Jeep thing or sheep thing?

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:

>Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except when
>they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
>dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
>gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or the
>3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing it.
>Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your Jeep -
>a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
>bit more enjoyable !).

The problem is that if I put a picture of a girlfriend on my desk, there is
no problem. It demonstrates a "regular" relationship. If a man puts a
picture of his boyfriend on his desk, he is "flaunting" his sexuality.
There seems to be a double standard for what is allowed. Implied sexuality
is fine for heterosexuals and condemned for the gays in the "don't flaunt
it" hetero world.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Time it went to meet its maker...

DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"DougW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Brian wrote:
> > This thread isn't dead yet??? Move on, folks, move on.
>
> <python>It's not dead, it's just resting.</python>
>
>

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:14:24 GMT, "David Allen"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Maybe you should call the Justice department. Isn't that illegal? You
>know, separation of church & state?

Nice smarta$$ answer - but you know it and I know it- the Mormons
run UT.

>Don't blame Mitt, he didn't elect himself governor. Heaven knows there's a
>lot of smart people in Massachussetts, isn't there?

I do blame him for being a slimeball. Apparently there are a lot of
stupid people in MA, but that goes for the entire country.

>Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he's maintained homes in
>both states for YEARS and lived primarily in Utah during the run up to the
>Olympics. Only his political enemies were digging in that hole.

You CANNOT simultaneously be a resident of TWO states. You are a
RESIDENT of one state at a time. I agree: Mitt was a resident
of UTAH.

To run for governor in MA requires multiple (6?) years of residency.
You can't pop in and out, you have to be a RESIDENT for those years.
Mitt got to run only because the board that makes the decisions
regarding residency was populated by Republican appointees.

Mitt, likely the most prominent Mormon in the USA, is a sleezeball.

Bob

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:14:24 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Maybe you should call the Justice department. Isn't that illegal? You
> >know, separation of church & state?
>
> Nice smarta$$ answer - but you know it and I know it- the Mormons
> run UT.
>
Well, it looks like we won't be agreeing anytime soon. But, for the record,
I'll just say this: There's a lot of Mormons in Utah (duh) and there are
many who have influencial positions in government. There's no doubt their
actions are influenced by their religious views. I wouldn't even be
suprised if there are phone calls. But the influence the church has is
indirect. It hopes it's members who have influencial positions in
government don't embarrass it. Mostly they don't. Sometimes they do.

The church has a good neighbor policy. It goes out of it's way to help good
members of the community when it can. That includes other churches and
groups that are forces for good in the community. They've given away
property, given supplies, money, volunteers, whatever it takes to be
helpful.

On the other hand, a lot of what the church has to deal with is people who
have a special, hateful place in their hearts for the church. These people
are constantly looking for ways to hurt, fight, embarrass, sue, etc., the
church. This whole business about the church purchasing both the property
and the easements of what used to be the public street between Temple Square
and the Church office building is an example. They made it into a park
closed to traffic where tourists could walk, making the whole area part of
Temple Square. The people who fought that wanted to march up and down that
area exercising their first amendment rights protesting against the church
on whatever issues, right in the middle of Temple Square. Enough said?

> >Don't blame Mitt, he didn't elect himself governor. Heaven knows there's
a
> >lot of smart people in Massachussetts, isn't there?
>
> I do blame him for being a slimeball. Apparently there are a lot of
> stupid people in MA, but that goes for the entire country.
>
> >Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that he's maintained homes
in
> >both states for YEARS and lived primarily in Utah during the run up to
the
> >Olympics. Only his political enemies were digging in that hole.
>
> You CANNOT simultaneously be a resident of TWO states. You are a
> RESIDENT of one state at a time. I agree: Mitt was a resident
> of UTAH.
>
> To run for governor in MA requires multiple (6?) years of residency.
> You can't pop in and out, you have to be a RESIDENT for those years.
> Mitt got to run only because the board that makes the decisions
> regarding residency was populated by Republican appointees.
>
> Mitt, likely the most prominent Mormon in the USA, is a sleezeball.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even a
>>>> democratic government elected by the people...
>>>
>>>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>>>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>>>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>>>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>>>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>>>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>>>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>>>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>>>
>>>(I know - picky, picky, picky)
>>
>>And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up
"democracy"
>>in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.
>
>When dealing with a specialty, words are generally redefined for one
>specific, unambiguous, definition. Take, for example, the legal
>profession. They define specific words in ways to eliminate confusion and
>ambiguity. The same is true for other professions.
>
>The political science definition of democracy is exclusive of republics
>because there is a word to define republics. There is no reason to have
>the overlap. So you know that, when using the words in the "technical"
>manner that a "democratic republic" is one where some items are voted on
>directly and others are voted on through elected representatives. When you
>further add "constitutional" to the front, you know that there is a set
>document that outlines rules as well.

