TGS Full Comment Room

Add Comment | Previous Week | Text-Only Comment Room | Comment Room Information

TGS WebSite | TGS MirrorSite | Current Episode

Lain> <<discovered?>>: discovered, realized, whatever the proper term is.
<<oh fudge, you found me out>>: So if Gunjack isn't going to be using his, could you send it to me? I'd like to have an extra. Or barring the lack of a skilled Igor, it'd be fun to have a real stuffed one lying around.
<<no really, we knew that all along>>: So he was just fishing for an excuse to go loping bits off.

Greg> <<This CR has seen some real flame wars, and this doesn't even come close>>: That's only because we're a bit shy on people now, and those that are here are a bit more emotionally distanced.

Bud Clare> <<Gunjack was showing a serious male bias, given that he needs his precious "morality" to tell him that rape is wrong>>: Nah, he's just into deep philosophy (lacking only a bedsheet and some hemlock).

Greg> <>: Tie dye as a text color option.

Lain> <>: Could be the other way around, depending. Especially without Lil' Mikey.

Bud Clare> <<Is there such thing as a Lolita complex?>>: Yup. The Japanese have even shortened it to Loli-con (the opposite being Shota).

Gunjack> <<It's just that these days, the contentious stuff is most of what interests me>>: And your blood pressure isn't astronomical?

Caboose> <<Nazis and Klansmen>>: And we have hit Goodwin's law. And we're faster than Sicar's Cororllary.

Aaron> <>: Every female orgasm makes the world a better place.

Fire Storm> <<And I sure don't want to limit your fun>>: So can you go and find me some... ahem... friendly women?
<<Once they put on that schoolgirl uniform, they become horn dogs>>: So the easiest place to study enchantments is at a textile plant? I should remember that.
<>: I don't have any problems with naked schoolgirls.
<<Not enough pointless anime-ish nudity and violence>>: He just had to have an overriding plot and become an "author".
<<Maybe I should pay attention to those>>: What I like about tutorials is they tend to have full blocks of working code with at least some purpose behind it, rather than just an example of syntax.
<<It would never work. Definitely wouldn't have it's own show>>: No, but they might get more business with the Pauls always complaining about how all their good people went there.

Lynati> <>: We've become more fatalistic. What will come will come.

Bud Clare> <<Gruyere is the best kind of cheese>>: It is useful to top French Onion Soup, and it does get points for being in Johnny Saucepan, but I'm fully backing cheddar.

Lain> <<because theres nothing else to do around here>>: I've been emulating Metroid Zero Mission for the last few days (and it doesn't even get released until tomorrow/today), but that'd mean you'd need another computer.
<<so you can learn to shoot him. id be happy to demonstrate>>: Everyone should have at least one of those cheap rubber pellet guns. Ah, sophomore year.

Dezi> <<Ok back the the couch and more drugs>>: No, stay here and talk more. We need more reall druggie dialogue so we can fake it better.

Kjay> <<The doctor stuck me five times before he gave up and let a nurse do it (she got blood from the artery on her first try)>>: Good phlebotomists are wonders.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Monday, February 9, 2004 01:01:57 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

ER>At least you didn't have to get stuck by a needle 10 times just to get a vein for the IV. I learnt from that experiance to NEVER let a medical student try to put in
a IV.
2nd thing I learned: Arteries have nerves. Veins don't.
3rd thing I learned: Do NOT let a doctor stick you in a
artery for blood to do a blood gas. OUCH!!!!!! The doctor
stuck me five times before he gave up and let a nurse do it (she got blood from the artery on her first try).
I hope that kideney stone of yours clear up.
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx
Sunday, February 8, 2004 11:44:15 PM
IP: 172.137.13.62

Ugh. I had the worst day. I had to go to the ER (and it's not much like the TV one, but I guess today was a slow day). And guess what? I have a kidney stone. (Yipee!/ton of sarcasm). Best part is, I'm on some really kickin' drugs right now. :D I had this stabbing pain in my back and didn't know why so they took xrays and yipee! I also had to have an IV for the first time ever. It helped to administer the really good drugs.

Bud-Clare: Then I officially claim my title as a f*ckwit, as I'm not much of a cheese freak. :D

Caboose and Yggdrasil: Not to rib on you guys, but I can never hardly read your posts because that green is just too dark. I mean, keep using it if you want. So far, I've been highlighting it so I can read it in purple and white.

Ok back the the couch and more drugs.
Dezi
Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:48:01 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

Some weird news from Texas.

(click name)

Leo - [<- "Woman Strikes Oil in Toilet"]
Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:32:33 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

::bows to Aaron:: You are the man.

::goes back to lurkdom safely out of the path of flames::
Aingeal
Shenn VyrneenSunday, February 8, 2004 10:30:37 PM
IP: 65.139.138.242

Ack. I went to take a little nap and the Debate/Flame War got smooshed!!! ah well...

Yggdrasil -- excellent explanation of the complexity of genetics and expression of traits. *shivers in kitty bliss at your sheer brainy-ness*

Whitbourne -- Keen debating. Glad to see it on a topic we agree on *^_^*

Bud Clare -- Hey! I like Muenster! That mild creamy flavor is the hallmark of a superior cheese! And blue cheese in small amounts make a tasty accent to salads. But really, how could you foolishly not recognise Gouda as the best? Though Provalone (sp?) is a fair substitute in matters of sandwiches where you stirfry the meat with peppers and onions.

Lynati -- I liked your skull too.

Aaron -- *waves!!!* I'd add more but you've already given out setences of giving head and... hey!!! Aaron, was that supposed to *dissuade* people >^@@^< Well, I guess it would keep them to busy to post anyways.

darn... my nap has left me groggy and hungry...

Off to cook.
Mooncat

Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:26:03 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Greetings;

Lynati: Unfortunately, I'm a very busy person, so I don't post very often. In this case, it was not to really participate in the debate, just to educate on a topic that I am quite well versed.

I (and others I am sure) are still quite interested in TGS (Although I will admit that only Gargoyles and Timedancer really have my attention). In my own case, I don't like to question or speculate on someone else’s work when I know I couldn't perform the task myself. The staff of TGS are wonderful storytellers, whose work is greatly appreciated.

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Sunday, February 8, 2004 09:32:01 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

aaron>> <<As TGS Co-Admin, I sentence both of you to go give your respective wives some head>> youre too late. i already sent him to bed without any supper because he ignored me all day and i was very lonely and had to watch animal planet for hours on end because theres nothing else to do around here. :P

lynati>> <<Why is it you wanted me on a firing range again?>> so you can learn to shoot him. id be happy to demonstrate :P
lain
Sunday, February 8, 2004 09:22:33 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Lynati> I'm lurking today because I'm also working on a few things for my elective, and there was that link from the Gargs X board that led me here.
I saw your sketch of the gargoyle cranium, by the way; it was fabulous! To be honest, when i was studying Anatomy during my first unit this year, every so often I'd compare what I learned about human structure and function to what i figured gargoyles would have. Maybe it's the geek in me but I'd love to see a scientific discussion of gargoyle physiology and biochemistry. Glowing eyes due to a luciferase like enzyme, perhaps? What sort of pathways in the body's cells lead to the change to stone; is it granular, or enzymatic, or what?
Geeky but fascinating stuff.
Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 09:02:16 PM
IP: 156.34.101.2

Fine. Let's have a flame war about cheese instead. Let's be belligerent and downright insulting.

I'll start.

*clears throat*

Anyone who isn't a total f*ckwit knows that Gruyere is the best kind of cheese. It's perfect in every way, not like those other stupid cheeses. Those of you who prefer Muenster (you _know_ who you are *glares*) can kiss my %#&. And if you like blue cheese, I don't even want to talk to you, stupid.

(I'm not very good at that, am I?)

(Ooo, cheese + flame war = fondue. Yum.)
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:58:20 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

*sigh*
Why does it take something of this nature to get Whitbourne into the room? And other posters to de-lurk?

Maybe we really should shut TGS down, almost no-one but those working on it seem interested in the project any more. I can't remember the last time there was any speculation about future events in the room...of course, I haven't been keeping up with the CR steadily either, so perhaps I am amiss.

and Gunjack...oh...such sweet and honeyed tones from you. And you used to wonder why I refused to debate you. Why is it you wanted me on a firing range again? lain never exactly clarified. It's okay, I'll wait until you're done.

*goes back to detailing Gargie skeletons*
Lynati
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:49:55 PM
IP: 65.66.149.90

I forget... who asked a few weeks ago what a flame war was?
Right.
Blame them! :)

Gside: <I'd hope so>
Nukes = Fun!
And I sure don't want to limit your fun!
<Well, there are disturbing rumors of schoolgirls in somthing called the real world, where they won't have sex at the drop of a hat (or any other garment).>
Untrue. Lies. Rumors. Nothing more. Once they put on that schoolgirl uniform, they become horn dogs.
Oh yeah! I have also heard rumors that some schoolgirls don't even WEAR uniforms!
<We do have Errant Story, but it doesn't have the same zing (and I got confused during the recent fight about who was doing what).>
True. Not enough pointless anime-ish nudity and violence
<Which is why I also try to have easy access to a good turorial or two.>
Maybe I should pay attention to those...
<Oh well. It shouldn't be too hard, but it'll be something else to remember>
Yeah. And I can always make a filter to make sure that the inputs are valid, otherwise it puts a 0 in the database.
<The No Complaining All Work Company?>
Yeah. You're right. It would never work. Definitely wouldn't have it's own show.

Daminen: <heh you know is a new person came in, they would think that it was a serious place....>
Yeah, flame wars can give that appearance. If they stuck around, they would eventually find out that we are light hearted and very rarely talk about anything important!

Aaron: <As TGS Co-Admin, I sentence both of you to go give your respective wives some head>
:)
Fire Storm
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:33:59 PM
IP: 65.114.91.3

(cheerfully salutes Aaron and then runs off to find the missus ;-)
Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:33:09 PM
IP: 156.34.101.2

sorry forgot about the picture... (patrick clone)
is there a site with the old Greg W chatlog? from the one a few months ago?
i lost the page somehow
thanks!
Damien
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:28:42 PM
IP: 209.121.87.149

Nice
Damien
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:25:43 PM
IP: 209.121.87.149

Alright, enough.

We've argued homosexuality to death, oh, back when Willow came out on Buffy, and the arguments essentially haven't changed. Nor has the "debate" become intrinsically more interesting... to me at least.

We've done this one before. Nazis were brought up. The argument is over. Done. Finished. Nobody ever changes their mind, and massive amounts of property get burned up in the process.

So, I'm saying it now. Take it to email before I get annoyed.

Also, Whit, Moochie, both of you enjoy this sort of thing entirely too much, and I'm appalled that neither of you can find anything more constructive to do on a Sunday afternoon than this.

As TGS Co-Admin, I sentence both of you to go give your respective wives some head. That should burn off the excess energy, and give your hands and mouths something better to do than bicker with each other.

I mean it guys, not another word.

Aaron - [JCarnage@Yahoo.com]
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:18:32 PM
IP: 172.148.129.66

Caboose> >>Apparently you can't see that we're trying to keep this from evolving into a flame war. It'll be kind of hard to do that if you keep saying that those of us who disagree with you are all Nazis and Klansmen.>>
Ordinarily, I wouldn't. Usually I consider myself very tolerant of dissenting viewpoints; somehow I manage to have fiscally conservative friends witout wanting to throw things at them. The trouble is when things start intruding on human rights and dignity. That's wrong, and deserves nothing but contempt. If it hurts, tough. You crowd are the ones spouting this nonsense, not me.

>>It's clear from your posts that your hatred of the conservative community is as pathological and bigoted as our supposed hatred for the gay community.

Not at all. My hatred extends to stupidity and bigotry that imposes on the expression of one's self. I'm not preventing you from expressing your opinion; I'm just telling you that you're wrong. Conservatives, on the other hand, are right now demonstrating in Massachusetts, opposing the freedom of gay and lesbian couples to be married. I just have harsh words. Conservatives are actively trampling on rights and freedoms.

>>Just because we disagree with someone's lifestyle choice doesn't mean we dislike them as a person. I've got a few friends from high school that came out of the closet senior year. While I find it more than a bit odd, I don't like them any less for it.>>

The old "I have black friends, so I'm not racist" argument. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you have gay friends, but that doesn't excuse your position that gay people, in general, don't deserve the same rights and recognitions as straight people. Besides, the way I see it, it's pretty disingenious to claim that you don't dislike a person when you mouth off against a cornerstone expression of who they are and who they love. Homosexuality isn't like changing clothes. It's fundamental.

<<It is possible to not approve of homosexuality without becoming the kind of bigoted idiots that murdered Matt Shepherd out in Montana a few years ago. >>

Then for everyone's sake, do so. Just realize that people are going to disagree, and that your objections to their so-called "lifestyle choice" have no bearing on their entitlement to the same rights and freedoms as everyone else.

Gunjack <<If I say that Homosexuality is morally wrong, then not ONLY do I hate Homosexuals, but I also want to kill them. Funny, that. >>

I said that it's a fine line between hating homosexuals and engaging in practises that will hurt them. The interpretation of that can be very broad, everything from gay-bashing to the people in Massachusetts trying to deny a constitutionally-sound right against an identifiable group of people. But let me be even clearer - those who hate homosexuality are more likely to engage in acts against homosexuals. I don;t know what's stopping most of them from actually crossing the line and doing it, but I sincerely hope that whatever it is, keeps it up.
Besides; why is homosexuality morally wrong to begin with?

<<So when I say that premarital sex and divorce are ALSO wrong...That must mean I hate single mothers and nearly the entire student body of every college in America! Wow! What a revelation!...Oooooooor maybe you should step off the high horse and stop interpereting other peoples' beliefs for them.>>

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
I neither know nor care what you choose to believe, and while your positions on premarital sex and divorce are cheerfully antiquated, they fixate on acts. Not on people. Homosexuality, in this context, is not an isolated act here and there. It's a characteristic of a person. Your comparison doesn't wash.

<<Tell me, Whit, if we religious types aren't supposed to talk about Right and Wrong, what exactly ARE we supposed to talk about? Or maybe it's time to start banning religious speech, yes?>>

Oh, for heaven's sake. As soon as your freedom of speech is actually threatened, then you can come sulk, all right? Till then, here's the kicker. You can talk about whatever you want, but you have no right to force your idea of religiously-based morality on those who do not share our religious beliefs, and your freedom to express religious beliefs does not trump other human rights. Nobody is banning religious speech. We're just recognizing that there might be more relevant points of view.

<<Physician, heal thyself. Or, better, explain how the arguements in favor of Homosexuality don't apply to Pedophilia too, and create a solution. >>

Because consensual homosexual acts result in no harm to anyone and do not occur outside of informed consent. Your trying to equate the two is like trying to argue a comparison between taking money out of an ATM and robbing the branch of the bank. And as for your anthropological examples; gee, I suppsoe I can take one specific cultural example and use it to make a broad generalization too. Does the fact that most rapists in Nova Scotia are heterosexual males mean that all heterosexual men, everywhere, are rapists?

<<As a Christian with a fairly conservative outlook, I consider about 90% of human culture to be immoral, from no-fault divorce to homosexuality to Grand Theft Auto to Janet Jackson's boob on the Superbowl. And somehow, I've managed to get all the way to the ripe old age of 21 without commiting a single hate crime. Funny how that works, inn't? >>

First of all, you must lead a pretty monochromatic life with everything in so many unflinching tones of black and white. Second of all, congratulations on not committing a hate crime. Now maybe try funnelling that energy into doing something good for the world. I'm working with Medicins Sans Frontieres and Physicians for Global Survival (at the riper age of 23, I might add) to make sure that people in sub-Saharan Africa have access to affordable generic medications. Maybe instead of nattering on and on about the 90% of the world you consider immoral, you might consider putting all that moralistic energy to work and doing something that might actually benefit people instead of preaching at the gay people that so offend you?

In fact, that goes for everyone. Why on earth are all the people so eager to save us form our own immorality wasting their time on what consenting adults do when there's so much work to be done? The environment's a mess! Human rights are being abused the world over! There are people without homes and children without education and seniors without health care! And people are so worked up over two adults daring to all themselves husband and husband or wife and wife? So much wasted energy. For the good of the planet, go! and save us from something that might actually hurt us.

Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 08:05:44 PM
IP: 156.34.101.2

heh you know is a new person came in, they would think that it was a serious place....
Damien
Sunday, February 8, 2004 07:45:19 PM
IP: 209.121.87.149

Gunjack: So let's say, hypothetically, you have a daughter. At age eight, she sleeps with a forty year-old man. At age eighteen, she sleeps with an eighteen year-old woman. You obviously would disapprove of both. But wouldn't you have different reactions in the two situations? Or would you see both as equally terrible events? Just curious...
Ed
Sunday, February 8, 2004 07:32:24 PM
IP: 131.111.8.101

Patrick><<The 7 WTC building collapsed because the fires that started after the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC went uncontrolled. The heat weakened the steel frame, and gravity did the rest. There was no covert daredevil demolition crew. I can't even begin to imagine how such a bizzare theory could get started.>>

Beats me. Maybe the owner of the WTC went on national TV and claimed that on the afternoon of September 11th he asked the fire department to "pull" building #7? *shrugs*

Mooncat><>
Lemme clarify: Either there is an Absolute standard of Right and Wrong (herafter refered to as "Morality") that trumps all of our subjective perceptions, or else there are as many versions of Right and Wrong as there are people, all of them equally (in)valid.
<<Well, there are things like Common Sense, and one's personal concept of justice, one's personal inclinations, as well as environmental factors. I for example am not a Christian, but I still believe it's wrong to steal. Why? Not because of religious indoctrination, but because 1) personal empathy and sympathy for persons who are robbed, 2) I wouldn't want it to happen to myself, and thus because of who I am emotionally and intellectually, I extend the feeling to my fellow people.>>
Indeed. But it isn't that, without an absolute standard of Right and Wrong, you'll suddenly turn into a crazed murderer. The problem is that without that standard, YOU ARE NO BETTER than a murderer IN ANY LOGICAL WAY.

