Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
cooldogs

Homosexuality - the work of the devil

homosexuality is the work of the devil to make people offend God

the devil and all the forces of evil r set 2 spend forever in hell and they r trying 2 drag as many souls as they possibly can with them

people who defend this evil filth r also complicit - u cannot claim to love God and defend this evil - if u do then u r uniting yourself with evil

God is terribly offended by this - read Genesis 19 to find out how God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah b cos the men were having sex with 1 another

if u r homosexual then i advise u 2 stop this filth now or u will also suffer forever in hell
cyberman

Ezekiel 16:49 says:

Quote:
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.


So, Ezekiel says that the sin of Sodom was that it was a wealthy society which didn't look after the poor. Man on man action doesn't get a mention. He seems unpeturbed by bumlove.

Now, I have a feeling you may turn out to be a question dodger, but let's try it out. Here is a question, yes or no: Did Ezekiel make a mistake?
trentvoyager

Ok I'll bite

Gay sex when done properly is divine.

Now just off to find the key that's gone missing from the asylum.
Jim

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

First, Welcome to the forum, cooldog. You've certainly announced your presence with a bang!  Second, have you ever heard of someone called Jesus? He said "love your neighbour as yourself." Do you hate yourself so much? He also said "Love your enemy." He didn't tell us when to stop loving them. He didn't give exceptions either. Love, for the bekliever, is no option, despite what we think may be a fault in those we see. Haven't we got enough faults in our own lives?
cyberman

I wonder whether we will ever hear from cooldogs again.
trentvoyager

cyberman wrote:
I wonder whether we will ever hear from cooldogs again.


Hmmmm......a hit and run homophobe.
Leonard James

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

cooldogs wrote:
homosexuality is the work of the devil to make people offend God

the devil and all the forces of evil r set 2 spend forever in hell and they r trying 2 drag as many souls as they possibly can with them

people who defend this evil filth r also complicit - u cannot claim to love God and defend this evil - if u do then u r uniting yourself with evil

God is terribly offended by this - read Genesis 19 to find out how God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah b cos the men were having sex with 1 another

if u r homosexual then i advise u 2 stop this filth now or u will also suffer forever in hell


Hello Sweetie,

I imagine from your typing style that you are a teenager, and from the content of your post that you are gullible enough to have swallowed the bilge you have been fed and are now regurgitating.

You probably don't want advice from an old queer, but because I'm a generous sort of guy, I'll give it to you anyway!  

Don't believe everything you are told! Use your brain to think for yourself. Educate yourself a little in the causes and facts of homosexuality, and above all, remember that you are just setting out in life. You will gather friends on your journey, but if you go on repeating that rubbish, you are likely to gather more contempt than friendship.  
Shaker

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

Leonard James wrote:
Hello Sweetie,

I imagine from your typing style that you are a teenager

The first thing that I imagined from the style was a very strong resemblance to the 'style' a former troll of this board (and others) ...
trentvoyager

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hello Sweetie,

I imagine from your typing style that you are a teenager

The first thing that I imagined from the style was a very strong resemblance to the 'style' a former troll of this board (and others) ...


I thought it seemed familiar but I can't place it........
cyberman

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

Leonard James wrote:


Hello Sweetie,

I imagine from your typing style that you are a teenager, and from the content of your post that you are gullible enough to have swallowed the bilge you have been fed and are now regurgitating.

You probably don't want advice from an old queer, but because I'm a generous sort of guy, I'll give it to you anyway!  

Don't believe everything you are told! Use your brain to think for yourself. Educate yourself a little in the causes and facts of homosexuality, and above all, remember that you are just setting out in life. You will gather friends on your journey, but if you go on repeating that rubbish, you are likely to gather more contempt than friendship.  


Leonard, this is your best post ever! Love it!
Leonard James

Thank you Cyber! Maybe old age is polishing me a bit as it shuts down some other faculties.  
gone

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

cooldogs wrote:
homosexuality is the work of the devil to make people offend God

the devil and all the forces of evil r set 2 spend forever in hell and they r trying 2 drag as many souls as they possibly can with them

people who defend this evil filth r also complicit - u cannot claim to love God and defend this evil - if u do then u r uniting yourself with evil

God is terribly offended by this - read Genesis 19 to find out how God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah b cos the men were having sex with 1 another

if u r homosexual then i advise u 2 stop this filth now or u will also suffer forever in hell


I think Big Frank is back, didn't that twit use text speak or was it someone else?
Jim

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

Big Frank?
Bruno?
Sinatra?
enstien?

