topcat wrote:
> Dana Darling wrote:
>
>>Marie! *Here* you are...! <g>
>>
>>First you question (euphimism) my sexuality (yesterday)... and chafe at
>>my use of the word 'obsessed' (as it relates to *your* nearly rabid
>>interest in portraying homosexuals and -- what you claim to be -- their
>>sexual practices) and then you run... like a bunny, without response.
>>
>>Hmmph. Astounding. <vbg>
>>
>>Don't feel equipped to respond, Marie? Hmm? 'Cowards are us'... is it?
>>Are you blonde too...? <g>
>>
>
>
> This cat-fight is getting good, maybe I'll stick around to see how it turns
> out.
>
> TC
>
>

You're welcome to enjoy the fray TC. But for the sake of context alone,
you ought to check out the other thread that was, apparently, too much
for Marie to handle (poor weak thing)...!


Best to you and yours.
--
Usenet: a nice place to visit -- but I wouldn't want to live there.
Dana Dare

Dana Darling wrote:

>
> You're welcome to enjoy the fray TC. But for the sake of context alone,
> you ought to check out the other thread that was, apparently, too much
> for Marie to handle (poor weak thing)...!
>

Yes, I saw that. Seems you and Marie have a major disagreement when it
comes, er, poor choice of words, pertaining to homosexuality. Not trying to
referee or anything (I'm enjoying the fray too much) but it seems that while
Maries explanations may be graphic in nature, her underlying theory is right
on. AIDS is a totally preventable disease. All it takes is some behavior
modification (much like not smoking lessens your chances of getting lung
cancer, no?). Would you agree with that?

TC

LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com (Marie A.) wrote in
news:1dc521ed.0307151517.6427c8ef@posting.google.c om:

> What gives here? Your opinions come straight from God and
> are inscribed on clay tablets but ours aren't worthy of comment?


Ahem.

It isn't liberals who claim to be talking
to God here..........


"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck
them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam"
George Bush, 6/24/03

topcat wrote:
> And liberals are just plain stupid (59 PERCENT of people who vote who don't
> have a high school education vote DEMOCRATIC, what does that tell you?) and
> they hate America.
>

That is only your opinion. Fabricated from thin air. It would be far
easier to say that Republicans hate America because they seemed
hell-bent on destroying the country with unemployment, ballooning
deficit and waste of our natural resources.

topcat wrote:
> Dana Darling wrote:
>
>
>>You're welcome to enjoy the fray TC. But for the sake of context alone,
>>you ought to check out the other thread that was, apparently, too much
>>for Marie to handle (poor weak thing)...!
>>
>
>
> Yes, I saw that. Seems you and Marie have a major disagreement when it
> comes, er, poor choice of words, pertaining to homosexuality. Not trying to
> referee or anything (I'm enjoying the fray too much) but it seems that while
> Maries explanations may be graphic in nature, her underlying theory is right
> on. AIDS is a totally preventable disease. All it takes is some behavior
> modification (much like not smoking lessens your chances of getting lung
> cancer, no?). Would you agree with that?
>
> TC
>
>


Graphic and crude... yes... yes it is.

As to her theory, I think you're shifting it just a tad. <g>

I agree with your statement that AIDs is *in most cases* a preventable
disease. But (you *knew* there'd be one, didn't ya...?) in the case of
medical personnel and accidental contamination through blood, or through
rape, or through intentional transmission, or through the birth of a
child to an infected mother... it isn't. And my point is that any
effort to paint AIDs as 'nothing more than a homosexual disease' is
simply ignorant. The vast majority of people who have AIDs are
heterosexual and live in Africa. That is the point Marie seems -- quite
intentionally, I'm suspect -- to miss.

--
Usenet: a nice place to visit -- but I wouldn't want to live there.
Dana Dare

JC Martin wrote:

<snip>

> > Comments of this genre, coming as they do from a class of people who
> > think that a man's asshole is a vagina and his mouth an alternate
> > semen receptacle, how does one top absurdities like this from this
> > crowd? Like spoiled, nasty little children, they seek equivalency in
> > everything and answerability for absolutely nothing.
>
> Ann's own words.
>
> Is this your defense BTW? Your arguments are fairly weak and seemed based
> in racism and hatred of non-Republicans. The point is that Ann doesn't seem
> to be the most principled woman on the planet. If she practiced what she
> preached, I'd have more respect. But like Limbaugh, she's more about making
> money than actually adding something valuable to a given political debate.

The worst thing that can be said of Ann Coulter's writing is that
Coulter writes as if she were a liberal female columnist.
Coulter is that conservative counterpoint to the liberals Maureen
Dowd, except that Coulter assertion are based on facts rather
than imagination, as in the case of Dowd.

If hysterical females columnist are a bad thing, then start
protesting Dowd, Molly Ivins and Helen Thomas.

David

"Marie A." wrote:

<snip>

> > Don't feel equipped to respond, Marie? Hmm? 'Cowards are us'... is it?
> > Are you blonde too...? <g>
>
> Respond to what, you pretentious little twit? Just what in the hell do
> you think you posted up here? The Summa Theologica? You fools make
> absolutely stupid comments and expect a formal treatise back on your
> foolishness? What gives here? Your opinions come straight from God and
> are inscribed on clay tablets but ours aren't worthy of comment? Is
> that how it works. Re-read that crap you posted, Dana. I mean, you're
> not exactly Thoreau. (Marie)

Help me.

I am having a hard time, read impossible, imagining Henry David
Thoreau on Usenet. Can anybody?

Usenet as a medium approximates verbal speech more so than the
written word. Usenet authors are far more comfortable in a good
old fashioned argument, err discussion that than are writing a
letter for the op ed page of the local fish wrapper.

That is to say, we are all all not Thoreau. If we were, we would
not be here.

David

"Marie A." <LetEmEatWMDs@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>And it's
> precisely because of this phenomenon of liberals constantly labeling
> the opposition as bigoted and intolerant that I now take the
> uncompromising stances I now do and get right back in their >faces.


Your own words make you bigoted. Nigrah???

Don't blame liberals for your ignorance.

-JC