For Whom the Bell Tolls

[Flower]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

>Well, you should have an opinion about it one way or the

>other. You're an officer of our judicial system. Do you

>condone what happened?

You're right of course--I should have an opinion on it and I do.

 

I have a hard enough time justifying execution under the death penalty after a lawful trial, so in NO way do I condone vigilante action of this nature.

 

It was state assisted murder of an individual who was not in a position to hurt children again, and therefore it served no societal purpose. It was morally wrong and indefensible, no matter how heinous his crime.

 

Some greater thinker than I said something to the effect that a measure of a society was how it treated it's less desirable citizens--it was of course said much more eloquently, but you get the idea.

 

In a society of laws, vigilante action is wrong, as is murder. But as for Mr. Geoghan, himself, I personally don't give a damn. I am concerned at how it happened, however. And almost as troubling as this murder, is the attitude of many here that seem to condone it.

 

While I agree with those here that say this is NOT a gay issue, I am surprised at how readily some of our gay brethren so easily justify and applaud Mr. Geoghan's murder since he was a "despicable pedophile" and therefore deserved what he got -- so no harm, no foul.

 

You take this rhetoric to a different bulletin board, say the "Christian Right's Message Center Espousing God's Truths" or some such nonsensensical message center, and substitute the word faggot for pedophile, and the message is the same. :-(

[axebahia]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

For once, we agree.

[taylorky]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

>You take this rhetoric to a different bulletin board, say the

>"Christian Right's Message Center Espousing God's Truths" or

>some such nonsensensical message center, and substitute the

>word faggot for pedophile, and the message is the same. :-(

 

 

 

you are so absolutely right flower.

 

the sad thing is the fools that are celebrating the death of another human being just don't get it.......

 

 

taylordisgusted@01:12-08/29/03

[Guest]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

Thanks! You restored my faith in you! ;-) Think of all those people you sent to the slammer... I'm glad you don't think that prisons should be dens of lawlessness...

[Guest]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

Thanks! You restored my faith in you! ;-) Think of all those people you sent to the slammer... I'm glad you don't think that prisons should be dens of lawlessness...

[Doug69]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

>While I agree with those here that say this is NOT a gay

>issue, I am surprised at how readily some of our gay brethren

>so easily justify and applaud Mr. Geoghan's murder since he

>was a "despicable pedophile" and therefore deserved what he

>got -- so no harm, no foul.

 

There is probably no sicker and more destructive notion than this one - that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments because of their sexual orientation.

 

I'm gay and I find child molesters to be despicable and vile. I would love for someone to explain why - as this Flower thing apparently believes - that's somehow a contradiction.

 

This notion that is being spread - that gay people can't sit around making moral distinctions because, after all, they're just faggots, and "there but for the grace of God go I" -- is the biggest gift you can give to the Christian Right. It's what they think, too: they think it's absurd for people who fuck up the ass to talk about the immorality of others, such as pedophiles. To them, we are all the same - homosexuals, pedophiles, etc.

 

The Flower "idea" that gay people can't condemn pedophiles because we are all - homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. - in the same boat is truly despicable. Flower may empathize with the plight of child abusers, but most gay men find them as vile and despicable as anyone else does.

 

The eagerness one finds here to group homosexuals with pedophiles - and to urge fairness and restraint for pedophiles on the ground that they we are in the same boat as them - is what one would expect to find in a Jerry Falwell sermon, not on a Board filled with gay men.

[Doug69]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

>While I agree with those here that say this is NOT a gay

>issue, I am surprised at how readily some of our gay brethren

>so easily justify and applaud Mr. Geoghan's murder since he

>was a "despicable pedophile" and therefore deserved what he

>got -- so no harm, no foul.

 

There is probably no sicker and more destructive notion than this one - that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments because of their sexual orientation.

 

I'm gay and I find child molesters to be despicable and vile. I would love for someone to explain why - as this Flower thing apparently believes - that's somehow a contradiction.

 

This notion that is being spread - that gay people can't sit around making moral distinctions because, after all, they're just faggots, and "there but for the grace of God go I" -- is the biggest gift you can give to the Christian Right. It's what they think, too: they think it's absurd for people who fuck up the ass to talk about the immorality of others, such as pedophiles. To them, we are all the same - homosexuals, pedophiles, etc.

 

The Flower "idea" that gay people can't condemn pedophiles because we are all - homosexuals, pedophiles, etc. - in the same boat is truly despicable. Flower may empathize with the plight of child abusers, but most gay men find them as vile and despicable as anyone else does.