Look, I'm only young in 'net terms, floo....
trentvoyager

Re: Homosexuality - the work of the devil

Jim wrote:
Big Frank?
Bruno?
Sinatra?
enstien?

Look, I'm only young in 'net terms, floo....


I think the poster was  Bigfrankus iirc ... was around when I first started posting so awhile ago.

Shaker and floo will have more details I'm sure........
gone

Big Frank was banned from posting on this forum, not a nice poster at all.

Whether or not cooldog is BF, I suggest we just laugh at his nonsense, it is so outrageously ridiculous. It could of course be someone just posting for a 'larf' to show up the craziness of anti-gay bigots.
cooldogs

hi

dont defend this evil - if u do then u r complicit and to set yourself against God in this way is very dangerous

Genesis 19 - 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house.5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”

6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.

12 The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here, 13 because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.”

24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.
Jim

Re: hi

Have you ever read the verse which follows John 3:16?
If He was not here to judge, then I certainly won't.
I'll leave that to the right Judge at the right time.
He's a lot better at it than me.
cooldogs

hi

God destroyed sodom and gomorrah b cos they would not stop offending Him with their filth - that was His Judgement of those people!!
Leonard James

Re: hi

cooldogs wrote:
God destroyed sodom and gomorrah b cos they would not stop offending Him with their filth - that was His Judgement of those people!!

Hi Coolie,

I strongly suspect you are a gay who's too terrified to admit it.
Powwow

Big YAWN! Hey cooldog my bet is that you are my darling Luci.
The Boyg

Re: hi

Leonard James wrote:
Hi Coolie,

I strongly suspect you are a gay who's too terrified to admit it.


What leads you to suspect that?
Shaker

Probably the strong and suggestive (and growing) body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation. Or, in short, the ones who make the most vocal song and dance about being anti-gay are the ones with fears and doubts about their own heterosexuality.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Probably the strong and suggestive body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation.


Can you share this body of evidence? I would be interested to read the academic papers that conclude such a strong correlation between anti-gay attitudes and repressed homosexuality.
Powwow

I knew it all along. Shaker's anti-Christian attitude is evidence that he is indeed a closet Christian.lol
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Probably the strong and suggestive body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation.


Can you share this body of evidence?

Yep, quite a bit of it.

Quote:
I would be interested to read the academic papers that conclude such a strong correlation between anti-gay attitudes and repressed homosexuality.

Knock yourself out. Firstly a definition and overview from Wikipedia:

Quote:
A theory that homophobia is a result of latent homosexuality was put forth in the late 20th century. A 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia by Henry Adams, Lester Wright Jr., and Bethany Lohr indicates that a number of homophobic males exhibit latent homosexuality. The research was done on 64 heterosexual men, 35 of whom exhibited homophobic traits and 29 who did not. They were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The groups did not differ in aggression.

Three tests were conducted using penile plethysmography. While there was no difference in response when the men were exposed to heterosexual and lesbian pornography, there was a major difference in response when the men were exposed to male homosexual pornography.

The researchers reported that 24% of the non-homophobic men showed some degree of tumescence in response to the male homosexual video, compared to 54% of the subjects who scored high on the homophobia scale. In addition, 66% of the non-homophobic group showed no significant increases in tumescence after this video, but only 20% of the homophobic men failed to display any arousal. Additionally, when the participants rated their degree of sexual arousal later, the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.

A possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges.

Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck's (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men.


The study referred to above, 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?'. (The answer is 'hell, yes').

Another study confirming the same thing:
Linky:

Quote:
The findings? Homophobia is more prevalent in people who have an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who openly criticized LGBT people and culture. 'Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves', said Dr. Netta Weinstein, from the University of Essex and the study’s lead author.

'In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward,' said co-author Dr. Richard Ryan, the professor of psychology at the University of Rochester.

The study’s findings bring new empirical evidence to the table that supports the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that many seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians actually stems from their own repressed same-sex attractions and desires.


