Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #15259 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700 |
| Last post | 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 126 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-29 23:00 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 01:47 -0700
Re: Article anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-08-30 12:13 +0000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-08-30 11:31 -0400
Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-08-30 10:37 -0500
Missing from USENET - was [Re: Article] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 10:30 -0700
Re: Article hughaguilar96@yahoo.com - 2012-08-30 19:56 -0700
Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-08-31 12:35 +0200
Re: Article "Greg Bailey" <greg@greenarraychips.com> - 2012-08-31 17:51 -0700
Re: Article Whammo <sidciavic@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 18:22 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 01:04 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:18 -0700
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-01 01:48 -0700
Re: Article rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-02 18:38 -0400
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-02 16:59 -0700
Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-03 13:07 -0500
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-03 14:25 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 17:04 -0700
Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 06:23 +0300
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-03 18:17 -0400
Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-03 12:37 -1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-04 04:48 -0400
Re: Article Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-09-04 03:39 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:48 -0400
Re: Article awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) - 2012-09-04 13:18 +0200
Re: Article Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-04 16:03 +0200
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:29 -0400
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 03:24 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-04 08:12 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
Re: Article Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-09-04 11:35 -0500
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:40 -0400
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:28 -0700
Re: Article "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-04 08:32 -1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:22 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:08 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:07 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:39 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:35 -0700
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-07 17:24 +1000
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-07 05:28 -0400
Re: Article Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 03:28 -0700
Re: Article Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 13:31 +0300
Re: Article jacko <jackokring@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 06:33 -0700
Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:06 -0700
Re: Article Howerd <howerdo@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-07 09:03 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-04 16:45 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-03 21:38 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 02:51 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 10:49 -0700
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:20 -0400
Re: Article "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> - 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-05 13:50 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 22:34 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 14:05 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-08 01:53 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-07 18:22 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:08 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-08 17:34 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 15:57 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-09-09 08:12 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 22:07 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 15:14 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 01:52 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 19:17 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-10 15:01 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 07:00 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 01:07 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-10 18:47 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Elizabeth D Rather <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 16:08 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-11 07:51 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 19:24 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-11 21:40 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:58 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2012-09-09 18:24 -0700
Re: Forth as a polarising language Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> - 2012-09-09 13:42 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 10:34 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 07:06 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:14 +0200
DEFER (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 16:47 +0000
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:22 -0400
OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 11:38 +0000
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-08 08:19 -0400
Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:41 +0200
