Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.politics.misc > #738655 > unrolled thread

the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish

Back to article view | Back to uk.politics.misc

Contents

  the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> - 2016-05-19 10:11 +0000
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> - 2016-05-19 10:27 +0000
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-19 12:33 +0200
        Re: the "unnameable"... Vidcapper <vidcapper1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-05-19 14:54 +0100
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-05-19 11:37 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish lawrence13@sky.com - 2016-05-22 03:56 -0700
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> - 2016-05-19 13:08 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-19 14:24 +0200
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Norman Rowling <geegaaxx@virgin.net> - 2016-05-19 14:30 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 12:01 +0100
        Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> - 2016-05-20 11:47 +0000
          Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "anorak" <ssos@meet_the_inbred.com> - 2016-05-20 07:01 -0500
            Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> - 2016-05-20 20:56 +0100
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-21 13:57 +0200
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Sid." <a.89396@ymail.com> - 2016-05-21 13:01 +0100
                  Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-21 14:06 +0200
                    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Sid." <a.89396@ymail.com> - 2016-05-21 13:12 +0100
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> - 2016-05-22 15:11 +0100
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm> - 2016-05-22 22:31 +0100
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Barclay Weir <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-05-19 16:33 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-05-19 17:53 +0100
        Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Ophelia" <OphElsinore@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 18:13 +0100
          Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-05-19 22:11 +0100
            Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Ophelia" <OphElsinore@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 10:44 +0100
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Dan S. MacAbre" <no@way.com> - 2016-05-20 11:38 +0100
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Ophelia" <OphElsinore@gmail.com> - 2016-05-20 15:02 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "Ophelia" <OphElsinore@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 18:11 +0100
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> - 2016-05-19 18:45 +0000
      Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Juan Carr <juan.carr@gmx.com> - 2016-05-19 19:57 +0100
        Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Barclay Weir <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-05-19 20:40 +0100
        Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-20 10:19 +0200
          Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> - 2016-05-20 10:06 +0100
            Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-20 11:15 +0200
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> - 2016-05-22 17:09 +0100
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-22 18:14 +0200
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Oswald <oswald.kripp@yahoo.ne> - 2016-05-22 15:54 -0400
            Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> - 2016-05-20 11:44 +0000
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish "anorak" <ssos@meet_the_inbred.com> - 2016-05-20 06:57 -0500
              Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> - 2016-05-22 13:35 +0100
                Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-22 14:49 +0200
                  Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein <yitzhak@yahoo.fr> - 2016-05-22 22:51 +0100
                    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish abelard <abelard3@abelard.org> - 2016-05-23 00:35 +0200
    Re: the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish lawrence13@sky.com - 2016-05-22 03:56 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#738655 — the "unnameable" Elton John and David Furnish

Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both  
male?

Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young 
children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his 
"spouse" is another man.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#738662

Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote in
news:XnsA60D727465919harolddavis@213.239.209.88: 

> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
> both  male?
> 
> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young 
> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that
> his "spouse" is another man.

There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old 
man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.

They, the judges and the newspaper editors know that.

Let the info out and someone could start a poll.

Are they the right sort of people? Should there be better vetting?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738663

On Thu, 19 May 2016 10:27:36 -0000 (UTC), Harold Davis
<this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:

>Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote in
>news:XnsA60D727465919harolddavis@213.239.209.88: 
>
>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>> both  male?
>> 
>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young 
>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that
>> his "spouse" is another man.
>
>There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old 
>man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.
>
>They, the judges and the newspaper editors know that.
>
>Let the info out and someone could start a poll.
>
>Are they the right sort of people? Should there be better vetting?


how much do babies cost on the international market?


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738702 — Re: the "unnameable"...

On 19/05/2016 11:33, abelard wrote:

>>
>> There's legitimate public interest in the issue of whether a 63-year-old
>> man and his 48-year-old boyfriend should have been allowed to adopt a baby.

I thought the were the biological offspring of one of them, albeit via 
surrogacy, so adoption doesn't come into it.



-- 

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738665

Harold Davis wrote:
> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both
> male?
>
> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
> "spouse" is another man.
>

It's a sad, sad situation.  And it's getting more and more absurd.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739251

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 11:37:58 UTC+1, Dan S. MacAbre  wrote:
> Harold Davis wrote:
> > Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both
> > male?
> >
> > Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
> > children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
> > "spouse" is another man.
> >
> 
> It's a sad, sad situation.  And it's getting more and more absurd.

