I believe this happens a LOT more than publicized.
posted by MrsPhoenix at 04:19 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
It does, but the media refuses to cover it(just one more reason why you can't trust/believe 'em). Sadly, these 'activists' do more to hurt the cause than anything, as they just instill hatred, most of which wasn't there in the first place.
posted by Darkseid at 05:38 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
"turnabout is fair play"
posted by anonymouscoward at 06:03 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
This is what is known as "filler material." How about a story about all the body bags coming home from Iraq? How about a story about the deferred costs of the war? How about a story about the real winner of the Iraq War? China. Fox News doesn't do those kind of stories! They like the snippety little divisive stuff that "wussies" talk about! I have a relative that has been to Provincetown several times, and he says it's a really nice place. He's straight, and has kids, a dog, and all that! I'll believe him over Fox News. Not to mention I consider "breeding" to be a fun activity, and certainly nothing negative.
posted by Bbcmjeep43 at 06:15 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
:: looks at Bbcmjeep43
Yeah, that's about right. Nor can FauxNews talk about the REAL conservatives calling for Condi Rice to quit because she's an incompentent dumbass: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Mag_Conservatives_want_incompetent_Condoleezza_Rice_0725.html
posted by anonymouscoward at 06:41 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Yes, let's divert our attention from issues of life and death, and get the social conservatives fired up over non-issues like activist gays.
"Now THERE'S a real issue, man. Don't let them thar homos touch mah butt, neither."
Yeah, and ask Matthew Shepard about those damn gay activists.
Oh wait, we can't - he was murdered by homophobic thugs:
Matthew had been lured from a campus bar shortly after midnight on 7 October 1998 by two men who told him they were gay. He was driven to a remote area near the Sherman Hills neighbourhood east of Laramie, tied to a split-rail fence, tortured, beaten and pistol-whipped by his attackers, while he begged for his life; he was then left for dead in near freezing temperatures. A cyclist who found him on Snowy Mountain View Road at 6:22 pm, some 18 hours after the attack, at first mistook him for a scarecrow. He was unconscious and suffering from hypothermia. His face was caked with blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by tears.
Please. Spare us the crocodile tears, fequalma73.
posted by Subcomandante_bob at 07:23 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Another side of the proverbial coin.
http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html
posted by Darkseid at 09:47 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
And I presented that for all the bleeding hearts (who I knew would be jumpin' on fequalsma instantly)who never read or hear about this sort of thing-nothing more. I've never heard of the organization that posted this, so don't try to say I'm a member or a bible-beater. I just used google. I also don't agree with some of the resulting analysis. Merely pointing out other ,occasional, not-so-pleasant aspects of homosexuality. And I do not have to 'accept' it if I choose not to.
posted by Darkseid at 09:56 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
BTW, I wouldn't live in any of the Northeastern states if you paid me, and homosexuals have nothing to do with it. It's because the area is run by and infested with, liberal white elitists. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.
posted by Darkseid at 10:01 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.
Yes, thank you I will.
While homosexual tobaccos Full Aroma is flavored with full and sweet notes that enhance the flavor of the high-grade leaf tobacco, This evening I shall enjoy the liberal white elitest blend, known for it's cool and sweet midtones, with slight brandy cask overtones.
Either would be a fine chioce.
posted by Bruno at 10:21 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.
Yes, thank you I will.
While homosexual tobaccos Full Aroma is flavored with full and sweet notes that enhance the flavor of the high-grade leaf tobacco, This evening I shall enjoy the liberal white elitest blend, known for it's cool and sweet midtones, with slight brandy cask overtones.
Either would be a fine chioce. -Bruno
pwn'd!
posted by thetoledowire_com at 10:26 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Yep, turnabout is fair play, as someone once said. Some other viewpoints-This comes to you courtesy of a homosexual weekly paper. Enjoy smoking that thing, Bruno.
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/view.php?id=11021
posted by Darkseid at 11:50 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Nor can FauxNews talk about the REAL conservatives calling for Condi Rice to quit because she's an incompentent dumbass. I hate black people
Sounds like someone is racist to me.
posted by fequalsma73 at 11:53 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
Oh...I forgot...yeah-that killing of that kid someone brought up (the very same one is ALWAYS brought up)-was terrible, but am I/are we supposed to feel somehow more sorry, or think it was more heinous because he was homosexual? I say no. Murder...is...murder. Plain and simple. To make this murder a 'hate' crime is to grant special privleges to one group of people. ALL crimes of violence are HATE crimes. Period. No matter if the victim is white, black, homosexual, straght, bisexual, whatever. Always have been, and there have always been laws about them. No 'special' ones were/are needed. There's never been anything special about crimes of violence.
posted by Darkseid at 11:56 P.M. EST on Wed Jul 26, 2006 #
But...of course...the personal insults, the namecalling, and the 'homophobic' accusations shall flow like niagra,rather than intelligent discussion, but then that's all I've come to expect from 'progressive' people of such great tolerance. Well, guess I'll move on to a thread about "what part of town do you live in?" or something else trivial. Seems that's the only way you can get along on this board.
posted by Darkseid at 12:01 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
You didn't go there, fecal. Tell me my eyes are lying and you didn't try to pin me as a racist. Cause if you did, bannination isn't good enough for you, you fucking asshole.
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:40 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Nor can FauxNews talk about the REAL conservatives calling for Condi Rice to quit because she's an incompentent dumbass. I hate black people
Sounds like someone is racist to me.
Before you lose your cool, I should go ahead and say that this is just like you applying the whole 'right-wing gay basher fundie' label to anyone who thinks gay marriage corrupts family ideals. If someone thinks it is not a good thing, then they must be crazy just like the WBC people. Well, in that case if you think Condi is an "incompetent dumbass", then all whites must think she is, too. Likewise, all whites must hate all black people. Do you see the danger of your idealogy?
