Adequacy front page
 
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page or the footnote if you have questions.
 The Heterosexual Geek's Guide to Feigning Homosexuality

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
May 17, 2002
 Comments:
Does this conversation sound familiar?

Mom: So, are you seeing anyone?

You (mumbling): Nawuagh.

Mom: Well, why not?

You (internally): Because your parenting has left me DAMNED! A SHELL! REEEEAGUH!

You (muttering): Iunugh.

Mom: Do you at least go out on dates?

Your parents wish to make sense of your romantic isolation, partly out of their greed for grandchildren, but more out of their nagging sense that treating you like a walking nuisance for eighteen years might have been a kind of failure on their part. This guide tells how geeks of either gender can leverage the increasingly-acceptable world of homosexuality to quell their parents' insecurities without having to make genuine contact with other people or deal honestly with long-neglected emotions.

sex

More stories about Sex
Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Solving Teen Pregnancy
Homosexuality - Is it the next evolutionary step for mankind ?
Open Letter to a Stripper
The Sinister Secret of our Schools
Don't look at me.
My husband wants to do my ass!
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
I'm a teenager, and I want it bad!
I have not had relations for months!
My neighbors are foreigners, and they don't fly a flag
Should we circumcize our boy?
Active recruiting
My wife hungers for dark meat, and my nephew is a Commie!
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode I
My husband wants me shorn!
Uncle OSM's Guide to Covert Dating: Episode II
My inlaws are not fertile!
Taboo: The Downfall of America
The Time is Right for Manual Sex
Help save a baby, and snowballs
The supposedly civilized Europeans. (A WARNING TO ALL AMERICANS)
It's all about the numbers
Caffeinated mints, and getting into the body you desire.
Why can't I get a second date?
I want a mistress!
Mommyism in the Workplace
Lesbian Parenting and the Myth of Gay Children
My roommate is gay! My roommate is a drunk.

PART I: EXPLOITING GAY CULTURE

Gays and lesbians, still oft-reviled by much of mainstream society, are eager for closeted homosexuals to explore their true natures. Leveraging this desire will be your primary tool in controlling their behavior to your own ends -- convincing one of them to come home with you at Christmas.

Fortunately, your behavior will be different when pretending to court homosexuals. The Anne Frank-like terror you geek "men" feel around women will not be present in the company of gays; you geek "women" won't have the same awkwardness and fears of betrayal when flirting with lesbians.

Advice for Geek "Women"

Lesbians have a strong sense of community. To properly dupe a lesbian into dating you, joining this community can be more important than sexual activities. Go to Phrank concerts, attend "Take Back the Night" rallies, learn the rudiments of construction work. Pick out a single lesbian whom you'd like to bring home to your family, and become close to her. Flirt with her. Go to independant film festivals with her.

When she attempts sexual advances, claim to have been molested by an aunt. "I'm still experimenting. Maybe I always will be," you say, as she nods sympathetically. "Why can't I just be me?"

Advice for Geek "Men"

You geek "men" will have somewhat more difficulty finding a changeling. Your appearance and scent are a mixed blessing. Gay men fantasize about sex with unattainable straight men; this is the homosexual equivalent of Barely Legal Magazine and clown porn. Your unstylish appearance is, in this context, advantageous. But, given the laser-precise fashion sense of gay men, you should be prepared to be mocked openly (and in whispered laughter) for your sweatpants and odor of sour milk.

Compared to lesbian culture, gay culture is deeply sexual. You won't be able to dupe a gay man into coming home with you without becoming his boyfriend, and that won't happen until you put out. Thus, you must cultivate the ancient Catholic school girl art of "cock-teasing." Counter his constant sexual advances with promises of debauchery in some near, but indefinite, future. You must put out to some degree; to this end, I recommend the handjob. Imagine, as you do this, that you yourself are masturbating (again.)

PART II: FOOLING YOUR FAMILY

Bring your new beau home when the extended family is assembled. Introduce your significant other to all present, especially grandparents. Your family may take this well, forcing smiles at the ambushed surprise, or they may erupt in rage at your behavior. Either way, enjoy this as revenge for having spent your childhood being perpetually indicted for breaking your parents' improvised laws.

In any event, they will be happy to have figured you out. You should see an end to birthday cards reading, "I'll be dead before you have kids." You will no longer be asked about your failed romantic life; they won't want to know. Of course, you will be living a lie -- but this is only a natural extension of your solitary life doing robot work.

There may be some parental backlash at not having grandchildren. This will be more pronounced with geek "women," as the parents of you geek "men" have always been uneasy about the idea of someone like you around children. Geek "women" should carry copies of the S.C.U.M. Manifesto with them during visits to slam down in front of teary-eyed parents.

PART III: RESOLUTION

Letting down your fake partner is easy with these three magic words: "I've found Christ." Expect hostility from him or her. She will accuse you of being unmatriotic; he will accuse you of being a tease. Indeed, they are both right.

Now you can go back to your urban hermitage in peace. You won't be burdened by guilt from your parents about being unappealing to, and incompetent with, the opposite sex. Your true spouse, the television, will be waiting for you with a blank, motherly face. Enjoy!


Handy follow-up sites. (none / 0) (#1)
by because it isnt on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 06:42:40 AM PST
If you're a geek, you probably read JerkCity already. This has handy tips for feigning homosexuality. If you read Slashdot, you'll have noticed the extreme links to gay porn posted by "trolls" (this is actually notorious homosexual Commander Taco posting under aliases). Go have a visit. They're all free, as in "free and easy", as well as beer and speech.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Clown porn (none / 0) (#2)
by hauntedattics on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 07:08:20 AM PST
*disgusted shiver*

Why are clowns so scary? And are they all really perverts?



I can tell you why. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by elby on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:52:32 AM PST
Clowns can not be trusted. People with painted smiles always have something to hide.

-lb

 
one of the finest (none / 0) (#3)
by astrix on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 07:43:35 AM PST
pieces of work i've seen on adequacy.


"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" --Thomas Jefferson

 
I wonder... (none / 0) (#4)
by First Incision on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 07:44:27 AM PST
This might be a good idea for me. I think my parents already think I'm gay anyway.

The Lesbian way sounds a lot easier; "putting out" doesn't sound like something I would want to do. I wish I was a woman. Oh wait, NO!!!!!!
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
This is exceedingly dangerous advice (none / 0) (#5)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 08:03:22 AM PST
and I would delete this article if I was sure the rest of the editors would not resurrect it (it is a burden being one of the few Godly editors on this site).

I've seen far too many young men and women being brainwashed by the licentious liberalistic media into thinking that bisexuality is cool, and trendy. They then have a homosexual experience, usually while under the influence of marijuana. They find the experience physically pleasurable, but are wracked by wholesome guilt after. Of course, the only people they feel comfortable confiding in about this are other, practicing homosexualists, who tell them to deny God's voice and try this loathsome activity again. In a span of a few short months, they have become full fledged raging homosexualists, and usually morphing addicts too, as they still are nagged by feelings of guilt.

