On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:47:33 -0600, wrote:

>Everytime I see that Jared guy which Subway uses for their tv
>commercials, the guy looks like a faggot. Is this just my
>imagination, or do other people think he is too? Is Jared another
>Richard Simmons, (and everyone knows Simmons is a fag). What do you
>think? Would you eat a sub at the same table as him?
>
>I know I wouldn't even sit at the same table as him !!!!

I wouldn't even live in the same city as that Jared queer !!!

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:24:38 -0600, wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:47:33 -0600, wrote:
>
>>Everytime I see that Jared guy which Subway uses for their tv
>>commercials, the guy looks like a faggot. Is this just my
>>imagination, or do other people think he is too? Is Jared another
>>Richard Simmons, (and everyone knows Simmons is a fag). What do you
>>think? Would you eat a sub at the same table as him?
>>
>>I know I wouldn't even sit at the same table as him !!!!
>
>I wouldn't even live in the same city as that Jared queer !!!

At least not if the city got first choice.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:24:38 -0600, wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 23:47:33 -0600, wrote:
>
>>Everytime I see that Jared guy which Subway uses for their tv
>>commercials, the guy looks like a faggot. Is this just my
>>imagination, or do other people think he is too? Is Jared another
>>Richard Simmons, (and everyone knows Simmons is a fag). What do you
>>think? Would you eat a sub at the same table as him?
>>
>>I know I wouldn't even sit at the same table as him !!!!
>
>I wouldn't even live in the same city as that Jared queer !!!


I've got a hunch most of us would rather than share a city or a table
with Jarred than with homophobes like you and your bigotry.

But to me, amercons seems like he wants to find out where Jarred lives
so he can get a date with him.


jim

He has a hot wife, a new house and eats for a living. If that's being a
"faggot" I'm sure most of you would choose to be one.

On 1/12/2006 7:27 AM or thereabouts, Tush Smells Bush Kills!!!!!!!!!!!
appears, somewhat unbelievably, to have opined:

> He has a hot wife, a new house and eats for a living. If that's being a
> "faggot" I'm sure most of you would choose to be one.
>

Where do I sign up?

--
As a child, my parents thought I was an idiot-savant.
Now, however, it is rather clear that I'm simply an idiot.

ensenadajim > writes:

> I've got a hunch most of us would rather than share a city or a table
> with Jarred than with homophobes like you and your bigotry.

Not to defend americanconsumer, but the concept of "homophobia" is
entirely bogus. The implicit assumption of those who use the word
is that people dislike homosexuals because they're afraid of them.

Which is, of course, silly. Some might be afraid of homosexuals,
of course, but it should hardly be assumed to be the default.
Others might dislike them for any number of other reasons which
have nothing to do with fear, such as religious conviction or
simple, honest revulsion at the idea of sodomy.

I'm not saying that's right, mind you. I'm saying that it's so.

Then there's the fact that the roots (heh) of the word come from
two different languages, and that even ignoring this, semantically
the word means "fear of the same," which is nonsensical. Or at
the very least, is a million miles, conceptually speaking, from
the idea that those who wield this word want to communicate.


> But to me, amercons seems like he wants to find out where Jarred
> lives so he can get a date with him.

Isn't it ironic how people will lambaste others for their bigotry
and "homophobia," then turn right around and use the implication
of homosexuality as an insult? Such people seem to want it both
ways...much like bisexuals do.




Geoff

--
"After several minutes of utterly dull conversation I began to think
of her not as a woman but as a human, then not as a human but as an
animal, then not as an animal but as a source of high-grade protein."
-- Mark. Gooley

Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> Not to defend americanconsumer, but the concept of "homophobia" is
> entirely bogus. The implicit assumption of those who use the word
> is that people dislike homosexuals because they're afraid of them.
>
> Which is, of course, silly. Some might be afraid of homosexuals,
> of course, but it should hardly be assumed to be the default. [snip]

Couldn't disagree more. It has long been established that the common
bases for all kinds of prejudice and bias are ignorance and fear.
Those who display homophobia demonstrate this over and over. Using a
word that contains a "fear" root is perfectly apropos. -aem

>Couldn't disagree more. It has long been established that the common bases for all kinds of prejudice and bias are ignorance and fear. Those who display homophobia demonstrate this over and over. Using a word that contains a "fear" root is perfectly apropos. -aem

Yes, dictionary.com defines homophobia as a "fear of or CONTEMPT for
*******s and *** men".
(adj : prejudiced against homosexual people)

And even if it weren't a "fear of", it is perfectly aligned with other
phobias in that there is definately a lack of understanding that
defines the "fear"- we all know that phobias are most often overcome
through exposure to that which is feared.
I imagine anyone who befriended and spent a significant amount of time
with a *** couple or individual would soon learn there is no reason
(beyond phobia/contempt) to not see them for who they are and judge
their character as they would any heterosexual. Kev

> Isn't it ironic how people will lambaste others for their bigotry
> and "homophobia," then turn right around and use the implication
> of homosexuality as an insult?

Really? I know lots of folks who protest bigotry, and none of them
would use homosexuality as an insult. Give me a real-life example.

i'm inclined to think that those who truly do hate and revile *** people
really hate their own *** fantasies they can't control... i've always
maintained that if i ever want a dude to blow me, i'll go find one at an
anti-*** rally, since it's likely the most skilled cocksuckers in the state
will be there protesting against 'special rights' for all the queers.

adult bookstores, parks, rest stops... their playgrounds. I'm sure it's
awful for them to wrestle with those horrible demons that make them want
a throbbing, meaty cock pumping their lubed-up assholes...




> Others might dislike them for any number of other reasons which
> have nothing to do with fear, such as religious conviction or
> simple, honest revulsion at the idea of sodomy.
>

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message
...
:
:
: ensenadajim > writes:
:
: > I've got a hunch most of us would rather than share a city or a
table
: > with Jarred than with homophobes like you and your bigotry.
:
: Not to defend americanconsumer, but the concept of "homophobia" is
: entirely bogus. The implicit assumption of those who use the word
: is that people dislike homosexuals because they're afraid of them.
:
: Which is, of course, silly. Some might be afraid of homosexuals,
: of course, but it should hardly be assumed to be the default.
: Others might dislike them for any number of other reasons which
: have nothing to do with fear, such as religious conviction or
: simple, honest revulsion at the idea of sodomy.

the OED says:
homophobia, n.2
Fear or hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality.

This fear is mostly that one might discover one's self being attracted
to a member of the opposite sex...combined with massive ignorance of
what that means. Most of the population are extremely ignorant, and
have underpowered brains.

: I'm not saying that's right, mind you. I'm saying that it's so.

....and you'd know, eh?

: Then there's the fact that the roots (heh) of the word come from
: two different languages,

Yes, of course you are absolutely correct on this - homo comes from
latin, and phobia comes from.....latin.

: and that even ignoring this, semantically
: the word means "fear of the same," which is nonsensical. Or at

I'll suggest here, that you find yourself a dictionary. Try not to
use any form of the word semantic, until you've looked it up, and
understand what it means, ok?

: the very least, is a million miles, conceptually speaking, from
: the idea that those who wield this word want to communicate.

Or rather, not exactly factual.

: > But to me, amercons seems like he wants to find out where Jarred
: > lives so he can get a date with him.
:
: Isn't it ironic how people will lambaste others for their bigotry
: and "homophobia," then turn right around and use the implication
: of homosexuality as an insult? Such people seem to want it both
: ways...much like bisexuals do.

Hah! Goes to show how much you know. Myself, I am not prejudiced
against people based on sexual preference, race, etc......but I'm
entirely willing to lay into some redneck, trailer trash pinhead by
calling them faggot, or something of that sort, simply because to
them, it's a deadly insult. But, I won't use racial slurs -
ever.....the difference being, the dirtbags whom I'd make reference to
the sexual preference of, are extremely unlikely to actually _be_
***.....but racial slurs don't work too well against people who aren't
part of the group the term refers to.

I'd rather bigots think me ***, than to have gays think me a bigot.

"Dennis Turner" > wrote in message
...
: On 1/12/2006 7:27 AM or thereabouts, Tush Smells Bush
Kills!!!!!!!!!!!
: appears, somewhat unbelievably, to have opined:
:
: > He has a hot wife, a new house and eats for a living. If that's
being a
: > "faggot" I'm sure most of you would choose to be one.
: >
:
: Where do I sign up?

Right _there_.....see? No, more to the left. Further. More. Just
about there. See?

BTW, like your .sig!

"Others might dislike them for any number of other reasons which have
nothing to do with fear, such as religious conviction or simple, honest
revulsion at the idea of sodomy."


And there are many people who dislike vaginal sex or dislike African
Americans or interracial marriage.

It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.

wrote:
> "Others might dislike them for any number of other reasons which have
> nothing to do with fear, such as religious conviction or simple, honest
> revulsion at the idea of sodomy."
>
>
> And there are many people who dislike vaginal sex or dislike African
> Americans or interracial marriage.
>
> It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
> nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.

There are lots of people who still have primitive value systems.
Asking an ignorant savage like Geoff Miller to grow up culturally won't
get you anywhere. If Pat Robertson says queers are bad, who is Geoff
to disagree?

--Bryan

> wrote in message
oups.com...

> It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
> nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.

A slight correction, if I may - you and I might find these
viewpoints distasteful, and would not personally espouse
them. But if the First Amendment is to mean anything,
we really can't classify them as "unacceptable." People
have a right to proclaim any sort of idiocy they choose
- we CAN point out that it's idiocy, but we can't (and
SHOULDN'T) shut it down.

Bob M.

On 12 Jan 2006 05:27:20 -0800, "Tush Smells Bush Kills!!!!!!!!!!!"
> wrote:

>He has a hot wife, a new house and eats for a living. If that's being a
>"faggot" I'm sure most of you would choose to be one.

How do you know this?

>How do you know this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/TV/11/17/subway.guy.ap/

"He and his wife recently bought a new house in an Indianapolis
suburb."

If 200 years ago all humans were ***-the human race would be extinct,
so yes, I see something wrong with it if it could lead to the
extinction of the human race.

>It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
>nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.

On 13 Jan 2006 10:33:17 -0800, "ricok987" > wrote:

>If 200 years ago all humans were ***-the human race would be extinct,
>so yes, I see something wrong with it if it could lead to the
>extinction of the human race.
>
>>It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
>>nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.


Just thnk how well off this planet would be! The squirrels would love
it. And we wouldn't have biggoted idiots to deal with either.


jim

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:32:30 -0800, ensenadajim
> wrote:

>On 13 Jan 2006 10:33:17 -0800, "ricok987" > wrote:
>
>>If 200 years ago all humans were ***-the human race would be extinct,
>>so yes, I see something wrong with it if it could lead to the
>>extinction of the human race.
>>
>>>It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
>>>nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.
>
>
>Just thnk how well off this planet would be! The squirrels would love
>it. And we wouldn't have biggoted idiots to deal with either.
>
>
>jim
>

IMAGINE
A world without homosexuals.
What a wonderful world that would be !!!

Imagine there's no faggots
I wonder if you can
No queers to annoy you
Every man is a MAN.....

John Lennon

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:09:00 -0600, wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 17:32:30 -0800, ensenadajim
> wrote:
>
>>On 13 Jan 2006 10:33:17 -0800, "ricok987" > wrote:
>>
>>>If 200 years ago all humans were ***-the human race would be extinct,
>>>so yes, I see something wrong with it if it could lead to the
>>>extinction of the human race.
>>>
>>>>It is 2006. These viewpoints are UNACCEPTABLE. Gays exist, there is
>>>>nothing wrong with it, MOVE ON.
>>
>>
>>Just thnk how well off this planet would be! The squirrels would love
>>it. And we wouldn't have biggoted idiots to deal with either.
>>
>>
>>jim
>>
>
>IMAGINE
>A world without homosexuals.
>What a wonderful world that would be !!!
>
>Imagine there's no faggots
>I wonder if you can
>No queers to annoy you
>Every man is a MAN.....
>
>John Lennon


I imagine a world without racists and bigots. Like you.


jim