Ramblings Of An Old Man

[Dutch-NJ]

Listen up you schizophrenic fücktard.

Your incoherent ramblings are getting really goddamn annoying.

You said that it is not legal for an arranged marriage.

I said it is.

I don't know how the hell you figure we are saying the same thing.

My suggestion is that you hoist sail and depart these waters before someone turns their guns broadside on you.

I never said that, and you know it.

I said you can't legally force anyone to get married in America.

Now your trying to squirm out of your mis-statement, or at least create a smoke screen of name calling, foul language, and hollow threats.

Your mother must be proud of you.

 

[OhioTC18]

Dutch,
Get a life, but get it somewhere besides here.

 

[Junkman]

OK......... before this gets any further out of control, please,...... everyone, stop and think before you make any further posts. Remember the civility rule??? I rarely get involved, but this time I will. I am not taking sides, but caution all participants to cool your jets and lets get back on track. Junk.....

 

[Durwood RIP]

Wow, i have been reading this thread and i find it very interesting that Dutch is singled out when DaveNay can post whatever he wants and not one word against him. So this is the place that the TBNers can go for freedom of speech to get away from that bad old website that wont let you call someone a F*cktard and let you get away with it. I guess that was done with civility too. Personally i think that homosexiality is a spiritual problem, but what do i know. I'm only saying it is wrong because the creator who created them male and female said it is wrong. I never saw Dutch attack anyone here but those who don't agree with his point of view were allowed to say anything to him. Some downright vicious. Murph asked a while back why i hadn't been around lately in a thread and this is the reason. There seems to be a clique here that if you aren't a part of then you get a PM and asked not to come back. Certain people can say what they want but not others. It sure looked like Dutches posts were civil but not some of the others. But that doesn't seem to count if you don't agree with what he says. Too bad, it started out ok.

Dur

 

[Big Dog]

Wow, i have been reading this thread and i find it very interesting that Dutch is singled out when DaveNay can post whatever he wants and not one word against him. So this is the place that the TBNers can go for freedom of speech to get away from that bad old website that wont let you call someone a F*cktard and let you get away with it. I guess that was done with civility too. Personally i think that homosexiality is a spiritual problem, but what do i know. I'm only saying it is wrong because the creator who created them male and female said it is wrong. I never saw Dutch attack anyone here but those who don't agree with his point of view were allowed to say anything to him. Some downright vicious. Murph asked a while back why i hadn't been around lately in a thread and this is the reason. There seems to be a clique here that if you aren't a part of then you get a PM and asked not to come back. Certain people can say what they want but not others. It sure looked like Dutches posts were civil but not some of the others. But that doesn't seem to count if you don't agree with what he says. Too bad, it started out ok.

Dur

Some very good points made Dur.................!! Some could be a limiting factor to FF. I've learned this ain't Burger King.......

 

[Melensdad]

Unlike some people on this forum, if you offend me, I can defend myself. I don’t go secretly whining to moderators with my tales of woe. I may be a lot of things, but I’m not a sissy.

Well I am a moderator, I am not a bully, and I could care less if you tell the other moderators about your tales of woe.

. . . claiming that I’m “full of hot air” or that my opinions are “hooey” . . .

So many people have been nice about telling you that you are full of hot air that I figured it might just take a little blunt talk to get you to hear it.


Now as far as I am concerned, speaking in my official moderator capacity here, you are welcome to go, or you are welcome to stay. But I'd urge you to be a little less confrontational. Just because you shout the most does not mean you have any more valid of an opinion than the others here. And as you are new, you might want to read some of the older posts to get a feel for the attitudes and opinions of the other members.

Wow, i have been reading this thread and i find it very interesting that Dutch is singled out when DaveNay can post whatever he wants and not one word against him. . .

Slight flaw in your logic there since you have no idea what has been communicated to Dave or anyone else by the moderators. Believe what you choose to believe, but it may not be based on any semblence of reality.

 

[Cityboy]

Dutch,
Get a life, but get it somewhere besides here.

I have been extremely entertained with this thread up until this point. I don't post much, but I feel compelled to interject at this point. Who the hell do you think you are to tell Dutch to basically leave this forum? Comments like yours is what causes forums to fail.

No one got truly snarky until you and Dave Nay got involved. Why? What is it to you? If you want to participate, then participate with a well thought out comment. Why do you find it necessary to insult Dutch? You offered nothing of value to this thread with your posts.

 

[Cityboy]

Listen up you schizophrenic fücktard.

Your incoherent ramblings are getting really goddamn annoying.

You said that it is not legal for an arranged marriage.

I said it is.

I don't know how the hell you figure we are saying the same thing.

My suggestion is that you hoist sail and depart these waters before someone turns their guns broadside on you.

What kind of crap is this?! Schizophrenic fücktard? Talk about annoying. I think you are a pompous jackass Davenay. I ask you the same thing I asked Ohiotc18: Who the hell do you think you are? I do not think you are capable of "turning your guns broadside" on Dutch. Why in the world do some people here insist on running others off when they cannot argue logically with them? If this was my forum, you would be gone, Mr. Nay, not Dutch. Dutch has offered far more entertaining and logical posts than you ever have, and entertainment is what all forums are about. Why not participate with a well thought out reply instead of being the forum bully?

 

[Big Dog]

What kind of crap is this?! Schizophrenic fücktard? Talk about annoying. I think you are a pompous jackass Davenay. I ask you the same thing I asked Ohiotc18: Who the hell do you think you are? I do not think you are capable of "turning your guns broadside" on Dutch. Why in the world do some people here insist on running others off when they cannot argue logically with them? If this was my forum, you would be gone, Mr. Nay, not Dutch. Dutch has offered far more entertaining and logical posts than you ever have, and entertainment is what all forums are about. Why not participate with a well thought out reply instead of being the forum bully?

Again I have to agree with Cityboy.

I'd also like to add Bob coming to the rescue to FF's clique with no mention/reprimand of those discussed above. A major reason my post have dwindled and it's our ball mentality. If ever a reason to delete a thread.......THIS IS IT!

How come I always seem to side with the long shots???
I'll never get rich this way..............

 

[DaveNay]

Again I have to agree with Cityboy.

I feal an apology is in order. My comments got out of hand, and were totally uncalled for.

My apologies Dutch, I should not have reacted that way to a simple misunderstand of your comments.

My apologies to everyone else on FF also.

 

[Melensdad]

I'd also like to add Bob coming to the rescue to FF's clique with no mention/reprimand of those discussed above.

FWIW, despite your belief to the contrary, I did not come to the defense or jump in to rescue "FF's clique" but rather I stated my opinions.

Now if you would read my comment to Durwood, you would be able to intuit that in fact people did get communications from moderators requesting that civility be followed. What we do not do not like to do it do a lot of editing of posts, so if it is written then USUALLY it stays. Just because it stays does not mean that the person who wrote it was not taken to the proverbial woodshed.

What you seem to be asking us to do is publicly flog people, that is not something we will do as moderators. We will publicly ask people to do certain things. We will privately ask people to do certain things. We will privately tell people when they cross the line.

But we will not "mention" in a public thread if/when/or why we took action against a specific member.

 

[Big Dog]

Well I am a moderator, I am not a bully, and I could care less if you tell the other moderators about your tales of woe.
So many people have been nice about telling you that you are full of hot air that I figured it might just take a little blunt talk to get you to hear it.


Now as far as I am concerned, speaking in my official moderator capacity here, you are welcome to go, or you are welcome to stay. But I'd urge you to be a little less confrontational. Just because you shout the most does not mean you have any more valid of an opinion than the others here. And as you are new, you might want to read some of the older posts to get a feel for the attitudes and opinions of the other members.


Slight flaw in your logic there since you have no idea what has been communicated to Dave or anyone else by the moderators. Believe what you choose to believe, but it may not be based on any semblence of reality.

Bob,

This is OK ^ publicly, I see it as a reprimand no matter how tamed and would place it in the category you described (non public). Negative to say the least. No matter, you never mentioned anything about the tone this thread has taken and to quell the jets to all but you chose to single out Dur and Dutch.........Frankly, I see it as one-sided no matter how eloquently you say it!

Just my opinion, even from this distance.........

 

[Big Dog]

I feal an apology is in order. My comments got out of hand, and were totally uncalled for.

My apologies Dutch, I should not have reacted that way to a simple misunderstand of your comments.

My apologies to everyone else on FF also.

Accepted by all I'm sure.............. Well done........

 

[Melensdad]

If you consider that a reprimand then you have never seen a reprimand.

I suggested, in my official moderator capacity, that he is welcome to stay. I suggested, in my official moderator capacity, that he is welcome to go. Those are neutral statements of fact. No emotion, just fact. I 'urged' him to be a little less confrontational. That was a request. I stated that he should read old posts to get a feel for things. That was a simple directive request.

The closest to negative I became was when I stated that other people's opinions are just as valid as his!

 

[Big Dog]

If you consider that a reprimand then you have never seen a reprimand.

I suggested, in my official moderator capacity, that he is welcome to stay. I suggested, in my official moderator capacity, that he is welcome to go. Those are neutral statements of fact. No emotion, just fact. I 'urged' him to be a little less confrontational. That was a request. I stated that he should read old posts to get a feel for things. That was a simple directive request.

The closest to negative I became was when I stated that other people's opinions are just as valid as his!

OK ...........

BTW...... I haven't been reprimanded but I'VE BEEN CENSORED................

 

[Dutch-NJ]

I feal an apology is in order. My comments got out of hand, and were totally uncalled for.

My apologies Dutch, I should not have reacted that way to a simple misunderstand of your comments.

My apologies to everyone else on FF also.

Thanks Dave, but I don’t think you owe me an apology. No hard feelings on my part.

You simply got passionate about your beliefs. I don’t think there is anything wrong with passion.

I realize my personality inflames other peoples’ passions. In real life, some of my most cherished friendships started with a fist fight.

The important question is, can we all put this incident behind us? I’ll bet we can.

Okay............... shall we continue “fighting” here, or start new threads?

 

[DaveNay]

Thanks Dave, but I don’t think you owe me an apology. No hard feelings on my part.

You simply got passionate about your beliefs. I don’t think there is anything wrong with passion.

I realize my personality inflames other peoples’ passions. In real life, some of my most cherished friendships started with a fist fight.

The important question is, can we all put this incident behind us? I’ll bet we can.

Okay............... shall we continue “fighting” here, or start new threads?

It is possible to be passionate as well as literate without getting into a pissing match.



Next time I'm in NJ, I'll buy you a beer. Anywhere near Bordentown? I have customers there as well as Monroe Township.

 

[Melensdad]

OK ...........

BTW...... I haven't been reprimanded but I'VE BEEN CENSORED................

Yes, by majority vote of the moderators, 3 to 0. But that is another discussion. In fact there was a poll that came about due to that episode. It is also my understanding that you were even offered your own forum where those types of materials could be posted, but they were not considered appropriate for these forums. I guess it is simply a difference of opinion as to what is civil, what is acceptable to most members, etc.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Anywhere near Bordentown? I have customers there as well as Monroe Township.

My place is about 10 miles west of Atlantic City. 60 miles from Bordentown.

 

[Big Dog]

Yes, by majority vote of the moderators, 3 to 0. But that is another discussion. In fact there was a poll that came about due to that episode. It is also my understanding that you were even offered your own forum where those types of materials could be posted, but they were not considered appropriate for these forums. I guess it is simply a difference of opinion as to what is civil, what is acceptable to most members, etc.

I don't think you want to go into this discussion. I'll be the one to nip it in the bud because I wouldn't want to give out the reasons I was given publicly for my censorship!

Have you seen the copulation in one of the latest threads started...............

BTW............ 3 - 0 mod votes might have something to do with the way FF is being molded.

Nothing personal just vastly different point of views of WHY FF was formed.

Have a great Day!

 

[jdwilson44]

Wow, i have been reading this thread and i find it very interesting that Dutch is singled out when DaveNay can post whatever he wants and not one word against him. So this is the place that the TBNers can go for freedom of speech to get away from that bad old website that wont let you call someone a F*cktard and let you get away with it. I guess that was done with civility too. Personally i think that homosexiality is a spiritual problem, but what do i know. I'm only saying it is wrong because the creator who created them male and female said it is wrong. I never saw Dutch attack anyone here but those who don't agree with his point of view were allowed to say anything to him. Some downright vicious. Murph asked a while back why i hadn't been around lately in a thread and this is the reason. There seems to be a clique here that if you aren't a part of then you get a PM and asked not to come back. Certain people can say what they want but not others. It sure looked like Dutches posts were civil but not some of the others. But that doesn't seem to count if you don't agree with what he says. Too bad, it started out ok.

Dur

Durwood points out what I personally think is the major problem with why the gay agenda has gotten as far as it has in this country. It is because all of the arguments against it are almost always based on religion. My argument is that religion has nothing to do with it - as I tried to point out in my example of how to figure out what is "normal" from what is not normal, in the real world homosexuality does not "work". There are logical arguments that can and should be made against the promotion of homosexuality but those arguments always get shouted down so now as a society we are stuck with two warring camps - the religious people on one side screaming about us all burning in hell because of our wicked ways and the homosexuals dancing around in their Cher costumes screaming about equal rights on the other side. The reality is that we as a society tolerate all sorts of different behaviors that may or may not be legal because in the end most of those behaviors do not harm anybody or are necessary at some point in time. If however all barriers to behavior are broken down by getting rid of all laws that limit those behaviors or worse yet actually force those behaviors upon those who may not want them, what you end up with eventually is chaos - followed shortly after that by dictatorship and curtailing of pretty much all freedom of behavior. This is one of the main reasons why I oppose the gay rights agenda - because in the end it will lead to my loss of freedom thru the chaos that their agenda will promote. Germany before the rise of Hitler is a good example of this - do some google searching about Germany in the 1920's - it was a pretty free and open place, Berlin was a hot nightclub spot, and homosexuality was much more tolerated than it would be later under the Nazis. This is because nature abhors a vacuum - if you take away all order sooner or later something will come along to fill the vacuum - and that thing is unlikely to be fair about how order is re-imposed. This is the cycle of history that we are dangerously toying with when we get too loose on our society's laws.

The reality is that homosexuals already enjoy all the same civil rights as the rest of us. What they want is an expansion of civil rights to engage in specific behaviors. This is not in the same spirit as the original civil rights movement and is against all logic that has been applied to the laws of Western Civilization for centuries. It's basically the same thing as me wanting to get a law passed that will allow me to whip my penis out in any public place and masturbate under the pretense that I should be able to engage in my chosen behavior without fear of repercussion. The Gay movement aims to force acceptance of their BEHAVIOR not acceptance of them as people. Inevitably most of the workshops, seminars, gay publications, etc. always devolve into some discussion about sex. If this is not about behavior then why do they even deal with that? The civil rights movement under Martin Luther King did not demand that white people accept black people being sharecroppers or compulsive eating of watermelon - because it was not about that - it was about taking two people, one white, one black, who could be equal in every respect except for the color of their skin and the black person would get discriminated against simply for their skin color. The gay civil rights movement obscures this fact because in the end the only potential difference between the fictional hetero and the fictional homo people is the BEHAVIOR. And to address the issue of whether or not genetics matter in the behavior please remember that one of the things that has made this country great is that people are allowed to break thru the rules and rise above whatever adversity they may have had - do we think of Dr. Steven Hawking as less smart because he is profoundly crippled? No - he was allowed to rise above his problems in spite of it. Using the logic that genetics is destiny will eventually lead to bad consequences - what happens if somebody determines that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites and asians are genetically the most intelligent? Will we create quotas barring blacks from school on the basis that only the genetically smartest people should get school for the sake of efficiency? What if white males of a certain ethnic background are genetically determined to make much better soldiers than others? Will we pass laws saying that those people are obligated to serve as infantry in our armed forces because of their predisposition? Once you say genetics are destiny you are opening up Pandora's box - you had better be prepared for the consequences.

Note to moderator: Please notice that I didn't have to call anybody a ****tard to make my point.

 

[Big Dog]

Yes, by majority vote of the moderators, 3 to 0. But that is another discussion. In fact there was a poll that came about due to that episode. It is also my understanding that you were even offered your own forum where those types of materials could be posted, but they were not considered appropriate for these forums. I guess it is simply a difference of opinion as to what is civil, what is acceptable to most members, etc.

BTW………………. As a matter of fact, I am involved with a brand new more open adult site. Check out www.whitetailparty.com ; guns, girls and good fun! Just got launched and the first 50 members are lifers! No permission needed for adult content, just be over 18. [FONT=&quot]Come help us grow.......... [/FONT]

 

[Durwood RIP]

I feal an apology is in order. My comments got out of hand, and were totally uncalled for.

My apologies Dutch, I should not have reacted that way to a simple misunderstand of your comments.

My apologies to everyone else on FF also.

That is big of you Dave and hopefully this is all behind us now. As far as the discussion goes on homosexials i don't think you can seperate the religous aspect of it. After all who wrote the ten commandments? It wasn't man who set the moral values in place, it was God himself. I think the creator sets the guidelines of the created.

Dur

 

[jdwilson44]

That is big of you Dave and hopefully this is all behind us now. As far as the discussion goes on homosexials i don't think you can seperate the religous aspect of it. After all who wrote the ten commandments? It wasn't man who set the moral values in place, it was God himself. I think the creator sets the guidelines of the created.

Dur

See I personally think that this is one of the big reasons why there is such a big problem counteracting the influence that the gay lobby has in this country. Because it is the religious groups are the ones to protest the loudest about the homosexual influence it is seen by a large number of people as one radical group fighting another radical group.

