Jeep thing or sheep thing?

O

Omphalos

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #901

On Sun 29 Jun 2003 11:01:31p, Chris Phillipo <[email protected]>
wrote in news:[email protected]:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Lately, I hear many people who own Jeeps spouting out this phrase:
>>
>> "You wouldn't understand man....it's a Jeep thing!"
>>
>> Ok. I guess I don't really get it. But I am starting to understand
>> something about " the Jeep thing".
>>
>
> Makes me laugh everytime I hear it, because I do understand. I
> understand that not since "Where's the beef?" has a catch phrase
> concocted by some madison avenue BMW driver been proudly and mindlessly
> parroted by so many people.

BMW: Big Money Waste

What's the difference between a porcupine and a BMW?
A porcupine has the pricks on the outside.

Not all assholes drive BMW's but...
all BMW drivers are assholes.

 

B

Bill Putney

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #902

Marc wrote:
>
> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>Marc wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...
> >
> >> >>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
> >> >>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
> >> >>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
> >> >>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
> >> >>what the priests did to all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
> >> >
> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what you
> >> >want them to find?
> >
> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
>
> Sometimes you find the opposite of what you want. You can either hide it,
> or treat it like you would if you found what you are looking for.
>
> The federal government sponsored a study to prove that drugs were unsafe.
> The interesting part of the study was that people smoking marijuana became
> more "safe" than sober drivers (and the drunks got worse, but some got
> better after the first drink or two, then worse after). So, the federal
> government went out to find that drugs are bad. They instead proved that
> people driving under the influence of marijuana are safer than sober
> people.
>
> Many studies for year back long before this one are available on the NHTSA
> web site. I've looked for this one and have not been able to find it.
> I've seen the study other places and verified the title and document number
> exist (and I could order it, if I wasn't a cheap bastard), but the
> government is apparently hiding its own findings because it didn't like
> them.
>
> The findings of the APA were obviously the opposite of what it was looking
> for. It had two courses. It could either lie like a politician, or
> publish the findings as they would have if the study had proved what they
> expected.
>
> Do you prefer the disclosure, or lies and deceit?
>
> Marc
> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

Well, you may want to take a look at this:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.

Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
above policy letter.

Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
for the next step in the gay agenda, and because Congress and other
notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
this.

Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association
- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.

Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
people in the Psych department of Temple U.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

D

David Allen

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #903

"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:40:46 GMT, "David Allen"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Where should I start?
> >
> >First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that
you'll
> >sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
> >conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.
>
> How come when the Democrats are in office it's always their fault if
> the economy is sour, but when the Republicans are in office it's
> never their fault ?
>

I never made such a claim. Though, I have no doubt partisan Republicans
make the same accusations. It's part of the political game. But when you
consider what Democrats have done historically.... well, the stereotypes are
largely true... Democrats love to tax and spend. This tends to dampen
economic growth.

> >Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
> >major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in
office,
>
> Which Bush has prolonged and done nothing to end... except to pass
> a second tax cut that even the economic conservative Greenspan says
> we can't afford.
>

Greenspan supports the tax cuts, conditional on corresponding spending
restraint. Frankly, the recession is over. The biggest problem now is
regaining the confidence of the investor and the consumer.

Those who grew up in the 90's economy, got burned bad when the bubble popped
and are much more wary of where they put their money and how they spend it.
The effect of 9/11 on the economy is real and it's impact enormous.

It's lame to point the finger at Bush as if all we needed some Democrat in
office to bring us back to a pre- 9/11 economy.


> >2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.
>
> Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.
> What are there, maybe 100 million tax payers ? That works out to
> about $1000 each. Send in your check.
>

That pretty much summarizes what the Gore approach to 9/11 would have been.
A total miscalculation of the degree to which terrorism has risen and where
it's nexts steps were going.

> >The "exhuberant irrationalism" of the late 90's
>
> Yep, electing Bush depressed everyone.
>

In the late 90's?


> >and the corporate book
> >cooking laid the ground work for the economic "pop". Not anything
> >conservatives did.
>
> Except the conservative steadfastly opposed the imposition of
> new rules regulating the accounting industry. Efforts to force
> division of accounting companies that provide both consulting (to
> increase profits) and accounting (to track profits) led to an obvious
> conflict of interest that got us where we are today. Conservatives
> are still fighting financial regulation in all areas and their
> friend in the White House is not helping the situation.
>

If that's true, it's a mistake that's being quickly remedied.

 

L

Larry Kessler

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #904

Snubis <W> wrote:

>Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t> wrote:
>
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>>>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>
>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>
>> Buddhism
>> Reform Judaism
>> Wicca
>
>Wicca isn't a real religion.

1. The IRS says it is.
2. You don't get to decide whose faith is "real" and whose isn't.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #905

In article <[email protected]>,
"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> >wrote:
>> >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the
>American
>> >> >> >>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say,
>based
>> >on
>> >> >> >>scientific research.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian groups
>> >> >> >interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly
>see
>> >> >> >the error of your ways.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the
>APA
>> >about
>> >> >> this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being left-handed
>is
>> >> caused
>> >> >> by the devil.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing otherwise,
>> >post
>> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of
>a
>> >> >book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
>> >> >
>> >> >"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality have
>> >> >been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been
>the
>> >> >basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities.
>> >> >The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported
>by
>> >> >research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
>> >> >therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
>> >> >exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties
>of
>> >> >Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
>> >> >1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>> >> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>> >> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>> >> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>> >> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>> >> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
>> >> >
>> >> >"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as Bullough,
>> >> >Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares to
>> >> >Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
>> >> >Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
>> >> >currently in print, and are available.
>> >> >
>> >> >"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
>> >> >researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these areas.
>> >> >Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
>> >> >'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers the
>> >> >same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is
>written
>> >> >in mostly non technical language..."
>> >> >
>> >> >So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just
>plain
>> >> >wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do
>not
>> >> >bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
>> >> >
>> >> >Bill Putney
>> >> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> >> >address with "x")
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> >> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> >> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>> >> And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers, or
>> >that
>> >> this is official Christian doctrine?
>> >
>> >Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have a
>> >battle of witts with an unarmed man.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?
>
>Why is it liberal morons think everyone wants to hear their extreme left
>wing ramblings?
>
>
Yeah, nondiscrimination and equal rights is SOOOO liberal!

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #906

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a
>left-wing
>> >>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
>> >>liberals want to subsidize the poor.
>> >
>> >How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
>> >makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?
>> >
>> >Take your time responding.
>> How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not subsidizing
>> them, at the expense of the next generation?
>
>Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way of
>looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives think we
>spend too much.
>
>
So why has spending risen under Bush at a greater rate than under Clinton
(not even counting military spending)?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #907

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Omphalos <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri 18 Jul 2003 11:04:49a, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote
>in
>> >> >news:[email protected]:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Nathan Nagel wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> DTJ wrote:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:57:52 -0400, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> >> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Laura's Rancid Bush wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>> I never knew this NG was so bigoted and ignorant. If this said
>> >> >>>>>>>> ignorance is very widespread, readers would be wise to
>consider
>> >> >>>>>>>> the value of automotive opinions rendered here. This NG does
>seem
>> >> >>>>>>>> to be a good recruiting place for the christian reich
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> And of course, everyone knows that if you hate Christians,
>that's
>> >> >>>>>>> not bigoted. I'll have to remember that one.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> The pastor of my church recently went out of his way to explain
>to
>> >> >>>>>> the congregation what we should do if a gay attended our church.
>> >He
>> >> >>>>>> spoke for almost an hour, but his message was simple.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> We should welcome them with open arms.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> That is a wise pastor. A church should welcome all sinners,
>> >> >>>>> regardless of the sin.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Matt
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> This attitude is why many gays are decidedly not christians.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> nate
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That is why most sinners aren't Christians. Christianity forces
>you
>> >to
>> >> >>> accept that you are a sinner and must be saved by grace. That is
>true
>> >> >>> whether the sin is gambling or homosexuality.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How about bigotry?
>> >> >
>> >> >Bigotry, as well as the non-existent condition known as 'homophobia',
>is
>> >> >an overused term that has begun to lose its true meaning. Lately, it
>has
>> >> >been used to label anyone who doesn't agree with the homosexual
>> >lifestyle.
>> >>
>> >> No. I don't agree with the lifestyle of riding motorcycles, for
>example,
>> >but
>> >> I'm not calling them immoral and abnormal and advocating their
>> >discrimination.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Soon, the term bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy.
>> >>
>> >> What an idiot.
>> >
>> >Lloyd, you are the king of cheap $0.25 insults, with ONLY the assumption
>> >that yours is the opinion that everyone but idiots agree with to back up
>the
>> >insult.
>> >
>> >
>> The poster was an idiot. Only an idiot would have posted "Soon, the term
>> bigot will be applied to anyone who does not support
>> >> >bestiality, incest, or bigamy."
>
>That comment isn't any different than the ones you offer all the time,
>except it's from the other side of the opinion sprectrum. Oh, and the
>bestiality, incest and bigamy arguments are real argurments against gay
>marriage.

Only in the minds of bigots and fools.


> So, that comment doesn't come from idiocy. The point being that
>gay marriage doesn't have an intellectual backstop that doesn't have within
>it's boundary those vices

Two committed and consenting adults.


>(sorry for the double neg). So to be a "bigot"
>wrt gay marriage is be a "bigot" wrt polygamy, etc.
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #908

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase means.
>The
>> >US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation is
>Muslim.
>> >While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation was
>> >based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige,
>>
>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>
>>
>> >the
>> >government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
>> >establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
>dealing
>> >with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
>> >
>> >Is that how you see it Lloyd? Or perhaps, the physical presentation of
>the
>> >words "not a Christian nation" was enough for you to run with. By the
>way,
>> >some states had "state" religions during the first few decades. None of
>the
>> >founding fathers found that un-constitutional.
>> >
>> >
>> And it wasn't until the bill of rights was incorporated, as I posted
>earlier.
>
>I recall reading that some states had state religions into the 1830's, e.g.,
>Puritanism in Massachussetts. And it was their right to do so as the
>establishment clause only applies to congress. It was only later that the
>supreme court used the 14th amendment to rule that no government entity,
>federal, state, local or whatever can establish a religion. And as might be
>expected, there's even disagreement on that,

No there isn't.


>as the establishment clause is
>not a "right of the people" as much as a prohibition on congress. The right
>is the right of free exercise, which the 14th amendment plainly applies to.
>
>
And the right to be free of government establishment.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #909

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Omphalos" <!> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> On Thu 24 Jul 2003 11:41:29a, "fbloogyudsr" <[email protected]>
>wrote
>> >> in news:[email protected]:
>> >>
>> >> > "David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote
>> >>
>> >> >> Not having read the treaty, I will only guess that such a phrase
>means.
>> >> >> The US isn't a Christian nation in the same way that a Muslim nation
>is
>> >> >> Muslim.
>> >> >> While the founding fathers were Christian and the values the nation
>was
>> >> >> based upon were values eminating from their Christian heritige, the
>> >> >> government is not intrinsically Christian. Precisely because of the
>> >> >> establishment clause. It might be an important point to make when
>> >> >> dealing with nations who regard Christians as infidels.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is that, except for the West, most civilizations link
>state
>> >> > and church intrinsically, and are *UNABLE* to see that the secular
>> >> > West is not Christian. This is as an intrinsic result of their
>outlook
>> >> > and education, and no change in this outlook is likely IMO.
>> >>
>> >> China has done a good job of creating a secualar state. It is
>officially
>> >> atheist.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe that's just a trait of communist nations.
>> >
>> >To Communists, religion is the "opiate of the people". It's one thing
>for a
>> >government to be secular, quite another for it to embrace atheism.
>> >
>> >Oh, a correction for fbloogyudsr. The west isn't all secular. Try
>Sweden
>> >with it's state religion.
>> >
>> >
>> Church of England too. Germany is Lutheran.
>>
>> But the US was founded on the principle of not having the government
>involved
>> with religion.
>
>Words are important. "Involved" covers a lot more ground that "establish".
>
>Listen, no one wants government religions or any of that. Wall of
>separation? Fine. But you advocate a *gulf* of separation that isn't
>warranted by law,

I refer you to Thomas Jefferson.


>only by your opinion that reveals a disdain for religion.

No, only the government sponsoring it.

>Listening to you, I get the empression that religious freedom should be
>relegated to people's private homes or churches,

Would you have it forced upon us by the state?


>which would be compelled to
>pay taxes on their property and received donations.
>
>

And why not?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #910

In article <[email protected]>,
"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>> "Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Marc wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Matthew S. Whiting" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JD wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Marc wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>I tend to see it as religious rights not being in the domain of the
>>>>>>>>>>>federal government. It can't abrogate the right to the free
>>>>>>>>>>>practice of religion (an individual right) nor can it pass law
>>>>>>>>>>>establishing a national religion (a state right?).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then leave it as that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The religions file with the IRS and their establishment is
>>>>>>>>>>recognized by the federal government. After recognized by the
>>>>>>>>>>federal government, they receive subsidies from federal, and often
>>>>>>>>>>state and local governments as well. Wouldn't you say that may tend
>>>>>>>>>>to be "an establishment of religion?"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Really? What sort of subsidies? How do I get them for my church?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The tax breaks are a huge subsidy plus with all this "faith based"
>>>>>>>>privatization going on in some social services a lot of churches are,
in
>>>>>>>>effect, subsidized for doing their Christian duty anyway.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sorry, but not having to give money to the government when it has no
>>>>>>>right to that money does not constitute a subidy. I guess if you are a
>>>>>>>communist or socialist, maybe that is more true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then they are subsidizing them by not stealing the same amount from
them.
>>>>>>Regardless of your political beliefs and hate towards others, the
treatment
>>>>>>given to religious organizations is advantageous to them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hate towards others? That's quite a stretch.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you using communist and socialist in a derogatory manner? It seems
so.
>>>>You are berating anyone that might possibly disagree with you before they
>>>>get a chance, even if they do not fit the labels you've already put on
>>>>them.
>>>
>>>Criticizing or even berating is far different than hating. I'm sorry
>>>you don't understand that. I criticize my kids now and then as well,
>>>but hardly hate them.
>>
>>
>> And if you walked in the door and criticized your kids and berated them
>> before you'd even found a reason, then that would smack of hate.
>>
>> Waiting until my post, then calling me a communist would have been one
>> thing. Calling all people that may disagree with you communists (and using
>> communists in a derogatory manner) indicates a great intolerance for those
>> with a differing view. I've never met an intolerant person that wasn't
>> also full of hate.
>
>Then you don't get out much. I think communism is a fatally flawed
>system. I've never hated communists. I think homosexuality is flawed
>behavior, but I don't hate homosexuals. I've never met a "completely"
>tolerant person (if such a person can exist), who could think for
>themselves. Unbridled tolerance is not a virtue. As a society, we
>don't tolerate a lot of things: murder, rape, tax evasion, etc. Get
>used to it.
>
>
>Matt
>
Yes, but those all harm others. Not "tolerating" gays is tantamount to not
"tolerating" Jews, or blacks, or Hispanics.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #911

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2003 17:16:18 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>>Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
>>>APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
>>>by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:
>>
>>And so you claim the absence of proof is the proof of absence?
>
>Yo loyd, the claim is made by your co-professors.

You either cannot read or cannot comprehend what you read then. Must be that
disdain for higher education coming back to bite you.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #912

In article <[email protected]>,
DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 24 Jul 2003 17:11:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:44:49 -0800, Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Yup. The only difference between a right-wing conservative and a
left-wing
>>>>liberal is that the conservatives want to subsidize the rich and the
>>>>liberals want to subsidize the poor.
>>>
>>>How is taxing the rich at more than 50%, while not taxing anyone who
>>>makes less than $25,000 subsidizing the rich?
>>>
>>>Take your time responding.
>>How is giving the rich back money when we have a deficit not subsidizing
>>them, at the expense of the next generation?
>
>Wow, for an alleged college professor you sure have little common
>sense.
>
>Try this very slowly...
>
>People who make less than $26,000 per year pay 4% of all taxes yet
>make over 13% of the money. People who make $87,000 pay 66% of the
>taxes yet make less than half the money.

Control more of the wealth though.

>
>So, even a little brain like your should understand that when you cut
>taxes to stimulate the economy, the people paying 83% of the taxes
>(those making more than $50,000) are the ones who get the tax cut.
>
>I thought psychology majors had to take basic math.

Persons in the top 5% of income pay something like 80% of taxes but control
95% of the wealth.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #913

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >> OK, lying scumbag alert.
>> >
>> >
>> >Well, Lloyd - the publisher of that book sure seems to think that the
>> >APA has proven scientifically that it does no harm. Here - I'll run it
>> >by you again - I'll type real slow so you can read it:
>> >
>> >"Many researchers is [sic] the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality
>> >have been taking a fresh look at the 'conventional' wisdom which has
>> >been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual
>> >activities. The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be
>> >supported by research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this
>> >'harm' is therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely
>> >thorough and exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed
>> >Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in
>> >the July, 1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls of
>> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science."
>> >
>> >Got that? "...The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to
>> >be supported by research,
>>
>> And so you claim the absence of proof is the proof of absence?
>
>I didn't claim that. I simply quoted a publisher who takes the
>"scientific" publishings of the APA to its natural conclusion to justify
>the premise of their book for perverts.

OK, before you said it was the APA that claimed this; now you're saying it's a
book publisher that claims this. What's next, the National Enquirer?


> The APA's study was
>"scientific", therefore, by Lloyd-logic, it's conclusions are
>indisputable fact;

Which you have not quoted, and I seriously doubt you've read the study.


>the book's premise lines up with the "fact" that is
>scientifically" proven in the APA study. By Lloyd-logic (APA would
>never publish any unscientific study = referenced paper was scientific
>study = scientific proof = fact), how can you dispute the premise of the
>book?

Again, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

>
>You've painted yourself into this corner. Don't expect me to try to get
>you put of it.
>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #914

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> Marc <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
>> you
>> >> >want them to find?
>> >
>> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
>> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
>> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
>> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
>>
>> You don't seem to feel similar sympathy for little girls. Is it because
>> they'd ghave been molested by heterosexuals?
>
>Gee willikers, Lloyd. I didn't state that I like hot fudge sundaes
>either, but that doesn't mean that I don't like them. We weren't
>discussing heterosexuals and little girls -

You were claiming sexual abuse is not harmful to children and using that as a
platform for your usual smear of gays.


> abusers of children of
>either gender are worthy of the same harsh punishment. But since you
>mention it, I don't see the agenda of the pervert community hawking
>books specifically advocating that men rape little girls or that women
>rape little boys.

Show me where I can find this "agenda of the pervert community."



> Hey - BTW - has the APA published a scientific study
>showing that little girls are not harmed by being raped by men, or
>little boys by women? Why haven't they put the same focus on that?
>Could it be that certain people are pushing the homosexual pervert
>agenda over the just-as-sick heterosexual pervert agenda? Do you think
>maybe...?

It used to be the Jewish agenda -- they murdered babies, etc. Periodically
the Arab press even quotes a book claiming this. You're in their league.

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #915

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>
>Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>

Not a moral issue. And people get married all the time without involving
religion in it.

>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #916

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:ZB%[email protected]...
>> David Allen wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>> > Well, here we are. We have our traditional liberal/conservative way
>> > of looking at life. Liberals think we tax too little. Conservatives
>> > think we spend too much.
>>
>> Seems to me conservatives did a damn fine job of spending us from a budget
>> surplus to a huge deficit in under 2 years.
>>
>> JD
>>
>>
>
>Where should I start?
>
>First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that you'll
>sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
>conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.

The conservatives control the White House and Congress. Or are you
misinformed?

>
>Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
>major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in office,
>2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

Wrong. Leave out military spending and spending has still risen faster under
Bush than under Clinton.

>
>The "exhuberant irrationalism" of the late 90's and the corporate book
>cooking laid the ground work for the economic "pop". Not anything
>conservatives did.
>
>
Yeah, yeah. That belongs in the "Aliens abducted my baby" category.

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #917

In article <[email protected]>,
Snubis <W> wrote:
>On Fri 25 Jul 2003 02:09:44a, Larry Kessler <l_k_e_s_s_l_e_r@w_t.n_e_t>
>wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>>> How so? What religions don't have the concepts of not murdering, not
>>>> stealing, etc? In fact, what sets of moral values do not?
>>>
>>> Excellent point, Lloyd. You might also similarly ask "What religions
>>> don't have the concepts of not having same-sex sex".
>>
>> Buddhism
>> Reform Judaism
>> Wicca
>
>Wicca isn't a real religion.
>
>> United Church of Christ
>> Unitarian Universalism

By whose definition?

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #918

In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>Marc wrote:
>>
>> Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> In article <[email protected]>, Marc
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >Bill Putney <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >>Marc wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> It isn't ethical to molest children, either...
>> >
>> >> >>No, Marc - the American Pschological Association has proven
>> >> >>"scientifically" that it's OK for men to have sex with boys - that
>> >> >>there's no harm done, and we all know how wonderful and above question
>> >> >>the APA is. Get in step with the times, man. According to the APA,
>> >> >>what the priests did to all those altar boys is just fine. 8^)
>> >> >
>> >> >Perhaps you'd like the APA to endorse faked studies that only find what
you
>> >> >want them to find?
>> >
>> >And of course you think such a study was honest? Hardly. Much less,
>> >scientific. Anyone who thinks little boys who've beem sexually molested
>> >by grown men are not scarred for life is pathetic - no matter how much
>> >"scientific proof" he has coming out his sphincter to prove otherwise.
>>
>> Sometimes you find the opposite of what you want. You can either hide it,
>> or treat it like you would if you found what you are looking for.
>>
>> The federal government sponsored a study to prove that drugs were unsafe.
>> The interesting part of the study was that people smoking marijuana became
>> more "safe" than sober drivers (and the drunks got worse, but some got
>> better after the first drink or two, then worse after). So, the federal
>> government went out to find that drugs are bad. They instead proved that
>> people driving under the influence of marijuana are safer than sober
>> people.
>>
>> Many studies for year back long before this one are available on the NHTSA
>> web site. I've looked for this one and have not been able to find it.
>> I've seen the study other places and verified the title and document number
>> exist (and I could order it, if I wasn't a cheap bastard), but the
>> government is apparently hiding its own findings because it didn't like
>> them.
>>
>> The findings of the APA were obviously the opposite of what it was looking
>> for. It had two courses. It could either lie like a politician, or
>> publish the findings as they would have if the study had proved what they
>> expected.
>>
>> Do you prefer the disclosure, or lies and deceit?
>>
>> Marc
>> For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"
>
>Well, you may want to take a look at this:
>http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug99/as4.html?CFID=2115329&CFTOKEN=75269690.
>
>Funny how that is buried pretty deep in their web site - punching in key
>words turns up absolutely nothing related to the orignal article or
>above policy letter.
>
>Here's my take on it: The APA realized that the public isn't yet ready
>for the next step in the gay agenda,

The only "gay agenda" is equality. How unAmerican of them. Bet you opposed
the "black agenda" in the 60s (probably didn't use as nice a word as "black"
though).


>and because Congress and other
>notables were raising such a stink, future gov't funding for studies by
>those publishing in the APA journal were at risk. So they are now
>saying that they don't buy into the "science" that proves that sexual
>child abuse does no harm. Hmmm - quite a dilemma for them: Admit that
>what they publish isn't always true science, or prove themselves guilty
>of Marc's accusation of rejecting scientific proof of something when you
>disagree with the results. The APA has obviously in this case chosen
>the latter. I would say that their credibility has suffered a bit over
>this.
>
>Perhaps they will test the waters again in 5 or 10 years on the subject
>to see if the American public is ready for the "next step". I'm sure
>their colleagues at the NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association

OK, then your colleagues are at the KKK and Aryan Nation.

>- I didn't make that up - there is such an organization) will send them
>the right signals when they think they've adequately paved the way for
>their advocacy "science" and legislative pushes.
>
>Oh - and Lloyd - the "research" and published article were done by
>people in the Psych department of Temple U.

Have you read it?

>
>Bill Putney
>(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>address with "x")
>
>
>-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #919

In article <[email protected]>,
"David Allen" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"'nuther Bob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 02:40:46 GMT, "David Allen"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Where should I start?
>> >
>> >First, either you're horrible misinformed, or you're so partisan that
>you'll
>> >sign on to any fantasy that lays blame for the deficit on GW or
>> >conservatives in general just becaue they're Republicans.
>>
>> How come when the Democrats are in office it's always their fault if
>> the economy is sour, but when the Republicans are in office it's
>> never their fault ?
>>
>
>I never made such a claim. Though, I have no doubt partisan Republicans
>make the same accusations. It's part of the political game. But when you
>consider what Democrats have done historically...

Rising stock markets, low unemployment, ...


>. well, the stereotypes are
>largely true... Democrats love to tax and spend. This tends to dampen
>economic growth.

Republicans love to borrow and spend. When you consider what they've done
historically (deficit under Bush I, Reagan, Bush II exceeds that under every
other president combined)...

>
>> >Second, the deficit is not due to conservative spending. There are two
>> >major factors: 1) the recession that started while WJC was still in
>office,
>>
>> Which Bush has prolonged and done nothing to end... except to pass
>> a second tax cut that even the economic conservative Greenspan says
>> we can't afford.
>>
>
>Greenspan supports the tax cuts,

Only if they don't lead to deficits. Well, they did.


>conditional on corresponding spending
>restraint. Frankly, the recession is over. The biggest problem now is
>regaining the confidence of the investor and the consumer.

Tell that to people part of the _rising_ unemployment rate.

>
>Those who grew up in the 90's economy, got burned bad when the bubble popped
>and are much more wary of where they put their money and how they spend it.
>The effect of 9/11 on the economy is real and it's impact enormous.
>
>It's lame to point the finger at Bush as if all we needed some Democrat in
>office to bring us back to a pre- 9/11 economy.

Yes, thank goodness our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity with a
Democrat in office is over.

>
>
>> >2) 9/11 and the war on terrorism.
>>
>> Or like spending 100b in Iraq for no apparent constitutional purpose.
>> What are there, maybe 100 million tax payers ? That works out to
>> about $1000 each. Send in your check.
>>
>
>That pretty much summarizes what the Gore approach to 9/11 would have been.

OK, tell me what next week's lottery numbers are going to be.


>A total miscalculation of the degree to which terrorism has risen and where
>it's nexts steps were going.

Like Bush ignoring terrorism and al Qaida for 9 months? Like his lies to the
people about Iraq?

>
>> >The "exhuberant irrationalism" of the late 90's
>>
>> Yep, electing Bush depressed everyone.
>>
>
>In the late 90's?

401k didn't start to drop until 2000.