Song for Guy

Don't let your son.....................

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738680

Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:

> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
> both  male?
 
A 'crisis' that has been largely manufactured by the rightard press.  The
case involves two gay men, and of course, hinges on conflicting rights as
expressed in Articles 8 and 10 of the hated European Convention on Human
Rights.  

So the rightard press bays about 'press freedom' being infringed, and their
readership (most of whom already find gay sex to be downright distasteful
if not wrong, and can't wait for the UK to leave Europe so that it can be
criminalized again) vows to vote 'leave' on 23 June, because fuck those 'EU
Judges' and their trampling all over Blighty.  The whole said with a Saarf
East Laaandaarn accent, to the strains of 'Rule Britannia'. 

But .. sssshh!!  No one mention how the same press toed the line when told
not to publish racy pics of Kate Middleton, and of the fury when the French
celeb press refused to obey!  

'cos freedom of the press is OK, as long as one-way. 

God save the Queen! 

Y.
-- 
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
	'I approve of anybody who commits such acts of violence. Really, I
	don't think that we can sit back and watch Arabs throwing rocks at
	buses whenever they feel like it. They must understand that a bomb
	thrown at a Jewish bus is going to mean a bomb thrown at an Arab
	bus...'
	(Meir Kahane (1932 - 1990))
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>	
<http://thereligionofpeace.com/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738684

On Thu, 19 May 2016 13:08:50 +0100, Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
<yitzhak@yahoo.fr> wrote:

>Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>> both  male?
> 
>A 'crisis' that has been largely manufactured by the rightard press.  The
>case involves two gay men

how gay are they? is this circus increasing or reducing their gayness?

or isn't it making any difference?

>, and of course, hinges on conflicting rights as
>expressed in Articles 8 and 10 of the hated European Convention on Human
>Rights.  
>
>So the rightard press bays about 'press freedom' being infringed, and their
>readership (most of whom already find gay sex to be downright distasteful

how do you 'find it'?
and
why do you want to find it?

is it behind the cupboard? or even the closet?

is it genetic or environ-mental?

can't you find it because you're unusually ugly?

>if not wrong, and can't wait for the UK to leave Europe so that it can be
>criminalized again) vows to vote 'leave' on 23 June, because fuck those 'EU
>Judges' and their trampling all over Blighty.  The whole said with a Saarf
>East Laaandaarn accent, to the strains of 'Rule Britannia'. 
>
>But .. sssshh!!  No one mention how the same press toed the line when told
>not to publish racy pics of Kate Middleton, and of the fury when the French
>celeb press refused to obey!  
>
>'cos freedom of the press is OK, as long as one-way. 
>
>God save the Queen! 

good old god...


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738694

On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both
> male?
>
> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
> "spouse" is another man.
>

Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738961

On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>> both
>> male?
>>
>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
>> "spouse" is another man.
>>
>
> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.
>
>

Yes they can.

They can adopt.

OR

They can find women.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738970

frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote in news:nhmqj4$j29$2@dont-email.me:

> On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
>> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
>>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>>> both
>>> male?
>>>
>>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
>>> "spouse" is another man.

>> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.

> Yes they can.
> 
> They can adopt.
> 
> OR
> 
> They can find women.

Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a 
child.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738973

On 20 May 2016 12:47 PM ,Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
> frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote in news:nhmqj4$j29$2@dont-email.me:
> 
> > On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
> >> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
> >>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
> >>> both
> >>> male?
> >>>
> >>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
> >>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
> >>> "spouse" is another man.
> 
> >> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.
> 
> > Yes they can.
> > 
> > They can adopt.
> > 
> > OR
> > 
> > They can find women.
> 
> Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a 
> child.


Maybe, but only because you seem to want everyone to adopt your pedantic definition of the rather vague word "have", in respect to children. 





-- 
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739032

On 20/05/2016 13:01, anorak wrote:

> Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>> frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote
>>> On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:

>>>>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>>>>> both male?
>
>>>>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>>>>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
>>>>> "spouse" is another man.

>>>> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.

>>> Yes they can.
>>> They can adopt.
>>> OR

>>> They can find women.

>> Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a
>> child.

> Maybe, but only because you seem to want everyone to adopt your pedantic definition of the rather vague word "have", in respect to children.

In this exact context, you would interpret the word "have" as having the 
same meaning as "possess", would you?

Everyone else was reading it as "create", with the term meaning to 
conceive a child by natural sexual activity or, at a pinch, by 
artificial insemination.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739136

On Fri, 20 May 2016 20:56:39 +0100, JNugent <jenningsltd@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

>On 20/05/2016 13:01, anorak wrote:
>
>> Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>> frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
>
>>>>>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are
>>>>>> both male?
>>
>>>>>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>>>>>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
>>>>>> "spouse" is another man.
>
>>>>> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.
>
>>>> Yes they can.
>>>> They can adopt.
>>>> OR
>
>>>> They can find women.
>
>>> Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a
>>> child.
>
>> Maybe, but only because you seem to want everyone to adopt your pedantic definition of the rather vague word "have", in respect to children.
>
>In this exact context, you would interpret the word "have" as having the 
>same meaning as "possess", would you?
>
>Everyone else was reading it as "create", with the term meaning to 
>conceive a child by natural sexual activity or, at a pinch, by 
>artificial insemination.

soon, your will be able to hire a bottle in baby factory..




-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739138

Are brown babies from the bum ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739141

On Sat, 21 May 2016 13:01:50 +0100, "Sid." <a.89396@ymail.com> wrote:

>Are brown babies from the bum ?

or even green with fluorescent pink stripes 


-- 
www.abelard.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739142

The candle would blow out in the wind

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739286

On 20/05/16 20:56, JNugent wrote:
> On 20/05/2016 13:01, anorak wrote:
>
>> Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>> frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
>
>>>>>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple"
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> both male?
>>
>>>>>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>>>>>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying
>>>>>> that his
>>>>>> "spouse" is another man.
>
>>>>> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.
>
>>>> Yes they can.
>>>> They can adopt.
>>>> OR
>
>>>> They can find women.
>
>>> Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to have a
>>> child.
>
>> Maybe, but only because you seem to want everyone to adopt your
>> pedantic definition of the rather vague word "have", in respect to
>> children.
>
> In this exact context, you would interpret the word "have" as having the
> same meaning as "possess", would you?
>
> Everyone else was reading it as "create"

Not I!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#739350

On 22/05/2016 15:11, frederick wrote:
> On 20/05/16 20:56, JNugent wrote:
>> On 20/05/2016 13:01, anorak wrote:
>>
>>> Harold Davis <this@is.not.a.real.email.address.invalid> wrote:
>>>> frederick <fakeemail@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> On 19/05/16 14:30, Norman Rowling wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/2016 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple"
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> both male?
>>>
>>>>>>> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
>>>>>>> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying
>>>>>>> that his
>>>>>>> "spouse" is another man.
>>
>>>>>> Two men CANNOT have children. It is impossible.
>>
>>>>> Yes they can.
>>>>> They can adopt.
>>>>> OR
>>
>>>>> They can find women.
>>
>>>> Have you been on the internet long? It takes a man and a woman to
>>>> have a
>>>> child.
>>
>>> Maybe, but only because you seem to want everyone to adopt your
>>> pedantic definition of the rather vague word "have", in respect to
>>> children.
>>
>> In this exact context, you would interpret the word "have" as having the
>> same meaning as "possess", would you?
>>
>> Everyone else was reading it as "create"
>
> Not I!

Then you were wrong, yet again.

When Harold Davis wrote: "It takes a man and a woman to have a child", 
he did not mean that it takes a man and a woman to possess a child.

HTH.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#738723

On 19/05/16 11:11, Harold Davis wrote:
> Have the newspapers been told not to say that the "married couple" are both
> male?
>
> Every report I've read refers to "PJS" (David Furnish) having "young
> children" with his "spouse" "YMA" (Elton John), without saying that his
> "spouse" is another man.
>

You have named the "unnameable". Do you live abroad? See Ophelia's 
question in an earlier thread. If you live in England, are you awaiting 
a visit from the authorities? - or from PJS/YMA heavies? Ooops! there 
I've (nearly) gone and done it too!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.politics.misc

csiph-web