You choose not to steal because of empathy, sympathy, karma, whatever. A theif chooses to rob you out of nescessity, or desire, or just for the thrill. Which is better? NEITHER. you are both doing what your subjective ethics tell you to do. Same for murder, same for rape, and so on and so forth.

<<Well, there are things like Common Sense, and one's personal concept of justice, one's personal inclinations, as well as environmental factors.>>
In the South awhile back, it was Common Sense that Blacks were inferior to Whites, and that slavery was a kindness to them.

The Taliban consider it the epitome of Justice to execute women publicly for commiting Adultery.

Personal inclination is all the justification many, MANY predators need to perpetrate acts of violence against innocent people.

Environmental factors... "I robbed and murdered those people, but it's because my mommy never loved me and I didn't know any better!"

Or we could roll them all into one...
"It's *COMMON SENSE* to lynch a black man for being seen with a white woman. In fact, it's *JUSTICE* for exposing her to his animal lust! Plus, I plain just don't like his kind (*PERSONAL INCLINATION*), and neither do any of my neighbors!! (*ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR*)"

Now we all know why you and I don't LIKE the above statement, but haven't you been saying that morality is relative? If so, then how is your personal moral system better than the moral system behind that statement? Or is morality only relative for some things, and not relative at all for others?

<<Well, again there is the person's adherance to law, their personal risk assessment on the consequences of their actions, and what I forgot to mention before, their degree of compassion and empathy with the person who could be their victim.>>
If morality is entirely relative, then so is the value of Compassion and Empathy. Assuming they do not stand in the way, then you'd say that the question of whether or not to rape a fellow human being comes down to a simple analysis of cost/benefit, yes? So if one wants to rape someone, the deciding factor is whether or not they can get away with it?

<<You also keep equating homosexuality to pedophilia.>> Yes, I do. Most all of the arguments put forward to demonstrate how Homosexuality is "Natural" and therefore acceptable work equally well for Pedophilia.

1 - Homosexuality is a fairly common practice throughout a variety of cultures up to the present day. Examples would include many of the ancient civilisations, including Greece and Rome. So is Pedophillia.

2 - Homosexuality is genetic. It cannot be immoral if the Individual has no choice in the matter. This is a completely unproven assertion, but to the extent that we accept it, it also applies to pedophillia.

3 - Homosexuals claim that their relationships are a normal and healthy way of life. So do Pedophiles, most notably the North American Man Boy Love Association. Society argues that Pedophillia inflicts psychological harm upon the children involved, but it could easily be argued that the damage is actually inflicted by a society that continues to irrationally stigmatize a completely natural form of sexuality. As proof, one might point (YET AGAIN) to the Etoro, where both homosexuality and Pedophilia are THE NORM. The Etero seem to be doing okay, as did the Greeks, the Romans, etc.

4 - "Age of Consent" is a social construction that doesn't seem to have much in the way of a scientific basis. There are plenty of moral arguments for such a concept, but we've already discounted those. To repeat a previous example that everyone seems to have ignored, the schoolteacher who slept with her gradeschool pupil didn't exactly have to hold a gun to the boy's head, did she?
5 - Nature itself. I can't think of any instances of pedophilic behaviour in animals, though I wouldn't be suprised if they were out there. On the other hand, animals DO engage in gang rape, so maybe we shouldn't be letting them set our moral compasses.

<<As for why pedophila is wrong, if you don't understand the basic importance of sexual maturity and consent in the bearing of a sexual relationship, or if you do not understand who is harmed in an act of pedophila...>>
Define "sexual maturity". if two underage teenagers get it on, that's fine, but if one of them is over the age line, how does the underage partner magically become "sexually immature"?
Define "Consent". If one adult talks, coaxes, and wheedles another adult into having sex with them, that's "seduction", but is someone over the age line does the same to someone under the age line, it's "molestation"?

...Especially since it'll be right hard to prove that the childrens' resistence to such advances isn't just mental programming from an intolerant Society...

<<...then I strongly suggest you seek counseling.>>
Funny, I thought we were being tolerant.
You're the one who's argueing that alternate lifestyles are perfectly acceptable. All I'm trying to do is point out the logical consequences of your arguement. Or do you defend only the lifestyles you like?

Whitbourne - You take my breath away, laddie. Let's start from the bottom.

<<The bottom line is this. Hating homosexuality, whether you split hairs and say "it's not the sinner, it's the sin" or whether you just finally be honest and admit that you hate gay people, is hating a group of people simply for a fact of who they are.>>
...
...
...Wow.
So.
If I say that Homosexuality is morally wrong, then not ONLY do I hate Homosexuals, but I also want to kill them. Funny, that.
So when I say that premarital sex and divorce are ALSO wrong...
That must mean I hate single mothers and nearly the entire student body of every college in America! Wow! What a revelation!...Oooooooor maybe you should step off the high horse and stop interpereting other peoples' beliefs for them. ^_^

It also fascinates me that simply stating your belief that a specific action is sinful now constitutes "spouting venom" and "acting in accordance with the worst that humanity has to offer". Tell me, Whit, if we religious types aren't supposed to talk about Right and Wrong, what exactly ARE we supposed to talk about? Or maybe it's time to start banning religious speech, yes?

<<As you can clearly see, the definitions of these two terms are completely different.>> Yes. Obviously. They are two seperate acts, but it also happens that the arguements in favor of the one also apply to the other. See above.
It amuses me that your reference calls one a "quality" or "erotic activity", and the other a "perversion". Surely the difference is in the eye of the beholder?
<<Therefore, your equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is just ignorant and wrong.>>
I've made my case above. I'd appreciate it if you would point out my specific errors, rather than relying on blanket dismissal.

<<As for your answers; well, if you're against equality for a group of people just for who they are, then you're a bigot.>>
That's funny, I wasn't aware that I'd even touched on equality, except to state that the "gay marriage" debate is a moot point.

<<Better yet, try opening your mind.>> *shrugs* ...I'm the one quoting historical and anthropological examples here. You're the one calling a sexual act "perversion". Physician, heal thyself. Or, better, explain how the arguements in favor of Homosexuality don't apply to Pedophilia too, and create a solution.

<<But tell me honestly how you can consider a group of people immoral and wrong and not transmit that hatred to little Billy or whoever it is you're teaching it to.>>
As a Christian with a fairly conservative outlook, I consider about 90% of human culture to be immoral, from no-fault divorce to homosexuality to Grand Theft Auto to Janet Jackson's boob on the Superbowl. And somehow, I've managed to get all the way to the ripe old age of 21 without commiting a single hate crime. Funny how that works, inn't?

<<And you can stop complaining about homosexuality being shoved down your throat when you stop shoving heterosexuality down everyone else's.>> Actually, I'm in favor of the ceasing of the shoving of Sexuality, period. But that violates their freedom of expression and makes me a repressed prude, so there ye are.

I'd reply to Bud Clare, but Lain is hacked at me for sitting at the computer all day and ignoring her. A valid complaint, no?

PS - Bud Clare><<It's funny how I did, but you didn't notice.>> My appologies. I'll try to find it next time I have a space at the keys.

Toodles!
Gunjack "Adreniline" Valentine
Sunday, February 8, 2004 07:04:12 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Yggdrasil> I love you today. ;)
__________________
Gunjack> <<in which Astroboy chopped a mad scientist's head off with a tablelamp>>
How do you chop someone's head off with a lamp? I think you need a blunter verb. :P

<<And no one seems to be answering that question.>>
It's funny how I did, but you didn't notice. And weren't you just complaining about having to repeat yourself?

<<Morality, if it exists, is immutable>>
Must be nice getting to dictate it to everyone else, then.

<<I'm just curious as to what you intend to use instead.>>
Again with the repeating.

<<Have I, even once, claimed that Christian morality was correct?>>
Have you ever claimed anything else? If you aren't claiming that christian morality is correct, then how do you "know" that homosexuality is immoral?

<<Either some things are right and some things are wrong based on some absolute authority, or Right and Wrong are meaningless.>>
And has this absolute authority been speaking to you in your head? Regardless, if you need some "absolute authority" to tell you that it's wrong to walk up to a random person on the street and stab them to death, I'm going to have to worry about you.

<<...Or you could answer an entirely fair question...>>
Again, I did.

<<See above. And simmer down, you, I'm just talkin' is all...>>
See above yourself. And so was I. And I notice that you also failed to answer _my_ question...

<>
It's a fallacy when you claim that there's a slippery slope when there isn't one. Why exactly do you believe that homosexuality belongs in the same category as pedophilial?

<<Unfortunately, her approval of the first seems to remove any basis to her opposition to the other two.>>
Again, why?

<<...You can't have it both ways, people...>>
Funny, it kind of looked like that's what _you_ were trying for. You insist that morality is objective, except that you're certain that _your_ version of morality is the correct one. That doesn't sound very objective to me.
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 8, 2004 06:52:20 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Whitbourne--Apparently you can't see that we're trying to keep this from evolving into a flame war. It'll be kind of hard to do that if you keep saying that those of us who disagree with you are all Nazis and Klansmen.

You accuse us of ignorance and stupidity, well, buddy, there's a scripture out there that suggests that people ought to remove the beam in their own eye before they go trying to get the speck out of someone else's. It's clear from your posts that your hatred of the conservative community is as pathological and bigoted as our supposed hatred for the gay community.

Just because we disagree with someone's lifestyle choice doesn't mean we dislike them as a person. I've got a few friends from high school that came out of the closet senior year. While I find it more than a bit odd, I don't like them any less for it.

It is possible to not approve of homosexuality without becoming the kind of bigoted idiots that murdered Matt Shepherd out in Montana a few years ago. Whether you can accept that or not, Whitbourne, is entirely up to you.

Yggdrasil--Thanks for the little genetics lesson. That was interesting.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 06:52:02 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

One more thing; Yggdrasil, thanks for clearing that up. A lot of people don't realize that genetics is a complex and still unfolding business, and that something like the genetic factors of homosexuality is too complicated for just one Punnett's square.
Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 05:57:04 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

Gunjack> Are you seriously equating homosexuality with pedophilia? What the heck is wrong with you?

Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

Main Entry: pe·do·phil·ia
Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
- pe·do·phil·i·ac /-'fi-lE-"ak/ or pe·do·phil·ic /-'fi-lik/ adjective

(Definitions taken from Merriam-Webster's online)

As you can clearly see, the definitions of these two terms are completely different. One can be a homosexual without being a pedophile just as one can be a heterosexual and not pedophiliac. Conversely, a heterosexual can be a pedophile just as easily as a homosexual. Therefore, your equation of homosexuality and pedophilia is just ignorant and wrong.

As for your answers; well, if you're against equality for a group of people just for who they are, then you're a bigot. It's hard not to see the connection. You can hate homosexuals all you want to, but as soon as you start spouting venom against them, then that marks you as a bigot. Don't like that? Suck it up. Better yet, try opening your mind.
As for the false dichotomy; I'll give a little bit of leeway there. But tell me honestly how you can consider a group of people immoral and wrong and not transmit that hatred to little Billy or whoever it is you're teaching it to. Not everyone who hates a group of people will go out of the way to hurt them, but some will, and the line is very, very thin.
And you can stop complaining about homosexuality being shoved down your throat when you stop shoving heterosexuality down everyone else's.

To everyone: The bottom line is this. Hating homosexuality, whether you split hairs and say "it's not the sinner, it's the sin" or whether you just finally be honest and admit that you hate gay people, is hating a group of people simply for a fact of who they are. Whether you grumble about it or vote for homophobic candidates or protest the funerals of gay/lesbian people, you are engaging in prejudice and discrimination, and pretty much acting in accordance with the worst that humanity has to offer. Grow up, take some time to think about why homosexuality is so wrong that you need to become rotten people to say so, and come join the rest of civilization when you're ready to play nicely. Till then, go spout your venom to your own choirs. Those of us who believe in human decency and equality aren't interested.
Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 05:55:11 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

The 7 WTC building collapsed because the fires that started after the collapse of 1 and 2 WTC went uncontrolled. The heat weakened the steel frame, and gravity did the rest. There was no covert daredevil demolition crew. I can't even begin to imagine how such a bizzare theory could get started.

Re: pedophilia, rape, and incest - The obvious difference to me is that these behaviors inherently include some aspect that causes harm to others, whereas homoesexuality does not.
Patrick
Sunday, February 8, 2004 05:10:47 PM
IP: 65.43.174.130

Greetings;

I've de-lurked to provide a bit of molecular biology/genetics education to the CR, as well as answer a few questions that have been raised. If anyone wants to have me go over biology in detail, send me an e-mail and I'll try to answer the questions as best I can. Warning, I may be a bit slow to answer as I am prepping for a conference at the end of Feb, so I'm putting together a talk and poster and those will take precedence.

Caboose your initial post mentioned the "high school" recessive/dominant genetics teachings, which are the basic introduction that most people get into genetics and molecular biology. Unfortunately, Mendelian Genetics can only be used to explain the expression of relatively simple traits (ie those that are regulated directly by a limited number of genes). The classic example of this was with Gregor Mendel’s experiments with pea plants, in which he observed that seed and plant morphology could be passed from parent to progeny, in a predictable pattern. It just so happened that these traits were under the direct control of only one gene each, thus greatly simplifying the identification of inheritance.

Unfortunately, the ideology of recessive/dominant genes really doesn’t begin to account for the variability seen in many of the systems in plant and animals, and in fact most of these systems fall under the broad term of "partial dominance". For the most part differences in individuals within a population are not due to differences in the genes themselves, but in the regulation of those genes through the use of epigenetic, and trans factors.

Recent studies (Either Nature or Science, 2003) on mice using microarray analysis indicated that there are 52 (53?) genes that are differentially expressed in the brains of males and females. In animals exhibiting homosexual behaviour the expression pattern of these genes was more consistent with mice of the opposite sex. In essence what was observed was a genetic correlation between these genes and sexual preference. Due to the large number of genes it is not possible at this time to say exactly what genes must be changed in order for homosexual behaviour to occur, it can only tell us that the expression of these genes play a strong role in determining sexual preference.

Since these 52-53 genes are essentially the same in the entire population (and you will find that genes as essential as these usually are highly conserved within a species) it is not changes in the genes themselves that is the source of sexual preference, it is in their expression. Since the control of gene expression can occur on a transcriptional, translational or post translational level, it pretty much makes it impossible to use a simple inheritance model to track changes in a system this complex.

Do these genes exist in humans? Yes they do. Are they responsible for sexual preference in humans? I have no idea. Although the role of individual proteins can be conserved between species (a decarboxylase enzyme will always be a decarboxylase enzyme) it is how, and where these enzymes are expressed that makes all the difference. In mice these enzymes were found in the brains of adult mice. In humans however, some of those enzymes may be differentially expressed, their function replaced by something else. It might help to think of the cell as an assembly line. Raw products go in and a finished product comes out to do its job. Between those two points there are stations where one modification is done at a time. Between species it is possible that although the start-points and end-points are the same, the actual assembly process is completely different.

The work done in mice will serve as a scaffold from which studies of humans may progress. However humans are much more complex than mice on a social level. We have a sense of self and the ability to make decisions that no mouse could ever foresee. The debate of Nature vs. Nurture is still a hotly debated one. I personally believe that our sexual preference is a genetic consequence, but overall it is the individuals right to choose. Choice is what separates us from the animals; we should learn to respect it.

Now on to animals. Once comment that was made earlier on was that homosexuality in animals was probably a rare extent. This is actually correct. Animals being purely homosexual are quite rare. Most species that have individuals exhibiting homosexual behaviour are actually better described as being bisexual. Although their preference may be towards other members of the same sex, many will copulate with members of the opposite sex, especially when they receptive. One of the best examples I can think of are the Bonobo's. These primates can be described as being quite... promiscuous. Having sex for them is like saying hello. Homosexual behaviour is seen all the time in their populations, with individuals showing strong preferences towards same-sex partners. They will still mate with the opposite sex, they just seem to prefer otherwise.

One possibility for this may reside in the much stronger role that instinct plays in animals. With many species, mating is a driving force that is hardwired into them (I can't remember the species name, but one rodent in Australia is actually driven to mate until the male dies from exhaustion). It may be possible that this behaviour is as close to pure homosexuality that can be seen in wild populations, as the animals will still copulate for procreation because instinct can override preference.

Thus ends the basic biology lesson.

Gathering 2004: As I stated a while ago I am still planning to attend this years gathering in Montreal. I will be leaving from the greater Toronto area and travelling by car to Montreal. I do have a van and would be willing to provide transportation if anyone requests it. If you require transportation please e-mail me. I'll be passing right by Pearson International so you might be able to save some money if you were thinking of making a connecting flight from Toronto to Montreal.

