bring it with you.

You must, or you could not 'disapprove' of someone being gay in the
first place, quiet or otherwise. Either that or disapproving of
someone's skin color or gender makes as much sense.

First of all, I don't disapprove of someone being gay. Remember my
quote befo "It's not what one is, it's what one does with it." What
I disapprove of is promiscuity, impropriety and generally
inappropriate or anti-social behaviour in anyone, gay or straight.
However I've said that already and you apparently missed it.

So the question is this: if being gay is a choice, then how do we
cure/help those that have gone down the path which you know to be wrong
(or else why would you 'disapprove')? We should be helping these
people, don't you agree?

Come on, Shhhh!. You've gone six steps ahead of yourself--and me. Back
up and come right.

If it is not a choice, then how do you reconcile your 'disapproval' of
gays (because that would be like 'disapproving' of women or blacks or
people with moles)?

Answer above. No disapproval of the fact of being gay. (Stupid word).

In any case I do disapprove of people with moles. It's disgusting.

And you find it odd that some might call you intolerant?

Read my answers again. Do you find it odd that some call you dyslexic?
:-)

[paul packer]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:11:58 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

I would guess that since it is a 'gay disease' or an 'African disease'
that other cures take priority.

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

It doesn't have to be a position, Mr. No-Impropriety-That-Offends-Me. It's a
fact. Or, more precisely, it was a fact until the early '90s. When did your
government get serious about research into HIV and AIDS?




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade is just one more example of your reading
comprehension and tolerance. Very impressive.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Scottiedork made a joke!

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.

I get it! Hahahaha. Ha.


At this point, I'm going to conclude you were not joking when you complained
about my "reporting" of Phoebe Johnston to her non-employer. What's your IQ,
anyway? Somebody said it has to be over 90, but I have my doubts.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
paul packer said:

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

It doesn't have to be a position, Mr. No-Impropriety-That-Offends-Me. It's a
fact. Or, more precisely, it was a fact until the early '90s. When did your
government get serious about research into HIV and AIDS?

When we found out that the crazy gays would really rather die than be
tested
and accept safe sex. You're really one of the most selfish groups ever
to
walk the planet.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Yapper chokes on his personal language barrier.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade[sic] is just one more example of your reading
comprehension and tolerance. Very impressive.

Once again, you embarass yourself by abusing a common word. Now be a good
little **** and go look up "tirade" in the dictionary.

For future reference, you could have described Shhhh's remark as a barb, or
a taunt, or a jab, or a twit. But a tirade it was not, ****.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[ScottW]

George M. Middius wrote:
Yapper chokes on his personal language barrier.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade[sic] is just one more example of your reading
comprehension and tolerance. Very impressive.

Once again, you embarass yourself by abusing a common word. Now be a good
little **** and go look up "tirade" in the dictionary.

For future reference, you could have described Shhhh's remark as a barb, or
a taunt, or a jab, or a twit. But a tirade it was not, ****.

I was referring to the entire thread....and sssshhhh is certainly
prone to
lengthy tirades. Just watch...I see one coming now.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Yapper tries to focus his stupidity on a nonexistent target.

Yapper chokes on his personal language barrier.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade[sic]

Once again, you embarass yourself by abusing a common word. Now be a good
little **** and go look up "tirade" in the dictionary.

For future reference, you could have described Shhhh's remark as a barb, or
a taunt, or a jab, or a twit. But a tirade it was not, ****.

I was referring to the entire thread

No, imbecile, you were referring to the short post to which you responded.

I asked what your IQ is. Your silence tends to confirm my suspicion that
it's under 90.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On 17 Jan 2007 08:26:24 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:


paul packer wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 00:43:04 -0800, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

Packer already capitulated and stated he's not against gays marrying. I
don't sense that from you, which is fine, but then please restate the
above argument so that it reflects your logic.

That's no capitulation but a re-statement of the position I've held
all along--I consider it a non-issue. I just wonder why gays even care
about such an outmoded "straight" institution.

Incidentally, I was thinking about the apparent contradiction in the
word "tolerance" as defined by conservatives and liberals.
Conservatives view it--and I know I do--as meaning letting people do
what they want without interference; letting them be themselves.
Liberals seem to demand more, namely, a measure of approval. In short,
if I say that I disapprove of homosexuality but would not interfere
with homosexuals or even express my disapproval aloud, I'm branded a
bigot---it seems my quiet disapproval is unacceptable and I should
take a more approving stance to be truly progressive. Well, I reject
that. I have a right to disapprove, as I have a right to maintain my
own set of values. So I reject any demand to express approval of what
I do not approve of.