 

The eagerness one finds here to group homosexuals with pedophiles - and to urge fairness and restraint for pedophiles on the ground that they we are in the same boat as them - is what one would expect to find in a Jerry Falwell sermon, not on a Board filled with gay men.

[Will]

Giving a Damn

 

Despite my having said my peace, I can't resist acknowledging the irony of how much I agree with Doug's thoughts expressed above. And now that I'm writing to second those thoughts, I see that my original post may have clouded this very issue. I don't think I said clearly enough that my anger was a response to the assumption that, because Geoghan was a pedophile, he was also gay. Later newspaper reports confirmed that the murderer's, as well as the prison authorities', suspicion or assumption that Geoghan was gay turned out to be his death sentence. His being a pedophile, in other words, didn't seem to have as much to do with it as the fact that he molested boys rather than girls. Once I had allowed myself to get het up with Doug, I think I sort of lost the main point I as trying to make.

 

It doesn't matter whether a pedophile is gay or straight: if you molest children, you molest children because that's what the pay-off is. As someone else pointed out, adults who molest adolescents are probably acting on their own sexual orientation. That was certainly the case for me, when I was twice molested as a teenager by an adult male. I was not, however, molested as a child.

 

I sincerely apologize for any confusion I may have caused, and I hope that this will clarify my position.

 

Homosexuals -- male or female -- are not by any stretch of the imagination members of some natural collective with pedophiles. It's outrageous that any gay man would allow himself even to think such a thing, let alone to say it.

[Will]

Giving a Damn

 

Despite my having said my peace, I can't resist acknowledging the irony of how much I agree with Doug's thoughts expressed above. And now that I'm writing to second those thoughts, I see that my original post may have clouded this very issue. I don't think I said clearly enough that my anger was a response to the assumption that, because Geoghan was a pedophile, he was also gay. Later newspaper reports confirmed that the murderer's, as well as the prison authorities', suspicion or assumption that Geoghan was gay turned out to be his death sentence. His being a pedophile, in other words, didn't seem to have as much to do with it as the fact that he molested boys rather than girls. Once I had allowed myself to get het up with Doug, I think I sort of lost the main point I as trying to make.

 

It doesn't matter whether a pedophile is gay or straight: if you molest children, you molest children because that's what the pay-off is. As someone else pointed out, adults who molest adolescents are probably acting on their own sexual orientation. That was certainly the case for me, when I was twice molested as a teenager by an adult male. I was not, however, molested as a child.

 

I sincerely apologize for any confusion I may have caused, and I hope that this will clarify my position.

 

Homosexuals -- male or female -- are not by any stretch of the imagination members of some natural collective with pedophiles. It's outrageous that any gay man would allow himself even to think such a thing, let alone to say it.

[shy]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

<There is probably no sicker and more destructive notion than this one - that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments because of their sexual orientation.>

 

my reading of flowers' statement is his basic premis of being against the death penalty, and due to the actions of prison authorties/guards amounted to a state sanctioned death, even though the man wasn't sentenced to that. i, myself, believe the death penalty is warrented in murders, and if proven without a benefit of a doubt. this was not the case in this instance, so i agree with flower here.

 

in no way do i see anything in what flower said that indicates he believes that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments.

[shy]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

<There is probably no sicker and more destructive notion than this one - that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments because of their sexual orientation.>

 

my reading of flowers' statement is his basic premis of being against the death penalty, and due to the actions of prison authorties/guards amounted to a state sanctioned death, even though the man wasn't sentenced to that. i, myself, believe the death penalty is warrented in murders, and if proven without a benefit of a doubt. this was not the case in this instance, so i agree with flower here.

 

in no way do i see anything in what flower said that indicates he believes that gay people are somehow barred from making moral judgments.

[Flower]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

I can't believe you are really so stupid that you don't understand the distinctions I made--therefore you are again just being an asshole cause you like to stir the pot.

 

Nowhere in any of my writings did I ever say or imply "that gay people can't condemn pedophiles

>because we are all - homosexuals, pedophiles, etc., in the

>same boat is truly despicable."

 

For you to pretend that my post gave you cause to rant and rave and give you an excuse to label another idea "sick" and "destructive" simply indicates you're not interested in meaningful dialogue here, and really no different from the christian right who call names and spew epitaphs despite how nonsensical their arguments or justifications are. No one but YOU has ever asserted that gays were in the same boat as pedophiles--it's an idea you made up to allow your written madness--not very impressive btw.