Yggdrasil - [eng050599@ohtmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Sunday, February 8, 2004 04:23:15 PM
IP: 66.185.84.203

note... last statement should be at the end of my message to Gunjack, before I wave to Andrea :D

mc
Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 04:14:39 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

drat... that got sent before I finished it.

Gunjack "Either some things are right and some things are wrong based on some absolute authority, or Right and Wrong are meaningless. "

Who says? Who gets to be the absolute authority? Right and Wrong derrive the meaning we give them, no more and no less.

Mooncat

Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 04:12:47 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Whitbourne - excellent statements and questions.

Vinnie - Read your article, and it's full of blatant misrepresentation and falsehood, plus it's on a site that advocates intolerance of other religions as well as homosexuality, which only adds to it's lack of credibility.

"there are many who oppose homosexuality on psychological, sociological, medical, and moral grounds"

You can have whatever opinion you like, it's a free country. However by "oppose" if you try to force your opinion on others by persecuting gays, yeah that is active bigotry. Active bigotry includes the lovely examples of torture I mentioned before, which was subtly advocated in your article. I found that morbidly amusing.

Gunjack - I never said morality didn't exist, I said it's subjective. You ask who says? Well, I just did, weren't you paying attention? You also asked what a person bases their ethics on if not a religious based code of conduct. Well, there are things like Common Sense, and one's personal concept of justice, one's personal inclinations, as well as environmental factors. I for example am not a Christian, but I still believe it's wrong to steal. Why? Not because of religious indoctrination, but because 1) personal empathy and sympathy for persons who are robbed, 2) I wouldn't want it to happen to myself, and thus because of who I am emotionally and intellectually, I extend the feeling to my fellow people.

You ask, morality aside, what would dissuade one person from raping another person. Well, again there is the person's adherance to law, their personal risk assessment on the consequences of their actions, and what I forgot to mention before, their degree of compassion and empathy with the person who could be their victim.

You also keep equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Well, first of all homosexuality and pedophilia are totally different sexual preferences in practice and origin. Homosexuality is not ONLY natural, but ALSO the consensual practice of it between sexually mature persons is no more harmful or unhealthy than heterosexual relationships.

As for why pedophila is wrong, if you don't understand the basic importance of sexual maturity and consent in the bearing of a sexual relationship, or if you do not understand who is harmed in an act of pedophila, then I strongly suggest you seek counseling.

"Either some things are right and some things are wrong based on some absolute authority, or Right and Wrong are meaningless.

Andrea *waves* hi *^_^*

Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 04:11:04 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

well
(sneaks between debat posts)

Someone else uses green puck?
<falls to knees> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
is this better? (my old pic)
anywho....
uhh i got the link for the NEW greg chat
what about the last one where mooncats last question was about the whisper and greg said that he wouldn't but it was the closest he came....
where i asked about the norse myth link (dought anyone remebers but...)

Thanks!!!

(scrolls to see where this debat started....
oh right lex.... c'est le vie)
Damien
Sunday, February 8, 2004 03:33:33 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

Whitbourne - Woot! Good Questions! That's exactly how I feel. While I will freely admit I'd not be comfortable if another girl hit on me (due to the fact I'm straight), I have no problems with gay people. Why does their sexual preference affect who you or they are? As far as I'm concered, one's sex life is of no one else's buisness but thiers (unless your a porn star, but that's a whole other story). AS I said before, if anyone tells me gay friends to "be straight", they just tell them to "be gay".

I don't think Sexuality is a learned behavior. If it WAS, then why don't children of gay parents end up being gay? Or why would children be gay ANYWAY, since one way or another, the only way to HAVE one is thorugh some sort of heterosexual relationship.

The way I see it, being gay or straight doesn't really matter in the end. How does it affect you personally is someone else is gay or straight? In the big scheme of things, IT DOESN'T. In fact, I have an aunt who's a lesbian. No one really cares. Her girlfriend is a decent part of the family, and we all get along great. No one ever brings up their private relationship, and when they're together in public, they simple act as if they're best friends. In fact, unless you KNEW the truth, you'd never guess they were lesbians at all. But yet, someone who is not 100% tolerant of gays would likely have a different attitude about either or both if they suddenly learned the truth, REGARDLESS if everything else remained exactly the same. That's what I hate about certain people.
Andrea
Sunday, February 8, 2004 03:04:27 PM
IP: 130.111.154.94

Dreams last night involved a superrealistic animated movie in which Astroboy chopped a mad scientist's head off with a tablelamp and watched him decompose in fast-forward.

Ick.

Leo><<But I'll leave it up to the "real" engineers to explain why this is "controlled domolition" theory is crap. :p>>
...Or to scream about how the FEMA investigation was a joke and how the cleanup effort was breaking the law on a grand scale by selling off the structural steel as scrap before it could be examined...

Greg><<You know, sometimes I wonder what this room would look like if this was the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.>> Huh?
<<Sexuality is not a learned behavior. But do you know what is a learned behavior? BIGOTRY!>>
I may not want to beat Gays, but YOUR @$$ is looking pretty tempting...
Or maybe that'd be a poor choice of words. ; )

Gside><<You've got to come in here more often just to be stupid. You'll have more nice associations than if you just weigh in on flame wars.>> Maybe I will sometime... It's just that these days, the contentious stuff is most of what interests me.

**Looks over post** ...I seem to be repeating myself an awful lot. most of that, unfortunately, is because people seem to keep missing the point. Once more, with FEELING!

Bud Clare><<My, aren't we funny?>> Hypocrisy isn't very funny, no. And no one seems to be answering that question. If homosexuality is normal, how about pedophilia? The Greeks and Romans didn't seem to think it was a problem, and neither do the Etero. So why do we? It's a valid question, yes?

<<I'm not even sure what the hell you're arguing. It used to be considered "moral" to marry off children, and now it's not. Are you saying that it was okay for moral standards to change in the past, but it's no longer okay? Did morality become set in stone in the not too distant past, never to be altered again?>>
Um, no. The question isn't whether PERCEPTIONS of Morality change (Morality, if it exists, is immutable), but rather if it exists AT ALL. Mooncat is argueing that it does not, and I am trying to point out the logical correlations of her position.

<<Those of us who are non-Christian would beg to differ.>>
Differ, then. I certianly won't stop you. I'm just curious as to what you intend to use instead.

<<As I understand it, the bible says that it's okay to sell your children into slavery. Let's do that, shall we? Because the bible is always right.>>
Have I, even once, claimed that Christian morality was correct? There's plenty of moral systems besides the Christian one. the arguement is "Absolute moral system (of whatever flavor)" vs "Complete Moral Subjectivity". Either some things are right and some things are wrong based on some absolute authority, or Right and Wrong are meaningless.

<<*represses urge to kill*>>
...Or you could answer an entirely fair question... o.O

<<So, causing unnecessary suffering on another human being on a whim is okay unless you have the Great and Powerful Christian Morality dictating terms?>>
See above. And simmer down, you, I'm just talkin' is all...

<<Are you familiar with the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy? >> I wasn't aware that it was a fallacy. Mooncat approves of homosexuality, but does not (apparently) approve of Pedophillia or Incest. Unfortunately, her approval of the first seems to remove any basis to her opposition to the other two. Where's the fallacy?

<<Regardless, at the very least Gunjack was showing a serious male bias, given that he needs his precious "morality" to tell him that rape is wrong. Maybe we need more men to be raped, in the interests of understanding.>>
Um, no...

Mooncat><>
I dunno. from where I'm sitting, it looks like he's just disagreeing with you... He's allowed to do that, right?
<<Your whole nuke all humanity and let cockroaches inherit the earth statement pretty much indicates that your posts probably are just thrown out to get a rise out of people, with no real intent to adhere to reason or logic.>>
Can't see this one either, and it's really not very nice to interperet peoples' motives for them. For example, when you tell caboose that he's definately uneducated, probably an idiot, and possibly retarded, an unkind person might construe that as an Ad Hominum attack meant to coerce a persistant critic to stop asking inconvinient questions. Maybe you should simmer down some?

...Nice biology explanation, by the way, but that still doesn't answer the questions I was asking. How does the "Gay Gene" perpetuate itself if every time it comes to the fore, it operates AGAINST its own survival? If it starts out rare, and "activates" in 10% of its bearers, then a good percentage of those bearers fail to pass it on to the next generation...

I guess it would have to be a VERY widespread gene that activates VERY rarely, in order for the dormant reproductions to make up for the active population loss... Sorry, but it still sounds shaky to me.

<<A straight person can no more decide that he or she will become romantically attracted to the same sex than a gay person can decide he or she will become attracted to the opposite sex.>>
*Shrugs* ...Unproven one way or the other. The fact that "therapists" have tried to torture Homosexuals straight doesn't prove that homosexuality is genetic. All you've proved is that therapists in the 60s were barbarians. But, again, assuming you're right, how about pedophilia and incest? Those are sexual preferences too, yes? From what I hear, Pedophiles have a pretty hard time stemming their urges also... Does that make their urges "natural"? and if so, why do we persecute them?
<<Enlightened self interest mainly. Rapists are committing an illegal act and if caught and found guilty can face severe punishment under the law. Also, even if there is no set legal preventions to rape, a rapist could face retaliation by the victim or the victim's family and friends. If there were no law, or a person who raped me, or one I cared for managed to circumvent the law, I and/or friends would find that person and take vengeance upon them.>>
In other words, our rapist's only concern when sizing up his next victim should be whether or not he might get caught by the police or hunted down by the Woman's friends.

Lain told me, once, of a series of murders in California where the Perpetrator went about raping and murdering prostitutes. The victims had no apparent families, no real identities, and the police wrote off the murders as not worth their time. Their term, I believe, was "no human victim". Obviously, the Predator in question found away around your "enlightened self interest", as do a great many rapists and killers every year.

For most of recorded history, rape and murder of civilians has been a standard tactic of large-scale military operations. Obviously, the civilians don't have much hope of exacting revenge on an army, and the troops have always loved their little diversions. Any reason you can think of why they shouldn't enjoy themselves? No moral arguements, please, let's stick with logic.

<<Straight out, morality is NOT based on objective rules.>> Says who? o.O

<<Some people consider a woman who does not cover her head in public as immoral, or if she shows her arms or legs she is immoral and it is their MORAL duty to stone her to death. What is "moral" in one religion may be totally different in another.>>
The fact that mankind can't come to a consensus on what right and wrong are has nothing to do with whether or not there's an objective Right and Wrong out there.

And the really funny part is this: you cite all those horrible things done in the name of morality, but then you say that morality is subjective. So if we all have to decide what's Right and Wrong in this world, why are you so angry at those people you just mentioned? Don't they have the Right to their subjective interpretation too?

<<As a whole, Consent between Legal Adults isn't too shabby a watermark for Good Sex. If you are adult (and thus able to give true consent) and willing, and whatever you all do isn't going to put life and/or limbs in peril, why shouldn't you do what you find pleasing together?>>
Who defines "True Consent"? Who defines "Adult"? Who defines "Peril"? Homosexuals suffer a greater risk of contracting AIDS, among other things, and then there's the whole "peril to your immortal soul" factor.

<<Bert and Ernie.>> If Burt and Ernie are gay, then my brother and I must have had some serious homosexual/underage/incest thing going on back in the day...

<<If sexuality is learned, you would have a good success rate in being able to teach a straight person to be gay or a gay person to be straight...>> Again (and again and again), the ETERO. Aborigional people. Homosexual pedophilia THE NORM for their entire culture. Has been for a very long time. So either the gay gene is REALYREALLYSTRONG just for them, or else... what?

...And you're making the mistake of assuming that something has to be TAUGHT (ie, by parents) to be LEARNED.

Whitbourne><<This is just embarassing. Relatively intelligent people bashing gays and lesbians for just being who they are? Some questions for those so "offended" by gayness...>>
Who's bashing? Who's offended? o.O

Excellent Questions.
#1 - It affects me to the extent that my belief that such actions are immoral exposes me, in turn, to accusations of "bigotry".
#2 - No idea.
#3 - see #1
#4 - false dilemma. I believe that premarital sex, divorce, adultery and abortion are all equally morally wrong. I can hold that belief quite easily without having to beat anyone's head in.
#5 - Doesn't apply to me, because I DO have a problem with their lifestyle, AND with it being forced down my throat.

Now, I ask the same questions to you, only about Pedophillia rather than homosexuality.

*Sighs* ...You can't have it both ways, people...
Gunjack "All Edge" Valentine
Sunday, February 8, 2004 03:04:18 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

vinnie>> <<Well you are definitely entitled to your opinions, but let me keep mine>> yes, we know. and "different opinions are what makes this country great" *teary eyed*
lain
Sunday, February 8, 2004 03:02:14 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

lain> <<what then, would you use as the basis for yours?>>
There's this funny little notion of actually taking into account the effect that your actions have on others. (As opposed to morality, which, in the most commonly used sense, is more about doing what you're told and trying to ellicit the conformity of others than it is about actually _caring_ about other people.)

<<im just referring to the.. uh... top 10 (as it were)>>
Grr... Honor thy mother and father MY ASS. Why isn't there a commandment (or sub-commandment) about honoring your children? Sheesh. (Sorry, tangent.)

<< <<*represses urge to kill*>> what for?>>
For implying that without "morality" (i.e. that without a bunch of long-dead guys saying that rape is wrong (assuming that they even said that, which I'm not even sure about)), the suffering of rape victims is meaningless. In my opinion, it showed a fundamental lack of compassion. (Nevermind the fact that by comparing homosexuality to rape, incest, and pedophilial, he's maligning every homosexual in the world, but that's only making me want to smack him around a bit.)
______________________
Vinnie> << <You realize it doesn't have to be overt. It could be subvert just as Awakening posed the possibility that Hakon also killed a bunch of young gargoyle hatchlings in his little massacre.> It isn't the same thing.>>
*snickers* Make war, not love, dude!

<<Tolerance has become an oxymoron that is currently destrying democracy. Like candy a little tolerance is delicious, but a lot can make you sick.>>
I smell avoidance...not to mention hypocracy. Also, scapegoating.

Excerpt from the article you posted: "For example, therapists helping homosexuals who are unhappy with their condition can cite one case history after another showing that negative early childhood experiences are the one common factor found in almost all their patients."

This proves a lot less than you might think. There was never any doubt (in my mind, anyway) that _some_ people are homosexual due to childhood (or adolescent, or maybe even adult) trauma. That in no way proves that it is always the case. And even if were true, can you prove that homosexuals are crazier, on average, than the rest of the population? Everyone is crazy. It's only a matter of in what way and to what degree. (And I have trouble taking an article seriously when the author doesn't know what "fellatio" means...)

And, now that I think about it... Assuming that the given statistics were even right, why not try treating people for sex addiction or intimacy issues or childhood trauma or whatever first? If you suspect that a person is gay because they were abused as a child, why not try treating them for that in the same way that you'd treat a heterosexual who suffered the same thing? Why do they assume that promiscuity is somehow a result of being gay, rather than a separate issue?

<<Sexuality is learned pure and simple, whether from parents, guardians, or even sex ed classes in school.>>
Yeah, I'm sure that no one would have picked it up on their own.
_________________
Leo> <<Wait a sec..., Big Bird is the equivalent of a 6 year old!! That's just wrong.>>
It's not my fault that Big Bird has a Lolita complex. (Is there such thing as a Lolita complex? Well, there is now. Ha.)
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 8, 2004 03:01:47 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

lain: Well you are definitely entitled to your opinions, but let me keep mine.

Greg Bishansky:<Sexuality is not a learned behavior. But do you know what is a learned behavior? BIGOTRY> While I agree that BIGOTRY is a learned bahavior I don't agree with you concepts of sexuality. Sexuality is learned pure and simple, whether from parents, guardians, or even sex ed classes in school. The younger you learn such things the easier it is to learn and harder to unlearn. Here is a little sample from the link that I posted:

Homophobia is defined in The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex as the "fear, dislike, or hatred of homosexuals."3 The Greek word phobia denotes an "irrational fear." The word homo literally means "same," but the word is frequently used as a shortened form of homosexual — one who is sexually attracted to his or her own sex. Thus, strictly speaking, homophobia denotes an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. However, the gay rights movement (and, by-and-large, the media) places this label on anyone who opposes any of the movement's goals and objectives; specifically, anyone opposing the full acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as healthy and "normal."

While indeed there are many people who hate or irrationally fear homosexuals, to say that anyone who opposes the homosexual lifestyle or disagrees with the gay rights political agenda is a homophobe is simply not true. This tactic is clearly intended to divert attention from the argument and onto the person. As we will see below, there are many who oppose homosexuality on psychological, sociological, medical, and moral grounds.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:39:43 PM
IP: 216.234.99.78

This is just embarassing. Relatively intelligent people bashing gays and lesbians for just being who they are?

Some questions for those so "offended" by gayness...

1. Who exactly does it hurt if two men or two women have a romantic or sexual relationship? How does this affect you?
2. If it's a learned behaviour, then why does it occur in the animal kingdom? Why don't gay people just "straighten up" under pressure? What would the possible advantage be to being gay if it wasn't a fundamental portion of who you are?
3. Does anyone really care if it's learned or genetic anyway? Again, who does it hurt? How does this affect your life?
4. Does family values mean segregating and discriminating against those who are different? Would you rather tell little Billy that gays are sinful so it's okay to beat them, or that people are different and deserve tolerance and respect?
5. Everyone who is going to trot out the tired old cliche about "we don't hate gays, we just don't want their lifestyle forced down our throats)...how is that any different from heterosexuality being touted as the One True Way? Aren't you just doing the same to them?

Bottom line? Suck it up and learn to live with it. Gays and lesbians are not evil, sinful unnatural; they are our brothers, our sisters, our family, our friends, our fellow human beings. If you don't like it, then I have a burning cross and a swastika to sell you.
Whitbourne
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:30:32 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

VINNIE> Sexuality is not a learned behavior. But do you know what is a learned behavior? BIGOTRY!
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:18:07 PM
IP: 216.179.3.107

Wait a sec..., Big Bird is the equivalent of a 6 year old!! That's just wrong.
Leo
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:58:49 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Bud Clare: <<so he created an imaginary lover to keep him company...>> A lover wihh a very long and prehensile....

Leo
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:51:34 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Question:<You realize it doesn't have to be overt. It could be subvert just as Awakening posed the possibility that Hakon also killed a bunch of young gargoyle hatchlings in his little massacre.> It isn't the same thing.

Bud-Clare: Tolerance has become an oxymoron that is currently destrying democracy. Like candy a little tolerance is delicious, but a lot can make you sick.

Mooncat:<Children shows and gay characters. Three little words : Bert and Ernie.> That was never proven!<However many gay people come from the straightest homes you could ever hope to see with extremely straight parents and siblings.>What, like Parents or Guardians have never made mistakes before.<If sexuality is learned, you would have a good success rate in being able to teach a straight person to be gay or a gay person to be straight, but while it's been tried through history to the point of using extreme measures of torture and threat of death on gay people to "make" them straight, but those people were still gay. You can't force or teach a person who they will fall in love with, otherwise so many parents wouldn't be upset with their children's romantic/sexual partners because they could have "taught" their kids to only like the people the parents approved of.> Then again, you obviously don't really understand how difficult it is to unlearn what you learn. Once you've learned something the most difficult thing to do in the world is to unlearn it and the older someone gets the harder it becomes to unlearn. That is if said person desires to change!<I know a lot of very accepting straight people who hang out with very gay friends, and yet they are not the least bit inclined to have romantic or physical feelings for persons of their own gender. You can't get anymore "learned" than those straight people, but they still are straight, just as their gay friends are totally "learned" about straightness from their friends and family, and are still gay from the tips of their hair to their smallest toes.> And now you are contradicting yourself. You just said that Bert and Ernie can't be straight because they live together. Make up your mind will you. I hate to tell you this, but I am still of the opinion that sex is a learned behavior!(Click my name for an interesting artical on gays)
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:50:14 PM
IP: 216.234.99.247

I agree that Bert and Ernie can't possibly be gay, since there's clearly something going on between Ernie and his rubber ducky.

Big Bird and Snuffy could be gay, though. BB is afraid to come out of the closet, so he created an imaginary lover to keep him company...
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:37:49 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

bud clare>> <<Mutation isn't natural?>> well uh... yes, i suppose it is, at that. <<Those of us who are non-Christian would beg to differ>> what then, would you use as the basis for yours? <<Made up by a handful of guys a few thousand years ago based on their own personal beliefs>> you must admit, however, that there are an awful lot of people, both throughout history and all over the world, whose "personal beliefs" are pretty much exactly the same as the stodgy bible-guys beliefs. for example, killing people and stealing stuff is bad. granted, there are a lot of "little rules" in there that (to me, anyways) make varying degrees of sense... im not talking about those at this particular moment, im just referring to the.. uh... top 10 (as it were) ;) <<*represses urge to kill*>> what for? <<Also, there's the likelyhood that both genetics and environment share responsibility>> yeah, ive always leaned more towards that one. <<Aren't there real issues to worry about, like starving children in Africa and crazy people who blow stuff up?>> when we could argue pointlessly for days on end? heck no! :D <<Regardless, at the very least Gunjack was showing a serious male bias>> how so? oh wait, i guess im officially "his bitch" now, so i dont get to ask questions like that, do i? <<given that he needs his precious "morality" to tell him that rape is wrong>> well again, what is your standard for the difference between right and wrong? <<Maybe we need more men to be raped, in the interests of understanding>> yes, beacuse of course that would help :P

... just to clarify, gunjack and i have had/are having this debate on a fairly regular basis and i am genuinely interested in your opinion. im not sneakily trying to make fun of you, or being sarcasticly rhetorical.. or something.

damien>> AAAAAK!!!!!! dont DO that!!!! (by which i mean you used a colour and picture combination that someone else who regularly posts in the CR uses and i got all confuuuuused!!) <<PLEASE help me find those transcripts..>> mooncat posted a link to them a little while back.

mooncat>> <<Well, to point out a basic problem with your statement, a rapist, by definition of the word, DOESN'T spare his victim otherwise he wouldn't be an actual rapist, only someone who is considering rape>> i think me meant someone who has raped before sparing their *next* victim - IE a serial rapist. <<Throughout history there are a lot of "moral" men (in the definition they live by the guidelines of their religious faith) think they have the RIGHT to take sex without the female's consent as long as that woman is their wife, or not of their tribe/people, or the woman is of a lower class/servant/slave>> one could argue, however, that that is/was a cultural construct, and not a "moral" belief. <<We have plenty of hate crimes committed by persons who believe their activities are sanctioned by their MORAL beliefs>> oh yes, but then one must consider that such people are quite often misinformed about their so-called "morality" (in the case of christianity, anyways). <<One builds one's own personal set of **ethics** based on a lot of factors, including environment influences and personal inclinations>> so what if someones environment/influences/inclinations tell a father to rape their 5-year-old daughter (or for that matter, a mother to rape her 5-year-old son)? now yes, i certainly think that the above is wrong (im not exactly sure why, i just DO think its wrong) - but what is your reason for thinking so? <<so Lex could be gay'er than a tree full of monkeys>> ha! now THAT conjures a pretty damn funny mental picture... :D

vinnie>> <<My own opinion favors sexuality of any sort as a learned trait, not genetic>> yes, we know. <<Genetics takes responsibility away from the parents or guardians>> well, no not really. its more that if its genetic, the parents/guardians in question cant really DO anything about it.

lain
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:34:03 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Re: Bert & Ernie

(Note: Reading into things a bit)
They share a bedroom. (have separate beds though. (Like a college dorm))
BUT...There was a scene where Bert yelled at Ernie for eating cookies in bed. Ernie's response was to get out of his own bed and climb into Bert's bed (with Bert) and resume eating cookies. :)
Leo
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:32:10 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Greg Bishansky: Probally pretty quiet, considering there was no internet back then! ;)

I think flame wars would be a constant thing in here if it were the 60s.
Fire Storm
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:20:35 PM
IP: 68.250.42.61

You know, sometimes I wonder what this room would look like if this was the Civil Rights movement of the 60s.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:00:24 PM
IP: 216.179.3.107

Mooncat--What gay behaviors do Bert and Ernie exhibit, besides sharing an apartment and being close friends? And if that's enough for people to insinuate that they're gay, well, those people are reading a bit too much into things.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:54:07 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Caboose - Bert and Ernie aren't officially gay, but I mentioned them in response to someone's comment that a children's show couldn't show characters with obviously gay qualities, and Bert and Ernie look pretty gay to a lot of people. The word for what appears to be "gay" behavior/plot, even if it's not outright labled as being gay, is subtext.

Gay behavior doesn't have to be in your face pride parades. Many gay people behave day to day just like straight people, so Lex could be gay'er than a tree full of monkeys and it most likely wouldn't affect Gargoyles one way or the other as long as he isn't actually making out with another guy on screen. According to what Greg said at the 2003 Gathering, Lex being gay wouldn't have been thrown in people's face, it would simply be part of him.

Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:39:29 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Wow, all this gay chat is making my head spin! Yargh! Mooncat, I don't think I could put it any better than what you just said. I hold great tolerance for gay people. About 5 of my friends in High School from Band and Chorus (we all sat at the same big lunch table) were either gay or bi (I don't know any of their parents, but I think they'll all straight. Or at least they must have been at one time...can't make kids any other way; and none of them are adopted). Two of them were actually together (and it was very much known throughout the school), and they got harassed a LOT. But we never cared...they never engaged in PDA's.

Yeah, it is odd having gay friends the same genger as you when you're straight...it takes time to get used to and get over fears that they may hit on you, but after a while, it's not an issue. The way I see it, why does it matter who someone has romantic interest in, and of who's concern is it but theirs?

If I had to be pick one group of people to be intolerant againt, it's the homophobes. I mean, they insult my gay friends for being gay, and say, "why can't you be straight?". Our usual repsonse (I'm straight, but I'm more than happy to back up my friends) is "The same reason you can't be gay...it's just who I am".

I'll get to other replies later, my parent's are about to call!
Andrea
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:24:19 PM
IP: 130.111.154.94

Mooncat, I'm curious--when was it declared officially that Bert and Ernie are gay? I myself can't remember when or where they came out of the closet.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:02:15 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Vinnie - Children shows and gay characters. Three little words : Bert and Ernie.

As for all sexuality being learned traits and the direct responsibility of parents/guardians, you are welcome to believe whatever you like. However many gay people come from the straightest homes you could ever hope to see with extremely straight parents and siblings. All that straightness in the family doesn't make a gay person straight. And all intolerance of gayness does is make a gay person closeted, it doesn't make them not gay. If being gay were simple learned behavior, than most of the children brought up in households where being gay is accepted (say a parent or sibling is openly gay and accepted)would themselves be gay. However, the kids even raised by two gay parents are more likely to be straight in thier own sexual preference than gay.

One does NOT learn what gender to like, you just either like them "that way" or you don't. Many people begin to have romantic feelings for persons of the gender that is their preference long before they "learn" about the differences between being gay or straight. A gay person crushes on persons of the same sex regardless of being "taught" by the example of parents or peers that only persons of opposite genders are the ones that should be crushed on.

If sexuality is learned, you would have a good success rate in being able to teach a straight person to be gay or a gay person to be straight, but while it's been tried through history to the point of using extreme measures of torture and threat of death on gay people to "make" them straight, but those people were still gay. You can't force or teach a person who they will fall in love with, otherwise so many parents wouldn't be upset with their children's romantic/sexual partners because they could have "taught" their kids to only like the people the parents approved of.

I know a lot of very accepting straight people who hang out with very gay friends, and yet they are not the least bit inclined to have romantic or physical feelings for persons of their own gender. You can't get anymore "learned" than those straight people, but they still are straight, just as their gay friends are totally "learned" about straightness from their friends and family, and are still gay from the tips of their hair to their smallest toes.

Mooncat
Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:47:10 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

lain> <<unless its just some wierd funky mutation that happens...>>
Mutation isn't natural? Regardless, I already explained my definition of natural in another comment.
___________________________
Gunjack> <<Why is it that we uphold the inalienable right of man-man booty love, but turn our backs on the poor pedophiles?>>
My, aren't we funny?

<<...And there are plenty of cultural examples that run against the "age of consent". Again, the Etero, plus all those midevil princes and princesses and child brides, right?>>
I'm not even sure what the hell you're arguing. It used to be considered "moral" to marry off children, and now it's not. Are you saying that it was okay for moral standards to change in the past, but it's no longer okay? Did morality become set in stone in the not too distant past, never to be altered again? If so, exactly who decided that this should be the case, and what right did they have to do so?

<<Throw that out, and there's really not a whole heck of a lot left to build your ethics on.>>
Those of us who are non-Christian would beg to differ.

<<"Morality" is supposed to be based on an objective set of rules that remain constant regardless of the situation.>>
Made up by a handful of guys a few thousand years ago based on their own personal beliefs. As I understand it, the bible says that it's okay to sell your children into slavery. Let's do that, shall we? Because the bible is always right.

<<So why is Consent important?>>
*represses urge to kill*

<<Without bringing Morality into it, can anyone here think of a convincing arguement why a rapist should spare his victim?>>
So, causing unnecessary suffering on another human being on a whim is okay unless you have the Great and Powerful Christian Morality dictating terms? When two grown men consentually engage in homosexual behavior, neither participant is emotional scarred by the experience. This is not generally the case with rape, child molestation, or incest. Are you familiar with the "Slippery Slope" logical fallacy?
___________________________
Caboose> <<There are some people out there who argue homosexuality is a learned behavior and some that argue it's genetic.>>
Also, there's the likelyhood that both genetics and environment share responsibility... Nevermind the fact that no one has ever been able to explain to me why we get stuck having this sort of discussion in the first place. Aren't there real issues to worry about, like starving children in Africa and crazy people who blow stuff up?
_________________________
Gside> <<I've heard that isn't technically gay. More of a power thing.>>
Not to mention boredom.
______________________
Damien> <<the only disadvantage, is my occasional musings about the current slang of 2 female friends to refer to eachother as "girlfriend">>
*boggles* Has there ever been a time when that wasn't the case? Not that everyone does it, but I remember people using that terminology when I was little.
___________________
Vinnie> <<First off congratulations Gunjack on that excellent nonbiased commentary.>>
*snorts* It's funny how the only people you consider to be unbiased are people that you agree with. Which would be all right, I suppose, except that I seem to remember you getting snippy with people for doing pretty much the same thing not too long ago... Regardless, at the very least Gunjack was showing a serious male bias, given that he needs his precious "morality" to tell him that rape is wrong. Maybe we need more men to be raped, in the interests of understanding.
Bud-Clare
Sunday, February 8, 2004 10:17:56 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

<Anyone who believes that Gargoyles would ever get back on the air when one of it's characters showed obviously Gay qualities doesn't know anything about the American cartoons>

You realize it doesn't have to be overt. It could be subvert just as Awakening posed the possibility that Hakon also killed a bunch of young gargoyle hatchlings in his little massacre.
Question
Sunday, February 8, 2004 07:40:40 AM
IP: 144.92.164.204

I shouldn't get involved and I know that I am asking for trouble with this, but here goes nothing. First off congratulations Gunjack on that excellent nonbiased commentary. My own opinion favors sexuality of any sort as a learned trait, not genetic. Genetics takes responsibility away from the parents or guardians.

As for Lexington being! When I first heard this I lost all hope that Gargolyes would ever return to television. Anyone who believes that Gargoyles would ever get back on the air when one of it's characters showed obviously Gay qualities doesn't know anything about the American cartoons. Other cartoons that had Gay characters have been seriously butchered for the American market and while I would love to see the attempt I abandon all hope.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 05:29:42 AM
IP: 216.234.99.250

woh!
leave for a day, and you don't know what will happen.
1) I MISSED A GREGW CHAT!!! AHHHHHHHHHHAH
(anyone have a complete transcript? Thanks to whoever posted the partial!!!!
or a transcript of the last one? (asuming this was the second in the last few months?)

well
on to the homosexual topic:
honestly, i don't care about someones sexual preference, i'm hetro, and their homo, thats about it.
the only disadvantage, is my occasional musings about the current slang of 2 female friends to refer to eachother as "girlfriend" (this mistified the "L" out of me until one of my ex's (not at the time) explained it to me).
personally, i dont feel that sexual preference is a choice...
it is a RIGHT.
I used to think i was homophobic, until I realized it was just my clostrophobia acting up in crouds... (easy to conquor once you realize it)
**bad Joke alert** heh heh why are so few clostrophobes in the closet?

sorry... couldn't resist.
another funny thing, my hometown is a bit of a redneck one, and the local GALA hasn't been able to have pride days for a few years... (the mayer will not condone days that are bigoted.. eg just celebrating one group) so last year he approved...
"PRIDE day", where ALL people can be proud of themselves.
and the GALA youth group sued for discrimination!!!!

talk about irony...

enough funny story's

and thank you everyone for keeping it civil....

PLEASE help me find those transcripts..
THANKS
Damien
Sunday, February 8, 2004 04:14:04 AM
IP: 207.6.149.113

Gunjack - quote "Morality" is supposed to be based on an objective set of rules that remain constant regardless of the situation. Throw that out, and there's really not a whole heck of a lot left to build your ethics on. Given the above, it would seem that the only difference between "good" sex and "bad" sex is Consent, right? " ... "Without bringing Morality into it, can anyone here think of a convincing arguement why a rapist should spare his victim?" -- unquote

Well, to point out a basic problem with your statement, a rapist, by definition of the word, DOESN'T spare his victim otherwise he wouldn't be an actual rapist, only someone who is considering rape. So, if you are asking, morality aside, why should a person who wants to rape someone spare that person? Enlightened self interest mainly. Rapists are committing an illegal act and if caught and found guilty can face severe punishment under the law. Also, even if there is no set legal preventions to rape, a rapist could face retaliation by the victim or the victim's family and friends. If there were no law, or a person who raped me, or one I cared for managed to circumvent the law, I and/or friends would find that person and take vengeance upon them.

Straight out, morality is NOT based on objective rules. Morality is totally subjective. Throughout history there are a lot of "moral" men (in the definition they live by the guidelines of their religious faith) think they have the RIGHT to take sex without the female's consent as long as that woman is their wife, or not of their tribe/people, or the woman is of a lower class/servant/slave. We have a lot of date rape today by many males who consider themselves moral persons. We have plenty of hate crimes committed by persons who believe their activities are sanctioned by their MORAL beliefs.

Some people consider a woman who does not cover her head in public as immoral, or if she shows her arms or legs she is immoral and it is their MORAL duty to stone her to death. What is "moral" in one religion may be totally different in another. In one place it may be moral to stone a girl to death if she loses her virginity before marriage. In another it may be moral to maim and mutilate females to insure their chastity or make sure the female will never take pleasure in sex.