Please, if you have trouble finding an appropriate member of the opposite sex, there are far better methods of dealing with parental pressure (after all, your parents only want what's best for you). Have you considered a young adult's Mass?


A. Rightmann

My theory, a bit promiscuous but effective... (none / 0) (#9)
by Prof Jefferson Arthur C Kensington on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:23:01 AM PST
This may seem a bit off topic, but I beleive it could resolve this geek-sex situation...

I am a firm believer that young women should begin their 15 years of age by giving oral sex to older men as a means of keeping the "pervert level" down. This is a way to rid the world of 4 problems with one single stone:
1 - When should girls start having sexual activities?
2 - As we all know older men are the true child molesters and giving them a wide selection of young girls is a way of resolving this problem.
3 - Young girls will have aquired a taste for "man milk" and the typical slurping and sucking that such an activity promotes - which, in the future, will lead to their husbands being better satisfied.
4 - Giving girls an early taste for "tube steak" is a perfect way of creating a habit of it and not allowing them the prospect of "fur licking".

For young men, 14 through 16 years old, I believe they should start off with women in their 20s. Once again, this will help rid the world of a few problems:
1 - Horny teens shoplifting "pr0n" magazines.
2 - Ninfomaniac women have a steady "stream" of young man-meat in which they can bathe themselves in with their plentiful energy.
3 - Young men gain experience in pleasing their future lovers and wives at an age in which learning is easier.
4 - Boys will have learned the pleasures of women and will never be tempted to "man handle" a man-handle.

Those are my ideas.

I know they may seem a bit extreame but I believe they are effective in solving most of societies sexual problems.
--
"Random numbers are not really random, they're just numbers."
- Jefferson A. C. Kensington, 1993, "Lectures on Applied Mathematics".

Let me guess... (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:23:44 AM PST
Your doctorate is not in English.
Your spelling habits are atrocious.
Perhaps Dr. Cortez can lend you a few typists?

 
As a heterosexual man in a homosexual world... (5.00 / 3) (#65)
by jer on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 08:59:32 AM PST
As a heterosexual man in an increasingly homosexual world, I find this article invaluable, well worth its weight in gold.

Each year, thousands of heterosexual men are accosted, flirted with, even outright assaulted and raped by gay men. Why? Because we are nothing else but heterosexual. As Mr. Glouchester stated:

Gay men fantasize about sex with unattainable straight men; this is the homosexual equivalent of Barely Legal Magazine and clown porn.


While most of his article was very well-researched, he neglected to account for the millions of homosexual men who find pleasure in sexual crimes against the vocal heterosexual minority. Environments such as Prisons, Industrial Production Facilities, and JC Penneys attract, employ, or otherwise hold legions of homosexual men. Heterosexuality is something, in these places, that I am almost ashamed of.

The disturbing trend shows the numbers of homosexuals are increasingly on the rise, and soon, if not already, we will find brave young men and women coming out of the closet and declaring their heterosexuality; only to find that the world treats their lifestyle choice as something so shameful, something so mockable, that they are left in depression and therapy for years to come -- hoping to be 'cured' of their heterosexuality. It is to these persons where Mr. Glouchester's article holds most value -- showing them that while being heterosexual is something to be ashamed of, it is not something that they can find themselves capable of living with, in secrecy.

With the knowledge this article imparts, the next time you're in a department store and a man in his mid 30's by the name of Lance comes up to you wearing a flower hawaiian shirt, you won't think twice about how to gracefully accept his flirtatious advances.

Thank you.

 
WHERE DO YOU KNOW THAT THE GOD IS NOT GAY? (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 05:03:10 AM PST
Hmmmm?

Dear sir: (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 07:41:56 PM PST
This is The Adequacy.

We do not throw poop at each other for amusement, here. Please acclimate yourself, and leave your primitive culture behind you.

 
gay god (none / 0) (#81)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 08:57:52 AM PST
Because god is a figment of the imagination, and as such, people can hold as idealistic a vision of him as they choose. That being said, the Christian church is founded on such a flawed principle, the literal interpretation of the bible as fact. I'm not a christian, but i've read the bible and do believe there is a lot of truth in it. I like to think of it as an instruction manual for the human race on how not to be an asshole.

you (none / 0) (#83)
by tkatchev on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 09:35:01 AM PST
are so completely stupid.


--
Peace and much love...

No, I think you are completely stupid. :) (none / 0) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:47:50 AM PST



Don't worry. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 02:31:37 PM PST
It's simply your lack of experience showing.

Good luck, and don't let the bad people bully you.


--
Peace and much love...

You see? You are a complete idiot!!!! :) (0.66 / 3) (#98)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 01:08:01 AM PST
Hahahahahaha!

 
Exactly! :) (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:46:36 AM PST



 
Much easier way (none / 0) (#6)
by Icebox on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 08:20:36 AM PST
Actually, most male geeks could get this same result in a much easier way.

They would just need to take the 10 year old boy they have been molesting to their family Christmas gathering and introduce him as 'son'. They could claim that they had to hide their shame of an unwed pregnancy or whatever to cover for not introducing him sooner. The boy wouldn't argue because male geeks are well trained pedophiles are have a virtual underground network of child banging advice centers.

Any boy raping Linux programmers care to comment on the effectiveness of this technique?

YES, IT IS VERY EFFECTIVE. :) (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 05:05:48 AM PST



 
Why do you hate America? (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 09:53:07 AM PST
The homosexualist agenda is destroying America. These subhumans brought the September 11th terrorist attacks on us by removing The Lord's protection from our great Christian nation.<p>
Homosexuality is terrorism.

um (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:01:32 AM PST
^
|
|
|Homophobic ;)

So? (none / 0) (#10)
by tkatchev on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:42:44 AM PST
Is that bad? You use it like it's a swear word.


--
Peace and much love...

No he doesn't (none / 0) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 01:48:01 AM PST
What are you implying?

Could be a she. (none / 0) (#21)
by Ernest Bludger on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 04:47:12 AM PST
You just can't tell with ARs.

I know, (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 03:28:01 PM PST
I was using "he" as the default pronoun in the case where neither gender is specified. It may not be considered acceptable as it has been in the past, but I use it anyway, as it is easier than typing "he/she," which I think looks awkward anyway.

 
Homophobes are people too. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 09:43:46 AM PST
Who gave you the right to hate a large group of people for no reason at all but their thoughts?

Did it ever occur to you that some homophobes cannot help themselves? That maybe they were born like that? Perhaps you think that all homophobes are "evil"; do you also believe that they all should be punished? Gassed in concentration camps, perhaps?

