Gays Must Look Within to Find the Real Meaning of our Sexuality
In a recent e-mail, a loyal reader noted the absence of comments to my post on the image of domestic bliss I had witnessed in the San Fernando Valley. He understood how disappointed I must have been that no readers took note of that post, at least not enough interest to comment on it.
In my mind, that was one of the most important pieces I have written since I started blogging for it gets to the essence of what it means to be gay. This is particularly important as the question of gay marriage surfaces again and again in our public discourse. We need to realize that an ordinary gay couple is not only a most beautiful image, it is quite powerful one as well, an image which may well make a stronger case for state recognition of gay unions than an argument put forward by the best debater.
In the coming days, I hope to blog more on this and other important social issues — focusing on why such images of ordinary gay couples matter so much to us. They remind us that those quick and casual sexual encounters all too readily available in our communities, while perhaps providing release, do not provide the sustenance we need to live truly human lives. That instead of focusing so much on our bodies and our beauty, we need also consider our hearts and our hopes, to look deeper into ourselves, rather than focusing continually on how “out” we should be.
That is, each of us needs to develop a gay identity based on more that outward appearances, that is more complex than a register of the places where we have come out to our family, to our peers — and to strangers. It’s time for us to look within, to ask questions of ourselves which cannot be answered in gay bars or computer chat rooms.
Many of us have already done that. And others are just beginning the process. We need to talk more openly about this. Because once we start communicating what we have learned, we might all better understand why an ordinary-looking gay couple much better represents what is best about gay people than the buff bodies so prominently displayed in posters in our neighborhoods and in the magazines and catalogues produced for people like us.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
104 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Being gay is whatever each of us individuals want it to mean.
Comment by Bla — October 16, 2006 @ 10:49 pm - October 16, 2006
Good point, Bla.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 16, 2006 @ 10:58 pm - October 16, 2006
I’ve noticed a lot of references to chat rooms here. Is that a common activity?
Comment by Sydney Talon — October 16, 2006 @ 11:37 pm - October 16, 2006
This comment comes from a straight guy, so I hope I don’t inadvertently give offense in what I write.
I don’t understand same sex physical attraction, and never have, though I have an rational appreciation of how it’s possible. Not too long ago, however, in my work as an immigration attorney, I successfully represented a gay Middle Eastern man in his claim for asylum. In the course of his case I met his partner, and shared a number of “business lunches” with the two of them as we discussed various aspects of the client’s claim.
Gay Patriot West speaks of how “an ordinary-looking gay couple much better represents what is best about gay people.” Well, although my client’s appearance reminded me of Omar Sharif, for chrisakes, I could certainly see what Gay Patriot West is talking about in the way this male couple interacted. It was understated but obvious that each man genuinely and deeply cared about the other.
When you see that first hand it’s easy to appreciate how gay men and women are simply variations on the basic human condition. An ounce of such insight is worth more than a ton of in-your-face-Straight exhibitionism.
Comment by Redhand — October 16, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - October 16, 2006
AMEN, BUD.
Comment by William — October 17, 2006 @ 12:15 am - October 17, 2006
Nice couple of posts. It is difficult to be the persons you describe – middle aged, slightly overweight, average looking in a sea of buff bodies, youth based everything in a homophobic country. It is almost enough to join either camp.
Fortunately, you are correct. With much therapy and a healthy dose of humor, I too realize that the best iand most important things in my life are my family, namely, my partner, myself and our dog Buster in our version of the normal life.
No matter what the Republicans and Christianists say, I exist, I am physically, mentally and spiritually healthy, and I am not going to go away. My partner and I celebrate our relationship and committment to eachother, flaws and all. I just wish all the in the closet Republicans would do the same. It takes courage to honestly look at oneself, but there is no greater reward and not a better way to live ones life.
Comment by Paul Holzapfel — October 17, 2006 @ 12:16 am - October 17, 2006
Gay people do not have to become some sort of vanilla monolith. Part of the conservative gay identity is all about not being too different from anybody else…in fact maybe if we ingraciate ourselves over and over again to people who do not like us they will eventually accept us…I have a feeling the conservative gays are the ones who pick on the effeminate kid in school to draw attention away from themselves…’hey look at the freak, I am not like that!’
Comment by James — October 17, 2006 @ 12:44 am - October 17, 2006
GPW, a lot of the content at this site is confrontational, as are the comments in the comments area. As a result, more low-key pieces will not get a lot of attention.
Comment by Carl — October 17, 2006 @ 1:04 am - October 17, 2006
I think that’s the sort of preconceived notion and ASSumption that Dan is talking about.
Maj. Frank Burns once said:
Individuality is fine as long as we all do it together.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 17, 2006 @ 1:18 am - October 17, 2006
James said “I have a feeling the conservative gays are the ones who pick on the effeminate kid in school to draw attention away from themselves…’hey look at the freak, I am not like that!”