One builds one's own personal set of **ethics** based on a lot of factors, including environment influences and personal. inclinations. As a whole, Consent between Legal Adults isn't too shabby a watermark for Good Sex. If you are adult (and thus able to give true consent) and willing, and whatever you all do isn't going to put life and/or limbs in peril, why shouldn't you do what you find pleasing together?

Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:52:07 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Z> Oh no, this isn't a flame war yet. This CR has seen some real flame wars, and this doesn't even come close.
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:26:41 AM
IP: 216.179.3.107

Uh, Mooncat? That whole explanation of biology was basically exactly what I just said a little while ago, with different terminology and examples. I do indeed understand what you're saying and had no intention of starting a flame war. (Quite honestly, with the exception of a couple posts, I thought this was some pretty civil discourse so far. But then I've never actually seen a flame war, so I don't exactly know what I'm talking about in that regard.) I thought you contradicted yourself when you said homosexuality was a natural trait that was somehow not passed on from parents to children. We both understand simple genetics and know that for a gene to show up in a kid, it's present somehow in the kid's parents, but I thought in reading that post you believed that somebody's genes magically mutated to show a trait that neither mommy or daddy (visibly) posessed. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

And as far as the nukes and cockroaches crack was concerned...do you watch the news? Do you have any idea how screwed up this world is currently? And, if you do watch the news and are aware of how screwed up the world is currently, how can you honestly tell me you see any hope that the human race will change its ways?
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:26:08 AM
IP: 198.150.93.3

*strolls in listening to the song "Why Can't We be Friends" by War*

Wow! This flame war exploded faster than I had expected! People seem to be quite opinionated on this one. Have you fellas flamed about this topic in here before?

Bud-Clare - <It's funny how often debates devolve into arguments over who said what. ...Well, _I_ think it's funny, anyway.>
Oh, it's funny...pathetic...but funny.

Lain - <pick me!! star trek IV!!! oh! oh! men in black!! whos da man, oh yea!>
Well done! A pleasant surprise! I am usually greatly disheartened at the consistent failure of people to identify my citations, but you went two for two with two home runs!! I'm truly impressed!

Dezi - <I'm staying outta this one, due to a live and let live policy.>
I'm concur. I don't see anybody being dissuaded from their beliefs on this one, so I'll save my breath.

I feel your pain. Since when did intelligence cease to be the norm?
Z
Sunday, February 8, 2004 02:04:15 AM
IP: 67.67.120.140

Caboose - I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my words, perhaps to deliberately escalate things into flame war territory. Your whole nuke all humanity and let cockroaches inherit the earth statement pretty much indicates that your posts probably are just thrown out to get a rise out of people, with no real intent to adhere to reason or logic.

In any case, I'll explain with even greater clarity, that naturally occurring traits do not have to be inherited from parents also expressing that trait. Therefore a completely hetero couple can produce a gay child naturally, the same way two brown eye'd parents can produce a blue eye'd child naturally. As well, natural environmental factors could contribute to the expression of a natural trait, such as temperature can affect expression of gender in many animals. Traits can be expressed due to natural environmental triggers in the womb, such as acidity level, nutrition, etc.

As it happens, I did very well in biology. Sadly I feel that you either not well educated yourself, or deliberately choose not to understand the nature of biology, or even more sad, are unable to comprehend them due to some natural deficiency on your part.

Consider there is the genotype (The genetic makeup, as distinguished from the physical appearance, of an organism or a group of organisms.) and the phenotype (The observable physical or biochemical characteristics of an organism, as determined by both genetic makeup and environmental influences.) and while an organism, such as a human being, may carry the possibility of a trait in their genotype, it may or may not be actually expressed in their phenotype do to a number of reasons. Or, two tall parents may have a child who grows into a shorter adult. The child may have the possibility of being tall, but expresses the actual trait of being short, and being short is no more unnatural than it is to be tall, even if 90 kids of the same genetic pool are tall and only 10 are short. Or, as is more likely the case, a certain percent are very tall, another percent range in the middle ground, and another percent are short. Their heights are determined by a mix of factors that include their genotype, and natural environment variations that affect their phenotype. All sizes are the result of nature.

Sexual preference in regards to being gay. Being gay isn't an acquired taste. It's a sole preference for romantic or physical love towards one's own gender that is inherent in the gay/homosexual person. If you are drawn to both genders romantically/physically, then you are bisexual, not gay or hetero. If you are solely drawn towards the opposite sex romantically and/or physically, then you are heterosexual/straight. A straight person can no more decide that he or she will become romantically attracted to the same sex than a gay person can decide he or she will become attracted to the opposite sex. It would be very convenient if they could, because gays throughout history were subject to some pretty horrific discrimination including severe abuse, imprisonment and death from those who were intolerant of homosexuality. As recent as the 60s people who were gay could be institutionalized by their families and subject to bizarre "therapy" to make them straight, which included acts of outright torture, such as being subject to intense electric shocks while being shown same sex erotica to establish an aversion. Some pretty bizarre and painful, in some cases fatal "treatments" to get persons who romantically and physically prefer their own gender to not express their *natural* preferences. It's interesting how a gay person is gay without being tortured into that state, but gay people have to be tortured into acting "straight" by those intolerant of homosexuality. I would think a preference that you have to be tortured into expressing would be, logically, the unnatural preference.

Mooncat
>^,,^<
Mooncat
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:57:02 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

leo>> <<Oh pullease. Tell me you haven't been looking at sites like this>> good GOD no.
actually, i was talking about the PBS "america rebuilds" documentary (http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/)- specifically a comment made by larry silverstein

:)
lain
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:52:51 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

BTW, I forgot to mention that it is my opinion that the "commentator" didn't really undestand the diagrams being shown.

But I'll leave it up to the "real" engineers to explain why this is "controlled domolition" theory is crap. :p
Leo
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:35:19 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Firestorm><<The age of consent... tough one. On one hand, you have evidence that some kids may not be aware enough to comprehend what they are doing... but then there are kids that do.>>

...And there are plenty of cultural examples that run against the "age of consent". Again, the Etero, plus all those midevil princes and princesses and child brides, right?

<<Same with reproductively active kids.>>

...And incest, and it goes on from there. Toss out morality, and all you're left with for a ethical breakpoint is Consent.

Consent is a rather flexible concept. What exactly constitutes "Consent"? How informed does the Consenter have to be? That lady schoolteacher awhile back didn't exactly hold a gun to the head of her gradeschool romeo, did she? And, of course, once the age limit is down, the gender limit goes down too. Why exactly were we mad at all those priests again?

"Morality" is supposed to be based on an objective set of rules that remain constant regardless of the situation. Throw that out, and there's really not a whole heck of a lot left to build your ethics on. Given the above, it would seem that the only difference between "good" sex and "bad" sex is Consent, right?

So why is Consent important? How often in the rest of your life do you have a say over what people do to you? Does your boss ask permission before he fires you? Do cops ask for consent before they write you a ticket? Do companies ask you nicely to please pay your debts?

Morality aside, it seems to me that saying that someone has a Right to control their own body is kinda like saying that people have a Right not to starve to death. Nice idea, but who's going to enforce it?

Without bringing Morality into it, can anyone here think of a convincing arguement why a rapist should spare his victim?
Gunjack "Perversity Personified" Valentine
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:29:25 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

lain:<<and here i was just about to start one about the fact that the owner of building 7 in the WTC admitted to having it demolished on sept 11..>> I'll give it a try. ;-P

Oh pullease. Tell me you haven't been looking at sites like this:

http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/2962_comment.php
(the red is the "consiracy nut's" commentary)

Here is the original report:
http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm
(click "chapter 5")
Leo
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:28:57 AM
IP: 68.96.8.12

gside>> <<Lain discovered she's a lesbian and you're cutting off Mr. Happy to please her, but the doctor messed up?>> discovered? oh fudge, you found me out!
no really, we knew that all along ;)

cat>> <<Well, I think that's a wonderful attitude for you to have. I think if you believe in that then you should be the first person to remove yourself from the human race>> aaah yes, you know its a REAL flame war when the lurkers start coming out of the woodwork for cheap shots.
woohoo! :D
lain
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:26:36 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

<Except, how does it perpetuate itself? Is it just that the poor, self-hating gays try to deny their nature, conform to society, engage in icky heterosexual sex and end up passing on their genes that way? Then if society was tolerant of Gayness, like in ancient Greece and Rome, wouldn't the Gays all hook up, stop passing on their Gay genes, and then disappear after a couple generations? >

Recessive genes or possibly sex linked genes. Both work.
Question
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:19:32 AM
IP: 144.92.164.204

Fire Storm> <<But you'll still get a lot to use!>>: I'd hope so.
<>: Well, there are disturbing rumors of schoolgirls in somthing called the real world, where they won't have sex at the drop of a hat (or any other garment).
<>: I wouldn't be surprised.
<>: We do have Errant Story, but it doesn't have the same zing (and I got confused during the recent fight about who was doing what).
<<But sometimes the documentation on php.net just plain sucks>>: Which is why I also try to have easy access to a good turorial or two.
<<Well, I'll try nulls again on WyvernWeb, but yeah>>: Oh well. It shouldn't be too hard, but it'll be something else to remember.
<<I'd like to see Vinnie and some of the others quit and start their own company>>: The No Complaining All Work Company?
<>: At least the third line could be "But we're not busy singing, and put everybody down."

Kathy> <<The Adult Fan Archive is rife with stories about gay gargoyles, some better than>>: ...Matt Watson?

Bud Clare> <<Someone needs to watch more nature documentaries>>: Or read more scientific papers. http://www.nmr.nl/deins815.htm

Greg> <<unless the government is going to force you to marry someone of the same gender and do the nasty>>: My outputs are my own and no one shall be using them as an input.

Caboose> <<A heterosexual/homosexual pairing will result in a heterosexual kid more often than not>>: 75% of the time, assuming an even distribution of homozygous and heterozygous dominants. Yes, I said that just because I want to confuse things more by throwing in more homo- and hetero- words (as well as sounding generally smart (as futile as that may be)).

Lain> <<isnt it all about the genes?>>: Maybe, maybe not. The jury's still out.

Gunjack> You've got to come in here more often just to be stupid. You'll have more nice associations than if you just weigh in on flame wars.
<<Ain't it odd how all those Cons turn to man-love when faced with a permanent female shortage?>>: I've heard that isn't technically gay. More of a power thing.
<<The Angry Inch>>: Lain discovered she's a lesbian and you're cutting off Mr. Happy to please her, but the doctor messed up?

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Sunday, February 8, 2004 01:11:17 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Gunjack: <Now, same question, to you: any arguements, other than the ones you just shot down, against extending the same courtesy to Pedophilia?>
Ok, you are right. Only ones I can think of concern age of consent and the age people become reproductively active.

The age of consent... tough one. On one hand, you have evidence that some kids may not be aware enough to comprehend what they are doing... but then there are kids that do.

Same with reproductively active kids.

Touche.
Fire Storm
Sunday, February 8, 2004 12:33:49 AM
IP: 65.114.91.3

Caboose> "Oh, and Greg, about humanity needing a benevolent dictator? I couldn't disagree more. What humanity needs is extinction, plain and simple. Bring on the nukes and let cockroaches inherit the Earth." ...Well, I think that's a wonderful attitude for you to have. I think if you believe in that then you should be the first person to remove yourself from the human race.
Cat
Saturday, February 7, 2004 11:52:34 PM
IP: 129.123.104.6

FS><<Before this whole homosexual discussion becomes a flame war, let me ask one question: WHY is this such a big deal? ...SO... if there are any arguments that are NOT made on a religious basis (right/moral/etc), a "Family Values" basis that is NOT backed up by hard facts, one based on a "People shouldn't see that", or such, please make them. I know I have yet to hear one.>> *Shrugs* You got me there. Okay, Homosexuality is now fully acceptable on an equal basis with heterosexuality.

Happiness.

Now, same question, to you: any arguements, other than the ones you just shot down, against extending the same courtesy to Pedophilia? I mean, that can be consensual too, right? Isn't it for the Etero? Isn't this whole "statute of limitations" thing just a social construction too?

My appologies for the snippy tone. Really, are there any? Could it be that the answer is "no"?
Gunjack "The Angry Inch" Valentine
Saturday, February 7, 2004 11:22:55 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

First, a tip of the hat to the heroic and sadly unknown demolitions crew that dropped WTC Building #7. It takes a special kind of team to plan and execute the controlled destruction of a 47-story office building...
While it's on fire...
In four hours...
And so cleanly that the Federal Emergency Managment Agency's investigation didn't have a clue as to what happened!

I like to picture these unnamed heroes in their jogging shorts and gas masks, racing up and down those stairs with their hundreds of pounds of high explosives and twitchy detonaters, dodging the heat and flames of multiple fires to get the job done on time. Normal Explosives experts would take weeks to drop a condemned building, what with the planning and the preperation... but not these brave souls!

Magic Demo Men, I salute you!

...Where was I?

The Gayness - Okay, someone help me out here. If gayness is a learned behavior, then it can be unlearned. IE, you have a choice not to be gay. You could be "cured", and become heterosexual (again?). Now, obviously, this is a very impolite suggestion. Why, if homosexuality was a learned behavior, and if a Homosexual has a choice whether to engage in such behavior, then all those religious fundamentalist bigots might actually be able to say that it was wrong, and we can't have that.

If gayness is biologicaly determined and there's nothing anyone can do about it, then it can't be wrong, cause then it's God's fault for making you that way (assuming you're niave enough to believe in the patriarchalist opressor idea of God). So yeah, it's definately biological.

Except, how does it perpetuate itself? Is it just that the poor, self-hating gays try to deny their nature, conform to society, engage in icky heterosexual sex and end up passing on their genes that way? Then if society was tolerant of Gayness, like in ancient Greece and Rome, wouldn't the Gays all hook up, stop passing on their Gay genes, and then disappear after a couple generations?

Or is it that Gayness is spawned by random mutation... over and over and over and over and over? Aside from that being pretty far-fetched, would that mean that I could call gays "Mutants"? Sweet!

Case 1: The Etero (hope I spelled that right), an aborigional people somewhere in the ass end of africa (I think). Etero society is ALL gay, as in, 100%, and furthermore is 100% pedophilic. The old men do the boys, and only suffer the ickyness of hetero in order to secure a future supply of boys (and continuance of the tribe... but really, sex IS all there is to life, right?). So... how'd they end up with THAT, assuming they started with the normal short supply of the nescessary gay genes?

Case 2: Prison. Ain't it odd how all those Cons turn to man-love when faced with a permanent female shortage?

Case 3: The Rats. Specifically, the rats in a study described by Tom Woolf in his essay "O Rotten Gotham: sliding down the behavioral sink". The rats are kept in the enclosures, all connected by tunnels. the alpha rats quickly take over the two smaller chambers to either side of the main ones, and set up harems in typical rat fashion. the rest of the rats live happily in the middle enclosure, frolicing, begatting, and doing what rats do when the scientists aren't watching.
Then the scientists double the population in the same enclosure. The overcrowded rats begin exhibiting a number of aberrant behaviors, among them homosexuality. Other behaviors include gang-rape, neglect of offspring, and frantic acts of random violence.

Go Fig.

So, yeah. This whole gay marriage thing is a non-issue. The real issue is homosexuality itself; next to that, tax status is pretty insignificant.

Moonkat, Lyn, Bud Clare... Your stand for love regardless of orientation is heart-warming, Isn't it time to show support for all those other demonized sexual groups? Why is it that we uphold the inalienable right of man-man booty love, but turn our backs on the poor pedophiles? Fortunately, I'm sure this is just a momentary oversight. I know I can count on all of you at the next joint North American Man Boy Love Association / Chickenf***ers United rally.

Ciao!
Gunjack "Hugs and Kisses " Valentine
Saturday, February 7, 2004 11:12:08 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Ed--There are some people out there who argue homosexuality is a learned behavior and some that argue it's genetic. So far as I know, nobody's found any conclusive proof that either theory is right or wrong. That's why I started my genetics post off with "If we assume it's genetic..."

Dezi--Having worked in retail myself, I completely sympathize with your stupid customer experience at work. <Shudders> Some people... :)
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:51:30 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

I'm staying outta this one, due to a live and let live policy.
I do want to weigh in on human stupidity, as it is an issue that really does effect my life on a regular basis.

A lady at work today (Hobby Lobby) tried to argue with me that a 12x12 piece of paper was really an 8 1/2x11 piece, and therefore should be the price of one. C'Mon! 12x12 is a SQUARE! I showed her a real 8 1/2x11 piece and she STILL tried to argue. "...But the sign said that 8x11's are this one price." Yeah, they are, but 12x12's are _this_ price. "But this is 8x11." No this is 12x12, do I _need_ to break out the ruler?! People such as THAT should not procreate. (There are many other forms of stupid people that shouldn't procreate either, but I'm tired and Law and Order is on.)

Ok, flame on!
-Later!-
Dezi
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:39:04 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

ooooo hee hee, a budding flame war. and here i was just about to start one about the fact that the owner of building 7 in the WTC admitted to having it demolished on sept 11...

oh well, this could be fun too :)

bud-clare>> <<Or there's a third possibility, that being that _you_ were talking about _genetic_ traits, whereas Mooncat wasn't>> would it be fair to say that mooncat was talking about "natural" traits? if so, how can something be natural and NOT be genetic? isnt it all about the genes? isnt that the only way that something can truly be "natural"? unless its just some wierd funky mutation that happens... 10% of the time, which is pretty DAMN freaky.

lynati>> <<This word has the same meaning as "strait">> what is this "strait" of which you speak? would it not be more properly "straight"? or am i behind the times with the lingo again?

caboose>> <<Even if it's present, I would imagine that homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom are in the extreme in their rareness>> notsomuch, actually.

mooncat>> <<Most gay people are produced by heterosexual parents>> well yes, that would stand to reason ;) <<Being gay is a natural trait that expresses itself in about 10 percent (if not more) of the human population regardless of the sexual orientation of the person's lineage>> i would like to see the source for that information, if you would? <<it is a small percentage>> i wouldnt call that "small". 1-5% is small. 10 is.. slightly more substantial. not colossal, agreed, but more than "small". <<being gay doesn't mean you can't produce offspring>> no, it just makes it slightly more challenging... and gives me visions of arnie in "junior"... yeeps!

ray>> <<but they also are more natural, and since homosexuality is NOT natural I have a hard time thinking that any of them would even consider it>> much as both sides would probably like to disagree... i dont think anyone really knows if homosexuality is "natural" or not. not enough research has been done. <<As far as I am aware it is kinda hard to be homosexual and not have sex with one of your own sex>> *shifty eyes* uuuuuuh... i say nothing!

z>> <<Did you read that in Mein Kampf or something? Just kidding>> do you like ford motor company?? just kidding! ;) <<"Whoever said the human race was logical?">> pick me!! star trek IV!!! <<"A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.">> oh! oh! men in black!! whos da man, oh yea! :D

yikes, three.. oh crap, now its *FOUR* people.. no, **FIVE** good grief!!! have posted in the time its taken me to write this much... im gettin OUTA HERE!
*flee*
lain
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:24:11 PM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Lynati: "Gargoyles....is not a kids show."? Er, no. Your Barney analogy is being deliberately misleading since that has a specific audience of (I’d guess) toddlers, and that demographic is somewhat different. But 'Gargoyles' show was conceived for, written for and marketed towards children. It aired at a time suitable for children. Most people here first enjoyed it... as children. Ergo, it is a children's show.

Now, sure, like other good children's fiction, it deals with themes, characterisation and issues that can resonate at multiple levels. This allows it to entertain more than one generation at a time: so did Lewis Carroll, C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien and others. It’s the same sort of thing that you see in a lot of the humour on films like ‘Shrek’ where animators know that if the parents can enjoy the film as well as the kids it makes for a happier family experience and higher profits. What we conclude from this is that a good show for kids can be better than many shows for adults. But that doesn’t mean it suddenly ceases being for kids, either.

The need for people to find excessive "maturity" in wonderful works of fiction that are nonetheless clearly aimed at children puzzles me. Perhaps there's a nagging concern that grown adults shouldn't watch entertainment aimed at eight year olds? All seems a bit silly to me: being immature never did me any harm...

Caboose: Your biology theory strikes me as improbable, but it’s also somewhat missing the point. You’re saying that homosexuality isn’t “natural” but that it is “genetic”, right? So in that case, is your eye colour unnatural? Your hair? The shape of your face? When do inherited traits cease being natural?
Ed
Cambridge, England
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:20:41 PM
IP: 131.111.8.102

I want to go to sleep now, but I'm afraid I'll miss something funny. :(

For god's sake, everyone... Hold off on the really good flames until I wake up. ;)
Bud-Clare
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:18:27 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Caboose> <<You obviously never took biology in high school. That, or you're choosing to ignore whatever it was you learned in said biology course.>>
Or there's a third possibility, that being that _you_ were talking about _genetic_ traits, whereas Mooncat wasn't. Let me recap the conversation for you: You made a remark about breeding homosexuality out of the population, Mooncat tried to explain to you why that's not possible, and you somehow failed to notice what she actually said.

(It's funny how often debates devolve into arguments over who said what. ...Well, _I_ think it's funny, anyway.)
Bud-Clare
Saturday, February 7, 2004 10:13:43 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Well, I'm not english neither american so I apologize if I can't express myself properly... here I go:

<<And I would also appreciate it if they resurrected the Pendragon Saga...>> I never said anything about homosexuality in Gargoyles TV Series, I said TGS ( The Gargoyles Saga... does it ring you any bell?). Anyway I don't think it would be a problem if kids watch things like that...

<<For the rest who thinks Homosexuality is unnatural>> Ok if you see homosexuality like something unnatural that means you don't know very well the world you live in. so there is nothing to discuss, everything is already said in the other messages.
Homosexuality is not only sex, it's fellings and love. I you are not able to see that I'm sorry for you, really.

And don't talk about sometnig unnormal or morality. Some days ago Janet jackson showed her brust... and you made a big problem when that's a stupid thing considering the contents of american style life and its television
TheTrok
Pamplona
Saturday, February 7, 2004 09:59:30 PM
IP: 80.58.55.170

Lynati--Did you not READ her full sentence, or are you just incapable of simple comprehension?

>>>You obviously never took biology in high school. That, or you're choosing to ignore whatever it was you learned in said biology course.

If, as Mooncat said in her post, homosexuality is a natural trait that's been floating amongst the species since time out of mind, and can be passed on from generation to generation, that means it's controlled by genetics.

Now then, if you'll think back to basic high school biology, traits that are passed from parents to offspring can be either recessive or dominant. A dominant trait will always manifest itself in the offspring, even if the other parent passed on the recessive gene. A recessive trait will only manifest itself when both parents pass the recessive gene on to their offspring. Do you follow me, or have I lost you?

Given that knowledge, it's possible for parents to show the dominant trait but also possess the recessive gene of that same trait and for them to pass that recessive gene along to their kids.

Two heterosexual parents having a homosexual kid means sexuality is controlled by genetics and that it's a recessive trait that Mommy and Daddy passed on to Junior, which makes the trait directly inherited. A heterosexual/homosexual pairing will result in a heterosexual kid more often than not because the heterosexual gene will override the homosexual gene from the other parent, so it still follows that homosexuality is a question of genetics and is therefore an inheritable trait.

Oh, and Greg, about humanity needing a benevolent dictator? I couldn't disagree more. What humanity needs is extinction, plain and simple. Bring on the nukes and let cockroaches inherit the Earth.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Saturday, February 7, 2004 09:56:53 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Caboose> <<This is one of those traits Darwin would argue should be bred out of the population because it doesn't promote survival of the species.>>
Good thing Darwin's not god. Besides, if nothing else, having a percentage of the population _not_ reproducing helps to prevent overpopulation, which is as important as adequate population growth. And it's not as if everything _you_ do promotes the survival of the species, either.

<<And if homosexuality truly is 'natural' why did Mother Nature or God or Gaia or Evolution or whatever create two different genders with different abilities in the field of reproduction?>>
You're twisting that around to make it suit your purpose. You're making it sound as if homosexuality being natural would mean that heterosexuality must be unnatural, i.e. only one of them can be natural. Since this is not the case, your argument makes little sense. Homosexuality is natural in the same way that variation in general is natural. It's natural for people to have different hair colors, favorite colors, favorite foods, etc. Some men have very pronounced preferences for women with enormous breasts, or blond hair. Some women drool over Orlando Bloom, others shudder at the thought. Why is sexual preference different from any other preference?
Bud-Clare
Saturday, February 7, 2004 09:47:04 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Caboose: [<<You make the erroneous assumption that gay behavior is a directly inherited trait. Most gay people are produced by heterosexual parents. Most children of gay people are heterosexual. >>So, uh, how's that NOT an inherited trait? You just contradicted yourself in quite the spectacular fashion. ]

Did you not READ her full sentence, or are you just incapable of simple comprehension?

Both parents are heterosexual. This word has the same meaning as "strait". What she said meant that two strait people have a child who is not strait. Therefore, it is not an inherited trait. The child did not inherit his or her "gayness" from either of his or her parents because neither are gay. Gay is slang for homosexual.

Homosexual and Heterosexual mean two opposite things when referring to gender preference. Do you understand now that Mooncat did not contradict herself, in a "spectacular" fashion or otherwise? Or do I need to find you a link to a dictionary website?
Lynati
Saturday, February 7, 2004 08:54:58 PM
IP: 65.66.149.242

[On first line Gargoyles is a kids show, and there are some topics that are NOT suitable for children.]
Gargoyles....is not a kids show. suitable for children, yes, but hardly Barney, thank you. And they showed David and Fox, and Goliath and Elisa getting together; why would they not show other characters finding a true love?

[that is true, but they also are more natural, and since homosexuality is NOT natural]
Dude, are you kidding? Same sex pairings happen in nature, aka happen naturally, aka are natural. For instance, male wolves "mount" eachother for sport, and for dominance rituals, and there are female/female pairing among birds. They mate. These pairs don't have fertile eggs, but they do attempt the act of mating.

[Not to mention that with so few of their numbers they cannot afford it anyway. ]
They only have fertile breeding periods once every 20 years. as long as all the females get pregnant, preferebly by all different males, who does it matter with whom they are spending the night with the other 19 years and 9 months of the cycle?
Lynati
Saturday, February 7, 2004 08:46:15 PM
IP: 65.66.149.242

Mooncat - You make the erroneous assumption that gay behavior is a directly inherited trait. Most gay people are produced by heterosexual parents.

>>>So, uh, how's that NOT an inherited trait? You just contradicted yourself in quite the spectacular fashion.
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Saturday, February 7, 2004 08:40:52 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Fire Storm - <Before this whole homosexual discussion becomes a flame war>
Nothing wrong with a good, hearty debate. All people have to do is behave logically and keep their heads, and it won't deteriorate into a flame war...wait, maybe you're right then. After all, "Whoever said the human race was logical?" Movie reference? Anyone? Anyone?

Greg Bishansky - <More and more, I'm thinking that mankind needs an enlightened despot to be it's master. And it just so happens that I am qualified>
Did you read that in Mein Kampf or something? Just kidding. I find myself thinking that quite often as well. One of my favorite cynical quotes of all time: "A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it." Movie reference? Anyone? Anyone? Perhaps we should just admire the forthrightness of Ben Franklin when he said, "Never underestimate human stupidity."

Peace
Z
Saturday, February 7, 2004 07:59:01 PM
IP: 67.67.120.140

FIRE STORM> Cause we live in a society of sick cry-babies who need to impose their will on others.

Way I see it, unless the government is going to force you to marry someone of the same gender and do the nasty, then there is no point in anyone losing sleep over it.

That being said, gay people are not doing themselves any favors with their pride parades. It only further freaks these people out.

Either way you slice it, people are stupid. More and more, I'm thinking that mankind needs an enlightened despot to be it's master. And it just so happens that I am qualified ;)
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, February 7, 2004 07:27:40 PM
IP: 216.179.3.107

Caboose - You make the erroneous assumption that gay behavior is a directly inherited trait. Most gay people are produced by heterosexual parents. Most children of gay people are heterosexual. Being gay is a natural trait that expresses itself in about 10 percent (if not more) of the human population regardless of the sexual orientation of the person's lineage. You could build a village and populate it strictly with heterosexual couples, but of their children, roughly 10 percent will likely be born gay. It's just one of those natural things, which doesn't affect species survival because 1) it is a small percentage and 2) being gay doesn't mean you can't produce offspring.

Since it continues to naturally exist across many thousands of years in all forms of animals including humans, there may be a very good reason for it. Right now it's enough to know that it IS natural, in that it occurs in ongoing nature without being the result of deliberate artiface or manipulation.

Mooncat
Mooncat
Saturday, February 7, 2004 07:26:33 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

I think it's obvious: All those homosexual animals are evil and sinful and should all be destroyed.

Before this whole homosexual discussion becomes a flame war, let me ask one question:
WHY is this such a big deal?

Most arguments against this is based on religious ideals like morals or what is 'right', and as such, should be thrown out if you want to be fair (whether or not they WANT to be fair is another argument)

Then there are arguments that other people just shouldn't be exposed to homosexuality. Well, people have and still say that about interracial couples, and even people who are not of the same ethnicity as them, and being fair, should be thrown out.

The argument saying that it is against American family values can also be thrown out. What are American Family Values? Does an abusive father/mother/other fit in with these values? If you are talking traditional family values, you are talking about laws and values made by generally Catholics, Protestants, and basically many variants of a general Christian religion. So, technically, an Islamic family is against family values because it doesn't teach God in the same light. On the flip side, is there any real proof saying that children raised by a homosexual couple is more likely to be a criminal?

Then there is the whole sexual stigma in America. Look at the word homoSEXual. It's right there. And people in general don't want to mess with the sexual status quo.

So that gets rid of arguments based on religion, morals, what's right, and family values.

What's left?
When you boil right down to it, a same sex couple wants to have the same rights as a "traditional" couple:
Hospital visitation rights and other various legal rights
Adoption and child custody rights
Medical insurance, tax, and other benefits of a "traditional" couple.

Now, why should a couple that is committed to being together be denied these rights? "Traditional" couples, even ones that are unfaithful, unloving, and abusive get these rights, yet even deeply devoted same-sex couples are denied these rights.

SO... if there are any arguments that are NOT made on a religious basis (right/moral/etc), a "Family Values" basis that is NOT backed up by hard facts, one based on a "People shouldn't see that", or such, please make them. I know I have yet to hear one.

On the flip side, since the main arguments against same-sex couples seem to be religious, why doesn't the general homosexual community create their own religion? There can be various sects of the religion (Islamic sect, Catholic sect, Jewish sect, etc), and then they can do as they wish.
Fire Storm yet again
Saturday, February 7, 2004 06:51:33 PM
IP: 65.114.91.3

Funny this should come up. Click or follow for a story all about gay animals. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/07/arts/07GAY.html?ei=5062&en=3a6bba0d3feab09a&ex=1076734800&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

Good grief. What a link. If that doesn't work go to http://drudgereport.com and click on the story "The love that dares not squeek its name"
kathy
Saturday, February 7, 2004 06:15:35 PM
IP: 66.82.198.153

Mooncat: Homosexuality occurs in animals besides humans, and has been observed in both wild and domesticated creatures other than humans. To say something is not natural just because you have a problem with it doesn't make it unnatural.

>>>Even if it's present, I would imagine that homosexual relationships in the animal kingdom are in the extreme in their rareness. This is one of those traits Darwin would argue should be bred out of the population because it doesn't promote survival of the species.

And if homosexuality truly is 'natural' why did Mother Nature or God or Gaia or Evolution or whatever create two different genders with different abilities in the field of reproduction? If it doesn't matter who one mates with, then shouldn't we all be androgynous?
Caboose - [caboose@wctc.net]
WI, USA
Saturday, February 7, 2004 06:10:16 PM
IP: 198.150.93.3

Ray> <<and since homosexuality is NOT natural I have a hard time thinking that any of them would even consider it.>>
*cackles* Someone needs to watch more nature documentaries...
Bud-Clare
Saturday, February 7, 2004 05:29:37 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Ray -- 1) You can be homosexual and not have sex the same way you can be heterosexual and not have sex. One's orientation as a homo or hetero isn't dependant on how much you score, or even IF you score.

2) I believe the question was about TGS not the actual airing of the tv show. Homosexuality is a subject that IS suitable for children if it's focus is about relationships, such as having parents or family that are gay and being aware that they are gay.

3) Homosexuality is as "natural" as heterosexuality. Not as common, but it's just as natural a part of a person as any other trait they are born with. Homosexuality occurs in animals besides humans, and has been observed in both wild and domesticated creatures other than humans. To say something is not natural just because you have a problem with it doesn't make it unnatural.

By the way, the creator of Gargoyles confirmed Lexington is gay. We wouldn't see Lex having gay sex on screen, but his "natural" orientation was homosexual.

Mooncat
>^,,^<

Mooncat
Saturday, February 7, 2004 05:27:46 PM
IP: 68.102.17.133

Gay gargoyles > It's not a huge secret. At the '03 Gathering Greg Weisman revealed that Lexington is gay.

Gargoyles like humans can form single sex attachments. It has nothing to do with population pressures or anything else, it's just how they are.

The Adult Fan Archive is rife with stories about gay gargoyles, some better than others.

Greg likes to save bombshell revelations for Gatherings. At the chat this past week he announced that if we have an attendance of 500 people he will finally reveal what Titania whispered in Fox's ear. So if you'd like to know then register and talk a few friends into coming with you.
www.gatheringofthegargoyles.com or click!

kathy
Saturday, February 7, 2004 05:18:14 PM
IP: 66.82.198.153

Gside: <The postshots are just for random stress relief. If I'm going for all out destruction, I'd aim them>
Ok. That works. But you'll still get a lot to use!
<Especially porn schoolgirls>
I was unaware that there was another type
<That sounds like a new fetish. >
Scary, no? I bet I could search the net and find at least ONE fetish site devoted to it
<With any luck they'd be corrupted before too long>
"But I don't WANNA have sex!"
"We will make sure you enjoy it! Bring in... LORD NAUGHTIUS!"
"NO! NO LORD NAUGHTIUS! NO... oh.... OHH!!!!!"
(I miss EN)

That works. But sometimes the documentation on php.net just plain sucks.
<Does that mean I'm going to have to make sure everything the gets put in a zero instead of a null?>
Well, I'll try nulls again on WyvernWeb, but yeah.
<It was a bit awkward, but I like Mikey. And I fully believe he is the smartest one there>
Personally, I'd like to see Vinnie and some of the others quit and start their own company
<But the second line doesn't work.>
Ah, I would have made it work, awkwardly if necessary!

