Another passes on...

I gave up fags 30 years ago - oh, sorry, transatlantic mistranslation! -
you were just being homophobic!

Homophobic would imply that I am afraid of queers. The only thing
I'm afraid is that you libs would convince society that being a rump
ranger is normal and acceptable.

In article , Randall
Ainsworth writes
I gave up fags 30 years ago - oh, sorry, transatlantic mistranslation! -
you were just being homophobic!

Homophobic would imply that I am afraid of queers. The only thing
I'm afraid is that you libs would convince society that being a rump
ranger is normal and acceptable.

(1) You seem to be a little weak on definitions; homophobic means to
have an irrational fear of, hatred of or to discriminate unreasonably
against homosexuals.

(2) Why would I be a "lib" just because I made a joke - which was mainly
aimed at the (what I thought rather amusing) difference between UK and
US English in the meaning of "fag".

However, if you choose to make it an occasion to express more of your
personality, so be it.
--
David Littlewood

If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

In article ,
says...
If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

Straw Man fallacy: misstating the other guys argument and then attacking
them on that misstatement. Third weakest form of debate, after Ad
Hominem Attack (this was that too) and Appeal to Authority (care to
thump a Bible?).

Marc

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

How eloquently put - by one of the biggest a$$holes around atm.

PLONK

--
regards,
dslr

Marc 182 wrote:

In article ,
says...
If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

Straw Man fallacy: misstating the other guys argument and then attacking
them on that misstatement. Third weakest form of debate, after Ad
Hominem Attack (this was that too) and Appeal to Authority (care to
thump a Bible?).

Marc

I don't think this is him tryoig to mae a cogent arguement. Just a sad
bigot.
Stan
Visual Arts Photography

I was never aware of, and never cared about Scavullo's sexuality until you
"rammed it home" for me. Thanks so much for providing detailed and colorful
descriptions of the very behavior you claim to abhor. Makes me wonder about
you, that's for sure.

He's dead, let it go. Keep your bigotry to yourself.

"Randall Ainsworth" wrote in message
...
Neanderthal bigotry snipped...

In article , Randall
Ainsworth writes

In article , Randall
Ainsworth writes
I gave up fags 30 years ago - oh, sorry, transatlantic mistranslation! -
you were just being homophobic!

Homophobic would imply that I am afraid of queers. The only thing
I'm afraid is that you libs would convince society that being a rump
ranger is normal and acceptable.

(1) You seem to be a little weak on definitions; homophobic means to
have an irrational fear of, hatred of or to discriminate unreasonably
against homosexuals.

(2) Why would I be a "lib" just because I made a joke - which was
mainly aimed at the (what I thought rather amusing) difference between
UK and US English in the meaning of "fag".

However, if you choose to make it an occasion to express more of your
personality, so be it.

If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

I have pasted the preceding posts back in top allow others to follow
(sorry if the quoting marks have not come out correctly).

I would observe:

(1) I did not express the views you ascribe to me, nor did I endorse (or
criticise) the life-style which enrages you; I was merely making a joke,
which fact seems to have been overlooked by you.

(2) I have never made any personal remarks about you, but have left you
to demonstrate your own character as you wish.

(3) I see you have enthusiastically taken up the opportunity to do this
which was offered to you in my previous post.

(4) I have no desire to continue this, neonatosucrokleptomania is not
much to my taste.
--
David Littlewood

Randall Ainsworth wrote in
:

If you wanna **** your buddy in the butt I don't care. But I don't
see it as something to be proud of or to make other people aware of.

Which is why you're going on and on and on about it? Not a big deal
to me, but you seem a bit obsessed with homosexuality, including graphic
descriptions of such.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks..."


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

David Littlewood wrote:

snip
(4) I have no desire to continue this, neonatosucrokleptomania is not
much to my taste.

Hmmm.... lessee now...

Neo = new
nato = birth/born
sucro = sugar
klepto = theft
mania = out of control (?)

Does that word then mean "uncontrollable thievery of really fresh candy"?
How about "uncontrollable thievery of a new born babe's sugar suckle"?

Well, clearly we have "uncontrollable thievery" of some kind, although I'm
now at a loss to discern a well known allusion here. No doubt the moment I
post this, the meaning will hit me like a thundering mind-storm, but no
matter.

In any case: ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Tallman