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:41 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Uh-oh...looks like when I copied and pasted your original comment, some of my comments got deleted. Sorry about that. I will admit, that looks really bad!!! Again, sorry about that. Guess I need to proofread more carefully.
Of course I do not think you are racist. You haven't shown me you are, anyway.
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:51 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Homophobes have the following: "Tubesteak Tarzan", "Turd Burgular", "Fag", "Meat Eater", "Rump Rider" and "Pole Smoker".
All Homosexuals can come up with is "Breeder"?
Sounds like someone needs to kick the creativity up a notch.
posted by BrianInFlorida at 04:15 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
My sides are sore from laughing on that one.
posted by Darkseid at 06:04 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Frankly, unless the taunter was vulgar and my children were around, I'd LOL about being taunted as a "breeder."
It seems like a pretty lame attempt at insulting someone.
Mike
posted by miked918 at 07:00 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Ya got that right, Mike - Who'd take those insults seriously anyway? What would your comeback be? Tell him to cram it??
Insults like that would be like a heroin addict making fun of someone because they DONT have any needle tracks!!
As far as the original post, the person is complaining that someone left dog poop next to their car??
#1, are they positive that a DOG didnt leave poop next to their car? And #2, wouldnt you just have to laugh that someone actually picked up a piece of crap just to put it BESIDE your car? Who's worse off in that scenario - the one who can simply step over it and drive away, or the one who's sitting behind a bush laughing about it and has shit on his fingers?
posted by billy at 07:47 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I don't know what's worse, some straight people whining about being called "breeders" or darkseid's attempt to link homosexuality to serial killing
posted by pink_slip at 08:31 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Between the Fox News (which barely qualifies as actual news) and the right-wing fundie pile of crap newsletter supplied by fecal, I was beginning to think that those darn homosexuals were rising up and taking over the whole country. I guess it's a good thing that I have enough sense to do a little independent research unlike so many of the sheep that just swallow that garbage without question.
If there is one thing that consistently hurts this country, it is people who blindly follow their leader of choice. Whether you're liberal or conservative, take a few minutes to verify the crap that you hear or read. The major news sources have all proven that you can't take them at their word - most if not all politicians (including the current and former presidents, both Dems and Republicans) have lied to their constituents.
Facts, people. Ask for facts. And then check 'em.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 08:50 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
off subject a bit, but i notice alot of people hammering fox news. what's everyone's opinion of cnn, msnbc, or the nightly news of abc, cbs, and/or nbc?
while i don't watch much of fox news, they're as much "actual news" as the cnn, msnbc, cbs nightly news.....but the angle comes from the other side of the aisle.
posted by wholesaler1972 at 09:37 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Philadelphia Weekly is not a homosexual weekly. Unless you define homosexual as "bad things i disapprove of, and i generally disapprove of urban culture."
In my mind, the Philadelphia Weekly has always been second to the Philadelphia City Paper, but only because the City Paper used to dedicate a whole page each issue to Chris Ware's Rusty Brown.
posted by ifXthenWhyNot at 09:44 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
wholesaler1972 wondered about peoples' opinions of FOX.
Personally, I don't have a problem with a network demonstrating some bias. When I tune to FOX I know I am getting a right-slanted viewpoint. When their hosts get too partisan or reactionary (a la O'Reilly), I change the channel.
I like to hear a variety of viewpoints, and the idea that news reporting can be completely objective or sanitized of any trace of bias is folly. The talking heads and scribbling scribes are humans, and their views will eventually leak out.
However, the idea that FOX is "Fair and Balanced" is a hoot, unless you consider the addition of token liberal Alan Colmes to be "balance."
posted by historymike at 10:03 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
off subject a bit, but i notice alot of people hammering fox news. what's everyone's opinion of cnn, msnbc, or the nightly news of abc, cbs, and/or nbc?
My personal opinion is that media consolidation is a bad thing. When fewer and fewer corporations own more and more or the news outlets we see, it limits the amount of news we see and diminishes opposing points of view.
posted by pink_slip at 10:43 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I watch FoxNews, MSNBC, and ABC. I see the clear bias of them all, but I think the difference is that most of FoxNews programming is commentary, so it is going to be bias. Similarly, MSNBC does a lot of documentaries mixed in with their commentary programming. I think ABC mixes their bias into their news, which is unfortunate.
posted by fequalsma73 at 11:10 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Let's me seee umm,ABC=left leaning,CBS= left leaning,MSNBC left leaning,CNN left leaning,and Fox News right leaning.I quess you can say it is hardly fair and balanced .I find it amusing that the Liberals will still complain so much about Fox News when they have so many other major news networks that spew their anti right wing venom and Bush bashing.Maybe what upsets them is that Fox News has the highest rating among those other cable news networks.
posted by buckeye277 at 11:28 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Check out BBC World News for a no-nonsense news program. It is a nice alternative (or addition) to the US news channels (Fox, CNN, MSNBC).
posted by Matt at 11:37 A.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
With any news channel, you have to differentiate the news anchors and shows from the other programs.
Yeah, O'Reily is a weee bit slanted, but his is not the FOX News. FOX News does have news. Those are unbiased. At least as unbiased as any other news.
posted by miked918 at 12:04 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Nor can FauxNews talk about the REAL conservatives calling for Condi Rice to quit because she's an incompentent dumbass. I hate black people
Uh-oh...looks like when I copied and pasted your original comment, some of my comments got deleted. Sorry about that. I will admit, that looks really bad!!! Again, sorry about that. Guess I need to proofread more carefully.
Maybe there's a joke here that I'm missing, but I don't see, looking at the comments above, how the 'I hate black people' could've realistically "accidentally" happened while cutting and pasting.
posted by MT1973 at 01:26 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Maybe there's a joke here that I'm missing, but I don't see, looking at the comments above, how the 'I hate black people' could've realistically "accidentally" happened while cutting and pasting.