Wow James…I’m in awe of your tolerance.Are you suggesting that only butch gays are conservative,or that only conservative gays are bullies?This insight of yours has really opened my eyes.I wonder what this will mean for the whole top-bottom relationship.I mean if we’re assuming that all butch gays are conservative,than it’s safe to assume that all butch gays are tops right?Maybe I’ll write a book on the subject called “Butch is from mars,fem is from venus”.Not very original but it’s a catchy title,don’t you think?
All jokes aside James,you should try practicing a little of the tollerance and acceptance that you would demand for yourself.You know….golden rule and all. :oP
Comment by L.C. Sula — October 17, 2006 @ 2:19 am - October 17, 2006
as i see it gay people are no different than non-gay people. one problem is that in general this culture celebrates youth, beauty, and sex, and young people have it spades.
the ngp up here do a number of things that hi-lite sexuality and sex, but no one gets on their case about it. why b/c ngp having sex is w/in their comfort zone.
truth is, you could probably walk down any given street in america and you will find more g and ngp alike more settled than is actually portrayed in media
Comment by ralph — October 17, 2006 @ 2:44 am - October 17, 2006
Buff and bare sells. Even on this blog, the beefcake calendar is what draws dollars. A calendar of gay couples eating dinner or raising children or working wouldn’t sell.
This is true of the straight community as well, and is not just a gay thing.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 17, 2006 @ 3:11 am - October 17, 2006
#10
Perhaps James has issues stemming from getting his ass kicked on a regular basis in school.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 17, 2006 @ 4:22 am - October 17, 2006
Perhaps James has issues stemming from getting his ass kicked on a regular basis in school.
Bingo.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 5:33 am - October 17, 2006
GPW, I have enjoyed your posts on this and related issues, even when I don’t post on them. I enjoy most of the comments that come from this.
#4 Redhand, good comments. But to your not understanding same sex attraction, I’m not sure I understand it either. But then again, I don’t understand it any more or less than opposite sex attraction. This reminds me when a woman friend of mine who didn’t understand why a mutual male friend was gay (this was while I was still in the closet, so she didn’t know I was gay either). She asked why wouldn’t he want to be with a woman. So I asked her, why she wouldn’t you want to be with a woman. After that, she became more accepting of homosexuality.
Comment by Pat — October 17, 2006 @ 6:20 am - October 17, 2006
Gay people do not have to become some sort of vanilla monolith. Part of the conservative gay identity is all about not being too different from anybody else
I don’t think this is part of the conservative gay identity-for one thing being gay and conservative seems to make them quite different from other gays, and subject to quite a bit of riducule.
As for bullying-some of the worst bullying I have seen by adults involves attacks on gay republicans from other gays-at least high school students have youth to defend themselves, what excuse to grown adults have?
Comment by just me — October 17, 2006 @ 6:44 am - October 17, 2006
If I can put on a tinfoil beanie for a minute, and address the “buff bodies so prominently displayed” part of the post. Has anyone ever wondered if the reason our society (our whole society, not just the gay ghetto) is so hyper-sexualized is just because it makes us consume more?
From a young age, the media message is saturated with the theme that everybody wants to have sex all the time, and if sex isn’t the most important thing in your life, there’s something wrong with you. Do you ever question that? Do you ever question whether the natural state of a human being is to be obsessed with sex? Or, is this something the media creates to facilitate advertising? I mean, if sex is the lowest common denominator of human experience, then why wouldn’t the media, advertising, and commercial interests exploit that?
It’s kind of ironic, if true. The sixties/seventies generation sold society a bill of goods that open sexuality was liberating, when, in fact, it’s really just a tool to get people to spend more.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 8:24 am - October 17, 2006
VdaK, put down the tin foil beanie… it’s NOT becoming on you. But you’re right, the commercialization of sexuality sells –my oldest son and I were watching the Detroit Tigers (you know, the AL Champs) kick Oakland’s butt in the 4th game and a commerical for used cars came on with young women in hotpants and tanktops fawning over a newish Mustang… his question: “Dad, what’s that got to do with buying a car?”
Even the 10 year old gets it. It’s just that later, we lose their youthful wisdom to sort chaff from the grain. We spent the hike to bed talking about Pavlov’s dog.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 9:22 am - October 17, 2006
James you mean the monolith of us all having to be democrats/liberals. Memory foggy but aI was probably the more effeminatew boy in catholic school but yet I turned out loving myself and conservative and yet never picked on anyone. Of courwse was not picked on either even though a “sissy” becasue my father taught m how to defend myself. If anyone is part of a vanilla monolith it’s you and that is boring and scarey.
Comment by Hephaestion — October 17, 2006 @ 9:32 am - October 17, 2006
We spent the hike to bed talking about Pavlov’s dog.
