Activism Change » Activism Definition

"Reclaiming America for Bigotry"

admin — Sat, 13 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be. A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t make their sexual orientation into a political issue… Then why express your negative opinion about homosexuals? I was expressing a negative opinion about those who use spurious arguments to redefine marriage,… Interesting. Since NO arguments favoring same-sex marriage are spurious! This is why, to the furious chagrin of the ‘phobes, we have been winning our cause consistently before the courts. In the court-room, the spurious, the absurd, the silly, stuff is stripped away by the rules of evidence, melted by the scrutiny of logic. This is why the ‘phobes are so crazed — they just simply. "don’t get it."

And knowing bigots, most of them, unfortunately never will. Even though I still dpon’t know of any studies on this, I would not be a BIT surprised to learn that most people having so brain- dead a mindset can be found WITHIN that group of 5,600,000 Americans wh have IQs of 62 and lower. (And whenever I point out that possibility, I always give CREDIT to the millions of people in that group who are able to COMPENSATE for that handicap, and be functional and satisfied members of society.) So when THIS loathsome agenda of bigotry takes its final ride to the bottom of the Drain of Extinction, we’ll see most of those bigots going into the closet AS bigots, rather than face the ridicule of their peers. Leaving us to wonder what NEW target they’ll ultimately settle on. Because bigots are only happy when they can be HATEFUL to people. Gives them a sense of power in their pitiful and disfunctional, **nothing** lives. ward "You can’t claim you’re the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there’s one area I don’t want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it’s love." Bill Maher

Response:

To redefine marriage as an institution that integrates the sexes based on their inherent differences. To have the government sanction their relationships as *the same as or equavalent to* heterosexual marriage. They’re not. Gays have the same rights as others, …except for, let’s see: marriage, military service, etc.

Military service and governmental recognition of your relationship are not rights. –S

Response:

Changing the definition of marriage is the one we were discussing – where have you been?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be. A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t make their sexual orientation into a political issue… Then why express your negative opinion about homosexuals? I was expressing a negative opinion about those who use spurious arguments to redefine marriage,… Intersting. Since NO arguments favoring same-sex marriage are spurious!

Your opinion. Others beg to differ. …but I see you’re not much brighter than Craig. An OBJECTIVE and intelligent outside observer reading the posts in these groups for a few days or weeks would almost surely conclude that it would probably take at least 100 bigots, *combined*, to equal the common sense and fairness that is possessed by any *one* egalitarian.

Nah, and objective and intelligent outsider may or may not agree with my position, but would note that I’m using some semblance of logic to support it, as opposed to the vitriolic foaming you are engaged in…

Response:

Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior. Name ONE "special right" gays are seeking. Changing the definition of marriage is the one we were discussing – where have you been?

That’s not a special right. Anyone can do so that wishes and can gather enough support or earn recognition by the courts. Where’ve you been? — "Reports that say something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don’t know we don’t know." – Donald Rumsfeld,

Response:

Intersting. Since NO arguments favoring same-sex marriage are spurious! …but I see you’re not much brighter than Craig.

An OBJECTIVE and intelligent outside observer reading the posts in these groups for a few days or weeks would almost surely conclude that it would probably take at least 100 bigots, *combined*, to equal the common sense and fairness that is possessed by any *one* egalitarian. And that’s conservative. It might take closer to 1,000 bigots, and even that many might not suffice. And Kris runs CIRCLES around you in that regard.

Response:

Name ONE "special right" gays are seeking. Gays have the same rights as others,

…except for, let’s see: marriage, military service, etc.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be. A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t make their sexual orientation into a political issue… Then why express your negative opinion about homosexuals? I was expressing a negative opinion about those who use spurious arguments to redefine marriage,… Intersting. Since NO arguments favoring same-sex marriage are spurious!

This is why, to the furious chagrin of the ‘phobes, we have been winning our cause consistently before the courts., In the court-room the spurious, the absurd, the silly, stuff is stripped away by the rules of evidence, melted by the scrutiny of logic. This is why the ‘phobes are so crazed — they just simply. "don’t get it." ward "You can’t claim you’re the party of smaller government, and then clamor to make laws about love. If there’s one area I don’t want the US government to add to its list of screw-ups, it’s love." Bill Maher

Response:

Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior. Name ONE "special right" gays are seeking. To redefine marriage as an institution that integrates the sexes based on their inherent differences.

A definition and a right are different things. Not to mention the fact that alongside gays, there are even MORE straights fighting to eliminate bigotry from the "definition" of marriage. To have the government sanction their relationships as *the same as or equavalent to* heterosexual marriage.

In other words, EQUAL rights. Not special rights. They way you would have it is marriage being a special right for straights. They’re not.

Bigot. Gays have the same rights as others, …except for, let’s see: marriage, military service, etc. Military service and governmental recognition of your relationship are not rights.

Everybody has a right not to be discriminated against by the government which represents them. What part of "equal rights for all" don’t you understand? — Peacenik

Response:

I properly recognize a bigot as any person who seeks to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance. And that is NOT an extreme view. The extreme view clearly is that being held by the person ignorant enough to be a bigot. That is a provable lie.

Wrong. See below. You have called me a bigot, yet you have no evidence that I "seek to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance."

One wouldn’t have to look far. You have **publicly** opposed EQUAL rights for gays to get married in most of your recent posts. Since sexual behavior in **private** between consenting, non-family- member adults is the *private* behavior of concern in this… and since such sex between same-sex partners is **normal** for gays, who were born with their orientation… just as people are born right- handed and left-handed… you HAVE provided direct evidence of seeking to discrimanate against a group of millions of people over a totally TRIVIAL matter. And that DOES make you a hateful bigot.

Response:

Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior. Name ONE "special right" gays are seeking. Changing the definition of marriage is the one we were discussing — where have you been?

When the U.S. Supeme Court struck down the laws of 17 states that banned interracial marriage, it DID just that. JUST as dramatically as *this* will. That was 37 years, ago, and American society was ENHANCED by that inclusion. This will be no different, and 5 years after it happens, people won’t even give it a second thought anymore. And in BOTH cases, NO "special" rights were involved. Recognition of the EQUAL right of interracial couples to marry was conferred, just as recognition of the EQUAL right of same- sex couples to marry WILL be conferred. Both instances are simply the CORRECTION of hateful INequities.

Response:

I proerly recognize a bigot as any person who seeks to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance. And that is NOT an extreme view. The extreme view clearly is that being held by the person ignorant enough to be a bigot.

That is a provable lie. You have called me a bigot, yet you have no evidence that I "seek to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance." William R. James

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be. A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t make their sexual orientation into a political issue… Then why express your negative opinion about homosexuals? I was expressing a negative opinion about those who use spurious arguments to redefine marriage,… Intersting. Since NO arguments favoring same-sex marriage are spurious! Your opinion. Others beg to differ.

They’re sure keeping QUIET then, since no one that I know of in here or anywhere else has YET managed to provide ANY valid reason for denying. It’s ALL opinion, and NO **facts**. Here’s your big chance to be the FIRST person to come up with one. Unless I’m right… and NO such fact exists. In which case you would, of course, find that to be impossible. …but I see you’re not much brighter than Craig. An OBJECTIVE and intelligent outside observer reading the posts in these groups for a few days or weeks would almost surely conclude that it would probably take at least 100 bigots, *combined*, to equal the common sense and fairness that is possessed by any *one* egalitarian. Nah, and objective and intelligent outsider may or may not agree with my position, but would note that I’m using some semblance of logic to support it, as opposed to the vitriolic foaming you are engaged in…

Defending people’s liberties with FACT-based arguments is what I so, and is quite the OPPOSITE of what you just described.The DENY a reasonable libert to people, one needs to have GOOD reasons. You have NONE. Thus, *you* are the one doing all the vitriolic foaming. Keeping yout verbiage some- what in check doesn’t negate that. At bottom, you are just as bigoted, and just as mindless, as are the more extreme of your ilk in here. To argue against person liberties *without* having any relevant **facts** to back your stance is not all all logical… not even a "semblance" of it.

Response:

(You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be.

A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t make their sexual orientation into a political issue so that everyone in the world would KNOW what they did. (I noticed you posted the same crap twice – I have responded elswhere in this tread – no need to duplicate it here…)

Response:

Then why express your negative opinion about homosexuals?

Response:

I was expressing a negative opinion about those who use spurious arguments to redefine marriage, but I see you’re not much brighter than Craig.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s not what the eight oligarchical leaders of the RRR Cult call it, but that’s exactly what their annual crusade against individual liberties, held at D. James Kennedy’s Fort Lauderdale, FL headquarters **IS**. Just as his hourly-long TV program is a hate-fest about 3/4 of the time, and would be far more accurately named, "The Bigotry Hour" than "The Coral Ridge Hour," the same is true of the conference that they call, "Reclaiming America for Christ." Every year, after **months** of hyping it in syndication over network TV, and over cable’s Trinity Broadcasting Network, Kennedy manages to con people into attending it from all over this nation of 290,000,000 people. Or 320 million, if one counts the Canadians. To listen to the very MOST bigoted speakers in North America delivering a pep rally to their lemmings that would rival any KKK rally. of millions of people, all Kennedy can eek out in terms of attendance… is only around a mere 1,200 or so. To the sensible egalitarians of America (which includes countless of millions of ACTUAL Christians (as opposed to being RRR cultists)… just keep right on fighting for fairness, equal rights, and individual liberties. We out- number the bigots EXPONENTIALLY, and if we *avoid* apathy, and keep active, we CAN make North America a Bigotry-Free Continent! And we can do it SOON! I noticed you had no specifics to discuss… "NO specifics?" So, then I *didn’t* provide such specifics as THESE, above? — – The RRR cult has an oligarchical leadership. – Its leadership consists of eight primary leaders. – One of those leaders organizes a pep rally for lemmings of the RRR to attend. – That particular leader is D. James Kennedy. – The badly named rally is called "Reclaiming America for Christ" — even though, in *reality*, it is an effort to reclaim America for BIGOTRY. – The rally is held annually. – Speakers for the rally are culled from the cream of bigotry’s crop. – The rally is held at D. James Kennedy’s HQ in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. – The rally is promoted for months beforehand. – The promotions are made on Kennedy’s own syndicated broadcasts, on network TV stations. – About 3/4 of the time, Kennedy spews bigotry on his TV show. – The promotions also are made over the Trinity Broadcasting Network. – Despite months of advance hyping the rally to millions of people, average attendance at the event is only a paltry 1,200 or so. That’s more than a DOZEN very specific points. So you either are a pathological liar, or you are a **profoundly** stupid person. Very likely both. AND — as I’ve pointed out later in this post, we can recall (at those upcoming junctures) that your claim, above, that I "had no specifics to discuss" was one more proof of your DISHONESTY. You’re blathering, assuming that everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme views is a bigot. Wrong on two counts. I proerly recognize a bigot as any person who seeks to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance.

Ah, but is discrimination alone "bigotry"? I discriminate against unwashed, unkempt individuals with obvious health problems by avoiding them – is that bigotry? When hiring people for an employer, I discriminate against people who don’t have the necessary job skills, a questionable job history, and a lack of demonstrable interest in the job – is that also bigotry? Even so, the fact of the matter is that the marriage laws do NOT discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, nor is there any requirement that the people marrying love each other. All it says is that those people must be of the opposite sex – no reference or prohibition regarding preference whatsoever. Once again, your objection is not based on any codified discrimination on the basis of sexual preference – it’s based on the shaky and laughable assumption that the law is discriminatory merely because some subset of the populate WISHES to break said law. Again, the law does not even refer to the subset, much less place any restrictions on them – the subset merely has to abide by the same condition that is placed on all other groups. You’re histrionics suggest that your obsession is based more on your emotional tendencies and narcissistic desire for attention, as opposed to any sober and rational analysis of the issue at hand. And that is NOT an extreme view. The extreme view clearly is that being held by the person ignorant enough to be a bigot.

It IS an extreme view that is far from the mainstream interpretation of marriage. Note again that I’m necessarily stating that all extreme views are wrong – I’m merely stating that it’s so far outside the mainstream that most people view it as ridiculous, offense, or in some cases, both. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. "Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be.

As I stated, I find it interesting that an allegedly married straight man in his 60’s would get so worked up over this… It’s not just the fact that you have a particular opinion on this subject (even a strong one), but the fact that it’s such a hot-button issue with you that has totally consumed you – look at your hysterica headers and the time you have spent propagating this thread If it were the 1960s, and Usenet had existed then, I **surely** would have been saying these SAME things on a newsgroup dedicated to problems being faced by blacks — even though I’m Caucasion.

Fact of the matter is that I came from a family of civil-rights advocates ("freedom riders" and those who supported them) who were indeed passionate and dedicated about their cause – yet despite the fact that real injustices (rather than the imagined ones you inflate into major issues) were being inflicted on black people, their behavior never even came CLOSE to the level of histrionics exhibited by you regarding this issue. Then again, they were for the most part rational, mentally balanced individuals – whether you are of similar composure is questionable. You clearly are an idiot.

You clearly are prone to hyperbole, which tends to diminish your credibility… And to date, I have never even *attended* a "Gay Pride" event, much less "competed" in one. Well, I would hate to think of what type of competitive events they would have at a "Gay Pride" event anyway. YOU are the one who came up with that stupid idea.

I merely did some research and asked you a yes-or-no question, and accepted your answer at face value. You have a major problem with me doing that? Standing up for individual liberties is not "gay rights stuff." It is advocacy of EQUAL treatment in ALL ways for ALL Americans. You are QUITE the hateful little bigot, aren’t you? Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig. They’re not NEARLY as addled, ignorant and hateful as were the ones of *yours* that I just snipped due to their sheer idiocy. Anything I’ve been saying about you is in the form of **accurate descriptors** that you first EARNED for yourself.

Again, Craig, your definition is based merely on the fact that I disagree with your assertion that same-sex marriage is a legitimate legal cause. Given that you can’t accept that people can have legitimate reasons for disagreement, and feel compelled to label them "haters" and "bigots", you have identified yourself as an extremist regarding this issue. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior. Ah. So you admit to being one of those loons that are ignorant enough to have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the RRR cult’s lying propaganda.

No, I’m merely a skeptic of "judicial activism" and those who float specious interpretations of laws in order to push their own political agenda, ESPECIALLY when discussions of such laws are greeted by hysteria and emotional accusations such as those you have exhibited through the main body of your posts to this thread. I DO acknowledge that laws are far from perfect, and that some laws need to be modified or even repealed from time to time. However, I also submit that changes in laws need to be done through the appropriate (state or federal) constitutional process, and not arbitrarily by judges, politicians, or bureaucrats. I ALSO … read more »

Response:

AND — as I’ve pointed out later in this post, we can recall (at those upcoming junctures) that your claim, above, that I "had no specifics to discuss" was one more proof of your DISHONESTY. You’re blathering, assuming that everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme views is a bigot.

Wrong on two counts. I proerly recognize a bigot as any person who seeks to discriminate against any other person or group solely based upon a TRIVIAL difference in their beliefs, *private* behavior, or appearance. And that is NOT an extreme view. The extreme view clearly is that being held by the person ignorant enough to be a bigot. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect.

"Suspect?" You are QUITE the bigot, aren’t you? A SENSIBLE person wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass WHAT a person’s sexual orientation might be.

YOU are the one who came up with that stupid idea. Standing up for individual liberties is not "gay rights stuff." It is advocacy of EQUAL treatment in ALL ways for ALL Americans. You are QUITE the hateful little bigot, aren’t you? Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig.

They’re not NEARLY as addled, ignorant and hateful as were the ones of *yours* that I just snipped due to their sheer idiocy. Anything I’ve been saying about you is in the form of **accurate descriptors** that you first EARNED for yourself. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior.

Ah. So you admit to being one of those loons that are ignorant enough to have fallen hook, line, and sinker for the RRR cult’s lying propaganda. On two counts. First off — the EQUAL rights that gays seek are EXACTLY that. The very SAME right to marry their partner of choice that straights already have. And the same right NOT to be harrassed and discriminated against with regard to housing and employment, just like the straights. That "special rights" swill being hatefully spewed by the lying RRR cult is just that: utter, lying TRIPE which most *intelligent* people would instantly recognize as being ludicrous. And secondly, since homosexuals, JUST like we who are straights, are BORN with their orientation, the behavior that they engage in as a result is NEITHER abnormal OR "chosen. Homo- sexuality, just like left-handedness, is simply a variation of NORMALCY. And since their "behavior," JUST like those of the heterosexuals, is done in *private*, that make it absolutely NONE of your business. Only a very STUPID person could possibly be such an mindless busybody! Gays have the same rights as others, but they don’t have (nor should they receive and special dispensation for) the right to redefine terms such as marriage merely because they don’t like the current definitions.

LOL!!! That’s the very SAME sort of **inane** TRIPE that the segregationists and Southern crackers spewed prior to 1967, when the Supreme Court so intelligently struck down all the remaining laws against interracial marriage. Doesn’t that make you feel really GOOD to know that you just as abjectly IGNORANT as those segregationists were? (BTW — have you noticed that American society was not harmed in the *slightest* by that ruling, 37 years ago? And that *neither* were any couples’ marriages? The SAME will be the case after same-sex marriage becomes universally legal.) You can’t argue that marriage laws discriminate against gays because sexual orientation simply isn’t referred to in the law.

You haven’t noticed that some states are CLAIMING otherwise? Or that ASSHOLE-in-Thief Bush has called for the RUINATION of the Constitution by injecting a hateful Bigotry Amendment into it? If not, you’ve been living in a very deep cave.

Don’t ever become a researcher. You’re not worth a DAMN at it. Re: Some actual facts on abortion. Politics-free (I hope). http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.teens.poetry.and.stuff/me… 124408.html

You didn’t happen to notice that part pf the URL that says, "alt.teens.poetry.and.stuff," huh? I never heard of the website to which you referred, but obviously they’ve incorporated into it one of the resource Posts that I regularly refresh in the teen newsgroups to help them bypass the repressive actions of the RRR cultists. That very post — until recently, last refreshed there on Nov. 30, 2003, just happens to be one that I refreshed again yesterday, and again is CURRENTLY on servers in the relevant newsgroups, including THIS one (alt.politics.homosexuality). Whatever remaining shreds of credibility you MAY have had in here certainly are in total ruins, now. You just don’t give a flying rat’s ass for HONESTY, do you? Looks like you’re the caught in a lie.

Wrong. All you managed was to do such shoddy "research," that you made a complete and public ass of yourself. In addition, I never stated that was you — I merely mentioned that there was/is a "Craig Chilton" with a high-profile presence in the gay online community and asked if it was you.

No, you didn’t. You openly IMPLIED it was me, and asked THIS question: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – So, Craig, is this you, and if you’re so *straight*, why do you spend so much time obsessed with gay issues, and why do you

Response:

You’re blathering, assuming that everyone who doesn’t agree with your extreme views is a bigot. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events. Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one.

The fact that you post in any (other than the cross-posted ones) still makes you suspect. Sure you don’t do a little cross-dressing or interior decorating on the side? :Oo Don’t be SHY, Craig… it’s between us girls, OK? ;O) And to date, I have never even *attended* a "Gay Pride" event, much less "competed" in one.

Well, I would hate to think of what type of competitive events they would have at a "Gay Pride" event anyway ("Yoo hoo, anyone want tickets for the salami-hiding contest?")… Standing up for individaul liberties is not "gay rights stuff." It is advocacy of EQUAL treatment in ALL ways for ALL Americans. You are QUITE the hateful little bigot, aren’t you?

Sorry to see that you’re so addled that you have to resort to such ignorant and hateful remarks, Craig. See, I’m all for INDIVIDUAL rights, but not SPECIAL RIGHTS for certain groups of people merely who choose abnormal behavior. Gays have the same rights as others, but they don’t have (nor should they receive and special dispensation for) the right to redefine terms such as marriage merely because they don’t like the current definitions. You can’t argue that marriage laws discriminate against gays because sexual orientation simply isn’t referred to in the law. However, emotional types like you can’t calm down long enough to see that, so you launch off into your histrionics as usual… …in forums such as talkaboutparenting.com … No kidding? That’s news to me. I never even HEARD of that site until you mentioned it just now.

Yeah, right, Craig – so what ELSE are you lying about? Re: Some actual facts on abortion. Politics-free (I hope). http://www.talkaboutparenting.com/group/alt.teens.poetry.and.stuff/me… 124408.html Whatever remaining shreds of credibility you MAY have had in here certainly are in total ruins, now. You just don’t give a flying rat’s ass for HONESTY, do you?

Looks like you’re the caught in a lie. In addition, I never stated that was you – I merely mentioned that there was/is a "Craig Chilton" with a high-profile presence in the gay online community and asked if it was you. Why would a straight guy hang around in a forum for parents to advocate equal opportinity for gays? You tell me! Since I’ve never done that, I wouldn’t know.

Seems there are quite a few things that you have "never done"… whatever. One must wonder WHY you are so very **DESPERATE** to put down a straight ALLY of the gay community (???). Is it wishful thinking on your part that they have NO such allies? If so — boy, are YOU ever in for a big surprise!

I’m not interested in putting down anyone per se. I’m merely pointing out how ridiculous the discrimination arguments are regarding the pro same-sex marriage crowd, and pointing out how silly you are with your histrionics. The *highest* percentage of gays that anyone claims, in the poulation, is 10%. So just for fun (and to YOUR advantage, in this case), let’s assume that figure is true. HOWEVER… recent polls have shown that the percentage of people in America who would be supportive of same-sex civil unions (but not "marriage,’ semantically-speaking… and really, that’s the ONLY difference) is now very close to 50%.

Sources? Cites? Even in sociallly liberal California, it appears that 2/3 of the votes are opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage. I doubt you are going to pick up any more support in the middle part of the country… BTW — You know what this **means**, don’t you? It means that whenever you are debating against a supporter of same-sex marriage, (or civil unions) the odds are a whopping 9-1 that your debate opponent who supports same-sex unions… is STRAIGHT!!

No, what it means is that your math and statistics skills are just as deficient as your ability to engage in a reasoned discussion…

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – in message That’s not what the eight oligarchical leaders of the RRR Cult call it, but that’s exactly what their annual crusade against individual liberties, held at D. James Kennedy’s Fort Lauderdale, FL hedquarters **IS**. Just as his hourly-long TV program is a hate-fest about 3/4 of the time, and would be far more accurately named, "The Bigotry Hour" than "The Coral Ridge Hour," the same is true of the conference that they call, "Reclaiming America for Christ." Every year, after **months** of hyping it in syndication over network TV, and over cable’s Trinity Broadcasting Network, Kennedy manages to con people into attending it from all over this nation of 290,000,000 people. Or 320 million, if one counts the Canadians. To listen to the very MOST bigoted speakers in North America delivering a pep rally to their lemmings that would rival any KKK rally. of millions of people, all Kennedy can eek out in terms of attendance… is only around a mere 1,200 or so. To the sensible egalitarians of America (which includes countless of millions of ACTUAL Christians (as opposed to being RRR cultists)… just keep right on fighting for fairness, equal rights, and individual liberties. We out- number the bigots EXPONENTIALLY, and if we *avoid* apathy, and keep active, we CAN make North America a Bigotry-Free Continent! And we can do it SOON! I noticed you had no specifics to discuss – merely foaming as usual, Craig. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events You also spend quite a bit of time advocating your gay rights stuff in forums such as talkaboutparenting.com – why would a straight guy hang around in a forum for parents to advocate equal opportinity for gays? Methinks you’re not out in the open regarding a few of your "lifestyle choices"…) Why does a "straight guy" bother to go to homosexual groups to speak against homosexuality?

I don’t – I’m responding in alt.activism where I read this. You know, you wouldn’t have this problem if you stopped cross-posting your rants in the non-homosexual and non-kook newsgroups… :O|

Response:

"NO specifics?" So, then I *didn’t* provide such specifics as THESE, above? — – The RRR cult has an oligarchical leadership. – Its leadership consists of eight primary leaders. – One of those leaders organizes a pep rally for lemmings of the RRR to attend. – That particular leader is D. James Kennedy. – The badly named rally is called "Reclaiming America for Christ" — even though, in *reality*, it is an effort to reclaim America for BIGOTRY. – The rally is held annually. – Speakers for the rally are culled from the cream of bigotry’s crop. – The rally is held at D. James Kennedy’s HQ in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. – The rally is promoted for months beforehand. – The promotions are made on Kennedy’s own syndicated broadcasts, on network TV stations. – About 3/4 of the time, Kennedy spews bigotry on his TV show. – The promotions also are made over the Trinity Broadcasting Network. – Despite months of advance hyping the rally to millions of people, average attendance at the event is only a paltry 1,200 or so. That’s more than a DOZEN very specific points. So you either are a pathological liar, or you are a **profoundly** stupid person. Very likely both. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events.

Really??? That’s certainly news to me, since the ONLY homosexual newsgroup that I participate in is the MAIN one. THIS one. The only one in this post’s crosspostings. The same one that **you** are posting in, hypocrite. And to date, I have never even *attended* a "Gay Pride" event, much less "competed" in one. I’d be glad to do so, as an ALLY of the Gay community, to lend my support, but so far I haven’t. My most recent participation in an actual major EVENT in behalf of human rights was when I took a carload of friends to San Francisco in 1992, where we marched in an ABORTION Rights parade. And on April 25th, I’ll be at the "March for Women’s Lives" in Washington, DC. (Egalitarians: You can still register: www.MarchforWomen.org ) You also spend quite a bit of time advocating your gay rights stuff…

Standing up for individaul liberties is not "gay rights stuff." It is advocacy of EQUAL treatment in ALL ways for ALL Americans. You are QUITE the hateful little bigot, aren’t you? …in forums such as talkaboutparenting.com …

No kidding? That’s news to me. I never even HEARD of that site until you mentioned it just now. Whatever remaining shreds of credibility you MAY have had in here certainly are in total ruins, now. You just don’t give a flying rat’s ass for HONESTY, do you? Why would a straight guy hang around in a forum for parents to advocate equal opportinity for gays?

You tell me! Since I’ve never done that, I wouldn’t know. (Thanks for the IDEA, though! I’ll look into that! I’m always up for finding NEW, valid ways to undermine the loathesome agendas of the bigots!) One must wonder WHY you are so very **DESPERATE** to put down a straight ALLY of the gay community (???). Is it wishful thinking on your part that they have NO such allies? If so — boy, are YOU ever in for a big surprise! Back on January 28, 2004, James Riske said: "Do prove that "straight allies almost certainly are in greater numbers than the gays." THIS was how I **did** just that… *more* "SPECIFICS" for you — + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ROTFL!!!!! That’s one of the **easiest** things in the world to do! The *highest* percentage of gays that anyone claims, in the poulation, is 10%. So just for fun (and to YOUR advantage, in this case), let’s assume that figure is true. HOWEVER… recent polls have shown that the percentage of people in America who would be supportive of same-sex civil unions (but not "marriage,’ semantically-speaking… and really, that’s the ONLY difference) is now very close to 50%. Any straight person who would not object to same-sex civil unions are ALLIES of the gays. And if we used only 40% (and there are more allies than that, as I just said), then we’d have the following: Gays 10% – 29,000,000 Americans Straight Allies 30% – 87,000,000 Americans TOTAL Gays & Allies 40% – 116,000,000 Americans Ratio: 3-1. Three times more straight allies than gays. AT LEAST! Using more realistic numbers; that 5% of population is gay, and 45% of the population favors the granting of the right of gays to have same-sex civil unions, we have the following figures, which probably approximate today’s reality very closely: Gays 5% – 14,500,000 Americans Straight Allies 45% – 130,500,000 Americans TOTAL Gays & Allies 50% – 145,000,000 Americans Ratio: 9-1. NINE times more straight allies than gays. Using either set of figures, you LOSE, big-time. Three-to-one is the BEST you can do, but that’s unrealistically low. Straight ALLIES of the gays vastly **outnumber** the gays, themselves. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage… Views of Same-Sex Marriage and Civil Unions: "Marriage" — Make legal: 41% Keep Illegal: 55% "Civil Unions" — Make legal: 46% Keep Illegal: 51% This reliable ABC News Poll PROVES your utter idiocy when you claim that gays are not outnumbered by their straight allies. BTW — You know what this **means**, don’t you? It means that whenever you are debating against a supporter of same-sex marriage, (or civil unions) the odds are a whopping 9-1 that your debate opponent who supports same-sex unions… is STRAIGHT!! Proof positive, and indisputable. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Response:

in message – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – That’s not what the eight oligarchical leaders of the RRR Cult call it, but that’s exactly what their annual crusade against individual liberties, held at D. James Kennedy’s Fort Lauderdale, FL hedquarters **IS**. Just as his hourly-long TV program is a hate-fest about 3/4 of the time, and would be far more accurately named, "The Bigotry Hour" than "The Coral Ridge Hour," the same is true of the conference that they call, "Reclaiming America for Christ." Every year, after **months** of hyping it in syndication over network TV, and over cable’s Trinity Broadcasting Network, Kennedy manages to con people into attending it from all over this nation of 290,000,000 people. Or 320 million, if one counts the Canadians. To listen to the very MOST bigoted speakers in North America delivering a pep rally to their lemmings that would rival any KKK rally. of millions of people, all Kennedy can eek out in terms of attendance… is only around a mere 1,200 or so. To the sensible egalitarians of America (which includes countless of millions of ACTUAL Christians (as opposed to being RRR cultists)… just keep right on fighting for fairness, equal rights, and individual liberties. We out- number the bigots EXPONENTIALLY, and if we *avoid* apathy, and keep active, we CAN make North America a Bigotry-Free Continent! And we can do it SOON! I noticed you had no specifics to discuss – merely foaming as usual, Craig. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events You also spend quite a bit of time advocating your gay rights stuff in forums such as talkaboutparenting.com – why would a straight guy hang

around in a forum for parents to advocate equal opportinity for gays? Methinks you’re not out in the open regarding a few of your "lifestyle choices"…)

Why does a "straight guy" bother to go to homosexual groups to speak against homosexuality?

Response:

I noticed you had no specifics to discuss – merely foaming as usual, Craig. (You know, for a *straight guy*, you spend an awful lot of time crusing the homosexual NG’s and competing in various Gay Pride events You also spend quite a bit of time advocating your gay rights stuff in forums such as talkaboutparenting.com – why would a straight guy hang around in a forum for parents to advocate equal opportinity for gays? Methinks you’re not out in the open regarding a few of your "lifestyle choices"…)

Response:

That’s not what the eight oligarchical leaders of the RRR Cult call it, but that’s exactly what their annual crusade against individual liberties, held at D. James Kennedy’s Fort Lauderdale, FL hedquarters **IS**. Just as his hourly-long TV program is a hate-fest about 3/4 of the time, and would be far more accurately named, "The Bigotry Hour" than "The Coral Ridge Hour," the same is true of the conference that they call, "Reclaiming America for Christ." Every year, after **months** of hyping it in syndication over network TV, and over cable’s Trinity Broadcasting Network, Kennedy manages to con people into attending it from all over this nation of 290,000,000 people. Or 320 million, if one counts the Canadians. To listen to the very MOST bigoted speakers in North America delivering a pep rally to their lemmings that would rival any KKK rally. of millions of people, all Kennedy can eek out in terms of attendance… is only around a mere 1,200 or so. To the sensible egalitarians of America (which includes countless of millions of ACTUAL Christians (as opposed to being RRR cultists)… just keep right on fighting for fairness, equal rights, and individual liberties. We out- number the bigots EXPONENTIALLY, and if we *avoid* apathy, and keep active, we CAN make North America a Bigotry-Free Continent! And we can do it SOON!

Response:

Denying People's Humanity

admin — Wed, 30 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Heh. You’d even like to pretend there’s not an abortion debate anymore. You’re really something else.

If there’s an abortion debate, then it should be about abortion, not tyrants.

Response:

: Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being – simply because the law says so.

Given that "human being" is a legal/social term, why do you think that a legal definition isn’t relevant? He is explaining why you are wrong.

No, abortion opponents cannot explain much of anything. All you do is insist that you are right and to hell with the facts. — Ray Fischer

Response:

http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/index.htm Bill Clinton’s big blunders have resulted in a police state- human rights is rhetoric but unlawful life control by involved local police became the reality. Revised:5/03/03 Human rights and national health care are some of Democrats’s most important slogans. Bill Clinton also tried his best to show the public that he also pursued these two goals. Did Clinton achieve these two goals in US during his term? Based on evidences and events, the answer is no. Also, the evidences tells that under Clinton’s administration, Americans’ human rights and national health care become rhetoric. But unlawful life control, health manipulation and inhumane murder (with invisibility technology, nonlethal weapon & illness/death inducing techniques) become the reality. How did all this happen? As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The involved police and involved agents, since the 1970s, have become corrupted after acquiring and abusing invisibility technology and illness/death inducing techniques; they are able to unlawfully control anyone’s life, and worsen anyone’s health. Before Clinton transferred the so-called non-lethal weapons (aka psychotronic weapons) to law enforcement, the invisible personnel (involved agents and police) mainly use psychotronic generator to attack people through a nearby electronic device (e.g. TV) and damage people’s health with microwave radiation or electromagnetic radiation. Clinton’s transfer of psychotronic weapons to law enforcement further placed the lives of Americans under imminent threat of illness and death by increasing the arsenal of the involved non-lethal weapon users, who have already been secretly using invisibility technology, illness/death inducing techniques, mind machine, among others. Because these so called non-lethal weapons mostly are lethal and some of weapons (e.g. radio-frequency weapon, laser weapon) even can be used to kill a target within ten minutes. To prove my conclusion is true, I would like to show the following evidences to you. The 32394 WASHINGTON POST reported: under Clinton’s administration, "The Pentagon and the Justice Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic ‘non-lethal’ weapons." According to Spotlight magazine report on 7/31/1995, Dr. Steven Aftergood, a FAS (Federation of American Scientists) spokesman said "The very term ‘nonlethal weapons’ or ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons is misleading , because many of these weapons could, in practice, turn out to be lethal." Nonlethal weapons’ original proponents are Col. John Alexander (an expert on death science) and left-wing scientist Mrs. Janet Morris. Janet Morris’ husband Christopher C. Morris was a former judge and key member of American security council. The above three persons play very important roles to cause military psychotronic weapon being transferred to law enforcement after named them as nonlethal weapon. Why would above three persons support to transfer military psy weapon to law enforcement? We know that there are some left-wing extremists and scientists who blindly worship technology and trash religion. They believe technology can determine everything and God does not exist. By using genetic engineering technology, they can clone animals now. I believe that they will use many excuses to secretly clone human. Their goal of human clone is to show us that human can be created by advanced technology and God doesn’t exist. Because unlawful life control’s concept is based on atheism. It is OK if scientists only use stem-cell research to make replacement organs, find cure for diseases such as Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes. But, the symptoms of Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes disease can be easily caused by invisible personnel’s attacks (see details on Part II-C1 of my website). So, we must stop invisible personnel committing crimes then combine the stem-cell research to solve the diseases of Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes. Unfortunately, Democrats and Bill Clinton trusted above three persons are such left-wing extremists (the researches of Janet Morris and Col. Alexander are deeply involved with invisibility technology). Also, some US involved agents, police and recruited operatives have this same ideology of atheism and blinded worship of technology (as left-wing extremists). Why? Because they can use invisibility technology and illness/death inducing techniques to unlawfully control everyone’s lives and health. Thus, these invisible personnel believe that God does not exist because they can manipulate human’s health and induce death on any unknowing person with impunity. However, to cover their true color, these invisible personnel might still go to church every week. But their goal is not to approach the God but approach the community for different purposes. The above facts tell that left-wing scientists and invisible personnel found common ground on atheism and blinded worship of technology. Thus, the invisible personnel would like to cooperate with left-wing extremists (& scientists) to get more power and advanced weapon to control the society and public. Under such kind of cooperation and common ground, the left-wing extremists (& scientists) would offer advanced technology and weapon to these involved agents and police. Since Bill Clinton trusted Mr. & Mrs. Morris and Col.Alexander, it shows that left-Wing scientists are main factors to cause Bill .Clinton’s blunder. So, in 1993, Col. Alexander became involved in the effort to develop nonlethal weapon for law enforcement during Clinton administration (see source). (Source) ===== MICROWAVE NEWS (on Nov/Dec 1993) report, In November, 1993, a three day top-secret non-lethal weapons conference took place in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. The main purposes of the meeting was to prepare leading law enforcement officials for the use of psychotronic mind-control weapons. Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used to transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS (mind control equipment), ELF and APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL WEAPONS." Col.John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal (psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as conference chairman. The 494 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported that "Janet E. Morris and her husband Christopher C. Morris have been involved in promoting a ‘psycho-correction’ technology (infrasound mind machine), developed by a Russian scientist, that is INTENDED TO INFLUENCE BY MEANS OF SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES EMBEDDED IN SOUND OR VISUAL IMAGES." In 1993, the Morrises organized a meeting in which the technology was demonstrated for U.S. scientists and officials by its Russian inventor." John Alexander and Mrs. Janet Morris both are experts of mind control technology (invisibility technology, mind machine, microwave voice device, subliminal message delivering device, etc). According to UK Lobster magazine in June 1993, Col. Alexander and Ms. Morris . have worked on a secret technology remote-viewing (invisibility technology -see Part II-B5 of my website), co-wrote a book "THE WARRIOR’S EDGE" (in 1990) and do a same thing -developed nonlethal weapon for law enforcement. The information prove that Mr. & Mrs. Morris and Col. Alexander share the same ideology. So, the real ability of the nonlethal (psychotronic) weapon can be known from Col. Alexander’s article. In his 1980 article "The New Mental Battlefield" in Military Review, John Alexander stated that "The ability to ..cause disease can be transmitted over distance, thus inducing illness or death for no apparent cause. The use of psychotronic weapons would be able to induce illness or death at little or no risk to the operator. The psychotronic weapon would be silent, difficult to detect and would require only a human operator as a power source" (see details on MILITARY REVIEW ENGLISH EDITION- DECEMBER 1980 – THE NEW MENTAL BATTLEFIELD). Based on Col. Alexander’s above words, it is obviously that calling psychotronic weapons "non-lethal weapons" is extremely misleading because these weapons are supposed to silently kill enemy. However, by using the name of non-lethal weapons, involved police and agents can legally obtain these weapons to unlawfully induce illness/death on American people with invisibility technology. Since these psy weapon leave no signs of external injury on victims bodies, their victims’ death always appear as the result of natural causes (see explanation later). However, to prevent their secret from leaking, Col. Alexander didn’t explain that why "The psychotronic weapon..require only a human operator as power source." So, I will explain it in details with two important points. (1). The secret is related with invisibility technology: What is invisibility technology? According to inside information from former Taiwan President Chiang Kai-Shek, the invisibility technology of Philadelphia Experiment tested in WWII has been developed successfully to use on human after WWII by US Navy. After using invisibility technology on the personnel and their equipment, they will become invisible, tiny (like small ant size) and can levitate (floating in air as zero gravity). Since these personnel & equipment will be rendered tiny by the invisibility technology, they are of little use in military combat; invisibility technology was later used in the field of surveillance. In 1950s, this invisibility technology was transferred to Taiwan. Each tiny invisible personnel, by wearing a propulsion device on back to control his movement while levitating, can function as a small flying ant. By combing this … read more »

Response:

: @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… : People : (human beings) : murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and : others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered : according to their laws but they were still important human being and : killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human : beings no matter what the law says. : : Yes, and? : The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus : (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and : their regimes. : Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being – simply because the law says so. He is explaining why you are wrong. The argument you are making is not conclusive, and indeed it is quite lacking in evidentiary value. John Savard

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… : People : (human beings) : murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and : others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered : according to their laws but they were still important human being and : killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human : beings no matter what the law says. : : Yes, and? : The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus : (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and : their regimes. : Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic.

Nope. He changed the subject from z/e/fs to human beings. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being

And provided the evidence which *nobody* has refuted as being lies or fraud or bogus in any way to back up my assertions. – simply because the law says so.

The law is the only place that defines a legal concept. And "human being" is purely a legal concept. That you find this difficult to understand simply means you are stupid! Not ignorant (you have been told the facts over and over again and had the evidence presented to you) but stupid… or lying! He is explaining why you are wrong.

No… more like making a baseless claim with *nothing* to back it up. I have back up my claim that the definition of "human being" all over the place is that the foetus must have become separates from the woman… ie. been born, before "human being" status is gained. That you (and others) don’t seem to ‘like’ this, doesn’t make the fact go away!

Response:

People murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says.

Not that you care since you have no problem at all with people dying. You’re just as willing to have people murdered for what you want as was Saddam. — Ray Fischer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The baby in the womb Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status. People murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says. http://www.spuc.org.uk/images/

They are human beings by your definition. Don’t try and push your view as fact.

Response:

@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, alt.activism, soc.women, us.issues.abortion The baby in the womb Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status. People

(human beings) murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says.

Yes, and? The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and their regimes. Please try to stay on topic.

Response:

The baby in the womb

Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status.

Response:

10 Weeks – Baby Feet

admin — Mon, 28 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

You mention reasons that neglect the human rights of the woman, what about the human rights of the fetus that pro-abortionists/pro-choicers ignore on a regular basis.

The foetus isn’t a human being. Human rights apply to human beings. Try again.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… sa836284 @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no. In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being? Pardon? Exactly where have I claimed it does? He or anyone doesn’t have to say you claimed it, it is obvious not only with you but all other pro-abortionist. Why not answer your own strawman? ) There is no strawman here, you and other pro-abortionist are seen for what you really are. And you don’t like it, but continue to play word games. And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less. It is the termination of a human life Actually no. It is the premature removal of fetus (to be correct by definition). If the fetus happens to not be able to survive after removal from the womb, well that’s just an irrelevant secondary effect. Kind of like shooting someone. You’re not really killing them; you’re just merely installing 125 grains of lead into their brain. If they die, they were simply "non-viable". Hope this helps. :) Jeez….I really HAVE heard it all now…

Yes… you have heard Chris lying and misrepresenting as usual. Furthermore you lend credence to the pro-life argument since you openly compare abortion to murder. Thanks for that, helps clear things up…

I see you are not aware that you are responding to someone who is very anti-choice who was pretending to be otherwise and doings so very poorly by effectively lying about (by distortion) what pro-choice people have said! You’ve been had, Stephen… and you fell for it hook, line and sinker! )

Response:

I have made no such distinction. Try again.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – sa836284 @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no. In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being? Pardon? Exactly where have I claimed it does? Why not answer your own strawman? ) And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less. and does it make it any more acceptable? To whom? This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions. Abortion ends a pregnancy. No more. No less. No smokescreen. You are one tring to complicate things by pretending the procedure kills some human being rather than simply ending an adverse medical condition that is affecting the woman’s health!

"Adverse" is a matter of opinion subject to the interpretation of the one being affected. Some women are rather fond of such condition, and enjoy being pregnant.

Response:

I didn’t. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You abort proceses, in particular a pregnancy. As in what is affecting the actual human being that is the woman that the Pro-Lifers consistently neglect to mention. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. This is not a fact. It is not even an opinion. It is a lie. A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The human fetus is not a human being. Acceptable? Anything that is not banned is acceptable. Might not like it, might even object to it; but unless I can justify banning it I am forced to accept it. I have been asking for many years for justification to ban abortion. I cannot accept reasons based upon lies or reasons the neglect the human rights of the woman involved. No one has been able to provide such. Care to try?

You mention reasons that neglect the human rights of the woman, what about the human rights of the fetus that pro-abortionists/pro-choicers ignore on a regular basis.

Response:

I don’t think she does, either that or she is unwilling to comment on the real issue. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no.

Response:

Okay, how about above where you make the distinction between a "human" and a "human being" implying that the fetus being human but not a human being makes it acceptable. Why not answer your own strawman? ) And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less.

The abortion of the pregancy is also the abortion of the fetus. Let’s use another example here – you stop a car from reaching it’s destination, by your arguments you have only prevented the car from reaching wherever it’s going, but not the people inside, and that’s just ridiculous. and does it make it any more acceptable? To whom?

To everyone, to whoever is willing to listen. This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions. Abortion ends a pregnancy. No more. No less. No smokescreen. You are one tring to complicate things by pretending the procedure kills some human being rather than simply ending an adverse medical condition that is affecting the woman’s health!

Who says that this is a life threatening pregnancy?

Response:

Jeez….I really HAVE heard it all now… Furthermore you lend credence to the pro-life argument since you openly compare abortion to murder. Thanks for that, helps clear things up…

Response:

[...nothing much...] you falsely claimed that six people were by your failure to repost the full article to support you claim while concurrently responding to calls for you to post such evidence, you have conclusively proven that you lied about six people who post here. adding cowardice to your blatant dishonesty, you have called on those you lied about to post proof of their innocence of the lies you posted about them. this notice will be appended to each of your posts to talk abortion and alt.abortion until you have apologized for this specific lie.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who constantly refer to the fetus as a baby, child, human being, etc.. Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who claim that it is a baby being aborted rather than the pregnancy. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. You cannot abort a baby/fetus. If you are "really getting sick of the use of phrases like that" then why use them? You abort proceses, in particular a pregnancy. As in what is affecting the actual human being that is the woman that the Pro-Lifers consistently neglect to mention. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. This is not a fact. It is not even an opinion. It is a lie. A human being is that which is born, human, and alive.

What dictionary do you get this definition from, a government dictionary? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The human fetus is not a human being. Acceptable? Anything that is not banned is acceptable. Might not like it, might even object to it; but unless I can justify banning it I am forced to accept it. I have been asking for many years for justification to ban abortion. I cannot accept reasons based upon lies or reasons the neglect the human rights of the woman involved. No one has been able to provide such. Care to try?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – sa836284 @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no. In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being? Pardon? Exactly where have I claimed it does? He or anyone doesn’t have to say you claimed it, it is obvious not only with you but all other pro-abortionist. Why not answer your own strawman? ) There is no strawman here, you and other pro-abortionist are seen for what you really are. And you don’t like it, but continue to play word games. And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less. It is the termination of a human life

Actually no. It is the premature removal of fetus (to be correct by definition). If the fetus happens to not be able to survive after removal from the womb, well that’s just an irrelevant secondary effect. Kind of like shooting someone. You’re not really killing them; you’re just merely installing 125 grains of lead into their brain. If they die, they were simply "non-viable". Hope this helps. :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – and does it make it any more acceptable? To whom? It makes it acceptable to you and pro-abortionist with your word games. This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions. Abortion ends a pregnancy. No more. No less. No smokescreen. Yes, smokescreen, big one. And proven too. You are one tring to complicate things by pretending the procedure kills some human being rather than simply ending an adverse medical condition that is affecting the woman’s health!

Response:

linguistic corrections? You DO understand what the poster meant; don’t you? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no.

Response:

This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. The baby in the womb is NOT just a clump of

"Woman? What woman?" — Ray Fischer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who constantly refer to the fetus as a baby, child, human being, etc..

Because the fetus is a human being. Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who claim that it is a baby being aborted rather than the pregnancy.

Because it is a human being, we don’t use smoke screens to hide behind. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. You cannot abort a baby/fetus. If you are "really getting sick of the use of phrases like that" then why use them? You abort proceses, in particular a pregnancy. As in what is affecting the actual human being that is the woman that the Pro-Lifers consistently neglect to mention. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. This is not a fact. It is not even an opinion. It is a lie. A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The human fetus is not a human being.

A fetus is a human being. What is fact is, you and other pro-abortionist need to hide behind words and games to accept it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Acceptable? Anything that is not banned is acceptable. Might not like it, might even object to it; but unless I can justify banning it I am forced to accept it. I have been asking for many years for justification to ban abortion. I cannot accept reasons based upon lies or reasons the neglect the human rights of the woman involved. No one has been able to provide such. Care to try?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no. In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being? Pardon? Exactly where have I claimed it does?

He or anyone doesn’t have to say you claimed it, it is obvious not only with you but all other pro-abortionist. Why not answer your own strawman? )

There is no strawman here, you and other pro-abortionist are seen for what you really are. And you don’t like it, but continue to play word games. And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less.

It is the termination of a human life and does it make it any more acceptable? To whom?

It makes it acceptable to you and pro-abortionist with your word games. This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions. Abortion ends a pregnancy. No more. No less. No smokescreen.

Yes, smokescreen, big one. And proven too. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You are one tring to complicate things by pretending the procedure kills some human being rather than simply ending an adverse medical condition that is affecting the woman’s health!

Response:

… This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions.

Pot, Kettle, Black. You abort processes, not objects. You cannot abort a child, baby, fetus, or any other noun. Anything not banned is ‘acceptable’. What justification is there to ban abortion? (And please do not lie to me.)

Response:

No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments.

Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who constantly refer to the fetus as a baby, child, human being, etc.. Tell that to the Pro-Lifers who claim that it is a baby being aborted rather than the pregnancy. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached.

You cannot abort a baby/fetus. If you are "really getting sick of the use of phrases like that" then why use them? You abort proceses, in particular a pregnancy. As in what is affecting the actual human being that is the woman that the Pro-Lifers consistently neglect to mention. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being.

This is not a fact. It is not even an opinion. It is a lie. A human being is that which is born, human, and alive. The human fetus is not a human being. Acceptable? Anything that is not banned is acceptable. Might not like it, might even object to it; but unless I can justify banning it I am forced to accept it. I have been asking for many years for justification to ban abortion. I cannot accept reasons based upon lies or reasons the neglect the human rights of the woman involved. No one has been able to provide such. Care to try?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being. BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no. In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being?

Pardon? Exactly where have I claimed it does? Why not answer your own strawman? ) And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion

Nope. Itr’s still an abortion of a pregnancy. No more. No less. and does it make it any more acceptable?

To whom? This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions.

Abortion ends a pregnancy. No more. No less. No smokescreen. You are one tring to complicate things by pretending the procedure kills some human being rather than simply ending an adverse medical condition that is affecting the woman’s health!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. No such thing as an aborted baby. I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being.

You are right. It doesn’t make any difference whether you call it a fetus, a baby, or a little green martian. The main fact to keep in mind is that the pregnant woman gets to make all of the decisions about what goes on within her own body. Not me, not you, not anybody but her makes the choices. Simple, heh? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

In what way does aborting a human sound any better/different than aborting a human being? And in the scheme of things whether you call something a child/fetus/embyro or human/human being, or whether the people who conceived the child are its parents (or not according to you) does it actually change what happens during an abortion and does it make it any more acceptable? This terminology you are so fond of is little more than a smoke screen for the act of abortion itself and conveniently allows you ignore answering the real questions.

Response:

This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks. The baby in the womb is NOT just a clump of cells. He/She is an important human being. http://www.spuc.org.uk/images/10weekabort.htm

Response:

Agreed!

Response:

@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, soc.women, alt.activism, us.issues.abortion This picture on the link shows a picture of the feet of an aborted baby after 10 weeks.

No such thing as an aborted baby.

Response:

I’m really getting sick of the use of phrases like that attempting to act as arguments. Whether it is a "fetus" or a "baby" does not make one single piece of difference. And the sooner you realise that and start to make sensible comments the better we’ll get on at debating the REAL issues – like in this case whether or not aborting a 10 week old baby/fetus (whichever you prefer) is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being.

Response:

It is impossible to abort either a foetus or a baby. You can abort a pregnancy though! is acceptable given the stage of development is has reached. Or indeed whether or not aborting any fetus/child at any stage of pregnancy is acceptable given the fact it is the death of another human being.

BTW, a foetus or embryo isn’t a human being either. Human, yes, human being, no.

Response:

National Security

admin — Wed, 01 May 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

**snip There would likely be no electricity, running water, airports, little medicine except herbs, etc.

***any race of people could have done this. Herbs are what most medicine has come from. IOW we would be far from the greatest nation on the earth.

****You’re a Canadian? ;D **snip There’s more trees now than there were when the white man came due to reforestation and other conservation..

***how much healthy old growth? we are talking forests here..not tree farms. We only conserve when it gets to us losing it….seems the countries in North America care little for the links that we are part of. **snip Godhood? How far out and what are you on?

**so you never heard of people considering whites *best* and having a right to grow as big as they want..take all they want..etc.? in short seeing them as Gods to other races. What am I on ? nuttin buddy…don’t even smoke. You are going completely on what a certain white culture says is progress…and forgetting that others out there have their own definition of progress. And you don’t drive, cook, eat processed food, drink water from a man made fountain? Get real!

****No. Yes. No. Yes. Never said I don’t do this…what I am arguing about is you pegging whites as these wonderful benefactors who if not for them…the *poor wee savages* would have had it worse. The fact that many consider Eden the ideal yet at the same time consider what we are doing is *progress* ..kinda don’t add up. Yes it does. Eden was taken away because God would not tolerate the evil ways of Adam and Eve which the learned from a snake.

**** Hehe. Prove it. I’ll bet you hate my SUV!

***Nope. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brenda

Response:

Old growth rots and becomes fire hazards. we are talking forests here..not tree farms. We only conserve when it gets to us losing it….seems the countries in North America care little for the links that we are part of. **snip Godhood? How far out and what are you on? **so you never heard of people considering whites *best* and having a right to grow as big as they want..take all they want..etc.? in short seeing them as Gods to other races.

The only ones I’ve encountered who think they’re God are the ones like you who want to tell ones like me how to live. What am I on ? nuttin buddy…don’t even smoke.

Stop drinking that spring water that runs under some stumps then. You are going completely on what a certain white culture says is progress…and forgetting that others out there have their own definition of progress. And you don’t drive, cook, eat processed food, drink water from a man made fountain? Get real! ****No. Yes. No. Yes. Never said I don’t do this…what I am arguing about is you pegging whites as these wonderful benefactors who if not for them…the *poor wee savages* would have had it worse.

Sorry ’bout that, whites contributing more to mankind than any other race, that is. LOL The fact that many consider Eden the ideal yet at the same time consider what we are doing is *progress* ..kinda don’t add up. Yes it does. Eden was taken away because God would not tolerate the evil ways of Adam and Eve which the learned from a snake. **** Hehe. Prove it.

YOU prove otherwise! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ll bet you hate my SUV! ***Nope. Brenda

Response:

**snip *** almost anyone with an American factory overseas or in Mexico paying the labourers dirt cheap to take advantage of them. Any person supporting right wing dictatorships to flourish. Yep, those poor workers would not have jobs without the rich manufacturers. They would still be starving off the land.