Ray: <why what happened at the last Gathering?>
"At a time of year determined by thee holy Con Staff, a Gathering of fans is called, and it is good.
In the Year of our Garg 9, the Gathering of fans received a chance for a late night session to ask Greg questions about the Universe, as was the tradition since the first Gathering, and as always, it was good.
As custom, these sessions include questions of a carnal nature, and these questions are without sin.
One stood and proclaimed 'I have a thought on the Mate of Lexington,' and Greg listened and nodded. Whense the One said his thought, Greg stood and all were silent.
'The One is right. Lex shall have a mate, and His mate shall be unlike the others, for His mate shall not be able to produce Him a child, for a male is unable to carry a child'
So it was proclaimed, so it was written. The gargoyle Lexington shall have a mate, and this mate shall be a Male."
Fire Storm
Saturday, February 7, 2004 05:16:50 PM
IP: 65.114.91.3

TheTrok>
To start, if you don't mean a sexual homosexual relationship between gargoyles then what do you mean? As far as I am aware it is kinda hard to be homosexual and not have sex with one of your own sex. If you mean by being very close friends then I am more than worried.
Second, On first line Gargoyles is a kids show, and there are some topics that are NOT suitable for children.
Third, Gargoyles are more honest than humans, that is true, but they also are more natural, and since homosexuality is NOT natural I have a hard time thinking that any of them would even consider it. Not to mention that with so few of their numbers they cannot afford it anyway.
Besides, there are other people that find the topic disturbing and would prefer if it were kept clear of.

Gside> why what happened at the last Gathering?
Ray
Saturday, February 7, 2004 04:18:17 PM
IP: 62.202.210.205

Fire Storm > <<Now the important question: Does this count against the 100 fanfic total?>> Oh, my count is so screwed up by now ... but, no, I had decided from the outset that this one would be an extra.
Christine
Saturday, February 7, 2004 12:15:08 PM
IP: 208.187.15.161

Damian - If someone doesn't know the answer, they aren't likely to respond to a general question like that. If you'd asked someone specifically to tell you or asked people to say if they didn't know anything you might have gotten more response. Or not, most people don't read everything everyone posts. Many just skim and pay particular mind if their own name crops up or if the topic is of specific interest to them.

As it happens, someone asked Greg that question at his chat last Thursday. Greg said he wasn't at liberty to tell the reasons (which to me sounds very interesting *^_^*), but aside from that he himself personally was interested in the info. -- if you want more exact wording you can check out the mostly complete transcript for the chat. I say "mostly" because I was cut and pasting copy on the fly while trying to mod/keep track of the question queue and keep the flow of questions going smoothly. There was a LOT of text. Over 70 pages worth >^@@^< yeeks!!!

kay, almost 4am... nap time!
Mooncat
Mooncat <--- click for link to chat log
Saturday, February 7, 2004 04:50:38 AM
IP: 68.102.17.133

DPH> <<dvd-roms aren't supposed to get dust on them because nobody sells stuff to clean dvds or cds with>>: I feel no guilt about wiping discs off on whatever cloth happens to be handy (usually my shirt).
<>: That'd be my first guess, especially on a renter.
<<There seems to be missing some links to various areas like Picture Archive and Resources Page>>: Oh yeah, and the side links are supposed to be white.

Trok> <<homosexual relationship between gargoyles>>: You should have been at the last Gathering, what witht hte revelation and all.

Fire Storm> <<What if you hit the same target twice?>>: The postshots are just for random stress relief. If I'm going for all out destruction, I'd aim them.
<<Schoolgirls are always excellent>>: Especially porn schoolgirls.
<<For the love of Mike... take them off FIRST>>: That sounds like a new fetish.
<<Although, I can't imagine that the more prudish female gargs are too happy about that>>: With any luck they'd be corrupted before too long.
<<And reading the documentation>>: I tend to code with a browser open to the documentation to double check things.
<<Said f$%^ it and changed all NULL values to 0>>: Does that mean I'm going to have to make sure everything the gets put in a zero instead of a null?
<<The Orange County Choppers/AOHell one sucked>>: It was a bit awkward, but I like Mikey. And I fully believe he is the smartest one there.
<<Hey Hey we're the Bad Guys>>: But the second line doesn't work.
<<Happy 64th birthday, H.R. Giger>>: A special one, being a square. But not as special as mine, as it is perfect.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:57:13 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

[Do I at least have a month or two to finish the new site before the new stories are published? ]

yes.

Lynati
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:35:59 PM
IP: 65.66.155.99

Damien> No one probably answered because you would have had a chance to ask Greg himself at last night's chat (I'm surprised no one announced it in here). Anyways, he can't reveal the reason he did the poll. That in itself tells us something.
Vash
Friday, February 6, 2004 10:40:35 PM
IP: 129.98.127.164

jeeze i'm a pain in the arse this week,
ok which order do iread the series in?
i know the first is gargoyles season 1,
then?????
thanks!
(oh and i'm guessing from the complete ignoring of my last 2 posts that nothing new has happend with greg W and the comments, a simple No, would have sufficed)
Damien
some, where in, CANADA EH!!
Friday, February 6, 2004 09:47:03 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

TGS Story question: I know this is always asked, but:
Do I at least have a month or two to finish the new site before the new stories are published?

Krista: <Ever heard of the Superboll?>
Yeah, and I've heard a lot more about it since the breast incident. I can't believe that they censored ER because of that!
...
Ok, I CAN, I just don't want to believe it.

Gside: <That creates so much cognitive dissonance.>
And that's a good thing!
<Only if you promise me you have enough stock to wipe the face of the Earth well over once.>
Not good enough. You will need WAY more than that! What if you hit the same target twice?
<A good question, but any reactionary crackdown will create rereactionary movement>
As always... maybe. If the crackdown is successful for long enough then it won't be seen as so bad and it would take something along the lines of a cultural revolution to counter it's effects.
<Schoolgirls. Excellent.
Schoolgirls are always excellent!
<Next shall be NOW to help with the sexual liberation of all women>
YES! BURN THOSE BRAS!
...
For the love of Mike... take them off FIRST!
<There are many ways of approaching it. Crying, screaming, laughing, orgasming>
D: All of the above
<Let's hear it for 19 year orgies>
W00t! Although, I can't imagine that the more prudish female gargs are too happy about that.
<You should know me better than that. No direct links, but plenty of information>
Yeah, but you never know...
<Are you sure the problem's there and not just appearing there for some obscure reason?>
Ah, I figured it all out by good old fashioned trial and error...
And reading the documentation
<So write up some test code to echo test nulls.>
Did. Got pissed. Did it again. Still pissed. Said f$%^ it and changed all NULL values to 0
<Nah, everyone's watching the commercials>
The Orange County Choppers/AOHell one sucked.
<But as long as the php generates generic enough code, you shouldn't have to worry about compatability, as the php should be preprocessed on the server.>
Well, the last time I made any code DPH had trouble viewing it in Netscape and I just wanted to make sure that I worked all those bugs out.

DPH: <There seems to be missing some links to various areas like Picture Archive and Resources Page>
That was done on purpose to reduce confusion on what was actually done. All those links would have been page cannot be displayed errors anyway.

Lain: <the new logos for the series dont show up>
New logos? *checks out site* Oh yeah! I forgot about those! Easy to correct.
<they show the old ones.. except for the BG one which shows up fine>
Only because that's the only one I know of! It's fixed now.

Do you know how close I was to saying something like the Monkees?
"Hey Hey we're the Bad Guys..."

Christine: <Site update: new fanfic posted!>
Now the important question: Does this count against the 100 fanfic total?

Thanks to Spike and Christine, I have *3* stories to read this weekend! Now I won't be bored at work!

Oh, and a belated birthday to someone who had a great inspiration in my life.
Happy 64th birthday, H.R. Giger!
Fire Storm
Friday, February 6, 2004 09:11:49 PM
IP: 65.114.91.3

okay, I finished the pair.
want more.
; )
Lynati
Friday, February 6, 2004 06:48:49 PM
IP: 66.142.228.231

Spike:> Oops, just found your comment at the very bottom of the deviant page. I guess it's ok then. Sorry. :)

Leo
Friday, February 6, 2004 06:13:21 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Spike> Re: drawing "5127948"
That looks almost like a reverse of the sketch you linked to in the chat room a while back.

I don't know if it's still posted, but I saved it on my HD. The file name is "T2-9" There was also one of just Kirin - "T2-kirin3"
Leo
Friday, February 6, 2004 06:08:00 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

[Parts 1 & 2 are currently up on my fanfic.net acct for early viewing. ]

...POCKYYYY!!!!! : D

Lynati
Friday, February 6, 2004 06:04:24 PM
IP: 66.142.228.231

Heh.... I just got some fabulous fanart from the amazing Brianna Garcia and had to share --
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5127948/
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5127817/

*does the happy Spike dance*
Spike
Friday, February 6, 2004 05:40:50 PM
IP: 209.30.19.114

<... So why not homosexual relationships between gargoyles in the TGS? I would appreciate it!!! >

And I would also appreciate it if they resurrected the Pendragon Saga and added two more seasons to Timedancer however thats not possible. If you really want to see homosexual gargoyles then write the story yourself or read gargoyles slash.
Question
Friday, February 6, 2004 05:16:23 PM
IP: 144.92.164.204

Hello you all!
I would like to know if it would not be interesting about homosexual relationship between gargoyles. I don't mean sex but feelings.
The relationships between gargoyles are basicaly the same as humans', and it's a fact that there are homosexual relationships between humans, why not about gargoyles. I would find it interesting. Besides we all know gargoyles are more honest than humans, so they would have any problem about this subject... So why not homosexual relationships between gargoyles in the TGS? I would appreciate it!!!
Un saludo
TheTrok - [germenstation@yahoo.es]
Pamplona, Spain
Friday, February 6, 2004 03:44:05 PM
IP: 80.58.55.170

*waves to Christine*
Well, since you brought it up, I've also had a story waiting to go into AvMists but I haven't minded the wait because the story has been writing itself again. Parts 1 & 2 are currently up on my fanfic.net acct for early viewing.

Spike - [<==<< "Tengu"]
Friday, February 6, 2004 01:31:35 PM
IP: 209.30.19.114

Site update: new fanfic posted! It's called "Teeth," it was originally going to be in Avalon Mists but I'm tired of waiting. A stand-alone tale not necessarily part of my ongoing saga, in which an evil of the past reaches out for modern-day Manhattan. Other news includes a look at the cover of my new book (Silver Doorway #3: An Elf's Adventure, with cover art by our own CrzyDemona), the latest issue of Sabledrake Magazine, a chance to vote on one of my Literotica tales, and more! Click or go to http://www.eskimo.com/~vecna/new_stuff.html
Christine - [christine@sabledrake.com]
Friday, February 6, 2004 11:46:15 AM
IP: 208.187.159.223

fire storm>> <<Hey all! Can anyone who has a non-IE6 browser check out my link and tell me if everything loads ok? (You don't have to actually check out the stories, just the navigation)>> the new logos for the series dont show up (they show the old ones.. except for the BG one which shows up fine) and theres some links missing on the side.
i like your summary for BG tho ;) i dont really know what its going to say - if indeed it will say anything. ill get back to you on that.
the page itself seems to WORK fine though. thats with netscape 6. i was using my usual IE to check out some photos in a gallery from a-kon last year looking for new pics of my Robin costume - and was assaulted by so many porn popups (they werent even for tentacles OR anime, what a let-down!) that it actaully crashed my computer and IE refuses to work now. gives a nice impression for the con this year :P.
sucks extra because netscape has decided to be nice and buggy, too. tried re-installing IE but that doesnt work either. arg. i art doomed.
lain
Friday, February 6, 2004 04:24:01 AM
IP: 4.7.35.8

Gside - <trick the old function into working like you want> I gave up trying to trick it so I rearranged the arrays to be next to each other. <If default functions have limited usability, that's usually because they're made to be fast.> Hehe. Thankfully, scanning a 36 by 216 array doesn't take too long for a computer. But scanning it by eye to find a cell with no numbers in it is rather . . tedious.

Silvadel - Already got the answer. 252 maximum possible variations on the sum achieved by rolling 5 dice [each with 6 sides on each dice and containing the same numbers on the sides] and counting the number rolled on each dice. And, more importantly, I predicted that answer ahead of time so I know how the pattern works, not that I'm inclined whatsoever to do that with 6 dice. Setting the spreadsheet up isn't the problem; the problem keeping your head straight for which combinations you've gone through. Not to mention file size. My workbook can handle 2 dice, 3 dice, 4 dice, and 5 dice, and it's just over 500 KB. It was under 200 KB before I added the spreadsheet for 5 dice.

Bud-Clare - <Could be your tv.> It can't be my tv since I played the dvd on my pc and watched it on my computer monitor.

I've also discovered, today, that apparantly dvd-roms aren't supposed to get dust on them because nobody sells stuff to clean dvds or cds with. I rented a DVD that kept repeating every 30 seconds or so while watching a movie. Somehow, I doubt that was scratches, but I'm going to apply stuff to fix stratches to see if that helps.

Fire Storm - There seems to be missing some links to various areas like Picture Archive and Resources Page. I get no errors running the page with NC 4.7.

Hmm. Where's Imzadi so he can make a post?

DPH
AR, USA
Friday, February 6, 2004 01:03:05 AM
IP: 204.94.193.30

I spend most of the evening cooking dirt. Ah, the odd things you do in the name of science.

DPH> <>: So combine your arrays first. Either make your own function or trick the old function into working like you want, but don't complain about what they give you. If default functions have limited usability, that's usually because they're made to be fast.

Gabriel> <<that book wasn't political at all>>: The big endian/little endian thing is so very political, even though the terminology has been resurected to refer to byte ordering.

Fire Storm> <<Can anyone who has a non-IE6 browser check out my link and tell me if everything loads ok?>>: Looking good (Mozilla 1.6). But as long as the php generates generic enough code, you shouldn't have to worry about compatability, as the php should be preprocessed on the server.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Friday, February 6, 2004 12:12:23 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Fire Storm:<< Can anyone who has a non-IE6 browser check out my link and tell me if everything loads ok?>>

Everything seems to work in Opera 7 & Mozilla.
Leo
Thursday, February 5, 2004 07:54:12 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Fire Storm> Looks fine.
Bud-Clare
Thursday, February 5, 2004 07:40:22 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Speaking of code...

Hey all! Can anyone who has a non-IE6 browser check out my link and tell me if everything loads ok? (You don't have to actually check out the stories, just the navigation)

Thanx.
Fire Storm - [<--- TGS site BETA]
Thursday, February 5, 2004 05:09:44 PM
IP: 68.250.42.61

DPH:

The answer you want is 1 5 15 35 70 126 205 305 420 540 651 735 780 780 735 651 540 420 305 205 126 70 35 15 5 1...

I just bashed together a program really fast to do it...

var x,x2:array[1..100] of integer;
l,l2:integer;
begin
for l:=1 to 100 do x[l]:=0;
x[51]:=1;
for l2:=1 to 5 do begin
for l:=4 to 96 do x2[l]:=x[l-2]+x[l-1]+x[l]+x[l+1]+x[l+2]+x[l+3];
for l:=1 to 100 do x[l]:=x2[l];
for l:=1 to 100 do write(x[l],' ');
writeln;
end;
end.

silvadel
Thursday, February 5, 2004 03:55:50 PM
IP: 24.225.133.251

DPH -- actually that kind of thing is best done manually... It is a very easy task to make a triangle for the sum of dice of any sort... You know the basic one for probabilities that goes 1, 1 1, 1 2 1, 1 3 3 1, 1 4 6 4 1 ... etc...

The one for dice simply sums more left and right... IE
1, 1 1 1 1 1 1, 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1, 1 3 6 10 15 21 25 27 27 25 21 15 10 6 3 1 ...

You could write a simple computer program to do the same thing knowing the principle... sum the 3 to the left and 3 to the right from each table assuming all 0s to the right and left of the whole pyramid.

For a 4 sided die it would be 2 to the left and 2 to the right... What is cute about this is it is easy to make a table that is say the sum of 2d4+3d6.
silvadel
Thursday, February 5, 2004 03:41:21 PM
IP: 24.225.133.251

Gabriel> <>
*sighs* I had to tear up a check yesterday and write another one, since I tried writing my first name twice. (Ooo... Morgan Morgan. *L*)
Bud-Clare
Thursday, February 5, 2004 11:06:55 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

*sigh* I can't even spell my name.
Gabriel
Thursday, February 5, 2004 10:16:22 AM
IP: 129.120.47.29

Kai> <<That's like trying to say "Gulliver's Travels" had "hidden political commentary.">>

Well, in my mind, that book wasn't political at all. It was moreso a harsh critique of the dangers of the burgeoing [sic] acceptance of modern science and it's desire for a mathamatized and techonological society (or at least what would have been seen as one in the 18th centurey.
Gsbriel
Thursday, February 5, 2004 10:16:04 AM
IP: 129.120.47.29

DPH> <>
Could be your tv. My parents had a tv once that had wonky color. (I always used to set the tv's color while watching star trek, since I knew what colors the uniforms and such should be, but that one tv was hopeless. Red, in fact.)