>
>
>> >and the corporate book
>> >cooking laid the ground work for the economic "pop". Not anything
>> >conservatives did.
>>
>> Except the conservative steadfastly opposed the imposition of
>> new rules regulating the accounting industry. Efforts to force
>> division of accounting companies that provide both consulting (to
>> increase profits) and accounting (to track profits) led to an obvious
>> conflict of interest that got us where we are today. Conservatives
>> are still fighting financial regulation in all areas and their
>> friend in the White House is not helping the situation.
>>
>
>If that's true, it's a mistake that's being quickly remedied.
>
>

 

L

Lloyd Parker

Guest

• Jul 25, 2003

• #920

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Dingleberry) wrote:
>"Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > "Kuzie" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[email protected]...
>> > >> In article <[email protected]>, Bill Putney <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> > >> >Lloyd Parker wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> > >> >> DTJ <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > >> >> >On 21 Jul 2003 16:48:05 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker)
>> wrote:
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >>OK, cite that evidence of yours. Because mine is what the
>> American
>> > >> >> >>Psychological Association and American Medical Association say,
>> based
>> on
>> > >> >> >>scientific research.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >Cite yours. Then look at the actual data, not a gay/lesbian
groups
>> > >> >> >interpretation. You, if you really are a scientist, will quickly
>> see
>> > >> >> >the error of your ways.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> http://www.significantdifference.org/hooker.html
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> Now, these documents have extensive references. Arguing with the
>> APA
>> about
>> > >> >> this issue is like arguing with the AMA that, say, being
left-handed
>> is
>> caused
>> > >> >> by the devil.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> I challenged you before -- if you're got research showing
otherwise,
>> post
>> it.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Once again, here's an excerpt from amazon.com from the description of
>> a
>> > >> >book called "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers":
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"Many researchers is the fields of Psychology and Human Sexuality
have
>> > >> >been taking a fresh look at the "conventional" wisdom which has been
>> the
>> > >> >basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual
activities.
>> > >> >The long assumed 'harm' of such activities has failed to be supported
>> by
>> > >> >research, and the sociocultural 'wrongness' based on this 'harm' is
>> > >> >therefore left without any rational basis. An extremely thorough and
>> > >> >exhaustive paper, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties
>> of
>> > >> >Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples' was published in the July,
>> > >> >1998 Psychological Bulletin, the journal of the *AMERICAN*
>> > >> >*PSYCHOLOGICAL* *ASSOCIATION* [my emphasis]. It brought forth howls
of
>> > >> >protest from right wing radicals all the way up to and including the
>> > >> >United States House of Representatives, but after the furor subsided,
>> > >> >the paper, having been subjected to intensive examination at every
>> > >> >level, has been judged to be true, accurate and objective science.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"Previous to this, a collection of papers by such authors as
Bullough,
>> > >> >Bernard, Schild, Warren, Bauserman, et al., was published as 'Dares
to
>> > >> >Speak', edited by Joseph Geraci. Before that there was 'Male
>> > >> >Intergenerational Intimacy' by Brongersma. Both of these volumes are
>> > >> >currently in print, and are available.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >"The above mentioned paper and books are intended primarily for
>> > >> >researchers, educators, and other people knowledgeable in these
areas.
>> > >> >Therefore, I have authored a "layman's" introductory volume,
>> > >> >'Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers', which essentially covers
the
>> > >> >same premises, data, and conclusions as the above, but which is
>> written
>> > >> >in mostly non technical language..."
>> > >> >
>> > >> >So much for the APA and so-called "science". Some things are just
>> plain
>> > >> >wrong no matter how much you try to hide behind false science. I do
>> not
>> > >> >bow to the "wisdom" and "science" of the APA like you do Lloyd.
>> > >> >
>> > >> >Bill Putney
>> > >> >(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>> > >> >address with "x")
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> > >> >http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> > >> >-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>> > >> And does Tim McVeigh's actions mean all Christians are baby-killers,
or
>> that
>> > >> this is official Christian doctrine?
>> > >
>> > >Guys, I would not argue with poor Lloyd. It really isn't fair to have
a
>> > >battle of witts with an unarmed man.
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > Why is it bigots think everybody wants to hear their bigotry?
>>
>> Why is it liberal morons think everyone wants to hear their extreme left
>> wing ramblings?
>
>It's one of those mysteries of life. Like, why do liberals think
>everyone who disagrees when them is a bigot?
>
>Why do they like to use made up words like 'homophobia'?
Just those claiming homosexuals have a "pervert agenda" like Bill.