** so instead of giving people a decent living wage and proper saftey practises you take advantage of them….nice. By the way..with the wages they get? they are barely NOT starving. You’re too stupid to know how you reap what you sow. I’ve did very well, thank you. I’m happily married and retired comfortably. And you’re full of hate apparently. *** and you cannot see the world past your nose or your comfortable little existence apparently. It took a while to get here. I did it myself. And yes, I was in business myself and know what it’s like to have to nursemaid those ‘po’ workers.

****well good for you. I hope all the Ozzie and Harriets of the world have bright sunshiney lives. Pssst. Wake up. I’ll bet you love Al GOre who now drives an SUV, much like mine.

****actually I don’t care about cars. Brenda

Response:

Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit.

No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

****and this is bad why? and what makes you believe this?…and also when my ancestors came to the Turtle Island in 1615 they dressed differently….ate differently and talked differently….and they either progressed or regressed dependant upon your attitude. Why would any other culture not do the same? Also we learnt how to fertilize crops …survive the environment and hunt and fish etc. from the natives who knew the land like the backs of their hands…guess the learning went both ways huh? Brenda

Response:

John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless

Response:

John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless

Wild Horse appears to be another that cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: National Security Reply to: [1] "John Tibbs" Organization: Giganews.Com – Premium News Outsourcing Newsgroups: [2] rec.org.mensa, [3] alt.christnet, [4] alt.politics.democrats.d, [5] alt.politics.clinton, [6] alt.conspiracy, [7] alt.activism, [8] alt.current-events.usa, [9] alt.politics.usa Followup to: [10] newsgroup(s) References: Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness. ****and this is bad why? and what makes you believe this?…and also when my ancestors came to the Turtle Island in 1615 they dressed differently….ate differently and talked differently….and they either progressed or regressed dependant upon your attitude. Why would any other culture not do the same?

A good example is to realize how the native people of third world countries live outside the structural world the Europeans built and without the benefit of white man’s inventions. Also we learnt how to fertilize crops …survive the environment and hunt and fish etc. from the natives who knew the land like the backs of their hands…guess the learning went both ways huh?

Both ways yes, but the progress only began when white people developed the resources. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brenda

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: National Security cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness. What a racist you are. Interesting research is showing that many of the aboriginal Americans had complex and beneficial agricultural systems. Yeah, like following the herds of bison to keep from starving. **** gosh..the natives living in California did that? the east coasters? wow…interesting. Are the New York Bison any tougher than the Californian? Sheesh. Learn a little man!

I don’t have to because with the power of reasoning, I know that your ideas don’t make sense. Racists like you wouldn’t be smart enough to understand things such as the Mayan calendar, either, of course.

Oh? And about their human sacrifices also? I don’t need to. And anyone who calls one who tells it like it is a ‘racist’ really has nothing else to argue with. **** Wow..to be proud of such ignorance is amazing.

I’m not surprised you are amazed since you apparently believe your nonsense. You’re just the type of creep who likes it when rich white men make poor brown babies die so they can get richer. Yeah,. name one! *** almost anyone with an American factory overseas or in Mexico paying the labourers dirt cheap to take advantage of them. Any person supporting right wing dictatorships to flourish.

Yep, those poor workers would not have jobs without the rich manufacturers. They would still be starving off the land. You’re too stupid to know how you reap what you sow. I’ve did very well, thank you. I’m happily married and retired comfortably. And you’re full of hate apparently. *** and you cannot see the world past your nose or your comfortable little existence apparently.

It took a while to get here. I did it myself. And yes, I was in business myself and know what it’s like to have to nursemaid those ‘po’ workers. I’ll bet you love Al GOre who now drives an SUV, much like mine. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness. ****and this is bad why? and what makes you believe this?…and also when my ancestors came to the Turtle Island in 1615 they dressed differently….ate differently and talked differently….and they either progressed or regressed dependant upon your attitude. Why would any other culture not do the same? A good example is to realize how the native people of third world countries live outside the structural world the Europeans built and without the benefit of white man’s inventions. ***caucasion inventions are a plus as are non-caucasion inventions. I would also wonder had it not been for the *third-world* countries labour and resources..how un-beneficial life would be here in North America.

There would likely be no electricity, running water, airports, little medicine except herbs, etc. IOW we would be far from the greatest nation on the earth. Also we learnt how to fertilize crops …survive the environment and hunt and fish etc. from the natives who knew the land like the backs of their hands…guess the learning went both ways huh? Both ways yes, but the progress only began when white people developed the resources. *** depends on what you mean by progress. Destruction of forests?

There’s more trees now than there were when the white man came due to reforestation and other conservation.. pollution of streams from mining…Oil spills..overuse of pesticides..

Lotsa bugs, no machinery, no coal for heat, no copper for machinery, no silver for electronics but then…without electricity, who would use it anyway? .the incredible *use and toss* mentality…

I happen to agree with this one. the extinction and near extinction of many animals..

Species have come and gone ever since the earth began and will continue to go. Even the human race may someday go ‘poof’ .the concept of manifest destiny…the belief in *white godhood* etc.

Godhood? How far out and what are you on? You are going completely on what a certain white culture says is progress…and forgetting that others out there have their own definition of progress.

And you don’t drive, cook, eat processed food, drink water from a man made fountain? Get real! The fact that many consider Eden the ideal yet at the same time consider what we are doing is *progress* ..kinda don’t add up.

Yes it does. Eden was taken away because God would not tolerate the evil ways of Adam and Eve which the learned from a snake. I’ll bet you hate my SUV! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brenda

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy. This has to be the biggest kludge I’v seen in the last 3 months, the Cherokee "invented" demoocracy?????? Gee everyone else pertty much credits it to the greek city-states, which predate you by about 3,000 years. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil. No, the primitive tribes didn’t have a goverment, not what a modern people would consider a goverment, more like an association, if anything it would be considered an genocracy(goverment by the old).

I think all of that nonsense is just another made-up ‘talking point’ by the wannabe history revisionists of the left. They probably even hate my SUV!

Response:

John The Native People were not "Tribal" Did not "Chase their food" and didn’t fight other NATIONS for women.

Your history is the left-wing revised version and totally different than mine in the forties and fifties. Native fighting was over such things as land, food, rights of the people. Something similar to what current fighting is over.

You mean Arafat is going hungry? Someone pointed out a mistake I made, and I will admit the mistake. The United States Government was based on the Government of the Iroquois Confederation, of which the Cherokee were part. My mistake, I couldn’t remember the name of the confederation and used the name of one of the Nations of the confederation.

So? In any case, it’s B.S. You say you are part Cherokee. Tell me, which part of you is Cherokee?

I dunno. But the only actual knowledge other than her name was that she once lived in Choska, Indian Territory of Missouri. Also, you say your Great-Grandmother was rescued from the Trail? Since the trail was in the 1830’s you must be around 90? 80? 70?

Close. Ask JimC. He keeps up with my personal life as much as his nosiness can. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops. Consider this, hoss, the white people also planted and reaped harvests before they came here. The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy. B.S. The natives were simply tribal and chased their food and fought other tribes for the women. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil. Who told you that, some environmental whacko? And what does the Native People get for teaching the whites… RACISTS and RACIST comments from the likes of you. Hee,hehe, I’m part Cherokee from my greatgrandmother, a rescuee from the "Trail of Tears" in Tennessee. John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless Wild Horse appears to be another that cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

John The Native People were not "Tribal" Did not "Chase their food" and didn’t fight other NATIONS for women. Native fighting was over such things as land, food, rights of the people. Something similar to what current fighting is over. Someone pointed out a mistake I made, and I will admit the mistake. The United States Government was based on the Government of the Iroquois Confederation, of which the Cherokee were part. My mistake, I couldn’t remember the name of the confederation and used the name of one of the Nations of the confederation. You say you are part Cherokee. Tell me, which part of you is Cherokee? Also, you say your Great-Grandmother was rescued from the Trail? Since the trail was in the 1830’s you must be around 90? 80? 70?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops. Consider this, hoss, the white people also planted and reaped harvests before they came here. The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy. B.S. The natives were simply tribal and chased their food and fought other tribes for the women. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil. Who told you that, some environmental whacko? And what does the Native People get for teaching the whites… RACISTS and RACIST comments from the likes of you. Hee,hehe, I’m part Cherokee from my greatgrandmother, a rescuee from the "Trail of Tears" in Tennessee. John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless Wild Horse appears to be another that cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: National Security Reply to: [1] Ashland Henderson Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Newsgroups: [2] rec.org.mensa, [3] alt.christnet, [4] alt.politics.democrats.d, [5] alt.politics.clinton, [6] alt.conspiracy, [7] alt.activism, [8] alt.current-events.usa, [9] alt.politics.usa Followup to: [10] newsgroup(s) References: The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops. Don’t get too carried away with yourself. Farming goes back farther in history in Europe and Asia than it does in the Americas.

*** from what we know so far. Besides that I believe he was commenting on Europeans experience with North American soil and terrain. Applying Europeans techniques to the soil here may have been only partially productive. Let’s face it…we needed Native help when we came here and had it not been for them we may not have made it. With them we only benefitted…with us…they had deficits and benefits. I believe that racism is racism no matter who it comes from as well. Brenda

Response:

The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops.

Don’t get too carried away with yourself. Farming goes back farther in history in Europe and Asia than it does in the Americas. The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy.

That’s not strictly true either. The Iriquois Confederation seems to have been at least in part a response to the arrival of the Europeans. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil.

By and large that is, I believe, more of an urban legend than a reality. I could be wrong, of course, but even so the truth is liable to be somewhere between your view and that of John. And what does the Native People get for teaching the whites… RACISTS and RACIST comments from the likes of you.

Racisim cuts both ways. You and John both appear to have versions of it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Interesting. Do you eat potatoes? Beans? Corn? Tomatoes? Somewhere around 50% of the world’s food supply was domesticated here in what you term "a wilderness".

Response:

**** gosh..the natives living in California did that? the east coasters? wow…interesting. Are the New York Bison any tougher than the Californian? Sheesh. Learn a little man! Racists like you wouldn’t be smart enough to understand things such as the Mayan calendar, either, of course. I don’t need to. And anyone who calls one who tells it like it is a ‘racist’ really has nothing else to argue with.

**** Wow..to be proud of such ignorance is amazing. You’re just the type of creep who likes it when rich white men make poor brown babies die so they can get richer. Yeah,. name one!

*** almost anyone with an American factory overseas or in Mexico paying the labourers dirt cheap to take advantage of them. Any person supporting right wing dictatorships to flourish. You’re too stupid to know how you reap what you sow. I’ve did very well, thank you. I’m happily married and retired comfortably. And you’re full of hate apparently.

*** and you cannot see the world past your nose or your comfortable little existence apparently.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Re: National Security Reply to: [1] "John Tibbs" Organization: Giganews.Com – Premium News Outsourcing Newsgroups: [2] rec.org.mensa, [3] alt.christnet, [4] alt.politics.democrats.d, [5] alt.politics.clinton, [6] alt.conspiracy, [7] alt.activism, [8] alt.current-events.usa, [9] alt.politics.usa Followup to: [10] newsgroup(s) References: Re: National Security Reply to: [1] "John Tibbs" Organization: Giganews.Com – Premium News Outsourcing Newsgroups: [2] rec.org.mensa, [3] alt.christnet, [4] alt.politics.democrats.d, [5] alt.politics.clinton, [6] alt.conspiracy, [7] alt.activism, [8] alt.current-events.usa, [9] alt.politics.usa Followup to: [10] newsgroup(s) References: Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness. ****and this is bad why? and what makes you believe this?…and also when my ancestors came to the Turtle Island in 1615 they dressed differently….ate differently and talked differently….and they either progressed or regressed dependant upon your attitude. Why would any other culture not do the same? A good example is to realize how the native people of third world countries live outside the structural world the Europeans built and without the benefit of white man’s inventions.

***caucasion inventions are a plus as are non-caucasion inventions. I would also wonder had it not been for the *third-world* countries labour and resources..how un-beneficial life would be here in North America. Also we learnt how to fertilize crops …survive the environment and hunt and fish etc. from the natives who knew the land like the backs of their hands…guess the learning went both ways huh? Both ways yes, but the progress only began when white people developed the resources.

*** depends on what you mean by progress. Destruction of forests? pollution of streams from mining…Oil spills..overuse of pesticides…the incredible *use and toss* mentality…the extinction and near extinction of many animals…the concept of manifest destiny…the belief in *white godhood* etc. You are going completely on what a certain white culture says is progress…and forgetting that others out there have their own definition of progress. The fact that many consider Eden the ideal yet at the same time consider what we are doing is *progress* ..kinda don’t add up. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Brenda

Response:

The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops.

Consider this, hoss, the white people also planted and reaped harvests before they came here. The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy.

B.S. The natives were simply tribal and chased their food and fought other tribes for the women. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil.

Who told you that, some environmental whacko? And what does the Native People get for teaching the whites… RACISTS and RACIST comments from the likes of you.

Hee,hehe, I’m part Cherokee from my greatgrandmother, a rescuee from the "Trail of Tears" in Tennessee. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless Wild Horse appears to be another that cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness. What a racist you are. Interesting research is showing that many of the aboriginal Americans had complex and beneficial agricultural systems.

Yeah, like following the herds of bison to keep from starving. Racists like you wouldn’t be smart enough to understand things such as the Mayan calendar, either, of course.

I don’t need to. And anyone who calls one who tells it like it is a ‘racist’ really has nothing else to argue with. You’re just the type of creep who likes it when rich white men make poor brown babies die so they can get richer.

Yeah,. name one! You’re too stupid to know how you reap what you sow.

I’ve did very well, thank you. I’m happily married and retired comfortably. And you’re full of hate apparently.

Response:

The difference between truth and racism… Interesting concept there John. Consider this. The Whites came here and the Native American People had to teach them how to plant crops. The whites came here and had to be taught about Democracy. The American system of Government is based entirely on the system of Government that was in use by the Cherokee Nation long before any whites ever appeared on American soil. And what does the Native People get for teaching the whites… RACISTS and RACIST comments from the likes of you.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John Thank you for that racist comment.. You have now proven yourself to be useless Wild Horse appears to be another that cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from. Fuck off immigrant lover, been here a really, really long time, and will fight to keep what’s mine. Fuck the world, let them eat shit. No need for the vulgar language, Joe. But you can tell them if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

Response:

cannot tell the difference from truth and racism. sad… if not for white people the natives would likely still be throwing spears at their food and the continent wouls still be a wilderness.

What a racist you are. Interesting research is showing that many of the aboriginal Americans had complex and beneficial agricultural systems. Racists like you wouldn’t be smart enough to understand things such as the Mayan calendar, either, of course. You’re just the type of creep who likes it when rich white men make poor brown babies die so they can get richer. You’re too stupid to know how you reap what you sow.

Response:

my comments to Joe User shown below starting with *** /polanski

Some people believe in getting other people killed for their own gain. They exploit others who believe in bigotry rather than reason when made afraid. What is so incredibly complicated about lock the front door and toss all the forigners out? NOTHING, very very simple, very easy, terrorists can blow themselves up all they want, can’t hurt us if they can’t get here.

*** Joe here is not addressing the yeahright’s insightful observation that those comitting crimes exploit the human tendency of bigotry as a reaction to fear. Instead, he is proposing an extremist solution to terrorism, which almost amounts to terrorism itself (i.e. tossing foreigners out) Ohhh, but what about the "good" immigrants, no such animal, all of them are surplus population from failed states, they made their bed, now let them lie in it.

*** Joe here is in denial of the chief reason for those failed states, i.e. colonialism and economic imperialism. Ergo, they did not make their bed, so they should not lie in it. *Don’t* try to tell me that ‘National Security’ would be at stake when those who benefit from crimes against innocents try to ride then hide them. Those people in NYC and DC and PA got killed, so ‘National Security’ just plain didn’t work, even though it could and should have. Why didn’t it? Because both the left and the right are corrupt, self-serving shits!

*** national security did not work because of corruption? this is new to me. This sounds so "way off" that Joe better provide some explanation Neither can get the average person to support them, since both sides exist to fuck over the common person for their own brand of eliteism, so they "import" human monkeys that will support them.

*** Joe considers immigrants "human monkeys", i guess he finds it difficult to compete with even these monkeys. Actually, Joe then is the prime example of what yeahright is talking about – i.e. "others who believe in bigotry rather than reason when made afraid" There are alegations that the Bush administration had ties to the Bin Laden family, and called off the CIA and FBI from investingating what the fuck those wastes of human flesh were up to. Bush’s whine, oh they will fuck up my oil deal, what’s a few thousand americans. Well turn around is fair play, what’s a few million dollars taken out of the Bush coffers.

**** Joe’s case against Bush is speculative and weak. Bush should resign or be impeached if he will not come clean on why those attacks were allowed. You blame it all on Bush, not true, the left is equaly guilty. Immigrant rights,free immigration, open society, multiculturalism, oppertunity for the unwashed masses, well you just gave rights to a bunch of stupid brutish animals and then wonder how 9/11 happened, PLEASE.

*** This is where Joe may have a point, that you can’t blame it on Bush. He is just another spineless president cowing to the zionist industrialist elite. Other than hunting down and killing Al Quada members, all the other "busy work" is moot if the morons running the country are not smart enough to lock all the doors and bar the windows of the nation.

*** there is a much simpler solution to terrorism on American soil that does not necessitate isolation. Don’t interfere in the Middle East as per the instructions of the American Jewish minority. The yearly $5 billion+ that is wasted on propping up the fascist regime of Israel and murdering their enemies could be spent on preventing terrorism and bettering international relations.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Some people believe in getting other people killed for their own gain. They exploit others who believe in bigotry rather than reason when made afraid. What is so incredibly complicated about lock the front door and toss all the forigners out? NOTHING, very very simple, very easy, terrorists can blow themselves up all they want, can’t hurt us if they can’t get here. Ohhh, but what about the "good" immigrants, no such animal, all of them are surplus population from failed states, they made their bed, now let them lie in it. *Don’t* try to tell me that ‘National Security’ would be at stake when those who benefit from crimes against innocents try to ride then hide them. Those people in NYC and DC and PA got killed, so ‘National Security’ just plain didn’t work, even though it could and should have. Why didn’t it? Because both the left and the right are corrupt, self-serving shits! Neither can get the average person to support them, since both sides exist to fuck over the common person for their own brand of eliteism, so they "import" human monkeys that will support them. There are alegations that the Bush administration had ties to the Bin Laden family, and called off the CIA and FBI from investingating what the fuck those wastes of human flesh were up to. Bush’s whine, oh they will fuck up my oil deal, what’s a few thousand americans. Well turn around is fair play, what’s a few million dollars taken out of the Bush coffers. Bush should resign or be impeached if he will not come clean on why those attacks were allowed. You blame it all on Bush, not true, the left is equaly guilty. Immigrant rights,free immigration, open society, multiculturalism, oppertunity for the unwashed masses, well you just gave rights to a bunch of stupid brutish animals and then wonder how 9/11 happened, PLEASE. Other than hunting down and killing Al Quada members, all the other "busy work" is moot if the morons running the country are not smart enough to lock all the doors and bar the windows of the nation.

Are you white? If so, your ancestors were immigrants. Go back to England before you start telling other people to go back where they came from.

Response:

Some people believe in getting other people killed for their own gain. They exploit others who believe in bigotry rather than reason when made afraid. *Don’t* try to tell me that ‘National Security’ would be at stake when those who benefit from crimes against innocents try to ride then hide them. Those people in NYC and DC and PA got killed, so ‘National Security’ just plain didn’t work, even though it could and should have. Why didn’t it? Bush should resign or be impeached if he will not come clean on why those attacks were allowed. Stop the wars! Start the investigations! Justice for the victims of 9/11! "The poor go to war, to fight and die for the delights, riches, and superfluities of others." -Plutarch

Response:

A statement regarding Michael Petrelis and David Pasquarelli from ACT UP/NY

admin — Fri, 01 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I just find it hard to believe that somebody could just dump cat shit on a woman’s head while she’s in front of an audience and on video tape and she would have no legal recourse.

Ain’t America grand? B/

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How on earth where the battery charges dismissed? Pat was in front of an audience and on video tape when that happened. I suppose at the time "they" thought the act didn’t meet the definitions of battery and/or assault. I would further suppose the same error would not be recreated today. What about a civil suit? Why doesn’t Pat do something now? IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and I don’t play one on TV, but I don’t know if that kind of "double jeopardy" works for misdeamonors. Or statute of limitations, or both. Possibly that the case was dismissed instead of going to trial… I dunno. Maybe there’s no civil equivalent. B/

I just find it hard to believe that somebody could just dump cat shit on a woman’s head while she’s in front of an audience and on video tape and she would have no legal recourse.

Response:

How on earth where the battery charges dismissed? Pat was in front of an audience and on video tape when that happened. I suppose at the time "they" thought the act didn’t meet the definitions of battery and/or assault. I would further suppose the same error would not be recreated today. B/

What about a civil suit? Why doesn’t Pat do something now?

Response:

IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer) and I don’t play one on TV, but I don’t know if that kind of "double jeopardy" works for misdeamonors. Or statute of limitations, or both. Possibly that the case was dismissed instead of going to trial… I dunno. Maybe there’s no civil equivalent. B/

Response:

How on earth where the battery charges dismissed? Pat was in front of an audience and on video tape when that happened.

I suppose at the time "they" thought the act didn’t meet the definitions of battery and/or assault. I would further suppose the same error would not be recreated today. B/

Response:

ACT UP SF is right about HIV and AIDS!

Response:

ACT UP SF is right about HIV and AIDS!

Care to expound on what you think they are right about; AIDS does not exist? AIDS exists as in Petrelis case but can’t cause illness, even though he is complaining about not receiving adequate HIV care while in prison? They have the right to assault people and call them murders but don’t have the guts to press charges with the SF DA on these so called AIDS murders they have identified on there web site and verbally on numerous occasions. Please tell us just which of there statements you support and what evidence you use to support your thinking on the subject. Gary Stein

Response:

How on earth where the battery charges dismissed? Pat was in front of an audience and on video tape when that happened. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Beyond that, I agree with everything you said, David. Very disappointing. —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:40 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Would someone care to list the police records preceeding their jailtime. I think those who haven’t suffered the cultlike antics and AIDS revisionist mythologies of Actup SF would be enlightened to see there is a long history of hate filled and violent activities. ACT UP/SF CHRONOLOGY(partial list) [...snip...] 1996 Kitty litter (dumped 25 lbs. of cat feces over head of San Francisco AIDS Foundation at community forum exposing HIV+ to potentially infectious toxoplasmosis contagion/battery charges dismissed)*6 [...snip...] (* denotes documentation available for these items) * ACT UP Golden Gate * 519 Castro St. #93 San Francisco CA 94114 * Phone:(415)252-9200 * FAX: (415)252-9277 http://www.actupgg.org * * ACT UP/Golden Gate is not affiliated with "Act up San Francisco."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Beyond that, I agree with everything you said, David. Very disappointing. —–Original Message—– Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 10:40 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Would someone care to list the police records preceeding their jailtime. I think those who haven’t suffered the cultlike antics and AIDS revisionist mythologies of Actup SF would be enlightened to see there is a long history of hate filled and violent activities. ACT UP/SF CHRONOLOGY(partial list) 1995 $10,000 Vandalism at San Francisco Republican offices (charges dismissed) 1995 "Riot at the Hyatt"* (tables overturned, panicked guests flee, AUSF characterizes disruption a "riot")2 1996 "Spitting" on reporters (T. Kingston) & city hall staffer (M. Housh) ("…Bellefountaine, Pasquarelli and their supporters have spat on, thrown disgusting liquids and solids on, shoved, threatened and assaulted a whole host of people…" SF Weekly, Men Behaving Viciously, 4/11/96*3 1996 Harassment of AIDS workers B. Lein, J. James & B. Collins(SF Frontiers/carload of AUSF members shout at B. Lein–"…you are killing PWA’s, you fucking cunt;" followed J. James screaming:"You are an ignorant fuck, we are going to blow you out of the water;" AUSF members approach B. Collins on the street, they "came up to me, put a finger in my face and said ‘We are going to get you next.’ "}*4 1996 Vancouver "Bloodbath"(AUSF disrupts medical forum pouring red liquid over participants, closing down treatment forum–charges dismissed)*5 1996 Kitty litter (dumped 25 lbs. of cat feces over head of San Francisco AIDS Foundation at community forum exposing HIV+ to potentially infectious toxoplasmosis contagion/battery charges dismissed)*6 1996 Davies Medical Center assault yields community service; Department of Public Health official Marci Fraser harassed & spit on police complaint filed–AUSF member justifies the insident as "an appropriate humiliation tactic."; Proj. Inform meeting w/ SFPD, DA & Mayor’s office; community statement decrying violence published*7 1996 Separate Davies Medical Center disruption at an AIDS/HIV forum. 1996 "ACT UP Injuncted," SF Weekly (shoving matches,phone threats, disruption & harassment detailed)*8 1996 SFAF obtains TRO’s*9 (frightened them to tears by blowing whistles & sreaming that they "were part of a group that contibutes money" to a unnamed "right-wing, homophobic organization killing people with AIDS"–witnessed by Kate Krauss & Michael Lauro also documented in SF Frontiers)*4 &10 1997 Anti-violence non-profit CUAV(Community United Against Violence) has 12 complaints of individuals being harassed or threatened by AUSF members on file*11 1997 AIDS Benefit Councelors unable to afford cost of security & cancels AIDS medical forums*11 l 1998 Peggy Taylor harassment (harassed & assaulted: fell down stairs & injured)* 12 1998 AUSF member "pies" Mayor Brown 1999 Pasquareli’s emailings RE: "increase your security" threat to non-profit organization Survive AIDS*13 1999 Pasquarelli quoted in Zengers RE: "Until finally, to this day, they don’t have these fora anymore. There are no more clinical trial recruitment fora in San Fransicco, and thank God. It is one of the accomplishments of ACT UP/San Franciosco."*14 1999 AUSF members surround Rev. Cecil Williams at mayoral debate and require him to be escorted to safety 2000 AIDS treatment forum disruptied, forum organizer injured & taken to hospital ER/battery charges filed. AUSF member Andrea Lindsey states that "our primary goal was to prevent Martin Delaney & Dr. Steven Deeks (forum presenters) from speaking."*15 2000 AUSF fails to comply with medical marijuana requirements according to SF officials 2000 A. Toni Young, community HIV/AIDS advocate, harassed–AUSF members surround her on street, shouting at her calling her "an AIDS whore." *16 meeting (contact B. Lein) 2000 SFPD pulls "death threat" off of Vince G’s (AIDS volunteer advocate) voicemail system according to Vince G.* 2000 AUSF member Andrea Lindsey quoted RE: AIDS treatment forum disruption:"…Our goal was to prevent (Dr.) Deeks from speaking."*17 2000 Pasquarelli wtites letter to editor stating suicide of Jeff Getty (AIDS volunteer) is "appropriate"*18 2000 Mitch Katz, a SF public health official, files assault charges following disruption and assault at a SF Board of Superviser’s meeting*19 2000 $1.6 million ACT UP pot club forms secret trust & buys building*20 2000 ACT UP seeks non-profit status*21 2000 SF public health official charges that AUSF members phoned his home threatening his young daughter 2000 Threatening phone call left in Dr. Dan Caccione’s (UCSF AIDS Program) home phone 2000 AUSF members disrupt client sevices dept of SFAF, photogragh clients, injure security guard & are arrested by SFPD (* denotes documentation available for these items) * ACT UP Golden Gate * 519 Castro St. #93 San Francisco CA 94114 * Phone:(415)252-9200 * FAX: (415)252-9277 http://www.actupgg.org * * ACT UP/Golden Gate is not affiliated with "Act up San Francisco." Do You Yahoo!? Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! http://auctions.yahoo.com

Response:

As a sometimes member of ACT UP/NY, I have to say that I was really disappointed with this screed. I utterly support that these guys should get fair treatment and due process. That’s what is MISSING from much of the judicial system in the U.S.–unless you have the $$$. Beyond that, I agree with everything you said, David. Very disappointing. George M. Carter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Bail is used by the court to ensure the appearance of the defendants in court. It is very unlikely that the two men will flee. Who they are is very much defined by their activism and the AIDS pandemic, and they would never abandon that fight. Their passions are driven by the AIDS pandemic and the attempt by the U.S. establishment to sweep the disease under the rug. Am I sure that I just heard you correctly… "attempt by the U.S. establishment to sweep the disease under the rug". If anyone is trying to sweep the knowledge of HIV under a rug, it’s the pirated group acting out under the assumed mantle of ActUpSF! They are the very definition of Denial itself. Postering the city with graffiti informing the population that "AIDS IS OVER" and readily espousing the idea that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. And that even though they are HIV infected that they pose no danger to their sexual partners because of this "fact". And that safe sex is irrelevant. Add to this personal form of Denial, Pasquarelli has been assaulting anyone he thinks ought to be smacked for holding views contrary to his own for years. Disrupting health meetings by physical assault on the patients themselves while yelling "Die, faggot, die!" at them is hardly civil behavior. Harassment of the public health system, it’s personnel and destruction of it’s property begs for some sort of action by the city. The latest round of their Denialist assaults, is only the latest round. The disgusting trend had to be stopped. What is the question? Gertrude Stein’s last words No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts

Response:

Bail is used by the court to ensure the appearance of the defendants in court. It is very unlikely that the two men will flee. Who they are is very much defined by their activism and the AIDS pandemic, and they would never abandon that fight. Their passions are driven by the AIDS pandemic and the attempt by the U.S. establishment to sweep the disease under the rug.

Am I sure that I just heard you correctly… "attempt by the U.S. establishment to sweep the disease under the rug". If anyone is trying to sweep the knowledge of HIV under a rug, it’s the pirated group acting out under the assumed mantle of ActUpSF! They are the very definition of Denial itself. Postering the city with graffiti informing the population that "AIDS IS OVER" and readily espousing the idea that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS. And that even though they are HIV infected that they pose no danger to their sexual partners because of this "fact". And that safe sex is irrelevant. Add to this personal form of Denial, Pasquarelli has been assaulting anyone he thinks ought to be smacked for holding views contrary to his own for years. Disrupting health meetings by physical assault on the patients themselves while yelling "Die, faggot, die!" at them is hardly civil behavior. Harassment of the public health system, it’s personnel and destruction of it’s property begs for some sort of action by the city. The latest round of their Denialist assaults, is only the latest round. The disgusting trend had to be stopped. What is the question? Gertrude Stein’s last words No one mouth is big enough to utter the whole thing. Alan Watts On Display in the UK http://www.web-gallery.co.uk

Response:

ACT UP/NY 332 Bleecker St. Suite G5 New York, NY 10014 Web: www.actupny.org Statement regarding Michael Petrelis and David Pasquarelli ACT UP/NY supports Michael Petrelis and David Pasquarelli in their fight against punitive charges and high bail. They are being punished for their outspoken actions regarding the AIDS pandemic. The punitive bail and charges for them are not in place to prevent them from fleeing prosecution but rather to discourage their activism. Bail is used by the court to ensure the appearance of the defendants in court. It is very unlikely that the two men will flee. Who they are is very much defined by their activism and the AIDS pandemic, and they would never abandon that fight. Their passions are driven by the AIDS pandemic and the attempt by the U.S. establishment to sweep the disease under the rug. Exceptional charges and high bail are an obvious attempt to suppress Petrelis’ and Pasquarelli’s First Amendment rights and to deny them due process. Approved at the ACT UP/NY meeting on January 28, 2002. ACT UP-AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power ACT UP is a diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger and committed to direct action to end the AIDS crisis. We advise and inform. We demonstrate. We are not silent. ACT UP/NY is the original chapter of ACT UP, founded in March, 1987.

Response:

Any foster parents here???

admin — Fri, 13 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Shari wrote: > And I agree with this, too. This group is intensely one-sided. So much so, > that even people who WANT to hear about the bad guys (such as myself) are > so disgusted with the acrimoniousness and hostility towards anyone with a > mind of their own or a different background, that they wind up dismissing > otherwise perfectly valid arguments. (Boy, talk about a run-on sentence!)

Sorry to disillusion you, Shari, but there are ZERO perfectly valid arguments which support and play apologist for Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry in any way, shape or form or to any significant degree. PERIOD. None, zero, nada, null, nil, squat, zilch, zippo, bupkus, the big goose egg. You might as well try and find the good inherent in the Holocaust committed by the Nazis. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > Neal Feldman wrote: > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > > > > > > MM > > > > > > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > > > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > > > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > > > > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > > > > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > > > > > > are called on the facts. > > > > > > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > > > > > > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > > > > > I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of > > > > > the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or > > > > > children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in > > > > > cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents > > > > > to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has > > > > > resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that > > > > > instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these > > > > > folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever > > > > > they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great > > > > > place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as > > > > > aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, > > > > > they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , > > > > > and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change > > > > > their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. > > > > Again you assume that those parents posting here had legitimate accusations against them when > > > > in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite. > > > Actually, I think if you review my post you’ll note that I didn’t make > > > any assumptions regarding the legitimacy of accusations against parents. > > Actually the implication is quite definite, since you only mention people who were NOT wrongly > > accused and who would deny… the implication is that anyone who denies is guilty because some > > guilty people have denied. Nowhere in your text above do you acknowledge innocent parents having > > their kids kidnapped… only that some guilty people may look at it that way. > There was no implication, only your inference.

Sorry but there is a strong implication, not inference. > I noted the possibility > of valid abuse because one might assume that children who actually were > abused might not complain about being removed from their homes. But that > is not always the case. One might also assume that someone who would > abuse their children might not care about removal. But that is not > always the case. I am aware that travesties have been committed by > governmental agencies and their agents.

Are you one of those like MoRon Mitty who admits that such occur but claims that such are one in a million things instead of the 85-95+% that the facts have clearly shown them to be? > I also believe that most victims > of this governmental abuse would be outraged and vocal about it.

Do you accept the facts that 85-95+% of those attacked by Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry are in fact innocent as the facts and evidence have clearly shown? Do you accept that 85-95+% of those who are very vocal against Gestapo CPS et al are in fact innocents who were wrongly abused by such governmental wrongdoing? > I also > am aware that there are folks that are abused that are afraid to be vocal > or lack the resources to do so in an effective manner.

True enough… too often due to being bankrupted by their dealings with Gestapo CPS. > > Also you mentioned that some abused children still want to stay with their abusive parents which > > again implies that all children who want to stay with their parents because some children who are > > abused wish to stay with their abusive parents. > I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying I implied.

Sorry I may have phrased it poorly… the basics are that your implication seemed to be that because some abused kids want to stay with their parents that all children who want to stay with their parents are abused by those parents, and that their wanting to stay with their parents is ‘evidence’ of the parents’ being guilty of child abuse. This is an arguement which has been used MANY times by Gestapo CPS, their advocates and their apologists. > It looks like you’re saying that, by simply noting that some abused > children wish to remain with their parents, I somehow implied that all > abused children want to stay with their parents.

Close… not quite.. the implication is that all children who want to stay with their parents are abused, because some abused children want to remain with their parents. > But that would be nonsensical.

It is still claimed by Gestapo CPS agents in the kangaroo anti-family courts. > > Again nowhere in your text do you even consider the > > concept of an innocent child kidnapped from innocent parents by Gestapo CPS abuses, even though this > > IS the case in 85-95+% of removals which in such cases are nothing less than kidnappings. Again the > > implication is extremely clear. > I don’t believe your 85/95 statistic, but I know this occurs.

Why not? Why do you disbelieve what has already been clearly and conclusively proven? Simply because you do not want to believe it? What evidence do you have that proves the statistic inaccurate that is as substantiated in fact and logic as that which supports the statistic, Henry? > I’m not responsible for your inferences.

I made no inferences… merely pointed out your implications. > > Then you go after anyone who posts against Gestapo CPS in newsgroups, never mentioning that they > > might do so because they have been innocent and yet harmed by Gestapo CPS abuses or maybe they have > > not been abused (yet) but find the routine violations of the civil, human, constitutional, due > > process and parental rights of innocent citizens completely heinous, evil and offensive. The strong > > implication > …cut me a break here, Neal…

Why? > > in your words is that anyone here or in other newsgroups who posts opposition to Gestapo > > CPS and their abuses is some kind of kook who is a child abuser and wishes to lash out at who they > > perceive as their victimizer anonymously and finding similar folk to themselves. > > Again there is no > > mention of folks like me and the vast majority of those here who post against the offenses and > > abuses of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry. > > Your words were not as innocent as you seem to wish they were. And I took them as they came across > > in the context of the discussion. > You took them in the context in which you wished to interpret them.

I took them in the context of this discussion in this newsgroup on this topic. I did not take them out of context in any way. > > > In my opinion, the legitimacy of the removal doesn’t necessarily have > > > much bearing on whether the parents or children involved are upset. > > Actually in most cases it does, and innocents who have their children kidnapped on average tend to > > be far more upset (once the shock wears off at how heinous our own government can be to its own > > innocent citizens) than guilty people. Not always… there are true jerks in the world like the > > clowns who will ‘get you’ for having the audacity to turn them in if they rob you. But they are the > > clear minority. > I would go along with this.

Thank you. > I think it more likely that the more > aggressive and vocal folks have probably been abused and harrassed. I > also agree that the number of "true jerks" are in the minority.

Thank you again. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > I know there are governmental abuses. I also have personal experience with > > > folks that were guilty as hell but were still upset that the children > > > were removed. > > Most parents will be upset if their children are removed… however those are not the ones who have > > been posting here. Not even close, Henry, if you bothered to look into the details of each case > > presented. Almost to a person the children were kidnapped for no legitimate, credible, reasonable, > > rational, logical or legal reason… simply because a fascist powertripping jackbooted (in attitude > > if not actual attire) goosestepper who wished to augment their department’s funding streams wanted > > to and was willing to perjure themselves (with complete immunity from prosecution civilly or > > criminally for their crime) to a sympathetic judge who is one of a group who are Gestapo CPS’ "VERY > > VERY ACTIVE PARTNERS". > > > Since I really don’t know what the reality of the > > > situation is for most of the folks here, I try to respond without making > > > any judgements regarding their personal information. However, I’m human, > > > and thus I find my credulity

Response:

In article <90DFCFA57shari2kgo…@24.2.10.79>, Shari says… >Henry W. Moritz said : > >>I guess I disagree. I’ve seen instances where foster parents posted >>fairly innocuous stuff and got the "truth" explained to them. In fact, >>I don’t think I would be going to far out on a limb to submit that there >>are some folks that post here that are simply opposed to foster parents >>and thus find *anything* they say (as well as their existance) as >>offensive. >I don’t think you would be going too far to say that either. Look at how >they jumped all over that innocuous little "chewed cardboard" thing. I >mean, come on, is that digging or what? And all because I am in training to >be a foster parent.

Not really, You have admitted to millions of people that you interpert cardboard chewings from rabbits to seem like communication, kind of like the son of sam thing. Wierd. Good-bye. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >>No, I’m sorry. This is a blanket statement and I don’t think anything >>involving human values and institions are so easily or neatly reduced to >>simple mathematical logic. >I strongly agree. I haven’t even bothered to respond to the numbers game >here because of that simple truth. Each case is unique, each case has its >own facts and therefore, no-one can reasonably argue percentages and ratios >regarding removal cases. >>> We are not speaking of opinions or points of view, but instead of >>> clearly and objectively determined right and wrong. PERIOD. >>Wrong again. >Exactly. Clearly and objectively defined right and wrong? Sounds like >something CPS would say. > >Henry, are you a foster parent? Your patience and ability to keep >everything straight is a wonderful gift! I enjoy reading your posts. >Shari >– >To reply by e-mail, please remove AZAAM from my address.

"..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Black Hawk, 1833

Response:

In article <90DFC4773shari2kgo…@24.2.10.79>, She, who talks with bunnies: >Henry W. Moritz said

http://members.aol.com/fpallegations/index.html "..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Black Hawk, 1833

Response:

In article <90DFCFA57shari2kgo…@24.2.10.79>, She, who talks with bunnies: >Henry W. Moritz said :

Response:

free_kaler chewed some cardboard to form these letters : >Not really, You have admitted to millions of people that you interpert >cardboard chewings from rabbits to seem like communication, kind of like >the son of sam thing. Wierd. Good-bye.

*LOL* Good-bye! — To reply by e-mail, please remove AZAAM from my address.

Response:

Henry W. Moritz said : >I guess I disagree. I’ve seen instances where foster parents posted >fairly innocuous stuff and got the "truth" explained to them. In fact, >I don’t think I would be going to far out on a limb to submit that there >are some folks that post here that are simply opposed to foster parents >and thus find *anything* they say (as well as their existance) as >offensive.

I don’t think you would be going too far to say that either. Look at how they jumped all over that innocuous little "chewed cardboard" thing. I mean, come on, is that digging or what? And all because I am in training to be a foster parent. >No, I’m sorry. This is a blanket statement and I don’t think anything >involving human values and institions are so easily or neatly reduced to >simple mathematical logic.

I strongly agree. I haven’t even bothered to respond to the numbers game here because of that simple truth. Each case is unique, each case has its own facts and therefore, no-one can reasonably argue percentages and ratios regarding removal cases. >> We are not speaking of opinions or points of view, but instead of >> clearly and objectively determined right and wrong. PERIOD. >Wrong again.

Exactly. Clearly and objectively defined right and wrong? Sounds like something CPS would say. Henry, are you a foster parent? Your patience and ability to keep everything straight is a wonderful gift! I enjoy reading your posts. Shari — To reply by e-mail, please remove AZAAM from my address.

Response:

Henry W. Moritz said : – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of >the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or >children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in >cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents >to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has >resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that >instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these >folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever >they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great >place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as >aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, >they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , >and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change >their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. >However, I don’t think most foster parents have nearly as much emotional >baggage.

I agree with you, Henry. Most foster parents have to learn to let go of a lot of negative emotions, or they simply would not be able to continue to do the good work they do. Most foster parents I know are in counselling to get through their grief and anger regarding the system, and therefore heal and are able to move forward instead of nursing grudges and hanging on to the past. > When they do need support, despite the name of the >newsgroup, this newsgroup clearly isn’t the place to get it. One or two >posts will get enough aggressive reponses to discourage them from any >notions of getting support. If they aren’t getting support, why stick >around and subject themselves to abuse? A few foster parents may stick >around to see what’s posted(such as myself), but then I suspect they >aren’t looking for support here.

Hear, hear! I came here looking for support and was amazed to see it had been taken hostage and over-run by such hatred. This group should change its name. I am no longer looking for support here (thanks to Wex’s posts with all kinds of other groups to go to), but I am sticking around out of sheer morbid curiosity. If nothing else, it’s a great place to get a laugh. > I don’t. My guess is that those >foster parents who are interested in child activisim are posting more >actively in other groups.

Your guess is correct. In "real" life, I am very against CPS. Boy, I bet that’s a shock! But I am. The reason why I came to this group and assumed a PRO-CPS attitude, was to see what the arguments against CPS are, see who is angry and who is not, see if there are any new grievances against CPS. I couldn’t come in here saying Destroy CPS, or else I would have gotten a bunch of self-congratulory back patting and "aren’t we so politically actve" messages. I don’t agree with CPS, but I don’t like that self- righteous crap either. And no matter what, I believe foster parents provide a crucial service. >Regardless, my point is that this group is indeed one-sided and I really >don’t believe it has to do with the "light of truth" as much as it does >with a desire of folks seeking support to avoid a lot of opinions which >don’t really pertain to their particular problems.

And I agree with this, too. This group is intensely one-sided. So much so, that even people who WANT to hear about the bad guys (such as myself) are so disgusted with the acrimoniousness and hostility towards anyone with a mind of their own or a different background, that they wind up dismissing otherwise perfectly valid arguments. (Boy, talk about a run-on sentence!) >They are certainly entitled to their points of view.

Ah, how refreshing to hear THAT! Thank you! Thanks for posting, Henry, it was nice to read a calm and sane post. Shari — To reply by e-mail, please remove AZAAM from my address.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - Neal Feldman wrote: > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > > > > > MM > > > > > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > > > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > > > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > > > > > are called on the facts. > > > > > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > > > > > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > > > > I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of > > > > the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or > > > > children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in > > > > cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents > > > > to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has > > > > resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that > > > > instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these > > > > folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever > > > > they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great > > > > place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as > > > > aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, > > > > they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , > > > > and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change > > > > their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. > > > Again you assume that those parents posting here had legitimate accusations against them when > > > in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite. > > Actually, I think if you review my post you’ll note that I didn’t make > > any assumptions regarding the legitimacy of accusations against parents. > Actually the implication is quite definite, since you only mention people who were NOT wrongly > accused and who would deny… the implication is that anyone who denies is guilty because some > guilty people have denied. Nowhere in your text above do you acknowledge innocent parents having > their kids kidnapped… only that some guilty people may look at it that way.

There was no implication, only your inference. I noted the possibility of valid abuse because one might assume that children who actually were abused might not complain about being removed from their homes. But that is not always the case. One might also assume that someone who would abuse their children might not care about removal. But that is not always the case. I am aware that travesties have been committed by governmental agencies and their agents. I also believe that most victims of this governmental abuse would be outraged and vocal about it. I also am aware that there are folks that are abused that are afraid to be vocal or lack the resources to do so in an effective manner. > Also you mentioned that some abused children still want to stay with their abusive parents which > again implies that all children who want to stay with their parents because some children who are > abused wish to stay with their abusive parents.

I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying I implied. It looks like you’re saying that, by simply noting that some abused children wish to remain with their parents, I somehow implied that all abused children want to stay with their parents. But that would be nonsensical. > Again nowhere in your text do you even consider the > concept of an innocent child kidnapped from innocent parents by Gestapo CPS abuses, even though this > IS the case in 85-95+% of removals which in such cases are nothing less than kidnappings. Again the > implication is extremely clear.

I don’t believe your 85/95 statistic, but I know this occurs. I’m not responsible for your inferences. > Then you go after anyone who posts against Gestapo CPS in newsgroups, never mentioning that they > might do so because they have been innocent and yet harmed by Gestapo CPS abuses or maybe they have > not been abused (yet) but find the routine violations of the civil, human, constitutional, due > process and parental rights of innocent citizens completely heinous, evil and offensive. The strong > implication

…cut me a break here, Neal… > in your words is that anyone here or in other newsgroups who posts opposition to Gestapo > CPS and their abuses is some kind of kook who is a child abuser and wishes to lash out at who they > perceive as their victimizer anonymously and finding similar folk to themselves. > Again there is no > mention of folks like me and the vast majority of those here who post against the offenses and > abuses of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry. > Your words were not as innocent as you seem to wish they were. And I took them as they came across > in the context of the discussion.

You took them in the context in which you wished to interpret them. > > In my opinion, the legitimacy of the removal doesn’t necessarily have > > much bearing on whether the parents or children involved are upset. > Actually in most cases it does, and innocents who have their children kidnapped on average tend to > be far more upset (once the shock wears off at how heinous our own government can be to its own > innocent citizens) than guilty people. Not always… there are true jerks in the world like the > clowns who will ‘get you’ for having the audacity to turn them in if they rob you. But they are the > clear minority.

I would go along with this. I think it more likely that the more aggressive and vocal folks have probably been abused and harrassed. I also agree that the number of "true jerks" are in the minority. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > I know there are governmental abuses. I also have personal experience with > > folks that were guilty as hell but were still upset that the children > > were removed. > Most parents will be upset if their children are removed… however those are not the ones who have > been posting here. Not even close, Henry, if you bothered to look into the details of each case > presented. Almost to a person the children were kidnapped for no legitimate, credible, reasonable, > rational, logical or legal reason… simply because a fascist powertripping jackbooted (in attitude > if not actual attire) goosestepper who wished to augment their department’s funding streams wanted > to and was willing to perjure themselves (with complete immunity from prosecution civilly or > criminally for their crime) to a sympathetic judge who is one of a group who are Gestapo CPS’ "VERY > VERY ACTIVE PARTNERS". > > Since I really don’t know what the reality of the > > situation is for most of the folks here, I try to respond without making > > any judgements regarding their personal information. However, I’m human, > > and thus I find my credulity occasionally tested. > Gestapo CPS does test credulity. Most people cannot bring themselves to accept the heinousness of > this agency or the criminal actions and gross violations of the civil, constitutional, human, due > process and parental rights of innocent citizens. > This of course works in favor of these anti-parent, anti-family and ultimately anti-child tyrants > because it makes it easier for them to paint those who know the truth and point it out as ‘kooks’ > because clearly could they possibly commit all these offenses? If they did certainly someone would > do something about it long ago, right? The truth is that yes they DO commit all those offenses AND > MORE, and no, no one has been willing to stand up to them and put an end to it. > Anyone who tries gets branded pro-child abuser, anti-child and finds themselves looking down the > barrel of Gestapo CPS’ vindictive retribution in the form of kidnappings of their own kids or > grandkids and general harassment of their family and themselves (and anyone who stands up for > them). In New Hampshire a politician found this out… ask Ric Werme for details… and by now > everyone should know how this happened in WENATCHEE WASHINGTON. In fact the pastor and wife who > were so targetted have STILL apparently remained targets and Gestapo CPS continues to this day to > harass them. > > > So in cases (which data shows is 85-95+% if all > > > the millions of removals (kidnappings) Gestapo CPS has perpetrated) of kidnappings by Gestapo > > > CPS why shouldn’t their victims actively work to see this abusive and heinously evil and > > > offensive agency abolished and anyone and everyone involved in kidnapping kids from innocent > > > parents held to the full force of the law for their capital crimes? Remember kidnapping is a > > > capital offense, in most states punishable by DEATH. > > Hey, if they feel that way, they have the right to express their > > opinions. After all, I said "all good and acceptable stuff". > That is a fairly dismissive attitude and tone… this is more than feelings as has been clearly and > conclusively proven. > > > > However,

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > Neal Feldman wrote: > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > > > > MM > > > > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > > > > are called on the facts. > > > > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > > > > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > > > I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of > > > the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or > > > children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in > > > cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents > > > to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has > > > resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that > > > instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these > > > folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever > > > they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great > > > place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as > > > aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, > > > they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , > > > and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change > > > their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. > > Again you assume that those parents posting here had legitimate accusations against them when > > in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite. > Actually, I think if you review my post you’ll note that I didn’t make > any assumptions regarding the legitimacy of accusations against parents.

Actually the implication is quite definite, since you only mention people who were NOT wrongly accused and who would deny… the implication is that anyone who denies is guilty because some guilty people have denied. Nowhere in your text above do you acknowledge innocent parents having their kids kidnapped… only that some guilty people may look at it that way. Also you mentioned that some abused children still want to stay with their abusive parents which again implies that all children who want to stay with their parents because some children who are abused wish to stay with their abusive parents. Again nowhere in your text do you even consider the concept of an innocent child kidnapped from innocent parents by Gestapo CPS abuses, even though this IS the case in 85-95+% of removals which in such cases are nothing less than kidnappings. Again the implication is extremely clear. Then you go after anyone who posts against Gestapo CPS in newsgroups, never mentioning that they might do so because they have been innocent and yet harmed by Gestapo CPS abuses or maybe they have not been abused (yet) but find the routine violations of the civil, human, constitutional, due process and parental rights of innocent citizens completely heinous, evil and offensive. The strong implication in your words is that anyone here or in other newsgroups who posts opposition to Gestapo CPS and their abuses is some kind of kook who is a child abuser and wishes to lash out at who they perceive as their victimizer anonymously and finding similar folk to themselves. Again there is no mention of folks like me and the vast majority of those here who post against the offenses and abuses of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry. Your words were not as innocent as you seem to wish they were. And I took them as they came across in the context of the discussion. > In my opinion, the legitimacy of the removal doesn’t necessarily have > much bearing on whether the parents or children involved are upset.

Actually in most cases it does, and innocents who have their children kidnapped on average tend to be far more upset (once the shock wears off at how heinous our own government can be to its own innocent citizens) than guilty people. Not always… there are true jerks in the world like the clowns who will ‘get you’ for having the audacity to turn them in if they rob you. But they are the clear minority. > I know there are governmental abuses. I also have personal experience with > folks that were guilty as hell but were still upset that the children > were removed.

Most parents will be upset if their children are removed… however those are not the ones who have been posting here. Not even close, Henry, if you bothered to look into the details of each case presented. Almost to a person the children were kidnapped for no legitimate, credible, reasonable, rational, logical or legal reason… simply because a fascist powertripping jackbooted (in attitude if not actual attire) goosestepper who wished to augment their department’s funding streams wanted to and was willing to perjure themselves (with complete immunity from prosecution civilly or criminally for their crime) to a sympathetic judge who is one of a group who are Gestapo CPS’ "VERY VERY ACTIVE PARTNERS". > Since I really don’t know what the reality of the > situation is for most of the folks here, I try to respond without making > any judgements regarding their personal information. However, I’m human, > and thus I find my credulity occasionally tested.

Gestapo CPS does test credulity. Most people cannot bring themselves to accept the heinousness of this agency or the criminal actions and gross violations of the civil, constitutional, human, due process and parental rights of innocent citizens. This of course works in favor of these anti-parent, anti-family and ultimately anti-child tyrants because it makes it easier for them to paint those who know the truth and point it out as ‘kooks’ because clearly could they possibly commit all these offenses? If they did certainly someone would do something about it long ago, right? The truth is that yes they DO commit all those offenses AND MORE, and no, no one has been willing to stand up to them and put an end to it. Anyone who tries gets branded pro-child abuser, anti-child and finds themselves looking down the barrel of Gestapo CPS’ vindictive retribution in the form of kidnappings of their own kids or grandkids and general harassment of their family and themselves (and anyone who stands up for them). In New Hampshire a politician found this out… ask Ric Werme for details… and by now everyone should know how this happened in WENATCHEE WASHINGTON. In fact the pastor and wife who were so targetted have STILL apparently remained targets and Gestapo CPS continues to this day to harass them. > > So in cases (which data shows is 85-95+% if all > > the millions of removals (kidnappings) Gestapo CPS has perpetrated) of kidnappings by Gestapo > > CPS why shouldn’t their victims actively work to see this abusive and heinously evil and > > offensive agency abolished and anyone and everyone involved in kidnapping kids from innocent > > parents held to the full force of the law for their capital crimes? Remember kidnapping is a > > capital offense, in most states punishable by DEATH. > Hey, if they feel that way, they have the right to express their > opinions. After all, I said "all good and acceptable stuff".