 

Since you have shown yourself unable to make out the finer distinctions in the higher thought process, let me help you.

 

1. Pedophiles are bad and do despicable things to children.

 

2. Pedophiles should be punished as harshly as the law allows.

 

3. Every man, gay or otherwise, should vigorously condemn the pedophile--the pedophile is destructive to our youth and ultimately the fiber of our society.

 

4. Pedophiles are usually not gay.

 

5.BUT neither pedophiles nor anyone else, gays included, should ever be the subject of unlawful vigilante action such as murder or torture, especially where it is aided and abetted by governmental officials as implementers or enablers.

 

6. No man, and especially the gay man, should stoop to the level of the christian right by calling for or applauding the unlawful vigilante murder and torture of a pedophile simply because they feel his actions are immoral--not because a pedophile has anything to do with being gay, but because to do so is (a) wrong (b) violates the law, and © just maybe we shouldn't be aligning ourselves with the same "moral majority" that likewise calls us (gays) immoral and despicable.

 

7. Gay men should NEVER be barred nor discouraged from making moral judgments about anything they believe in, simply because they are gay; but all men should be barred and discouraged from taking immoral action, such as murder or applauding those that do, or applauding the death of a pedophile that was killed and tortured by an illegal vigilante action that was clearly against the law. If we close our eyes the murder of one group, then which next group do we close our eyes while they are murdered.

 

8. To say "I am gay and despise pedophiles" is fine--but to say "I am gay or straight or white, black or blue and applaud the illegal execution and torture of another" is just plain wrong--it isn't a gay thing stupid--it's a moral, human thing.

 

9. Doug69, you seem so driven by his obsession for gay power, equality and rights (all good things in my opinion) that you don't see the forest for the trees -- you seem to see nonexistent ghosts in the shadows all too often. So, Doug--if you don't understand something, try asking for clarification before you shoot off your mouth without thinking things through, unless you just like stir things up as I said before. Also, you overuse the words "sick" and "despicable" -- like the boy that cried wolf--makes your posts all sound alike and makes you sound like a very unhappy person.

 

10. And btw, you need not check your brains at the door when you enter this message center:+

[Guest fukamarine]

I don't get it.........

 

There is something I don't get - perhaps someone can enlighten me.

 

Someone has stated "most pedophiles are not gay"

 

That stands to reason. Kinsey claimed that roughly 10% of males are gay. Therefore it would seem resonable that only 10% of pedophiles are gay.

 

But........ how can you make the argument that just because a pedophile diddles little boys he is not necessarily gay? That's akin to saying that straight men seek out sex with other men, not women.If he were straight, wouldn't he be diddling little girls?

 

I would be very surprised to read stats that prove a pedophile would attacks both boys and girls equally without a preferance.

 

On the subjecy of morality. Intellectually, I realise that it may be immoral to condone murder. But I guess I believe that some people just don't have the right to live - regardless of the law of the land.

In many countries people can be put to death for crimes much less serious than pedophilia.

 

And didn't the US have at one time the death penalty for the crime of rape - any may still in some states? I stand to be corrected here as I'm not sure. If so how does this differ from pedophlia?

 

fukamarine

[axebahia]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

Once more, I agree. May I add, one more:

 

11. Gay men should not support neo-Nazi gay-bashers!

[Flower]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>There is something I don't get - perhaps someone can

>enlighten me.

>

>Someone has stated "most pedophiles are not gay"

>*****

>On the subjecy of morality. Intellectually, I realise that it

>may be immoral to condone murder. But I guess I believe that

>some people just don't have the right to live - regardless of

>the law of the land.

 

FAM, I really can't explain why a pedophile isn't classified as gay or hetero based on the sex of his victims, if that be the case.

 

I had always assumed that to be the case until I heard psychiatrists testify differently several years ago in criminal cases I was prosecuting--since it was a distinction that was not important to me I simply went with the "expert" opinion. We have a few shrinks on the MC so maybe we can hear from then on this issue.

 

As far as the death penalty goes, I have pretty well accepted it, but not without reservation. If the people through there elected representatives enact the DP for the pedophile, that would be one thing, although an entirely different debate and I'm no sure I'd agree, since these bastards are really pretty sick and operate under obsessive behavior. Certainly castration and lifetime parole after prison with hormonal therapy for life, at the very least.

 

BUT again, that's an entire different thread--I guess the point is that either we are a people of laws or we aren't. The law put this sick bastard in prison, not death. Vigilante action executed him. My initial reaction without thinking about it was "SO WHAT" -- he didn't deserve to live and thus my flip remark in my first post above, "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn." Intellectually and morally, that was wrong and really not reflective of contemplative thought on my part. Thanks unicorn for asking me to THINK rather than just react :+

 

My concern and what I have, I guess, inadequately expressed is that if we can so easily dismiss the murder of a pedophile, then who is next on our list of groups of people that we can sit back and say "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn." to or about their murder? Obvious it would be minorities, since we are all part of the greater population, so would it be a minority race? A religion? A profession?

 

We know the so called christian right picketed Matthew Shepherd's funeral applauding his death and condoning his murder as "god's work." While this attitude and action hurts all mankind, it especially is dangerous to other minorities, since it is not the average middle class WASPs that will be on someone's hit list of "expendables." To that extent, in my opinion, all minority groups have something in common, and their cohesiveness is critical to their survival.

[Trixie]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

I don't know if psychologists have made any sort f distinction between pedophiles that prefer pre-pubescent boys and those who prefer girls. Certainly it is considered, as flower stated, obsessive behaviour, a compulsive sexuality that is neither gay nor straight. And it is, in my feeling more akin to rape than anything else.

Whether Mr. Geoghan was gay was never discussed in the press or in the courts, as far as I know. If he had, in his life, sexual and emotional unions with other adult males, then he was. But that is not what he was tried and convicted for. He was convicted for pedophilia, which is by law a crime and an illness.

It is possibly useful to remember that well less than fifty years ago, homosexuality was a crime and an illness, by law, in our country. Tried in a similar fashion to pedophilia as aberrant, immoral sexual behaviour. It didn't matter that it was between consenting adults. Laws and psychological evaluations regarding homosexuality have changed dramaticlly since then, but there is still ingrained in our society a deep fear and suspicion agaist gays. "Homosexual" is still a panic button word for a lot of people on par with "pedophile". The two are still somehow enmeshed together in many peoples heads, and that state is of course encouraged by the religious right.

That's just where we are, as a society. It's fruitless to expect that ma & pa Kettle out in Wahoo, Nebraska will be having meaningful dialogues about the differig natures of homosexuality and pedophilia any time soon.

It is important that we resist that poisonous way of thinking and offer an unwaveringly different example in word and deed in our lives.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>I guess the point is that either we are a people of laws or we >aren't.

 

I agree, that is the point. But it's sufficient to make that argument on its own without appealing to our identities as gay men. (Unicorn's post, I thought, did that very well.)

 

Geoghan was a monster, but it's the monsters who test what kind of judicial system we have. So of course his murder must be investigated and hopefully appropriate measures taken not only against the killer but against those prison officials who facillitated it. Where you start to lose people, I think, is with the suggestion that our identity as gay men gives us a special interest in Geoghan's case. I see your point with the slippery slope argument -- "first they came for the pedophiles, then who next," etc. -- but I think it's enough to call for justice in his murder case "as someone who cares about our legal system" rather than "as a gay man." We don't need to inadvertently assist those who would lump us together with child molestors.

[Doug69]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

You, "Flower," are that most nauesating of species - spewing your vomit everywhere, then denying that you did it.

 

As Devon just pointed out in a post which I recommend you squint your eyes really hard and try to comprehend, when someone continuosuly suggests that gay people have some special duties with regard to commenting on the Geoghan case - as you have done, again and again and again -- then you necessarily lump gay people with pedophiles by claiming, as you have done, that gay people have an extra compelling obligation not to be unfair to them.

 

You are too stupid to get this point, I know, and so I know I'm wasting my breath in explaining it to you. I really don't know why I use finite time from my life to converse with some car accident plainitff's lawyer from some community law schoo, but perhaps the fact that Devon just pointed it out to you will help, as will quoting your own words:

 

<<You take this rhetoric to a different bulletin board, say the "Christian Right's Message Center Espousing God's Truths" or some such nonsensensical message center, and substitute the word faggot for pedophile, and the message is the same.>>

 

<<. No man, and especially the gay man, should stoop to the level of the christian right by calling for or applauding the unlawful vigilante murder and torture of a pedophile simply because they feel his actions are immoral . . .

 

Nobody here has suggested that anyone had a right to murder Geoghan. If that is your only point, you are arguing only with yourself.