In fact, I'm sorely tempted to call you a Nazi. You disgust me.


--
Peace and much love...

Duh. (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 06:23:51 PM PST
The honourable AR does not hate homophobes - rather, their opinions. It's quite OK to hate the sin, not the sinner, yeah?

I have a very liberal viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with homophobia. Homophobes are perfectly OK with me as long as they don't try to promote their homophobic views. After all, it is every parent's worst nightmare that their open-minded children come back from school as bigots.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Is that a personal bias? (none / 0) (#40)
by tkatchev on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 01:52:11 AM PST
Or a consistent viewpoint?

That is, would you object if a homosexual person tried to "indoctrinate" your children?


--
Peace and much love...

I certainly would object. (none / 0) (#45)
by because it isnt on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 07:21:20 AM PST
That sounds to me more like paedophillia, gay or otherwise. Sexual predators are a danger our children have to look out for. It's supposedly the law in Britain that all teachers (and other people who work with children) have to be vetted by the police, although that doesn't always work.

The old "promotion" law caused extreme controversy when it was introduced, and again when we repealed it in Scotland (it's still law in England thanks to the Lords). Why not put in laws against "promoting" alternative religions, or against "promoting" crimethink?

Personally, I want my children's sex-ed classes to "promote" relationships, rather than biology, experimentation and casual sex. But I would certainly want my children to know that gay people exist and they're not evil aliens with acid for blood, etc.

Parents who object to their children even hearing the word "gay" already have the power to pull their kids out of sex-ed classes, just as they have the power to pull their children from religious assembly. The curriculum for each sex-ed class is discussed with them beforehand. It's not like they're lacking in options.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
HAHAHA! I laugh at this comment with my ASS!!!! (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:51:16 AM PST
And there really is nothing else to say!!!! Please write couple of comments like this, they are better than the finest medicine in the world!!!!!

HIIII HOOOOOOO HOHOHOHOHOH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
YEEEEE HEHEHEHEHEH HAAA HA HA HA HAH A

<DEEEEEP INHALE!>

HAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA HEHEHEHEHE
HE HAHAHAAAAAAAA HOOOOOOO HHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

<DEEEEEP INHALE!>

HAHAHAHAHAHA HEHEHEHEHE
HE HAHAHAAAAAAAA HOOOOOOO HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HE HEH HEHEHEH HE!

please, sir (none / 0) (#91)
by nathan on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 11:49:45 AM PST
Take your gaping, roaring anus somewhere else.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Thanks for the link Nathan, I masturbated (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 01:09:36 AM PST
several times. :)

you must be addled by onanism (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by nathan on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 02:21:22 PM PST
Considering the link was broken.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

You know you can fix the typos in links. (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 07:41:39 AM PST
Especially stupid ones. : )



 
correction (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 01:44:20 AM PST
you brought it upon yourselves by being christians. second of all, this isn't a christian nation. this is a country that was based on freedom and it seems to me like the right-winger facists like you wanna control every aspect of my life or be controlled yourselves. we aren't america's corruption. you are.

 
No (4.00 / 4) (#12)
by Right Hand Man on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 11:56:44 AM PST
You young people reading this certainly don't want to take this advice. Not only will you have to have to renounce this sort of behavior when you turn yourself over to God, which you will, but you will encounter significant risk to your health while practicing the homosexual lifestyle. As most homosexuals are infested with innumerable diseases, mere proximity to them puts you at risk, not to mention having to constantly look over your shoulder to see who might be following you, or checking under your car to be sure that no one has been tampering with things.

No, you will be much better off both physically and spiritually if you just get your head in the right place. Live the life that God intended: Get hold of a good woman, get married in a church, and start a family.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Back off zealot (none / 0) (#14)
by battyone on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 02:54:34 PM PST
Not all people give themselves to god....if god loved us would he have put us on this world...and many straight people have STD's...I am sure god was there when they were sharing dope needles and having unsafe sex...in some cases gay/lesbian people are more clean than others because of the fact there is no sex on the first few dates...I am tired of zealots telling people what to do, then finding out their local preists are doing worse crimes...I am not gay, but I dont beleive in the church...the church needs to re-evaulate itself, because if it cant do its job on the defenders of itself..then how is it supposed to do its job on the so-called bad people...


---------------------
Whats life without freedom, how can so many claim to be free, yet deep down they know that they are being controled by people who dont care about them...when will man stop being hearded around as cattle??? <sig test>

Some advice. (none / 0) (#19)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:02:06 AM PST
Back off that ellipsis mark and learn to use the shift key, and just maybe people will stop ridiculing you as a clown.

Good luck. Life must be difficult for you.


--
Peace and much love...

Interesting advice (none / 0) (#25)
by battyone on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:29:36 AM PST
You are the only one who I have met online in any community who couldn't find anything other than my sentence structure and lack of shift-key use to flame. Congrats, you made my day.

I'm an egotist. (none / 0) (#27)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:57:54 AM PST
You see, if I wanted to "discuss" your very "original" and "insightful" ideas, I would have to lower myself to your level; as you can guess, that would be very painful and unpleasant. Sort of like trying to pretend for a moment that you have the brain of a jellyfish.


--
Peace and much love...

egotists (none / 0) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 08:48:57 AM PST
Well, you're obviously so much fucking better than everyone else here, you arrogant prick.

Obviously. (none / 0) (#84)
by tkatchev on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 09:36:47 AM PST
I am.


--
Peace and much love...

You are not even a shit compared to my (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:56:43 AM PST
significance. I will never reply to any of your message again. Haha. :)



"Not even a shit"? (none / 0) (#93)
by tkatchev on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 02:33:16 PM PST
That's like so bad grammar.


--
Peace and much love...

Cult? (0.00 / 2) (#104)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 08:31:02 PM PST
You treat Christianity as if its a cult. I think you have major issues or may be gay and is covering up. Ohh and your little signature is so wrong if you believed in peace you would shut your mouth retard.

 
he could find other stuff (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by nathan on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 12:22:07 PM PST
But he decided to begin with criticising you for your inane disregard for the fundamentals of communication and composition.

HTH

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Only Pope thinks like you in Europe. Get a life. (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 03:29:45 AM PST
I am bisexual.

We are living in 2002. There is an explosion in bisexuality. And it has a huge philosophy based on understanding behind, which I doubt you can ever grasp with your peanut sized brain.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuality, it is completely natural. There are anilmals amoung which homosexual encounters are being observed, like monkeys. You are even more close minded then monkeys in this manner.

There are ages in which homosexuality was honoured over heterosexuality, ie. Greek and Roman times. But you are such an idiot that you probably don't even feel the need to learn about your own race's cultural progression.

90 percent of the greatest artists were open minded unlike yourself.

:)

We are having so much fun here in Europe, come and join us if you want to get a life you pathetic creature.



I agree (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by nathan on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 10:29:11 AM PST
As Tchaikovsky said, "There is no genius without searing buttsex."

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
"A huge philosophy based on understanding beh (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by tkatchev on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 11:47:43 AM PST
!


--
Peace and much love...

 
Half-truth (none / 0) (#77)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 03:12:28 PM PST
Homosexuality in ancient Greek almost exclusively took place between a man and a young boy, without the freely given consent of the involved youths. (Not that minors are capable of consent.) In reality, what you are celebrating as the permissiveness of the ancient Greeks was really a culture that encouraged pederasty of the worst kind.


NO! As a person who has archa. master, (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:44:03 AM PST
The worst form of pedop. is

This is not true, homosexuality was very common in Greek and Rome, and was practiced between members of all the age categories. Pedop.? Yes it was also happening. This does not mean that we should be homosexuals and rape childs.

Do you know what inquisition is? Do you think that torturing and killing scientists and innocent people was a very nice practice? YOUR CHURCHES DID IT!

People who likes same sex relationships can have same sex relationships. People who don't can keep being like that.

Don't you people ever wonder, why homosexuals never say everybody MUST be homosexuals, but it is some heterosexuals who suggest everybody MUST be heterosexual?

Being open minded is not for stupid people.




It's time for the university degree shout-out! (none / 0) (#94)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 04:29:36 PM PST
I have a PhD in Theology, a masters in Psychology and another in Philosophy. So I am quite familiar with the ancient Greeks, and am more qualified than you to say that homosexuality was used purely to enforce a power relationship between young boys and their older patrons, much as it is used in prisons to demonstrate who is the "bitch" and who is not. The claim that the ancient Greeks were flaming queers is a popular homosexual myth. In particular, the statement that this has something to do with the history of Western thought and culture is an example of extremely wishful thinking. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Euripedes et al were not involved in the alleged gay sex. That the poets and philosophers of Athens account for almost all of the Greek culture upon which we are supposed to have based our own renders irrelevant any facets of the culture outside those few select thinkers. We inherited the ideas of Socrates and his followers. We didn't inherit the Athenian culture, and we only managed to retain what we know of ancient Greece through the efforts of Catholicism in the middle ages.

Which brings me to another point: I am not a Catholic. In point of fact, I am a Jehovah's Witness, and I think you'll find that the human rights record of my religion is unimpeachable.

Finally, I honestly don't care who you stick it in. I defy you to find any statement I have made which claims that there was anything wrong with being gay.

Oh, list of degrees? Here is mine: (none / 0) (#96)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 12:58:47 AM PST
I have Physics and Computer Engineering undergraduates, Archaeology, History of Art and Psychology masters. I am half Turkish half Greek, and living in Prague. You cannot know my culture better than me, so shut up. Oh, I am of course atheist.

There is huge amount of homosexuality in Greek culture now too. That is not because they are Greek, that is because they are open minded. Homosexuality is part of the human nature. It is very common in all the world. But discrete in many places, because of the bullying idiot narrow minded religious or racist or communist people. In Turkey even, although they are muslim, homosexuality is now very common. America is even behind Islamic Country in this sense. That is why it is so common in Europe. Europe is open minded.

In Roman and Greek worlds, homosexuality was a very normal preference. There was no difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Yes, there was old man-young boy relationships, as you said, but, it was normal for those times. And, there was also young girl, old men forced relationships too. There was homosexual relationships among all the ages in both sexes. Stop judging ancient times with contemporary American morals. In Europe, homosexuality is on the same scale as heterosexuality now.

Do you need proof? Read Sappho's lyrics, and look at wall paintings from Ancient times to learn some sex positions depicting homosexual intercourses which you won't even find even in Kama Sutra.

I do not know anything about your religion, and do not want to know either. I am a honest person, I do not lie, cheat and steal. Believe it or not I am a nice person. I do not need any religion. Religion is for stupid and weak people. But, I must confess, I has sex with a boy once in Turkey, who was in the same religion as you are now. :)




You are clearly lying or deluded (3.00 / 2) (#101)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 08:10:16 AM PST
The history of homosexual pederasty in ancient Greece is quite well documented, and it largely contradicts your allegedly educated view. Perhaps you should study it, rather than simply using an absurdly misinformed view of ancient Greek culture to validate your lifestyle choice. Also, "wall paintings" are not a particularly good source for homosexual greek art, because the Greeks never painted on walls. Did you mean vases? Or did you just make something up? Also, the modern Greeks are not descended from the ancient Greeks, whose culture was wiped out by tribes from Asia. Would you like to tell me a little about Hindu culture instead, since you stand slightly more chance of being a son of the Brahmins than you do of being a son of the Athenians.

Besides all that, I think you probably have a bit of a persecution complex. Maybe that psychology degree of yours will come in handy for that, eh?

Check out this links. : ) (5.00 / 1) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 3rd, 2002 at 07:37:51 AM PST
I meant Roman wall paintings, but Greek vase paintingss are also good source. Check out Pompei erotic wall paintings. Erotic ones, showing bisexuals in action. :) Or you can also check Greek vase paintings. They also have lots of homosexual acts. Just searched Google, here is the link to some Greek vase paintings dear friend. You can search for Roman ones. :

http://dejesus.1colony.com/greekart.html

I am not lying. You cannot know how attitude towards gay people in Europe. You must live in Europe. I know how it is in US, because I lived there for 2 years.

The things you say about Greeks. It is funny. What Asia tribes are you talking about? Even so, it does not matter. I see lots of lots of homosexuals in Greece now, probably because those Brahmins are also very open minded too. :)

And I cannot understand why are you accusing me of lying or being delusional. This is nothing to do with our context. It looks like they give masters degree to everyone in US.



 
Greeks and Romans (5.00 / 1) (#78)
by First Incision on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 04:52:17 PM PST
You should also read your history. Christianity grew out of a reaction to the decadence and sin of this Greek and Roman culture you celebrate. Early Christianity spread like wildfire through the Hellenic world (and later through the Roman world) because people were sick and tired of the ogiastic and pedophillic underpinnings of Greek culture. I can scarecly imagine the joy one would experience hearing the Gospel, after growing up in such a disgustingly immmoral culture.

Well, acutally, being an American, I can imagine that fairly easily.

You mention cultural progression, and then dream of regressing back through history to the days of Roman orgies and even further back to our ape ancestors' homosexuality. I will keep the true cultural progress given to us by the Church under the Lord Jesus Christ, thank you very much.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

TELL IT TO BLOWJOB PRIESTS. :) HAHA! (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 08:36:58 AM PST
I am the guy who has written the "Only pope thinks like you" bullet.

Cristianity is against homosexuality as other "new" religions, like islam, since those religions are in friction with each other, and homosexuality is believed to decrease birth rate. "Old" religions are not against homosexuality at all.

America stands on Europe culture, and Europe culture stands on Greek and Roman culture. So, know your roots.

I see you despise Greek and Roman culture, but those are the times democracy is "invented" and arts flourished more than any era in the world anywhere. AND, it was not only common in Greek and Rome, but also it was very common in Palastenian empire, Australian aborigines etc.

And, I said only Pope thinks about you. Yes, apperantly, other priests do not, so that they are having sex with the church boys frequently. Haha.

I cannot believe these close minded people. Can you understand the following:

RELIGION AND RACISM ARE PERFECT FORMS OF ORGANIZED CRIMES! T H E Y K I L L P E O P L E!!!!







Understanding (none / 0) (#95)
by First Incision on Thu May 30th, 2002 at 05:31:37 PM PST
No, I do not understand what you typed.

Racism is not organized.
Religion is not perfect.
Religion is not a crime.

Screaming liberalists who want to criminalize religion also K I L L P E O P L E, as you would put it. Just ask tkachev.

I do not despise all of Greek and Roman culture. These cultures are the foundation of Western culture AND my religion. I do despise pedophilia, homosexuality, screaming liberalism, and other sins. I despise them just as I despise the sinful parts of my own self.

Yes, I do think like the Pope. But I am not the only one.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Read some history (none / 0) (#97)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 01:05:46 AM PST
"Racism is not organized."
What about Hitler? What about KKKlan?

"Religion is not perfect."
Yes, never been, and never will be.

"Religion is not a crime."
It is not a crime. But there are many religious criminals. Do you remember islamic attack to twin towers?

"Yes, I do think like the Pope. But I am not the only one."
Maybe in America. Here, Pope is alone. :)

The point is, you can regard homosexuality as a sin, you may not practice it. It is your right. I don't force you to be homosexual. You cannot force me to be heterosexual. Do you know anything about respecting other people's life styles? This is it.

Yes (none / 0) (#102)
by First Incision on Fri May 31st, 2002 at 08:50:39 AM PST
As an American, I know a lot about respecting other people's lifestyles. Obviously, as a European liberalist, you have very little experience with basic human respect. I will thank you for showing me basic human respect. Please refrain from calling me and my brethren criminals.

I fail to see your point with the 9/11 attackers. I will not dispute the evils of religious fanaticism, but far more people this century have been killed by atheist liberalists than religious fanatics. I shall point only to the the most heinous examples of Hitler and Stalin. Such is the result when people such as you have their way, and religion is criminalized.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Crazy! (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 08:01:03 PM PST
Wow, i assumed this reply wasnt serious until i read everyone elses replies. Maybe I'm completely wrong here but THE ORIGINAL POST WAS INTENTED AS A JOKE!
There's nothing funnier then crazy American christians, for people who claim to despise homosexuality so much they seem to spend a lot of time with their heads stuck up their asses.


 
very sound advice (none / 0) (#13)
by anti filidor on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 12:00:16 PM PST
but a word of caution to any males who might try this: most gay men like actual anal sex. Avoid this at all costs if you do not want to live out the rest of your days nursing a colostomy bag.

Wouldn't the easiest solution just be to never talk to your parents, though? It's not like parents have much to offer at that point anyway. If you don't like them, your obligations are pretty sparse.

re: very sound advice (none / 0) (#15)
by eSolutions on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 04:06:13 PM PST
> Wouldn't the easiest solution just be to never
> talk to your parents, though? It's not like
> parents have much to offer at that point
> anyway. If you don't like them, your
> obligations are pretty sparse.

Yes, but wouldn't that require some measure of spine? Geeks are the Defeated Race, like the now-extinct French were in yore. Standing up to their parents is as terrifying to the geek-folk as talking to a good-looking person, or bathing. Better for their kind to slave at their terminals and fantasize about a cyborg-ruled future. Like the homeless, they wish only to be ignored.


------- You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

Defeated race... (none / 0) (#16)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 04:34:55 PM PST
...that keeps the contemporary society together as we know it.

No geeks - no networks, no computers, no modern communications, no R&D. Back to 40's, at the best. So either they will survive and do well, or the future will get Really Interesting.

On another thought - what is a cyborg? Does a wearable computer count? Does a cardiostimulator count? Augmentation of human capabilities (or replacement of lost/missing ones - pacemakers, insulin pumps...) by technological means is the next logical step in evolving of the human race. So unless a large-scale technological setback happens, the future *will* be ruled by cyborgs.

On yet another thought, who had that stupid idea that two serial ports in one computer and lousy 16 IRQs will be enough? I need four more.


He's right (none / 0) (#17)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 10:55:57 PM PST
The cyborgs will be called terminators and they will all look like Arnold Schwarzeneggar, or some other muscular homoerotic geek fantasy. They'll be controlled from outer space by a space supercomputer network, and they will grind civilisation beneath their cybersteel hooves.

Bullshit. (none / 0) (#23)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 09:49:53 AM PST
If even only because big war-machines are way too expensive to how vulnerable they are. The future of war will follow the path of insect swarms; masses of cheap, small, dispensable machines.

The cyborgs of the future will be most-likely normal-looking people. Maybe with a built-in piece of silicon (or its functional equivalent) here or there. Communicating with each other and with the computers in very similar way we are used to now with the computers and cellphones and PDAs, just more comfortably.


That will be fantastic (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 03:02:12 AM PST
Until the insidious robo-insect hordes take over your mental computer chips and turn you into their brainwashed slaves. A lifetime of servitude awaits those who work towards Mad Scientist's future. If you're on the side of technical progress, it's time to ask yourself an important question: Are you already serving the hive mind of the insect overlords? The answer is yes.

Security (none / 0) (#43)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 05:44:43 AM PST
is a fundamental component of each design. Chip implants are no exception.

Free hint: If Microsoft will be still around in the age of chip implants, avoid them. Or at least very thoroughly review the default config.

You will have no choice but work for augmentation of humans with computers, both actively (by developing it) and passively (by using it). You are part of capitalist system - so productivity is sacred. Anything that increases the productivity is as well. Refuse to go this way, lose (or not get) a job.

Sorry, you have no real choice.

Regarding robotic insect, a nice article describing the wing mechanics is here. More general article describing the use and construction of micro-air vehicles is here. Check here for some talk about tactical mobile robots. About future warfare strategies read here.


I refer to g**k dogma (none / 0) (#46)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 07:32:03 AM PST
As you g**ks have been telling us for years, there is no such thing as watertight security. With the minds of an entire hive of superintelligent robo-bees, no cyborg's neural transponders will be safe. The bees will hack into your brainstem as easily as a twelve year old novice hacker "ownz" a linux "boxor". I'm sorry Mad Scientist, but I must insist that there is nothing left for the technological world to do. Further progress would be regress. You cannot add to the world's current technical achievements without taking away from society, or from the current state of technology itself.