Nice strawman, Paul.

Say, do you think that homosexuality is a choice someone makes, like
choosing what color to dye your hair?

Nope. Generally speaking you bring it with you.

You must, or you could not 'disapprove' of someone being gay in the
first place, quiet or otherwise. Either that or disapproving of
someone's skin color or gender makes as much sense.

First of all, I don't disapprove of someone being gay. Remember my
quote befo "It's not what one is, it's what one does with it." What
I disapprove of is promiscuity, impropriety and generally
inappropriate or anti-social behaviour in anyone, gay or straight.
However I've said that already and you apparently missed it.

So the question is this: if being gay is a choice, then how do we
cure/help those that have gone down the path which you know to be wrong
(or else why would you 'disapprove')? We should be helping these
people, don't you agree?

Come on, Shhhh!. You've gone six steps ahead of yourself--and me. Back
up and come right.

If it is not a choice, then how do you reconcile your 'disapproval' of
gays (because that would be like 'disapproving' of women or blacks or
people with moles)?

Answer above. No disapproval of the fact of being gay. (Stupid word).

In any case I do disapprove of people with moles. It's disgusting.

Moles are OK; opossums bother me though.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
Yapper chokes on his personal language barrier.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade[sic] is just one more example of your reading
comprehension and tolerance. Very impressive.

Once again, you embarass yourself by abusing a common word. Now be a good
little **** and go look up "tirade" in the dictionary.

For future reference, you could have described Shhhh's remark as a barb, or
a taunt, or a jab, or a twit. But a tirade it was not, ****.

I was referring to the entire thread....and sssshhhh is certainly
prone to
lengthy tirades. Just watch...I see one coming now.

You're right, toopid! And here it is!

You're a moron.

End of tirade.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
paul packer said:

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

It doesn't have to be a position, Mr. No-Impropriety-That-Offends-Me. It's a
fact. Or, more precisely, it was a fact until the early '90s. When did your
government get serious about research into HIV and AIDS?

When we found out that the crazy gays would really rather die than be
tested
and accept safe sex. You're really one of the most selfish groups ever
to
walk the planet.

I think we should quarantine these groups:

IDUs: injection drug use has been associated directly or indirectly
(e.g., through sex with IDUs, mother-child transmission) with more than
one-third of AIDS cases in the United States.

Heterosexual men and women: Over the past several years, however, the
proportion of AIDS cases attributable to injection drug use has
declined, while AIDS cases attributable to heterosexual transmission
have increased. From 2000 through 2004, the annual number of AIDS
diagnoses attributable to heterosexual contact increased 18 percent
among women and 24 percent among men.

Black people: African-Americans experience striking disparities in
HIV-infection rates compared with other populations, and they are at
particularly high risk for developing AIDS.

Hispanic, black and white females: African- American females accounted
for 68 percent of the female HIV/AIDS diagnoses from 2001 through 2004
while White females accounted for 16 percent and Hispanic females 15
percent.

Young people: Young people (ages 13 to 24) are also at risk for
HIV/AIDS, with minority youth at particularly high risk.

Gay people: In 2003, MSM and those exposed through heterosexual contact
together accounted for approximately 77 percent of cases

Asians: http://www.amfar.org/cgi-bin/iowa/as....html?record=4

Eastern Europeans: http://www.avert.org/ecstatee.htm
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTE...571172,00.html

My argument is this: once we quarantine all the gay and straight
people, all of the minorities, all of the Europeans, IDUs, and all of
the young people, both male and female, we should have a pretty good
start on getting this thing under control.

http://www.drugabuse.gov/ResearchRep...iv3.html#Which

toopid, report to your quarantine station tonight. It's in the middle
of the northbound lane of the I-5. Dress in black and lie down in the
middle of the lane until we contact you.

Moron.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:20:12 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:


So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Most likely they just want to cut people's hair, note.


I don't get it.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
Scottiedork made a joke!

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.

I get it! Hahahaha. Ha.


At this point, I'm going to conclude you were not joking when you complained
about my "reporting" of Phoebe Johnston to her non-employer. What's your IQ,
anyway? Somebody said it has to be over 90, but I have my doubts.

You're going to **** toopid off.

You know how he likes all of his sources to be documented.

So exactly who did toopid fool into thinking he was smarter than he is?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:56:41 -0500, George M. Middius cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote:



paul packer said:

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

It doesn't have to be a position, Mr. No-Impropriety-That-Offends-Me.

Stop sulking, George--it doesn't become you. And stop shouting too.

It's a fact. Or, more precisely, it was a fact until the early '90s.

And since then?

When did your
government get serious about research into HIV and AIDS?

Wouldn't have a clue. Our goverment is rarely serious about anything
that isn't transparently vote-winning, and everyone seems to have
forgotten about AIDS the last few years.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

George M. Middius wrote:
Yapper chokes on his personal language barrier.

I base your zero percent credibility on your posts, toopid.

and this little tirade[sic] is just one more example of your reading
comprehension and tolerance. Very impressive.

Once again, you embarass yourself by abusing a common word. Now be a good
little **** and go look up "tirade" in the dictionary.

For future reference, you could have described Shhhh's remark as a barb, or
a taunt, or a jab, or a twit. But a tirade it was not, ****.

It was actually intended merely as a retort. toopid's parry was to
thrust his head farther up his ass... again.

Very impressive indeed.

LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....

How can you tell? You have some secret information that could benefit
all of mankind, and you hold on to it. That's pretty selfish...

some like you choose to be hetero.

A "You're gay!" joke?

Why toopid, your humor is improving!

Should I respond with a "Why do you choose to be so dense?" tirade?

LOL!

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

George M. Middius a scris:


We want equality under the law.



You got it!

But what you really want, is for society to consider you "normal".

What do you mean by "normal" in this context? More like "majority" or
more like "natural"?

[Jenn]

In article . com,
"ScottW" wrote:

George M. Middius wrote:
paul packer said:

Are you suggesting resources have been directed elsewhere because AIDS
mainly affects gays and poor (foreign) blacks?

NO ****, SHERLOCK! Where the hell have you been dozing?

I'm not suggesting otherwise, George. It wouldn't surprise me. I'm
asking if that's his position.

It doesn't have to be a position, Mr. No-Impropriety-That-Offends-Me. It's a
fact. Or, more precisely, it was a fact until the early '90s. When did your
government get serious about research into HIV and AIDS?

When we found out that the crazy gays would really rather die than be
tested
and accept safe sex. You're really one of the most selfish groups ever
to
walk the planet.

Glad to see that you've stopped making blanket statements.

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending
with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and
AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that
AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos
from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up
hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except
that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility
gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....snip

I've never known any gay people who made such a choice.

[Clyde Slick]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! a scris:
Clyde Slick wrote:
George M. Middius a scris:


We want equality under the law.



You got it!

No, they don't.

"Don't ask, don't tell" is but one example.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi..._gay_equality/

Here are others:

http://www.glad.org/


The discussion leading to my post was exclusively about
same sex marriage, and my comment was so directed.

Maybe you misunderstood that. I would hate
to think that you are entering the cesspool known as "the debating
trade".

You are right, there is discrimination in other areas, and that
should be fixed.

AFA gays in the military, I think there can be some resolution
between allowing gays while still having an effective
force and maintaining discipline and morale.
The militayr has effectively dealt with race and women issues, and
it eventually resolve gay issues.

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.



I didn't choose" to be hetero.
It's just the way I am.

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.



Tell us about your defining moment, when
you chose to be hetero rather than gay.

[Clyde Slick]

Jenn a scris:
In article .com,
"Clyde Slick" wrote:

George M. Middius a scris:


We want equality under the law.



You got it!

But what you really want, is for society to consider you "normal".

What do you mean by "normal" in this context? More like "majority" or
more like "natural"?

"NAtural"
but most likely not in the sense that you think, based
upon our previous discussions on this very same same aspect.

[paul packer]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 04:37:56 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


In any case I do disapprove of people with moles. It's disgusting.

Moles are OK; opossums bother me though.

Don't know about the 'O' part, but we had possums in our ceiling for
years. I used to chase them across the rafters throwing sticks etc.
Once I cornered one. We sat looking at each for some time rather
dolefully. Finally I said, "OK, come on, you can go," and the thing
immediately walked up to me, sniffed my knee and walked on quite
calmly. I had no doubt it knew exactly what I said.

Further proving that animals have intelligence, our cat used to get
very excited whenever someone said, "Ted Danson". Just that, nothing
else. I have no explanation. Certainly Ted Danson never excited
me---but of course we won't go there. :-)

[Clyde Slick]

George M. Middius a scris:
Shhhh! said:

You've said that someone being gay is not by choice. Therefore any
policy or law that applies only to gays or that singles gays out as a
class is discriminatory.

Clyde isn't bothered by discrimination, as long as it's not against him.
I think he learned that bit of antilogic from Terrierdork.


Its not discrimination. Any man can amrry any woman.
as long as neither is married to anyone else.

By your definition, disallowing bigamy is discrimination,

[George M. Middius]

bassett yelped:

In the absence of any other evidence, the only conclusion can be is
that this *belief* is not based on any rational line of thought.

There[sic] both total incapable of "Rational Thoughts''

Can you please roll over and play dead now? TIA.



--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:33:28 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:20:12 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:


So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Most likely they just want to cut people's hair, note.


I don't get it.

Homophobe!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/broadband/media...ain_s3ep6_16x9
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebr...paper.shtml#10

[ScottW]

Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending
with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and
AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that
AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos
from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up
hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except
that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility
gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....snip

I've never known any gay people who made such a choice.

3 gay women in my extended family who I've had conversations with
regarding
their sexuality.
1 disdains intercourse but prefers men to women for emotional
relationship. She accepts
that she may live the rest of her days alone and self gratifying.
The other 2 aren't really gay but are bisexual. They can't find a
suitable male partner so they
took on relationships with women. Its clear they would like to have a
man but have
accepted relationships with women and now call themselves gay.
All 3 are black and the shortage of suitable black men plays a role
in their situation.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Clyde Slick wrote:
ScottW a scris:

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.



Tell us about your defining moment, when
you chose to be hetero rather than gay.

Some are..some aren't ....

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

ScottW a scris:
Clyde Slick wrote:
ScottW a scris:

Some are...some aren't....some like you choose to be hetero.



Tell us about your defining moment, when
you chose to be hetero rather than gay.

Some are..some aren't ....

ScottW

You seem to be saying that you were just made
that way, hetero.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

You seem to be saying that you were just made
that way, hetero.

Not necessarily. People with sub-90 IQs are much more susceptible to the
herd mentality.




--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
MiNe 109 said:

Highly suspect, starting with the zero-sum premise and ending
with the
appearance of cherry-picking.

I was referring of our country's shameful non-response to HIV and
AIDS under
Reagan. Where did you find a zero-sum premise on that page?

Where it says AIDS is over-funded. What's it to other diseases that
AIDS
gets some funding?

Gotcha. Isn't it well-established that AIDS is a plague on the homos
from
God hisself?

He's ****ed cuz West Nile wins.

Typical sideways argument. Whatever happened to that Jamail guy?

Is he the one who accused American soldiers of shooting up
hospitals in
Iraq?

Maybe: he told AP Iraqis doused other Iraqis with kerosene, except
that
according to Scott's sources he doesn't exist.

Scottie also believes in DBTs for consumers. His personal credibility
gap
reminds me of the Grand Canyon.

Figures you'd base a personal credibility on something so silly.
Anyway, reality (which I'm sure you care little about) is
I'd like to see DBTs from reviewers.

So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Some are...some aren't....snip

I've never known any gay people who made such a choice.

3 gay women in my extended family who I've had conversations with
regarding
their sexuality.
1 disdains intercourse but prefers men to women for emotional
relationship. She accepts
that she may live the rest of her days alone and self gratifying.

What is it that makes her gay as opposed to, say, asexual? Not enjoying
or not having an interest in hetero sex does not necessarily mean that
one is gay. Unless, of course, someone who chooses not to have hetero
sex is automatically gay, like, say, catholic nuns. The fact that she
prefers the company of men would lead me to believe that she is not
gay.

The other 2 aren't really gay but are bisexual. They can't find a
suitable male partner so they
took on relationships with women. Its clear they would like to have a
man but have
accepted relationships with women and now call themselves gay.
All 3 are black and the shortage of suitable black men plays a role
in their situation.

In your own words, these other two "aren't really gay." But you base
your generalization on gays using these two anyway. What a ****ing
moron. LOL!

So you base your argument that "some [i.e. people] are, some aren't"
gay by choice on faulty logic, using three women (two of whom you do
not even claim to be gay, the third who probably isn't) who all sound
like they have issues with sex, from the same family, to generalize to
an entire population.

Surprise, surprise. toopid's head is up his ass... again.

Moron.

[paul packer]

Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:33:28 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:20:12 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:


So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Most likely they just want to cut people's hair, note.


I don't get it.

Homophobe!

I don't get it.

[Goofball_star_dot_etal]

On 18 Jan 2007 15:47:39 -0800, "paul packer"
wrote:


Goofball_star_dot_etal wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 06:33:28 GMT, (paul packer)
wrote:

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:20:12 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:


So toopid: is someone who is gay making a choice to be gay?

Most likely they just want to cut people's hair, note.


I don't get it.

Homophobe!

I don't get it.

John's dad say "Evolution run on noise."