Let the time-wasting, infantile nit-picking, pissy-panty semantic quibbling and generally wankery begin!
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
I knew it all along. Shaker's anti-Christian attitude is evidence that he is indeed a closet Christian.lol

Best place for quite a few of them.

Besides, there's sound scientific evidence (based on controlled experiments and studies) for my assertion, some of which I've provided. Good luck with your efforts to do the same for yours 
Powwow

If the evidence is so sound it would no be a "theory" lol
I do believe there are many self hating gays that like to strike out. But Leo has NO evidence that that is true in cooldogy's case.
cooldogs

and yet most men r not homosexual - maybe the gays dont want 2 accept it

and repress such feelings deep down

gays and lesbians and others b warned - turn from your filth or u will have eternal suffering in hell

this is God's Judgement!!
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
If the evidence is so sound it would no be a "theory" lol

Yaaaaaay, spot the one who doesn't know what the word theory means, folks!
The Boyg

The first study does not conclude that those homophobic individuals showing signs of arousal in response to the homosexual material are necessarily doing so as a result of repressed homosexuality though. It gives two possible reasons for the response without concluding which is correct:
Quote:
Discussion

The results of this study indicate that individuals who score in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. These individuals were selected on the basis of their report of having only heterosexual arousal and experiences. Furthermore, their ratings of erection and arousal to homosexual stimuli were low and not significantly different from nonhomophobic men who demonstrated no significant increase in penile response to homosexual stimuli. These data are consistent with response discordance where verbal judgments are not consistent with physiological reactivity, as in the case of homophobic individuals viewing homosexual stimuli. Lang (1994) has noted that the most dramatic response discordance occurs with reports of feeling and physiologic responses. Another possible explanation is found in various psychoanalytic theories, which have generally explained homophobia as a
threat to an individual's own homosexual impulses causing repression, denial, or reaction formation (or all three; West, 1977). Generally, these varied explanations conceive of homophobia as one type of latent homosexuality where persons either are unaware of or deny their homosexual urges. These data are consistent with these notions.

Another explanation of these data is found in Barlow, Sakheim, and Beck's (1983) theory of the role of anxiety and attention in sexual responding. It is possible that viewing homosexual stimuli causes negative emotions such as anxiety in homophobic men but not in nonhomophobic men. Because anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection, this theory would predict increases in erection in homophobic men. Furthermore, it would indicate that a response to homosexual stimuli is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual
arousal per se. Whereas difficulties of objectively evaluating psychoanalytic hypotheses are well-documented, these approaches
would predict that sexual arousal is an intrinsic response to homosexual stimuli, whereas Barlow's (1986) theory would predict that sexual arousal to homosexual stimuli by homophobic individuals is a function of anxiety. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.



Your second "linky" directs to something called "revel & riot" which doesn't appear to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal.


As such I'm still waiting for you to produce this "strong and suggestive (and growing) body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation".
trentvoyager

cooldogs wrote:
and yet most men r not homosexual - maybe the gays dont want 2 accept it

and repress such feelings deep down

gays and lesbians and others b warned - turn from your filth or u will have eternal suffering in hell

this is God's Judgement!!


I hate to ask but are you making a point here?

I mean after all most men aren't ginger, most men aren't 6 foot tall, most men aren't homophobic.

As for suffering in hell.....if you are expecting to be in the other place, I'll take my chances.

At least I'll Be able to toast my crumpet in peace.
Powwow

Theories are speculative and generalizing.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Your second "linky" directs to something called "revel & riot" which doesn't appear to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Because it isn't. The link does however give the (long) name of the relevant study in full, and so on that basis it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find under adult supervision, correct?
Powwow

Cooldogdoo are you my Luci?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Theories are speculative and generalizing.


That's your understanding of the word theory, is it? That explains a whole lot  
Shaker

trentvoyager wrote:
At least I'll Be able to toast my crumpet in peace.

Oo er. Is that some gay sexual slang thingy going on there for something really pervy?
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Your second "linky" directs to something called "revel & riot" which doesn't appear to be a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Because it isn't. The link does however give the (long) name of the relevant study in full, and so on that basis it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find under adult supervision, correct?


Are you saying that you haven't read this study yourself but are going on second hand reports of it's contents in order to substantiate your claim that there exists a "strong and suggestive (and growing) body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation"?
trentvoyager

Shaker wrote:
trentvoyager wrote:
At least I'll Be able to toast my crumpet in peace.

Oo er. Is that some gay sexual slang thingy going on there for something really pervy?


 or as some posters would say: lol.

I wish ..... the days of pervy are long since past

No it's just that theweather today has turned my thoughts to Autumn and one of the things I connect with that really rather nice season is crumpets.
Powwow

What's a gay slang thingy?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Are you saying that you haven't read this study yourself but are going on second hand reports of it's contents in order to substantiate your claim that there exists a "strong and suggestive (and growing) body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation"?

No. I'm saying that I thought you were capable of doing some basic web searching yourself, under your own steam.

But of course, on the basis of long and excessively tedious past experience I should have known better.

trent: your link (which needs adjusting a bit to make it work properly, btw) won't do for Boygie - it's just a summary of the main findings of that study (as was mine) and that's simply not rigorous enough for him.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Are you saying that you haven't read this study yourself but are going on second hand reports of it's contents in order to substantiate your claim that there exists a "strong and suggestive (and growing) body of evidence that the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation"?

No. I'm saying that I thought you were capable of doing some basic web searching yourself, under your own steam.


So you're saying that you had read the study yourself but instead of giving the link that you used to access this study you decided to provide one to a second hand report of the study.  
trentvoyager

I deleted it......I've got a new tablet thingie and I've not yet fully got to grips with It's little idiosyncrasies  

Give me a few years and I'll get there  
The Boyg

Although indicative of a correlation amongst some individuals (particularly those from an authoritarian household) the second report wouldn't appear to give strong support to the assertion that:

"the most anti-gay individuals, men especially, are doing so as a result of conflicted feelings about their own sexual orientation"

Scientific American wrote:
Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals

A new analysis of implicit bias and explicit sexual orientation statements may help to explain the underpinnings of anti-gay bullying and hate crimes

By Jeanna Bryner and LiveScience

Homophobes should consider a little self-reflection, suggests a new study finding those individuals who are most hostile toward gays and hold strong anti-gay views may themselves have same-sex desires, albeit undercover ones.

The prejudice of homophobia may also stem from authoritarian parents, particularly those with homophobic views as well, the researchers added.

"This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, 'Why?'" co-author Richard Ryan, a professor of psychology at the University of Rochester, said in a statement. "Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection."

The research, published in the April 2012 issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, reveals the nuances of prejudices like homophobia, which can ultimately have dire consequences. [The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

"Sometimes people are threatened by gays and lesbians because they are fearing their own impulses, in a sense they 'doth protest too much,'" Ryan told LiveScience. "In addition, it appears that sometimes those who would oppress others have been oppressed themselves, and we can have some compassion for them too, they may be unaccepting of others because they cannot be accepting of themselves."

Ryan cautioned, however, that this link is only one source of anti-gay sentiments.

http://www.scientificamerican.com...hobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals

It appears to be far more tentative than your earlier, robust statement would suggest Shaker.
The Boyg

I suspect that Leonard suggested that cooldogs is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it" because he wanted to wind him up and not out of any in depth knowledge of these studies anyway.
Powwow

Boyg,
You got that right. Absolutely no knowledge in that statement from Leo.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Boyg,
You got that right. Absolutely no knowledge in that statement from Leo.


Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
I suspect that Leonard suggested that cooldogs is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it" because he wanted to wind him up and not out of any in depth knowledge of these studies anyway.

Or possibly, given Leonard's advanced years (he won't mind my saying it, I'm sure), direct personal experience?
Powwow

Shaker, shame on you! Are you now suggesting that Leo was a closet gay that use to go around attacking gays? Or that Leo was attacked by closet gays?
Evidence please.lol
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I suspect that Leonard suggested that cooldogs is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it" because he wanted to wind him up and not out of any in depth knowledge of these studies anyway.

Or possibly, given Leonard's advanced years (he won't mind my saying it, I'm sure), direct personal experience?


Would you normally place so much credence on anecdote Shaker?
gone

pow wow wrote:
Cooldogdoo are you my Luci?