Ol' fecal there decided that crossing the line wasn't enough, and had to attack the line with WMDs.
posted by anonymouscoward at 01:44 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Before you lose your cool, I should go ahead and say that this is just like you applying the whole 'right-wing gay basher fundie' label to anyone who thinks gay marriage corrupts family ideals. If someone thinks it is not a good thing, then they must be crazy just like the WBC people. Well, in that case if you think Condi is an "incompetent dumbass", then all whites must think she is, too. Likewise, all whites must hate all black people. Do you see the danger of your idealogy?
posted by fequalsma73
Yeah, take this quote and see what we can cut and paste it into:
I should go ahead and say that fequalsma73 is a "incompetent dumbass". If someone thinks fequalsma73 is 'right-wing gay then they must be cool. I should like gay marriage. I should go ahead and say that fequalsma73 like basher Condi black whole. Ouch!!! Do you see the danger of 'right-wing?
posted by fequalsma73
posted by pink_slip at 01:57 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I watch Fox but it depends on the program. I don't like Neil Cavuto. I watch Bill O'Reilly only when he's talking about the pedophiles because I think he's got the best solution there. I LOVE John Kasich's show. I and I think everyone else would consider me conservative but why would I watch a liberal like Kasich? Because it's news, entertaining, and I do like to get both sides.
CNN is just as slanted as Fox and anyone who doesn't admit it is allowing themselves to be misled. I watch CNN as well but I don't find their shows to be as entertaining nor do they talk as much about the topics I wish to hear about.
As far as the networks go they are all slanted in their own right. If you don't believe that then ask yourself why is Dan Rather no longer on the air. But it does work both ways. I'd consider John Stossel to be as right leaning as myself.
So to just dismiss one station as slanted then you have a very narrow view of the world and I would encourage you to watch others and question what you believe daily.
posted by MikeyA at 03:04 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I don't know what's worse, some straight people whining about being called "breeders" or darkseid's attempt to link homosexuality to serial killing
Ouch!!! posted by pink_slip at 09:31 A.M. EDT on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
--------------------------------------------
You're a liar. I never attempted to do any such thing. Showing other sides and different scenarios was what i did. I did not write that article, and even said I disagreed with some of the analogy. But 'progressives' (the new code word for ultra-leftist)always have to attack and insult the messenger rather than discuss things. There is (sometimes)a violent and twisted side of homosexuality, and everyone is fully aware not all homosexuals are serial killers. Someone else mentioned the Philidelphia Weekly isn't a homosexual publication. WHO CARES? WHAT ABOUT THE ARTICLE?? No comment. Much easier to attack me than acknowledge that the homosexual lifestyle isn't all a bed of roses, isn't it?
posted by Darkseid at 05:43 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Funny thing about that article--it lists the top 6 male serial killers is the US, claiming they were all gay. Where was Ted Bundy on that list (not gay)? Or the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway (not gay)? I'd say it's a pretty inaccurate list.
Don't you think it'd be odd if a thread had the subject of Latinos in it (just as an example), and someone then said "you know, a lot of Latinos are serial killers")? And some info on your boy Dr Paul Cameron, the guy who wrote the article:
On December 2, 1983, the American Psychological Association sent Paul Cameron a letter informing him that he had been dropped from membership. Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" by the APA Board of Directors.
also:
At its membership meeting on October 19, 1984, the Nebraska Psychological Association adopted a resolution stating that it "formally disassociates itself from the representations and interpretations of scientific literature offered by Dr. Paul Cameron in his writings and public statements on sexuality."6
also:
In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."
also:
The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research
You ask "WHAT ABOUT THE ARTICLE??"
I say "crap"
posted by pink_slip at 06:06 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I don't think you did either Dark. There was some cutting and pasting of some very biased and socially inappropriate quotes.
In trying to put some of it together (pasting the original's author's own words is often the best way to avoid making a mistake with their syntax) a mistake was made.
The poster immediately posted what had happened - but OBVIOUSLY a select few - in lieu of having a life, a heart or anything that resembles humanity - will never forgive a mistake in another human.
Jesus forgives...but not them. Oh no.....never. You'll never live long enough to see them breath at 98.6 degrees.
posted by katie82640 at 07:01 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
katie, the cutting and pasting thing was in response to fecalsma, not darkseid.
posted by pink_slip at 07:19 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
In trying to put some of it together (pasting the original's author's own words is often the best way to avoid making a mistake with their syntax) a mistake was made.
Is this in reference to Fequalsma73's "accidental" cut/paste that resulted in "I hate black people"? If so...do you really think that was an accident? I realize I haven't been posting here long and I'm still holding out hope that it's referencing an old joke or something (wishful thinking), but I have been reading this board long enough to know that if anonymouscoward posted that same thing "in jest" (which I think Fequalsma did), this would've turned into another "gang up on anonymouscoward and the liberals" thread...which NEVER happens around here. We're supposed to forgive Fequalsma and say "Oops!" when I don't think people would be extending that same courtesy if the roles were reversed.
posted by MT1973 at 07:25 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
I didn't mean to attack you, Darkseid, by saying that Philadelphia Weekly isn't a homosexual weekly. It's just not, that's all. And I was sorta hoping that I'd derail the thread into Chris Ware praise.
I keep coming back and reading this stuff. I come to the site because it is a good source of Toledo info, but I get sucked into these arguments. And I've been trying to stay away from useless political shouting matches and other wastes of time. But they are sorta like a car crash, you can't help but look, until you crash into the pileup too.
I think there a lot of great ideas on this forum, but it always gets lost under all the insults (which, I admit, I can't turn away from.)