Spelling error! (none / 0) (#47)
by tkatchev on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 07:38:19 AM PST
I belive you meant to say: "0wNzor da Lenix b0Xen".


--
Peace and much love...

 
Re: (none / 0) (#49)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 10:54:06 AM PST
As no security is watertight, the adversary (in this case the "bees") will be vulnerable as well. In some cases, the best defense is a well-scaled attack.

Regarding default-install boxes: a service that doesn't run can't be exploited. Moral: don't run what you don't need. Carefully check what the out-of-the-box machine does.

Regarding progress vs regress, it greatly depends on what weight you set to what variables in evaluating of your assumption. What's sure, though, is that there will be social changes caused by the technology. If you will manage to be on their good end or bad end is on you. I got my share of evil stares for talking for dozens of minutes on the cellphone when downtown or in a bus/tram. Do I care? If it would be them on the other end of the phone, they would be happy I am answering their question, regardless where I am.

Had you ever played chess?


Ahem. (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 02:51:37 PM PST
"I got my share of evil stares for talking for dozens of minutes on the cellphone when downtown or in a bus/tram."

No further questions, your honor.

If you need... (none / 0) (#55)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 03:28:50 PM PST
...to get somewhere and at the same time to troubleshoot, you have no other choice than to take advantage of mobile communication technology. Theatres are sacred. Buses or sidewalks? In no case. If we have GSM, I will take the bloody advantage of it. If you don't like it, tough luck; my clients sure like it and they matter more for me than common plebs.


Cough. (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 09:10:26 PM PST
If it please the court, could we please read back the relevant portion of the citation?

"I got my share of evil stares"

Thank you.

 
Point-by-point rebuttal (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 03:03:16 PM PST
Since we are currently living under a despotic state capitalist regime which outlaws direct quotation, I am forced to paraphrase your statements in order to reply to them. Bear with me.

We will easily overthrow the cyberbee imperialist running dog capitalist, comrade. Da.

You can't, Mad Scientist. You're massively outnumbered, and they don't have human weaknesses like compassion.

Linux vulnerable? Never! It is the fault of the operator, always.

I'm quite sick of hearing this. If linux needs an expert sysadmin (an apparent oxymoron) to make it secure, then it is clearly not a secure system. Linux is designed for insecurity if it must be retrofitted to be made safe.

I refuse to admit that the modern world is charging willy-nilly towards a goal that it has not clearly defined, and therefore has not taken the time to understand. The assumption that scientific progress is an absolute benefit to mankind may have been shaken by the horrors of the nuclear age, however I remain certain that the future holds in store for us a paradise on Earth. Science will provide this. This is not an article of faith, this is simply a result of setting my weights in my variables or some other gibberish.

This is the worst defence of the "science is neutral" argument that I have ever seen. Science is not morally neutral, since every scientist makes decisions at various points in his or her life regarding the direction their research will take, and for whom they will be employed. Whether or not they choose to deal with the moral aspect of these decisions has no bearing on the moral nature of their eventual choices. If more scientists would stop to consider the real world outcomes of their investigations, difficult though these considerations will be, science would realise that its job is done. The further improvement of mankind will not result from progess, but will be bought at an onerous price by ordinary men, who will elevate mankind through striving and faith.

Had you ever played chess?

Had I ever played chess when?

Re: (none / 0) (#56)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 04:30:33 PM PST
If the adversary is stronger, you have to resort to nonconventional style of warfare. Sometimes the best strategy is to not fight and instead collect resources and knowledge and wait for the right moment. Almost always there is a chance.

Any system that has to be secure needs a skilled admin. (Another thing is that skilled admins are rare.)

Science itself is neutral, at least on the elementary research level. Ie, I once assisted (sat down, watched the dials, and wrote down values each time it beeped) with some measurements on superconductors (and seen liquid helium - a *really* cool thing to see). The thing in question was a harmless-looking black ceramics. Applications of high-temperature superconductivity are countless - from magnets for tokamaks to maglev trains to weapons; and it is a nice work to do, as the labs are quiet and calm (though the rare earth metals are unpleasantly toxic).

Most important technological breakthroughs start on such level, where the end-user applications can't be predicted; the rest is just an applied research and then engineering. If everyone would refuse to develop anything that could cause any social changes, we'd be still on trees.

I don't know how you, but if I'd have to choose between striving and a calm life in a lab shared with a quietly ticking closecycle helium cooler, I know what I'd pick.

I wonder if you'd have a close-to-you person slowly dying because of some incurable-yet illness, how you would talk about medical research not being necessary anymore.


I am dying. (5.00 / 5) (#57)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 05:57:48 PM PST
So, in fact, are you, and everyone else on the planet who is not frozen in liquid nitrogen. In roughly four centuries of serious, scientific research, medical science has not prevented one person from dying. The constant appeal to medicine as the unimpeachably saintly face of scientific research is an entirely emotional -- even hysterical -- position based on our shapeless fears of death. Medical science is nothing more than a security blanket for modern civilisation, which is uniquely unwilling to face the single most important fact of its existance, both collectively and as individuals. There is no ultimate point, logically speaking, in pursuing medical research.

After serious reflection, I am sure most would agree that agriculture has made more contributions to humanity than medicine. Why then, are our children more interested in becoming doctors than farmers? It cannot just be money: any reasonable vigneron, for example, with a few hectares in a good area will make more than most doctors in an average year, yet even the vineyards of France are having trouble finding people to rent them, their original owners having headed off to Paris, pursuing the finer life they expect to find in the modern world.

I think you have revealed a fundamental difference between our worldviews when you state (if I read you correctly) that you would prefer a cold, soulless laboratory life to the endless pageant of human endeavour that awaits those who are willing to open their eyes and accept without criticism, the nature and beauty of humanity. It appears that science is now represented by people who shun society. I cannot help but ask, how can science claim to advance humanity if it does not even like it? It is clear that science has long since abandoned the betterment of the human race and is pursuing progress for its own sake. The mantle of the scientist is now assumed not for the sake of inquiry, but as a protective barrier between the antisocial scientist and the outside world.

In short, I can think of no more noble a calling than the improvement of the world by honest labour in any field. A primary school teacher who passes on the rudiments of civilisation to a new generation is infinitely more valuable to the human race than the scientist who huddles in the friendless dark around his esoteric scientific game.

the good doctor... (none / 0) (#69)
by nathan on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 02:15:26 AM PST
Goes into medicine because he has a calling for it. But many study medicine for less noble reasons. In my experience, medical students often see medicine as a passport into the upper middle class (which is quite funny, considering that a partnership in glove factory will probably make you more money than an M.D.)

Lots of academically apt people without the entrepreneurial elan to buy supermarkets, invest in dry-cleaning shops, or found construction firms go into medicine. It pays well enough, it is a socially respected position, there is a market for doctors, and (most importantly) it requires relatively little initiative and independent thought. For some people, the easiest thing to do is school, not work, and those people frequently wind up med students.

This totally sucks.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Trolling for me, Nathan? (none / 0) (#70)
by First Incision on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 08:04:53 AM PST
I'm flattered.

I'm going into medicine, because it's what God wants me to do. Period. And I'm serious. I am thankful that my calling is into a field that pays well, but that is secondary. Yes, I want entry into this upper-middle class, but that is also secondary.

I am insulted that you say medicine requires little initiative. Just my getting through my first year has required more initiative than I knew I had. I also think you have underestimated the entreprenurial nature of a medical practice. Of course there are hospitalists and HMO employees, but most physicians are small-business owners. Most of us want to start our own business, attract customers, motivate employees, and (most of all) provide a service to the community.

You think we go to school because it is the easiest thing to do? While most of what you said can apply to some people, I think you are totally wrong here. Every single one of us could be doing something easier, right now.

On the subject of independent thought: God, you are right. I wish you weren't. I am literally starved for independent thought. I miss being able to question the conclusions of my professors. It's hard to do that when I have something new thrown at me before I have time to think critically about the last thing.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Let me clear something up (none / 0) (#71)
by nathan on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 01:34:14 PM PST
There's nothing I respect more than a doctor who considers his profession a vocation. I think most of us have experience of those great people who work ceaselessly and selflessly for the good of the rest of us. I would never attack a good doctor, or even an average one who's doing his job decently and professionally.

I do stand by my assertion, though, that some people drift into medicine. A few of the people I knew in high school fit that category. They were bright kids with good marks, with the ability to learn whatever material needed to be learnt; an ability made of equal parts intelligence and drive. They were usually talented in many areas (you might remember my post about musical med students a few days back,) which diversity of gifts I presume was to serve them well in medicine. It's a field whose practitioners must be good students, good communicators, both analytical and intuitive, able to master and recall fine details and yet to improvise in the tensest situations.

Still, there was something passive about their studying medicine. One girl I knew graduated second in our high-school class. She always did her homework well in advance, but she wasn't a nerd. She read outside of class, not an awful lot, but more than most people would. She was athletic and in the yearbook club and she played trombone in the school band. She placed in national science fairs.

What she didn't do was consider anything as a calling. I never knew her to read something out of love for learning. She wasn't interested in chess or dancing or the theater or gourmet cookery. Her interests were limited to things that other people, especially her parents and teachers, endorsed as being the proper interests of a bright young woman. In other words, she was without intellectual passions.

Her decision was precisely to go into medicine, rather than to become a doctor. My acqaintance with other medical students has convinced me that this is not uncommon. Medical school is painful, costly, and hard on the soul, but for some people it is a weird kind of path of least resistance. Medicine is hardly the only field in which this happens. Yet, precisely because medicine is such a high calling, a high standard must be expected of doctors. I hope it's clear that what I've said comes out of my continuing high regard for the medical profession and my awareness of its importance to society.

I wish I could say as confidently as you that most medical students feel as you do, First Incision. I certainly will defer to your incomparably greater experience in rendering a decision.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
medicine (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed May 29th, 2002 at 09:11:33 AM PST
There is no ultimate point, logically speaking, in pursuing medical research.

How about the prolongation of life? Decreasing infant mortality rates? Relief of pain and suffering? I've never heard anyone say that the goal of medical science was immortality. The word medical is derived from the latin medicus, meaning physician, which in turn came from mederi, to heal.

 
A point-by-point rebuttal for 'Slave. (none / 0) (#60)
by because it isnt on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 04:54:19 AM PST
Since we are currently living under a despotic state capitalist regime which outlaws direct quotation, I am forced to paraphrase your statements in order to reply to them. Bear with me.

RobotSlave sucks dogs'

You can't, Mad Scientist. You're massively outnumbered, and they don't have human weaknesses like compassion.

cocks in

I'm quite sick of hearing this. If linux needs an expert sysadmin (an apparent oxymoron) to make it secure, then it is clearly not a secure system. Linux is designed for insecurity if it must be retrofitted to be made safe.

Hell and licks cats'

This is the worst defence of the "science is neutral" argument that I have ever seen. Science is not morally neutral, since every scientist makes decisions at various points in his or her life regarding the direction their research will take, and for whom they will be employed. Whether or not they choose to deal with the moral aspect of these decisions has no bearing on the moral nature of their eventual choices. If more scientists would stop to consider the real world outcomes of their investigations, difficult though these considerations will be, science would realise that its job is done. The further improvement of mankind will not result from progess, but will be bought at an onerous price by ordinary men, who will elevate mankind through striving and faith.

bums for

Had I ever played chess when?

kicks.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

This is so unlike you. (none / 0) (#61)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 05:19:34 AM PST
Is something troubling you? Anything you'd care to discuss?

Oh, nothing much. (none / 0) (#62)
by because it isnt on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 05:39:07 AM PST
Just that the 'Slave deleted some infringing comments of mine without even putting up one of his world-famous Deletion Notices. I got hit by an awful flashback. Back, when I was a fresh-faced university student, I'd trip out on "use net". I don't touch the stuff these days but I still get flashbacks to the PKBs and the IKYABWAIs, the craven cowardice and the snipping of the newsgroups line. Stuff like that.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Paranoia (none / 0) (#63)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 06:32:29 AM PST
If nobody claimed responsibility, how can you possibly know it was RobotSlave? Ah, life under the jackboot heels of the secret police.

I always thought IKYABWAI was reserved as an satirically derisive response to really lame insults. I give people far too much credit, I guess.


All I'm saying: (none / 0) (#64)
by because it isnt on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 07:30:34 AM PST
Anthropologists visiting alt.flame in a hundred years time might mistake Paul Reubens for some kind of primitive god or idol, worshipped by tpyo-pouncing poltroons.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Surely you meant to say (none / 0) (#66)
by dmg on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 02:27:14 PM PST
"Anthropologists".

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

I said (none / 0) (#67)
by because it isnt on Mon May 20th, 2002 at 04:58:19 PM PST
Anthropologists, and that's what I meant. I realise we do not see eye to eye over use of quotation marks, but please understand that my only aim is to reveal the truth.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Your ignorance of history frightens me (none / 0) (#18)
by First Incision on Fri May 17th, 2002 at 11:02:24 PM PST
Were not the African Americans a "defeated race?" Was not the entire Western world smoking and wearing the fruits of the blacks' labors? Did not the economy of the South collapse after the slaves were emancipated.

Just because a group of people is vital to the functioning of society does not mean they are in control.

Note: I do not wish to belittle the monumental suffering of slaves by comparing it to the inconsequential suffering of g**ks. I am merely using hyperbole to make a point.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Emancipation... (none / 0) (#26)
by John Wainright on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:44:23 AM PST
May have hastened the crumbling of the Southern States economy, but nothing was going to stop that.
The inefficient use of slave labor in the industrial age would have defeated the south without a shot being fired. Perhaps it would have taken a few more years, but eventually those using slaves for labor would not have been able to compete on the world market.
Lincoln freeing the slaves was an economic decision. Britain already had done away with slavery and was loathe to deal with nations that continued the practice. The US Government's decision to abolish the practice hampered the British ability to trade and stimulate the economy of the Southern states. After all why lose face supporting a group who continued a practice you condemned?
Pure genius.
Not only did the government do away with a social system that was rapidly dying out but also they were able to bolster their offensive against the renegade states.

Far from being "defeated" the former slaves picked themselves up by their bootstraps.

Long denied the right to educate themselves they pursued higher learning.
Instead of holding on to the fact that they were mistreated for centuries, they took advantage of all this great land has to offer. Doctors,
Lawyers, Chemists, Bankers, Astronauts, Butchers, Bakers, and Microchip Makers, they all endeavored to contribute to this great land.

Until the 60's and the welfare state brought some of them back the servitude they were freed from.





I agree. (none / 0) (#28)
by tkatchev on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 11:03:24 AM PST
The degradation of the black ghetto is horrible.

The worst part is that they have nobody to blame but themselves.

P.S. Strange that American blacks are in such a disadvantaged position; personally, I belive that their culture is the most spiritual and honest thing to have come out of America. "African-American" literature is probably the only worthy product of America on a global scale.


--
Peace and much love...

Black culture and politics (none / 0) (#39)
by First Incision on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:32:19 PM PST
I have often noticed that many complaints thrown by Europeans at American Culture really only applies to White American Culture. I think most leftist urban Europeans would find a lot in common with American Blacks.

On the other hand, African-American leftivism tends to be of a different sort. It tends to have a much more Christian basis.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Christian leftivism? (none / 0) (#41)
by tkatchev on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 01:56:44 AM PST
Now you're going to have to define what you mean by "leftivism", because from where I'm coming from "leftivism" by definition is anti-Christian.


--
Peace and much love...

Left (none / 0) (#44)
by First Incision on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 07:20:25 AM PST
I guess the left would be pretty anti-Christian in Russia. There are actually some very different flavors of the Black left, but I have found very few Black rightists.

In the US, the left is often defined by a desire for more welfare, universal healthcare, supporting organized labor, and a general increased involvement of the government in the citizens' daily lives.

Most Blacks I know want a bigger government and more social services. They are not God haters, but many of them flirt with socialism. They tend to want more social services out of a Christian desire for the goverment to help the needy.

Of course, there are other flavors. Many 20-something Blacks (like their White peers) are quite liberalist and Godless. But also like their White peers, they don't vote, and are not much of a political force.

There are some other fringe movements like the Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers. But at least among the Christian Blacks I know, they are not highly regarded.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Leftivism. (none / 0) (#48)
by tkatchev on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 07:47:47 AM PST
From where I'm coming from, "leftivism" (as opposed to supporting the "social state", which are different things) means the belief that "If there is no God, then everything is allowed".

That is, leftivism implies the following logical chain: "There is no God" -> "Everything is allowed" -> "The person with the biggest cattle prod must keep the sheep in line". The social and welfare rhetoric is mostly coincidental -- the leftivist views welfare as a useful mechanism for controlling "the masses", along with birth control (read: infanticide) and political correctness. (read: goodthink)

In short, supporting the "social state" does not necessarily make you a leftivist; heck, for many (most?) societies welfare for the needy is a "traditional conservative value".


--
Peace and much love...

Thank you (none / 0) (#50)
by First Incision on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 12:33:05 PM PST
I appreciate the clarification. In the US, if you call welfare a "traditional conservative value," you would leave most people confused. Maybe this cultural difference is why so many people are baffled by your liberal use of the word liberalist.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

It's a U.S. cultural bias. (none / 0) (#52)
by tkatchev on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 01:34:15 PM PST
Basically, for most of the rest of the world the world "liberalist" is a very definite and well-defined world-view, not a narrow partisan political stance.

Most people, when they hear the word "liberalism", have a very distinct image in their mind; for example, that of the sort of person that supports terrorism because terrorists are "oppressed". (Sort of a "might-makes-right" in reverse.) [1]

For various historical reasons, the U.S. has fallen out of the profound liberalist shakedown that almost shattered the world during the 20th century -- or at the very least, the shakedown hasn't touched the common man's psyche much.

Contrast this with Europe, where liberalism, in various forms, is a tremendous nagging black hole tugging at most people's minds constantly. This is why Europeans are so neurotic, and also the reason they bomb McDonalds and vote for Trotskyist political parties.

[1] Little-known historical tidbit: historically, the Russian 1917 revolution started when leftivists began to justify terrorism because the terrorists were "fighting against the evil oppressive regime".


--
Peace and much love...

Exactly (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 09:19:34 PM PST
All reasonable people agree that the only decent reason for a revolution is to avoid paying taxes.

 
Yes (none / 0) (#38)
by First Incision on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 10:28:20 PM PST
I would agree with pretty much everything you have said.

I still stand by my statement that in the 19th century, African-Americans were a defeated race.

Still, the point remains that even though geeks are essential cogs in the machinery of American capitalism, geeks' social station is still low and dispicable.
_
_
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

 
Geeks and bathing (none / 0) (#30)
by walwyn on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 03:14:29 PM PST
will never catch on because SOAP is a microsoft led technology.


Bill Gates??? (none / 0) (#34)
by Narcissus on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 04:48:48 PM PST
God knows he doesn't look any different from your neighborhood dork that you can smell from a mile away while he punches out quick posts to Adequacy with his overclocked QWERTY keyboard




--------------------------------
Ok, who picked the flower???

The assault is nasal not visual (n/t) (none / 0) (#35)
by walwyn on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 05:14:05 PM PST



Have you sniffed Ballmer's pits recently? (none / 0) (#36)
by because it isnt on Sat May 18th, 2002 at 05:50:53 PM PST
He is not fresh.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Koko... (none / 0) (#51)
by walwyn on Sun May 19th, 2002 at 12:52:52 PM PST
...is that you Koko?


 
what's the big deal? (none / 0) (#68)
by elzubeir on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 12:48:22 PM PST
At first, I thought it was funny.. I kind of cringed at the idea of giving another man a hand-job to avoid parental pressure (I don't think _ANYTHING_ in the world would put me under enough pressure to do that)..

But, it's a 'funny' article nevertheless.. where is everyone's sense of humor?

 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.