 

But your point goes far beyond that - you claim that gay men "especially" have the obligation not to call for unfair punishment for pedophiles, because somehow, gay men should be able to empathize with the plight of the pedophile just a little bit better than everyone else.

 

That is the point that is vile, stupid, and harmful. I don't feel any closer to pedophiles because I am gay than I would if I weren't gay, and I think you should look deep inside yourself and deep inside your hole to figure out why you do.

 

The idea that one's homosexuality somehow makes it extra bad for that person to be mean to pedophiles is the one you are pushing, and it implies, falsely, some link between homosexuality and pedophila. I know you deny that you believe in such a link, but your "thoughts" necessarily assume that linkage.

 

>9. Doug69, you seem so driven by his obsession for gay power,

>equality and rights (all good things in my opinion) that you

>don't see the forest for the trees -- you seem to see

>nonexistent ghosts in the shadows all too often.

 

No, I am neither "obsessed" by the things you identify nor do I see shadows. I just hate trite, pseudo-intellectual, weak stupidity masquerading as sensitive gay humanistic wisdom. And you are seriously the most extreme embodiment of Trite, Pseudo-intellectual, Weak Stupidity Masquerading as Sensitive Gay Humanistic Wisdom as anyone I have ever encountered.

[Doug69]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>We know the so called christian right picketed Matthew

>Shepherd's funeral applauding his death and condoning his

>murder as "god's work."

 

This is such a stupid lie. There is one psychotic, clinically sick freak, "Rev." Fred Phelps, who runs around with his family to the funerals of gay men and pickets outside of the funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags."

 

To take this one psychotic asshole's behavior and broadly attribute it to the "Christian Right" is like saying that "gay men get AIDS and then go on mass murder sprees" and then citing Andrew Cunanan as proof of that statement, or pointing to the handful of gay men who get infected with HIV deliberately and then saying: "Gay men get AIDS on purpose."

 

There are many things for which one can criticize the Christian Right and not have to lie doing it. Claiming that "the Christian Right" applauded the murder of Matthew Shepard and that they believed it was "God's work" makes you no better than the people who spread the accusations about gay people as cited above.

[giovoni]

I would be one who would be tempted to be happy that this person is dead. The fact that he molested so many children means that there are far more lives in the world which are worse off having met him then better off. For me this, leaving other people's lives better then when you met them, is a fundamental meaning of life in society and for a PRIEST it should be the penultimate goal. If I was put in a room with him with a baseball bat thinking of what he did to so many children and families I have no doubt what his body might have looked like. My father was molested as a boy and has NEVER accepted my homosexuality and has admitted that one reason he never will is his molestation. That would weigh on my mind as well. This man in my opinion is no loss to anyone. There are millions of better people who will die this year who actually DO deserve to live, we will never hear about them or debate here whether their lives should have ended.

 

Having said that, My government should be better then me. I don't expect the institutions that make up the glue of our society to indulge the sort of urges that I might give in to. If criminals are going to go to prison to be brutally murdered, then there is no need for prison. A very willing mob could have been gathered in front of the courthouse to tear him limb from limb, I'm sure this wouldn't have been difficult. By sending him to jail and basically leaving the door open for his murderer, we have done nothing different.

 

As a gay man I have nothing special to say about his murder itself. Every thing I've said above is as a person and as an American, one who still for the most part, has faith that the people in our government are actually doing what they feel is right no matter what party they are in.

 

I do understand how gay men are upset at the way the killer is being portrayed. He is known to be anti gay and is in prison for killing a gay man who hit on him. This murderer obviously made the assumption that Fr. Geoghan was gay and killed him for it. The fear is that certain groups may take this false assumption as a given fact and use this to undermine work that homosexuals do to be accepted.

 

Fr. Geoghan may very well have been gay as well as being a pedophile, as being gay doesn't make you any less likely to be a criminal then being straight. If it was known that he was gay his crimes would be no less heinous. We as gay men might be able to empathize with other parts of his life as a gay man but certainly not to his pedophilia. When flower mentioned that he is angered by gay men rejoicing in his death I took that to mean that he opposed a celebration of death to separate him from homosexuality in general. As though somehow if you supported his brutal murder you as a gay man would be less likely to be looked upon as potentially a pedophile yourself. If this is the correct interpretation then I agree with him.

 

Gio in Denver

http://www.angelfire.com/co3/massagebygio

[Flower]

RE: Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn! :-)

 

Your out bursts are indeed strange along with being unintelligible. If you are as tormented as you seem to be by your writing, you really need some therapy.

 

Your "issues" do nothing but take things out of context to make them something that most reasonable men never thought they meant and something that certainly twists what I have said, but thereby allow you to call names and rant and rave and I guess, feel better about yourself. That being the case, there is no point in taking the time or the trouble to show you where you are so painfully mistaken. The fact that you have taken to name calling solidifies that belief.

 

If you can't afford therapy, then I'm quite sure your local has free clinics, but by all means do yourself and especially others a favor and run don't walk to the doc :+

[Flower]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>>We know the so called christian right picketed Matthew

>>Shepherd's funeral applauding his death and condoning his

>>murder as "god's work."

>

>This is such a stupid lie. There is one psychotic, clinically

>sick freak, "Rev." Fred Phelps, who runs around with his

>family to the funerals of gay men and pickets outside of the

>funerals with signs that say "God Hates Fags."

It's obvious that you didn't watch the news coverage of Mattew Sheppard's funeral. Since you are so prone to falsify facts such as this I guess we should all take what you say about anything with a grain of salt.

 

Again--get some therapy. This bulletin board seems to be your only life and thus maybe why you get so aggravated--find someone you can trust to talk to--and try to get out more.

[phage]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>It's obvious that you didn't watch the

>news coverage of Mattew Sheppard's funeral. Since you are so

>prone to falsify facts such as this I guess we should all take

>what you say about anything with a grain of salt.

>

>Again--get some therapy. This bulletin board seems to be your

>only life and thus maybe why you get so aggravated--find

>someone you can trust to talk to--and try to get out more.

 

Come on Flower, that’s a classic dodge. Assert that someone is wrong and suggest they need therapy, and then on this board, there is the accusation that the person spends too much time here. As if the person making the accusation spends the perfect amount of time that a “healthy” individual should. Very weak.

 

My recollection of Matthew Sheppard’s funeral is exactly the same as Dougie’s and I can assure you that I was paying attention. It was just Phelps' sick group. The media were able to drag out other religious people who commented that his death was a result of his “life style” but I don’t remember anyone else celebrating it. And even in such a conservative place, there was a contingent of religious people counter demonstrating the Phelps group.

 

Believe me, I have no use for religion. I believe it is all superstitious mumbo jumbo and they might as well be talking about Wicca or Voodoo. The conservative groups who want to tell me how to live my life based on their weird little fantasies particularly offend me. However, it adds little to the argument to paint them all with the same brush.

 

When dealing with the unreasonable, I think it is important to maintain your reason. Phelps is a aberration even among the farthest right groups, and a failure to recognize that makes “our” side look just as deranged.

[Flower]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>My recollection of Matthew Sheppard’s funeral is exactly the

>same as Dougie’s and I can assure you that I was paying

>attention. It was just Phelps' sick group. The media were

>able to drag out other religious people who commented that his

>death was a result of his “life style” but I don’t remember

>anyone else celebrating it. And even in such a conservative

>place, there was a contingent of religious people counter

>demonstrating the Phelps group.

 

Well, actually I'm glad to hear that--I do remember there be several people with signs and pickets -- I didn't realize they were all of his group, so if that demonstration was confined to a few wacos then I feel better.

 

But notice the difference in the way you presented your statement as opposed to Doug69--he can't make a post without going off the deep end and calling names and trying to belittle people--thus the Therapy comment--and quite frankly I think he needs if he is really so volatile. RATIONALE people can have differences of opinion or recollection and still be civil.:+

[phage]

RE: I don't get it.........

 

>But notice the difference in the way you presented your

>statement as opposed to Doug69--he can't make a post without

>going off the deep end and calling names and trying to

>belittle people--thus the Therapy comment--and quite frankly I

>think he needs if he is really so volatile. RATIONALE people

>can have differences of opinion or recollection and still be

>civil.:+

 

I spend my working life mediating, building consensus and looking for win-win solutions. It tends to color the way I deal with people outside of work. Although I’ve said a rude thing or two on this board, my style can come off wishy-washy because I am trained and conditioned to look at all sides at the same time.

 

Doug is intense…no doubt. I happen to like intense people because it challenges my communication skills and forces me to think through an approach and be very precise. He is most likely a litigater who spends his life taking a specific position and defending it tooth and nail.

 

I assume we all gravitate towards jobs that are suitable for our personalities, but it’s amazing how much what we do for a living can impact who we are as people.