You know one thing that I think would help? If Person A stops telling Person B what Person B thinks. Stop saying, "You think racist homophobic thoughts!" or "You think anti-American communist, progressive thoughts!" Instead, maybe we can try listening to the other person's thoughts. Then if you want to attack them, fine, go ahead. But attack them, not some made-up version of a very evil them. I think many people on both the left and right are more anti-right and anti-left than anything else, but it is always some gross caricature of the other side that they hate so much.
And the whole thing that started this about FoxNews - that's an AP article. It was in today's Blade.
Oh, and Chris Ware? He draws some of the most beautiful, visually interesting cartoons about the most depressing and boring subjects. I think he needs a disclaimer.
posted by ifXthenWhyNot at 10:38 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
We've been to P-town a couple of times in the last several years, and have never once encountered a 'hostile moment'. P-town it the east coast version of San Francisco, maybe more so - and has been for a very long time. It's kind of hard to NOT know it's a gay town - even Frommers, travel info, etc. tell you up front it is. Anybody going there, knows what to expect - so it's doubtful gay haters would go out of their way to be there. Some gays there are more flamboyant than others - the same as anywhere else, but all in all, our experiences were postitive.
I imagine gays flocked to P-town just so they wouldn't have to deal with the straights that hate them; a beautiful town, with a wealth of history, and to wake up everyday and NOT be judged is reason enough for gays to move there. I'm sure there are hostile gays just as there are hostile straights, so it's kind of unfair to tag this town as straight unfriendly. Given the shit that straights dish out to gays in general in this country - the hate, the belief that they are "a mistake of God's", the violence, etc. - I guess we shouldn't be surprised to see some gays lash out.
But in all fairness to the residents of P-town - we don't know if they were provoked by these straights or not. It's been my experience that gays are less likely to be nasty, violent, rude, hostile, than straights are. But I think gays are pretty perceptive and pick up on negative vibes by straights. If I felt somebody was looking down their nose, or mocking ME, I think I'd get a bit peeved as well.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, that people KNOW P-town is nearly all gay before they go there. If straights have issue with the homosexual lifestyle, then they shouldn't visit or attempt to live there. Our family is clearly NOT gay - and we had no problems with the residents we came into contact with. If these claims are true, I have to wonder what provoked it all. My guess is that the straights had attitudes of their own.
posted by starling02 at 11:41 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
Sorry for the double post - but perhaps the 'breeder' comment simply came about due to the fact that while P-town is called a 'resort town', it is has been inhabited year round for a very long time, by a nearly all gay society. The residents have lived very happily there for a long time in this beautiful, colorful, little coastal town - away from the gay haters. Perhaps P-town is becoming 'trendy', as places often do - and has attracted new, non-gay residents. Perhaps the old school P-town residents are concerned that their safe haven will become overrun with straights - and the gay unfriendly attitudes will move in as well.
posted by starling02 at 11:57 P.M. EST on Thu Jul 27, 2006 #
You ask "WHAT ABOUT THE ARTICLE??"
I say "crap"
Ouch!!! posted by pink_slip at 07:06 P.M. EDT
---------------------------------------------
I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE BATH HOUSE ARTICLE. You know? The one in the Philadelphia Weekly? Got it now?
posted by Darkseid at 01:11 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Actually, that was pretty telling, because it lets everyone know some are not bothering to read posts very closely that don't agree with their point of view.
posted by Darkseid at 01:36 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
For that I apologize. You posted two articles, and I was only referring to the first article.
posted by pink_slip at 08:19 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
kind of scary when something gets so rabid it bites anything that comes near. Shudder.
I read this article - and back TO the topic - I think that these people are surprised that their signatures on that petition were publicized.
Freedom isn't free. Participating in an action like this has repercussions. And I think they are surprised to find that this 'gay' community has some opinionated people who have an opinion on the petition these people signed.
posted by katie82640 at 08:23 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
I grew up visiting Ptown almost every summer. The art galleries, antique shops, etc were wonderful. Yes - there was a strong population of gays and they were always respectful, articulate, congenial and down to earth.
In my mind - if you know a place (city/store/library, etc) has a primary population that is of an alternative lifestyle and that lifestyle truly bothers you, then don't go there. The straight folks CHOSE to go to Ptown. The gay folks LIVE in Ptown.
I have NEVER seen a gay/lesbian/TG/TS person that was antagonistic and confrontational. I'm sure there are those that are, but I would bet the percentages are extremely low. For the most part they are peaceful and much more tolerant than the straights. My experiences with the gay community has shown me that they are much more sincere in their "live and let live" world.
We (the so called 'straight' society) could learn much from them.
And, FWIW, if you don't want the public to know how narrow minded you are, then don't start a war on paper.
posted by DoknowDocare at 09:24 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
well said " if you don't want the public to know how narrow minded you are, then don't start a war on paper." <--doknow.
Well said. If you aren't willing to live with the repercussions of your actions - maybe stop doing those things :-)
posted by katie82640 at 10:01 A.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Taunting anyone for their legal sexual practices is reprehensible, regardless of who is at your side or how many people are at your back. Justice and propriety are not dependent upon a majority rule, but from a generally understood truth.
posted by GuestZero at 12:13 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Well said. If you aren't willing to live with the repercussions of your actions - maybe stop doing those things :-)
Did you seriously write that people should avoid participating in the political process because there will be repercussions? What a joke. It's a good thing that women in the first half of this century didn't live by that motto - not to mention blacks.
Regardless of whether you agree with gay marriage or not (and I personally think that marriage is marriage - for everyone), you should be able to sign a petition without fear of being harassed. If that truly happened, there is no excuse - not even if the target took what you consider to be a morally reprehensible position.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 01:00 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Of course I didn't post that. You cipped and copied my statement yourself.
Maybe you should have read it.
I said If you aren't willing to live with the repercussions of your actions
As in be willing to pay consequences for your actions - it's the price of freedom.