Democracy simply means the people are the government. A republic could have
its representatives chosen by those already in power, or they could be
inherited positions, for example. A democratic republic is one in which the
people choose their representatives.

>
>Or is a covalent bond when two atoms hang out for a while and learn that
>they show similar interests? Just because it is in the dictionary doesn't
>mean that it applies to the context.
>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

In article <[email protected]>,
'nuther Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 16:09:39 GMT, "David Allen"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Well, believe what you will. I have no doubt there's a clash of cultures in
>>Salt Lake City and that the church does have a lot of influence as it's had
>>from the beginning (when it was the only thing there). There's certainly
>>nothing suprising about that given a majority there are LDS and that's where
>>the headquarters of the church is. It's no different than any other large
>>organization in relatively small cities.
>
>Yes, it is different. The Mormons have run Utah for years. There are
>no other states run by specific religious groups.

MS, TX, and AL by Southern Baptists come pretty close!

In article <[email protected]>,
"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
>Bill,
>
> You will find that you are wasting your time arguing with Lloyd ; he
>makes an inflammatory post (or to be fair, responds to one),

And the poster claiming university professors support child abuse wasn't being
inflammatory?


>gets bored and
>then resorts to calling people ignorant. He is like a particularly sad child
>who feels confident to hurl abuse but only from a safe vantage point or gets
>tough in front of a mirror. He is exceptionally successful as a troll [ I'm
>writing this aren't I ], and you will get the impression that it is
>probably his only success.
>
>Dave Milne, Scotland
>'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
>"Bill Putney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>: Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> Lying scumbag.
>
>

"Dr. Zachary Smith" wrote:
>
> How does this relate to 4x4's?

What 4x4's... I thought this was a Nissan group!

There aren't any Gay Off-Roaders... are there???

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Kimball wrote:

> There aren't any Gay Off-Roaders... are there???

What makes you think there wouldn't be?

"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
: On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Kimball wrote:
:
: > There aren't any Gay Off-Roaders... are there???
:
: What makes you think there wouldn't be?
:


Gee all the really stupid stunts I have seen off road were performed by alcohol or
stupidity-laced straight people

"Daniel J Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Kimball wrote:
>
> > There aren't any Gay Off-Roaders... are there???
>
> What makes you think there wouldn't be?
>
They are probably too high class to participate in a thread like this. ;o)

Earle

Perhaps some would see that as flaunting, but not I.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
:
: >Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except
when
: >they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
: >dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
: >gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or
the
: >3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing
it.
: >Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your
Jeep -
: >a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
: >bit more enjoyable !).
:
: The problem is that if I put a picture of a girlfriend on my desk, there
is
: no problem. It demonstrates a "regular" relationship. If a man puts a
: picture of his boyfriend on his desk, he is "flaunting" his sexuality.
: There seems to be a double standard for what is allowed. Implied
sexuality
: is fine for heterosexuals and condemned for the gays in the "don't flaunt
: it" hetero world.
:
: Marc
: For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
: Perhaps some would see that as flaunting, but not I.
:
: Dave Milne, Scotland
: '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
:
: "Marc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
: news:[email protected]...
: : "Dave Milne" <jeep@_nospam_milne.info> wrote:
: :
: : >Exactly my point. Personally, I have nothing against homosexuals except
: when
: : >they talk about sex or make a big thing about their sexuality. I equally
: : >dislike heterosexuals going on about having banged some bird that was
: : >gagging for it. If you want to have sex with one of the 3 billion men or
: the
: : >3 billion women on the planet , then go right ahead ; everyone is doing
: it.
: : >Do it, and no need to talk about it. It's like buying petrol for your
: Jeep -
: : >a regular occurrence that to anyone else is entirely unremarkable (only a
: : >bit more enjoyable !).
: :
: : The problem is that if I put a picture of a girlfriend on my desk, there
: is
: : no problem. It demonstrates a "regular" relationship. If a man puts a
: : picture of his boyfriend on his desk, he is "flaunting" his sexuality.
: : There seems to be a double standard for what is allowed. Implied
: sexuality
: : is fine for heterosexuals and condemned for the gays in the "don't flaunt
: : it" hetero world.
: :
: : Marc
: : For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

