http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian?hl=en
rec.arts.movies.local.indian@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Naturism vs. Helicoptery - the clear incompatibilities - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/3bfb91090add3d26?hl=en
* BACHCHANALIA - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/4f0623dd6ffbc762?hl=en
* UK RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FORCED TO REJECT HATE - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/dcfc2e198d269895?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Naturism vs. Helicoptery - the clear incompatibilities
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/3bfb91090add3d26?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 3 2010 2:06 pm
From: the14thdisciple
the Ever-so Amusing new album from yoar old freand 14! out Now on
iTunes, Amazon, eMusic and all good digital stockists, or visit our
homesite for free tracks & much more!
http://www.littleboxes.nl/the14thdisciple
love from Yoar old freand 14
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BACHCHANALIA
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/4f0623dd6ffbc762?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 4:12 am
From: usenet@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Bachchanalia
Is it an icon syndrome, to be exploited by all
quarters for their own gains? Or is it a smart
move by an ageing star to ramp up his legendary
status and stay relevant in contemporary times?
Agenda attempts an analysis of the Amitabh public
endorsement fiasco through experts
Wrong signals
Industrialists are quick to read the writing on the wall and once
they realise that the Centre would not be amused if they open shops
in Modi's Gujarat, they would surely look for other options,
says Navin Upadhyay
Agenda
The Pioneer
Sunday, April 4, 2010
For a whole week, the Congress leadership remained mum while its
generals and satraps targeted megastar Amitabah Bachchan for
committing the ultimate "crime" of associating with Narendra Modi's
Gujarat as its brand ambassador. From Maharashtra Chief Minister
Ashok Chavan to Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, and the Bandra-
Worli sea link inauguration to Earth Hour celebrations in Delhi, the
country witnessed a shameful spectacle of humiliating a man who is
undoubtedly the most glittering icon of Bollywood and highly
celebrated dream merchant of the aam aadmi. Suddenly, the Congress
spokesman raised dirt on his secular credentials.
Since it returned to power last year as the fountainhead of the UPA,
the Congress is acting like a brazen power centre with increasing
signs of intolerance towards one and all --Opposition parties, its
allies as well those even slightly perceived to be flirting with its
detractors.
Nobody has been spared. Not even a man like Lalu Prasad Yadav who had
stood by Sonia Gandhi when few were ready to endorse her legitimacy
even within the Congress. Having earned the displeasure of 10 Janpath
for going alone in the Lok Sabha polls, Lalu was not taken into the
Union Cabinet and reduced to waiting endlessly for even an
appointment with the party president. Not surprisingly, Lalu is now
spewing venom against the Congress and proclaiming aloud that even
with his four MPs, he will bring down the government on the issue of
women's reservation bill.
The bitter attack on Samajwadi Party leader Mulayam Singh Yadav and
Amar Singh had more personal element than politics. Besides targeting
someone like Nitish Kumar -- who has done a commendable job in
bringing back Bihar from the verge of economic bankruptcy and social
chaos -- was clear reflection of an arrogant mindset, which sees
itself as the sole guardian of secularism and progress.
But the worst case of settling scores was seen in the Rajasthan
cricket body elections, where the entire Congress ganged up against
the CEO of Indian Premier League Lalit Modi, just because he was seen
as being close to former BJP Chief Minister Vasundhara Raje.
The picture of BJP leader Sushma Swaraj, Mulayam, Lalu and CPI (M)
Politburo member Sitaram Yechuri raising their hands together in
solidarity on the issue of price rise and the nuclear liability bill
clearly underscores the point that the Congress has not learnt any
lesson from the past when its arrogance acted as a glue for
opposition unity.
If the previous allies were an "unwanted lot," even the present
allies have been treated with the same disdain. Be it the arm-
twisting of DMK's Karunanidhi on several key issues or ignoring the
concerns of Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee over women's
reservation quota or NCP chief Sharad Pawar's frequent criticism of
price rise, the Congress has tried to cut everyone to size.