Sometimes we can be such nerds. I was going over some English work with my fifteen year old and we got sidetracked into a discussion of Latin grammar and its English legacy.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 10:28 am - October 17, 2006
But that 10 year old noticed the car commercial didn’t he? If some fat guy was selling the car, would he have even paid attention. It has nothing to do with selling a car except that you paid attention. You paid attention because its sex and sex interests nearly all of us. It’s natural. All animals do it. Sex, sex, sex. We’re all just squirrels trying to get a nut.
Comment by Britton — October 17, 2006 @ 12:08 pm - October 17, 2006
DanielFtL writes: “Buff and bare sells. Even on this blog, the beefcake calendar is what draws dollars. A calendar of gay couples eating dinner or raising children or working wouldn’t sell.”
Daniel, I agree with you that in the general culture –sex sells just about everything. Maybe even more so in the gay culture where sex trumps nearly everything including political affiliation and reasonable conduct.
But I take issue if you are suggesting that on this blog, the Recon Marine calendar was a big draw. If you look, you’ll see that many other issues got far more comments than the Recon Marine calendar.
Issues like gay identity, what makes the GayLeftBorg hate gay conservatives so much that it has become an irrational hatred eclipsing the GayLeftBorg’s usual BushHatred, will the GOP hold the House, etc. Those would be substantive issues –sex ain’t selling there, sunshine bucko.
Sorry, but if sex sold here like it does at OutSports, Dan and Bruce would begin each post with lurid, cheezy pictures of college wrestlers and swimmers like they do at OutSports… which is the GayLeftBorg’s outpost for 50-something, grey bear Democrats dreaming away the hours before the med cart makes it down the hallway once again.
But nice attempt to do a drive-by smear of the blog… the smear didn’t coat this time and it washes off nicely with reasoned perspective.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 12:23 pm - October 17, 2006
BTW, DanielFtL… your point about a calendar of gay couples engaged in the normalcy of life won’t sell –BZZZT. Here in Michigan, we did a calendar exactly like that in 2001 for the 2002-2003 school year and it sold very well on UofM’s and MSU’s and WMU’s and NMU’s and MichTechU’s campus… as well as in town. Michigan-Matt partner and I were Messrs October… dressed as CaptAmerica and the Terminator. The other 14 months were themed and featured normal, average gay couples.
15,000 calendars at $9.95 a pop. Yeah, normal gays wouldn’t sell… gotta be beefcake.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - October 17, 2006
You paid attention because its sex and sex interests nearly all of us. It’s natural. All animals do it. Sex, sex, sex. We’re all just squirrels trying to get a nut.
How much of that is because we are conditioned from a young age to respond that way?
Furthermore, no one is slave to his urges unless he chooses to be. We may not be able to control what attracts us, but we can control our response. George Michael, Gerry Studds, Mark Foley, and Andrew Sullivan may blame their behavior on their orientation, but the fact is, they chose to act the way they did.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - October 17, 2006
Agreed. The one difference between us and the lower animals is that we possess the rational capacity to overrule our natural drives and behaviors.
Despite what Democrats and liberals want us to believe, sex is not mandatory or compulsory. They try to argue that child and teenage sex is “inevitable”, while ignoring the fact that, as V the K pointed out, teenagers and children are inundated with material from an early age that conditions them on the necessity of sex to “be cool”, to “show you love me”, or, ironically, to show your “male right” to dominate the “bitches” and “‘ho’s”.
Heck, we’ve seen it here and on other blogs — the minute you state that you didn’t have sex in high school or until even later, the liberals call you “repressed”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 17, 2006
Sorry to go off-topic, but The Sleazy South Carolina Bigot Politician Who Tried to Sabotage My Adoption Just Joined the McCain 2008 Team.
I know there are a few gay McCainiac’s in this forum. How do you feel about your man now that he’s just hired the biggest anti-gay bigot in South Carolina for his team, a man who has introduced multiple bills to outlaw gay fostering and adoption in South Carolina, and who refused to shake hands with a representative of a gay rights group because he said he was afraid of AIDS?
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - October 17, 2006
I pretty much agree with this entry.
I will make the observation that an ordinary gay couple, pretty much by definition, is out. An ordinary couple would hold hands at a movie, would come as a couple to family or business events, would dance together at weddings. An ordinary couple wouldn’t have to be “agressively out,” but people who knew them would know they were a gay couple just by observation. The original post doesn’t contradict this, of course.
And as a comment to something specific NorthDallasThirty just said:
The one difference between us and the lower animals is that we possess the rational capacity to overrule our natural drives and behaviors.
Maybe you meant this comment to be narrower in scope than my interpretation. But I would say that lower animals wouldn’t be able to build skyscrapers or nuclear reactors, or write operas, even if they could overrule their natural urges.
Comment by kdogg36 — October 17, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - October 17, 2006
No McCainiac, I.
Two words for you: McCain-Feingold.
(The biggest, most destructive and un-American restriction on basic free association and free speech rights ever passed. McCain is a truly great American, yet a truly awful policymaker.)