That's a really odd response you had there :-) Try a bit of bran? I hear it helps.
posted by katie82640 at 01:27 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Then please explain what actions and what repercussions you are referring to...
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 01:31 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
LOL, best of luck to you in this endeavor, MoreThanRhetoric. Your head will soon be spinning off your shoulders.
posted by McCaskey at 01:47 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Did you read the article? It was pretty clearly outlined - the people who signed the petition complained that they were publicly berated - dog poop left by cars etc.
Those are repercussions.
Merriam Webster definition:
Main Entry: re·per·cus·sion
Pronunciation: "rE-p&r-'k&-sh&n,
an action or effect given or exerted in return : a reciprocal action or effect
posted by katie82640 at 01:56 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
In that case, I stand by my previous post. Anyone should be able to participate in the political process without fear of being harassed. Period. Clearly I understood your first statement, and my clipping did nothing to distort your intent.
No one has the right to harass others for exercising their rights. If you think otherwise, I suppose you have no problem with straight people calling those in favor of gay marriage faggots, carpet munchers, and fudge packers. Not to mention it would also be alright to put animal feces on in and around their property.
And, on your attempt to educate, perhaps you should understand the position you took before you post it AND before you deny it. You have confirmed that you think it is ok to harass people for signing a petition, which is participation in the political process.
Did you read the article? It was pretty clearly outlined - the people who signed the petition complained that they were publicly berated - dog poop left by cars etc.
Those are repercussions.
So, you want people to make a choice, either sign petitions and be fearful of retaliation or don't participate. Again, thank goodness for the women and blacks of the past who knew better.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 02:08 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Then please explain what actions and what repercussions you are referring to...
Yeah, good luck....It's hard to tell what she's talking about sometimes...
posted by pink_slip at 02:10 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
What on earth are you talking about? As a community activist - raised by two community activists I very often have to pay consequences for doing things I believe are right.
My comment was that if these people want to act - they should expect there to be consequences.
I don't know how much experience you've had with not going along with the status quo but I can tell you - unequivocally - there should be no expectation to get a pat on the back.
Nor should you whine about it if people don't like what you do. If you have the convictions of your beliefs - you should be willing to pay consequences.
If you don't agree with that - that's up to you.
But your hate speech above is deeply disturbing. And I request, politely, that you discontinue.
posted by katie82640 at 02:19 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
You call praising women and blacks for their suffrage efforts hate speech? You're correct that people are often subjected to ridiculous harassment for bucking the establishment. Where you're wrong is that you seem to think it has to be that way.
Just because something has always been a certain way doesn't mean it must continue. One of your goals as an activist should be to promote open dialogue without "repercussions" as you like to put it. Do you agree that there should be war? Because war is just one big repercussion for disagreeing with someone's status quo.
Rather than accept the fact that you will be cursed at, spit on, or worse, you should agree with me that such responses to civil disagreement are inappropriate and should stop. What I find hard to believe is that you want to argue that point.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 02:25 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
I just find you hard to believe. And completely irrational.
Obviously people should have fairy like lives - and free speech and gratitude for differing opinions should flourish like many colored floweres in a field.
In reality it isn't that way. If you ask anyone who is trying to make change today - they'll tell you that. And your response was absolutely abusive.
posted by katie82640 at 02:29 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Huh. At this time, I would like to take the opportunity to agree with the sentiments of McCaskey and pink slip.
Katie: The goal is to create the fairy land that doesn't exist today. The one where free speech and gratitude do, indeed, flourish. The fact that such a society does not yet exist is unfortunate.
What exactly is it that you strive to achieve as a second generation community activist? Do you enjoy being treated like crap when you speak out? Don't you think that should change?
One more thing, Katie. I am a strong supporter of "liberal" causes, especially free-speech. I wish more activists like yourself would wake up and remember that free speech is for everyone, not just you. I probably agree with a lot of your politics, but your execution leaves a lot to be desired.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 02:36 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Katie: The goal is to create the fairy land that doesn't exist today. <-- morethenrhetoric.
That is what we are working for. Very hard. And paying some very costly repercussions for having done so.
As a second generation activist I should try to accomplish - these things.
I advocate for children, I established the victims advocacy in Madison County Ohio, social outreach programs in Franklin County and in Lucas County for drug addicts and prostitutes.
I am trying to hold public officials accountable by publicizing their meetings here in Lucas Co -
Would you like to hear about some of the hate email I get from that site?
Obviously I'd rather not have any repercussions - yours included - but until we can make things better - that's the world I live in.
You are a clear testament to that :-)
posted by katie82640 at 02:45 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
MoreThanRhetoric - I'd like to interject a couple things here since Katie was responding to my post.
I do not live in a world of rose colored glasses, fields of sunflowers and all the other warm fuzzies of an ideal society. I do live in the here and now.
The folks that signed that petition are upset that there names were made public. MY point was that if you are not willing to stand up for what you believe in, then don't sign it. At some point someone, somewhere, is going to know your name. This is not to say that the alleged reactions of the gay community are correct, nor is it an endorsement for the 'straights' that were targeted.
I was more upset that the petition signers had gone to an area that is undeniably 'gay friendly' and then got upset that they were witnessing that lifestyle. THEN they decided that they would take up a petition (signed by 100s that were not present at Ptown) and try to force the issue in relation to gay marriage and gay relationships. The only ones that should have signed that petition in regard to THAT incident should have been the ones directly involved in the alleged incidents. The other signatures are a moot point IMO.
I don't believe that there should be repercussions for getting involved. BUT I do think that if you are getting involved it should be done on a legitimate basis - not as a bystander from 7 towns away that got incensed due to a media blast.
I am an activist on many fronts - some popular, some not. I take flak about it all the time. Thankfully I'm thick skinned and thick headed so I keep plodding along. Eventually I will find a field of daisies and call it Eutopia.
You and Katie are essentially for the same team - you both are just strong willed enough to want to debate it. And that's a GOOD thing as that's how things get resolved, changed and made better.
posted by DoknowDocare at 02:48 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
I appreciate the mediation DKDC. And yeah, I imagine that she and I agree in many areas.
Keep your thick skin and plod along man. The worst thing anyone can do is decide to accept the injustices of the world.
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 03:10 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
I think there is a good argument beneath all these insults. Do you think people should vote or sign petitions about things that they are ashamed to say publicly? If you can't stand up and tell somebody that you think they shouldn't be allowed to marry or raise kids, then why should you be able to help enact a law that says that?
Of course, a central tenet of democracy is that people vote based on their own choices, free from social pressure or the mob mentality. Political participation shouldn't have negative consequences, or you're limiting political participation.
So I don't think there is a cut and dry answer. Let's look at the situation more realistically. This is what I bet happened - people read that list, looking for names of friends and acquaintances who signed the petition. And then they confronted those people about their choices in the supermarket. As we see here, political arguments quickly turn heated. I think it is disingenous to suggest that this is analogous to retaliation against freedom marchers or suffragettes. I guess placing dog poop next to somebody's car is more similar, but not really.
posted by ifXthenWhyNot at 03:34 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Like the old addage goes ifX, "One thing leads to another." I was not saying that the straights went through the same treatment as suffrage supporters, but if society accepts a low level of harassment it encourages the bully to go to the next level. You only need to watch the current batch of political ads to see that.
We all need to speak up when we hear someone on the street treating someone else like dirt. And I mean, right then - not on a blog a week later. Is it intimidating to do that? Sometimes. Should you put yourself in danger? Probably not. But, most people see something crappy happening to another person at least once a week.
Speak up - who cares if someone thinks you're being too nosey? Does it matter what they think?
posted by MoreThanRhetoric at 03:54 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Well.....I'm glad this ended in such an agreeable fashion.
MoreThanRhetoric, stop by more often. Toledo Talk could use more posters like yourself.
posted by McCaskey at 06:14 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Kate said: "I am trying to hold public officials accountable by publicizing their meetings here in Lucas Co - Would you like to hear about some of the hate email I get from that site?"
Yes, I would. Are you receiving any serious criticisms from such publishing? Are you receiving any threats? Have any of these emails hinted they are from public officials?
posted by GuestZero at 08:49 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
katie...I would love to read some of this hate mail.
posted by fequalsma73 at 09:15 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Hell yes Katie! My Lord, if they've got issues with having their public meetings being publicized we SHOULD know about it - AND hold them accountable for THAT!
You are doing good things Katie -- this town's been getting the same old, same old for decades, and it's about time somebody stepped up and pointed out what's going on!
case in point, did anyone hear on the radio this morning where they now are saying that they dont yet know exactly what theyre going to do to fix the water drainage issue here in town, but they WILL fix it... Then in the next breath they quote a figure of $200 million??
SO - they dont know what the issue is, or how theyre gonna fix it, but they know it'll be $200 mil, huh?
I think they think we'll all just nod and say, yeah, this is a terrible problem and we want it fixed and ignore getting ripped off - just as until recently we did with having to pay the highest utilities in the state for dozens of years.
posted by billy at 10:56 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
My daughter laughed at the term 'breeders' - she said "but straights ARE breeders, no insults intended. I have to agree with her.
posted by starling02 at 11:07 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
I think the use of the term "breeders" may also be referencing the anti-same sex marriage argument that a marriage is not valid if the couple can't have children. It's supposed to point out the ridiculousness of simplifying marriage to that single aspect.
I think that is a good point, MoreThanRhetoric, but who draws the line about what is harassment? I've spoken up many times in the past in regards to racist comments or actions, but I could be the one painted as the person who is harassing somebody else. The harassment in this case, besides placing poop next to a car, is calling somebody a bigot. So then does somebody have to speak up to correct me? Will a fourth person have to speak up after that?
posted by ifXthenWhyNot at 11:42 P.M. EST on Fri Jul 28, 2006 #
Katie - you should post those emails on the site!!!! Including return addresses!
posted by MaggieThurber at 08:02 A.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
Katie - you should post those emails on the site!!!! Including return addresses!
Interesting legal questions are posed by doing so. Tell me, Mags, are all your email addresses and the numbers of all your phone lines public knowledge, and if not, why not and why are you advocating katie to make those of others public?
posted by anonymouscoward at 11:52 P.M. EST on Sat Jul 29, 2006 #
If you can't stand up and tell somebody that you think they shouldn't be allowed to marry or raise kids, then why should you be able to help enact a law that says that?
Does that "help enact a law" include voting? Cause then we'd have to give up the whole "secret ballot" thing. And then we'd get to make the voting records of every single registered voter public, so we'd know who and what DKDC or anyone else here voted for, and give them undending harassment over that. (sarcasm)Boy, wouldn't that be great.(end sarcasm) And then we'd have discrimination lawsuits as, oh, conservative employers would fire or refuse to hire anyone with a track record of voting Democrat (since they could just simply look up the employee on the nice public voting records site). (sarcasm) Wouldn't that just be super? (end sarcasm)
posted by anonymouscoward at 12:00 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
i love you A/C (end sarcasm)
posted by fequalsma73 at 01:26 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
AC - Katie owns a site and can make the decisions about what she posts there. If her policy is that emails to the site will be published, that's her right. In fact, if her site states that emails, including addresses, will be published, she probably wouldn't get any of the harrassing or intimidating messages she's gotten so far.
And, after thinking about it more, if she's getting threatening or intimidating emails, she should probably make out a police report.