That thought struck me too!
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I suspect that Leonard suggested that cooldogs is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it" because he wanted to wind him up and not out of any in depth knowledge of these studies anyway.

Or possibly, given Leonard's advanced years (he won't mind my saying it, I'm sure), direct personal experience?


Would you normally place so much credence on anecdote Shaker?

I would trust Leonard's word, most certainly, if that's what you mean.
Leonard James

My. my, what a plethora of posting I seem to have evoked with one little observation.

For the information of anybody who cares, I have read on a number of occasions about the connection between homophobia and suppressed homosexuality.

I also had a direct experience of it myself, in the sense that in my colourful younger days an infamous insulter and basher of older queers had the effrontery to make a pass at me in private. He didn't get anywhere, but neither did he attempt a subsequent physical attack ... probably because I was a physical culture freak in those days and would have had no trouble giving him a hiding.

Heady days!
gone

Maybe cooldoggy is wishing he could try it on with you Leonard, or Trent.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I suspect that Leonard suggested that cooldogs is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it" because he wanted to wind him up and not out of any in depth knowledge of these studies anyway.

Or possibly, given Leonard's advanced years (he won't mind my saying it, I'm sure), direct personal experience?


Would you normally place so much credence on anecdote Shaker?

I would trust Leonard's word, most certainly, if that's what you mean.


No, that wasn't the question at all. The question was "would you normally place so much credence on anecdote?"
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
For the information of anybody who cares, I have read on a number of occasions about the connection between homophobia and suppressed homosexuality.


Really? Where?

Quote:
I also had a direct experience of it myself, in the sense that in my colourful younger days an infamous insulter and basher of older queers had the effrontery to make a pass at me in private.


So, on the basis of this one experience you suggested that cooldog is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it".
Shaker

Normally, no.

When I have good reason to believe in its authenticity and reliability (as in this case - I've just seen that Leonard has confirmed what I merely hypothesised earlier), yes
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
So, on the basis of this one experience you suggested that cooldog is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it".

Where did Leonard state that his suggestion about cooldogs was formed on the sole basis of his experience of hypocritical homophobia?

I can give you a clue ...
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So, on the basis of this one experience you suggested that cooldog is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it".

Where did Leonard state that his suggestion about cooldogs was formed on the sole basis of his experience of hypocritical homophobia?


In the quote from his post that I included immediately prior to that comment. Unless he is going to regale us with further anecdotes about being chatted up by gay-bashers. Of course, only the closet gay ones would chat him up. This doesn't mean that all (or even most) gay-bashers are closet gays.
Powwow

So Leo claims one experience of being bashed by a closet gay. This of course means cooldog is a closet gay.LOL
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So, on the basis of this one experience you suggested that cooldog is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it".

Where did Leonard state that his suggestion about cooldogs was formed on the sole basis of his experience of hypocritical homophobia?


In the quote from his post that I included immediately prior to that comment. Unless he is going to regale us with further anecdotes about being chatted up by gay-bashers. Of course, only the closet gay ones would chat him up. This doesn't mean that all (or even most) gay-bashers are closet gays.

You'll have to point it out to me. I've looked and looked and looked and still can't see anywhere that Leonard has stated that his suggestion about cooldogs is based on one personal experience briefly outlined above.
Powwow

So will Leo and Shaker admit that they have no proof, not one shred of EVIDENCE, that cooldog is a conflicted closet homosexual?lol
Powwow

Do homosexuals have to be in the closet to be conflcted? Can they be right out in the open when attacking each other?
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
So will Leo and Shaker admit that they have no proof, not one shred of EVIDENCE, that cooldog is a conflicted closet homosexual?lol

When did Shaker ever suggest this?

Interesting that evidence suddenly becomes sooooooo important to you all of a sudden ...  
Leonard James

Please note that I said I strongly suspect him of being a closet gay. I don't know the guy, so I wouldn't be fool enough to state it as a fact.

And I have given my reasons for suspecting it ... if they are not sufficient for anybody, hard cheese!
Leonard James

pow wow wrote:
Do homosexuals have to be in the closet to be conflcted? Can they be right out in the open when attacking each other?