That double standard exists everywhere. If some addle brained moron puts pictures of jesus
all over his work station that's fine. But if someone else puts a picture of Madelyn
Murray O'Hair on their work station, the phucking world stops!

[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even a
>>>>> democratic government elected by the people...
>>>>
>>>>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>>>>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>>>>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>>>>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>>>>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>>>>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>>>>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>>>>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>>>>
>>>>(I know - picky, picky, picky)
>>>
>>>And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up
>"democracy"
>>>in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.
>>
>>When dealing with a specialty, words are generally redefined for one
>>specific, unambiguous, definition. Take, for example, the legal
>>profession. They define specific words in ways to eliminate confusion and
>>ambiguity. The same is true for other professions.
>>
>>The political science definition of democracy is exclusive of republics
>>because there is a word to define republics. There is no reason to have
>>the overlap. So you know that, when using the words in the "technical"
>>manner that a "democratic republic" is one where some items are voted on
>>directly and others are voted on through elected representatives. When you
>>further add "constitutional" to the front, you know that there is a set
>>document that outlines rules as well.
>
>Democracy simply means the people are the government.

Then we don't have a democracy. I have never voted on a federal law. I
have never had the opportunity to do so.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:z%[email protected]...
>
> On the other hand, a lot of what the church has to deal with is people who
> have a special, hateful place in their hearts for the church. These
people
> are constantly looking for ways to hurt, fight, embarrass, sue, etc., the
> church. This whole business about the church purchasing both the property
> and the easements of what used to be the public street between Temple
Square
> and the Church office building is an example. They made it into a park
> closed to traffic where tourists could walk, making the whole area part of
> Temple Square. The people who fought that wanted to march up and down
that
> area exercising their first amendment rights protesting against the church
> on whatever issues, right in the middle of Temple Square. Enough said?

Apparently you forget (conveniently) that one of the agreements that the
Mormon
church signed was an agreement to permit public access to that park for
things such as protesting. Of course, the Church had in mind friendly
protests
like the anti-abortionists, etc. But as soon as people started using this
to make
protests the Church didn't like, the Church started seeking ways to go back
on
it's promise.

Ted

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 01:17:41 -0700, "Ted Mittelstaedt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> But as soon as people started using this to make protests the Church
> didn't like, the Church started seeking ways to go back on it's promise.
>
>Ted

I'm curious : How does one go about purchasing "the easements of what
used to be the public street between Temple Square and the Church
office building is an example."

One would think that public streets belong to the public and not be
able to be purchased by a church. In most states that would not
happen.

Bob

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:37:33 -0400, Daniel J Stern
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What makes you think there wouldn't be?


They'd get their nails dirty and mess up their hair ?

Bob

On 14 Jul 2003 17:02:45 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>And the poster claiming university professors support child abuse wasn't being
>inflammatory?

University professors abused me all though my college years. The
homework, the tests, they were relentless.

Bob

In article <[email protected]>,
Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>>>>Earle Horton wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...No government should have absolute power over its citizens, not even
a
>>>>>> democratic government elected by the people...
>>>>>
>>>>>A truly democratic government, by definition, *does* in fact have
>>>>>absolute rule over its citizens - IOW - the majority rules in all
>>>>>cases. IOW, in a true democracy, if the majority votes to put a person
>>>>>to death just because they don't like the color of his shoes, then he
>>>>>gets put to death. We live in a constitutional republic - the
>>>>>Constitution trumps the majority will by specifying rights that can't be
>>>>>abridged. IOW, the Constitution is the only thing that stands between
>>>>>us and mob rule ( = anarchy = true democracy).
>>>>>
>>>>>(I know - picky, picky, picky)
>>>>
>>>>And ignorant. We are a democracy as well as a republic. Look up
>>"democracy"
>>>>in the dictionary -- you've cited just ONE definition.
>>>
>>>When dealing with a specialty, words are generally redefined for one
>>>specific, unambiguous, definition. Take, for example, the legal
>>>profession. They define specific words in ways to eliminate confusion and
>>>ambiguity. The same is true for other professions.
>>>
>>>The political science definition of democracy is exclusive of republics
>>>because there is a word to define republics. There is no reason to have
>>>the overlap. So you know that, when using the words in the "technical"
>>>manner that a "democratic republic" is one where some items are voted on
>>>directly and others are voted on through elected representatives. When you
>>>further add "constitutional" to the front, you know that there is a set
>>>document that outlines rules as well.
>>
>>Democracy simply means the people are the government.
>
>Then we don't have a democracy. I have never voted on a federal law. I
>have never had the opportunity to do so.

I didn't say the people are the entire government. By our government is "of
the people and by the people."

>
>Marc
>For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:z%[email protected]...
> >
> > On the other hand, a lot of what the church has to deal with is people
who
> > have a special, hateful place in their hearts for the church. These
people
> > are constantly looking for ways to hurt, fight, embarrass, sue, etc.,
the
> > church. This whole business about the church purchasing both the
property
> > and the easements of what used to be the public street between Temple
Square
> > and the Church office building is an example. They made it into a park
> > closed to traffic where tourists could walk, making the whole area part
of
> > Temple Square. The people who fought that wanted to march up and down
that
> > area exercising their first amendment rights protesting against the
church
> > on whatever issues, right in the middle of Temple Square. Enough said?
>
> Apparently you forget (conveniently) that one of the agreements that the
Mormon
> church signed was an agreement to permit public access to that park for
> things such as protesting. Of course, the Church had in mind friendly
protests
> like the anti-abortionists, etc. But as soon as people started using this
to make
> protests the Church didn't like, the Church started seeking ways to go
back on
> it's promise.
>
> Ted

I have to say, it is fascinating to discuss these things from such opposite
vantage points. I'll tell you the way I understand it:

The church originally bought the property with the intent of closing the
street and making it part of Temple Square. It negotiated an easement with
they city so the public had 24/7 access and utilities and emergency units
had access, but limited behavior such as smoking, protesting, preaching,
revealing or disrespectful clothing, etc. The problem is (well, "was") that
anti-Mormons harrass tourists, temple goers and young, just married couples.
They shout disrespectful things while people enter or exit the temple or
while just married couples pose for pictures. Or they sunbath on the grass
so you can't get pictures without them being in the way. They pass out
anti-Mormon literature to wedding guests and temple goers. The list goes on
and on.

The ACLU came in and sued supporting the protestor's free speech. The
church was defending property rights. The city was split with the mayor
siding with the ACLU and the city council with the church. The church won
the first round in district court, but lost on appeal. Before the case
could go to the supreme court, a huge group of organizations and cities
lined up with the church concerned about the effect of the case on current
limited easements allowing public passage on private property. In an effort
to resolve the problem the mayor and church reached an agreement for the
city to give up it's easements on the property in exchange for some property
on the other side of town and obligate the church to respect public passage
rights. The behavior standards stand.

There never was an agreement to allow any protests, friendly or otherwise.
I don't know where you got the notion that the church thought they would get
(and supported) only friendly "protests" and then went back on their
agreement when unfriendlies showed up. The problem has always been hecklers
bothering people people going about their business within a few yards of the
temple entrance.