And for a third time today parnel posts the "lavender bund" comment in the other thread about him in the Only Randy Petersen forum.

I'm beginning to think there's some malice intended with this use of terminology.

d

[This message has been edited by Doppy (edited 08-07-2003).]

If you don't already know, you're really not the kind of person we would like to see as a member. Sorry.

As Randy will clearly see there is a clear connection of my strong dissent to SS marriages and the level of complaints by those who pursue the dream of it becoming legal. Pretty childish stuff I'd say particularly when I have kept my remarks on the the SS thread fairly calm and reasoned even with the hysterical rants of Guava.
Me thinks you are all too obvious in your "heterophobia" and Randy should take note of this.
Just goes to make me even more a believer that that the g/l lobby and its FT proponents has used this forum among others to further their goals of by passing political openness and fair play.
The truth will "out".

I didn't say anything on this thread until you started running around posting pejorative labels about homosexual FT members. You were the one who has posted the equivalent of "cracker" and "negro" thrice today. Pretty childish, if you ask me, not to mention inappropriate conduct.

Stick to debating issues and reasoning, not debating groups that you refer to derogatorily. That's fair play.

d

So are you suggesting that it's acceptable for members to be making personal attacks on other members?

d

Quote by doppy:
I didn't say anything on this thread until you started running around posting pejorative labels about homosexual FT members. You were the one who has posted the equivalent of "cracker" and "negro" thrice today. Pretty childish, if you ask me, not to mention inappropriate conduct.

Stick to debating issues and reasoning, not debating groups that you refer to derogatorily. That's fair play
_____________________________________________

Say what???----doppy you underestimate me--what are the perjorative comments about gays that I made--please explain.I ask you to reconsider your accusations--I have been more than polite with you and respectd your views. So give me facts please.
I have more than reasoned with you on the issues and would expect the same.
Also tell your friends Guava and Maple leaf what fair play is--they only rant and try hard to discredit my views by going thru Randy P's forum, etc. Their childish behavior is demeaning to the G/L community.
You at least have maintained decorum even though we mightily disagree. As for Guava/ML you should be ashamed of them being part of your community.

Like everyone else he is fed up with the rants of the gay community demanding rights that are not theirs to have and their continuos whining about them.
As I stated earlier---sometimes staying below the radar screens is better---but then again you have Guava and Maple Leaf(who represents our flag badly) who like to create chaos and make every attempt to get various people to discredit me, which is fine because it enhances my reputation as someone who stands up for his beliefs.And as shown they look very bad. So be it.

I might also add it is nice to have this notoriety and fame here--hope Randy notices this as a positive thing,since I am such a positive guy.

Sure, just reference any of the emotional and inflammatory messages directed at homosexual FT members posted today, particularly the ones where you pejoratively refer to homosexual FT members as the "lavender bund."

Considering you've posted several of these messages as part of your tear today, I think it should be more than clear.

Like I said before, one message, not a big deal. But then when the post numbers, in the same day, add up, it starts to look like malice.

I think you were using the whole "lavender bund" comment as a personal attack on FT members. It may have a reasonable use, but just like the "n" word when referring to African Americans is acceptable sometimes and pejorative others, I believe your use of the "lavender bund" was most certainly the latter.

Case in point about the personal attacks is just two posts above mine:

And three posts above:

And from the AC thread:

I know Randy isn't particularly fond of getting involved in OMNI, and I respect that opinion, so I won't post any of the similarly charged parnel posts of the day from there. I think the posts in Randy's forum and the AC forum are sufficient to get my point across.

Like I said above, I didn't get involved in this thread until the tear parnel went on today in at least three fora. Disagreement is fine, several inflammatory and pejorative posts about certain individual and group FT members in one day is over the line, IMO.

d

IMO, some FTer's have reputations which precede them and any of their posts, so when you see their names, you don't feel a need to expect much more from their posts than fire and brimstone, followed by namecalling, whining and the use of pejoratives (like "lavender bund"). Archie Bunker comes to mind. Perhaps that's the best any of us can reasonably expect from people like that - who knows. I often find myself snickering at their posts. ("just you wait!!" "see you on the battlefield!" )

Furthermore, if you look closely at the threads in which they participate, you see that their positions typically go almost totally without support from other members for whatever reason (embarrassment? shame? confusion?), and they fail to provide reasoning, to carry on a debate civilly at all times or to provide substantiation for their assertions in the face of repeated polite requests from other members. That's fine, but then we can all see it for what it is, can't we?

If I were forced to make a generalization, I would submit that posts from members like that do not deserve serious consideration from those who oppose them on any given issue, really, and no one should ever feel the need to feel threatened by whatever it is they are saying.

Thank you.

quote by doppy:
Like I said above, I didn't get involved in this thread until the tear parnel went on today in at least three fora. Disagreement is fine, several inflammatory and pejorative posts about certain individual and group FT members in one day is over the line, IMO
_____________________________________________
What is inflammatory here--please explain further. Is this the opposite of being called a homophobe or a dinosour or whatever you choose to call me. I use names as means of identifying the group i am up against in debate. Please tell me what is demeaning in my stuff that is not retalitory or defending my views. Lavender bund is possibly an endearing phrase depending on your point of view.
Where is the line Doppy--it always moves as far as I can see. And in any discussion as heated as this emotions begin to show at times because I don't back off my position which enrages certain members.

As I have said earlier and often--the G/L community thought they had a clear run to sneaking in their agenda and are seriously pissed there is opposition and that it is growing. I am a leader of that opposition and proud to be so and will continue to speak logically and passionately for my beliefs.I will not be censored by jerks who try defame me or insult me.
I have thick skin and am very much a believer in the people having a full say in societal change and will assit that event as it pertains to SS marriage.

My email box has been so full of support today( over 30 emails) that I cannot believe ther are so many people who support my position but don't want the hassle I get from the likes of ML and Guava with their "leather insults" and the name calling for being anti SS marriage.
You personally are ok but are almost alone in your decency. I say it again that I have been seriously attacked here personally but have tried to overlook it and stick to my principles but keep getting derailed by those bent on trying to eliminate me---won't happen!!

Re running to Daddy (aka Only Randy Peterson) with the comments on Parnel's comments...

"If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck, then it must be a duck." Senator Joseph McCarthy...

As one of the older posters here, among my earliest memories are watching the Army-McCarthy hearings on television in the early 1950s.

I'm just a simple retired guy who inhabits FT because he is interested mainly in getting the best possible deals in airfares; however...

As an erstwhile libertarian(http://www.libertarian.org/) I not only find myself within a distinct minority, particularly in Canada, but have "no problem" with gay marriage. That doesn't mean I want to hear a lot about the details of ANY sexual relationship.

I have long since concluded that there is a "McCarthyism" of the left. Within the very recent past, courts have shot down Texas sodomy laws and in Canada have opened the door to gay marriage. Somebody said it in Latin a lot more elegantly, but the crude translation is, "When you've got what you want, shut up."

What do you want now? Should Parnel be shipped off to a re-education camp? Should he be banned from FT? Is that really your intent? Should only "right thinking" people (i.e. those of your persuasion) be allowed to offer their opinions on FT or elsewhere? Do you want somebody "in charge," (in this case Randy) to verify that Parnel should forever be banished to NeverLand?

Do you feel good that you are utilizing the same techniques of debate as those who opposed (and even persecuted) gays for so long? If so, at least you understand what you're doing. If not, think about it...

Cheers,
Fredd

As a libertarian, I'm completely fine with people having a different opinion than me. And I'm fine with them living their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not try to dictate to me how I can live my life. And I even enjoy discussing and debating with people who have different opinions. It's a great way to learn.

So long as that discussion is civil. I do not believe parnel's comments and pejorative references fall within the definition of civil. I've outlined some of them on the previous page, and I think they speak for themselves. I didn't start this thread or even get involved until parnel posted such a significant number of pejorative and inflammatory comments in one single day.

The techniques of debate I use are logic and reason. I am not upset at parnel because of anything related to the topics of discussion we have posted on, I'm upset at his pejorative and inflammatory posting, plus multipe personal attacks. These are not conducive to intelligent discussion and are violations of the FT TOS.

d

"So long as that discussion is civil.

It is to weep...

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood."

Try as you might, Doppy, you will NOT be receiving an invitation to join the Lavender Bund. I understand from the Executive Vice President that you have been blackballed by another senior officer. So sorry.