Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec

Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
> wrote:
> ...
>
>>>Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>>>descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>>>don't you?
>>>No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>>>saying they are being discriminated against.
>>>
>>>Bill Funk
>>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>>
>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>>
>>
>>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>
>>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>>Samuel Barber (composer)
>>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>>thought he was always in love with Della!!!! :-( ) :-)
>>Amelia Earhart - Aviator, Explorer
>>Michelangelo - (1475 - 1564) Sculptor, Artist, Architect, Poet
>>Harvey Milk - (1930 - 1978) First openly gay official elected in the US
>>Plato - (427? - 347 B.C.) Philosopher
>>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>>Richard the Lionheart - King of England
>>Cole Porter - (1893 - 1964) Composer
>>Gore Vidal (statesman, author, actor)
>
>
> Did you perhaps misread what I wrote?
> "Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
> descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
> don't you?"
>
I am sorry you misinterpreted my statement... i was agreeing with you
and backing it up with proper documentation (my experience on this NG is
that you have to back up your statements with something!!!! .. i was
helping!!!!! not arguing!!! ) :-)

James C. Reeves wrote:
> "linda" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | i know, i keep telling people that and i almost get into fights!!!!!
> | can you believe that THE DUKE was gay..
>
> So they weren't kidding when they referred to him as "a man's man"!
>
> Just curious. How did all of these people achieve such great and productive
> ends if discrimination was anywhere near the level claimed. In the 1970's, I
> knew Elton John was gay even then. I bought his record albums and attended his
> concerts anyway. So did everyone I knew. I'm sure some discrimination exists.
> 90% of it is made up though, in my opinion.
>
>
apparently, even homophobes can appreciate and enjoy great things,
songs, art, and benefit from what gays provide us every single day, too?

back in the 30's when "talkies" were first coming about, the film
industry were inserting morality clauses in the actors and actresses
contracts. It was an attempt to clean up the tarnished image brought on
by a raft of scandals involving sexual improprieties and drugs.

Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>>>descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>>>don't you?
>>>No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>>>saying they are being discriminated against.
>>>
>>>Bill Funk
>>>Change "g" to "a"
>>
>>
>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>>
>>
>>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>
>
> I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote:
> "You* do* realize that, despite the descrimination against them, gays
> are productive members of society, don't you?"
>


please read preious posting... regarding the same subject.. i was
agreeing with you and citing documentation which seems to be necessary
for stating any opinion on the NG...

lw

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>> Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>> descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>> don't you?
>> No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>> saying they are being discriminated against.
>>
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"
>
>
>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>
>
>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:

I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote:
"You* do* realize that, despite the descrimination against them, gays
are productive members of society, don't you?"

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:46:55 -0500
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,
>> rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang, rec.autos.makers.honda
>>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
>> ___________ mixqec
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>>scientific... just my own personal experience... Gays are and have
>>>always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>>
>>>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>>>Samuel Barber (composer)
>>>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>>>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>>
>>Try John Wayne (Yep, John Wayne) for shock value.
>>
>>
>>>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>>
>>These are interesting, got a cite?
>>
>>
>
>
> How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE
> can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and
> none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official,
> make any such claim.
>
> What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven
> children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S.
> forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image
> frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from
> possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce
> incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either
> a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding.
>
> John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your
> confusion.
>
> --Geoff

Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay,
I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's
Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. "

however, i do recall reading a book about the biography of hollywood
that the duke had bisexual relations with some of the "men's men". and
if i could get in to my attic to find it, i would mail it to you..
however, you are right, i cannot find anything on the internet that
supports my claim.. but i just thought it was so cute that of all the
people listed as gay, you came to The Duke's defense... how sweet..
protect our image of the man who people regard as "our national
treasure"... shame he couldn't really serve our country, he would have
ended WWII in half the time...until the director said "cut"....


linda

:-)

Geoff wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>
>>Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:46:55 -0500
>>From: Daniel J. Stern >
>>Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler, rec.autos.makers.ford.explorer,
>> rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang, rec.autos.makers.honda
>>Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
>> ___________ mixqec
>>
>>On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, linda wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>>scientific... just my own personal experience... Gays are and have
>>>always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>>
>>>Leonardo da Vinci (artist, inventor)
>>>Samuel Barber (composer)
>>>Gian Carlo Menotti (composer)
>>>Raymond Burr (actor, philanthropist) (NO!!!! Not Perry Mason!!!! i
>>
>>Try John Wayne (Yep, John Wayne) for shock value.
>>
>>
>>>Pope Benedict IX - (1020 - 1055) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope John XII - (937 - 964) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Julius III - (1487 - 1555) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Leo X - (1475 - 1521) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Paul II - (1417 - 1471) Roman Catholic Pope
>>>Pope Sixtus IV - (1414 - 1484) Roman Catholic Pope
>>
>>These are interesting, got a cite?
>>
>>
>
>
> How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE
> can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and
> none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official,
> make any such claim.
>
> What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven
> children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S.
> forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image
> frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from
> possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce
> incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either
> a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding.
>
> John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your
> confusion.
>
> --Geoff

Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay,
I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's
Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. "

however, i do recall reading a book about the biography of hollywood
that the duke had bisexual relations with some of the "men's men". and
if i could get in to my attic to find it, i would mail it to you..
however, you are right, i cannot find anything on the internet that
supports my claim.. but i just thought it was so cute that of all the
people listed as gay, you came to The Duke's defense... how sweet..
protect our image of the man who people regard as "our national
treasure"... shame he couldn't really serve our country, he would have
ended WWII in half the time...until the director said "cut"....


linda

:-)

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:19:45 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>> How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE
>> can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and
>> none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official,
>> make any such claim.
>>
>> What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven
>> children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S.
>> forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image
>> frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from
>> possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce
>> incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either
>> a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding.
>>
>> John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your
>> confusion.
>>
>> --Geoff
>
>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay,
>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's
>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. "

If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not
anywhere near what was written.
What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support
your claim.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:19:45 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>> How about YOU supply a cite for the John Wayne assertion? NOWHERE
>> can I find ANY reference to his being other than heterosexual, and
>> none of the readily-available Internet biographies, official or non-official,
>> make any such claim.
>>
>> What I can find is that he was married three times, and had seven
>> children, was a strident anti-communist, an ardent supporter of the U.S.
>> forces in Vietnam, and in general lived the larger-than-life image
>> frequently associated with him. None of these things preclude him from
>> possibly being bisexual, I suppose. But if you can't produce
>> incontrovertable evidence, I will be forced to conclude this is either
>> a.) a smear job, b.) a delusion, or c.) a misunderstanding.
>>
>> John Wayne Gacy is widely reputed to be gay, perhaps that is the source of your
>> confusion.
>>
>> --Geoff
>
>Geoff, i can here you saying this: "if anyone says The Duke was gay,
>I'll beat the snot out of you. Same with Errol Flynn. They were Men's
>Men, and yer a Commie Pinko if you think otherwise. "

If that's really what you "here", then you have a problem. That's not
anywhere near what was written.
What was written was a request for some sort of evidence to support
your claim.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:30:16 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>>>>descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>>>>don't you?
>>>>No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>>>>saying they are being discriminated against.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Funk
>>>>Change "g" to "a"
>>>
>>>
>>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>>>
>>>
>>>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>
>>
>> I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote:
>> "You* do* realize that, despite the descrimination against them, gays
>> are productive members of society, don't you?"
>>
>
>
>please read preious posting... regarding the same subject.. i was
>agreeing with you and citing documentation which seems to be necessary
>for stating any opinion on the NG...
>
>lw

Yes, that was a repost, because my first one didn't show up here, and
this was posted before I got your reply.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:30:16 GMT, linda >
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 19:27:23 GMT, linda >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Where are you getting this? You* do* realize that, despite the
>>>>descrimination against them, gays are productive members of society,
>>>>don't you?
>>>>No where am I saying that white males aren't doing anything. I'm
>>>>saying they are being discriminated against.
>>>>
>>>>Bill Funk
>>>>Change "g" to "a"
>>>
>>>
>>>Bill, being a white female from the south, that argument won't fly with
>>>me... i would have to disagree just based on my experience.. nothing
>>>scientific... just my own personal experience...
>>>
>>>
>>>Gays are and have always been productive members of society. to name a few:
>>
>>
>> I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote:
>> "You* do* realize that, despite the descrimination against them, gays
>> are productive members of society, don't you?"
>>
>
>
>please read preious posting... regarding the same subject.. i was
>agreeing with you and citing documentation which seems to be necessary
>for stating any opinion on the NG...
>
>lw

Yes, that was a repost, because my first one didn't show up here, and
this was posted before I got your reply.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"