But as to your question: I am not the issue - though you do constantly try to change the focus of an issue (kind of like my teenage nephew when he's trying to get out of doing a chore). But since you asked, I have an office phone number and an office email. I have a personal phone number and a personal email. All four are public - so anyone who wants to get in touch with me or communicate with me can. Emails back and forth on my commissioner address are a public record - which means that anyone who's emailed me at my commissioner address has made their own address public.
And since you think it's so important...how 'bout you? I believe that your comment on another thread was that you weren't interested in showing up for coffee in order to continue to protect your annonymity.
Besides - with all your conspiracy theories and machinations, aren't YOU the least bit curious as to who would try to prevent Katie from publicizing open meetings??????
posted by MaggieThurber at 06:43 A.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Well, Mags, if katie's got such a thin skin that she's gotta publish her hate mails, then so be it. And then she'll get dozens more on how evil she is for doing so. And then all those people will end up with 50 squillion more spam emails from having had their email addresses published on the 'Net where the spam bots will find them.
Hey, do you mind if I sign you up for a squillion spams a day? No?
I thought we had sunshine laws. If they're not being enforced, then there's a problem. If someone doesn't like their public meeting being taped, too fucking bad.
Mind you, I find it rather ironic that you pipe up about disclosure now.
posted by anonymouscoward at 04:03 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Tough call on the threatening mail.
As someone who has been on the receiving end of death threats, hate mail, sinister-sounding communications, and neo-Nazi cyber-stalking, I can sympathize with Kate.
The first few times it happened I got pretty freaked (especially the cell calls). These twisted minds enjoy the power they think they have to make people afraid.
Then you have the cyber terrorists. Individuals within a certain neo-Nazi group that twice visited Toledo took issue with my journalistic coverage of their visit. They made up "news" stories and posted them on various websites that I was being investigated by the police for downloading pornography on the computers of an institution at which I am employed, and filled the "articles" with the worst sort of vile slander.
I had to hire a lawyer and threaten to sue the ever-loving bejeezus out of them to get the BS to stop. Some loons need to realize that you are deadly serious.
I agree with Maggie - forward the dangerous-sounding stuff to the FBI. They have a cyber unit (Internet Crime Complaint Center) that takes online reports:
http://www.ic3.gov/
Now, I have no Pollyanna-ish delusions that this will immediately solve your problem, but your report might just be the additional piece of information that get one of these fools some special Fibbie love.
Usually these kooks go away when you calmly let them know you are documenting the harassment.
Perhaps Kate might publish the material without the identifying characteristics as a way to let the culprits know that she is not afraid.
posted by historymike at 04:57 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
I think gay people berating straight people (breeders) because of what they think or feel is equally as bad as a straight person berating a gay person because of their thoughts or feelings.
Do you agree with that statement, AnonymousCowturd?
Simple Yes or No answer.
posted by fequalsma73 at 05:21 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
1) Births and deaths are public records.
2) This is the Constitutional free speech you and your brother served to defend.
3) If the Blade or any other news outlet recited the names of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, would there be a lawsuit? After all, the Blade makes a profit, Nightline makes a profit (from advertising/commercial space), etc. and for both the attention they get from such stunts furthers their agendas. How about if Dubya uses their names in a speech that someone doesn't like? Should Dubya be sued?
4) Dead people don't have rights. "I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead." -- Sen. Pat Roberts, (R) KS
5) And there's hundreds of databases with your name, address, credit rating, purchase history, etc. all over the USA, and they violate your "right to privacy" and the owners make profits selling your name and so on to other people who use that information to make a profit by selling crap to you. And these companies (not PEOPLE, but CORPORATIONS) claim their rights to free speech are infringed by antispam and do-not-call and other privacy legislation. I'd rather my name or a dead soldier's name be used by people for political speech than be used by a corporation for promotion or being a potential customer to sell vinyl siding or patriotic teddy bears to.
Ouch!!! posted by anonymouscoward at 02:52 P.M. EDT on Tue Jul 25, 2006
Then
Well, Mags, if katie's got such a thin skin that she's gotta publish her hate mails, then so be it. And then she'll get dozens more on how evil she is for doing so. And then all those people will end up with 50 squillion more spam emails from having had their email addresses published on the 'Net where the spam bots will find them.
Hey, do you mind if I sign you up for a squillion spams a day? No?
I thought we had sunshine laws. If they're not being enforced, then there's a problem. If someone doesn't like their public meeting being taped, too fucking bad.
Mind you, I find it rather ironic that you pipe up about disclosure now.
Ouch!!! posted by anonymouscoward at 05:03 P.M. EDT on Sun Jul 30, 2006
So on one post he's all for a hate group's right to exploit a person's privacy, but then in this post he's totally against making someone's hatespeak public...
It looks to me that the crux of the issue doesnt matter - Coward just wants to come out on the side of hate - any kind of hate. Now that's just sad.
posted by billy at 05:59 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
hate group's right to exploit a person's privacy,
What privacy? I don't see where someone's burial is guaranteed to so-called "privacy" unless they're being buried in a PRIVATE cemetary on PRIVATE property. Public property, public protest, just like the whole neoNazi demonstration thing. You can't stop the NeoNazis from marching in Toledo so long as they do so on public property (with all the associated BS) and it's just too damn bad if they march down your street and your ears are sullied by their words and their presence fucks up your meditation, but they have that right.
If you want a private funeral, be buried in a private cemetary, and don't publish the goddamn details in the newspaper. If you decide to bury your kid the soldier in the public cemetary and have the whole big affair in the paper, date and time of the burial, then don't be surprised if the WBC fucks show up. Of course, the paper will publish what they find out anyway because a dead soldier is a hero and that sort of thing attracts readers... and hey, they'll claim freedom of the press anyhow.
The problem with publishing personal/private emails is one of Netiquette, which most people on here wouldn't know if it punched them in the face. I used to give a serious damn about it, until the clueful to moron ratio on the Internet dropped below 1.5 to 1 (oh, somewhere in the middle of 2000). Of course, you should realize that publishing an email address is a good way of really pissing off people because a lot of them consider their email addresses to be ultra private personal things (like an unpublished phone number). And then we also have any number of people who are just about smart enough to do a decent job of faking out the other morons on the Internet by posing as someone else, so yeah, it'd be really a great idea to post an email signed as being from Czarty or something and have it not turn out to be from Czarty and then the lawyers get involved and katie would be sued to oblivion (crocodile tears)... and somehow, out of what, 931 registered users here I doubt that more than 15 know anything about SMTP *and* how to do email forensics. Anyway, the dangerous people are the ones who are smart enough to cover their tracks by... well I better not go there, but if I was ever STUPID enough to threaten someone by email, I'd be smart enough to make sure anyone trying to prove I did it would tear their hair out, develop ulcers, and suffer migraines.
If katie's got people pissed off, good for her, now if she can't handle the heat, she needs to get out of the kitchen. Threats of physical harm get referred to the cops. Posting everything else eventually devolves down into "gee what dumbases" and "lol these morons can't write" and the sorts of prick-waving superiority of FreeRepublic/DemocraticUnderground.
posted by anonymouscoward at 07:19 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
I think gay people berating straight people (breeders) because of what they think or feel is equally as bad as a straight person berating a gay person because of their thoughts or feelings.
Do you agree with that statement?
I'll chime in on this. Of course. Equally as bad.
But, getting back to the original story posted, I have to say, "so what?"
Why would anyone think the gay segment of our population is devoid of the same racists, bigots, sexists, bullies, all-around jerks that comprise all the other groups in our society? Or that it's a big story when it happens?
Gays are capable of the same abhorrent behavior as anyone else. Big deal.
posted by McCaskey at 07:28 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
From ACs posts:
...and their presence fucks up your meditation,...
...until the clueful to moron ratio on the Internet dropped below 1.5 to 1 ...
and intertwined in all that is a reference to Netiquette
I'm confused (and confounded) how you can think that your personal attacks and use of foul language would be considered Netiquette.
I'm no prude, I've heard and read worse. But I do believe that a reasonably intelligent person will be able to make his/her point without resorting to such colorful language.
And yes - you have a RIGHT to say it, and I have a RIGHT to let you know it only paints a picture of ignorance and arrogance.
posted by DoknowDocare at 07:43 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
:: looks at McCaskey
You said it.
posted by anonymouscoward at 07:44 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
But I do believe that a reasonably intelligent person will be able to make his/her point without resorting to such colorful language.
--DKDC
There's the problem!
Well McCaskey/AC...at what point is it a big deal?
posted by fequalsma73 at 08:03 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
Yes, it's just as bad - however, I"m not sure I have all the facts regarding these insults from gays to straights. If it was straights that went to P-town W attitudes about gays, then perhaps the slurs were warrented. Dog doo by a car is not necessarily a slur - it could just be a dog that's done doo. I have never had a bad experience with gays, in or out of P-town. In P-town, they were all very charming, pleasant - but I"m sure both gays and straights can be nasty. Gays seem less prone to violence, fights, etc. But my daughter has a friend who's gay, and he told me he prefers hanging out with straights because gays have attitudes - so go figure. He said gays w/attitudes are worse here, than where he lives in Florida.
posted by starling02 at 10:00 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
At what point is it a big deal?
I suppose different people can have different answers to that.
If the gay owner of the apartment building will not lease an apartment to me because I'm straight, that's a big deal.
If the gay owner of the business where I've applied for a job-opening won't hire me because I'm straight, that's a big deal.
If there's a law broken that deals with discrimination in regards to your sexual orientation, that's a big deal.
The name-calling? You can walk away and ignore it. You can tell the offending individual involved to shut "the f#ck up", or you can get physical with the same person and risk ending up on a police blotter.
posted by McCaskey at 11:15 P.M. EST on Sun Jul 30, 2006 #
posted by Darkseid at 05:36 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
hmmm......somehow that's not how I remember Alf -
I'm thinking about the hatemail stuff. Thanks for the input.
At the least I'm going to start putting it into a folder and storing it up. Friday a very smart woman told me that there are people out there who can identify locations and users from an email :-)
So, I guess I'll just state that I intend to do that in the future. As far as posting it - I am still thinking. I know that if you send an email to an editor of a newspaper - unless you say in the communication that it's private - you have no right to an expectation of privacy for that one.
But through a website? Tough question. I haven't ever published an email since I consider them to be private - person to person - but when you talk about, well I'm not going to repeat it but some of it's pretty nasty. I don't know that you SHOULD be entitled to an expectation of privacy?
And I think that like all populations of people with common interests of any kind you'll find a wide variety of people. Some are mean, some are uninformed and some will be nice people. So why think anything would be different in the gay community or to hold them to a higher standard for behavior?
posted by katie82640 at 10:30 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Katie - you're the one with the legal contract, but I'm pretty sure you don't have to worry about privacy issues as you are one of the parties to the communication. But I'd definitely save them and consider showing anything threatening to law enforcement.
posted by MaggieThurber at 11:32 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Yes - that's the plan for now - it's an interesting situation isn't it?
posted by katie82640 at 11:45 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
I don't believe katie has broke any laws being that she was contacted without provocation and if that person didn't state that they didn't want it published then it's her giving the "heat" right back
I think she was very creative toward someone with a combative attitude toward her.
posted by MikeyA at 11:50 A.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
thanks mikey. I don't know about the legality of publishing. That is something I can ask my legal firm about. It depends on what I receive going forward.
posted by katie82640 at 03:37 P.M. EST on Mon Jul 31, 2006 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
