Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
This morning, Karen wrote:
Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age 13)... She earlier said: My child was already away at school by the time I got to know any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping burgers at McOffal's. http://snipurl.com/4nay Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but irrelevant. There's something more important here. How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19) when you said you first met him? BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY work a child can GET legally! I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to work as a prostitute? |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
usual suspect wrote:
> This morning, Karen wrote: > > Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we > took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age > 13)... > > She earlier said: > > My child was already away at school by the time I got to know > any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when > I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met > him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and > much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping > burgers at McOffal's. > http://snipurl.com/4nay > > Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which > version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but > irrelevant. There's something more important here. > > How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase > things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen > year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19) > when you said you first met him? > > BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: > > He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY > work a child can GET legally! Again, that was the diseased and hyperbolic Sylvia who wrote that, not Karen. It's funny, in an ironic way, that in their silly attempts to appear "married", they resort to one of the sillier conventions of some conservative married people, and of one long-time opponent of Karen's in the "ar"-related newsgroups. That opponent, Sue Bishop, doesn't seem to hang out here any more; a good thing, as she was of a Davey Harrison sort of quality, and one of the nastier shitbags ever, even if nominally on the "right" side of the "ar" debate (but for mostly wrong reasons, like ****WIT). Bishop, or Bitchup as I preferred to call her, posted under her husband's e-mail address. In fact, Bitchup is the person to whom Karen was replying in your short URL, above; the "R" in "R Bishop" is Richard Bishop, Sue Bitchup's man. There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing" quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing a posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY the reason they do it. As we both have zeroed in on, the only real reason for the whole queer marriage thing is to try to co-opt the respect conveyed by the word "marriage". Any legal ramifications are distantly secondary. > > I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child > prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this > particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in > the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to > work as a prostitute? > |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> This morning, Karen wrote: >> >> Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we >> took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age >> 13)... >> >> She earlier said: >> >> My child was already away at school by the time I got to know >> any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when >> I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met >> him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and >> much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping >> burgers at McOffal's. >> http://snipurl.com/4nay >> >> Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which >> version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but >> irrelevant. There's something more important here. >> >> How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase >> things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen >> year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult >> (19) when you said you first met him? >> >> BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: >> >> He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY >> work a child can GET legally! > > > Again, that was the diseased and hyperbolic Sylvia who wrote that, not > Karen. I stand corrected, but they need to put their heads together and get their stories straight (no pun intended). > It's funny, in an ironic way, that in their silly attempts to > appear "married", they resort to one of the sillier conventions of some > conservative married people, and of one long-time opponent of Karen's in > the "ar"-related newsgroups. That opponent, Sue Bishop, doesn't seem to > hang out here any more; a good thing, as she was of a Davey Harrison > sort of quality, and one of the nastier shitbags ever, even if nominally > on the "right" side of the "ar" debate (but for mostly wrong reasons, > like ****WIT). > > Bishop, or Bitchup as I preferred to call her, posted under her > husband's e-mail address. In fact, Bitchup is the person to whom Karen > was replying in your short URL, above; the "R" in "R Bishop" is Richard > Bishop, Sue Bitchup's man. > > There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing" > quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing a > posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY > the reason they do it. As we both have zeroed in on, the only real > reason for the whole queer marriage thing is to try to co-opt the > respect conveyed by the word "marriage". Any legal ramifications are > distantly secondary. Including alimony. Remember when Liberace's manfriend sued him for palimony or when Martina Navratilova's ******* lover sued her? Just imagine how those nasty floodgates will open once homosexual divorce becomes as big an issue as marriage. <...> |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
usual suspect wrote: > This morning, Karen wrote: > > Swan and I were the closest they had to family for years -- we > took him in after his biological family threw him out (at age > 13)... > > She earlier said: > > My child was already away at school by the time I got to know > any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when > I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met > him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and > much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping > burgers at McOffal's. > http://snipurl.com/4nay > > Nevermind that he was thrown out at 11, 12, and 13, depending which > version of the story we're supposed to believe. That's sad, but > irrelevant. There's something more important here. according to JR's memories, he came to the US from the Philippines when he was around 6 or 7, (1969-1970) wondered about being *** a couple years after that and was out on the street by 1977, age 13. > How old was he when you first met him, Karen? Why did you misphrase > things this morning to lead people to believe you took in a thirteen > year-old? Why would you call him a foster son when he was an adult (19) > when you said you first met him? Rat met him around 1983 when he would have been 19. Since Darryl, his partner had just turned 20, I'd put it around summer of 1983. > BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: > He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY > work a child can GET legally! > > I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child > prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this > particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in > the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to > work as a prostitute? I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can find." BTW, head on over to ASFAR.org or ASFAR.com (forgot which) to see what true age-equality advocates say. Swan |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > usual suspect wrote: > >> BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: > > >> He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY >> work a child can GET legally! >> >> I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child >> prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this >> particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in >> the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to >> work as a prostitute? > > > I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment > anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would > probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can > find." I think we mean she's full of shit, and notoriously slovenly with language. "Legally speaking", no one may work as a prostitute in the U.S., except in some portoin of Nevada; it is illegal elsewhere. There's lot of otherwise legal work that underage teenagers do illegally; no reason for this boy to get on his bicycle and (har har har) peddle his ass all over town. |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Jonathan Ball wrote: weedwhacked > > There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing" > quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing a > posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is PRECISELY > the reason they do it. Tch'yeahright! When I (Swan) first got a computer in 1994 (Commodore 64, ah the memories) I was on BBSes in and around San Francisco. I was on Baghdad By The Bay, the Tenderloin Rag BBS and A Fork In The Road BBS as Momcat. I used that name because I was friends with another poster, Big Mama who named me that (after the Kliban cat). On Madame Olga's Tearoom, I was Madame Olga Ivanofelitch. In 1994-5, when I joined a Commodore BBS called Q-Link, I was Contessa. Q-Link folded to become America Online. When, finally in May or June of 1995, I got a PC and went on a couple of the early services, I took the online name Swan and posted only as Swan. My address was . When Karen finally got bitten by the bug a couple months later, and we went on Fidonet, we first posted as Karen & Sylvia and stopped that almost at once when we were deluged with offensive emails. We took SyRen (SYlvia/kaREN)for a while as a name but when he found an ISP we liked we became Rat & Swan (or now and again Swan & Rat) because at the time, the ISP we had would only allow one account. That was around 1997 since then, it's just been easier to stay Rat & Swan. Sue Bitchslap first accosted us I think on Fidonet along with Mary Diaz. In fact, now that I think of it, I'll close with a much beloved tagline (remember them?) from our days on Fidonet! "Rat and her beloved trashcan Swan, are the porn queens of the Internet!" -- Mary Diaz (circa 1996) Actually, I prefer to think of myself as a delicious dumpster! Swan (steel, not plastic, thank you!) |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: > > > > > > > usual suspect wrote: > > > > >> BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: > > > > > >> He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY > >> work a child can GET legally! > >> > >> I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child > >> prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this > >> particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in > >> the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to > >> work as a prostitute? > > > > > > I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment > > anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. The phrase would > > probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can > > find." > > I think we mean she's full of shit, and notoriously > slovenly with language. "Legally speaking", no one may > work as a prostitute in the U.S., except in some > portoin of Nevada; it is illegal elsewhere. There's > lot of otherwise legal work that underage teenagers do > illegally; no reason for this boy to get on his bicycle > and (har har har) peddle his ass all over town. Notice the over investment Mr Ball has here? Seems to me that this string has a topic that is special to him. Why does he keep on about the ways of boy prostitutes? Something about this subject that really gets his attention. Hmmm.... |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > weedwhacked > >> >> There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing" >> quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing >> a posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is >> PRECISELY the reason they do it. > > > Tch'yeahright! I don't have to look one line further to know which juvenilely snide carpet-muncher wrote this one. How old are you, anyway? > > When I (Swan) first got a computer zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
Jonathan Ball wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: > > > > > > > Jonathan Ball wrote: > > > > weedwhacked > > > >> > >> There's a really annoying "tee hee hee, look at what we're doing" > >> quality to the two carpet-muncher's use of that convention of sharing > >> a posting address, and of course, the annoyance it provokes is > >> PRECISELY the reason they do it. > > > > > > Tch'yeahright! > > I don't have to look one line further to know which > juvenilely snide carpet-muncher wrote this one. Observe the hostility toward women here. One more Rush Limbaugh personality trait. Did you know that Viagra was invented to counter the Hillary effect on those pee brained Limbaugh followers? All you have to do is say "Hillary Clinton" and they loose their carrot while fishing for it between the folds of their bear belly! > > > How old are you, anyway? > > > > > When I (Swan) first got a computer > > zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz |
|
|||
|
|||
Another of Karen's inconsistencies...
degeneRat wrote:
<..> >> BTW... you previously (1998/12/05) wrote the following: > >> He had lived and worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY >> work a child can GET legally! >> >> I don't know if y'all were living in Bangkok or something, but child >> prostitution is illegal there, too. Where did you live at this >> particular time, and was it legal for a child or anyone else (since in >> the US only a few counties in Nevada have legalized prostitution) to >> work as a prostitute? > > I think she meant that, legally, a child can NOT find employment > anywhere so must turn to prostitution to earn money. That's not the only option. There are agencies that help runaways and children with problems. It's sad he ended up in a city where child prostitution is acceptable. > The phrase would > probably be better "legally speaking, that is the only work a child can > find." No, it isn't. At that age I worked and I didn't have to take my clothes off for of my jobs. I mowed lawns, fed pets, watched kids, cleaned lots, cut brush and scrub, delivered papers, and even had a weekend job as a busboy. > BTW, head on over to ASFAR.org or ASFAR.com (forgot which) to see what > true age-equality advocates say. No. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Karen's Chili | Recipes (moderated) | |||
karen... | Vegan | |||
Karen MacNeil on NPR and PBS | Wine |