That is a fairly dismissive attitude and tone… this is more than feelings as has been clearly and conclusively proven. > > > However, I don’t think most foster parents have nearly as much emotional > > > baggage. When they do need support, despite the name of the > > > newsgroup, this newsgroup clearly isn’t the place to get it. One or two > > > posts will get enough aggressive reponses to discourage them from any > > > notions of getting support. If they aren’t getting support, why stick > > > around and subject themselves to abuse? > > If they do not post statements innocent parents and those who rightly oppose Gestapo CPS and > > the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry would find offensive there is little likelihood they > > will get the truth explained to them. > I guess I disagree. I’ve seen instances where foster parents posted > fairly innocuous stuff and got the "truth" explained to them.

I guess it all depends on what you consider to be ‘innocuous stuff’… see my examination of your own text above explaining to you some things you clearly seem to have missed. > In fact, I > don’t think I would be going to far out on a limb to submit that there > are some folks that post here that are simply opposed to foster parents > and thus find *anything* they say (as well as their existance) as offensive.

There are a great many fosters who I find offensive and a great many attitudes amongst fosters which I find oppositional. As I said when I first came to this ng there was nothing but three solid months of posts of the most vitriolic anti-parent and anti-family anti-reunification and conspiracy to kidnap postings you could ever stomach! And it was uniform… not a single person was saying BOO about it. Then I did, and I got jumped by the entire group en masse. I guess they expected me to just run away… but I didn’t. I continued to

Response:

Ron wrote: > nashc…@aol.com (NashCats) wrote in message … > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > MM > Hi there MM. > Your right, reading here can be very discouraging.

Considering, MoRon Mitty, the heinous offensiveness I found here when I first arrived and that you continue to spew and support in your Gestapo CPS apologist screeds, I would certainly hope such as you might be discouraged… that can only be a Good Thing ™ considering your clear anti-family, anti-parent and ultimately anti-child agenda. > Avoid reading here, because as you see there are few FP’s here.

Translation: Remain ignorant or if you find out the truth you will no longer support the system MoRon Mitty so dearly loves (as it provides him such a boost to his personal income) > We can help, we can provide support, but the bulk of the answers you > get here will be things you don’t want or really need.

Like the truth, huh MoRon Mitty? Sure seems to be your enemy usually, doesn’t it? — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

Wex Wimpy wrote: > Hi if you go to http://www.westworld.com/~barbara/ > There are links there to a fosterparent chat room if you go there at > night there are a lot of fosterparents there that would love to help > you. You have to take what is sayed

Great education and intellect you have there, Wex… ’sayed’ huh? > by a lot of people on this list > with a grain of salt most are parents that had there kids pulled for > abuse of some sort and blame all there problems on other people which > happen a lot. .

Interesting, Wex, since virtually NONE of those posting here have had heir kids taken for any legitimate and justifiable reason at all… and in fact 85-95+% of all removals nationwide by Gestapo CPS have been shown to have had no legitimate justification to support the rrmovals. So it is quite interesting for you to continue to perpetuate the lies of Gestapo CPS and foster parents in your anti-family and anti-parent (and ultimately anti-child) screeds, Wex. Quite interesting indeed. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > Neal Feldman wrote: > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > > MM > > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > > are called on the facts. > > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of > the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or > children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in > cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents > to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has > resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that > instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these > folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever > they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great > place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as > aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, > they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , > and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change > their perception. All good and acceptable stuff.

Again you assume that those parents posting here had legitimate accusations against them when in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite. So in cases (which data shows is 85-95+% if all the millions of removals (kidnappings) Gestapo CPS has perpetrated) of kidnappings by Gestapo CPS why shouldn’t their victims actively work to see this abusive and heinously evil and offensive agency abolished and anyone and everyone involved in kidnapping kids from innocent parents held to the full force of the law for their capital crimes? Remember kidnapping is a capital offense, in most states punishable by DEATH. > However, I don’t think most foster parents have nearly as much emotional > baggage. When they do need support, despite the name of the > newsgroup, this newsgroup clearly isn’t the place to get it. One or two > posts will get enough aggressive reponses to discourage them from any > notions of getting support. If they aren’t getting support, why stick > around and subject themselves to abuse?

If they do not post statements innocent parents and those who rightly oppose Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry would find offensive there is little likelihood they will get the truth explained to them. For example Wex Wimpy posted his little private email conspiracy email lists for quite some time and no one said boo… then he started his anti-parent and anti-family BS and attacks against newsgroup posters and his promotion of the rhetoric and propaganda of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry… and THAT is when people have rightly begun to respond to his BS with the facts, evidence and truth. > A few foster parents may stick > around to see what’s posted(such as myself), but then I suspect they > aren’t looking for support here. I don’t. My guess is that those foster > parents who are interested in child activisim are posting more actively > in other groups.

Child activism as apparently defined as anti-family, anti-parent and ultimately anti-child slavish and sycophantic support and apologist treatment of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry. That does tend to be the end result in most cases, does it not? > Regardless, my point is that this group is indeed one-sided and I really > don’t believe it has to do with the "light of truth" as much as it does > with a desire of folks seeking support to avoid a lot of opinions which > don’t really pertain to their particular problems.

Reworded this is that they do not want to be exposed to legitimate criticism of their anti-family, anti-parent and ultimately anti-child antics, nor to the facts and truth which show that children in foster ‘care’ are 8 to 10 TIMES (or more) likely to be abused, neglected or killed as children in their real families, and that children who have ever been in foster care fare FAR worse than kids who have never been in foster care, or that 85-95+% of those put in foster care by Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry should never have been removed from the custody of their parents and family in the first place or the constant occurrence of cases such as has been detailed here where foster parents are merely in it for the meat market aspect… to find a child they can adopt after undermining and derailing reunification and having parental rights terminated to make the kidnapping complete. I agree with you, these are all the well established, clearly and conclusively proven facts that foster ‘care’ people really do not want to know about, see or have anyone else discuss or be aware of. > > > > Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" > > > > any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the > > > > minority opionion, true? > > > I’m not sure what your point is with this question. I think, given the > > > parameters listed, anyone answering anything different than four would > > > simply be wrong. > > There are those who consider the statements of the supporters of Gestapo CPS and the > > Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry such as MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy to be just as > > wrong. > They are certainly entitled to their points of view.

The facts and evidence clearly and conclusively prove them right, just like basic math proves those with the answer of 4 in the example above correct. We are not speaking of opinions or points of view, but instead of clearly and objectively determined right and wrong. PERIOD. Why is it that when fosters get painted into a corner where they have to admit they are wrong instead of honestly doing so they simply try and desperately claim that anything they disagree with is ‘mere opinion’? Why is that, Henry? > > > But I’m pretty sure you’re not suggesting that just > > > because an opinion is in the minority that it is wrong, > > Of course not, Henry. Where did you get that I did? > I said I was pretty sure you didn’t, but I feel your post could have been > read that way.

Only by a biased buffoon. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > any more than a wrong opinion isn’t necessarily in the minority. > > Absolutely. > > > > > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > > > > > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > > > > > recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an > > > > > array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with > > > > > yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be > > > > > emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view > > > > > the world. > > > > It tends to reeducate you into an anti-parent anti-family Gestapo CPS > apologist who > > > has been deluded into seeking child abuse and neglect under every > rock and behind > > > every tree. > > > Not in my experience. > > Well, those who turn out like MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy seem to have… but granted, the > > majority see the offensiveness and simply refuse to be party to the crimes against > > families any more. > > > > But that is just how those who have presented their positions here have come > > > > across. > > > What can I say? Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. > > Actually not, by definition, but whatever… > It wasn’t meant as a statement of fact, it was intended to be ironical…

It was just nonsensical. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - Neal Feldman wrote: > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > > > MM > > > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > > > are called on the facts. > > > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > > > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > > I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of > > the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or > > children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in > > cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents > > to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has > > resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that > > instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these > > folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever > > they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great > > place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as > > aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, > > they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , > > and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change > > their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. > Again you assume that those parents posting here had legitimate accusations against them when > in fact the evidence shows quite the opposite.

Actually, I think if you review my post you’ll note that I didn’t make any assumptions regarding the legitimacy of accusations against parents. In my opinion, the legitimacy of the removal doesn’t necessarily have much bearing on whether the parents or children involved are upset. I know there are governmental abuses. I also have personal experience with folks that were guilty as hell but were still upset that the children were removed. Since I really don’t know what the reality of the situation is for most of the folks here, I try to respond without making any judgements regarding their personal information. However, I’m human, and thus I find my credulity occasionally tested. > So in cases (which data shows is 85-95+% if all > the millions of removals (kidnappings) Gestapo CPS has perpetrated) of kidnappings by Gestapo > CPS why shouldn’t their victims actively work to see this abusive and heinously evil and > offensive agency abolished and anyone and everyone involved in kidnapping kids from innocent > parents held to the full force of the law for their capital crimes? Remember kidnapping is a > capital offense, in most states punishable by DEATH.

Hey, if they feel that way, they have the right to express their opinions. After all, I said "all good and acceptable stuff". > > However, I don’t think most foster parents have nearly as much emotional > > baggage. When they do need support, despite the name of the > > newsgroup, this newsgroup clearly isn’t the place to get it. One or two > > posts will get enough aggressive reponses to discourage them from any > > notions of getting support. If they aren’t getting support, why stick > > around and subject themselves to abuse? > If they do not post statements innocent parents and those who rightly oppose Gestapo CPS and > the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry would find offensive there is little likelihood they > will get the truth explained to them.

I guess I disagree. I’ve seen instances where foster parents posted fairly innocuous stuff and got the "truth" explained to them. In fact, I don’t think I would be going to far out on a limb to submit that there are some folks that post here that are simply opposed to foster parents and thus find *anything* they say (as well as their existance) as offensive. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> For example Wex Wimpy posted his little private email conspiracy email lists for quite some > time and no one said boo… then he started his anti-parent and anti-family BS and attacks > against newsgroup posters and his promotion of the rhetoric and propaganda of Gestapo CPS and > the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry… and THAT is when people have rightly begun to > respond to his BS with the facts, evidence and truth. > > A few foster parents may stick > > around to see what’s posted(such as myself), but then I suspect they > > aren’t looking for support here. I don’t. My guess is that those foster > > parents who are interested in child activisim are posting more actively > > in other groups. > Child activism as apparently defined as anti-family, anti-parent and ultimately anti-child > slavish and sycophantic support and apologist treatment of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and > Kidnapping Industry.

I feel you’re drawing assumptions again. I didn’t characterize "child activism" in any way. I just said that whatever some foster parents’ consider "child activism", they probably post about it in other newsgroups. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That does tend to be the end result in most cases, does it not? > > Regardless, my point is that this group is indeed one-sided and I really > > don’t believe it has to do with the "light of truth" as much as it does > > with a desire of folks seeking support to avoid a lot of opinions which > > don’t really pertain to their particular problems. > Reworded this is that they do not want to be exposed to legitimate criticism of their > anti-family, anti-parent and ultimately anti-child antics, nor to the facts and truth which > show that children in foster ‘care’ are 8 to 10 TIMES (or more) likely to be abused, neglected > or killed as children in their real families, and that children who have ever been in foster > care fare FAR worse than kids who have never been in foster care, or that 85-95+% of those put > in foster care by Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry should never have > been removed from the custody of their parents and family in the first place or the constant > occurrence of cases such as has been detailed here where foster parents are merely in it for > the meat market aspect… to find a child they can adopt after undermining and derailing > reunification and having parental rights terminated to make the kidnapping complete.

That is your rewording, not mine. > I agree with you, these are all the well established, clearly and conclusively proven facts > that foster ‘care’ people really do not want to know about, see or have anyone else discuss or > be aware of.

You are mistaken. I don’t agree with this mischaracterization of what I said. Nor do I agree with all of your "facts" nor what you imply the "facts" indicate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > > Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" > > > > > any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the > > > > > minority opionion, true? > > > > I’m not sure what your point is with this question. I think, given the > > > > parameters listed, anyone answering anything different than four would > > > > simply be wrong. > > > There are those who consider the statements of the supporters of Gestapo CPS and the > > > Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry such as MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy to be just as > > > wrong. > > They are certainly entitled to their points of view. > The facts and evidence clearly and conclusively prove them right, just like basic math proves > those with the answer of 4 in the example above correct.

No, I’m sorry. This is a blanket statement and I don’t think anything involving human values and institions are so easily or neatly reduced to simple mathematical logic. > We are not speaking of opinions or points of view, but instead of clearly and objectively > determined right and wrong. PERIOD.

Wrong again. > Why is it that when fosters get painted into a corner where they have to admit they are wrong > instead of honestly doing so they simply try and desperately claim that anything they disagree > with is ‘mere opinion’? > Why is that, Henry?

What’s so "mere" about opinion? Whole civilizations have been built and destroyed by it. That said, I really don’t know. Maybe they just don’t agree with you and they’re tired of arguing, so they say it to be nice. It’s been my observation that this seems to be a common behavior amongst all people — not just "fosters". > > > > But I’m pretty sure you’re not suggesting that just > > > > because an opinion is in the minority that it is wrong, > > > Of course not, Henry. Where did you get that I did? > > I said I was pretty sure you didn’t, but I feel your post could have been > > read that way. > Only by a biased buffoon.

Nah. I stand by my original evaluation. I think your average person could have misinterpreted what you meant. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > any more than a wrong opinion isn’t necessarily in the minority. > > > Absolutely. > > > > > > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > > > > > > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > > > > > > recommend you look up your local foster parent

Response:

NashCats chewed some cardboard to form these letters <20010713191420.01196.00000…@ng-dd1.aol.com>: >I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find >some foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and >wha I read hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? >MM

Yes, check out some other groups. I came here looking for the same thing, and I have been called names and insulted. This is not support for foster parents, this is merely an anti-CPS group. If you would like a great supportive group for foster parents, email me at shari2k@go . com and I will send you the one I belong to. Great bunch of people! Shari — To reply by e-mail, please remove AZAAM from my address.

Response:

nashc…@aol.com (NashCats) wrote in message … > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > MM

Hi there MM. Your right, reading here can be very discouraging. Checking with your local agency is a great idea. They can advise you of if there is a local foster parents support group or an association. Contacting either of those is a great place to start. If you are unable to find anything useful there you might try some of the web locations posted by Wex Wimpy. He has the URL’s for some national email news groups that actually perform a positive form of support and information dissemination for us Foster Parents. Avoid reading here, because as you see there are few FP’s here. We can help, we can provide support, but the bulk of the answers you get here will be things you don’t want or really need. Good luck in your search, and let us know how things are progressing. Ron

Response:

Hi if you go to http://www.westworld.com/~barbara/ There are links there to a fosterparent chat room if you go there at night there are a lot of fosterparents there that would love to help you. You have to take what is sayed by a lot of people on this list with a grain of salt most are parents that had there kids pulled for abuse of some sort and blame all there problems on other people which happen a lot. . Hope to hear from you soon.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -"Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > Neal Feldman wrote: > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > MM > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > are called on the facts. > Then again, maybe that’s not it.

You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry? > > Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" > > any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the > > minority opionion, true? > I’m not sure what your point is with this question. I think, given the > parameters listed, anyone answering anything different than four would > simply be wrong.

There are those who consider the statements of the supporters of Gestapo CPS and the Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry such as MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy to be just as wrong. > But I’m pretty sure you’re not suggesting that just > because an opinion is in the minority that it is wrong,

Of course not, Henry. Where did you get that I did? > any more than a wrong opinion isn’t necessarily in the minority.

Absolutely. > > > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > > > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > > > recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an > > > array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with > > > yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be > > > emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view > > > the world. > > It tends to reeducate you into an anti-parent anti-family Gestapo CPS > apologist who > has been deluded into seeking child abuse and neglect under every > rock and behind > every tree. > Not in my experience.

Well, those who turn out like MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy seem to have… but granted, the majority see the offensiveness and simply refuse to be party to the crimes against families any more. > > But that is just how those who have presented their positions here have come > > across. > What can I say? Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually not, by definition, but whatever… — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

Shari wrote: > NashCats chewed some cardboard to form these letters > <20010713191420.01196.00000…@ng-dd1.aol.com>: > >I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find > >some foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and > >wha I read hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > >MM > Yes, check out some other groups. I came here looking for the same thing, > and I have been called names and insulted.

Seems to me you are exceedingly thin skinned.. and clearly cannot take criticism of your positions and your public statements at all unless they are all flowery and positive… which considering the negative nature (re:parents and families) of your positions, statements and general Gestapo CPS apologist stance is quite ironic, to say the least! > This is not support for foster parents, this is merely an anti-CPS group.

Actually it is a support group for people dealing with foster parenting, from ANY of the sides… that the anti-CPS side can with clear concience and honesty post their positions and fosters seem to run for the hills (likely due to their anti-family selfserving agenda and positions which we tend to illuminate and which were rampant and rabid in this ng when I first arrived) might give one such an opinion. But if one actually examines things in detail rather than just looking at a selfserving veneer one gets a more accurate picture. > If you would like a great > supportive group for foster parents, email me at shari2k@go . com and I > will send you the one I belong to. Great bunch of people!

Translation: Only one side of the issue, discussions in secret so that the criminal and anti-family conspiracy and corruption is not generally viewed. I am tempted to create a false identity and submit to several of these little kidnapper and hostageholder hideyholes and then post here the text I find there… so that they will no longer be secret anymore. Others can do so as well. Maybe they should. After the truly heinous and offensive posts I found in the three months of postings prior to my first post here it should be quite illuminating indeed… fosters actively planning and plotting the undermining and failure of reunification so they can keep the kidnapped children for themselves. I saw several whining in terror… the parents were actually doing what was expected, there was not coming into the picture any evidence showing they had ever done anything wrong, and the kids were being scheduled for return… so these kidnappers and hostage holders were begging people for what they could do to derail reunification and move towards termination of parental rights so that THEY could adopt the children permanently! Like I said, monumentally offensive in the extreme! And yet not only did no one say BOO until I did about this criminal activity, but there was plenty of support and cooperation in such requests! I fully expect that this kind of BS is what continues to persist in these email lists. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - Neal Feldman wrote: > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > Neal Feldman wrote: > > > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > > > NashCats wrote: > > > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > > > MM > > > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > > > grind with state child protection agencies. > > > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > > > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > > > are called on the facts. > > Then again, maybe that’s not it. > You have an alternate scenario which fits the facts as well, Henry?

I already alluded it, but I’ll elaborate. I have no doubt that one of the most emotionally wrenching and infuriating experiences parents or children can have is to be forcibly separated from each other. Even in cases of horrible abuse it is not unusual for children and their parents to love each other and desire to stay together. This, in turn, has resulted in a number of folks with intense hatred of the system that instigated the separation. Thus, it’s no surprise that some of these folks seek out the enemy or ignorant (from their perspective) wherever they think they can find them, including usenet groups. It’s a great place to vent. They can be anonymous if they wish, they can be as aggressive as they wish with minimal fear of any meaningful reprisal, they can meet with others that may sympathize or empathize with them , and they might even be successful in persuading some folks to change their perception. All good and acceptable stuff. However, I don’t think most foster parents have nearly as much emotional baggage. When they do need support, despite the name of the newsgroup, this newsgroup clearly isn’t the place to get it. One or two posts will get enough aggressive reponses to discourage them from any notions of getting support. If they aren’t getting support, why stick around and subject themselves to abuse? A few foster parents may stick around to see what’s posted(such as myself), but then I suspect they aren’t looking for support here. I don’t. My guess is that those foster parents who are interested in child activisim are posting more actively in other groups. Regardless, my point is that this group is indeed one-sided and I really don’t believe it has to do with the "light of truth" as much as it does with a desire of folks seeking support to avoid a lot of opinions which don’t really pertain to their particular problems. > > > Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" > > > any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the > > > minority opionion, true? > > I’m not sure what your point is with this question. I think, given the > > parameters listed, anyone answering anything different than four would > > simply be wrong. > There are those who consider the statements of the supporters of Gestapo CPS and the > Child Abuse and Kidnapping Industry such as MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy to be just as > wrong.

They are certainly entitled to their points of view. > > But I’m pretty sure you’re not suggesting that just > > because an opinion is in the minority that it is wrong, > Of course not, Henry. Where did you get that I did?

I said I was pretty sure you didn’t, but I feel your post could have been read that way. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > any more than a wrong opinion isn’t necessarily in the minority. > Absolutely. > > > > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > > > > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > > > > recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an > > > > array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with > > > > yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be > > > > emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view > > > > the world. > > > It tends to reeducate you into an anti-parent anti-family Gestapo CPS > apologist who > > has been deluded into seeking child abuse and neglect under every > rock and behind > > every tree. > > Not in my experience. > Well, those who turn out like MoRon Mitty and Wex Wimpy seem to have… but granted, the > majority see the offensiveness and simply refuse to be party to the crimes against > families any more. > > > But that is just how those who have presented their positions here have come > > > across. > > What can I say? Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. > Actually not, by definition, but whatever…

It wasn’t meant as a statement of fact, it was intended to be ironical…

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text - Neal Feldman wrote: > "Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > > NashCats wrote: > > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > > MM > > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > > grind with state child protection agencies. > It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS > side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they > are called on the facts.

Then again, maybe that’s not it. > Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" > any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the > minority opionion, true?

I’m not sure what your point is with this question. I think, given the parameters listed, anyone answering anything different than four would simply be wrong. But I’m pretty sure you’re not suggesting that just because an opinion is in the minority that it is wrong, any more than a wrong opinion isn’t necessarily in the minority. > > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > > recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an > > array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with > > yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be > > emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view > > the world. > It tends to reeducate you into an anti-parent anti-family Gestapo CPS apologist who > has been deluded into seeking child abuse and neglect under every rock and behind > every tree.

Not in my experience. > But that is just how those who have presented their positions here have come > across.

What can I say? Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder.

Response:

"Henry W. Moritz" wrote: > NashCats wrote: > > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > > MM > Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this > newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to > grind with state child protection agencies.

It is only appearing to be one sided because most of the pro-foster pro-Gestapo CPS side runs into the shadows like cockroaches when the light is turned on when they are called on the facts. Just like if the question is "In base 10 and whole numbers what does 2+2 equal?" any group claiming the answer to be other than 4 would tend to be seen as the minority opionion, true? > There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding > experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I > recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an > array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with > yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be > emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view > the world.

It tends to reeducate you into an anti-parent anti-family Gestapo CPS apologist who has been deluded into seeking child abuse and neglect under every rock and behind every tree. But that is just how those who have presented their positions here have come across. — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

NashCats wrote: > I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some > foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read > hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? > MM

Go ahead and read up, these folks do have stories to tell. But this newsgroup is clearly heavily one-sided with folks that have many axes to grind with state child protection agencies. There are also many people that find foster parenting a rewarding experience and who do a lot for their community by their service. I recommend you look up your local foster parent association and find an array of foster parents to talk to. But whatever you do, be honest with yourself regarding what to expect as a foster parent. It can be emotionally wrenching and it will almost certainly change how you view the world.

Response:

Advice is to read the positions, opinions, statements and proven evidence provided and take it all into account. Realize that the vast majority (85-95+%) of all removals are little more (if ANYTHING more) than kidnappings and the innocent real parents will not take kindly to it, or to your holding their children hostage in an effort to coerce and extort actions or agreements from them. Just keep that in mind, ok? — ============================================================= Home Page: http://members.home.net/silverstorm/ We will never rest until Gestapo CPS is completely abolished!

Response:

I’ve been reading the messages here for awhile. Guess I’d hoped to find some foster parents . . . I am considering becoming a foster parent and wha I read hear is not encouraging. Any Advice? MM

Response:

Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!"

admin — Sat, 12 May 2001 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

It’s really too bad that you weren’t here in OKC a week after the bombing. Dead humans have a unique smell, especially if they are buried under hundreds of tons of smashed concrete and mangled rebar. The smell reached all the way to the freeway, which is almost a mile from the site. If McVeigh was a soldier, he turned traitor to his oath when he lit the fuse. Real justice would be to take a turn of det cord around his waist, set it off, then drop a hundred tons of freeway rubble on him from a hundred feet up, so he could identify with his victims just before all that concrete squashed him like the cockroach he is. Lethal injection is too good for the likes of McVeigh, it’s far too merciful a death.

well said .. I agree

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It’s really too bad that you weren’t here in OKC a week after the bombing. Dead humans have a unique smell, especially if they are buried under hundreds of tons of smashed concrete and mangled rebar. The smell reached all the way to the freeway, which is almost a mile from the site. If McVeigh was a soldier, he turned traitor to his oath when he lit the fuse. Real justice would be to take a turn of det cord around his waist, set it off, then drop a hundred tons of freeway rubble on him from a hundred feet up, so he could identify with his victims just before all that concrete squashed him like the cockroach he is. Lethal injection is too good for the likes of McVeigh, it’s far too merciful a death. well said .. I agree

I don’t agree. McVeigh was and is a divine instrument of God. Might God be capable of detecting and analyzing a problem with his grand plan for humanity and providing some remedy? If you believe in God then you should believe that God has power. Tthe most likely avenue for the manifestation of that power would be through the actions of mankind. He might pick a man, or many, out of our midst and guide them to do what he wanted done to change things. He might want to teach Americans a terrible lesson — what it really means to do unto others as you would have others to do unto you! McVeigh believed he was doing what needed to be done, what God wanted him to do, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, as I’ve explained in greater detail in my posting of last evening to misc.activism.militia, copied below. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: misc.activism.militia writes:

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!" To my blind and spiritually ignorant Brothers and Sisters, I ask you to look into yourselves as you relate to this Establishment-promoted political atmosphere which surrounds Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. Pay attention to the insanity of a country’s degraded populace as it attempts to void its guilt by projecting it upon the shoulders of one man — Timothy McVeigh. The plain and simple fact is that Tim McVeigh IS A SOLDIER. Tim McVeigh did what SOLDIERS are TRAINED by their own COUNTRIES to do — KILL!! Who amongst you are capable of discerning the bottom line purpose of a soldier is that of either KILL OR BE KILLED! Why is KILLING in times of war (redistribution of wealth and population control devices) by trained individuals considered by a fear-driven, mind controlled, conditioned public to be POSITIVE, GOOD, GLORIOUS and HEROIC, yet EVIL, INSANE, and CRIMINAL when the same individual acts according to his training in a *personal perception* of a time of nondeclared war; i.e., PATRIOTIC REVOLUTION? Look if you will at the unbalanced, fear-laden sentiments being expressed in the TV, Radio Broadcasts and newspaper Media toward Tim McVeigh. Look also at the directed unbridled vicious, bloodthirsty comments made on these Internet newsgroups/forums by so called "NORMAL" law abiding citizens, many of whom consider Tim McVeigh to be the epitome — the personification — of EVIL. Is Tim McVeigh EVIL? If so, then ALL who are subject to the dualistic conditioning of Mind Control are equally EVIL. Tim McVeigh is a trained SOLDIER. What excuse is there for the rest of you on these newsgroups/forums who promote such hate? Would it not be interesting to take another look at their present conditioned view of the world, to observe these same, average, so-called "law abiding," civilized citizens who so readily rush out to condemn another as EVIL, while they ignore their own presently-unfolding, violent, conditioned "EVIL" momentum being allowed to continue unabated in this present corrupt, "stimulus-response" reinforced, fear-based society? Given enough time, perhaps you folks will wake up to see yourselves as you ACTUALLY ARE, and not as you THINK you are. The simple fact is: Guns don’t KILL. Knives don’t KILL. Clubs don’t KILL. Rocks don’t KILL. EVIL (Corrupted Intelligence) KILLS!!! In such an insane society, hell-bent for REVOLUTION, where does one start in opening the eyes of the blind and the ignorant to the EVIL within? Ray Karczewski When Christ Speaks — Who Listens? Error: posting not allowed. MSNBC is currently rejecting posts from your site. Ruminations of a Living Christ http://www.arkenterprises.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 90,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!"

I thought I understood the McVeigh story pretty well until last week, when someone on this NG explained to me that he is a Liberal. I hadn’t suspected at all. Tom J Science based reasoning You see, it works like this. In the crazed mind of a right wingnut, there is no need to pay taxes to pay for all of those roads and bridges, for the costs of repairing tornado-damaged communities, or for the medical research that has all but cured childhood cancers. Yet when our companies need bailouts to protect our shares in Chrysler, right wingnuts are first in line to collect the handout.

Response:

Soldiers kill other soldiers, and only civilians when absolutely necessary. In addition, why do you have trouble with us killing a soldier in times of war? I say he deserves to die, whether as a villain or as a soldier. He is willing to die as a soldier – let him. Scott

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Re: Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!" : rk: To my blind and spiritually ignorant Brothers and Sisters, I ask you to look into yourselves as you relate to this Establishment-promoted political atmosphere which surrounds Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. rk: Pay attention to the insanity of a country’s degraded populace as it attempts to void its guilt by projecting it upon the shoulders of one man — Timothy McVeigh. rk: The plain and simple fact is that Tim McVeigh IS A SOLDIER. rk: Tim McVeigh did what SOLDIERS are TRAINED by their own COUNTRIES to do — KILL!! rk: Who amongst you are capable of discerning the bottom line purpose of a soldier is that of either KILL OR BE KILLED! rk: Why is KILLING in times of war (redistribution of wealth and population control devices) by trained individuals considered by a fear-driven, mind controlled, conditioned public to be POSITIVE, GOOD, GLORIOUS and HEROIC, yet EVIL, INSANE, and CRIMINAL when the same individual acts according to his training in a *personal perception* of a time of nondeclared war; i.e., PATRIOTIC REVOLUTION? rk: Look if you will at the unbalanced, fear-laden sentiments being expressed in the TV, Radio Broadcasts and newspaper Media toward Tim McVeigh. Look also at the directed unbridled vicious, bloodthirsty comments made on these Internet newsgroups/forums by so called "NORMAL" law abiding citizens, many of whom consider Tim McVeigh to be the epitome — the personification — of EVIL. rk: Is Tim McVeigh EVIL? rk: If so, then ALL who are subject to the dualistic conditioning of Mind Control are equally EVIL. rk: Tim McVeigh is a trained SOLDIER. rk: What excuse is there for the rest of you on these newsgroups/forums who promote such hate? rk: Would it not be interesting to take another look at their present conditioned view of the world, to observe these same, average, so-called "law abiding," civilized citizens who so readily rush out to condemn another as EVIL, while they ignore their own presently-unfolding, violent, conditioned "EVIL" momentum being allowed to continue unabated in this present corrupt, "stimulus-response" reinforced, fear-based society? Given enough time, perhaps you folks will wake up to see yourselves as you ACTUALLY ARE, and not as you THINK you are. rk: The simple fact is: Guns don’t KILL. Knives don’t KILL. Clubs don’t KILL. Rocks don’t KILL. rk: EVIL (Corrupted Intelligence) KILLS!!! rk: In such an insane society, hell-bent for REVOLUTION, where does one start in opening the eyes of the blind and the ignorant to the EVIL within? Ray Karczewski k: Timmy is NOT a soldier. He is a coward and a felon. If he wanted to be a martyr so badly, when he delivered the explosives to the Murrah building in the Ryder truck, all he had to do is NOT GET OUT! To call him a trained soldier, doing what soldiers are supposed to do, is a slap in the face of all who so proudly served and defended our country in various conflicts that we had no control of. To kill innocent civilians in a viscious attack on a non-military installation, with no tinge of conscious, is the act of a coward, not a hero. I would give all I own for the pleasure of giving him a ride on the needle by my own hand. Even this is too good for him. It will be like watching some person take a nap. This is not an execution. An execution is burning hair and flesh, choking on poisonous gas, and the grotesque expressions of fear and terror on the face of the condemned. May Timmy rot in Hell for his cowardly acts. God Kurt MM, SDeM, PMC rk: My suggestion to you would be to reread what you have expressed in this post, then ask yourself what makes you any more or less a KILLER IN SPIRIT than the man you have chosen to project your "conditioned, pent up" hatred upon. rk: Although unwittingly, you have indeed provided a service to the world in this article. You have exposed to all who would read your words the actual corrupt spirit of damn near all repressed civilized human beings who hide their seething, conflicted, vicious distorted spirit of a "potential" KILLER behind their everyday, hypocritical, positive-imaged masks. rk: As to your naive comment about " To kill innocent civilians in a viscious attack on a non-military installation, with no tinge of conscious,…" and/or the killing of innocent women and children during wartime, ever hear of "Mai Lai?" rk: All you have managed to display in this rather ignominious response of yours is your own ignorance and latent "KILLER SPIRIT." What remains for such potential to be transformed into the realm of the actual is for the mind controller(s) of government and media to push your BUTTONS. How are they doin??? rk: Hell, isn’t it? Ray Karczewski When Christ Speaks — Who Listens? Error: posting not allowed. MSNBC is currently rejecting posts from your site. Ruminations of a Living Christ http://www.arkenterprises.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 90,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!"

Wow, wacky ole Ray comes back from the loonybin, or wherever it was he’s been, and promptly resumes making a fool of himself. tim gueguen 101867

Response:

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Re: Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!" :

rk: To my blind and spiritually ignorant Brothers and Sisters, I ask you to look into yourselves as you relate to this Establishment-promoted political atmosphere which surrounds Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. rk: Pay attention to the insanity of a country’s degraded populace as it attempts to void its guilt by projecting it upon the shoulders of one man — Timothy McVeigh. rk: The plain and simple fact is that Tim McVeigh IS A SOLDIER. rk: Tim McVeigh did what SOLDIERS are TRAINED by their own COUNTRIES to do — KILL!! rk: Who amongst you are capable of discerning the bottom line purpose of a soldier is that of either KILL OR BE KILLED! rk: Why is KILLING in times of war (redistribution of wealth and population control devices) by trained individuals considered by a fear-driven, mind controlled, conditioned public to be POSITIVE, GOOD, GLORIOUS and HEROIC, yet EVIL, INSANE, and CRIMINAL when the same individual acts according to his training in a *personal perception* of a time of nondeclared war; i.e., PATRIOTIC REVOLUTION? rk: Look if you will at the unbalanced, fear-laden sentiments being expressed in the TV, Radio Broadcasts and newspaper Media toward Tim McVeigh. Look also at the directed unbridled vicious, bloodthirsty comments made on these Internet newsgroups/forums by so called "NORMAL" law abiding citizens, many of whom consider Tim McVeigh to be the epitome — the personification — of EVIL. rk: Is Tim McVeigh EVIL? rk: If so, then ALL who are subject to the dualistic conditioning of Mind Control are equally EVIL. rk: Tim McVeigh is a trained SOLDIER. rk: What excuse is there for the rest of you on these newsgroups/forums who promote such hate? rk: Would it not be interesting to take another look at their present conditioned view of the world, to observe these same, average, so-called "law abiding," civilized citizens who so readily rush out to condemn another as EVIL, while they ignore their own presently-unfolding, violent, conditioned "EVIL" momentum being allowed to continue unabated in this present corrupt, "stimulus-response" reinforced, fear-based society? Given enough time, perhaps you folks will wake up to see yourselves as you ACTUALLY ARE, and not as you THINK you are. rk: The simple fact is: Guns don’t KILL. Knives don’t KILL. Clubs don’t KILL. Rocks don’t KILL. rk: EVIL (Corrupted Intelligence) KILLS!!! rk: In such an insane society, hell-bent for REVOLUTION, where does one start in opening the eyes of the blind and the ignorant to the EVIL within? Ray Karczewski k: Timmy is NOT a soldier. He is a coward and a felon. If he wanted to be a martyr so badly, when he delivered the explosives to the Murrah building in the Ryder truck, all he had to do is NOT GET OUT! To call him a trained soldier, doing what soldiers are supposed to do, is a slap in the face of all who so proudly served and defended our country in various conflicts that we had no control of. To kill innocent civilians in a viscious attack on a non-military installation, with no tinge of conscious, is the act of a coward, not a hero. I would give all I own for the pleasure of giving him a ride on the needle by my own hand. Even this is too good for him. It will be like watching some person take a nap. This is not an execution. An execution is burning hair and flesh, choking on poisonous gas, and the grotesque expressions of fear and terror on the face of the condemned. May Timmy rot in Hell for his cowardly acts. God Kurt MM, SDeM, PMC rk: My suggestion to you would be to reread what you have expressed in this post, then ask yourself what makes you any more or less a KILLER IN SPIRIT than the man you have chosen to project your "conditioned, pent up" hatred upon. rk: Although unwittingly, you have indeed provided a service to the world in this article. You have exposed to all who would read your words the actual corrupt spirit of damn near all repressed civilized human beings who hide their seething, conflicted, vicious distorted spirit of a "potential" KILLER behind their everyday, hypocritical, positive-imaged masks. rk: As to your naive comment about " To kill innocent civilians in a viscious attack on a non-military installation, with no tinge of conscious,…" and/or the killing of innocent women and children during wartime, ever hear of "Mai Lai?" rk: All you have managed to display in this rather ignominious response of yours is your own ignorance and latent "KILLER SPIRIT." What remains for such potential to be transformed into the realm of the actual is for the mind controller(s) of government and media to push your BUTTONS. How are they doin??? rk: Hell, isn’t it? Ray Karczewski When Christ Speaks — Who Listens? Error: posting not allowed. MSNBC is currently rejecting posts from your site. Ruminations of a Living Christ http://www.arkenterprises.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 90,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m not a big fan of my government at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Should you require my attention, the best way to get it would *not* be to indicate you assume I’m blind and spiritually ignorant. Pay attention to the insanity of a country’s degraded populace as it attempts to void its guilt by projecting it upon the shoulders of one man — Timothy McVeigh.

Nonsense. If you have courage, stick with the thread and hash it out. The plain and simple fact is that Tim McVeigh IS A SOLDIER.

Tim McVeigh, whatever else he is, is a deluded human being who thinks killing children in peacetime is in any way justified. My only prayer is that they *DON’T* kill him — we don’t need another martyr. Tim McVeigh did what SOLDIERS are TRAINED by their own COUNTRIES to do — KILL!! Who amongst you are capable of discerning the bottom line purpose of a soldier is that of either KILL OR BE KILLED! Why is KILLING in times of war (redistribution of wealth and population control devices) by trained individuals considered by a fear-driven, mind controlled, conditioned public to be POSITIVE, GOOD, GLORIOUS and HEROIC, yet EVIL, INSANE, and CRIMINAL when the same individual acts according to his training in a *personal perception* of a time of nondeclared war; i.e., PATRIOTIC REVOLUTION?

Because in time of war, there are stated national goals behind which each member of the nation may, in theory, band behind. When one takes his "war" to the nation he’s purporting to serve, it’s terrorism, and never, ever, ever, ever, ever justified. Unless you think the children slaughtered had, in any way, something to do with whatever disgruntlement you have with the political policies of the US. Caps won’t help your cause. Timmy McVeigh killed children, period. Look if you will at the unbalanced, fear-laden sentiments being expressed in the TV, Radio Broadcasts and newspaper Media toward Tim McVeigh. Look also at the directed unbridled vicious, bloodthirsty comments made on these Internet newsgroups/forums by so called "NORMAL" law abiding citizens, many of whom consider Tim McVeigh to be the epitome — the personification — of EVIL. Is Tim McVeigh EVIL?

He’s a person. He did a horrible thing. If so, then ALL who are subject to the dualistic conditioning of Mind Control are equally EVIL. Tim McVeigh is a trained SOLDIER.

So? So is my father, 1st Lieutenant, Infantry. He’s never hurt a person in his life willingly. What excuse is there for the rest of you on these newsgroups/forums who promote such hate?

Could you be more specific, please? To be honest, that’s how I see this post, though I’m looking for a reason not to. Would it not be interesting to take another look at their present conditioned view of the world, to observe these same, average, so-called "law abiding," civilized citizens who so readily rush out to condemn another as EVIL, while they ignore their own presently-unfolding, violent, conditioned "EVIL" momentum being allowed to continue unabated in this present corrupt, "stimulus-response" reinforced, fear-based society? Given enough time, perhaps you folks will wake up to see yourselves as you ACTUALLY ARE, and not as you THINK you are. The simple fact is: Guns don’t KILL. Knives don’t KILL. Clubs don’t KILL. Rocks don’t KILL.

No. Timmy killed. EVIL (Corrupted Intelligence) KILLS!!!

Yep. Timmy killed. In such an insane society, hell-bent for REVOLUTION, where does one start in opening the eyes of the blind and the ignorant to the EVIL within?

Ah, so evil is justified if it’s to combat some nebulous idea of evil. Tell it to the children. What’s wrong with you, anyhow? My turn with caps. Ideology is NEVER MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE LIVES OF PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IF THEY’RE CHILDREN!!! Bye. Sunny – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ray Karczewski When Christ Speaks — Who Listens? Error: posting not allowed. MSNBC is currently rejecting posts from your site. Ruminations of a Living Christ http://www.arkenterprises.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 90,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com *** Tim McVeigh: A Human Sacrifice to the EVIL "god" of Thought!!" To my blind and spiritually ignorant Brothers and Sisters, I ask you to look into yourselves as you relate to this Establishment-promoted political atmosphere which surrounds Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City. Pay attention to the insanity of a country’s degraded populace as it attempts to void its guilt by projecting it upon the shoulders of one man — Timothy McVeigh. The plain and simple fact is that Tim McVeigh IS A SOLDIER. Tim McVeigh did what SOLDIERS are TRAINED by their own COUNTRIES to do — KILL!! Who amongst you are capable of discerning the bottom line purpose of a soldier is that of either KILL OR BE KILLED! Why is KILLING in times of war (redistribution of wealth and population control devices) by trained individuals considered by a fear-driven, mind controlled, conditioned public to be POSITIVE, GOOD, GLORIOUS and HEROIC, yet EVIL, INSANE, and CRIMINAL when the same individual acts according to his training in a *personal perception* of a time of nondeclared war; i.e., PATRIOTIC REVOLUTION? Look if you will at the unbalanced, fear-laden sentiments being expressed in the TV, Radio Broadcasts and newspaper Media toward Tim McVeigh. Look also at the directed unbridled vicious, bloodthirsty comments made on these Internet newsgroups/forums by so called "NORMAL" law abiding citizens, many of whom consider Tim McVeigh to be the epitome — the personification — of EVIL. Is Tim McVeigh EVIL? If so, then ALL who are subject to the dualistic conditioning of Mind Control are equally EVIL. Tim McVeigh is a trained SOLDIER. What excuse is there for the rest of you on these newsgroups/forums who promote such hate? Would it not be interesting to take another look at their present conditioned view of the world, to observe these same, average, so-called "law abiding," civilized citizens who so readily rush out to condemn another as EVIL, while they ignore their own presently-unfolding, violent, conditioned "EVIL" momentum being allowed to continue unabated in this present corrupt, "stimulus-response" reinforced, fear-based society? Given enough time, perhaps you folks will wake up to see yourselves as you ACTUALLY ARE, and not as you THINK you are. The simple fact is: Guns don’t KILL. Knives don’t KILL. Clubs don’t KILL. Rocks don’t KILL. EVIL (Corrupted Intelligence) KILLS!!! In such an insane society, hell-bent for REVOLUTION, where does one start in opening the eyes of the blind and the ignorant to the EVIL within? Ray Karczewski When Christ Speaks — Who Listens? Error: posting not allowed. MSNBC is currently rejecting posts from your site. Ruminations of a Living Christ http://www.arkenterprises.com —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 90,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Missing the point on Microsoft

admin — Wed, 12 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I have not commented on your devine right. Chip

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Except in your case that divine right ends if I happen to be female! Left – divine right of kings. Right – divine right of the individual. Chip The left has always been deferential to king, emperor, pharoah, fuhrer or dictator of course. So flexible, as long as it’s government. Chip Pharaoh — appointed by God, certainly not a creation of far left ideologies. King — successor by birthright, from the aristocracy, historically (esp.. English) favored wealthy landowners, certainly not representative of the left. Emperor — Very similar to king, in that the wealthy were favored. Again, not representative of a left wing point of view. Fuhrer — Adolf Hitler — a product of extreme right wing philosophies.

Response:

Now I will comment. Jenn: From this day forward you are hereby forbidden to vote in political elections unless well consulted and given written permission by a well informed adult male of reasonable character. Chip

Response:

Of course, if the idea in mind is to limit freedom and the tool is government. That is leftist.

No, that’s authoritarianism. Unless you’re going to claim that, for example, Louis XIV was a "leftist." — Patrick Crotty e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty

Response:

Never met a control freak I liked, which was not a trait much liked by my mother or my ex. with regard to, for example: church going. I’d go, but I’d always bring a book. My ex was catholic, it was almost revolutionary, from the looks I’d get, to read a bible in a catholic mass.What to do though, catholic rites are boring as anything in life. The priests are usually not really offensive though.

Thats the funny thing about the Catholic church to me. I’m by no means an expert on it, but it certainly seems as though it has done its share of political manipulation through the ages. The really offensive bible thumpers are mainly midwestern protestant denominations. Real personality cult types, control freaks of high order. Funny as hell, to those not too patient with leadership types, and I’m always amazed that people take these geeks seriously. I’m equally amazed folks adore Clinton, who’s as phoney as any smiling cult type bible thumper, to my radar.

Television’s an amazing thing when you spoon feed it to the masses….

Response:

Patrick: Yes that is leftist. Yes that is authoritarianism. Yes the little Louis XIV was a leftist. Now for the farthest extreme in the opposite direction, the right wing tip: ANARCHY! A nice friendly uncoercive place, bereft of bureaucrats, lawyers and sleazy politicians. Chip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, if the idea in mind is to limit freedom and the tool is government. That is leftist. No, that’s authoritarianism. Unless you’re going to claim that, for example, Louis XIV was a "leftist." — Patrick Crotty e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu home page: http://home.uchicago.edu/~prcrotty

Response:

"Thats the funny thing about the Catholic church to me. I’m by no means an expert on it, but it certainly seems as though it has done its share of political manipulation through the ages." Power is such a corrupting influence. Give someone the authority to do so, and that someone will do so, do so, . . . . End authority. This will eliminate everything but freedom. Chip

Response:

Except in your case that divine right ends if I happen to be female!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Left – divine right of kings. Right – divine right of the individual. Chip The left has always been deferential to king, emperor, pharoah, fuhrer or dictator of course. So flexible, as long as it’s government. Chip Pharaoh — appointed by God, certainly not a creation of far left ideologies. King — successor by birthright, from the aristocracy, historically (esp.. English) favored wealthy landowners, certainly not representative of the left. Emperor — Very similar to king, in that the wealthy were favored. Again, not representative of a left wing point of view. Fuhrer — Adolf Hitler — a product of extreme right wing philosophies.

Response:

Joe: I am really not much of a government supporter, whatever label. To me, they are all evergrowing monstrosities of peoples collective will to force their neighbors into some version of either "morality" or "what’s good for them." Never met a control freak I liked, which was not a trait much liked by my mother or my ex. with regard to, for example: church going. I’d go, but I’d always bring a book. My ex was catholic, it was almost revolutionary, from the looks I’d get, to read a bible in a catholic mass.What to do though, catholic rites are boring as anything in life. The priests are usually not really offensive though. The really offensive bible thumpers are mainly midwestern protestant denominations. Real personality cult types, control freaks of high order. Funny as hell, to those not too patient with leadership types, and I’m always amazed that people take these geeks seriously. I’m equally amazed folks adore Clinton, who’s as phoney as any smiling cult type bible thumper, to my radar. Limited government to me is something about 5% the size we have now. I’d be looking for waste in it too. Found this recently – Trotsky on Stalinism and Fascism, I guess this fellow would know his stuff, though I don’t really follow this subject much. Governments all suck, in my view, these big nasty ones – the most. Trotsky, La capitulation de Staline, p. 216. `An important part, which becomes more and more important, of the Soviet apparatus is formed of fascists who have yet to recognize themselves as such. To equate the Soviet r

Open Question for Mr. Pflager….

admin — Sun, 12 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I will not change it. It is my name. I have a right to use my own name. Not for a company or a product.

Nike sneakers is about to sue you. "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful…He deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words…But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." – Isaiah 32:5,7-8

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Daniel Pflager schrieb: It is possible to respect someone AND disagree with them. Yes. But not as long as I dissagree with their unjustified disrespecting others. Not, if i dissagree with their denying equal rights to others. I do not respect such people. not in the least. I am not denying them equal rights. I am not in favour of granting them special privilege, though.

One again, I must ask that you list the special privileges that you feel gays are seeking. I have only ever seen them asking for equal civil rights. I find it detestable that the gay movement should dare to compare itself with the equal rights movement of blacks. Their predicament is completely different than the plight of racial minorities.

Not reality. Both groups are suffering due to unjustified social oppression and stereotyping. At one time, both groups were legally second class citizens and were not equal before the law. While this has changed for racial minorities, gays are still oppressed by the law and still fighting for equality. Civil rights leader Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King certainly isn’t offended by the comparison. She made it herself when she said: "For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy." "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." "I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery [and] Selma [Alabama], in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the civil rights movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." "When we allow our institutions to exclude minorities from full citizenship rights, I believe we are co-operating with evil. Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to deny a large group of people their humanity, their dignity and personhood." "This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group." "As Martin once said, ‘We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny, an inescapable network of mutuality. I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be.’" Coretta Scott King, Chicago, March 31 1997. You might also like to know that one of the most important strategists and unsung leader of the black civil rights movement, Bayard Rustin, was a black gay man. YOu can read about his story and the many important contributions he made to the black civil rights movement at http://www.lambda.net/~maximum/rustin.html Civil rights for minorities, all minorities, are intertwined. Oppression of one minority inevitably leads to oppression of other minorities. To compare the two intertwined movements, where both minorities have played an important part in ending, or seeking to end, oppression is quite valid. Active musicians do what they do from self-interest. The fact that their music may serve the self-interests of their listeners does not make the musician’s self-interest lessen. The important point here is that it doesn#t make their self-interest a bad thing or one that would suggest that their music is any less good or valuable. Yes, but a musicians self interest DOES SERVE OTHERS. Apart from gays, how does society at large benefit?

Society at large always benefits when people have freedom. People who are free to live their lives without oppression and stigmatization, not to mention second class citizenship, are happier and more productive people. They have more time, energy and desire to contribute to the good of society instead of withdrawing from it in fear for their lives or in anger at the oppression and injustice they suffer. I’m sorry, but I will never believe that what I say doesn’t matter. Obviously not. But you should be able to see that it won’t matter to _anyone else_ as long as you can’t back it up. And since you are using this medium to talk to others you might want to take that into consideration. Well here’s where you’re wrong. Not everyone feels it is necessary to have a mathematical proof of things to know they are right. One basic test of "rightness" is this: A thing is probably right if it contributes value to humanity in general, and is not at someone else’s expense.

Then please explain to us how denying gays the right to civil marriage is right according to your test? Allowing gays to marry would increase the number of coupled gays in monogamous relationships which contributes value to humanity on several levels. People who have legally recognized relationships are more likely to buy houses and furniture [contribute to the economy], they pay higher taxes [the marriage penalty] thus contributing to the money that government has to spend on it’s citizens, they are more likely to be happy and productive individuals, and the promotion of monogamy will do much to counter the spread of STDs. According to your test, oppressing gays and treating them as second class citizens is wrong. This is because the oppression is at the expense of the people who are oppressed and denied their rights.

Response:

However this disrespects the beliefs of thos who don’t follow Christ [Islamic, Buddhists and Wiccans to name a few]. Your vision of a country run by "the rule of Christ" gives no room for those people who don’t believe in the Bible. How can you expect a modern country to run when it is a theocracy [by the rule of Christ]? The track records of theocracies is appalling. One of the major problems being that those in power and seeking power are always trying to "out religion" each other leading to ridiculous laws. Apparently it is forbidden in Iran to re-cycle brown paper bags since many people use them to carry their lunches and traditionally verses from the quoran are written on the bags. Re-cycling this waster paper would "disrespect the quoran" – sounds silly and petty to me not to mention wasteful of resources and harmful to the ecology. Big difference.

I am afraid that I don’t see the difference between your run-of-the-mill theocracy run by a single religion and a theocracy run by the "rule of Christ". I still wonder how you will make place for citizens who do not believe in Christ – another crusade to convert the "infidels" perhaps? You will have to admit, if you take an honest and dispassioned look at the history of the last 1,000 years, that Christians have been the cause of a lot of the misery and bloodshed in that history – as has religion in general. Even today religion is still the cause of misery in places such as Ireland and Bosnia. How is it that you think your state run by "the rule of Christ" is likely to fare? Won’t the Catholics want to have a few rules to favour their religious viewpoints? What about the zealots and KKKristians like Robertson, Bauer and Fallwell? Won’t they want some different rules from what say the Quakers and Unitarians might want? Won’t this lead to endless squabbling and bickering about just what the "rule of Christ" is? This brings up a number of questions. Why your religion? What does it have that makes it better then any other religion? Why should those citizens who do not believe as you do, or for that matter do not believe at all, be forced to follow the teaching of your religion? Religions are not ice cream that you should pick your favorite flavour, and neither are they golf clubs that you should pick the one you gets you closest to your cup.

Why not? If you believe that religion is your way of discovering and communication with your creator, why not pick the one that gives you the most comfort and appeals to your personality? Not everyone can feel in communication with the creator while dozens of people are shaking tambourines and shouting Alleluia! just as man can not feel in communication with the creator while listening to Gregorian chant and smelling incense wafting through the air. IF the objective of being religious is to get closer to, and communicate with your creator, then you SHOULD pick a religion that "..gets you closest to your cup." However I respectfully point out that your reply above does not answer the most important point in my preceding text, to whit: Why should those citizens who do not believe as you do, or for that matter do not believe at all, be forced to follow the teaching of your religion?

Or to modify this in light of your comments above: Why should those citizens who do not believe in "the rule of Christ" as you do, or for that matter do not believe at all, be forced to follow the teaching of the Christ based religions?

But they exist. Each with it’s distinct flavour and "selling points". There is the Jewish brand, one of the oldest, the Catholic brand that claims to be the original, the Lutheran Brand, the Southern Baptist brand distinguished by it’s useless boycotts and many other "brands" of religion. religion is sold like a product on TV, if you don’t believe me, tune into the 700 club some time! I also fail to see how granting the rights of these neighbors to further sexual liberation does to improve the common good.

It allows the neighbours to get on with their lives without having an array of religionists "peeping" into their bedroom windows and telling them what to do. I am sure that if those neighbours want the advice of your church, or any religion for that matter, on how to conduct their lives and loves, they know where to find the cult/religion of their choice. I see it doing good for only one group – those who want it. And it appears a very hedonistic thing they want.

I gather that you feel that your neighbours being given equal rights before the secular laws and being allowed to live their lives in any non-harmfull way they please is "hedonistic". Whatever happened to "love thy neighbour"? Thy neighbour should be free to carry on their affairs without any interference from you, or I. Surely if the message of your church, or religion in general, is so powerful, good and truthful, people will be attracted to it on it’s own merits. Forcing those people to "tow a religious line" by legislating religion into the law of the land only builds resentment and turns them away from religion If they were asking for the right to help homeless people, abused children, drug addicts, convicts or ANYONE other than themselves, I might have a different opinion.

News Flash: People always put their self interest first. I am sure that you go to work and perform your tasks so that you can feed yourself and keep a roof over your head. After you have paid for those expenses, then you will have the time and resources to do good works for others. People who are vilified and persecuted by society tend to withdraw from that society and don’t fully participate. people who are free to go about there lives with minimal interference in what they can and can’t do tend to be more productive and have more time, energy and resources to contribute to the good of society. By allowing your neighbour to live their lives as they will [provided it does not harm others], they will have the freedom to participate in that society and will want to build it up out of enlightened self interest. They do not want the right to live equally. They want special privilege and protection.

Please be so kind as to list the special privileges and protections that these people seek. Do not fear to be as detailed as you need to be to make your case. They consider themselves a minority, and feel that entitles them to some kind of affirmative action or compensation.

Please be so kind as to point out where the minority you speak of is seeking "some kind of affirmative action or compensation"/ If this is a minority in your church/religion, then that is something the church heir achy will have to deal with. I find that galling, considering just how different their predicament is from the plight of racial minorities.

Oppression and loss of civil rights is an injustice no matter which minority [group that is numerically smaller than the majority] is being oppressed. Christ preached of inclusiveness and love not segregating people into minority groups and then oppressing them. They are also a sign of religious intolerance since you are attempting to have your religions views legislated into the laws of the land such that they will affect people of any/all religions. I guess my attitude towards murder and rape would also be a sign of my religious intolerence, then.

Not at all. I would remind you that murder and rape both harm others [homosexuality does not] and that both murder and rape were codified into secular civil law before christianity was invented. The solution to this problem is the one your founding fathers so wisely set forth in your constitution – freedom of OF and FROM religion. It’s pretty simple really, you and your religion mind your own business while secular society at large minds it’s own business and neither group interferes in the business of the other! It’s debatable that they wanted freedom from religion.

Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion. In a system that permits freedom of belief, one is free to chose any belief or none at all. They certainly wanted all religions to have a fair shake.

Tell that to Bob Barr in his current campaign to eliminate Wiccans from the military! This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove ‘SpamSux’ from my E-ddress "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"

Response:

Daniel Pflager schrieb: It is possible to respect someone AND disagree with them. Yes. But not as long as I dissagree with their unjustified disrespecting others. Not, if i dissagree with their denying equal rights to others. I do not respect such people. not in the least.

I am not denying them equal rights. I am not in favour of granting them special privilege, though. I find it detestable that the gay movement should dare to compare itself with the equal rights movement of blacks. Their predicament is completely different than the plight of racial minorities. Active musicians do what they do from self-interest. The fact that their music may serve the self-interests of their listeners does not make the musician’s self-interest lessen. The important point here is that it doesn#t make their self-interest a bad thing or one that would suggest that their music is any less good or valuable.

Yes, but a musicians self interest DOES SERVE OTHERS. Apart from gays, how does society at large benefit? I’m sorry, but I will never believe that what I say doesn’t matter. Obviously not. But you should be able to see that it won’t matter to _anyone else_ as long as you can’t back it up. And since you are using this medium to talk to others you might want to take that into consideration.

Well here’s where you’re wrong. Not everyone feels it is necessary to have a mathematical proof of things to know they are right. One basic test of "rightness" is this: A thing is probably right if it contributes value to humanity in general, and is not at someone else’s expense. What if I were to say to you "You have complete freedom of speech, except you may not identify yourself by your last name Neikes". Would that be complete freedom of speech? No. But you are still allowed to identify yourself by your names. You are not allowed to give your company or any of your products a name that is already being used by another company or product. Or can you not see why I would not be allowed to open a fast food chain called "McDonlad’s"?

Can you not see that if McDonald’s were deprived of its name, it would hurt it. What happened here is that you possibly violated somone else#s right and a third party brough that to their attention. The worst that might happen t o you I suspect is that you will have to change your domain name. I will not change it. It is my name. I have a right to use my own name. Not for a company or a product.

That is true, but neither may anyone else. I haven#t seen your web-site nor have I read them ail that they got. AFAIK the usage of the name might still be not allowed to you regardless of the content of the web pages.

Rubbish. You wouldn#t belive how serious some peolpe can be about these things. Frankyl, I’ve sene worse than forwarding of names to right wingers…

Perhaps those people have too much time on their hands. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

I’m sorry, but I will never believe that what I say doesn’t matter. I am strong enough, and experienced enough in life to know that what I say does matter. I respectfully suggest that you are missing the larger point. If something is true, then it can be demonstrated/proven to be true. The speed at which an object falls due to gravity can be measured and independently verified.

This is true of materialistic phenomena, but not always true of moral or philosophical issues. Sometimes, the closest we get to the truth is a set of heuristics. A religious belief, such as your statement "I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful" can not be proved – particularly since the "ground rules" vary from one belief/cult to another. There is no objective way in which independent observers can measure this.

Such is true of poetry, music, art and intimate communication with another human being. North America is so materialistically oriented, the attitude that everything must present a plain scientifically reproducable utility in order to be worthwhile. That kind of thinking works for manipulating things, but not for guiding souls. Not all religions hold this to be truth. ALL religions are by definition irrational, unsubstantiated beliefs in an un-proveable system that requires faith and belief not logic and measurement [no I am not slamming religion, simply stating the facts/truth of the matter]. You and I are entitled to our religious beliefs however you, Daniel, seem to be saying that every citizen of your country must be bound by them – that your beliefs should be the framework on which the law of the land is based.

I believe the rule of society should be not "my beliefs", but the rule of Christ. Big difference. This brings up a number of questions. Why your religion? What does it have that makes it better then any other religion? Why should those citizens who do not believe as you do, or for that matter do not believe at all, be forced to follow the teaching of your religion?

Religions are not ice cream that you should pick your favorite flavour, and neither are they golf clubs that you should pick the one you gets you closest to your cup. Nobody in APH has had any problems with the idea that a church/religion should be free to set any rules it wants for it’s membership and the conduct of it’s affairs. Churches however, should not and are not allowed to set the rules of conduct [laws] of the larger society in which they function.

I am all for separation of Church and state, provided the secularists don’t make it effectively illegal for someone with a belief system to participate in goverment. Your continued anti gay marriage statements, made from the perspective of your belief in a particular "brand" of religion, are denying your neighbours the right to live freely and equally in the larger society.

I do not believe in "brands" of religion. I also fail to see how granting the rights of these neighbors to further sexual liberation does to improve the common good. I see it doing good for only one group – those who want it. And it appears a very hedonistic thing they want. If they were asking for the right to help homeless people, abused children, drug addicts, convicts or ANYONE other than themselves, I might have a different opinion. They do not want the right to live equally. They want special privilege and protection. They consider themselves a minority, and feel that entitles them to some kind of affirmative action or compensation. I find that galling, considering just how different their predicament is from the plight of racial minorities. They are also a sign of religious intolerance since you are attempting to have your religions views legislated into the laws of the land such that they will affect people of any/all religions.

I guess my attitude towards murder and rape would also be a sign of my religious intolerence, then. The solution to this problem is the one your founding fathers so wisely set forth in your constitution – freedom of OF and FROM religion. It’s pretty simple really, you and your religion mind your own business while secular society at large minds it’s own business and neither group interferes in the business of the other!

It’s debatable that they wanted freedom from religion. They certainly wanted all religions to have a fair shake. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

Daniel Pflager schrieb:

I respectfully suggest that you are missing the larger point. If something is true, then it can be demonstrated/proven to be true. The speed at which an object falls due to gravity can be measured and independently verified. A religious belief, such as your statement "I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful" can not be proved – particularly since the "ground rules" vary from one belief/cult to another. There is no objective way in which independent observers can measure this. Not all religions hold this to be truth. ALL religions are by definition irrational, unsubstantiated beliefs in an un-proveable system that requires faith and belief not logic and measurement [no I am not slamming religion, simply stating the facts/truth of the matter]. You and I are entitled to our religious beliefs however you, Daniel, seem to be saying that every citizen of your country must be bound by them – that your beliefs should be the framework on which the law of the land is based. This brings up a number of questions. Why your religion? What does it have that makes it better then any other religion? Why should those citizens who do not believe as you do, or for that matter do not believe at all, be forced to follow the teaching of your religion? Nobody in APH has had any problems with the idea that a church/religion should be free to set any rules it wants for it’s membership and the conduct of it’s affairs. Churches however, should not and are not allowed to set the rules of conduct [laws] of the larger society in which they function. Your continued anti gay marriage statements, made from the perspective of your belief in a particular "brand" of religion, are denying your neighbours the right to live freely and equally in the larger society. They are also a sign of religious intolerance since you are attempting to have your religions views legislated into the laws of the land such that they will affect people of any/all religions. The solution to this problem is the one your founding fathers so wisely set forth in your constitution – freedom of OF and FROM religion. It’s pretty simple really, you and your religion mind your own business while secular society at large minds it’s own business and neither group interferes in the business of the other! This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy Burlington, Ont, Canada To reply, remove ‘SpamSux’ from my E-ddress "Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"

Response:

It would seem to me, that if Mr.Pflager intent is to provide "truth" as he sees it, he would respect the fact that his choice of domain names is a could be seen as a an attempt to hinder the P-FLAG.

It’s his name, you imbecile. Maybe P-FLAG chose their title to hinder HIM. "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful…. He deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words… But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." – Isaiah 32:5,7-8

Response:

Daniel Pflager schrieb: Daniel Pflager schrieb: I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful. This still is your personal opinion and such entirely irrelevant. If my opinion is irrelevant, then this statement on your part is also irrelevant.

As such it is. But I have told you nuimerous times _why_ I have that opinion. You can _debate_ my opinion since it is based on a logical argument. I wish you would afford me the respect I have been granting others.

Tough. It is possible to respect someone AND disagree with them.

Yes. But not as long as I dissagree with their unjustified disrespecting others. Not, if i dissagree with their denying equal rights to others. I do not respect such people. not in the least. There is no need to label their opinions as irrelevant.

Yes there is: You keep telling us your opinion. And it IS irrelevant. It is nothing more but your opinion UNLESS you can make a sound, logical argument that would give it some credibility. The second you do that you have more to offer than your mere opinion. Ubtil then it is no more than !"I like" and "I dislike" – and as far as the argument concernes what other peolpe should or should not do such opinuion is entirely irrelevant. I consider all these posts to be relevant, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE OPINION of a living, breathing and infinitely valuable human being.

But they are not backed up by anything remotely resembling a logixcal argument so they have no place in a discussion like this. I also openly suggest that homosexual orientation is not. Same. Only that you could actually argue that sexual orientation is not a moral issue at all. You would like it not to be a moral issue. I understand that. You have selected a frame of reference in which it is not a moral issue, and I respect your integrity in so doing.

again, _I_ can argue for my chosden frame of reference without relying on the acuracy of old, dusty books or the existance of some old friendly guy in the sky… "Moral" is about what one should and should not do. Sexual orientation is not an activity, thus I fail to see how it could be a moral matter. I suggest a connection between "activism" and "self-interest". You fail, however, to demonstrate a neccesary, direct and causal relationship betwen the two, i.e. some self-interest my lead to acvtivism, but not all self-interest will and not all activism results from self-interest. You also fail to explain what oyu think is WRONG with the attempt to adress one’S own problems by various means inclusing activism. That a gay activist is gay presents the opportunity for bias on his part.

Really? I thought that being an activist as such would suggest thee is a strong bias in the first place. And I cannot see why _that_ should be wrong, either. The activist clarifies his position – just like you do. Or do oyu claim to be less biased to tohe other side? Now, hod does sexual orientation come into it? Actions speak louder than words. A gay activist is, by definition, ACTIVE.

And? This means that he feels strong enough about his views to take action ACTIVELY.

I doubt you can take action passivley… DUH! What do you think I a,m doing when writing here – if not to take action? Again, I fail to see why my sexual orientation should make any differencer to such matters? This means that his self-interest is involved. The more active he is, the more his self-interest is involved.

And? Active musicians do what they do from self-interest. The fact that their music may serve the self-interests of their listeners does not make the musician’s self-interest lessen.

The important point here is that it doesn#t make their self-interest a bad thing or one that would suggest that their music is any less good or valuable. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I do not suggest that every person with homosexual orientation is an "activist". I sincerely disbelieve anyone could see a response to that mind-set as stirring "up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as" yourself "in exercising their right to free speech." Instead, it would be those persons exercising their right to free speech to ensure your words are not somehow attributed to them, due to the similarities in domain names. My name came first, I guarantee it. Probably, yes – but that might not be a lot of help to you. Then that would be unjust, wouldn’t it.

No, first of all, you did not coime up with your name whilst they did and secondly this only concerns the buisness usgae of the name and in that area _they_ were first. If the law would be applied differently natural persons could be forced to giver up their names – whilst that might stil lbe argued to be jut iut would be rather silly… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In any case, I have not expressed any of my viewpoints on my web site. Yet. The fact that my e-mail is routed through that is indicative not of my intention to interfere with PFLAG, who’s existence is news to me, but is indicative of my desire to be frugal. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ . Once again, sir: Your truth is not "the" truth. This all began, as I recall, with you wishing to express your rights of marriage to the person you love as being of more importance than my rights to same. By that logic, neither is your position truth. Once again, however, it is my privilege (and yours) to claim my position to be truth. In any case, I believe my position is truthful. I’m not sure you know what my position is though. Do try to understand that what you belive doesn#t matter. Only what others belive when you say it does – this means that you should be able to demonstrate that what you say is the truth. I’m sorry, but I will never believe that what I say doesn’t matter.

Obviously not. But you should be able to see that it won’t matter to _anyone else_ as long as you can’t back it up. And since you are using this medium to talk to others you might want to take that into consideration. I am strong enough, and experienced enough in life to know that what I say does matter. As does what you say matter.

THAT is because I learned how to make my points _relevant_. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity. I would defy you to find in any posting where I did not engage in "fair play and integrity," sir. In point of fact, it is you that have crossed that line, be specifically excluding this form (alt.politics.homosexuality) from your responses to messages posted here – most importantly, those responses where you either snip away more than half the posting, or respond with easily dismissible nonsense. I have excluded alt.politics.homosexuality in response to several requests from that group to do so. I complied because I did not post there in the first place, but did as a result of replies to cross-posters who did post there. The accepted procedure (and the only one that gives anyone a fair and equal chance) is to set follow up to specific newsgroups and annouce that in the posts. Anything else demonstrates a degree of dishonesty – if done unintentially it definitely won’t serve your purposes. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by "set follow up". Can you amplify?

It’s like a reply-to address in an email. You can tell your readers whgere their replies should be sent to. They can then chose to either acceprt that redirection, or change it. What newsreader program do you use? Agent? Outlook Express? Some other? With every newsgroup program I’ve had experience, a respondent has to specifically CHOOSE to NOT post a response to all the newsgroups in which the original posting appeared. Outlook Express. That is correct. You have to remove the posters reply groups to NOT post there. That is what I did in order to comply with the requests. Do set follow ups. It will avouid confusion. I find no such terminology in the help files. Can you help me understand?

I am not familar with outlook. Try to look at the list of newsgrups you post to; maybe you can setr follow ups there… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity. And the implication above is I am lacking in "personal and moral integrity"? Sir, I greatly resent that remark. You know absolutely nothing about me, and are completely unqualified to make such an assertion. Mr. Payne, you may be surprised to learn that not every remark that congratulates someone else is a slight against you personally. Trust me, I don’t want to slight you, but it’s very difficult not to if you are looking for a slight in what I say. I’m sure I could find things personally affronting in your posts that you did not intend that way either. On that note, I want to

Response:

It would seem to me, that if Mr.Pflager intent is to provide "truth" as he sees it, he would respect the fact that his choice of domain names is a could be seen as a an attempt to hinder the P-FLAG.

Choosing my own last name for a domain name should indicate to you that I like my own last name. That someone might consider it an attempt to hinder P-FLAG would probably never have occurred to me for three reasons. 1) I wasn’t aware of P-FLAG when I chose my last name, 2) I have no interest in P-FLAG, 3) I would never have imagined (and I still can’t imagine) that any such organization consider me using my own name as a threat to them. (or maybe that IS his intent?) I am reminded how a few months ago, someone had ourchased the domain sname "HateWatch.net" and set up a site that bsahed Catholics, non_Whites, Democrats, Jews, etc, choosing the name deliberately to cause confusion with HateWatch.org which monmitors groups like the KKK, and the Arayan Nation. One wonder nw, if Mr. Plager might not be of the same crowd?

Oh please. How can you use the epithet "Christian" and make such a mean-spirited (and remote) statement. I think you need to deal with the fact that I can disagree with you without hating you. I can disagree with you while loving you. If you have children, you’ll know what I mean. I wish you would return the same sentiment. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

Daniel Pflager schrieb: I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful. This still is your personal opinion and such entirely irrelevant.

If my opinion is irrelevant, then this statement on your part is also irrelevant. I wish you would afford me the respect I have been granting others. It is possible to respect someone AND disagree with them. There is no need to label their opinions as irrelevant. I consider all these posts to be relevant, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE OPINION of a living, breathing and infinitely valuable human being. I also openly suggest that homosexual orientation is not. Same. Only that you could actually argue that sexual orientation is not a moral issue at all.

You would like it not to be a moral issue. I understand that. You have selected a frame of reference in which it is not a moral issue, and I respect your integrity in so doing. I suggest a connection between "activism" and "self-interest". You fail, however, to demonstrate a neccesary, direct and causal relationship betwen the two, i.e. some self-interest my lead to acvtivism, but not all self-interest will and not all activism results from self-interest. You also fail to explain what oyu think is WRONG with the attempt to adress one’S own problems by various means inclusing activism.

That a gay activist is gay presents the opportunity for bias on his part. Actions speak louder than words. A gay activist is, by definition, ACTIVE. This means that he feels strong enough about his views to take action ACTIVELY. This means that his self-interest is involved. The more active he is, the more his self-interest is involved. Active musicians do what they do from self-interest. The fact that their music may serve the self-interests of their listeners does not make the musician’s self-interest lessen. I do not suggest that every person with homosexual orientation is an "activist". I sincerely disbelieve anyone could see a response to that mind-set as stirring "up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as" yourself "in exercising their right to free speech." Instead, it would be those persons exercising their right to free speech to ensure your words are not somehow attributed to them, due to the similarities in domain names. My name came first, I guarantee it. Probably, yes – but that might not be a lot of help to you.

Then that would be unjust, wouldn’t it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In any case, I have not expressed any of my viewpoints on my web site. Yet. The fact that my e-mail is routed through that is indicative not of my intention to interfere with PFLAG, who’s existence is news to me, but is indicative of my desire to be frugal. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ . Once again, sir: Your truth is not "the" truth. This all began, as I recall, with you wishing to express your rights of marriage to the person you love as being of more importance than my rights to same. By that logic, neither is your position truth. Once again, however, it is my privilege (and yours) to claim my position to be truth. In any case, I believe my position is truthful. I’m not sure you know what my position is though. Do try to understand that what you belive doesn#t matter. Only what others belive when you say it does – this means that you should be able to demonstrate that what you say is the truth.

I’m sorry, but I will never believe that what I say doesn’t matter. I am strong enough, and experienced enough in life to know that what I say does matter. As does what you say matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity. I would defy you to find in any posting where I did not engage in "fair play and integrity," sir. In point of fact, it is you that have crossed that line, be specifically excluding this form (alt.politics.homosexuality) from your responses to messages posted here – most importantly, those responses where you either snip away more than half the posting, or respond with easily dismissible nonsense. I have excluded alt.politics.homosexuality in response to several requests from that group to do so. I complied because I did not post there in the first place, but did as a result of replies to cross-posters who did post there. The accepted procedure (and the only one that gives anyone a fair and equal chance) is to set follow up to specific newsgroups and annouce that in the posts. Anything else demonstrates a degree of dishonesty – if done unintentially it definitely won’t serve your purposes.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by "set follow up". Can you amplify? What newsreader program do you use? Agent? Outlook Express? Some other? With every newsgroup program I’ve had experience, a respondent has to specifically CHOOSE to NOT post a response to all the newsgroups in which the original posting appeared. Outlook Express. That is correct. You have to remove the posters reply groups to NOT post there. That is what I did in order to comply with the requests. Do set follow ups. It will avouid confusion.

I find no such terminology in the help files. Can you help me understand? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity. And the implication above is I am lacking in "personal and moral integrity"? Sir, I greatly resent that remark. You know absolutely nothing about me, and are completely unqualified to make such an assertion. Mr. Payne, you may be surprised to learn that not every remark that congratulates someone else is a slight against you personally. Trust me, I don’t want to slight you, but it’s very difficult not to if you are looking for a slight in what I say. I’m sure I could find things personally affronting in your posts that you did not intend that way either. On that note, I want to express my appreciation for your desire to be respectful, and respected. I think that is entirely commendable, and I will do my best to honor it. I do not always agree with their positions, but they at least are searching and haven’t abandoned their integrity so as to stoop to personal attacks of this kind. I am always amazed at what, in some people’s minds, constitutes a "personal attack." Your postings about your generalizations of the moral and ethical fiber of gays, and insisting those generalizations are truth, DOES NOT constitute a "personal attack," but a posting/letter to an organization with a domain name that could be easily confused for your own domain name, and who are entitled by law to question the authenticity of your domain name, IF they so choose, due to recent Federal Court decisions IS a personal attack? Mr. Payne, when someone says they have called a gay organization with a similar name to my own last name in order to encourage them to take action against me, by gagging my freedom of speech, how am I NOT to see it as a personal attack. By trying to understand what is going on? Your freedom of speech is not restricted in any way if you are deniwed the right to name your company after another company. You are still allowed to state your opnion, after all.

Of course my freedom of speech is impacted! What if I were to say to you "You have complete freedom of speech, except you may not identify yourself by your last name Neikes". Would that be complete freedom of speech? What happened here is that you possibly violated somone else#s right and a third party brough that to their attention. The worst that might happen t o you I suspect is that you will have to change your domain name.

I will not change it. It is my name. I have a right to use my own name. Let’s say you had a web site "payne.com", and I told you I was going to telephone up the Neo-Nazi Group "pain.com" to tell them that you are spouting anti-Nazi, pro-gay propaganda on a web site that resembled theirs. Wouldn’t you feel that was a personal attack? If you cna make a good legal case that they have a _right_ to their name (hardly, since !"pain" is a word you wonT be able to regisdter or copyright in any way) and if they then take legal action it would not be a pewrsona lattack.

You make my point for me. Last time I checked, right wing nut cases werew not known for their likeliness to discuss such matters in a court of law, though…

Point taken. Please try to see what I am saying here. You are saying that informiong you and the concerned party that you might have been violating said thirsd parties rights is a personal atack.

Informing ME is not the problem. Informing ME on a public forum is a problem, because it doesn’t mitigate damage to me or them. Informing them, and telling them that I am using my personal web site to bash gays (which I am most certainly NOT) is a personal attack. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You also say that it would be much the same as telling a possibly violent group that could be expected to rrespond in

Response:

It would seem to me, that if Mr.Pflager intent is to provide "truth" as he sees it, he would respect the fact that his choice of domain names is a could be seen as a an attempt to hinder the P-FLAG. (or maybe that IS his intent?) I am reminded how a few months ago, someone had ourchased the domain sname "HateWatch.net" and set up a site that bsahed Catholics, non_Whites, Democrats, Jews, etc, choosing the name deliberately to cause confusion with HateWatch.org which monmitors groups like the KKK, and the Arayan Nation. One wonder nw, if Mr. Plager might not be of the same crowd? Rainbow Christian — The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I’m Gay http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734 Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches http://www.ufmcc.com

Response:

Daniel Pflager schrieb: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A portion of my posting: In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site. Mr. Pflager’s response: Well Eric. Sir, we are not on a first name basis. I have consistently referred to you as either "sir," or "Mr. Pflager." Please extend to me the same courtesy. Sorry. Okay Mr. Eric… (just kidding). Okay Mr. Payne. Let them come. The prospect of being sued doesn’t scare me. I have been in business long enough to understand the process. It might be a good opportunity to raise awareness about the militant left’s attempts to stir up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as myself from exercising their right to free speech. Sir, you openly post opinions in a pro-gay newsgroup (alt.politics.homosexuality) denigrating the emotional relationships between persons of the same gender; you consistently avow your point of view – and your Church’s – to be the only legitimate point of view, now and forever, world without end, etc., and chide those that disagree with you. I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful.

This still is your personal opinion and such entirely irrelevant. I also openly suggest that homosexual orientation is not.

Same. Only that you could actually argue that sexual orientation is not a moral issue at all. I suggest a connection between "activism" and "self-interest".

You fail, however, to demonstrate a neccesary, direct and causal relationship betwen the two, i.e. some self-interest my lead to acvtivism, but not all self-interest will and not all activism results from self-interest. You also fail to explain what oyu think is WRONG with the attempt to adress one’S own problems by various means inclusing activism. I do not suggest that every person with homosexual orientation is an "activist". I sincerely disbelieve anyone could see a response to that mind-set as stirring "up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as" yourself "in exercising their right to free speech." Instead, it would be those persons exercising their right to free speech to ensure your words are not somehow attributed to them, due to the similarities in domain names. My name came first, I guarantee it.

Probably, yes – but that might not be a lot of help to you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In any case, I have not expressed any of my viewpoints on my web site. Yet. The fact that my e-mail is routed through that is indicative not of my intention to interfere with PFLAG, who’s existence is news to me, but is indicative of my desire to be frugal. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ . Once again, sir: Your truth is not "the" truth. This all began, as I recall, with you wishing to express your rights of marriage to the person you love as being of more importance than my rights to same. By that logic, neither is your position truth. Once again, however, it is my privilege (and yours) to claim my position to be truth. In any case, I believe my position is truthful. I’m not sure you know what my position is though.

Do try to understand that what you belive doesn#t matter. Only what others belive when you say it does – this means that you should be able to demonstrate that what you say is the truth. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity. I would defy you to find in any posting where I did not engage in "fair play and integrity," sir. In point of fact, it is you that have crossed that line, be specifically excluding this form (alt.politics.homosexuality) from your responses to messages posted here – most importantly, those responses where you either snip away more than half the posting, or respond with easily dismissible nonsense. I have excluded alt.politics.homosexuality in response to several requests from that group to do so. I complied because I did not post there in the first place, but did as a result of replies to cross-posters who did post there.

The accepted procedure (and the only one that gives anyone a fair and equal chance) is to set follow up to specific newsgroups and annouce that in the posts. Anything else demonstrates a degree of dishonesty – if done unintentially it definitely won’t serve your purposes. What newsreader program do you use? Agent? Outlook Express? Some other? With every newsgroup program I’ve had experience, a respondent has to specifically CHOOSE to NOT post a response to all the newsgroups in which the original posting appeared. Outlook Express. That is correct. You have to remove the posters reply groups to NOT post there. That is what I did in order to comply with the requests.

Do set follow ups. It will avouid confusion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity. And the implication above is I am lacking in "personal and moral integrity"? Sir, I greatly resent that remark. You know absolutely nothing about me, and are completely unqualified to make such an assertion. Mr. Payne, you may be surprised to learn that not every remark that congratulates someone else is a slight against you personally. Trust me, I don’t want to slight you, but it’s very difficult not to if you are looking for a slight in what I say. I’m sure I could find things personally affronting in your posts that you did not intend that way either. On that note, I want to express my appreciation for your desire to be respectful, and respected. I think that is entirely commendable, and I will do my best to honor it. I do not always agree with their positions, but they at least are searching and haven’t abandoned their integrity so as to stoop to personal attacks of this kind. I am always amazed at what, in some people’s minds, constitutes a "personal attack." Your postings about your generalizations of the moral and ethical fiber of gays, and insisting those generalizations are truth, DOES NOT constitute a "personal attack," but a posting/letter to an organization with a domain name that could be easily confused for your own domain name, and who are entitled by law to question the authenticity of your domain name, IF they so choose, due to recent Federal Court decisions IS a personal attack? Mr. Payne, when someone says they have called a gay organization with a similar name to my own last name in order to encourage them to take action against me, by gagging my freedom of speech, how am I NOT to see it as a personal attack.

By trying to understand what is going on? Your freedom of speech is not restricted in any way if you are deniwed the right to name your company after another company. You are still allowed to state your opnion, after all. What happened here is that you possibly violated somone else#s right and a third party brough that to their attention. The worst that might happen t o you I suspect is that you will have to change your domain name. Let’s say you had a web site "payne.com", and I told you I was going to telephone up the Neo-Nazi Group "pain.com" to tell them that you are spouting anti-Nazi, pro-gay propaganda on a web site that resembled theirs. Wouldn’t you feel that was a personal attack?

If you cna make a good legal case that they have a _right_ to their name (hardly, since !"pain" is a word you wonT be able to regisdter or copyright in any way) and if they then take legal action it would not be a pewrsona lattack. Last time I checked, right wing nut cases werew not known for their likeliness to discuss such matters in a court of law, though… Please try to see what I am saying here.

You are saying that informiong you and the concerned party that you might have been violating said thirsd parties rights is a personal atack. You also say that it would be much the same as telling a possibly violent group that could be expected to rrespond in an illegal and harmful way roughly the same thing… kinda like saying it doesn’T make a difference wether the red button resets my PC or blows a nuke… Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Rasmus.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Be careful though. You might find yourself at the receiving end of a lawsuit or injunction for harassment, or even cyber-stalking. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager Make my day, bigot! As usual, you are out of your depth with this empty threat. If you don’t like people responding to your pius ignorance and bigotry, don’t post it in public forums. It couldn’t be simpler.

I wonder if it’s an axiom that anyone who calls someone else a bigot must himself be a bigot. Hmmm. Anyway, don’t take it too seriously, friend. I don’t. But do get some help with anger management. You are the most angry poster I’ve ever encountered. I’d really like to think that human beings with even the farthest opposed viewpoints have more in common than they differ. Why don’t we try to communicate constructively. Can you put aside your anger for a constructive purpose? Who knows, you might even change my bigotted, pea-sized mind. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – A portion of my posting: In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site. Mr. Pflager’s response: Well Eric. Sir, we are not on a first name basis. I have consistently referred to you as either "sir," or "Mr. Pflager." Please extend to me the same courtesy.

Sorry. Okay Mr. Eric… (just kidding). Okay Mr. Payne. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Let them come. The prospect of being sued doesn’t scare me. I have been in business long enough to understand the process. It might be a good opportunity to raise awareness about the militant left’s attempts to stir up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as myself from exercising their right to free speech. Sir, you openly post opinions in a pro-gay newsgroup (alt.politics.homosexuality) denigrating the emotional relationships between persons of the same gender; you consistently avow your point of view – and your Church’s – to be the only legitimate point of view, now and forever, world without end, etc., and chide those that disagree with you.

I openly suggest that homosexual acts are sinful. I also openly suggest that homosexual orientation is not. I suggest a connection between "activism" and "self-interest". I do not suggest that every person with homosexual orientation is an "activist". I sincerely disbelieve anyone could see a response to that mind-set as stirring "up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as" yourself "in exercising their right to free speech." Instead, it would be those persons exercising their right to free speech to ensure your words are not somehow attributed to them, due to the similarities in domain names.

My name came first, I guarantee it. In any case, I have not expressed any of my viewpoints on my web site. Yet. The fact that my e-mail is routed through that is indicative not of my intention to interfere with PFLAG, who’s existence is news to me, but is indicative of my desire to be frugal. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ . Once again, sir: Your truth is not "the" truth. This all began, as I recall, with you wishing to express your rights of marriage to the person you love as being of more importance than my rights to same.

By that logic, neither is your position truth. Once again, however, it is my privilege (and yours) to claim my position to be truth. In any case, I believe my position is truthful. I’m not sure you know what my position is though. But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity. I would defy you to find in any posting where I did not engage in "fair play and integrity," sir. In point of fact, it is you that have crossed that line, be specifically excluding this form (alt.politics.homosexuality) from your responses to messages posted here – most importantly, those responses where you either snip away more than half the posting, or respond with easily dismissible nonsense.

I have excluded alt.politics.homosexuality in response to several requests from that group to do so. I complied because I did not post there in the first place, but did as a result of replies to cross-posters who did post there. What newsreader program do you use? Agent? Outlook Express? Some other? With every newsgroup program I’ve had experience, a respondent has to specifically CHOOSE to NOT post a response to all the newsgroups in which the original posting appeared.

Outlook Express. That is correct. You have to remove the posters reply groups to NOT post there. That is what I did in order to comply with the requests. You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity. And the implication above is I am lacking in "personal and moral integrity"? Sir, I greatly resent that remark. You know absolutely nothing about me, and are completely unqualified to make such an assertion.

Mr. Payne, you may be surprised to learn that not every remark that congratulates someone else is a slight against you personally. Trust me, I don’t want to slight you, but it’s very difficult not to if you are looking for a slight in what I say. I’m sure I could find things personally affronting in your posts that you did not intend that way either. On that note, I want to express my appreciation for your desire to be respectful, and respected. I think that is entirely commendable, and I will do my best to honor it. I do not always agree with their positions, but they at least are searching and haven’t abandoned their integrity so as to stoop to personal attacks of this kind. I am always amazed at what, in some people’s minds, constitutes a "personal attack." Your postings about your generalizations of the moral and ethical fiber of gays, and insisting those generalizations are truth, DOES NOT constitute a "personal attack," but a posting/letter to an organization with a domain name that could be easily confused for your own domain name, and who are entitled by law to question the authenticity of your domain name, IF they so choose, due to recent Federal Court decisions IS a personal attack?

Mr. Payne, when someone says they have called a gay organization with a similar name to my own last name in order to encourage them to take action against me, by gagging my freedom of speech, how am I NOT to see it as a personal attack. Let’s say you had a web site "payne.com", and I told you I was going to telephone up the Neo-Nazi Group "pain.com" to tell them that you are spouting anti-Nazi, pro-gay propaganda on a web site that resembled theirs. Wouldn’t you feel that was a personal attack? Please try to see what I am saying here. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – says… Mr. Pflager, Although it is, I would assume, your true last name, recent Federal Court Decisions have given holders of registered trademarks/copyrights the use of their trademark/copyright in obtaining domain names on the internet, and variations thereof. It might be interesting if Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays might want to sue you to change your domain name… especially since the page at www.pflager.com seems to exist solely as an enticement to utilize credit card payments on the web…. Hmmm…. sort of like the moneychangers at the temple….. Eric Payne Livermore, CA My name is not copy-writable, nor is yours or anyone’s. My web site exists expressly for use by ME ! I notice you hiding behing your own pseudonym on hotmail.com. Not very courageous or integral. Just for fun I forwarded this note to a few folks at PFLAG or Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays http://pflag.org/pflag.html! Looking to create trouble, eh? A nasty game of "Let’s you and them fight". You are a piece of work SON ‘o GOD. I thank you for your persecution however. I am honored to be elevated in your list of adversaries to be worthy of so much of your attention. Be careful though. You might find yourself at the receiving end of a lawsuit or injunction for harassment, or even cyber-stalking. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Make my day, bigot! As usual, you are out of your depth with this empty threat. If you don’t like people responding to your pius ignorance and bigotry, don’t post it in public forums. It couldn’t be simpler.

Response:

If the name is his, as he claims, personal name, then he didn’t use the name for the sole pupose of dovetailing his anti-gay postings in this newsgroup. It would, therefore, be difficult to prove the intent burden of the lawsuit. In addition, it would also be difficult to establish damages. Since P-FLAG is a non-profit organization, and the connection between their, "business", and David’s remarks would be impossible to establish, then how would one establish damages? Another point P-FLAG could make is the possible intent of Mr. Pflager to purchase this domain name solely for the "confusion" factor, as Mr. Pflager was already in possession of a domain name more in keeping with the objective of the site posted.

It’s not uncommon to purchase a domain name using one’s last name. This is all possible, but it’s speculation if Pflager is his last name. The ‘Net, in the US, presently is covered by copyright laws; most countries respect those copyrights in publishing. P-FLAG, as a name, is copyrighted; P-FLAG’s pro-gay writings are also copyrighter. In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site.

Could be, I am, after all, not a lawyer, But I would hope that PFLAG had something better to do with it’s time and money than pursue trivial, and seemingly petty, lawsuits. I doubt that it would stand up in court though.. But given the condition of US jurisprudence, anything can happen. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Neither lawsuit would stand in court. You cannot trademark your personal name, unless it’s part of a company, or corporate entity, and PFLAG cannot sue you for your personal name. The argument is ridiculous. You’re correct….but also incorrect. As far as "trademarks" are concerned, true, you cannot trademark a personal name. But as far as "copyrights" are concerned, there could be made a very good argument against In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site.

An organization that tried to sue somebody for using their own name because their name was similar to the name of the organization would be laughed out of court. And the newspapers would have a field day making said organization look like idiots. Boy, I hope Fortunoff’s doesn’t sue me.

Response:

A portion of my posting: In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site.

Mr. Pflager’s response: Well Eric.

Sir, we are not on a first name basis. I have consistently referred to you as either "sir," or "Mr. Pflager." Please extend to me the same courtesy. Let them come. The prospect of being sued doesn’t scare me. I have been in business long enough to understand the process. It might be a good opportunity to raise awareness about the militant left’s attempts to stir up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as myself from exercising their right to free speech.

Sir, you openly post opinions in a pro-gay newsgroup (alt.politics.homosexuality) denigrating the emotional relationships between persons of the same gender; you consistently avow your point of view – and your Church’s – to be the only legitimate point of view, now and forever, world without end, etc., and chide those that disagree with you. I sincerely disbelieve anyone could see a response to that mind-set as stirring "up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as" yourself "in exercising their right to free speech." Instead, it would be those persons exercising their right to free speech to ensure your words are not somehow attributed to them, due to the similarities in domain names. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ .

Once again, sir: Your truth is not "the" truth. This all began, as I recall, with you wishing to express your rights of marriage to the person you love as being of more importance than my rights to same. But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity.

I would defy you to find in any posting where I did not engage in "fair play and integrity," sir. In point of fact, it is you that have crossed that line, be specifically excluding this form (alt.politics.homosexuality) from your responses to messages posted here – most importantly, those responses where you either snip away more than half the posting, or respond with easily dismissible nonsense. What newsreader program do you use? Agent? Outlook Express? Some other? With every newsgroup program I’ve had experience, a respondent has to specifically CHOOSE to NOT post a response to all the newsgroups in which the original posting appeared. You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity.

And the implication above is I am lacking in "personal and moral integrity"? Sir, I greatly resent that remark. You know absolutely nothing about me, and are completely unqualified to make such an assertion. I do not always agree with their positions, but they at least are searching and haven’t abandoned their integrity so as to stoop to personal attacks of this kind.

I am always amazed at what, in some people’s minds, constitutes a "personal attack." Your postings about your generalizations of the moral and ethical fiber of gays, and insisting those generalizations are truth, DOES NOT constitute a "personal attack," but a posting/letter to an organization with a domain name that could be easily confused for your own domain name, and who are entitled by law to question the authenticity of your domain name, IF they so choose, due to recent Federal Court decisions IS a personal attack? Eric Payne Livermore, CA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Since we have already established that Pflager’s interest in the literal reading of the bible is limited to that which supports his personal anti-gay prejudices, -Among the major themes he ignores is Jesus’ advice to his followers to give away all their possessions- we can assume that he will not be concerned about his own theft of copyright. Using the handy fundamentalist flowchart found at http://www.bettybowers.com/bibleinterp1.html Pflager will, no doubt, tell us that "Thou shalt not steal" doesn’t really mean it in this case. For fundamentalist like Pflager, biblical rebukes only apply to OTHER people. Just for fun I forwarded this note to a few folks at PFLAG or Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays http://pflag.org/pflag.html! Not only did I first visit P-FLAG’s site and make them aware of Mr. Pflager’s website, I made them aware of his continuous diatribe against gays and lesbians within this newsgroup… hopefully, one or two of the executive members of P-FLAG might get just a little bit "miffed" about the closeness of domain names. I have to wonder just why Daniel chose to purchase the plager.com domain name in the first place, as it seems only to exist as a mirror site for www.e-authorize.com The domain is "pflager.com", and that is my last name. In fact, I think it is I who might have a right to sue them for using a combination of letters that so closely resembles my own. I guarantee that my claim precedes theirs, since I am quite aged now. I think I will phone a lawyer tomorrow. Thank-you for the idea. I wasn’t aware of this organization until now, but now I am. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Neither lawsuit would stand in court. You cannot trademark your personal name, unless it’s part of a company, or corporate entity, and PFLAG cannot sue you for your personal name. The argument is ridiculous. Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

You’re correct….but also incorrect. As far as "trademarks" are concerned, true, you cannot trademark a personal name. But as far as "copyrights" are concerned, there could be made a very good argument against Mr. Pflager using a domain name so similar to P-FLAG’s trademarked/copyrighted name, especially when dovetailing his anti-gay postings in this newsgroup. Another point P-FLAG could make is the possible intent of Mr. Pflager to purchase this domain name solely for the "confusion" factor, as Mr. Pflager was already in possession of a domain name more in keeping with the objective of the site posted. The ‘Net, in the US, presently is covered by copyright laws; most countries respect those copyrights in publishing. P-FLAG, as a name, is copyrighted; P-FLAG’s pro-gay writings are also copyrighter. In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site. Eric Payne Livermore, CA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Neither lawsuit would stand in court. You cannot trademark your personal name, unless it’s part of a company, or corporate entity, and PFLAG cannot sue you for your personal name. The argument is ridiculous. You’re correct….but also incorrect. As far as "trademarks" are concerned, true, you cannot trademark a personal name. But as far as "copyrights" are concerned, there could be made a very good argument against Mr. Pflager using a domain name so similar to P-FLAG’s trademarked/copyrighted name, especially when dovetailing his anti-gay postings in this newsgroup. Another point P-FLAG could make is the possible intent of Mr. Pflager to purchase this domain name solely for the "confusion" factor, as Mr. Pflager was already in possession of a domain name more in keeping with the objective of the site posted. The ‘Net, in the US, presently is covered by copyright laws; most countries respect those copyrights in publishing. P-FLAG, as a name, is copyrighted; P-FLAG’s pro-gay writings are also copyrighter. In my opinion, I don’t think it would be difficult for P-FLAG to cite those recent court decisions and request that Mr. Pflager’s site name be changed to some variation which still reflects his personal name (perhaps Daniel_Pflager.com), yet distances that site, and Mr. Pflager’s anti-gay writings from the charitable, pro-gay, P-FLAG site.

Well Eric. Let them come. The prospect of being sued doesn’t scare me. I have been in business long enough to understand the process. It might be a good opportunity to raise awareness about the militant left’s attempts to stir up resentments and trouble in order to prevent individuals such as myself from exercising their right to free speech. I’m frankly not surprised that some elements of the left should find the truth so threatening, nor that they should want to express their rights at the expense of others’ . But I also know that the majority of gay supporters are committed to fair-play and integrity. You might learn something from several gay Christians that speak on the alt.religion.christian.episcopal newgroup. There are several that are interested in finding constructive imaginative solutions to gay issues while maintaining their own personal and moral integrity. I do not always agree with their positions, but they at least are searching and haven’t abandoned their integrity so as to stoop to personal attacks of this kind. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Mr. Pflager, Although it is, I would assume, your true last name, recent Federal Court Decisions have given holders of registered trademarks/copyrights the use of their trademark/copyright in obtaining domain names on the internet, and variations thereof. It might be interesting if Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays might want to sue you to change your domain name… especially since the page at www.pflager.com seems to exist solely as an enticement to utilize credit card payments on the web…. Hmmm…. sort of like the moneychangers at the temple….. Eric Payne Livermore, CA

Since we have already established that Pflager’s interest in the literal reading of the bible is limited to that which supports his personal anti-gay prejudices, -Among the major themes he ignores is Jesus’ advice to his followers to give away all their possessions- we can assume that he will not be concerned about his own theft of copyright. Using the handy fundamentalist flowchart found at http://www.bettybowers.com/bibleinterp1.html Pflager will, no doubt, tell us that "Thou shalt not steal" doesn’t really mean it in this case. For fundamentalist like Pflager, biblical rebukes only apply to OTHER people. Just for fun I forwarded this note to a few folks at PFLAG or Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays http://pflag.org/pflag.html!

Response:

Not only did I first visit P-FLAG’s site and make them aware of Mr. Pflager’s website, I made them aware of his continuous diatribe against gays and lesbians within this newsgroup… hopefully, one or two of the executive members of P-FLAG might get just a little bit "miffed" about the closeness of domain names. I have to wonder just why Daniel chose to purchase the plager.com domain name in the first place, as it seems only to exist as a mirror site for www.e-authorize.com Eric Payne Livermore, CA

Response:

My name is not copy-writable, nor is yours or anyone’s. My web site exists expressly for use by ME ! I notice you hiding behing your own pseudonym on hotmail.com. Not very courageous or integral. Just for fun I forwarded this note to a few folks at PFLAG or Parents and Friends of Lesbians And Gays http://pflag.org/pflag.html!

Looking to create trouble, eh? A nasty game of "Let’s you and them fight". You are a piece of work SON ‘o GOD. I thank you for your persecution however. I am honored to be elevated in your list of adversaries to be worthy of so much of your attention. Be careful though. You might find yourself at the receiving end of a lawsuit or injunction for harassment, or even cyber-stalking. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

The domain is "pflager.com", and that is my last name. In fact, I think it is I who might have a right to sue them for using a combination of letters that so closely resembles my own. I guarantee that my claim precedes theirs, since I am quite aged now. I think I will phone a lawyer tomorrow. Thank-you for the idea. I wasn’t aware of this organization until now, but now I am. Obedientia et Pax, Daniel Pflager

Response:

[Fwd: RESULT: soc.support.fat-acceptance.mod erated moderated passes 310:67]

admin — Mon, 26 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

Yea! — claudia 565/370/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – F.Y.I. 310:67 Organization: Usenet Volunteer Votetakers RESULT moderated group soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated passes 310:67 There were 310 YES votes and 67 NO votes, for a total of 377 valid votes. There were 11 abstentions and 5 invalid ballots. For a group to pass, YES votes must be at least 2/3 of all valid (YES and NO) votes. There must also be at least 100 more YES votes than NO votes. A five day discussion period follows this announcement. If no serious allegations of voting irregularities are raised, the moderator of news.announce.newgroups will create the group shortly thereafter. Newsgroups line: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Self-acceptance for fat people. (Moderated) The voting period closed at 23:59:59 UTC, 23 Jul 1999. This vote was conducted by a neutral third party. Questions about the proposed group should be directed to the proponent. RATIONALE: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated There are currently two unmoderated newsgroups, alt.support.big-folks and soc.support.fat-acceptance, that provide a forum for discussion of the fat acceptance movement and other issues in the lives of those of us who are larger than average. Unfortunately, those newsgroups are frequently hit by trollers and spammers posting abusive attacks against large people and endless advertisements for weight loss products. We wish to create a new, moderated group in order to provide an environment that is free of the above-mentioned attacks and advertisements. CHARTER: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated This group provides a supportive forum for the discussion of the personal and political goals of fat acceptance and other topics relevant to being fat. This is a support group. Abuse of individuals and groups based on their appearance is not tolerated. All self- defined fat people who are self-accepting, or are working towards self-acceptance are welcome, as are non-fat people who also favour aspects of size-acceptance. Please be aware that wherever people are building a community, controversy and conflict are inevitable. The important thing is that the controversy does not turn into personal attacks (see the policy statement for details on this issue). Moderation policy: Readers of soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated are encouraged to post messages on topics including, but not limited to, the following: - Fat-acceptance political activism - Events relating to fat-acceptance - Medical research and related research papers - Information on healthy living as a fat person (including nutrition and exercise for large people) - Resources for fat people (including clothes, mail order catalogs, etc.), either newly discovered or in response to requests for such information - Personal anecdotes about being fat - Sharing complaints and peeves or triumphs and achievements - Discussion of the dangers of weight loss surgery and drugs Soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated is moderated to block the following specific types of posts: 1. Trolls 2. Off-topic, promotional posts 3. Personal Attacks 4. Inappropriate posts 5. Binaries 6. Cross posts 1. Trolls are posts that the moderators believe were posted only to provoke members of the group into responding heatedly. 2. Off-topic, promotional post made for reasons of commercialism or zealotry are blocked (regardless of whether such posts meet the definition of spam by being posted multiple times). 3. Personal attacks are personal insults against members of the newsgroup. (Note: criticisms of ideas are not personal attacks. For example: "that’s an idiotic idea" is not a personal attack, but "you are an utter dimwit" is a personal attack.). Specific allegations that can’t be backed up with evidence (such as "that poster secretly works for Jenny Craig") may be construed as personal attacks. 4. Soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated is intended as a support group for people who want a break from the "weight control is good" and "anti-body-acceptance" messages ubiquitous in western society. It is not intended as a source for definitive medical information on weight or a forum for debate on whether weight control is a good idea. Therefore, there are some types of messages that are not appropriate to this forum. Messages about these topics are not approved: (1) Advocacy of weight (or fat) control (reduction, maintenance, or gain) Messages advocating weight control via surgery, diet, drugs, exercise, and other methods are not approved. (Advocating means "promoting as good or useful.") Messages that say "even though [weight control method] is not for everyone, it improved *my* life" are included under this restriction unless there is a surrounding context of fat- acceptance. A simple statement *that* a poster changed his/her weight is not advocacy, but going into any detail about a particular method for weight control that worked for the poster is considered advocacy unless the surrounding fat-acceptance context is clear. Discussions of the dangers of weight control and methods for same, and discussions of negative experiences with weight control attempts or methods, are allowed. Refutations of scientific evidence presented by such posts are allowed if the refutations are explicitly made in a fat-acceptance context. Discussions of surgery, diet, drugs, and exercise that do not advocate weight control are allowed. For example, a post about exercising to become stronger is allowed, but a post about exercising in order to lose weight is not allowed. (2) Personal Ads/Advertisements for products other than those of interest to fat or fat-accepting people. Vendors who sell a fat-accepting product for fat people (such as clothing in large sizes) may post something about their businesses no more than once per month. The preferred way to do this is to point people to a web site. Ads may be checked by a volunteer before being posted in order to confirm that the products are actually for fat people. Please use the tag word ADVERT: in the subject line of such posts. (If you do not, the moderators will prepend ADVERT: to the subject line.) If a vendor’s site does not represent what an ad leads people to believe, all future posts from that vendor may be rejected. The moderators’ goal is to allow companies to advertise fat-positive products, as a useful adjunct to the newsgroup’s primary purpose, which is discussion of fat-acceptance. If the moderators believe that the amount or type of advertising being posted is distracting from the quality of the discussion, the moderators reserve the right to put additional limits on the amount or type of advertising. This change will be accomplished via discussion on the moderation mailing list and will be put into place following a vote of the moderators. Personal ads are not allowed. Many web sites that accept personal ads for/from big people are listed in the Online Resources for Big Folks FAQ, or you can post them to soc.personals. 5. Binaries, with the exception of small binaries (e.g. PGP keys), are filtered out. 6. Cross-posting of FAQs is allowed, but any other cross-posted messages may be returned to the sender with a request that all other newsgroups be removed and the post resubmitted. Frequently asked questions (FAQ) The Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and web site presently used by the newsgroups soc.support.fat-acceptance and alt.support.big-folks are used by this newsgroup to avoid duplication of effort. The moderation style FAQ appended below is part of said web site and is posted twice a month to soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated. Amending This Charter This charter cannot be amended because there is no widely accepted way to do charter amendment in the Big 8. Should this change, the Charter will be amendable according to the new policy. The moderators reserve the right to change the moderation policy at any time to maintain the spirit of the charter. END CHARTER. MODERATOR INFO: soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated Administrative contact

Response:

There is one more vote needed. So be sure to vote the second time

DEFINITELY, someone post the information when it happens. I voted last time and I’d hate to miss the second one. Stacy

Response:

congrats to all of you and all your hard work! have a wonderful and safe group! Considering your active support of MarcHOLE, archived on Deja, you should be ashamed of yourself for your comments here.

Well, "Hypocracy" IS her middle name, after all. She is to be commended, however. Had MarcHole not had some fans like her, he wouldn’t have been posting scores of fat-bashing posts to a fat-acceptance newsgroup and far fewer people would have recognized the need for a moderated group. Stacy 199/134/undecided

Response:

Wonderful news…. Jacqueline 180/158/140 It’s sad that a family can be torn apart by something as simple as a pack of wild dogs.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – F.Y.I.

Response:

There is no second vote on this matter. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There is one more vote needed. So be sure to vote the second time

Response:

congrats to all of you and all your hard work! have a wonderful and safe group! rosie

Response:

There is one more vote needed. So be sure to vote the second time — claudia 565/370/157 To email me remove the potatoes Tipletter Writer for Dieting CyberTip4theDay Subscribe today: http://www.CyberTip4theDay.com Claudia’s Corner http://dietchef.ecorp.net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – RESULT moderated group soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated passes 310:67 There were 310 YES votes and 67 NO votes, for a total of 377 valid votes. There were 11 abstentions and 5 invalid ballots. Hearty congrats to the ssfa subscribers. I’m glad to see they’ll have an unharrassed space for their discussions. — "There’s a seeker born every minute."

Response:

RESULT moderated group soc.support.fat-acceptance.moderated passes 310:67 There were 310 YES votes and 67 NO votes, for a total of 377 valid votes. There were 11 abstentions and 5 invalid ballots.

Hearty congrats to the ssfa subscribers. I’m glad to see they’ll have an unharrassed space for their discussions. — "There’s a seeker born every minute."