Gside> <<You don't have to come for the con, but for the people you know online who are also going.>>
Also, it's an excuse to visit interesting places. I'd love to visit Montreal, but I don't know if I'll be able to.
Bud-Clare
Thursday, February 5, 2004 09:08:53 AM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Krista - <Wow. I've never seen the room so full w/ just one day of posts!> I've seen it more full than today.

Kathy - <Wizard of Oz was shot in Sepia (the brown color) and Color making it one of the first technicolor and first two tone movies ever.> Ahh.

Todd - <Has yahoogroups been having trouble recently?> That's the wrong question. The real question is what kind of trouble is yahoogroups having at the moment. <but lately some of the messages on the lists haven't reached our inboxes. Is there some difficulty with the host going on?> Sadly, that's normal behavior for yahoo groups. I know a place to ask questions and learn, but somehow I doubt either of you would have a time to weed through all the emails. (Todd, if you remember how many messages TGS used to have at its peak, for this group, that's normal/below average.) The amount of emails in the group is directly propertional to the amount of problems yahoogroups is having at any given time. If you guys need help with list management issues, I'll be glad to help, especially making the group spammer proof. PS. Yahoogroups changed things again. Don't trust anything yahoo groups says is spam, since in fact, all of legitimate email is being marked as spam by yahoo groups.

I'm getting upset with Microshaft Excel. Why? I keep running into this stupid problem with the SMALL function. I can only use one array as an argument. I want it to scan *6* arrays to determine the 2nd smallest number, but I can only do one array at a time. It wouldn't be a problem, except, I'm also trying to find the 34d, 4th, 5th, etc smallest number and each array contains columns and rows from a different page. In case anybody cares, I'm playing around with the sum of numbers achieving by rolling various numbers of dice. Of course, in my system, I can put any number on one of the dice and since all my dice are identical, it gets quite interesting. (PS. it's the sum of the rolls of 5 dice that's a problem because there's so many possibilities)

Kaito - Thanks for the information. I remember hearing it in a class on US Politics, but I couldn't get all the information straight.

Anonymous - 1st, I have trouble spelling anonymous. <Don't know much about the movie. Is it any good?> let me think . . you get to hear the origin of "Yea, yea, the witch is dead". Is it worth watching? depends on your taste. I don't believe it's worth buying, though.

That's my real problem, though. I like to watch movies once or twice, but don't want to buy. I've heard technologoy where you can rent a movie and after so many views, it will . . self-destruct.

Gside - <a shade of brown with a tinge of red> I consider what I saw to be more reddish than brown.
DPH
AR, USA
Thursday, February 5, 2004 01:39:12 AM
IP: 204.94.193.50

Lynati> <<is there anyone whom you can point me to who does?>>: I believe the best bet would be on the animemusicvideos.org forums. There's a section dedicated to video software, which has a list of possible programs. The first two free ones I saw were DDClip and MovieXone, but they're probably not much better than windows movie maker.

DPH> <<the scenes in "Kansas" came off as reddish, maybe brown>>: Sepia: noun: rich brown pigment prepared from the ink of cuttlefishes, noun: a shade of brown with a tinge of red. Old photographs used to be in sepia tone, and many artists still like working with that color range.

Z> You don't have to come for the con, but for the people you know online who are also going.

Krista> <<I've never seen the room so full w/ just one day of posts>>: This is still rather slow. A quick glance at the archives should show you the verbosity of olden times.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:49:28 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

Wow. I've never seen the room so full w/ just one day of posts!
Krista
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 07:22:09 PM
IP: 68.116.254.201

Todd > There was a message from Yahoo the other day that said due to the number of virus laden messages with simple headings: hi, hello, file for you, etc. and so on they were going to start bouncing them automatically. Could that be part of your problem. If the mail isn't being mailed to your box you might try going to your group site and see if the mail is there. Usually, it shows up in the archive before it goes to individual boxes anyhow.

Wizard of Oz was shot in Sepia (the brown color) and Color making it one of the first technicolor and first two tone movies ever.

Z - There's much more to the Gathering than just Gargoyles. There's hanging out with the people you chat with all year long and all sorts of assorted hijinks. Give it a try.

Don't forget! All Phoenix Gate Anthology entries - art and stories due March 1st.

kathy
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 07:19:19 PM
IP: 66.82.193.105

Has yahoogroups been having trouble recently? Ed Reynolds and I have currently set up a mailing list hosted by yahoogroups to discuss a project that we're currently working on together (which we began after we resigned from TGS), but lately some of the messages on the lists haven't reached our inboxes. Is there some difficulty with the host going on?
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 06:49:45 PM
IP: 63.186.0.183

Hey hate to repost, but has there been any word on what greg Weisman wanted with the info on gargoyles?
i mean with family guy coming back it would no longer be unheard of for an animated series to start back up!!
Damien
Canada EH!!!Wednesday, February 4, 2004 06:00:44 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

Lyanti - <Come to the Gathering 2004> Along with the fact that I have zero free time, I wouldn't consider myself enough of a fanatic.

Question - Thanks for that info on Greg's plan.

Peace
Z
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 06:00:35 PM
IP: 67.67.120.140

Interesting comments on the Wizard Of Oz, but it gets me to wondering: What would the book be like if it had been made today instead of back then. Perhaps the slippers would have "In God We Trust" printed on them walking down a road of dollars.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 02:52:36 PM
IP: 66.103.238.107

The political commentary in "The Wizard of Oz" wasn't exactly hidden.

That's like trying to say "Gulliver's Travels" had "hidden political commentary."

The movie discards pretty much all the core political commentary behind the literature in order to make a more marketable fantasy out of it (complete with musical numbers etc.).

For instance, the Magic Slippers aren't Ruby at all. They are silver. The idea of currency expansion backed by silver vs. retaining the old gold-standard only currency was a huge issue when the "Wizard of Oz" was written. Hence, walking the yellow brick road (gold) with silver slippers had an obvious message behind it.

And yes, all the characters were representatives of demographics (urban factory workers, midwestern farmers, etc.) back in a day when people actually bothered to turn out ot vote.

Kaioto - [kaioto@yahoo.com]
Boston, MA, USA
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 01:06:21 PM
IP: 208.204.155.241

Todd - The scenes in "Oz" were completely in color, while the scenes in "Kansas" came off as reddish, maybe brown.
DPH
AR, USA
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 12:07:43 PM
IP: 161.31.104.186

Anonymous, I think the Tinman represents William Jennings Bryan and the silver standard and the Cowardly Lion represent Theodore Roosevelt. Personally, I think its reading a little too much in to the fantasy.
Taleweaver
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 10:04:09 AM
IP: 66.81.250.184

DPH - Where are you getting the "lots of red in the scenes in Kansas" from? All the Kansas scenes in the movie were shot in sepia. Unless you've been watching some horrible new version where they colorized those scenes.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 08:54:53 AM
IP: 63.186.1.2

<Oh yea, I remember hearing that "Wizard of Oz" had a hidden political agenda. Anybody know anything about that?>

For the book there has been talk that the yellow brick road=gold standard, Emerald City=DC, Wizard=President, Scarecrow&Tinman=farmer&worker and that the book is nothing, but a political allegory representing William Jennings Bryan's(Cowardly Lion) political ideology which had some of Baum's sympathies. Don't know much about the movie. Is it any good?
Anonymous
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 02:45:16 AM
IP: 144.92.164.204

Taleweaver - <My hat off to anyone who can keep the burgeoning cast of thousands straight.> *tries to figure out whom Taleweaver is talking about* Nobody, to my knowledge, has a comphrehensive list of all those characters who have shown up. This list is pretty much from season 1 of the main series. There are a few categories of characters that I wanted to have but I didn't end with names to fill those categories so those categories were dropped. Thousands? I am fairly sure that I passed 100 characters listed in the main series, but I'm not positive. <Looks like it could use a proofreading though.> Well, there's still more to come. Pointing out mistakes is welcome.

I'm just taking materials that have already been prepared. Aside from the Guide to TGS Hot Spots and TGS Guide to Gargoyle Clans (which I created), I haven't created any new content yet. I can think of lots of thing to put on the Resources Page, but literally, time (and the size of the task) is the issue. Yes, if people want to volunteer to help with TGS Resources Page, more stuff can be done faster.

Gside - < Not much, just an extra day to liven up calendars taken from old superstitions.> no, it isn't. It's an extremely important holiday. <The traditional celebration is > And you can expand on that tradition by sending money to people whose birthday is on that holiday.

How many people want to see another president from the small state of Arkansas? Good, let's hope Clark doesn't win the Democratic nomination for president.

If black cats are supposed to be bad luck, then why does mine come to me when he is injuried?

I got a test on Friday involving MS Excel. Hehehehehe. I will make fun of my college. The class is called "Decision Support Technologies", but all it covers is Excel and Access. I really don't like the text-book because all it is is step-by-step instructions on how to do stuff. That kind of textbook . . lends itself to downgrading the qualifications of the teacher for the class. If you're going to have a textbook that's step by step instructions, then all you really need is a supervisor to keep the students on task, not a teacher.

I calculated my age and I don't like it. I consider myself younger than my biological age. Oh well.

Joe - <does anyone know when gargoyles season 4 is coming out or have any ideas???> I have an idea. Sometime after all of the stories have been written and edited.

Yesterday, I watched "The Wizard of Oz". Why are the scenes in Kansas dominated by so much red? Oh yea, I remember hearing that "Wizard of Oz" had a hidden political agenda. Anybody know anything about that?

I checked my semester schedule. Finals are the last week of April. It seems like a very short period of time. A while back, my college has the longest fall semester in the state and because it had the longest it was cut. (still let out for Christmas vacation) Why do I get the feeling that colleges want students to learn as much info as possible in as little time as possible? I do like longer semesters because it allows for more in-depth studies and classes like World History and computer programming languages really do need the extra time.

Speaking of that, I have a night class that is supposed to meet for 3 hours a week. The teacher has promised to always let the class out after 2-2.5 hours. I'm betting that I'm the only one in the room who feels that's cheating the students.

I've been thinking about acquiring a juice maker - one that can handle carrots and celery - , but I'm concerned that given my nature, I'll burn it out somehow by overloading it. I really do love fruit juice - aside from pineapple which tasted so sour I can't stand it - and I'm thinking it's cheaper to buy a juice maker and the fruit than to buy the fruit juice already made.
DPH
AR, USA
Wednesday, February 4, 2004 12:55:10 AM
IP: 204.94.193.10

Gside: I'm not knowledgable on the subject to know what to look for...is there anyone whom you can point me to who does?
Lynati
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 11:51:19 PM
IP: 65.64.101.238

Trok> <<What's the Groundhog's Day?>>: Not much, just an extra day to liven up calendars taken from old superstitions. The traditional celebration is to just notice the extra text on your calendar and tell yourself, "Oh yeah, it's Groundhog Day, isn't it?" Or watch the movie (the concept of which has nothing to do with groundhogs).

Lynati> <<Windows Movie Maker (which is sadly the best option I have on my computer>>: There aren't any passable freeware/trial versions to download? Or, dare I say it, a warez site to check out?

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 11:37:26 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

TGS Resource Site> Pretty good. My hat off to anyone who can keep the burgeoning cast of thousands straight. Looks like it could use a proofreading though.

Anyways, I've got to jet.
Taleweaver
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 09:30:02 PM
IP: 66.81.253.81

ground hog day>In the US GH day is on feb 2nd. If the GH sees his shadow then there is going to be 6 more weeks of winter. If the GH doesn't see his shadow then there is going to be an early spring.
kjay - [korimia.j.hall@us.army.mil]
fort bliss, tx, usa
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 07:55:07 PM
IP: 172.171.0.215

Joe: I do!!!
Lynati
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 07:09:49 PM
IP: 65.66.152.169

does anyone know when gargoyles season 4 is coming out or have any ideas???
Joe
NY, NY, USA
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 04:13:12 PM
IP: 64.115.128.130

Bloody "L"
fixes to my last post Greg means "Greg Weisman" and "ohand" should be "oh and"
ahh 2 posts one day 2 posts one day
(melts)
Damien
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 01:13:12 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

Hey its me again, any word yet about what greg wanted the stuff for?
ohand 17th unique post to boot!
btw groundhogs day is a north american tradition (we have it in canada too) where we work of the assumption that is the groundhog (a critter that tooks like a cross between a badger and a squirrel) see's his shadow, it means 8 more weeks of winter, and if he doesn't its spring or something like that
Damien
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 01:10:44 PM
IP: 207.6.149.113

[No chance of encoding it in DivX, XviD, or even mpeg?]
Frankly, I don't think Windows Movie Maker (which is sadly the best option I have on my computer) gives saving in that format as an option. But I can't be the only one out here with this problem...there is some software out there that allows you to convert, isn't there?

Lynati
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 11:32:54 AM
IP: 65.66.152.169

Hi you all!
What's the Groundhog's Day?
I'm not american and I think I don't know about it.
Thanks
TheTrok
Pamplna, Spain
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:20:07 AM
IP: 130.206.158.236

Lynati> <<anyone knwo how to make two WMV files think they are one?>>: No chance of encoding it in DivX, XviD, or even mpeg?

DPH> <<Thank you for remembering>>: After all the numerological rigamorale you put us through in the past, and the recent reminder, it's not that hard.
<<Montage (spelling?)>>: Montague.
<<what did Montage (spelling?) ever see in his wife?>>: They never go into it, but I'd assume he started out as a normal, vapid member of that society, but his constant contact with books piqued his curiosity to get him started actually thinking.
<<The way I saw her in the movie made me think she was a complete . . . *searches for right words* . . . dumb blonde>>: Which was the point of her character, and all the other allegely normal characters.

Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 01:48:20 AM
IP: 68.37.159.199

QUESTION> In season3,there was a little story called "The Council". The answer should be there.
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 01:47:33 AM
IP: 216.179.3.220

In Season 2 of the Saga, Madoc found 12 gargoyle clans minus the one on Avalon and the Labyrinth clan that he thought that he destroyed so what exactly happened to them? Were they smashed by the Unseelies in their global assault?
Question
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 01:10:31 AM
IP: 144.92.164.197

I hate Groundhog's Day. AND I have a very good reason too...
So! I want to hear more about the Gargoyle Phantom of the Opera dream! It sounded so interesting!
Krista
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 12:17:36 AM
IP: 68.116.254.201

13th! Ha ha! Oooh, that's how old I turn on April Fool's day! Can't wait!
l8r
Krista
Tuesday, February 3, 2004 12:15:33 AM
IP: 68.116.254.201

How dare the TGS CR forget the most important holiday of the year. This holiday is whole level more important than Christmas and Halloween *combined*. I am, of course, speaking of the all important holiday of Ground Hog's Day.

How dare my computer forget to give an easy victories in games and forget to be extremely stable on this all important holiday.

How dare dare spammers send spam to *my* email addresses on this extremely important (obviously underappreciated) holiday.

Gside - <Happy Birthday.> Thank you for remembering.

At least my visit to the chiropractor was good today. He has an intern who happens to be one of the people I graduated high school with me.

Saturday (or was it Sunday), I calculated my age and grasped the significance of it. I got to hurry up. Quite a few years ago, I made a bet with my brother than I'd move out of my dad's house before he did, agewise. He moved out when he got married, so I got our age difference to help me.

I watched Fahrenheit 451 over the weekend. The movie followed the same format as the book "1984", which I didn't enjoy that much. I just have one incredibly stupid question: what did Montage (spelling?) ever see in his wife? The way I saw her in the movie made me think she was a complete . . . *searches for right words* . . . dumb blonde (no offense intended, that's the way I viewed her in the movie).

I'm off to watch "The Wizard of Oz".
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, February 2, 2004 10:11:54 PM
IP: 204.94.193.24

TGS proudly presents . . the first of many updates to the Resources Page. This update adds a Comphrensive TGS timeline as well as a listing of several characters who have appeared in "Gargoyles" series.
DPH - [<--Click here to view the Resource Page]
AR, USA
Monday, February 2, 2004 09:46:57 PM
IP: 204.94.193.24

Diez! *phew* just made it. :D
Dezi
Monday, February 2, 2004 09:05:22 PM
IP: 68.58.158.101

9th.
Na zdorov'ya.
Gside - [gside@comcast.net]
Fair Haven, NJ
Monday, February 2, 2004 08:48:37 PM
IP: 68.37.159.199

8th.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Monday, February 2, 2004 08:46:08 PM
IP: 63.186.1.110

7th!
kathy
Monday, February 2, 2004 08:30:58 PM
IP: 66.82.193.105

6th.
Leo
Monday, February 2, 2004 08:18:35 PM
IP: 68.96.8.12

Fifth in the name of my new gargie AMV.

anyone knwo how to make two WMV files think they are one? My computer wouldn't produce it as a single file... : (
Lynati
Monday, February 2, 2004 08:06:33 PM
IP: 65.64.102.137

Fourth?
Bud-Clare
Monday, February 2, 2004 07:36:28 PM
IP: 66.67.201.63

Woah. Third.
Ed
Monday, February 2, 2004 07:34:55 PM
IP: 131.111.8.96

... now go away, or I shall taunt you a

SECOND TIME!!!

<Pttttth!> ^_^

Stephen R. Sobotka Jr.
Monday, February 2, 2004 07:29:04 PM
IP: 24.164.32.253

FIRST!
Fire Storm and Lady Mystic
Monday, February 2, 2004 07:13:16 PM
IP: 68.249.239.31