Open Question for Mr. Pflager….

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. <snip 2 end 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:

<snip 2 the point 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.

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? <more snip 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.

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:

<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 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.

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:

Filed under: Activism Definition

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism