31 total posts
And there's something wrong with that ???
Seems like a sweet story that has NO agenda whatever. Although there are people who have less sense than penguins.
boortz: what a waste of oxygen he is
and if you didnt understand
i guess boortz isnt the only ignorant person seems hes in good company so think before you uteer you nonsense
boortz of a feather flock togerther
That book banning....
...is just as silly as the one in Dallas in the early 1960's.
The angst then was about the children's book, "Peter Rabbit" because the illustration on the front cover showed a white rabbit and a black rabbit.
Another was wanting works by Shalespeare removed from school reading lists because of , "Out, damned spot!"
Then there are the purple Tubbies....
And the beat goes on.
click here to email
"Out damned spot"!
That is what I say to my dog every morning
Having not read they book, I can't say how it may possibly be offensive or promote the gay agenda... but 3 things come to mind.
If it doesn't describe the "gay penguin" sex act then what is the big deal?
If it isn't trying to encourage a gay lifestyle then what is the big deal?
If it is based on a true story then what's the big deal?
Silly humans are always trying to make analogies between humans and animals... it may be likely that the authors of the book are doing just that or that the book's critics are doing the same. The question though, is what the message of the book is... is it all about being gay? or is it all about protecting and raising kids under any and all circumstances? The best judge of these issues will be the kids reading the book... and I have my doubts that anyone involved has bothered to ask for the under 7 age group opinion yet.
"The gay agenda," LOL
That phrase makes it sound like all the world's homosexuals are huddled in a smoke-filled room plotting world conquest.
Everyone knows they're too busy shopping.
Time to go....
I saw an excellent movie the other night...
No sense in replying if it's going to be removed. Consider this a "no reply".
So why did you reply in the first place?
then there was the traveling salesman
named lee grant driving through farm country. he is traveling along at a leisurely 40mph counting the blessings of his last sale. he looks in his rear view mirror and spots what seems to be chicken running quite fast and starting to pass him. well our traveler has seen about everything in these parts but this was a first.
the chicken goes by and cuts in front to continue sprinting down the shoulder of the road. lee presses the accelerator and decreases the distance. now the chicken looks back and starts to speed up. mr grant is now going 60mph and the gap is widening. he raps the speedometer and sure as chickenshot it's working just fine. as he is approaching 75mph the bird hangs a right, crossing the corn field, heading to a barn off in the distance.
lee makes a sliding right and follows that chicken toward the farm.
when he arrives our feathered speedster is out of sight and a typically nonchalant overalled man is doing what farmers do. lee stops quick and the dust overwhelms the scene.
"can I help you mister?" says the man. speaking faster than his last pitch; lee sputters something about a 75+mph chicken and inquires if the man saw it.
"yep, she's a 3 legged hen, we got a bunch of 'em". lee has got to know more.
"well my missus, my boy and me all like the leg, so I bred these 3 legged birds. I was quite successful"
mr grant can't believe his ears but his professional eyes see dollar signs. $$$.kentucky fried derby.$$$ "I got to know: how do they taste?"
"well that's hard to say, so far we ain't been able to catch one"
what used to be, isn't. there were 3 posts removed that preceded my tale. what I originally posted to is gone, gone, gone. that explains why the above seems like it fell out of the sky, if you care.
Think you're right
and suspect a complaint about "disturbing the peace". I would agree with that complaint if it was the posts I saw. By it's nature and given the mix here in SE, the original post is more on a sensitive subject. It needs to be handled, IMO, sensitively and rationally. It is possible to do so without ad hominem attacks. That being said I think that the removal of objectionable posts has the possibility of requiring the removal of tame ones or even leaving orphans that make no sense once continuity is lost. You might want to read carefully fully up the line in a sub for anything that looks iffy...if you really want your post to stand.
You're right, but ...
Given some of the stuff that HAS been allowed to stand in the forum, I'm rather puzzled about why those particular posts disappeared. The 'root' of the sub-tree that was removed did appear to be an attempt to be obnoxious but it was hardly in a league with some of the junk that has been rather inexplicably tolerated over the last several years.
Oh well, D... if we do, D... if we don't.
Maybe not ...
I can't speak for others, but I was not complaining about the removal of the posts. I was just surprised. You will hopefully excuse me if I express my surprise from time to time.
Personally, I wouldn't object to any reasonable standard for what is or is not allowed as long as it is applied fairly.
The thing I am tempted to complain about is the rather obvious lack of consistency. I realize that is not always under the control of the SE mods because moderators from other cnet forums can use their authority in here also, so I don't see any real profit in complaining. It's just human nature to be tempted to complain.
Express your surprise anytime Bill
My point was just that no matter what, we're wrong according to someone.
Complaints may raise consideration.
Many are not for consideration, but to complain pure and simple, IMO.
To be fair, I normally like your posts, even when I disagree.
Replying to your post may have been a bit misleading in my intent, but I guess at the time I was just in a reckless mood and expressed myself freely. Later I reconsidered and started to delete myself, but decided not. I had posted it, let it stand.
No, it's not a sensitive subject, it's a sinful subject and until recent
societal decay it was also a criminal subject, and hopefully in some areas
of this country it remains so. From it we have incubated new diseases the like
of which we'd not heard of before, but this was also predicted.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with
Romans Chapter 1:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to
sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and
served created things rather than the Creator?who is forever praised.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even
their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In
the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women
and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent
acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain
the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do
what ought not to be done.
If it was...
quotations from the Qur'an I would think it was about fundamentalists... I guess they exist among the Christians too.
Some disagree, apparently
(Just FYI -- I don't buy most of this myself).
Reading the Bible the gay-friendly way.
>> In the battle over gay rights and same-sex marriage, those who oppose both often cite Biblical passages which, they believe, clearly state that homosexuality is wrong. Trying to rebut this view is a movement led by people who are both gay and Christian who say that the Bible is on their side.
"Most people think that the attitude of gay Christians is, 'Who cares what the Bible says?' when in reality, we care deeply what the Bible says," said the Rev. Jeff Miner , pastor of the Jesus Metropolitan Community Church , a gay-friendly congregation in Indianapolis. He led a forum on the topic last weekend at [Boston's] Arlington Street Church. "We think there are a lot of powerful, affirming things that are in the Bible that have been ignored." Those affirming messages were detailed by Miner and forum co-leader John Tyler Connoley in their 2002 book, "The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships." <<
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET or the other SE Mods.
Perversion not limited
Perversion of matters aren't just limited to one's sexual appetite, but
those who have such propensities often engage in further perversions when
attempting to justify the first. I've read the arguments made by the so called
"christian" gays and they have no true basis, and some are so obviously
twisted attempts it would be ludicrous except for the agenda they attempt
to promote. I think homosexuality is self destructive anyway, they do more
damage to themselves than anyone else ever does to them, it's sort of self
containing. When they bring it into the political arena however, everyone
else has just as much right to reject them as they feel in seeking
acceptance of their errors.
So, if your complaint is more with Boortz
try and find readily available pieces on such topics without a slant. You will be hard pressed to do so and even what you may find will be likely be challenged by others. Such is life. I don't think it's unnatural for one to support his/her own opinion by showing evidence that it's shared by others...especially when these "others" have stronger means of expression or are people of notoriety. I have found that many persons with whom I generally differ will still make valid points. I also find that, often, my objection is with the delivery of the message and not the message itself. A good smelling pie can lose it's appeal if shoved directly in one's face.
it does not exclude the followers
of boortz. I will continue to consider him(boortz) a dim bulb in the strand.
I could only focus on boortz because there was no other substance in the OP. I do not believe in banning, burning, or bashing information. I am sure more children saw 'march of the penguins' than read this library book. did the movie encourage abandonment or nurture? was the hidden message that women should leave the home and join the work force? will we be able to read about sea horses(in the male's pouch)? see 'finding nemo'?
only adults find 'agendas' in innocent books for children. love of another man is found throughout the bible, maybe not in the biblical sense.
as far as finding something without a slant, maybe 1+1=2, but cerebral mathematicians might debate that.
thank you, I will have another slice
I've never been a good reader but
that piece in the original post comes off to me as being rather benign poke at homophobia itself rather than one showing evidence of a creeping problem. I will post a link to an old video here with the risk that it may be pulled...not for it's content but as one that might have copyright considerations. Perhaps such of this vintage were committed to the public domain.
Too bad you cannot view it
If you could, you would see the that a part the Boortz piece could be taken as a "liberal" (and I hate the use of such words) parody of the Sid Davis video if presented at an earlier time. Such is how shifts in "conscientiousness" occur invisibly over time. The Sid Davis piece refers to homosexuality as a disease and adds it to be contagious. Boortz suggested a disinfectant routine if one comes in contact with a homosexual. Clearly Sid Davis is serious and Boortz is not though they might even be thought to share similar viewpoints for their day. Just thought it interesting.
As we noted before, folks, this new software
gives us much less leeway in deciding what to remove and what to leave. If we take out a given message, all its "children" in the tree structure automatically go with it, where before we could delete a parent and leave any children that didn't violate the TOS and retained sufficient value and context to remain. That aspect of decision-making is now out of our hands, though the good news (for us) is that when a large portion of a thread is "bad," it usually takes much less time and effort to prune it.
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org