The party has not left its own government untouched either. On
several key policy decisions, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been
made to look like a helpless man, forced to toe the party's line. It
is well-known that the Government had second thoughts about pushing
the women's quota bill in the Rajya Sabha in view of massive
opposition but Sonia prevailed over Manmohan. The food security bill
is another case in point. Sonia is all set to force the government to
abandon any move to tinker with some key provisions of the bill in
the light of objections raised by the Finance Ministry.
But the attack on Amitabah for his association with Gujarat has
crossed all limits. Such intolerance is going to send a very wrong
message to those who want to play a role in promoting Gujarat.
Industrialists are quick to read the writing on the wall and once
they realise that the Centre would not be amused if they open shops
in Modi's Gujarat, they would surely look for other options. A state
will pay the price for a party's hatred for an individual.
Dost dost na raha
Bollywood and politics have to remain in tension. The creativity of
both depends on it, says social scientist Shiv Visvanathan
One of the most poignant roles I saw Jaya Prada play occurred long
after her acting career was over. It was during her tenure as a
Samajwadi Party (SP) member. She was on TV with Renuka Chowdhary,
then a Congress stalwart. The compere was asking Jaya Prada how she
felt about women's reservation. The actress said quietly, almost
hesitantly, that the woman in her wanted to vote for the bill but the
party member in her might have to act otherwise. I must state it was
one quick moment almost forgotten by the audience. For me it sets the
stage for the tragedy, the farce when acting and politics, or actors
and politicians interact to make meaning.
Jaya Prada's name evokes in the public mind the name of Amar Singh.
Amar Singh never ceases to amaze me. He is a friend of Mulayam Singh
Yadav, Jaya Prada, Jaya Bachchan and Amitabh. He is a man famous for
friendships and dealing with them. His visibility may not have dimmed
but his friendship with Mulayam certainly has. That decision of his
seems to have dulled his famous friendship with the Bachchans. When
Jaya Bachchan hinted he should have stayed on in the party, he was
not pleased. Amar Singh planned to open computer institutes all over
UP and was hoping stars like Amitabh or even Sanjay Dutt would grace
such occasions adding to his charisma. Unfortunately, the stars were
tired of being treated like witless ornaments.
The scene then shifted to Mumbai where the much-awaited bridge cum
road was to be inaugurated. One of the chief invitees was Amitabh
Bachchan. The invitation seemed a sensible one as he is a committed
Mumbaikar. But even innocent events sour and the Congress was
suddenly embarrassed that Bachchan was present in their midst. The
cause for this was split level. At one level, Bachchan had irked the
Congress by becoming brand ambassador for Gujarat. An endorsement of
Gujarat was read as a vote for Modi. The official Congress went into
action asking him to condemn the riots of 2002. It suffered from
amnesia about its own role in the 1984 riots. But there was a deeper
reason.
The cancer of the Congress was not hypocrisy but sycophancy. The
latter forms the core competence for survival. Amitabh was attacked
because Sonia is lukewarm about him. If Sonia catches cold in Delhi,
the handkerchiefs are out in Mumbai. The Congress disowned him.
Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan who was to join him for a
literary event few days later strategically played absentee. Amitabh
himself was upset claiming he had the right to make decisions,
endorse what he wanted and make a distinction between tourism and
genocide in Gujarat.
If Bachchan was hurt, the Congress went hysterical. One suddenly
realised that politics had a huge collection of B grade actors. The
Congress in Delhi made Abhishek a target by stopping his endorsement
of Earth Hour. One could hardly punish the son for the father's
decision. If genes were such powerful flows, Rahul should be suspect
because of Varun. One wishes that Bachchan had been more careful in
his endorsements but one can debate it sanely. Amar Singh entered the
scene reprimanding the Bachchans over the behavior to the Gandhis. It
was as if years of friendship had been sloughed off. The former
friends sat together in a public event like wax-works.
