XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: nospam@yahoo.com   
      
   Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 00:28:03 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Well, the "it of the now" which you called a farce, was as far as I   
   >> could   
   >> tell directed at me.   
   >   
   > Quite correct.  You my little torqued up padawan finally did   
   > catch on...   
      
   So then I was correct along.   
      
   >> You did after all say, "It's becoming a farce" in what seemed to be   
   >> response to my post.  If you meant the discussion as a whole and not   
   >> me in particular making it a farce then that's nice.  But then the   
   >> discussion is the people in it, so I'm not sure how you separate the   
   >> two.  I may have not been the whole "farce" you were talking about,   
   >> but I must have been part of it.   
   >   
   > Hmmm...  *Re-reading this twice.*  And you said *I* have   
   > issues?  Seems yours were rearing their ugly head long before mine   
   > did.   
      
   Be specific.  What in my first post were issues "rearing their ugly head"   
   and which you called a farce?  Now, I already know you didn't like the gay   
   comment, but there must have been something more than that related to my   
   comments on the movie.   
      
   > But to answer your question -- what you call mental gymnastics   
   > I do as second nature.  I can have a conversation with a group and   
   > with an individual in the same thread at the same time and still have   
   > people make sense of who I'm talking to and what I'm talking about.   
   > I bet you're one of those "Special" kind of folk that tell   
   > people to "butt out" of a public thread because you can't   
   > differentiate between talking to a person and having others chiming   
   > in.  And by "special" I mean limited.  Bless.   
      
   Since I've never asked you to "butt out" and have instead specifically made   
   it clear I want you to comment on whatever you like, even if it's an insult   
   towards me, then you're just making stuff up about me again.  What I would   
   like is for you to be consistent.  So far you haven't, and that leads to   
   confusion.  Was the "farce" you commented on me or this discussion/debate?   
   You've said both.  If you think that makes sense, fine, but it certainly   
   doesn't make sense to me.   
      
   >> As long as you now recognize your original response to me was   
   >> anything but   
   >> civil, as you claim it was above.   
   >   
   > My backing out was indeed VERY civil..  But your chances of my   
   > remaining civil were lost the instant you used the word "gay" in the   
   > manner you did, and further erode the chance of civility by not   
   > recognizing the errors of your using the word in the derogatory manner   
   > you had.   
      
   You can be as derogatory as you want, but do not pretend you are being civil   
   while you are doing it.  You said my comments were a farce while you were   
   backing out.  That's not being civil.   
      
   >> I'm shocked you would even pretend it was,   
   >   
   > I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 100.  Can you tell me   
   > what it is?   
      
   It's not reading your mind.  You have specifically said you were being   
   civil, when you called my comments a farce.  If you truly believe that is   
   being civil, then I apologize for saying you were pretending.  I guess you   
   truly do believe saying someone's comments are a farce is being civil.   
      
   >> since obviously you took what I said as offensive and wanted to make   
   >> sure in no uncertain terms I knew you found it that way by   
   >> specifically   
   >> being uncivil.   
   >   
   > My message was quite clear the first time you used the word   
   > gay as being stereotypical and derogatory, and used an example (e.g.,   
   > living in the basement of your parent's house) to demonstrate that   
   > what you're saying had an negative effect on my reading your posts. It   
   > was apparent that using the stereotypes of sci-fi geek and nerd hit a   
   > nerve as I had intended.  My implying you were a homophobe while not   
   > the actual aim, was an added bonus.   
      
   I'm not exactly sure what nerve you think you've hit.  I've said I disagge   
   with your comments and that you are free to continue making them if you want   
   to.   
      
   > Instead of realizing you had said something that was perceived   
   > as wrong to someone else (or in your case a couple of someones else),   
   > you first went on the defensive, then accused me of having issues.   
      
   I disagreed with you and think you do have issues.  That hasn't changed.   
      
   > You   
   > then further went out of your way to prove your stubborn and yet   
   > obdurately ignorant determination that you had done no wrong about   
   > using the word "gay" when two other people chimed in to tell you, you   
   > are using a word in a derogatory manner.   
      
   That's their opinion.  They are free to have them.  I think I made my   
   position clear to them.   
      
   > Tell me, what's more uncivil.  Slapping someone down when   
   > they've apparently done a wrong, or being pridefully insensitive of   
   > one's error and NOT apologizing for it?   
      
   Both sound fairly uncivil to me.   
      
   >>>>>>>> Maybe he thought it was a good time to drop the dapper gay   
   >>>>>>>> politician look.   
   >>>   
   >>> Gay here is being used as a slur.  No ifs, ands or butts about   
   >>> it.  Apparently you're of heterosexual persuasion, and probably   
   >>> heard your peers saying it so much you don't even think twice about   
   >>> it.   
   >>>   
   >>> Trust me when I say, as an out queer of 28 years -- the use of   
   >>> the word "gay" in this instance *IS* a slur.  Just like I said   
   >>> below.   
   >>   
   >> I disagree.  But I do recognize that you think it was.   
   >   
   > Really?  This should be interesting..  Why is it NOT a slur?   
   > Enlighten me.   
      
   Any dictionary will tell you "gay" is not a slur, while also telling you a   
   word such as "faggot" is.  Obviously if I had intended to slur someone more   
   appropriate words exist to do that.   And since being gay isn't itself   
   insulting, it's hard to imagine why saying someone is gay would be   
   insulting.  Now you said stuff about finger nail cutting and being gay and   
   finding that insulting, but I must confess I have no idea what that is all   
   about.  If you could explain that a bit better and why it even relates to   
   what I said, then maybe I can better understand why you took such offense.   
      
   >>>>> Swap out the word Gay for Nigger, Spic, Gook, Towel-head or   
   >>>>> some other colorful racial slurs that you can possibly think of   
   >>>>> and see how that sentence reads when you insert those words.  The   
   >>>>> use of the word GAY there is connoting a snide and derogatory   
   >>>>> meaning, one that I don't appreciate...   
   >>>>> Gay isn't the N-word of the 21st century, and having been   
   >>>>> fighting for LGBT rights longer than you've most probably been   
   >>>>> alive, I would appreciate it if semi-educated to uneducated folk   
   >>>>> such as yourself who think it's no big deal realize that the use   
   >>>>> of the word "gay" as you're using here carries all the same   
   >>>>> burdens and social misconceptions as using the N-word 50 years   
   >>>>> ago.   
   >>>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)