XPost: rec.arts.tv, rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.movies.past-films   
   From: nospam@yahoo.com   
      
   Merrick Baldelli wrote:   
   > On Sat, 23 Jun 2007 19:24:58 +0800, "C'Pi"  wrote:   
   >   
   > [snippity doo-dah]   
   >   
   > [more snippity doo-dah]   
   >   
   >>> My clueless padawan.  I cannot make it any clearer than above   
   >>> not without having to use words that a third grader will understand.   
   >>> Apparently you should have an adult assist you in reading what I   
   >>> say. Most folk with at least a high school education understand   
   >>> linear reading.  You apparently do not.  Come back when you learn   
   >>> how to.   
   >>   
   >> Maybe instead of thinking that's the issue, you should concentrate   
   >> on what's civil and not civil.   
   >   
   > Troy Heagy is that you?   
   >   
   > [even more snippity doo-dah]   
   >   
   >>>>> 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 going to keep this in place...  But more snippage   
   > continues...   
   >   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> Ask mom to explain to you the use of the word MORE in this   
   >>> context.   
   >>   
   >> Mom would say being uncivil is being uncivil regardless of the   
   >> degree.   
   >   
   > Really..  Here's something interesting.  Did mom tell you that   
   > two wrongs don't make a right?  I bet she did.  If that's the case,   
   > why do you stick to that wrong?   
      
   I've made it clear I don't think it was wrong.  You should have understood   
   that by now.   
      
   But do you think the above comment of yours might apply to yourself in any   
   way?   
      
   > [the snippage saga continues]   
   >   
   >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>> *balking* Given the fact that it can take upwards to years and   
   >>> even in some cases decades for the writers of dictionary to catch up   
   >>> with a living language, you don't think that the meaning of the word   
   >>> hasn't in some manner changed in recent years?   
   >>   
   >> Where you live?  I wouldn't know.  I haven't lived in an English   
   >> speaking environment for nine years.  If it has changed, that's too   
   >> bad.  Is there any way left to say "homosexual" without it being a   
   >> slur?   
   >   
   > Absolutely it has changed.  But allow me to ask a question   
   > with a question.  A man of homosexual nature -- myself -- having been   
   > out of the closet 28 years, and being sensitive to all the various   
   > uses of the word gay, from the positive to the negative, compared to   
   > you, who continues to demonstrate that you could possibly do no wrong   
   > in this...  Who has more experience in being able to identify when the   
   > possibility of a slur occurring?  You?  Or me?   
      
   For myself?  Me, of course.  Who determines your feelings about the word,   
   some stranger on the Internet or yourself?   
      
   > Fact: I had used the stereotype of sci-fi geeks living in the   
   > basement of their parent's house as an example of how your comment   
   > could have been read when you said "dapper, gay politician look" as a   
   > comparative; of which you took exception to.   
      
   No, what I took exception to was your statement that you were being civil.   
   Geek living in the basement is a tired standard Usenet insult.  I certainly   
   wouldn't take exception to it.  I've already made that pretty clear.  I   
   don't even have a problem with you calling me bigoted, only your insistence   
   that "gay" is a slur.   
      
   > Instead of realizing   
   > perhaps you could in fact have used a word "gay" wrongly in the above   
   > comment, you have continued to be obdurate that you're right in this   
   > situation.  You continue to stick to your happy little belief that you   
   > couldn't possibly be wrong, reinforces at least to this reader, the   
   > level of ignorance you demonstrate.   
   >   
   > So, would you like to continue to play dumb?  Feel free to do   
   > so at your leisure; I'll continue to demonstrate the errors of that   
   > direction.   
      
   You can do whatever you want.   
      
   > [more snippage]   
   >   
   >>> Do you know of Palpatine's sexuality?  I'm wagering you're   
   >>> making an assumption there as well.  In which case, you're doing so   
   >>> in a derogatory manner given that you're working on the assumptions   
   >>> that effeminate = gay.  Hence, more ignorance and some very   
   >>> stereotypical assumptions.   
   >>   
   >> I never said effeminate.  I said dapper, which goes more to his   
   >> style and dress.  Now you can go ahead and say that is also   
   >> stereotypical.  But I would suggest it is a stereotype that exists   
   >> within the gay community and without.   
   >   
   > *not rising to this bait*   
      
   What bait?  Dapper does not mean effeminate nor does it mean manicured.   
   That's just clarification.  There's no "bait" there.  Hell, I even gave you   
   the opportunity to agree that I was stereotyping.  I'd hardly call that   
   bait.   
      
   >>> I said the word manicured....  Hold up...  You don't speak   
   >>> English as a primary language do you?   
   >>>   
   >>> [snipped]   
   >>   
   >> Manicured is trimming, cleaning and polishing the finger nails.  Do   
   >> you know a different definition?   
   >   
   > Yes, it also means simply clean and polished.  q.v., OED   
      
   I'll take your word for it since I don't have an OED.  But I couldn't find   
   any online dictionaries that matched that definition.   
      
   > [rest snipped]   
   >   
   > Did you have anything further to say?  You're trying to hide   
   > the fact that you're obdurate, ignorant, and unyielding in your   
   > ignorance by blathering on and on and on about a subject that's pretty   
   > much been started by Troy Heagy for flamebait.  Let's just cut the   
   > rest of this conversation out because it's just confusing matters.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)