Guest guest Posted April 1, 2001 Report Share Posted April 1, 2001 Om, midnight_omboy, Blessed Self<br><br>This Brahmacharya thread started with Post 7116 and was moving along quite nicely.<br> <br>In your Post 7228, you state, "...since this discussion was *spawned* within the context of anti-gay stereotyping,...". This is the first mention of 'gay' or any related terms or references in the thread. So it is you who introduced an irrelevent topic in to the thread. <br><br>I trust that you will not see this as himsa but as merely setting the record.<br><br>Let's move on to a new topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2001 Report Share Posted April 1, 2001 Actually my post 7116, to which you refer, was in reference to the ongoing discussion of brahmacharya, which began with msg 7072, where brahmacharya was introduced as a weapon in the gay-bashing festival already in progress. <br><br>New topics may be started by anyone at anytime. Any number of topics may be discussed simultaneously. <br><br>Peace to all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2001 Report Share Posted April 1, 2001 To be sure, message 7116 is also the best one on the brahmacharya issue I have read so far.<br><br>Thank you so much, TLS, for sharing your insights on this board! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2001 Report Share Posted April 1, 2001 BTW, this time, message 7242 is not an April Fools' Day trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2001 Report Share Posted April 2, 2001 Slade, you PC fool.<br>My post about bramacharya was introduced in response to padmanow's pissy retort to screwgee's honest admission of discomfort with references to anal sex. KPJ's take on brahmacharya is strong stuff, and if you define "gayness" by sexual behavior, gee I guess he does discriminate.<br>karinnesq did not enter this world to win any popularity contests, but to churn the ether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 2, 2001 Report Share Posted April 2, 2001 Alrighty then.<br>If you gotta churn you gotta churn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2001 Report Share Posted April 3, 2001 nice try. confusing the issue by changing subject headings in the middle of offensive comments may serve to confuse the casual onlooker, your apparent purpose. good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 << screwgee was the one to introduce the topic of his annoyance at his imagined sexual activity of others. >><br><br>Sorry, but isn't screwgee a lady? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Shiny, in an haute gay world where even the simplest abbreviations are sexually objectified, there is no place for women.<br><br>A shivering hairless chihuahua has been yapping and crapping on this board. #23, please throw it a bone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Why do you, and others here such as TSlade, consider a comment on your commment about "huge orifices" to be perjorative? Or as Slade put it, "gay bashing"?<br><br>Be honest now. Did you really mean your original comments in a non-sexual way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 Hi K<br><br>sorry im not trying to be an ingenue but youve lost me.<br><br>im too tired for all this. can we all just let it go and accept people is people is. . . <br><br>. . . and what i do with my bone is my business (oh damn, couldnt help myself)<br><br>#23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 <<<<<Why do you, and others here such as TSlade, consider a comment on your commment about "huge orifices" to be perjorative? Or as Slade put it, "gay bashing"?>>>>><br><br>to rephrase things to suit your current specious argument will not resolve the issue.<br><br><<<<<Be honest now.>>>>><br><br>always am. you should try it sometime. liberating. satya. contemplate satya. <br><br><<<<<Did you really mean your original comments in a non-sexual way?>>>>><br><br>of course. and it was obvious. the discussion was of internet abbreviations, which i find deliciously nerdy. i even said it is especially useful when the author is disagreeable to see his or her use of "IMO" to indicate not "in my opinion" but "in my orifice." my meaning was clear: that any execrable opinion expressed accompanied by "IMO" could be considered to be on par with excretia. an offhand, lighthearted comment directed at no one, in the context of a topic introduced by another, and hardly offensive within the general goings on here. <br><br>from this you and the voices in your head went the many steps required to make the the utterly farfetched claim that i was somehow interjecting the dreaded "gay" topic into your otherwise gay-free mind fluctuations. apparently you had visited my website, deduced that i am gay, and waited for any excuse to express your displeasure here. others with a "your team/my team" attitude joined in, with the usual charming epithets.<br><br>"orifice" is no more a gay word than "moolabandha," unless of course a gay person utters it, right? rather begs the question: even if i had deliberately introduced a specifically gay-related topic, why should that be the cause of accusation and vitriolic attack? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2001 Report Share Posted April 4, 2001 <<<<<Shiny, in an haute gay world where even the simplest abbreviations are sexually objectified, there is no place for women.>>>>><br><br>sniff. sorry he left you. the love your life, so perfect in every way, soft-spoken, gentle, loved to shop, big sister with a vas deferens, and then one day >poof< he was gone. don't judge all of us by that sad star-crossed love affair of your youth. perhaps in a world ruled by satya, by ashtanga yoga philosophy, where people are allowed to grow up honestly expressing their true nature without fear of attacks from out of the woodwork, such tragedy could be avoided.<br><br><<<<<A shivering hairless chihuahua has been yapping and crapping on this board. #23, please throw it a bone.>>>>><br><br>but now can see why he (or any other man or woman) would have fled into the night. your attempted forays into creative writing are beginning to convince me that you are indeed the lawyer you claim to be. one day perhaps you will place a name and a face next to your garden variety gay-hating snipes, and join the ranks of other proud bigots such as those on the george bush cabinet. "crapping chihuahua" is cute, but why must you always see everything through the prism of your copro-/zoophilia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2001 Report Share Posted April 5, 2001 <<Shiny, in an haute gay world where even the simplest abbreviations are sexually objectified, there is no place for women.>><br><br>If you are referring to the infamous IMO-incident, I hope you or anybody won't infect the board with the utterly stupid political correctness BS (bullshit). Keep your national problems within the US, don't spread them around international discussion boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2001 Report Share Posted April 6, 2001 ""orifice" is no more a gay word than "moolabandha," unless of course a gay person utters it, right? rather begs the question: even if i had deliberately introduced a specifically gay-related topic, why should that be the cause of accusation and vitriolic attack?"<br><br>The evidence of the "vitriolic attack" is somewhere in your imagination, and not found in any of posts here.<br><br>You were the one who invoked the O word, and we all know what you meant by it, Gay Studies Post Modernist apologetics notwithstanding.<br><br>As I pointed out, all the out Gay periodicals are out and out about being Out in graphic bodily references to Gay sex. Is there something wrong with this kind of explicit frankness? I didn't say there was...but by your protests, you seem to think so, the way you jumped right over "presumptious" to "Gay basher." <br><br>I really don't have any problem with you or anyone being gay. However, you do seem to be a punk, which is something else entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.