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:24 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 12:03 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "A. K." <akk@nospam.org> - 2012-09-09 13:20 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:33 -0400
Re: OOP mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:54 +0200
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:12 -0400
OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:28 +0200
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-08 16:56 +0200
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-08 15:00 +0000
Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language) Roger Ivie <rivie@ridgenet.net> - 2012-09-08 11:56 -0500
Re: OOP Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-09 04:20 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:15 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 00:50 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2012-09-09 03:12 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-09-09 16:01 +0200
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-09 14:54 -1000
[OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 06:33 -0500
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:16 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 08:28 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2012-09-10 12:43 +0000
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:24 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 08:12 -0500
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 09:32 -0400
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:40 -1000
Re: [OT] Newsreader problem - was [Re: Forth as a polarising language] Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2012-09-10 14:42 -0500
Re: Forth as a polarising language Doug Hoffman <glidedog@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 07:59 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:27 -0400
Re: Forth as a polarising language "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2012-09-10 07:44 -1000
Re: Forth as a polarising language rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2012-09-10 12:30 -0400
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-09 14:13 +1000
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-11 11:26 -0700
Re: Article "Paul E. Bennett" <Paul_E.Bennett@topmail.co.uk> - 2012-09-11 21:02 +0100
Re: Article vandys@vsta.org - 2012-09-11 20:37 +0000
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:01 +1000
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-11 16:50 -0700
Re: Article Mark Wills <forthfreak@gmail.com> - 2012-09-12 00:45 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 18:44 -0700
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 20:26 -0700
Re: Article "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> - 2012-09-12 20:47 +1000
Re: Article Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-06 19:28 -0700
Re: Article John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2012-09-07 09:57 -0700
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-03 12:37 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15434 |
On 9/3/12 12:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: ... > He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You rant > about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he qualifies as a > "kook" and you as a "troll". Just to clarify, Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. John made an innocuous remark about his partner several years ago, and Hugh went off on a tirade which I found so offensive that I called him on it. This is why he hates me. I put him in my "kill file" long ago, so I don't need to read his posts. That is why I find it easy to ignore him. I wish more people would do the same. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 04:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k24f3e$4ev$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15435 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... > On 9/3/12 12:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > ... > > He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You rant > > about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he qualifies as a > > "kook" and you as a "troll". > > John made an innocuous remark about his partner several years ago, [...] I pointed out John was "female" in his responses a while back. It's _obvious_ to heterosexual males, or at least it is to me. > [...] Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. <OT: Homophobia and LGBT issues.> Most men are. If that's the norm, why is it a negative? Biologically, it's probably more important for men to be homophobic than women. For propagation of the human species, it's really not necessary for women to be sexual at all given a male's intense sex drive. Not to brag or be lewd in any way, but if polygamy was legal, I would've needed at least eight wives from puberty to my early 40's. That's not an exaggeration. All US Christians are taught to be homophobic too, even if that's not what the Bible actually says. Personally, seeing any man-to-man physical contact, like wrestling or UFC fighting gives me the "creeps", especially so if they are sweaty or there is skin-to-skin contact. Actually, the best description of the feeling is that it turns my stomach very slightly. I've strongly felt that way since about the time I was in 3rd grade, i.e., long before any of my (male, heterosexual) psychological sexual identity formed. So, I believe that my general repulsiveness towards certain sights is genetic or biological, not something learned, nor something sexual, nor psychological. I also usually know within about 1/10th second, by sight, whether someone is gay or lesbian or not. Sometimes, gays and lesbians also have distortions of their physical features due to increased testerone, i.e., manly features for women (e.g., Lady Gaga, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres, Rachel Maddow, etc), and womanly features for men (e.g., Anderson Cooper, Daniel Tosh, etc). If that doesn't tell me, then I usually know within a second or two from their mannerisms (incorrect sex) or style of dress (incorrect sex) or personality (teenage like immaturity and incorrect sex) or friend affinity (opposite sex instead of the same sex). It's seems to me that it's very rare that I don't know, especially given the number of movie, music, sports stars I've correctly recognized as such over the decades. Although, I don't always know... I didn't recognize a lesbian coworker as such, nor Rock Hudson. Oddly, I don't consider myself homophobic despite my repugnance for certain visual sights. I don't fear them. I don't have hatred towards them. I don't have a problem with them finding love and happiness. I don't have a problem watching stars of movie, music, or sports who are LGBT. Although, if their personality is very strongly of the opposite sex, they can become annoying to watch. I don't have a problem working with gay or lesbians or being their friends. If I see someone on TV who is, I'll usually point out that they are, because some people just don't "see" it at all. What always surprises me is when a gay or lesbian star comes out of the closet, and they actually believe no one knows or knew. Many, many people know. I'd declare that everyone knows, but, as I said previously, some people just don't "see" it. It's obvious to most of us. Typically, they've been told to "come out of the closet" for years, or had numerous such jokes made about them being in the closet in public and private. Eventually, they come out, unless they are huge movie stars or extremely wealthy. Sometimes, they are even in a heterosexual marriage with children. What I do have a problem with is when they force homosexuality or the LGBT agenda upon others who just aren't ready for it or don't care to see it, especially in public, or movies, via politics, or recently in the gay and lesbian marriage debate. Most of America is extremely conservative, devoutly Christian, and yet a small group, of extremely liberal, mostly Californians, in the pro-LGBT movement are forcing their beliefs upon everyone else. Yes, I also have a problem with Christians who attempt to force their beliefs upon people too. So, I don't see this as a gay or lesbian hatred issue. This country is about majority rule, not non-discrimination. Without majority rule, we can't lock up pedophiles, murderers, or rapists. We're now learning that there is a genetic component for such behaviors in people. Every time the LGBT moves towards equality or non-discrimination by forcing their beliefs upon the rest of us by using the "we're born this way" genetic argument, we lose our right to punish other people who "were born that way". That right to punish is based on being able to discriminate via majority rule. Are we going to provide equality or not discriminate against pedophiles, murderers, and rapists? Like it or not, that's what is beginning to happen, because of the equality demands of the LGBT movement. Rod Pemberton I hope I haven't offended anyone with this. This is how I see things and have experienced these issues. I've been very open and honest in the presentation of my perspective. E.g., since I don't consider myself to be homophobic, I don't normally discuss the repugnance I have of certain visual sights, which I consider to be biological or genetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 03:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dba6bc3a-c85f-41e8-a5ec-31abbd1a4524@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15445 |
On Sep 4, 9:45 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: [snip] > I hope I haven't offended anyone with this. This is how I see things and > have experienced these issues. I've been very open and honest in the > presentation of my perspective. E.g., since I don't consider myself to be > homophobic, I don't normally discuss the repugnance I have of certain visual > sights, which I consider to be biological or genetic. Gaaaaah. Please, enough already. Like Hugh, you talk too much about yourself. You haven't offended anyone, you've just bored us with this over long pen portrait of homophobia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 02:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k26sej$rel$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15448 |
"Alex McDonald" <blog@rivadpm.com> wrote in message news:dba6bc3a-c85f-41e8-a5ec-31abbd1a4524@e29g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 4, 9:45 am, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm> > wrote: [snip] > > I hope I haven't offended anyone with this. This is how I see things and > > have experienced these issues. I've been very open and honest in the > > presentation of my perspective. E.g., since I don't consider myself to > > be homophobic, I don't normally discuss the repugnance I have of > > certain visual sights, which I consider to be biological or genetic. > > Gaaaaah. Please, enough already. Like Hugh, you talk too much about > yourself. You haven't offended anyone, you've just bored us with this > over long pen portrait of homophobia. Clearly, you snipped too much. Where's the homophobia? Reread the second paragraph. Personally, I really enjoyed working with the woman I later learned was a homosexual. She had a tragic life story, for which she was self-medicating with an illicit substance. But, she was nice and she was fun to work with. Of course, that was in a work environment were she was probably on her best behavior. And, the self-medication could've easily changed her true personality. So, I'll never truly know if I knew her or not. Unfortunately, she wasn't able to survive on how much they were paying, so she left. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | awegel@arcor.de (Alex Wegel) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 13:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1kpwaug.fws1u01un5a6uN%awegel@arcor.de> |
| In reply to | #15445 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > Personally, seeing any man-to-man physical contact, > like wrestling or UFC fighting gives me the "creeps", especially so if they > are sweaty or there is skin-to-skin contact. Gosh - to sum up some of the stuff you shared with us: - John behaves irrational like a woman (you scream) - You're no racist, it's the blacks that are (and it's not your fault because they only had those red "i kill blacks" shoe laces in the shop) - Atomic energy is good (maybe because they use fuel rods?) - Your not homophobic (but if we let the gays their way, the rapists and pedos will take over) Man - i'm happy that i'm not in your mind either. Please try to tackle your own flawed thinking and stop writing stupid off-topic shit. (Off-topic because it has nothing to do with what this newsgroup or this discussion is about: Nobody here asked whether you're lesbian, nor what you think about being so. The topic was that you can't write "i worked with a partner" here without getting attacked sexually by some loon for the next 3 years). Maybe i'd better put people like you and hugh into the kill filter, but somehow i have a bad feeling about just letting your kind abuse this forum to spread their half-wit and discriminating theories. So - next time you feel like explaining the world to us (or to anyone, for that matter), better grab a kleenex and go watch some wrestling instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 16:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1353899.uueJrfDlQB@sunwukong.fritz.box> |
| In reply to | #15449 |
Alex Wegel wrote: > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > >> Personally, seeing any man-to-man physical contact, >> like wrestling or UFC fighting gives me the "creeps", especially so >> if they are sweaty or there is skin-to-skin contact. > > Gosh - to sum up some of the stuff you shared with us: > - John behaves irrational like a woman (you scream) > - You're no racist, it's the blacks that are (and it's not your fault > because they only had those red "i kill blacks" shoe laces in the > shop) - Atomic energy is good (maybe because they use fuel rods?) > - Your not homophobic (but if we let the gays their way, the rapists > and pedos will take over) > > Man - i'm happy that i'm not in your mind either. > Please try to tackle your own flawed thinking and stop writing stupid > off-topic shit. I've put him into my killfile. His on-topic thinking is no better, and it's a complete waste of time to discuss with him. -- Bernd Paysan "If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself" http://bernd-paysan.de/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 03:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k26urv$12k$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15451 |
"Bernd Paysan" <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote in message news:1353899.uueJrfDlQB@sunwukong.fritz.box... ... > [...] it's a complete waste of time to discuss with him. > That's only because you refuse to admit to the truth or tell it. You insist on teaching falsehoods about both Forth and C. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 03:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k26uhe$as$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15449 |
"Alex Wegel" <awegel@arcor.de> wrote in message news:1kpwaug.fws1u01un5a6uN%awegel@arcor.de... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > > Please try to tackle your own flawed thinking and stop > writing stupid off-topic shit. First, the entire thread - from the start - was OT. It had nothing to do with programming in Forth. Secondly, I _clearly_ labeled my reply OT. You didn't have to read it. Thirdly, Ms. Rather introduced the topic of homophobia into this thread. She's been around long enough to thoroughly know what happens when someone posts something OT as she did. If you've got a problem with it, you should've been complaining to her. You didn't. Maybe, you should seriously think about. It's generally wise to put the blame where it belongs instead of scapegoating someone else ... Fourth, this is *NOT* a _moderated_ Usenet newsgroup. So, *everything* is "topical". Alt.* is better suited to non-topical posts, but without moderation, topicality is a matter of the individuals in the group. That includes me, whether you like it or not. If you haven't noticed, nearly every thread that McDonald, Bernd, Anton, Passaniti, post to go entirely OT after three or four levels. Fifth, many of the long-term people here have posted numerous OT discussions and some extreme rants too, like Bernd, Passniti, and McDonald. Sixth, clearly you haven't been here long enough to have read the extreme rants by some of the others or you *wouldn't* be bitching at me. Seventh, it's clear that you don't need to post anything here. *Nothing* here is clearly a part of _your_ conversations, so far. So, why don't you stop butting in to _our_ conversations? If you want to read something Forth related, you're free to post about it. Over the years, I've posted quite a bit about Forth. > Nobody here asked whether you're lesbian, nor what > you think about being so. The topic was that you can't write > "i worked with a partner" here without getting attacked sexually > by some loon for the next 3 years). For those who clearly can't read, the other half of topic introduced by Ms. Rather was "Hugh is (supposedly) extremely homophobic". Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <047f9f3b-d189-4c20-abdd-3d5788cb97c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15445 |
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:45:37 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Not to brag or be lewd in any way, but if polygamy > was legal, I would've needed at least eight wives > from puberty to my early 40's. That's not an > exaggeration. Oh, you don't have to worry at all Rod! We know you're not exaggerating about your incredible virility! Your animal manly manliness certainly comes through in your off-topic messages! After reading the latest window into your turgid mind, I had to go shave. Honestly Rod, you should be more careful with that thing! There are innocent women here who will now be unable to think about Forth because their minds will be occupied imaging they could be the vessel for your seed. Great, there goes the third quarter productivity. > I also usually know within about 1/10th second, by sight, whether > someone is gay or lesbian or not. I wish I had that ability when I was younger. Now, I only have the ability to identify a pompous ass by his postings in comp.lang.forth... in 100ms!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 16:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k28b7e$o8s$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15453 |
"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:047f9f3b-d189-4c20-abdd-3d5788cb97c1@googlegroups.com... > On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:45:37 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > Not to brag or be lewd in any way, but if polygamy > > was legal, I would've needed at least eight wives > > from puberty to my early 40's. That's not an > > exaggeration. > > Oh, you don't have to worry at all Rod! We know you're > not exaggerating about your incredible virility! No, John, I was presenting example of an _average_ male's sex drive. Actually, I'm probably slightly below average... An above average male might need 20 wives, if the higher than normal testosterone levels don't feminize his brain making him gay and killing his sex drive. I doubted that anyone would be stupid enough to think it was a claim of virility. I was providing an example of how extreme an man's sex drive is. Why would I provide an example of a virile man having an extreme sex drive? He's already got one. That just makes no sense whatsoever. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QvCdnYAbyKcgsNvNnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15445 |
Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message > news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... >> On 9/3/12 12:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> ... >> > He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You rant >> > about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he qualifies as a >> > "kook" and you as a "troll". >> >> John made an innocuous remark about his partner several years ago, [...] > > I pointed out John was "female" in his responses a while back. It's > _obvious_ to heterosexual males, or at least it is to me. > >> [...] Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. > > <OT: Homophobia and LGBT issues.> > > Most men are. If that's the norm, why is it a negative? It's not. Homophobia is probably associated with homosexual arousal: see https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf > This country is about majority rule, not non-discrimination. This country? Which country is this? Andrew.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 02:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k26s0c$qdd$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15454 |
"Andrew Haley" <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message news:QvCdnYAbyKcgsNvNnZ2dnUVZ8v6dnZ2d@supernews.com... > Rod Pemberton <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message > > news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... > >> On 9/3/12 12:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > >> ... > >> > He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You > >> > rant about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he > >> > qualifies as a "kook" and you as a "troll". > >> > >> John made an innocuous remark about his partner several years ago, > >> [...] > > > > I pointed out John was "female" in his responses a while back. It's > > _obvious_ to heterosexual males, or at least it is to me. > > > >> [...] Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. > > > > <OT: Homophobia and LGBT issues.> > > > > Most men are. If that's the norm, why is it a negative? > > It's not. ... > Homophobia is probably associated with homosexual arousal: see > https://my.psychologytoday.com/files/u47/Henry_et_al.pdf > I'll ignore the fact that that's usually the argument which _homosexuals_ use to antagonize, anger, and suppress the views of people with normal testosterone levels in order to further their agenda. What's great about the Internet is that I can easily find garbage psychology articles as quickly as you. This one says homophobia is *purely* genetic: http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/contents/p/staff/VerweijPaperBehGen.pdf Would gays and lesbians like it if non-LGBT individuals use the "we're born this way" genetic argument to legitimately justify homophobia? No, they wouldn't. But, there it is... According to this study, gays are homophobic. They are internally homophobic. The more homophobic they are, the more they drink, and the more homophobic they become: http://drnicely.com/downloads/Dissertation.pdf Now, I don't know if "internally homophobic" means "self-hate" or means "homophobic" towards others, but it doesn't really matter does it? Homosexuals are homophobic according to that psychological study. You've gotta love garbage psychology! Go ahead and ask someone gay if they are homophobic in *any way*. I'm sure they'll tell you absolutely not! That seems totally stupid doesn't it? To non-homosexuals, the argument you presented that straight people fear homosexuals because homesexuality arouses them is equally stupid. But... If that article is true, it could lead to *all* sorts of conundrums. If they found that gays are homophobic, whose to say gays don't also overcompensate in an attempt to hide their homosexuality, become intensely homophobic themselves towards others, and then commit hate crimes against other gays? What if normal people are being falsely blamed for acts of hate by gays pretending to be straight ... ? We've seen Jews paint racist remarks and claim racism. We've seen blacks paint racist remarks themselves and claim racism. How do we know some gays and lesbians aren't painting homophobic remarks and claiming hate crimes? > > This country is about majority rule, not non-discrimination. > > This country? Which country is this? > I mentioned USA... Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 13:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5d17484-d86b-4eed-8b12-59991fadf7ec@s9g2000pbh.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15471 |
On Sep 4, 11:38 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > If that article is true, it could lead to *all* sorts of conundrums. If > they found that gays are homophobic, whose to say gays don't also > overcompensate in an attempt to hide their homosexuality, become intensely > homophobic themselves towards others, and then commit hate crimes against > other gays? That pretty well describes J. Edgar Hoover and Adolf Hitler --- both persecuted the faggots in an effort to prove that they weren't faggots themselves (although they didn't fool anybody).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-04 08:32 -1000 |
| Message-ID | <bMSdndia-prB1NvNnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #15445 |
On 9/3/12 10:48 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message > news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... >> On 9/3/12 12:17 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> ... >>> He rants about symtab, Testra, driving a Taxi, and Ms. Rather. You rant >>> about Lua, Lisp, and all sorts of crap. Technically, he qualifies as a >>> "kook" and you as a "troll". >> >> John made an innocuous remark about his partner several years ago, [...] > > I pointed out John was "female" in his responses a while back. It's > _obvious_ to heterosexual males, or at least it is to me. > >> [...] Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. > > <OT: Homophobia and LGBT issues.> > > Most men are. Not in my experience. "Some men are" might be more accurate. ... > All US Christians are taught to be homophobic too, even if that's not what the > Bible actually says. This is absolutely not true. I was raised a Presbyterian and have been an active Episcopalian for most of my adult life. Evangelicals and Catholics disapprove of gays. (as well as a lot of straight behavior), but most mainstream Christians are taught not to be judgmental about things like race or sexual orientation. ... [Long, inappropriate rant deleted.] > > Rod Pemberton > I hope I haven't offended anyone with this. This is how I see things and > have experienced these issues. I've been very open and honest in the > presentation of my perspective. E.g., since I don't consider myself to be > homophobic, I don't normally discuss the repugnance I have of certain visual > sights, which I consider to be biological or genetic. Frankly, I don't care about your perspective one way or another. I don't even care about Hugh's perspective, so long as he keeps it to himself. I just don't think this topic is appropriate on comp.lang.forth. Cheers, Elizabeth -- ================================================== Elizabeth D. Rather (US & Canada) 800-55-FORTH FORTH Inc. +1 310.999.6784 5959 West Century Blvd. Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90045 http://www.forth.com "Forth-based products and Services for real-time applications since 1973." ==================================================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 02:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k26qtf$o43$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15460 |
"Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message news:bMSdndia-prB1NvNnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@supernews.com... > On 9/3/12 10:48 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> wrote in message > > news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... ... > I just don't think this topic is appropriate on comp.lang.forth. > Well ... then, why ... did ... _you_ bring it up? ER: >>> Just to clarify, Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. >>> John made an innocuous remark about his partner several >>> years ago, and Hugh went off on a tirade which I found so >>> offensive that I called him on it. I clearly marked my reply as OT. I was a bit shocked when you brought it up, but I assumed you were comfortable with such a discussion because you did bring it up. You've been posting to Usenet for years and are thoroughly aware it can be a Pandora's box. However, if I was gay which I'm not, I might take offense to you saying the topic of homophobia isn't appropriate no matter the forum... Clearly, LGBT individuals feel it's a major social problem, similar to how blacks still feel that racism is a huge issue. You wouldn't tell a black person the topic of racism was off limits, would you? No, of course, you wouldn't. As I mentioned previously, I'm not racist either, but I have been repeatedly discriminated against by blacks, except for a few. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ce6212b-aa14-4018-b933-bb6ee62f3ed5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15470 |
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > I clearly marked my reply as OT. Remember folks, that bringing up off-topic content is perfectly fine if you first announce that it is off-topic. So feel free to talk about... well... pretty much anything! Just make sure you follow Rod's example and explicitly mark it as being off-topic. Then everything is hunky-dory. > Clearly, LGBT individuals feel it's a major social problem, similar to how > blacks still feel that racism is a huge issue. Rod is correct here-- as everyone knows, all LGBT folk are cut from the exact same cloth. We all are equally inflamed by every situation, and we all take our marching orders from Gay Central Command (GCC, hmmm...). Indeed, before I'm allowed to reply to messages in comp.lang.forth, I'm required to consult the hive and see if there are any subtexts I should be offended by but missed. The penalty is pretty severe-- if I miss even one outrage, an interior designer comes by my home and reupholsters my couch with a tacky fabric. > As I mentioned previously, I'm not racist either [...] This is true. Rod's pompous assness is not based on homophobia or racism. It comes from something more basic and fundamental in his character. Oh, sorry, this message was off topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@notemailnot.cmm> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 16:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k28b8e$oak$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15477 |
"John Passaniti" <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7ce6212b-aa14-4018-b933-bb6ee62f3ed5@googlegroups.com... > On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:19:29 AM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > I clearly marked my reply as OT. > > Remember folks, that bringing up off-topic content is perfectly > fine if you first announce that it is off-topic. So feel free to talk > about... well... pretty much anything! Just make sure you follow > Rod's example and explicitly mark it as being off-topic. Then > everything is hunky-dory. Oh man! I can't believe I'm getting this from the guy who posts two to three OT rants of filth, similar to the Aristocrats joke, to c.l.f. every year. Please don't try to claim someone is tarnishing your reputation via spoofs... It's tacky. > > Clearly, LGBT individuals feel it's a major social problem, > > similar to how blacks still feel that racism is a huge issue. > > Rod is correct here-- as everyone knows, all LGBT folk are cut > from the exact same cloth. We all are equally inflamed by every > situation, and we all take our marching orders from Gay Central > Command (GCC, hmmm...). When are you not inflamed? You constantly rant. You haven't posted on OT post in c.l.f. since I've been reading here, about eight years now. Google Groups has an archive of decades worth of your trash. > Oh, sorry, this message was off topic. That's way too late. Rod Pemberton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b031743-d027-45e1-b94b-f33eb725e20f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15483 |
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:04:35 PM UTC-4, Rod Pemberton wrote: > Oh man! I can't believe I'm getting this from the guy who posts > two to three OT rants of filth, similar to the Aristocrats joke, > to c.l.f. every year. Please don't try to claim someone is > tarnishing your reputation via spoofs... It's tacky. I knew about the Aristocrats joke and loved the movie that Penn Jillette and Paul Provenza did about it. Great stuff. And yet, when I think back to the most colorful language I've ever used here in comp.lang.forth, I can't think of *anything* that even remotely competes with the full-on Aristocrats joke. You've made a claim, provide evidence. > When are you not inflamed? You constantly rant. You haven't posted > on OT post in c.l.f. since I've been reading here, about eight years now. > Google Groups has an archive of decades worth of your trash. Evidence speaks louder than words. Provide the vile disgusting filth, please.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hugh Aguilar <hughaguilar96@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f47d364-2931-4b10-9f1d-771d8c86f720@pz10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #15470 |
On Sep 4, 11:19 pm, "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_h...@notemailnot.cmm> wrote: > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote in messagenews:bMSdndia-prB1NvNnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@supernews.com...> On 9/3/12 10:48 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > > > "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erat...@forth.com> wrote in message > > >news:h-udndIS47mJrNjNnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@supernews.com... > > ... > > > I just don't think this topic is appropriate on comp.lang.forth. > > Well ... then, why ... did ... _you_ bring it up? > > ER: > > >>> Just to clarify, Hugh is also very profoundly homophobic. > >>> John made an innocuous remark about his partner several > >>> years ago, and Hugh went off on a tirade which I found so > >>> offensive that I called him on it. Rod, I appreciate that you're sticking up for me and all of the other straight guys in the world (go team!), but I think that you are missing the point. You ask: "Well ... then, why ... did ... _you_ bring it up?" Elizabeth Rather brought it up as a diversionary tactic. Whenever I point out the serious lack of quality in PolyForth and SwiftForth, she accuses me of being homophobic. Her plan is that somebody (you!) will get riled up and start posting long-winded arguments defending the straight (once again: go team!) and the problems with PolyForth and SwiftForth will be forgotten about. I think that Elizabeth Rather pays John Passaniti to post distracting nonsense on comp.lang.forth. She may only pay him $30 a month, but that is big money for a faggot --- most faggots never get paid anything for being faggots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ed" <invalid@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-07 17:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <k2c7c9$g81$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #15460 |
Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 9/3/12 10:48 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: > ... > > All US Christians are taught to be homophobic too, even if that's not what the > > Bible actually says. > > This is absolutely not true. I was raised a Presbyterian and have been > an active Episcopalian for most of my adult life. Who would have guessed! > Evangelicals and > Catholics disapprove of gays. (as well as a lot of straight behavior), > but most mainstream Christians are taught not to be judgmental about > things like race or sexual orientation. So gays are ok ... it's just the miscreants on c.l.f. that refuse to agree with one who need to be "put straight" :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web