You seem to have an extraordinary interest in homosexuals and how they behave.  
Powwow

Calm your suspicions Leo.lol If I have questions about homosexuals, I would think a homosexual of your age would be the perfect person to ask.
Jim

You're giving cooldog the thrill of seeing his thread growing.
As far as the title and premis of the thread goes, though, whether he's Christian, Westbro Baptist ( the two are not synonymous ), atheist or a follower of the prophet Zarqon, the simple answer to his O/P is....


             NO.
Lexilogio

This is interesting


I did try to access the article in the April edition of the Journal of Personality and Psychology, but their publisher server is not happy this evening unfortunately. The summaries are interesting though. That's quite a substantial amount of people enrolled - although I haven't been able to look at the methodology.
Shaker

Interesting, Lexi. Verrrrry interesting. I've seen similar lists myself.

Of course, I don't think that any amount of evidence in this area will satisfy the usual suspects, because they've a prior ideological commitment to denying it ...
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
So, on the basis of this one experience you suggested that cooldog is "a gay who's too terrified to admit it".

Where did Leonard state that his suggestion about cooldogs was formed on the sole basis of his experience of hypocritical homophobia?


In the quote from his post that I included immediately prior to that comment. Unless he is going to regale us with further anecdotes about being chatted up by gay-bashers. Of course, only the closet gay ones would chat him up. This doesn't mean that all (or even most) gay-bashers are closet gays.

You'll have to point it out to me. I've looked and looked and looked and still can't see anywhere that Leonard has stated that his suggestion about cooldogs is based on one personal experience briefly outlined above.


It's...in...the...quote...from...his...post...that...I...included...immediately...prior...to...that...comment.

It is, after all, the only real justification that he has given for his allegation.
The Boyg

Leonard James wrote:
Please note that I said I strongly suspect him of being a closet gay. I don't know the guy, so I wouldn't be fool enough to state it as a fact.

And I have given my reasons for suspecting it ... if they are not sufficient for anybody, hard cheese!


Because you once met a gay basher who was actually gay. Really good grounds for suspecting that someone completely different is a closet homosexual. Not.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Interesting, Lexi. Verrrrry interesting. I've seen similar lists myself.


Very interesting. Five people. What about the thousands of homophobes who haven't been exposed as closet homosexuals though?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
It's...in...the...quote...from...his...post...that...I...included...immediately...prior...to...that...comment.

So either link to it or quote it (if you're able to do either on your own) and show us all that one experience of Leonard's in hypocritical homophobia was advanced, by him, as the sole justification - which is what you claimed it was - for his suggestion about cooldogs.

If the evidence is so clear and umabiguous this shouldn't be a stretch even for you.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
It's...in...the...quote...from...his...post...that...I...included...immediately...prior...to...that...comment.

So either link to it or quote it


I have already quoted it. Do I need to go even more slowly for you?


It's...

in...

the...

quote...

from...

his...

post...

that...

I...

included...

immediately...

prior...

to...

that...

comment.


Shaker

Ah. I see you can't.

(EDIT: Sorry, typo).
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
Ah. I see you can't.


I can. I just don't see why I should have to waste my time quoting it again to satisfy some stupid game that you're playing when we both know that I have already quoted the statement that I refer to.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Ah. I see you can't.


I can.


Then do so.

Quote:
I just don't see why I should have to waste my time quoting it again to satisfy some stupid game that you're playing when we both know that I have already quoted the statement that I refer to.


Because otherwise you look like a snivelling little coward who, true to form, can't produce a scrap of evidence for his assertions and, come to that, evidence supposed to be easily available in written form given that according to you it was provided in the form of a post on this very thread within the past few hours.

You clearly have the time to waste thus far and evidently nothing better to occupy what I assume you laughingly refer to as your mind, so you might as well.
The Boyg

Resorting to insults again Shaker.  

That's quite pathetic.

I've tired of your silly game now.

Bored with brick:
Powwow

Shaker,
"snivelling little", do you gave a problem with sniveling little? Anyways, your irony meter is stuck up your butt again.lol
The Boyg

pow wow wrote:
Shaker,
"snivelling little", do you gave a problem with sniveling little? Anyways, your irony meter is stuck up your butt again.lol


Leave him. He usually starts frothing at the mouth and blathering about "chew toys" next.

It's very amusing (in a Phineas T Barnum sideshow sort of way).
cooldogs

Re: hi

Leonard James wrote:
cooldogs wrote:
God destroyed sodom and gomorrah b cos they would not stop offending Him with their filth - that was His Judgement of those people!!

Hi Coolie,

I strongly suspect you are a gay who's too terrified to admit it.


r u really that stupid ?  i suspect u r
Lexilogio

Cool dogs - I would be grateful if you would familiarise yourself with the rules. Responding by insulting someone does not lend itself to discussion. If you believe that someone has posted something is wrong - challenge it and explain why.
The Boyg

Lexilogio wrote:
Cool dogs - I would be grateful if you would familiarise yourself with the rules. Responding by insulting someone does not lend itself to discussion. If you believe that someone has posted something is wrong - challenge it and explain why.


It's hardly surprising that new members are confused about acceptable behaviour on the board when you allow Shaker's insults to go unchallenged Lexi:
Shaker wrote:
Because otherwise you look like a snivelling little coward who, true to form, can't produce a scrap of evidence for his assertions and, come to that, evidence supposed to be easily available in written form given that according to you it was provided in the form of a post on this very thread within the past few hours.

You clearly have the time to waste thus far and evidently nothing better to occupy what I assume you laughingly refer to as your mind, so you might as well.
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Cool dogs - I would be grateful if you would familiarise yourself with the rules. Responding by insulting someone does not lend itself to discussion. If you believe that someone has posted something is wrong - challenge it and explain why.


It's hardly surprising that new members are confused about acceptable behaviour on the board when you allow Shaker's insults to go unchallenged Lexi:
Shaker wrote:
Because otherwise you look like a snivelling little coward who, true to form, can't produce a scrap of evidence for his assertions and, come to that, evidence supposed to be easily available in written form given that according to you it was provided in the form of a post on this very thread within the past few hours.

You clearly have the time to waste thus far and evidently nothing better to occupy what I assume you laughingly refer to as your mind, so you might as well.


There was no insult. I see you overlooked the salient word 'otherwise' in that post which, if you deign to read it again, makes it clear that you only look like a snivelling little coward if you continually refuse to adduce the so-called evidence which you claim exists (in the context of the previous discussion) but which you can't, or won't, point out.

As always: if you're not happy with this forum, its membership and its rules - leave. You're not obliged to post here: if you're not satisfied with the way in which the forum is run - leave. You don't have to be one of those ridiculous people who ask to have their membership revoked or cancelled or whatever: simply stop posting. If the way the forum is administrated and moderated isn't to your liking, leave. Easy as that. Simply leave and find a forum more suited to you and your ... interests. And the very best of luck with that.
Lexilogio

Sometimes, when people seem to be giving as good as they get, and it hasn't yet become a slanging match - we let it be.
There is also a difference when someone does address the points, than when the responses is only an insult.

We try to stay hands off
Ketty

Boyg, there was some text in cooldog's post which I removed but kept a note about it in our 'staff room'.  You may not have seen it before it was removed.  I'm not speaking for Lexi,  but she will have access to that text, and having seen it, may have been responding here.
The Boyg

Lexilogio wrote:
Sometimes, when people seem to be giving as good as they get, and it hasn't yet become a slanging match - we let it be.
There is also a difference when someone does address the points, than when the responses is only an insult.


Perhaps you could point out the posts where I had directed similar personal insults towards Shaker in this thread?

If that's how you want it to be then I could always choose to cut loose in reponse to Shaker's insults instead of showing restraint in the expectation that the moderators might actually do some moderating, but I don't think that this is what you want.


The truth is that you let Shaker get away with whatever he likes, allow him to say whatever he likes, allow him to insult whomever he likes and never correct him or direct him to the Bear Pit as you do with others.

Why is that?

Why does a new member get their insults deleted but Shaker is allowed to throw insults around with impunity?
The Boyg

Ketty wrote:
Boyg, there was some text in cooldog's post which I removed but kept a note about it in our 'staff room'.  You may not have seen it before it was removed.  I'm not speaking for Lexi,  but she will have access to that text, and having seen it, may have been responding here.


