Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #173288

Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again.

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/13/13 11:16 AM, in article 13y51byvpf359$.1bbgr2fycfiel.dlg@40tude.net,
"flatfish+++" <phlatphish@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT), Steve Carroll wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 13, 9:37 am, flatfish+++ <phlatph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 08:32:28 -0700 (PDT), Mark S Bilk wrote:
>>>> When Linux users in COLA agree with each other, Microsoft's
>>>> paid lying propaganda agents say we are "slurping" each other,
>>>> implying that we're homosexual, and thus bad (since our culture
>>>> is anti-homosexual due to the bible).
>>> 
>>> Wrong.
>>> When you cataghorically agree with other due to herd mentality it
>>> shows how foolish you are.
>>> 
>>> For example Chris Ahlstrom sucking up to you and your conspiracy
>>> theories.
>>> 
>>> As for homosexuality it's deviant behavior
>> 
>> Actually, homosexuality is an orientation... and while the behavior
>> exhibited by a homosexually oriented person can be described as
>> "deviant" compared to heterosexual behavior, the reverse is also true
>> so it's not really much of an argument ;)
> 
> Actually as far as nature is concerned, it is a deviant behavior.

This is simply factually incorrect, for at least two reasons:

1) Homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. For evidence of this, see:
<http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx>
Or, for a perhaps more amusing look at it: <http://youtu.be/SpWbP_U1FcA>

2) The word "deviant" implies a moral judgment and no such judgments have
been observed toward homosexuality in animals (at least as far as I know!)

> If everyone was a homosexual our population would be gone in one lifetime.

Just as if everyone was female this would be true, but being male is not
"deviant". 

I do not think anyone has every suggested that in humans there should not be
heterosexual sex. This does not lead to the idea that homosexual sex is in
any way a bad thing. That seems to be the leap you are making.

> Nature put the right parts in the right places to be used for the right
> purpose.
> 
> Personally, I believe there are 2 types of homosexuals.
> 
> 1. The genetic type, which is nature's mistake. We have all
> experienced men who are effeminate or women who are overly masculine.
> Even as kids, there was always the "fag" in the class.

Why would you consider people who are naturally homosexual to be a
"mistake"?
 
> 2. Those who have learned the behavior, lifestyle and may just have a
> proclivity towards it. These are the people who have little or no
> outward signs demonstrating their "chosen" lifestyle. And even with
> this type it can be argued it's not chosen but determined by a
> person's genes.

So to be a "natural" homosexual a man must act effeminately (or a woman to
act in a masculine way)? What would lead you to believe this?
 
> Just to be clear while I may jest about this, I do not in any way
> feel a homosexual person is any less a person than a heterosexual
> person. I truly feel sorry for them though because they are doomed to
> a life of scorn.

Same things often happens to people with scars or who are of a different (or
mixed) race than those of the society they are in or are of a different
religion or who opt to dress differently or ... people can be very bigoted.

...
>>>> But when Microsoft's paid anti-Linux psychopaths agree with
>>>> each other, which they do all the time, they never say they
>>>> are "slurping".
>>> 
>>> That's because we quite often disagree with each other as well.
>>> That is the difference.
>> 
>> Looking from the outside I don't see there being all that much of a
>> difference.
> 
> Big difference.
> For example I disagree with snit, DFS, Hadron and others on topics
> and am not afraid to post that publicly. And they disagree with me as
> well.

As this very thread shows. I find your views on homosexuality to be
completely and utterly wrong (as you find my views to be). You and I have
also had other very big disagreements - you even have made it clear you
believe I lied about things that happened some time back. We have a *strong*
disagreement on that.

At the start of the year you offered to let that disagreement go - we
disagree... but it is not an issue nor a debate.

I have made the same offer to Carroll and others through the years. You and
I have lived up to our agreement to let such disagreement not become a
source of great conflict. I wish Carroll and the COLA "advocates" could do
the same (TomB sometimes can, to his credit).

> We are not joined at the hip in lock step.

Not in any way.

> Now look at the herd.
> 
> How often do you see them disagreeing with each other?
> Very rarely and even then it's like they are walking on egg shells
> doing it.

I have been (again) posting very specific examples of posts where the
"advocates" act in this way - posting clearly false information and rather
insane insults and attacks which *none* of them question and many of them
repeat. 

> [Homer] is an exception to the rule BTW, to his credit.

In some areas - such as his calling out Google on their poor behavior in
stopping Asus from selling devices with a competing OS. Lusotec has also
stepped outside the cult-like teachings of the COLA "advocates" and at least
made vague comments about how repulsive Stallman is. This is a topic the
"advocates" as a whole will not discuss.
  
>>>> And when Linux users in COLA agree with each other, Microsoft's
>>>> paid lying propaganda agents say we are members of a "herd',
>>>> implying that we don't think for ourselves, but rather blindly
>>>> believe what other Linux users say.
>>> 
>>> You are members of a herd.
>>> Prove we are paid.
>> 
>> They can't, any more than you can prove you guys are less of a herd
>> than they are. Take Snit, for example, he is the absolute king of 'me
>> too' posts (that he claims to abhor), if there is piling on to be done
>> he's in there (this reeks of herd). He also claims to focus on content
>> over personality... anyone reading 5 of his posts knows how big a lie
>> that is. You're willing to accept the "deviant behavior" of Snit's
>> (probably only for what you perceive as his attacking capabilities).
>> Same goes for your acceptance of "deviant behavior" from DFS, who is
>> nothing more than an intolerant, caustic, homophobic, racially bigoted
>> MS herd member who tries to hide it but can't. Granted, some of the
>> people on the Linux side aren't any better but my point is that there
>> just aren't as many differences as you seem to believe.
> 
> Yet even snit disagrees with others all the time.
> Do you see the herd doing that?
> They are joined in lock step.

Carroll is simply trolling me and trying to get my attention there... what
he has been obsessed with for about a decade. Boring. I do not even see most
of his posts but I am willing to bet at least 80% are comments about me -
almost all of those attacks. And, no, I have no desire to check... it is
just a guess. If I am wrong it is good that he has changed... but I doubt
it. 
... 



-- 
"Maybe it wouldn't be quite as good, but we would all be okay."
- Richard Stallman, speaking about if his ideas were followed

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Microsoft's Lying Anti-Linux Propaganda Techniques: "Slurping" and "Herd" Mark S Bilk <mark@cosmicpenguin.com> - 2013-04-13 08:32 -0700
  Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-13 11:37 -0400
    Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 11:03 -0700
      Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-13 14:16 -0400
        Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 12:04 -0700
          Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-13 15:13 -0400
            Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 12:58 -0700
              Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 13:17 -0700
          Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 12:38 -0700
        Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 12:09 -0700
          Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-13 15:31 -0400
            Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 12:39 -0700
            Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-13 13:02 -0700
              Re: Mark S. Bilk is off his meds again. Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-13 13:22 -0700
  Re: Microsoft's Lying Anti-Linux Propaganda Techniques: "Slurping" and "Herd" GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2013-04-13 10:37 -0600

csiph-web