Comment by Calarato — October 17, 2006 @ 1:39 pm - October 17, 2006
But I would say that lower animals wouldn’t be able to build skyscrapers or nuclear reactors, or write operas, even if they could overrule their natural urges.
I can’t build a skyscraper, or a nuclear reactor, or write an opera. Does that make me a lower animal?
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - October 17, 2006
I can’t build a skyscraper, or a nuclear reactor, or write an opera. Does that make me a lower animal?
Comment by V the K
———————-
Naw.
Too easy.
monty
Comment by monty — October 17, 2006 @ 1:56 pm - October 17, 2006
But I can post a coherent, intelligent response. Which at least puts me several orders above monty. I’m also bright enough to realize that comments are signed automatically, and appending a signature just looks stupid.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 1:59 pm - October 17, 2006
#26: Well, I suspect that if McCain is the GOP nominee in 2008, you and most of the other conservatives here will still do their duty and vote for him. Why should it be so surprising that McCain would hire an anti-gay bigot? After all, McCain himself has a long history of supporting homohaters from when he did a fundraiser for the anti-gay OCA in the early 90′s to today where he has come out enthusiastiocally for the draconian Arizona proposition that would ban recognition by state and local governments of anything vaguely resembling same-sex marriage.
Comment by Ian — October 17, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - October 17, 2006
Michigan-Matt,
Girls in hot pants may not have much do do with selling cereal, but it has everything to do with selling cars. People want cars that make them feel sexy. That’s not something the industry in your state seems to figure out and that’s why the industry is dying.
Comment by Chase — October 17, 2006 @ 2:18 pm - October 17, 2006
V the K: I can’t build a skyscraper, or a nuclear reactor, or write an opera. Does that make me a lower animal?
No, that doesn’t follow at all from what I said. You may be joking, so I won’t go into a long spiel to explain it, lest the joke be on me.
Comment by kdogg36 — October 17, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - October 17, 2006
Not quite.
If one takes a look at the top-selling cars in the United States currently for 2006, it goes something like this:
1. Ford F-150
2. Chevrolet Silverado
3. Toyota Camry
4. Toyota Corolla
5. Honda Accord
6. Dodge Ram
7. Honda Civic
8. Chevrolet Impala
9. Chevrolet Cobalt
10. Nissan Altima
Pure sex, those.
Realistically, if you pull out the vehicles most commonly bought for business use (F-150, Silverado, Ram), and the rental-fleet mainstays (Impala, Cobalt), what you have left are the Camry, Corolla, Accord, Civic, and Altima.
Sexy machines those are not; if anything, they’re the automotive equivalent of refrigerators.
But what they are is comfortable, reliable, and efficient, both in terms of space and fuel economy.
Detroit’s problem is that they have the labor and inefficiency costs of Germany, but they can’t command the pricing premium that BMW, Mercedes, and others can. In order for Detroit to build an Accord equivalent to what Honda can, they would have to charge Acura prices to break even.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 17, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - October 17, 2006
“The one difference between us and the lower animals is that we possess the rational capacity to overrule our natural drives and behaviors.”
That, plus our ability to accessorize.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 17, 2006 @ 4:06 pm - October 17, 2006
#10 – “Maybe I’ll write a book on the subject called “Butch is from mars, fem is from venus.” Not very original but it’s a catchy title, don’t you think?”
LC, you have correctly expounded Peter’s Principle of Politics #69, also known as My Undeniable Truth of Life, which states:
“The GayLeftLib movement was created in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of society.”
I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 17, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 17, 2006
Chase writes: “That’s not something the industry in your state seems to figure out and that’s why the industry is dying.”
Chase, you gotta get out of the “Wrong” column guy… you’re in it so much that the GayLeftBorg is going to mandate you as the new team captain of the Potomac League.
No, the auto manufacturing industry in Michigan –which isn’t “here” like it was just 25 years ago by the way– isn’t dying cause Detroit can’t figure out what’s sexy… it’s dying because other manufacturers are building better cars, at cheaper prices, grabbing more of the market share and controlling the fringe benefit burden. That –and the ecoTwinks are buying foreign while hauling their anti-war posters to the next CodePink rally.
The Madison Ave-Hollywood nexus of “what’s sexy equals what’s cool” is part of the problem with America and a huge problem with our valueless, morally-vacant gay culture.
Kind of one of the issues raised by Dan’s post, Chase. You really got a clue and get out of the “Wrong” column will ya?
Personally, we have a new H2 and a new 350Z convertible in our garage. “Detroit” hasn’t built a decent sports convertible since 1963 but they do know how to build BIG and safe and we love that.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 17, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - October 17, 2006
I think Chase was just following the deep-left instinct to crap on anything American.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 5:20 pm - October 17, 2006
#10. Every self-styled butch conservative guy I’ve slept with has been a big old nelly bottom when in the sack, especially the suburban married closet case that I had sex with when I was….15yo. (Emphasis is on self-styled, which is related to self-deception.)
Comment by sean — October 17, 2006 @ 7:03 pm - October 17, 2006
If we needed proof that older men molesting young boys f*cks them up for life, now we’ve got it.
Comment by V the K — October 17, 2006 @ 7:41 pm - October 17, 2006
Any thoughts or words on this?
Sen. Larry Craig (R) of Idaho Outed by Mike Rogers on Ed Schultz
Mike Rogers, the famous (or infamous) gay activist who outs closeted Republican homosexuals, is reporting that on Ed Schultz RIGHT NOW that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is homosexual. Says he is prepared for ‘legal’ consequences. Rogers has reported on Drier, Shrock, and Foley, never been proven wrong. Reporting he will go to jail to protect sources, and also reporting that he has received NO RESPONSE from Craig’s office. Says his sources are men Craig has had sex with.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/17/174357/85
Comment by ray — October 17, 2006 @ 8:25 pm - October 17, 2006
Faux intimacy is about as fulfilling as fast food – and about as healthy.
Confusing sex with love (physical vs emotional) is easy….and usually painful.
Actually growing a healthy-loving relationship from a tiny seed can be one of the most satisfying things any adult ever does. And the hardest.
Comment by Vera Charles — October 17, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - October 17, 2006
“Society has conditioned us …”
“Sex sells …”
People forget that the media won’t use sex to sell us stuff if sex didn’t appeal to us in the first place — media doesn’t influence, but rather is influenced by society. Why does everything have to be so sexed up these days? It’s not some secret Hollywood cabal … it’s us. Many of you here have forgotten what it’s like to be young and horny.
Comment by Bla — October 17, 2006 @ 9:21 pm - October 17, 2006
#42 (some outing rubbish)
Sure, Kos outing jerk – how about these words:
***WHO***** ******CARES*****?
Cheers
Comment by Calarato — October 17, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - October 17, 2006
#44 ‘Many of you here have forgotten what it’s like to be young and horny.’
Oh, darling – Vera’s got more miles on her than a Rambler in Havana – but she’s never forgotten what it feels like to be – as you so romantically put it – “young and horny”.
Take Vera’s advice: Giving away the prize before the game has even been played isn’t just poor gamesmanship – it’s no fun.
Immediacy isn’t intimacy – and one shouldn’t confuse the two – least you know too much – and not enough – at the same time.
Vera’s not a prude: she’s a romantic.
Cheers!
Comment by Vera Charles — October 17, 2006 @ 10:13 pm - October 17, 2006
That is, each of us needs to develop a gay identity based on more that outward appearances, that is more complex than a register of the places where we have come out to our family, to our peers — and to strangers. It’s time for us to look within, to ask questions of ourselves which cannot be answered in gay bars or computer chat rooms.
…Wonderful, Beautiful and Blessed as you are…
I think that gay culture generally has a certain ‘yahoo’ character to it. Coming out is an acceptance and a publication of a way in which one is different, and at first one wants to celebrate that and flaunt that. But I also think that the extremes of ‘yahoo’ often are not healthy.
But I don’t argue for hidden sexuality at all. I think that a gay person should be reasonably identifiable as such (I think only androids should be androgenous), I think that one’s sexuality should be expressed in healthy and natural ways.
All should be able to accept, and some day will accept, same-sex couples holding hands, touching in ways that hetrosexual couples enjoy in public, and even the occasional buss on the lips. Natural, healthy affection and sexuality.
When the image of the gay man begins to resemble a bit less the charicature of Hagedorn Sparticus of ‘The Birdcage’, (‘You are afraid of my HEAT’) and more that of two kindly men who live together and love each other, and go for walks in the park every Saturday, I think that the world will have changed for the better.
God blesses us with sexuality, and I think its natural expression has beauty, no matter what genders the partners;
We are made in God’s image, and God is Sexy.
Peace,
TWS
Comment by thewesternseminarian — October 17, 2006 @ 10:53 pm - October 17, 2006
Matt, I wasn’t trying to smear the blog.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 18, 2006 @ 3:13 am - October 18, 2006
If Mish-Mash says you were…..YOU WERE!!
monty
P.S. Capt. America and The Terminator??
(snicker….snort)
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 3:46 am - October 18, 2006
I am not getting into a long defense of my statement with him. Matt went on the defensive about this blog without need. The fact remains, despite Matt’s posing for a calendar month, buff and bare sells and when putting beefcake next to people having dinner, the beefcake pose will likely outsell the dinner pose. Not that there is anything wrong with it, it is just the way it is.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 18, 2006 @ 4:30 am - October 18, 2006
I know Daniel.
But…
Your first mistake was in thinking that you could have a reasoned, intelligent conversation on here without someone trying to “pin the tail on the donkey”….(no pun intended). Well..maybe a little.
Several more of their irrational outbursts, chicken little responses, name calling, etc…and you’re more likely to understand how things are on this blog, if you don’t already. (Been there.)
For their next trick (and for your amusement) you will be inducted into their “Sockpuppet Hall Of Fame” (where the bones of all those who dared try and discuss things reasonably and rationally, inevitably end up)….. probably EmCeed by that “all-seeing” (200/200 vision), Castrato.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 10:16 am - October 18, 2006
Daniel, I appreciate your clarification that you weren’t trying to smear the blog. I stand by my assertion that you’re wrong that beefcake and sex “draws” people to this blog. 1-2 instances of “beefcake gay” posts against hundreds of posts and thousands of comments on substantive issues demonstrates nothing about the blog, the culture or society.
And monty-ol-boi, stay in the SnideAndSnarky corner where you were sent for detention… you ‘ve got a few more atonements to make before anyone will consider letting you out. BTW, did you even need to dress up for Halloween or did you go as you are? Frightening how scarey liberals can be in the dark.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 10:16 am - October 18, 2006
ah….Mish-Mash.
Nice move on Daniel, there Mr. Terminator. (snicker) Oh…the mental vision of it is just too much.
Being a repug means “never having to say you’re sorry” or admitting your mistakes. That shows weakness, they think so will never admit to a mistake. (sound familiar?). Instead he blasts you again…and will continue to blast you…ignoring anything you might say to set the record straight. That would be too fair and they would lose “brownie points”. Unheard of.
Notice he twists your original post around to make it seem like you were stating that the ONLY thing that sells on GAY PATRIOT is “beef cake”?? Anyone could tell that was not what you were saying, at all.
See? That is what he and the others are so good at doing. They take what you say out of context….blow it up….and then attack it as if you had said it, originally.
Notice he, also, puts the onus on you as the one that made the mistake…not that he read it wrong. He then thanks you for “correcting your mistake”. Classic.
Down right creepy, when you think about it, in a Roy Cohen sort of way.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 10:38 am - October 18, 2006
monty, as it has been noted elsewhere, you’ve become “tedious without any purpose”. Maybe you should stick to the DailyKos and OutSports –the trolls there appreciate your “insights”.
Funny how when you were typing to DanielFtL a snarky and snide retort, I was acknowledging his clarification.
Hmmm, sometimes your own best efforts to be witty only undermine the GayLeftBorg’s utter shallowness, monty-old-boi.
Have you answered the query: If this is so nasty a blog, why do you keep coming back? Posting often incoherent snippet after snide and snarky snippet? Have you nothing constructive to offer –once again?
(I know you failed reading for comprehension on the Democrat Plantation, but it wasn’t the Terminator in the calendar)
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - October 18, 2006
Dan, Ben Stein over at American Spectator, has another take on what the Foley matter OUGHT to start in America –a serious discussion about the commercial exploitation of teens and sex.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10505
For me and our gay culture –which is fixated on youthfulness, sex, and unfettered urges– makes us a target in the Culture War. We won’t have an impact on the Culture War discussion until gay community leaders like AndieSullivan, George Michael and others stop shooting us in the foot with their antics.
Stein argues it doesn’t matter if you’re str8 or gay… but I think our community is far more excessive and exploitive than str8s. And each of us knows 100′s of examples of that even if we won’t admit it aloud.
Stein is onto something: let’s broaden the debate to why we objectify youth in sexual terms.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 18, 2006
Mish-Mash.
You needed no clarification from Daniel had you but read his origiinal post without seeing “hobgobblins” everywhere….. and your “acknowledging his clarification” is so sickingly and condescendingly YOU.
I answered your “why do you…..” post in another thread, BTW.
And…I think you meant that I “only ‘sustantiate’ the GayLeftBorg’s utter shallowness, monty-old-boi.” Not undermine. But hell, you made about as much sense as usual.
Oh….your welcome. Termie. LMAO. (gawd. I laugh out loud each time, now.) 
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 12:57 pm - October 18, 2006
(I know you failed reading for comprehension on the Democrat Plantation, but it wasn’t the Terminator in the calendar)
Comment by Michigan-Matt
——————–
Oh gawd, Mish-Mash!
So….you were Capt. America?? Ugh. Then spandex WAS involved after all!? Yikes!!
Sure you weren’t the Michelin Man??
Oops. There goes my lunch.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 1:16 pm - October 18, 2006
monty, you’ve been outed by Peter H as the formerly known raj/Ian/blah sockpuppet with stunning reactions -that should instruct all Peter hit the SockPuppet on the head.
Intellectually dishonest and stupid –you can’t sink any lower, raj/Ian/blah/monty. Time to reinvent again.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 2:05 pm - October 18, 2006
LMAO.
I warned DanielFTL this might happen to him. I guess it was just a matter of time before you pulled that old tired chestnut out to use on me.
You guys will try anything, won’t you, like a bunch of old hens.
Well…..you just go right ahead, if that’s all ya got.
LMAO,
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - October 18, 2006
The truth stings a bit more than you thought, eh?
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - October 18, 2006
M-Matt, methinks the monty sockpuppet doth protest too much.
I still stand by my conviction that he’s a reincarnated rajiansybil sockpuppet. And using RAT logic (a la Mary Mapes in the Memogate scandal), if I’m wrong, then the burden of proof falls to monty. Otherwise, I’m right.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 18, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - October 18, 2006
touche Peter. There’s special irony and justice in the notion that these sockpuppets are being hoisted on their petard — like the latest raj/Ian/blah/monty sockpuppet enjoyed doing in the past: ala “I don’t have to prove I’m right, you HAVE to prove that my statements are incorrect.”
All brought down by an inadvertant use of a smearing moniker for those engaged in serious discussion. These guys could have lurked for another year of more behind all the duplicity, deception, and dishonesty. My old ethics professor at Michigan would have given monty a triple D for his stunts of late.
How long before they reinvent? Counting down…
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 18, 2006 @ 4:59 pm - October 18, 2006
If those of us NOT on the right only hung out at PHB, DU, and AmericBlog, those sites wouldn’t be interesting or informative. If those of you on the right didn’t have those not on the right here to comment and engage, this blog would also not be interesting. Differing opinions make conversation informative and interesting.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 18, 2006 @ 5:39 pm - October 18, 2006
If those of us NOT on the right only hung out at PHB, DU, and AmericBlog, those sites wouldn’t be interesting or informative……Differing opinions make conversation informative and interesting.
Well, given that they ban conservative commentors, that explains why they’re neither.
It also explains why they’re populated with people, as I pointed out today, who make it clear that they will never accept gay Republicans and conservatives and, in fact, would not mind a bit to see us be killed or kill ourselves.
Philosophically, as gay conservatives, we don’t have that luxury.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 18, 2006 @ 6:00 pm - October 18, 2006
I think diversity of opinion at DU and Kos means respecting both those people who believe the WTC was brought down by Mossad under the instructions of Halliburton, and those who believe the WTC was brought down by Halliburton under the instructions of Mossad.
Comment by V the K — October 18, 2006 @ 6:48 pm - October 18, 2006
#63 – That’s a very interesting claim Daniel, in light of the fact that the sites you mentioned (as Left sites) *do not allow* even centrist commentators to participate – much less conservative. So I hope you mean it.
I know for a fact – from someone very close to me, that this happened to while I observed – that in the case of DU, you can be an out, gay liberal commentor but if you even so much as *politely and gently correct factual errors* they are circulating about Iraq, you are then instantly banned.
The desire to exchange views / information with one’s opponents is admirable. I wish your average leftie really wanted to.
As for monty: it clearly is so far removed from what we all know he’s up to.
My GP homies: I don’t know which sockpuppetmaster monty is… we know there are a couple out there… and in a way, it doesn’t matter. As I mentioned earlier: monty is the deeply insecure, troubled 4-year old of the neighborhood who visits your house, lays his dookie out, then crows “You live in a poopy house! You’re a big poopyhead!” As if anyone except him brought in the dookie (i.e.: the nastiness, personal snideness, etc.) Words fail in describing such behavior, from anyone over 4.
monty, in this moment I really do pity you. ‘Nuff said and bye.
Comment by Calarato — October 18, 2006 @ 9:46 pm - October 18, 2006
If it doesn’t matter, Castrato, then why do you keep bringing it up?
That, and your obsession with feces, plus your pechant for talking like a 4 year old is intertaining but embarrassing.
Words fail you…. period.
monty
Comment by monty — October 18, 2006 @ 9:57 pm - October 18, 2006
NDT wrote on his blog:
“One of the common claims made by gay leftists and Democrats is that the reason they so dislike conservative and Republican gays is because we supposedly don’t work with them or support the organizations working to repel antigay initiatives and activities.”
Well, regardless of the fact that NDT called me a name first in another thread and that the main contributors here are just as nasty and hateful as the visitors from the left, the fact is that I don’t hate gay right wingers. I admit to not understanding gay right wingers, and I don’t like gay right wing politics, but hate is a strong…and inappropriate word.
At any rate, I come to this right wing blog, to see what the gay right wingers have to say. (The position on outing. for instance is interesting.) That is probably why the others come here too. Those gays on the right probably come here because they’re an even smaller minority of gay bloggers on the right in a minority and can express their ideas without being banned for them.
By the way, just like the owner of this blog and some of you like to say repeatedly that you are Republicans but don’t agree with all Repbulicans or their attitudes (politics?), the same holds true of Democrats, regardless of how much you think we’re part of some kind of GAYLEFTBORG.