I did see it. It was no worse than what Shaker is allowed to post. It's no wonder that new members are confused about what they can post and where on this board when the rules are applied so selectively.
Lexilogio

The Boyg wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Sometimes, when people seem to be giving as good as they get, and it hasn't yet become a slanging match - we let it be.
There is also a difference when someone does address the points, than when the responses is only an insult.


Perhaps you could point out the posts where I had directed similar personal insults towards Shaker in this thread?

If that's how you want it to be then I could always choose to cut loose in reponse to Shaker's insults instead of showing restraint in the expectation that the moderators might actually do some moderating, but I don't think that this is what you want.


The truth is that you let Shaker get away with whatever he likes, allow him to say whatever he likes, allow him to insult whomever he likes and never correct him or direct him to the Bear Pit as you do with others.

Why is that?

Why does a new member get their insults deleted but Shaker is allowed to throw insults around with impunity?


I didn't say you had made personal insults. I merely said that sometimes people give as good as they get. We then try to leave it to see if things simmer down. Sometimes there is a complaint, so we step in sooner.
On this occasion, given that cool dog was new, and may not be familiar with the rules, I posted a comment to ensure he, or she, was aware of them.

Can I point put that this forum is run and staffed entirely by volunteers. The rule about personal insult is a broad guideline. Moderators use their judgement, and most forums tend to be a bit stricter with new people than they are with those who have been around for longer. Some forums pre moderate, for example. We don't do that here.
cooldogs

Re: hi

cooldogs wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
cooldogs wrote:
God destroyed sodom and gomorrah b cos they would not stop offending Him with their filth - that was His Judgement of those people!!

Hi Coolie,

I strongly suspect you are a gay who's too terrified to admit it.


i strongly suspect u r a fool - oh look i am right!!
gone

Yep Leonard I am sure cooldoggie fancies you!    
Shaker

Lexilogio wrote:
given that cool dog was new


Debatable ...
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Lexilogio wrote:
Sometimes, when people seem to be giving as good as they get, and it hasn't yet become a slanging match - we let it be.
There is also a difference when someone does address the points, than when the responses is only an insult.


Perhaps you could point out the posts where I had directed similar personal insults towards Shaker in this thread?

If that's how you want it to be then I could always choose to cut loose in reponse to Shaker's insults instead of showing restraint in the expectation that the moderators might actually do some moderating, but I don't think that this is what you want.


The truth is that you let Shaker get away with whatever he likes, allow him to say whatever he likes, allow him to insult whomever he likes and never correct him or direct him to the Bear Pit as you do with others.

Why is that?

Why does a new member get their insults deleted but Shaker is allowed to throw insults around with impunity?


Jim

Re: hi

cooldogs;
Are you a Christian or a Westbro Baptist*?


*= the terms are not synonymous.
The Boyg

Lexilogio wrote:
Can I point put that this forum is run and staffed entirely by volunteers. The rule about personal insult is a broad guideline. Moderators use their judgement, and most forums tend to be a bit stricter with new people than they are with those who have been around for longer.


Surely people who have been here the longest should know the rules better than newcomers.

If anyone deserves to be cut a bit of slack it's newbies who may not understand the board culture (and may be actively misled regarding it if they see more established members being allowed to flout the rules).

Why is it that the moderators judgement always appears to be to err on the side of 'doing nothing' when faced with Shaker abusing other members Lexi?

Why does a new member get their insults deleted but Shaker is allowed to throw insults around with impunity?
Shaker

The Boyg

Shaker wrote:


Nice photo of you Shaker. Captured your personality.
Shaker

No no, not a photograph of me but illustrative of you and your current behaviour regarding the whiny-assed, pissy-panty tantrum you're throwing at the moment (yet again ...) about the rules, as though that's any of your concern in the slightest.

The moderators decide how to interpret and apply the house rules, not you. As I've said before, if you're unhappy with their decisions, leave.
The Boyg

Shaker, I'm not concerned about the rules.

What I am concerned about is their inconsistent application particularly where this appears to reveal preferential treatment for certain members.
Shaker

As I seem to have to keep saying over and over and bleeding over, the rules, how they're interpreted and how they're applied is the job of the mods - that's what they do. That's what they're for. You are not a moderator and therefore it's none of your business.

If you disagree with their decisions, you know what to do.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum