On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:49:20 -0800 (PST), merryb >
wrote:

>OT...Do any of you agree with me?

Nope....when you get to write the check, you get to make the decision.
This wasn't his first offense....actually, he has a past DUI. He
just happened to be photographed. Bad timing on his part. Kids
don't need to see their heros behaving in this manor.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:52:26 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> Pete C. wrote:
>> "Mr. Bill" wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:49:20 -0800 (PST), merryb >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> OT...Do any of you agree with me?
>>> Nope....when you get to write the check, you get to make the decision.
>>> This wasn't his first offense....actually, he has a past DUI. He
>>> just happened to be photographed. Bad timing on his part.
>>
>>> Kids
>>> don't need to see their heros behaving in this manor.
>>
>> Quite the opposite, kids need to see that their "heroes" are real people
>> too and real people are imperfect. Kids also need to see the evils of
>> the asinine "war on drugs" as well and perhaps compare it to the equally
>> asinine "prohibition" for some historical perspective.
>
> Hell. He could be a role model for pot smokers. They could see that you
> can still smoke pot and do good things. Let's face it, most kids are
> going to smoke pot anyway. No need for them them think that it is a one
> way trip downhill.

it seems a powerful counterargument to 'if you smoke pot you're doomed to
be a lowlife slacker,' doesn't it?

besides, chances are granny is smoking it as a palliative to cancer drugs
or uncle bruce because he has aids.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:

>> Hell. He could be a role model for pot smokers. They could see that you
>> can still smoke pot and do good things. Let's face it, most kids are
>> going to smoke pot anyway. No need for them them think that it is a one
>> way trip downhill.
>
> it seems a powerful counterargument to 'if you smoke pot you're doomed to
> be a lowlife slacker,' doesn't it?


That works for me. It shows that smoking pot does not doom you to a life
of failure. Just because you like to get high once in a while it doesn't
mean that you have to be a low life.




> besides, chances are granny is smoking it as a palliative to cancer drugs
> or uncle bruce because he has aids.

It has proved itself to counter the effects of some diseases and side
effects of medication.

It may not be the wisest choice for most people, but then either is
drinking. I trust that we have all noticed that there is a lot of beer
advertising in professional sports and in sports magazines.

Dave wrote on Sat, 07 Feb 2009 16:44:58 -0500:

>>> Hell. He could be a role model for pot smokers. They could
>>> see that you can still smoke pot and do good things. Let's
>>> face it, most kids are going to smoke pot anyway. No need
>>> for them them think that it is a one way trip downhill.
>>
>> it seems a powerful counterargument to 'if you smoke pot
>> you're doomed to be a lowlife slacker,' doesn't it?

> That works for me. It shows that smoking pot does not doom you
> to a life of failure. Just because you like to get high once
> in a while it doesn't mean that you have to be a low life.

>> besides, chances are granny is smoking it as a palliative to
>> cancer drugs or uncle bruce because he has aids.

> It has proved itself to counter the effects of some diseases
> and side effects of medication.

Like a former President of the US, perhaps you shouldn't inhale.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:58:02 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:06:23 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>
>>Kids don't need to see their heros behaving in this manor.
>
> Yeah, right. So, why do we have "hoods" playing basketball, football
> and baseball?

i think the proper question is 'why must athletes be forced into the
position of being role models?' from what i understand ty cobb and babe
ruth weren't altogether admirable people, to name just two.

your pal,
blake

On Feb 7, 6:47*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:58:02 -0800, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:06:23 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>
> >>Kids don't need to see their heros behaving in this manor. *
>
> > Yeah, right. *So, why do we have "hoods" playing basketball, football
> > and baseball?
>
> i think the proper question is 'why must athletes be forced into the
> position of being role models?' *from what i understand ty cobb and babe
> ruth weren't altogether admirable people, to name just two.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Why? Because they have won. Our society places a lot of value on
winning, overtly playing fair (no comment on the covert fairplay). We
love Barry Bonds and Mike McGuire until we find out they're using
steroids. We love Michael Phelps until we find out he's just another
imperfect kid when he's done with swim practice. The news stories
I've seen today say he's more afraid of his Mom's bad opinion than
anyone else's.

Heck, for those of you who listen to NPR, did you hear what they did
to Abe Lincoln today? My ghods and little fishes, they described him
warts and all. He was a war monger, a lover of crude jokes (If Shelly
was a little older, they would have gotten along great!), and OMG,
human.

Noone in this world can stand up to the amount of scrutiny that we
subject our heros to today. Noone. MP had the drive, determination,
skill, and genetics to win 8 gold medals in the Olympics. We need to
celebrate those attributes, and realize that they are not the whole
man.

OTOH, if I sign a contract that says I have to behave in a certain
manner (say, avoiding compromising situations where someone could take
my picture with a bong to my lips), then I'm toast if that appears on
Youtube or the like. The movie studios no longer can enforce morality
clauses, but product endorsement seems to be a different matter.

maxine in ri
happy tummy full of smoked salmon chowder

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
> i think the proper question is 'why must athletes be forced into the
> position of being role models?' from what i understand ty cobb and babe
> ruth weren't altogether admirable people, to name just two.

No, they were not. Back then their behavior did not make the news every
night. People Magazine did not exist, nor did TV shows like Access
Hollywood. We expect athletes to be role models, but yet we can't wait to
hear how some of the Hollywood set misbehaved last night.

There was a time that we did not care who our politicians were screwing, as
long as it was not us. Strange world we live in.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 18:58:05 -0800 (PST), maxine in ri wrote:

> On Feb 7, 6:47*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:58:02 -0800, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:06:23 -0500, Mr. Bill > wrote:
>>
>>>>Kids don't need to see their heros behaving in this manor. *
>>
>>> Yeah, right. *So, why do we have "hoods" playing basketball, football
>>> and baseball?
>>
>> i think the proper question is 'why must athletes be forced into the
>> position of being role models?' *from what i understand ty cobb and babe
>> ruth weren't altogether admirable people, to name just two.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
> Why? Because they have won. Our society places a lot of value on
> winning, overtly playing fair (no comment on the covert fairplay). We
> love Barry Bonds and Mike McGuire until we find out they're using
> steroids. We love Michael Phelps until we find out he's just another
> imperfect kid when he's done with swim practice. The news stories
> I've seen today say he's more afraid of his Mom's bad opinion than
> anyone else's.
>
> Heck, for those of you who listen to NPR, did you hear what they did
> to Abe Lincoln today? My ghods and little fishes, they described him
> warts and all. He was a war monger, a lover of crude jokes (If Shelly
> was a little older, they would have gotten along great!), and OMG,
> human.
>

there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying abe was
***.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:

>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying abe was
>***.

TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that
interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 00:10:48 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>> i think the proper question is 'why must athletes be forced into the
>> position of being role models?' from what i understand ty cobb and babe
>> ruth weren't altogether admirable people, to name just two.
>
> No, they were not. Back then their behavior did not make the news every
> night. People Magazine did not exist, nor did TV shows like Access
> Hollywood. We expect athletes to be role models, but yet we can't wait to
> hear how some of the Hollywood set misbehaved last night.
>
> There was a time that we did not care who our politicians were screwing, as
> long as it was not us. Strange world we live in.

it is a strange world, indeed.

but i think it was not so much that people didn't care, but that it was not
that long ago that the media winked at this sort of thing, and no one but
'those in the know' were aware of them.

not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
in his wheelchair. it just wasn't seemly.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying abe was
>>***.
>
> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!

what possible difference could it make?

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:46:05 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:

> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying abe
>>>>was ***.
>>>
>>> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
>>
>> what possible difference could it make?
>
> None. Some of the most gifted people in the world are/were ***. It makes
> no dif and to me, it never has. It never will. Some still, and will
> always, consider it a sin. The US is so ass backwards sometimes. It's
> perfectly legal for a single, unemployed mother to squirt out 14 kids
> which will most likely be supported from public dollars. BUT a *** or
> ******* couple, in a committed, monogamous relationship, is not allowed
> to marry. Hell, in some states they can't even adopt cast away children.
> To me it is truly ****ed up.
>
> Michael

I am happy to not have to live to your standards. My daughter is ***, and
married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
grandchildren. In fact, they both are.
Here in The Netherlands this is normal, and widely accepted. Only some
religious fundamentalists oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing.
To prevent them from becoming a majority.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:

> Wim van Bemmel >

>> My daughter is ***,
>> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
>> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this is
>> normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
>> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them from
>> becoming a majority.
>
> I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
> movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
> in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
> momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
> don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>
> Michael

I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not know
of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of course
there are jokes, but no discrimination.
I am speaking for the common sense people, not the fundies, or the right
wing diehards.
Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
fundamentalism.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

Wim van Bemmel wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> > Wim van Bemmel >
>
> >> My daughter is ***,
> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this is
> >> normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them from
> >> becoming a majority.
> >
> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
> > movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
> > in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
> > momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
> > don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not know
> of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of course
> there are jokes, but no discrimination.
> I am speaking for the common sense people, not the fundies, or the right
> wing diehards.
> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
> fundamentalism.


Wow, so Nederland has kicked out all the Muslims, huh...???


--
Best
Greg

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:52:51 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:

> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>>
>> > Wim van Bemmel >
>>
>> >> My daughter is ***,
>> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
>> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this
>> >> is normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
>> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them
>> >> from becoming a majority.
>> >
>> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
>> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a
>> > huge movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve
>> > themselves in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but
>> > it is gaining momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support
>> > this effort but don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>> >
>> > Michael
>>
>> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
>> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
>> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
>> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not
>> know of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of
>> course there are jokes, but no discrimination. I am speaking for the
>> common sense people, not the fundies, or the right wing diehards.
>> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
>> fundamentalism.
>
>
> Wow, so Nederland has kicked out all the Muslims, huh...???

What do you mean. Not all muslims are fundamentalists, a few only. Like
christians. A minority, too. And yes, fundamentalism has to be fighted.
We, Dutch, never kicked out anyone for his religion. Since 1584 at least,
when the Dutch revolution started. We kicked out the Spanish, and we
founded our Republic. That lasted until the occupation by France. Then we
became a monarchy, but not by choice, by force. Imposed by the winners at
Waterloo.
We discouraged, sadly, some religions though, in the 17th century. But
never, ever, after. But that was long before Northern America was even
populated, except for some indigenous tribes. Which were massacred mostly
by you, American citizens.
What is left of them you put in reservates. Eternal shame to you.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

Wim van Bemmel wrote:


> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:52:51 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wim van Bemmel >
> >>
> >> >> My daughter is ***,
> >> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> >> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this
> >> >> is normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
> >> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them
> >> >> from becoming a majority.
> >> >
> >> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> >> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a
> >> > huge movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve
> >> > themselves in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but
> >> > it is gaining momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support
> >> > this effort but don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >>
> >> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
> >> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
> >> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
> >> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not
> >> know of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of
> >> course there are jokes, but no discrimination. I am speaking for the
> >> common sense people, not the fundies, or the right wing diehards.
> >> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
> >> fundamentalism.
> >
> >
> > Wow, so Nederland has kicked out all the Muslims, huh...???
>
> What do you mean. Not all muslims are fundamentalists, a few only. Like
> christians. A minority, too. And yes, fundamentalism has to be fighted.


Especially since "your" muslims have the annoying tendency to kill or
threaten artists and politicans that dare to disagree with them. What
happened to wonderful multicultural Holland...???


> We, Dutch, never kicked out anyone for his religion. Since 1584 at least,
> when the Dutch revolution started. We kicked out the Spanish, and we
> founded our Republic. That lasted until the occupation by France. Then we
> became a monarchy, but not by choice, by force. Imposed by the winners at
> Waterloo.
> We discouraged, sadly, some religions though, in the 17th century. But
> never, ever, after. But that was long before Northern America was even
> populated, except for some indigenous tribes. Which were massacred mostly
> by you, American citizens.
> What is left of them you put in reservates. Eternal shame to you.
>

They're better off in the reservations...that way they can get drunk on
cheap hootch and eat
Wonder Bread and stomp around in their "ceremonies" without The Big White
Man bothering them...

And lemme tell ya, I wouldn't mind living amongst some of them Redskins -
they have made HEAP BIG WAMPUM in the US states where they have a monopoly
on the casino trade.

In all seriousness, I wouldn't over - romanticise the Noble Redskins, they
were primitive and violent aborigines who have in the end only *benefited*
by European colonisation...


--
Best
Greg

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> blake murphy >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying
>>>> abe was ***.
>>> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
>> what possible difference could it make?
>
> None. Some of the most gifted people in the world are/were ***. It makes
> no dif and to me, it never has. It never will. Some still, and will
> always, consider it a sin. The US is so ass backwards sometimes. It's
> perfectly legal for a single, unemployed mother to squirt out 14 kids
> which will most likely be supported from public dollars. BUT a *** or
> ******* couple, in a committed, monogamous relationship, is not allowed
> to marry. Hell, in some states they can't even adopt cast away children.
> To me it is truly ****ed up.

Some people have trouble with the term "marriage", because it is
traditionally a a union between a man and a woman. Where I have trouble
is with the claim to the *right* to have children. For me, it is a
matter of biology.... sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.
There is no *right*. So that leaves adoption.

I don't dispute that some *** couples, male or female, are quite capable
of raising normal, healthy children. Some of them , many of them, will
be better suited for it that some straight couples. However... lets
consider reality. Adoptions don't always go well. If adopted by a ***
couple, you can bet your bottom dollar that one of those screwe dup kids
is going to claim that he/she was molested. And I am not saying that the
molestation would happen, only that some kid in that situation is going
to make the claim. So what government is going to want to take
responsibility for that?

I have no big problems with homosexuality. It's really none of my
business, bit I do have issues with the *right* to have children when it
involves adoption because it is a biological function and and not a
state matter.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:41:30 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:

>> In all seriousness, I wouldn't over - romanticise the Noble Redskins,
> they were primitive and violent aborigines who have in the end only
> *benefited* by European colonisation...

Well, I doubt whether they benefited, but no doubt, they did it not
voluntarily, but were forced. And no Dutch around to be blamed for it.
It was you that forced them out of their life. So feel sorry about what
became of them next.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

On Feb 9, 12:46*pm, "Michael \"Dog3\"" > wrote:
> blake murphy :in rec.food.cooking
>
> > On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying
> >>>abe was ***.
>
> >> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
>
> > what possible difference could it make?
>
> None. Some of the most gifted people in the world are/were ***. It makes
> no dif and to me, it never has. It never will. *Some still, and will
> always, consider it a sin. The US is so ass backwards sometimes. *It's
> perfectly legal for a single, unemployed mother to squirt out 14 kids
> which will most likely be supported from public dollars. BUT a *** or
> ******* couple, in a committed, monogamous relationship, is not allowed
> to marry. Hell, in some states they can't even adopt cast away children.
> To me it is truly ****ed up.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> “He who does not understand your silence will probably not understand
> your words.” * * * * * * * * *
> * * * * * * * * * * * ~Elbert Hubbard
>
> You can find me at: - michael at lonergan dot us dot com

I agree with you, Michael. In my first career, I was a hairdresser, in
my second, a pastry cook. I have been around lots of *** people, and
most of them are outstanding folks.

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:48:12 -0500, Dave Smith wrote:

> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>> blake murphy >
>> : in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying
>>>>> abe was ***.
>>>> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
>>> what possible difference could it make?

> I have no big problems with homosexuality. It's really none of my
> business, bit I do have issues with the *right* to have children when it
> involves adoption because it is a biological function and and not a
> state matter.

There is no question of adoption. There is a partnership. My daughter, Lot
and Anna. They decided to continue their life together, so they married.
They decided that Anna would give birth to their children. And so happened.
According to Dutch law, they chose to give these children the name of the
non-birthgiving parent. So their names a Izzy Van Bemmel, and Eden Van
Bemmel. I am proud to be grandfather of such wonderful children.
And I am proud of my daughter, who lives the life she wants. And did not
let herself stopped by prejudice.

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

In article > ,
Dave Smith > wrote:


> Some people have trouble with the term "marriage", because it is
> traditionally a a union between a man and a woman. Where I have trouble
> is with the claim to the *right* to have children. For me, it is a
> matter of biology.... sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.
> There is no *right*. So that leaves adoption.

And artificial insemination, which is popular with *** women. Doesn't
work well for *** men couples.

:-)

Note that a marriage between and man and a woman doesn't guarantee
children. Sometimes artificial insemination and adoption are involved
there also.

> I don't dispute that some *** couples, male or female, are quite capable
> of raising normal, healthy children. Some of them , many of them, will
> be better suited for it that some straight couples. However... lets
> consider reality. Adoptions don't always go well. If adopted by a ***
> couple, you can bet your bottom dollar that one of those screwe dup kids
> is going to claim that he/she was molested. And I am not saying that the
> molestation would happen, only that some kid in that situation is going
> to make the claim. So what government is going to want to take
> responsibility for that?

I don't know about Canada, but in the US, as I understand it, a *** man
or a *** woman can adopt a child without a problem. It's just ***
couples that are a problem. Also, many children are adopted at birth.
If the kid gets screwed up, it's the parents' fault. For another also,
child molestation is child molestation. It doesn't matter what sex the
kid or parent(s) are, or what the sexual orientation of the parent(s)
are. It's just plain illegal.

> I have no big problems with homosexuality. It's really none of my
> business, bit I do have issues with the *right* to have children when it
> involves adoption because it is a biological function and and not a
> state matter.

In the US, adoption is always a State matter, and I don't see how
adoption is a biological function.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
> in his wheelchair. it just wasn't seemly.
>
> your pal,
> blake

Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.

--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller/100072

Wim van Bemmel wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:41:30 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> >> In all seriousness, I wouldn't over - romanticise the Noble Redskins,
> > they were primitive and violent aborigines who have in the end only
> > *benefited* by European colonisation...
>
> Well, I doubt whether they benefited, but no doubt, they did it not
> voluntarily, but were forced. And no Dutch around to be blamed for it.
> It was you that forced them out of their life. So feel sorry about what
> became of them next.


I'm too busy to be feeling "guilty"...don't blame me for what happened to
the American Native Peoples any more than I'd blame a 20 year - old German
for what Hitler did.


--
Best
Greg

Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Melba's Jammin' >
> : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> > In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
> >
> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good
> >> example is the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to
> >> franklin roosevelt in his wheelchair. it just wasn't seemly.
> >>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
> >
> > Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>
> Or to show Jack Kennedy with Marilyn on his arm.


Read the latest _Vanity Fair_ (the one with Obama on the cover), there's a
juicy story of how old Joe Kennedy had an affair with Marlene Dietrich and
then years later son JFK had an assignation with her in the White House!


--
Best
Greg

On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
> wrote:

>In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
>> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
>> in his wheelchair. it just wasn't seemly.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.

Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?

Lou

On Feb 10, 6:17*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>
> > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > blake murphy > wrote:
>
> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
> >> in his wheelchair. *it just wasn't seemly.
>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake
>
> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>
> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
>
> Lou

I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), merryb >
wrote:

>On Feb 10, 6:17*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
>> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
>> >> in his wheelchair. *it just wasn't seemly.
>>
>> >> your pal,
>> >> blake
>>
>> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>>
>> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
>>
>> Lou
>
>I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
>quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...

I know it's hard. I still smoke. I wonder where he goes to smoke?
Outside the back door of the whitehouse?

Lou

On Feb 10, 9:48*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), merryb >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 10, 6:17*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> > blake murphy > wrote:
>
> >> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
> >> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
> >> >> in his wheelchair. *it just wasn't seemly.
>
> >> >> your pal,
> >> >> blake
>
> >> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>
> >> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
>
> >> Lou
>
> >I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
> >quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...
>
> I know it's hard. *I still smoke. *I wonder where he goes to smoke?
> Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
>
> Lou- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Funny story- My mom was a closet smoker- her husband hated it, and for
all I know, he never found out that she was sneaking them. It probably
had to do with the gloves & shower cap she wore! What a sight!!LOL!!

merryb wrote:
>
>>
> Funny story- My mom was a closet smoker- her husband hated it, and for
> all I know, he never found out that she was sneaking them. It probably
> had to do with the gloves & shower cap she wore! What a sight!!LOL!!

My wife's best friend was a smoker and her parents never knew. She never
smoked around them and asked people not to tell them that she smoked ...
even when she was in her 40s. When she died her organs were donated,
even her lungs. Meanwhile, her father, who never smoked in his life, got
of lung cancer. Luckily <?> he dropped dead of a heart attack before
the cancer got bad.

When we were at her daughter's wedding I was outside and saw the
daughter smoking. She begged be "Please don't tell my mother I smoke". :-)

On Feb 10, 9:48*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), merryb >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 10, 6:17*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >In article >,
> >> > blake murphy > wrote:
>
> >> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
> >> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
> >> >> in his wheelchair. *it just wasn't seemly.
>
> >> >> your pal,
> >> >> blake
>
> >> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>
> >> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
>
> >> Lou
>
> >I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
> >quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...
>
> I know it's hard. *I still smoke. *I wonder where he goes to smoke?
> Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
>
> Lou- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Would you care to hear how I quit? My husband & I both smoked, which
is stupid for many reasons, especially since he has asthma. We would
both try to quit, and he always did great, where I was sneaking an
occasional one. He would catch me, and then bum one from me, etc. I
know he's a big boy, but my smoking was influencing him to do it, too.
So I finally decided that I would not be responsible for him dying,
and quit cold turkey. I can't believe how easy it was when I had that
frame of mind- thinking of someone else besides myself. Now, to lose
weight! LOL!

In article >,
lid says...
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:46:05 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> > blake murphy >
> > : in rec.food.cooking
> >
> >> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying abe
> >>>>was ***.
> >>>
> >>> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
> >>
> >> what possible difference could it make?
> >
> > None. Some of the most gifted people in the world are/were ***. It makes
> > no dif and to me, it never has. It never will. Some still, and will
> > always, consider it a sin. The US is so ass backwards sometimes. It's
> > perfectly legal for a single, unemployed mother to squirt out 14 kids
> > which will most likely be supported from public dollars. BUT a *** or
> > ******* couple, in a committed, monogamous relationship, is not allowed
> > to marry. Hell, in some states they can't even adopt cast away children.
> > To me it is truly ****ed up.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I am happy to not have to live to your standards. My daughter is ***, and
> married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> grandchildren. In fact, they both are.
> Here in The Netherlands this is normal, and widely accepted. Only some
> religious fundamentalists oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing.
> To prevent them from becoming a majority.

One thing I've noted about those that rally against gays most is that
they tend to be some of the fugliest people around. Makes you wonder if
its just jealousy that they aren't getting laid.

Google Maggie Gallagher, the President of the National Organization for
Marriage. She testified at the marriage equality hearing in RI a couple
years back. Smug bitch.

In article >,
says...
>
> Wim van Bemmel >
> : in rec.food.cooking
>
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:46:05 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
> >
> >> blake murphy >
> >> : in rec.food.cooking
> >>
> >>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 10:01:19 -0800, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:50:50 GMT, blake murphy
> >>>> > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>there are also scholars (and not only queer studies people) saying
> >>>>>abe was ***.
> >>>>
> >>>> TMI <covering ears> LALALALA!
> >>>
> >>> what possible difference could it make?
> >>
> >> None. Some of the most gifted people in the world are/were ***. It
> >> makes no dif and to me, it never has. It never will. Some still, and
> >> will always, consider it a sin. The US is so ass backwards sometimes.
> >> It's perfectly legal for a single, unemployed mother to squirt out
> >> 14 kids which will most likely be supported from public dollars. BUT
> >> a *** or ******* couple, in a committed, monogamous relationship, is
> >> not allowed to marry. Hell, in some states they can't even adopt cast
> >> away children. To me it is truly ****ed up.
> >>
> >> Michael
> >
> > I am happy to not have to live to your standards.
>
> I'm assuming you mean the standards in the US and not my personal
> standards.
>
> > My daughter is ***,
> > and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> > grandchildren. In fact, they both are.
> > Here in The Netherlands this is normal, and widely accepted. Only some
> > religious fundamentalists oppose. They lost. But, they should stop
> > ****ing. To prevent them from becoming a majority.
>
> I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect they
> will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
> movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
> in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
> momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
> don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>
> Michael

I'm a little bit reserved about taxing them. For if we do so they'll
think they really have a voice in politics.

In article >,
lid says...
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> > Wim van Bemmel >
>
> >> My daughter is ***,
> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this is
> >> normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them from
> >> becoming a majority.
> >
> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
> > movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
> > in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
> > momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
> > don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
> >
> > Michael
>
> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not know
> of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of course
> there are jokes, but no discrimination.
> I am speaking for the common sense people, not the fundies, or the right
> wing diehards.
> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
> fundamentalism.

Face it, even our currency says "In God We Trust". It's going to take a
long time for us to throw off the yoke of religious intolerance.

Europe has had several hundred years more than we have to do that.

And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
essentially religious fundamentalists.

Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
tolerate.

In article >,
lid says...
>
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:52:51 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
>
> > Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wim van Bemmel >
> >>
> >> >> My daughter is ***,
> >> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> >> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this
> >> >> is normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
> >> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them
> >> >> from becoming a majority.
> >> >
> >> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> >> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a
> >> > huge movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve
> >> > themselves in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but
> >> > it is gaining momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support
> >> > this effort but don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >>
> >> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
> >> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
> >> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
> >> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not
> >> know of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of
> >> course there are jokes, but no discrimination. I am speaking for the
> >> common sense people, not the fundies, or the right wing diehards.
> >> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
> >> fundamentalism.
> >
> >
> > Wow, so Nederland has kicked out all the Muslims, huh...???
>
> What do you mean. Not all muslims are fundamentalists, a few only. Like
> christians. A minority, too. And yes, fundamentalism has to be fighted.
> We, Dutch, never kicked out anyone for his religion. Since 1584 at least,
> when the Dutch revolution started. We kicked out the Spanish, and we
> founded our Republic. That lasted until the occupation by France. Then we
> became a monarchy, but not by choice, by force. Imposed by the winners at
> Waterloo.
> We discouraged, sadly, some religions though, in the 17th century. But
> never, ever, after. But that was long before Northern America was even
> populated, except for some indigenous tribes. Which were massacred mostly
> by you, American citizens.
> What is left of them you put in reservates. Eternal shame to you.

How can you shame yourself? My ancestry includes Kanien'kehake.

In article > ,
says...
>
> Wim van Bemmel wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:52:51 -0600, Gregory Morrow wrote:
> >
> > > Wim van Bemmel wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Wim van Bemmel >
> > >>
> > >> >> My daughter is ***,
> > >> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
> > >> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this
> > >> >> is normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
> > >> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them
> > >> >> from becoming a majority.
> > >> >
> > >> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
> > >> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a
> > >> > huge movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve
> > >> > themselves in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but
> > >> > it is gaining momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support
> > >> > this effort but don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
> > >> >
> > >> > Michael
> > >>
> > >> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
> > >> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
> > >> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
> > >> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not
> > >> know of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of
> > >> course there are jokes, but no discrimination. I am speaking for the
> > >> common sense people, not the fundies, or the right wing diehards.
> > >> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
> > >> fundamentalism.
> > >
> > >
> > > Wow, so Nederland has kicked out all the Muslims, huh...???
> >
> > What do you mean. Not all muslims are fundamentalists, a few only. Like
> > christians. A minority, too. And yes, fundamentalism has to be fighted.
>
>
> Especially since "your" muslims have the annoying tendency to kill or
> threaten artists and politicans that dare to disagree with them. What
> happened to wonderful multicultural Holland...???
>
>
> > We, Dutch, never kicked out anyone for his religion. Since 1584 at least,
> > when the Dutch revolution started. We kicked out the Spanish, and we
> > founded our Republic. That lasted until the occupation by France. Then we
> > became a monarchy, but not by choice, by force. Imposed by the winners at
> > Waterloo.
> > We discouraged, sadly, some religions though, in the 17th century. But
> > never, ever, after. But that was long before Northern America was even
> > populated, except for some indigenous tribes. Which were massacred mostly
> > by you, American citizens.
> > What is left of them you put in reservates. Eternal shame to you.
> >
>
> They're better off in the reservations...that way they can get drunk on
> cheap hootch and eat
> Wonder Bread and stomp around in their "ceremonies" without The Big White
> Man bothering them...
>
> And lemme tell ya, I wouldn't mind living amongst some of them Redskins -
> they have made HEAP BIG WAMPUM in the US states where they have a monopoly
> on the casino trade.
>
> In all seriousness, I wouldn't over - romanticise the Noble Redskins, they
> were primitive and violent aborigines who have in the end only *benefited*
> by European colonisation...

Yes except for the Narragansetts. They gave away their rights almost a
century ago and are still licking their wounds over the stupidity of
their ancestors.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:08:00 -0500, T wrote:

> In article >,
> lid says...
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:09:33 +0000, Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>>
>> > Wim van Bemmel >
>>
>> >> My daughter is ***,
>> >> and married to a wonderful girl that is physical mother of 2 of my
>> >> grandchildren. In fact, they both are. Here in The Netherlands this
>> >> is normal, and widely accepted. Only some religious fundamentalists
>> >> oppose. They lost. But, they should stop ****ing. To prevent them
>> >> from becoming a majority.
>> >
>> > I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect
>> > they will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a
>> > huge movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve
>> > themselves in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but
>> > it is gaining momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support
>> > this effort but don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>> >
>> > Michael
>>
>> I did not comprehend all you wrote, it is part of US politics, but I
>> understand that you are on our side. We are a bit ahead here. We take
>> literally that no discrimination of sex and race shall be allowed. And
>> practice that, too. At least in matters of sexual addition. I do not
>> know of anyone *** being harmed in his or her career by being so. Of
>> course there are jokes, but no discrimination. I am speaking for the
>> common sense people, not the fundies, or the right wing diehards.
>> Follow us, it makes life a lot easier for many of us. And ban
>> fundamentalism.
>
> Face it, even our currency says "In God We Trust". It's going to take a
> long time for us to throw off the yoke of religious intolerance.
>
> Europe has had several hundred years more than we have to do that.
>
> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>
> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
> tolerate.

Yes, I know. I know also that your settlers were expelled from Europe
because of their fundamentalism. Or, expelled themselves. The Founding
Fathers are not unknown in Holland.

There seems to be something fundamentally wrong with religions.

The nazi SS troops wore on their uniform: "Gott mit uns". "God with us".
It is the same phrase I hear from your USA presidents. Without which they
would not have been elected. So, fundamentalism is one of the mainstays of
USA society. Why fighting the muslims? Just because they sit on the oil
supply ??

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:05:38 -0500, T wrote:


> One thing I've noted about those that rally against gays most is that
> they tend to be some of the fugliest people around. Makes you wonder if
> its just jealousy that they aren't getting laid.
>
> Google Maggie Gallagher, the President of the National Organization for
> Marriage. She testified at the marriage equality hearing in RI a couple
> years back. Smug bitch.

What does that mean, "fugliest people" ?? Sorry, it is not in my
vocabulary.
And "aren't getting laid" does that mean: "not being ****ed" ??

--
Groet, salut, Wim.

T wrote:

>
>
> And need I remind you that the initial settlers of the U.S. were
> essentially religious fundamentalists.
>
> Puritans, Calvinists, et al. All people the Church of England couldn't
> tolerate.

Exactly. The Pilgrims were a sect of the Puritans. They didn't come
across the ocean to escape religious persecution. They cam to create a
religious colony. Meanwhile, back in England, the Puritans were gaining
strength and their anti Catholic zeal led to a civil war and regicide.
They sure weren't about religious freedom and tolerance.

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:48:57 -0600, Lou Decruss wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:13:24 -0800 (PST), merryb >
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 10, 6:17*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:35:58 -0600, Melba's Jammin'
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >In article >,
>>> > blake murphy > wrote:
>>>
>>> >> not that it's the same thing we're taking about here, but a good example is
>>> >> the tacit agreement in the media not to show or refer to franklin roosevelt
>>> >> in his wheelchair. *it just wasn't seemly.
>>>
>>> >> your pal,
>>> >> blake
>>>
>>> >Or to show Jacqueline Kennedy with a cigarette in her hand.
>>>
>>> Did anyone ever pin obama down as to whether he quit smoking or not?
>>>
>>> Lou
>>
>>I don't think he has, but I think he cut down. It's a tough habit to
>>quit (the voice of experience) and now may not be the time...
>
> I know it's hard. I still smoke. I wonder where he goes to smoke?
> Outside the back door of the whitehouse?
>
> Lou

i hope to god that the white house is not non-smoking by law. as i
understand it, the dreaded she-witch hillary put the kibosh on it in the
clinton administration.

do you think laura was going out behind the barn to smoke?

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:06:19 -0500, T wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>> I'm glad the fundies lost. They're still winning here but I suspect they
>> will be winning for only a little while longer. There is a huge
>> movement to begin taxing religious organizations that involve themselves
>> in political issues. This is not a new idea in the US but it is gaining
>> momentum after the Prop 8 fiasco in November. I support this effort but
>> don't see anything coming of it in my lifetime.
>>
>> Michael
>
> I'm a little bit reserved about taxing them. For if we do so they'll
> think they really have a voice in politics.

applying a tax to churches that take place in partisan politics would
require no new law, but rather enforcement of current i.r.s. regs defining
tax-exempt status.

your pal,
blake