Meanwhile, another star performer entered the ring. Modi not only
attacked those who criticised the Bachchans but asked the advertising
agency to speed up the project. Modi is a shrewd man who realised the
event had come in handy. It covered his embarrassment over the SIT
investigation and gave him a chance to come out with flying colours.
He knew one thing well. If there was a chance of being silly, the
Congress would turn it into an art form.
The Congress had flubbed the script again. An A grade drama around
the SIT became a B grade film around the Amitabh affair. Modi stole
the show. While the Bachchans projected anger and hurt, and Amar
Singh tried on his new "I love Congress" role, Modi ran away with the
Oscar for his multiple roles as victim and hero.
The real tragedy of politics can be understood cinematically. It is
as if a collection of actors and performers completely violate the
script. The violation lay in the equivalence of 1984 and 2002. Each
riot was the signature of a particular party and in a Punch and Judy
show of equalisation, the riots were seen as equivalent atrocities.
1984 was abysmal, more colossal in its murderous scale. Yet it
produced some kind of civil society response. But 2002 was worse
because a whole society legitimised genocide. The violence and its
legitimisation ate into the core of society.
By this time the spectator is not quite sure where politics ends and
cinema begins. But he senses the danger of converting currency of one
to the other. The South has worked the right hybridity between film
and politics. However, the North is more ambivalent of the mix
between film and politics. The relationship has always been short-
lived and unstable.
Amitabh himself realised that politics was not for him and withdrew.
His blog conveys a sense of his intelligence and shows that he revels
in friendships and not politics. Sanjay Dutt, for all his warmth,
seems neanderthal in politics. One realises there are exceptions but
a Hema Malini or a Shatrughan Sinha show finesse, a tactical maturity
that is rare.
I think the difference lies in the fact that the Southern Star
embodies a collectivity, while the Bollywood star represents a role.
The latter is only an ornament to the party. He is more
individualistic. I love Bollywood as a political myth but I would
prefer politicians to play real politics. Bollywood and politics have
to remain in tension. The creativity of both depends on it. Creating
false mergers destroys friendships and demeans politics. It blurs
issues, turns the adversary into the enemy and destroys the
possibilities of politics.
We aren't that naïve
Bachchan seems to have walked into a controversy he was prepared for,
says film critic and author Derek Bose
Two very reputed television anchors described Mr Bachchan as
"collateral damage" and a fall guy of a "manufactured controversy"
over a discussion on his right to project the country's achievements,
be it a sea link in Mumbai or the bright tourism of Gujarat, without
political manoevuring or victimisation. As the actor himself
clarified to the nation through his blog, "I am an apolitical person.
I was in politics but resigned from it and have accepted my failure.
Ever since leaving politics, I have never partaken in any political
activity, never made any political statement or shown public
allegiance to any political outfit. As a citizen of this country I
have a confidential right in not divulging publically my political
allegiance that is if I have any." So let's give the man some respect
as a superior artiste and view the situation from an apolitical eye.
Even if we dismiss the controversy over his tainting the dais of a
Congress Chief Minister by aligning himself with another from the BJP
as a "non-issue" blown out of proportion, why are we still discussing
it? Would we have reacted as strongly if it had been somebody else?
Could we deny that the repetition of Mr Bachchan's name for nothing
less than 10 times per prime time news analysis slot in the end
heightens his aura further and makes him a relevant icon rather than
a bygone relic among the generation next? This is the reason why
Bollywood and "Poli-wood," as I would like to call it, have been
walking hand-in-hand, enjoying the perks of being in their respective
positions and professions and sharing mutual benefits. Modi,
constantly being panned by the Congress and its allies, clearly
turned the tables by getting a certificate from their one-time ally
and a popular living legend -- Amitabh Bachchan. With that one smart
move, he posited Brand Gujarat as bigger than politics, one that is
stronger despite Modi, an image that is modernist and investor-
friendly.
On the face of it, the actor's endorsement of Gujarat tourism may
seem like a naive, noble act but is, in fact, a very thought out,
clever decision. As calculated as his commercial endorsement of a
Reid and Taylor, bonding with the best, and Navratna tel, bonding
with the rest, a neutral peddler of goods. He was well aware of the
repercussions of endorsing a product of Brand Modi which explains why
he didn't follow his natural proclivities and choose to promote Uttar
Pradesh instead. But with friend and expelled Samajwadi Party leader
Amar Singh being not quite the political heavyweight he used to be
there and probably not as resourceful, he looked to greener pastures.
We cannot deny Bachchan the respect that he has earned over his long
public career but it is true that it would have been more appropriate
for him to epitomise a national product, something like Commonwealth
Games or Incredible India than project himself as a parochial
personality, be it UP or Gujarat.
With Bollywood now going global and our actors becoming world
ambassadors, an immense responsibility lies on their shoulders. Look
at Hollywood icons, who line up behind their Democrat and Republican
friends during a national election but at other times remain
committed to overall issues rather than personalities. Actors like
Robert De Niro and Al Pacino maintain a unique stature and even if
they want to help society, they would rather build hospitals, help
charities or become UN goodwill ambassadors. Bachchan has indeed lent
support to the national polio and AIDS campaigns but they certainly
have not drawn eyeballs the way his reading the news for a private
channel has.
By aligning himself with Modi's Gujarat, albeit for tourism, he is
indirectly counter-balancing the political deficit that has resulted
from his falling out with the Gandhis and, therefore, by extension,
the Congress.
At the same time, he wants to partake of the enterprise behind a
"Vibrant Gujarat." The controversy has ended up being the "collateral
damage," not Modi or Bachchan, who have fattened up their invincible
image a little more. Now that the storm has blown over and his image
feted, Bachchan is being seen as making conciliatory noises. Already
Amar Singh has said that he didn't believe that the Gandhis could be
harsh with the Bachchans and that Bachchan bahu Aishwarya Rai was
made a Padma Shri in the UPA regime.
Which brings me to my next question. Does the politician-celebrity
camaraderie really work for both? A celebrity paraded during an
election campaign will certainly pull in the crowd but not
necessarily the votes? You don't have to be a genius to answer that
one. Vinod Khanna, Dharmendra and even Bachchan himself found that
politics was indeed a cesspool that they were not cut out for. Their
legion of fans would not rescue their fate offscreen. According to
me, the most successful actor-turned-politician today is Shatrughan
Sinha, who has been playing dice for years now but is still
complaining about a plum seat. You see, no Bollywood star can really
become a Chief Minister or a Cabinet Minister. Of course, the rules
are reversed in the south but then they sink themselves deep into
their native constituencies. Try hard as he might, Mr Bachchan didn't
get that from Allahabad. So that doesn't stop him from lending his
image to those who want it.
In his blog, Mr Bachchan writes, "Am I hallucinating or is there a
pattern in all this?" Well Mr Bachchan, why don't you tell me if I am
hallucinating or is there a pattern?
- As told to Nikki Utpaul
Deep south
Has anyone paid attention to why political controversies never shroud
stars in the South? That's because the southern actors have given
their all to their job, which is politico-social rather than
politico-individual. Right from Chiranjeevi and Jayalalitha to MG
Ramachandran and Karunanidhi, every star has dedicated their lives to
people after retiring from films. Bollywoodians, on the other hand,
are still juggling between their films and politics when cinema, as
an art form, should be above politics. It would not be wrong to say
that they merely get seduced by the idea of politics or patriotic
fervour but don't give enough time to understanding the cause they
stand for. They are taken advantage of as result of their
ambivalence.
Most actor-politicians down south first nurture what they have, work
hard to be where they are and understand what their work demands. So
they dress down. In the north, politicans dress their rallies up with
Bollywood, using their hold of the mass mindset. So people do come to
see their favourite stars but refuse to offer them the seriousness of
a politician unlike in the south where many actors turned politicians
are even worshipped by the aam janta. I am not surprised then that
when the motives of these politicians are accomplished, filmstars
become the centre of controversies for one reason or the other. Of
the Bollywood brigade, Shatrughan Sinha is one of the few to have
understood politics and its requirements, having been in the field
and campaigning for a long time.
Amitabh Bachchan is such a huge star that everybody wants to use him
for his own purpose. It, therefore, is important for him to mind his
every move. He certainly doesn't need an endorsement like this for
monetary gains, nor does he require any publicity at this point.
- Aruna Vasudev talks to Divya Kapoor
http://dailypioneer.com/246646/Bachchanalia.html
More at:
http://www.dailypioneer.com
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: UK RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS FORCED TO REJECT HATE
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/t/dcfc2e198d269895?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 5:16 pm
From: "regn.pickfod"
Ray Fischer wrote:
> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your hatred is not a good reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth. Your hatred is not a good enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robust social f
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your hatred of homoseuals is obvious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To you, in your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to imprison and persecute gays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is hatred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want the laws changed and I want
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals to comply with those laws and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _not_ go to gaol.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You want to imprison and persecute gays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hiding behind laws that you want is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chickenshit cowardice.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The laws were there many years before I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> born.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They do not exist now, bigot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They have existed and they will exist again,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People reject your kind of hate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It isn't hate,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You lie in order to justify making people suffer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is hate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I tell the truth to help a known minority suffering a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a liar and a bigot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals are known to have a higher than average
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symptoms of mental disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there no sleazy propaganda that you won't wallow in?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you know anything about Homosexuals then you know it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I know anything about bigots it is that you care
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing for the truth. You care only about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rationaliziing your insane hatred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Homosexuals are Bigots too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Grow up, asshole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you don't know enough about Homosexuals to know the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously you've done a lot of first-hand research.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Holy crap. An admission of the accuracy of my claims.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Guess again, bigot. It's sarcasm.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Homosexuals are Bigots,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just like Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Heterosecuals, Women, ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about
>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's still you.
>>>>
>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.
>>>
>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.
>>
>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense
>> of Homosexuality.
>
> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about the
> sex lives of homosexuals.
Of course you do. In your mind your bigotted prejudices define
things I say as `hate speach` and that is your justification for
not responding to those issues and you conveniently snip them
in such a way as to distort the message, something _kids_ do.
To do it, and so publicly compromise your integrity in such a petty way,
is testament to how much you must care about Homosexuals and their disease
spreading lifestyle
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 10:04 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about
>>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that's still you.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.
>>>>
>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.
>>>
>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense
>>> of Homosexuality.
>>
>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about the
>> sex lives of homosexuals.
>
>Of course you do.
Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to
ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict your
hatred upon them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Apr 4 2010 11:16 pm
From: "regn.pickfod"
Ray Fischer wrote:
> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> regn.pickfod <regn@mysoul.cop.au> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> So Homosexuals care nothing for the truth and care only about
>>>>>>>> rationalising their insane hatred.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that's still you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The only Queer here is you, girly-boyo.
>>>>>
>>>>> And yet you're the one who thinks about gay sex so much.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one dishonestly snipping the posts in defense
>>>> of Homosexuality.
>>>
>>> Neither am I, bigot. But you are the one who cares deeply about the
>>> sex lives of homosexuals.
>>
>> Of course you do.
>
> Nope. Still you. In fact you care so much that you're wanting to
> ignore Christ's teaching in order to have the government inflict your
> hatred upon them.
No hatred. just some particular health and safety laws that would see
Homosexuals fronting up to a shrink if they were caught breaking
those laws to receive appropriate therapy.
I can't say I can recall any specific reference Jesus is reported to have
made about Homosexuality either pro or con.
I thought it was made pretty plain what the policy was regarding
unatural acts at Sodom and Gamorrah.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.arts.movies.local.indian"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.arts.movies.local.indian+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.local.indian/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment