Jetrell Fo

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

 Would you care to explain the reasons if any for this ungraciousness?

You show it time and again with Warb and others during "discussions".  You obviously feel you are better informed than others so why be coy, own it? 

I'm totally capable of learning something new from people who are more schooled at some things than I am but your written tone suggests you WANT people to know you know more than they do.  You never seem to want to have just a normal average conversation.  You always seem to hang above folks with some scholarly and cold responses.  Your words never have any warmth to them and I wish I understood why.  Maybe we could communicate better if they did.      

My posting a position counter to your own doesn't automatically make me more correct or superior, that can only be a conclusion drawn by a personal reading of my words. It is however my position which I'm entitled to hold and state just as you are entitled to disagree and counter it.

Sure it does.  You've shown it with Warb but apparently he isn't as equally entitled to disagree with you or honestly misunderstand something.

My response was that your hypothetical person's full support for equality would be better informed after reading books and talking to people.

I already support equality fully.  I do not understand the physical and emotional attraction of people who are like gender because there can be no generational fruition from that love.

  Yes I'm currently being quoted by Warb out of context (because he can only see the bits other people quote) and he his making snide remarks in his signature bar. Within the last few hours.

Why can only you make snide remarks at him?  You cannot take what you give?

If discussions are a learning platform what's wrong with you getting a lesson.

If the tone you used in that genuine learning lesson is how you teach I'm the son of a Lesbian Ant and a Gay Elephant.  You were letting me know you feel your command of language is better than mine, nothing more.

TV's Frink said:

Are you saying you don't believe those two items and it was just to show we often misunderstand each other?

Since you misunderstood it but bingo got it, my answer would be yes.  I also believe that because bingo got it and you didn't that you are probably seen as lesser than him, by him, because he got it and you didn't.

Sorry to say.

To answer your other question ..... the 2 examples were honest statements made by me but it wouldn't have changed the results if they were just off the top of my head.   

by his ongoing quoting out of context of my words and his snide comments about me in his signature bar.

You mean to tell me people quoting others out of context here actually happens or it only happens to you?

Your support for equality would be enriched by more information and a greater understanding various minority groups that make up the population you wish to treat equally.

My statement was very clear, I said I support equality for all, yet you find something else in it that wasn't there.

I also said that discussions were a learning platform yet you find a way to be condescending about it by giving me an English Language lesson?  

And yet to his credit he manages to deduce what you mean first time when it alludes people with a better track record.

Yet you consider yourself better yet again.  Why?  Because it's you talking?  You are the ONLY person on this site that is perfect in design and execution?  THIS is why people get discouraged.  Instead of you sharing your gifts of knowledge you quietly talk down to folks while assuming an innocent posture during the exchange.  I actually thought we could discuss but it seems I may have been wrong.  That is unfortunate.

And Frink ..... stuff a sock in it.  Aren't there better threads for you to manipulate people against each other?

TV's Frink said:

Regarding #1, are you confused by a woman loving an infertile man despite no chance of procreation?

You completely missed the point.

:(

It is odd that Warb understands you BTW as he finds it generally a challenge to understand the most simple things.

What is odd about this is that Silverwook doesn't mention "which" movie but because you "knew" what Silverwook meant you expected Warb to know as well because this is a Star Wars forum.  Silverwook could have been talking about any new movie because the new Star Wars movie has not even been finished and released yet.  The confusion is perfectly understandable yet you obviously feel that Warb is beneath you for not getting the same message you did.

You also expected me to know that you viewed my usage of the phrase "both sides of the fence" as an adversarial remark when I never made any comments about either side being against each other.  "both sides of the fence" is not strictly an adversarial remark but in your view it is.   

Semantics can be strange because it has such a wide scope.  We all have opinions, none of which are right or wrong here, as this is supposed to be a discussion.  Discussions are normally a platform for learning, not for chastising because some may not know the same things we know, but it always ends up that way.      

I'm going to say 2 simple things right now and we'll see how they are perceived .... an experiment if you will.

1.  Though I support equality for all I am confused as to how men & women can be intimately attracted to members of the same sex, especially when there is no chance for procreation from the love they share.

2.  If there is no bigotry or discrimination against straight people, why is there a "ladies night" at the bar and not a "men's night" as well?

Apparently this confusion is about word useage, nothing more.  I NEVER said there was "gay text" that says to do harmful stuff to others.  Not ALL christians FEEL the same way about the bible as you seem to think either. 

You're assuming I mean something adversarial but I'm talking for and against, not gay vs. christian.  I did not realize you had to analyze every single letter I've typed to understand what I was saying.  Warb was the only one who actually got it.

Those texts were not written yesterday just to piss off gay people.  They obviously believed back then that being gay was not appropriate.  I cannot change what they said then.  I can ONLY help affect what is happening now.  It doesn't mean we have to go in to every old book and do a GL to them to help make a positive change now.

If you are telling me that gay people are innocent of any wrong doing in the name of acceptance I would have to call bull pucky on it because it has happened .... but I DON'T blame all gays for it.

I also don't think that every person who has issue with gay people is getting that hatred from the bible.  Maybe they just don't like gay people because they are gay, I cannot speak for them.  Bigotry IS everywhere as is discrimination.  I'd like to be able to eradicate it all right now if I could but as 1 person I can only do as much as I can.

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

 You can't be serious.

Ok, really Frink, you're the only one that can have a sense of humor?

@Bingo .....  I've said I do not condone such actions so why would you think I would poor bleach on someone just because I don't like them.

Again, for clarity, and hopefully the last time I need to state it.  Bigotry is NOT limited to 1 particular religious group or global group of people.  It IS everywhere on both sides of the fence.  I would call anyone a liar who says otherwise.  If that is NOT clear, I will not say it again. 

You also said : I also found it strange that you chose NOT to mention Alan Turings pardon and the public apology received that acknowledge he was NOT treated fairly.  Seems some people in this world wanted to correct an injustice that had been done.

That was only after many years of campaigning often by people wearing slogans and carrying banners. And posting on internet forums, forcing their views onto people some of which would rather not hear it.

Okay, the fact that it has happened is something to be proud of even IF it took this long.  People wanted to right a wrong.  I would think it a positive that this was done and it should be celebrated.  The man WAS and still IS a HERO. 

Maybe we aren't seeing things on the same level and that is why our dialog has become confusing.  I have hope that this world we live in will evolve in to something far better than it has been.  I do not believe in pulling a George Lucas on Historical documents, religious texts, and such.  You have to know where you come from to see where you're headed.  I don't have issue starting fresh historical documentation to record the changes but you made it sound as if it should be the gay prerogative to change such things just because they don't agree with it.  That is how I took it by what you said.

The internet is so cold when it comes to words.  I think if we were having this conversation in person we would understand each other better.  And it certainly doesn't help when the Boost changes the meaning of what people have said to his advantage or when my friend Frink decides he's gonna toss some gasoline into a fire just to watch how high the flames will go .....  ;)

Neglify,

I am certainly glad to see your resolve under such intense circumstances.  I can only hope that one day you are able to be reunited with those you love before passing in to the great beyond.

Thanks for sharing your struggles with us.  I think we can all learn something from them.

:) 

Ender,

I think it's important, and not just for you, to see the difference between an analogy and a parity.  There may come a time when people argue for legal human/animal or human/robot marriages.  And I have a feeling that many "progressives" might find a point that is "too far" for them, thus find themselves on the receiving end of the intolerance label.

This is what I've been trying to get at but apparently I'm not saying it right?  I'm not sure.  I worry, as it has been insinuated here and said by others publicly that if you're not down with the change, you're going down.  Why does it have to go that far?  Why can't a guy who can refuse service to someone not wearing a t-shirt or shoes not be able to refuse service to other things he may not like?  Why does he have to be forced?  Is it so the media can say "we told you so" or that progress can use it as a victory in it's favor?  I guess I don't completely understand why this is acceptable to anyone just wanting equality.  

TheBoost said:

Jetrell Fo said:

 

That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.

Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions. 

These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.

I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration.  How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question.  Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature?  Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it?  How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?

Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct?  Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality?  Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?

Respect requires boundaries to work properly.  If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.          

How far does equality have to go? What an asinine question.

Imagine yourself in the Jim Crow south, addressing a victim of female genital mutilation, forced marriage, public stoning, some young man with his eyes melted from bleach, some woman being executed for being the wrong religion in the wrong country, and asking "how far do we have to go to satisfy you people??"

So actually yes. If something old, capital 'C' Covenant or not, is based on discrimination and oppression, changing it would probably be good... or at least acknowledging that yes, we're discriminatory but we don't want to change because we enjoy our position of power and privilege.

Looking back on the past and acknowledging the bad things humans have done is a good thing (off the top of my head lets start with the chemical castration of the greatest war hero of WWII because he was gay). Erasing the past is usually what people who want to justify/continue oppression (lets call them the Bad Guys) want to do.

As for gay dinosaurs, deep down you must know your opinion is based on irrational prejudice , or else you wouldn't seek to justify it with something so utterly mouth-breathingly stupid.

My cousin and her wife are the most loving wonderful couple I know... but fuck it,  I guess we all might as well be dead.

I have no need to be concerned with your childish name calling just to make someone look lesser than yourself. 

And I said half gay dinosaurs, either get it right or don't try to use it to make some irrelevant comment about someone you don't know personally. 

I also found it strange that you chose NOT to mention Alan Turings pardon and the public apology received that acknowledge he was NOT treated fairly.  Seems some people in this world wanted to correct an injustice that had been done.

I disagree with wiping out the past to white wash it in the name of equality.  I support doing what we can do now to make sure that equality for all is an accepted everyday practice.

If you didn't just pick only certain words or phrases of a post to use them out of context to try and discredit someone I'd be more agreeable with you but internet posters like you are a dime a dozen.  

If it actually works it would be quite cool but it doesn't look self contained so I'm guessing there is a little mystery something tossed in to make it look similar.

^^^^^^

Very cool example Mike ...... :)

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Because equal rights (like the right to not be stoned to death) are soooooo frustrating.

 Frink, in all fairness, please remember Jetrell Fo said this:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone. 

 

 Then pehaps he shouldn't agree with lunatics when they act lunatic-y.

I said I understand his basic reasoning, I did not say I agree with lunacy.  Do not put words in my mouth as Bingo did, it does not suit you well, unless that is the effect you are going for.

 All I'm trying to do is understand what you said.  I guess I failed.

That's fair but I don't think you failed, you just haven't gotten the full blown explanation to make a balanced decision.

Part of the answer already partially lies in RicOlie2's opinions. 

These will be my words only and not meant to speak for anyone else but me.

I believe that the lunatic you refer to is speaking out of frustration.  How far does equality have to go before it is satisfied is the question.  Do we force a Convent which has operated as such for as long as can be remembered to now take Lesbians to avoid being labeled homophobic, prejudiced, or discriminatory in nature?  Do we eradicate parts of the past we don't like to fabricate a false one because some don't agree with it?  How do we then learn from or own our mistakes if they are systematically "whited out" (not a race related comment)?

Do we make dinosaurs half gay to be politically correct?  Do we take every single establishment already created and turn them all on their ears just to satisfy equality?  Is there a limit or are we as a society just scared into overwhelming and overbearing equality compliance that we are willing to dump everyone's soul in to a bag with a brick and dump it into a river just to satisfy one group of a global population?

Respect requires boundaries to work properly.  If we remove those boundaries we might as all well be dead.          

TV's Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV's Frink said:

Because equal rights (like the right to not be stoned to death) are soooooo frustrating.

 Frink, in all fairness, please remember Jetrell Fo said this:

Jetrell Fo said:

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone. 

 

 Then pehaps he shouldn't agree with lunatics when they act lunatic-y.

I said I understand his basic reasoning, I did not say I agree with lunacy.  Do not put words in my mouth as Bingo did, it does not suit you well, unless that is the effect you are going for.

They are not ravings ..... it's frustration ..... it's wondering how far equality has to go to be satisfied or is it's requirements infinite. 

This is NOT a Special Edition Laserdisc so you're good there.

On a side note, I would highly suggest you research a little before you go and make purchases like this.  You may find a seller whose policy isn't as easy to work with.

^^^^^^

It's responses like this that help me better understand the basic reasoning behind posts by thejediknighthusezni. 

SilverWook said:

Okay thanks! And lucky you! ;)

Did you try taking that screencap again yet?

I have not heard back from poita as of yet.

Nope, I posted it for you.  I own the Japan LD.

SilverWook said:

This site is a good resource.

http://www.blam1.com/StarTrek/index.htm

Details on the specials can be found under miscellaneous.

I really want to see the 30th anniversary Trek tv special, as reviews I've read made it out to be SWHS level bad. They did a sketch mixing Voyager with the cast of Fraiser!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VHS-STAR-TREK-30-YEARS-AND-BEYOND-VERY-RARE-PROMO-COPY-Save-money-with-us-/271519334834?pt=VHS&hash=item3f37d041b2

^^^^

I am very excited for this.  Thank you Tom.

:)

I would allow them to express themselves within the laws that dictate such things.  We are NOT living in Russia,  you cannot just give freedom of speech and practice of religion to a limited few people that you feel deserve it.

As for your running me in circles, I'm done. 

Bigotry is on both sides of the fence.  It may not be you who feels that way but you are not the only gay person in the world.  The planet does not circle the sun just so only you can run people around in endless loops of conversation trying to wear them down for some form of gratification.

I've shared my opinion and I voiced it clearly.  If that is not enough for you, it will have to be, because I've given enough of my time to you on this discussion.

My point is that bigotry lies on both sides of the fence either path you spoke of will provide damage to those related to each that it could bring more pain than healing.

Not everyone I know who believes in God believes in enacting hated acts against homosexuals and not every gay person I know that is happy wants to eradicate the source of people's beliefs.

We can guess how people might react but we cannot predict the actual damage and recourse of such things.  

TheBoost said:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/11/oklahoma_tea_party_candidate_scott_esk_supports_stoning_gay_people_to_death.html

Finally, some honesty from a politician. 

(for the record, not agreeing, but it's nice to hear them come out and say it, not just imply it)

I have implied nothing.  I have said I do NOT condone people stoning people for being gay anymore than I could condone forcing what my view of the world might be on others or changing someone's book of religion just so it reflects what I want it to say.

Warbler said:

bigotry can be a two way street.  

It was indeed.  You were the only one to understand the comparison.

JEDIT:

Apparently I have to clarify for those who want to psychoanalyze every typed letter, apostrophe, and alternate Thesaurus style but non-existent and assumed points of view.