Dutch made some references in one of his earlier posts about the evolution vs. intelligent design debate. My personal opinion is that if homosexuality is looked at from a pure scientific perspective it can be seen as "abnormal" because it confers absolutely no evolutionary advantage - in fact it is a straight road to extinction for any species that has a large percentage of the population that engages in the behavior. Based on pure logic and scientific fact homosexuality could be successfully fought - the fact that we constantly fall back on religion to fight it may be a good part of the reason why the gay lobbies keep gaining ground. What would happen if the religious groups were to embrace evolution and use the scientific logic of it to fight homosexuality as abnormal? That would set the entire debate on a new level and would throw a monkey wrench into the works as far as the arguments that gay rights groups use. It would no longer matter whether there was a genetic basis for it - evolutionary scientists have found genetic basis for plenty of other things that give no evolutionary advantage - they are what is called recessive genes and show up as human abnormalities all the time.

 

[Durwood RIP]

the fact that we constantly fall back on religion to fight it may be a good part of the reason why the gay lobbies keep gaining ground.

I totally disagree with this statement JD and feel the religious sector is what has kept the gays from getting what they want so far.

What would happen if the religious groups were to embrace evolution and use the scientific logic of it to fight homosexuality as abnormal? .

Somehow, i don't see that ever happening. We don't need evolution to prove our points. All we need is based on the fact that there is a creator who made us male and female and anything other than that is not moral and how we were designed.

Dur

 

[jdwilson44]

I totally disagree with this statement JD and feel the religious sector is what has kept the gays from getting what they want so far.



Somehow, i don't see that ever happening. We don't need evolution to prove our points. All we need is based on the fact that there is a creator who made us male and female and anything other than that is not moral and how we were designed.

Dur

I think my point was that to people who are religious the arguments that the church based groups make are perfectly reasonable. The problems lie with that part of the population that is not very religious - to those people the gay rights groups claims about "fairness" and civil rights and so forth are gaining ground - and the religious groups are losing ground - because there is no valid counter argument that non religious people will buy into. This is why you see gay rights gaining support among the people in more urban areas. These urban area people are the same people who vote Democratic, believe in evolution, for the most part support gay rights, etc. By co-opting the argument to give an evolutionary based argument against gay marriage and gay adoption and so forth you create a conflict among these people that they must resolve. Do they believe in evolution or do they believe in gay rights more? I believe that these people for the most part will come down on the side of the scientific evidence against it. At the very least you would have the opportunity for scientists to stand in front of legislatures and give hard evidence backup by facts and figures to the fact that homosexuality is not a beneficial behavior for the survival of the species - politicians love facts and figures, it makes their decisions easier so they don't have to resort to hard subjects like morals and such.

If you want to win the war you may have to resort to tactics you would not have considered in the first place. This is the nature of war - if you stick to losing tactics you may lose the war.

Evolution and Christianity are not necessarily incompatible - Popes have come out and said so:

(from http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html )

To paraphrase Santayana: Newspapers ignorant of history are condemned to reprint it. How else should we interpret the recent headline, describing Pope John Paul II's address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith"?

There's not much "news" there. Fifty years ago Pope Pius XII said almost the same thing in the encyclical Humani generis: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."
While not exactly canonizing Darwin, Pius XII did imply that the theory of evolution isn't necessarily inimical to Christianity. Certainly he didn't reject evolution altogether. How then do we explain the big headlines when John Paul II says basically the same thing in 1996?

My point is that as Christians you may be losing out on what may be your greatest weapon against the spread of the homosexual agenda - the scientific evidence against it. Imagine what would happen in public schools if they were forced to teach how great homosexuality was in one class session and then when evolution was taught would have to then deal with the scientific evidence against it. This would turn the whole battle on it's head.

 

[Durwood RIP]

My point is that as Christians you may be losing out on what may be your greatest weapon against the spread of the homosexual agenda - the scientific evidence against it. Imagine what would happen in public schools if they were forced to teach how great homosexuality was in one class session and then when evolution was taught would have to then deal with the scientific evidence against it. This would turn the whole battle on it's head.

I think the scientific proof against it only reafirms my Christain beliefs against it. God knew what he was doing and even science is proving that out. My first and formost beliefs against it is my Christian beliefs and anything else after that is just more evidence against it being normal. The only stand i need to take is what God has said about it and i'll let everyone else fight it out scientifically.