Now place nice.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 6:41 am - October 19, 2006
DanielFtL, like I’ve offered to you before… if you really think that places like the DailyKos, MyDD, BlogActive, etc are tolerant, open venues for discussion… try this experiment:
Enter a relevant thread with this line “I don’t know, I think we need to support President Bush on this one” and be prepared for the bile and vile. Please doNOT use your DanielFtL signature or you may risk exposing yourself to physical threats from the Kos’sacks goosestepping in a town near you.
Over there, any conversation and discussion –if it strays even one little plug, grommet or wire from the GayLeftBorg hookups– will get you a busting like none ever done here, DanielFtL.
It’s worse than wearing white after Labor Day… (Vera told me that one).
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 10:02 am - October 19, 2006
Wearing white after Labor Day is verboten. Everyone knows that!
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 11:25 am - October 19, 2006
Wearing white before Memorial Day is worse! LOL
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 11:27 am - October 19, 2006
#68 – You’re contradicting yourself, Daniel.
You said, “the main contributors here” (which can only mean Bruce and Dan, this blog’s main contributors) “are just as nasty and hateful as the visitors from the left” (by which I can only assume you mean the rajIan sockpuppets, the Kewpie sockpuppets, crap-flinging monty, etc.).
But if that were true, Daniel: then how could you POSSIBLY hope to have “differing opinions make conversation informative and interesting” (#63)? It makes no sense.
That’s assuming, for sake of argument, that your basic premise is true – which it obviously is not. (Bruce and Dan post nothing like what comes from the sickest of the Left visitors that are obsessed with this blog.)
It is beginning to look as if you want it both ways: to take the position that you’re here for enlightened conversation, while subtly (or not-so-subtly) underlining and endorsing the worst of the Left behavior we see here that, as can be seen in this thread alone, makes that impossible.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 11:35 am - October 19, 2006
Heck, I got myself banned from a leftwing blog just for asking, “What facts do you have to support that?”
Comment by V the K — October 19, 2006 @ 11:48 am - October 19, 2006
Ah, Daniel. See how futile it is??
You start off by trying to be honest and explain where you are coming from. THEN……
Castrato starts out by building a strawman. It’s obvious you are talking about the orangutans who herd together and sling their shit at anyone who approaches their cage. But he denies that and claims you are talking about Bruce or Dan, exclusively while cheaply trying to intimidate you by putting you on the defensive. Therefore the transference of any responsibility for Castrato’s, or any of the other lower primates’ incivility, nastiness, beligerence, hatefulness or refusal of reasonable debate is complete and, much like the GOP party itself, they haven’t the guts to clain any responsibility, in the least, for any of the negativity that permeates this board.
Next, Castrato will go whining to those other orangs for support, like the sniveling thing it is. Whaaaaa!!
Good luck there, Daniel.
monty
Comment by monty — October 19, 2006 @ 12:11 pm - October 19, 2006
That’s why I don’t respond. I’ve learned that when people try to miscontrue what I know that I meant, I just don’t respond to it. Calarato couldn’t possibly know my intentions and he/she is here enough to know that there are many regular posters besides the blog owners.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 12:48 pm - October 19, 2006
Daniel, if you’d like to explain to me what/how I misconstrued, I’d like to hear and understand.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 1:00 pm - October 19, 2006
P.S. FYI, Daniel, this blog has four designated, official contributors: Nick and John in addition to Bruce and Dan.
Regardless of who you meant or didn’t mean when you spoke of the blog’s “contributors”, Daniel: I noticed that you have nothing to say in response to my main point.
Namely: That a contradiction does seem to exist between your claimed interest in ““differing opinions [to] make conversation informative and interesting” on the one hand, and on the other hand, your justifying / enabling in #69 of the worst conversation-destroying behaviors of the sickest lefties obsessed with the GP blog.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - October 19, 2006
(typo – meant #68)
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 1:12 pm - October 19, 2006
I cannot speak for anyone else. Mine are simply observations from reading the posts on this blog….and others.
The contradiction you find is yours to consider, since you stated that it exists. It is not mine to prove that it doesn’t simply because you stated that it does.
You completely ignored the main point of both posts: information and conversation and understanding the gay right.
Stop trying draw me into some word argument.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 2:01 pm - October 19, 2006
That, once again, is a non-answer.
I haven’t asked you to speak for anyone else. And, far from ignoring the main point of your posts (information and conversation and understanding the gay right), in fact I asked you in more depth about them.
The following could be an example of pure word argument:
“The contradiction you find is yours to consider, since you stated that it exists. It is not mine to prove that it doesn’t simply because you stated that it does.”
I can’t even parse what that means, grammatically. (Anyone?)
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 2:07 pm - October 19, 2006
(The closest I can come up with is if Daniel is saying that: since I SEE the contradiction that exists in Daniel’s words / actions here, the contradiction is my fault? A “you smelt it, you dealt it” argument, in effect??? Difficult to tell.)
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - October 19, 2006
Calarato is completely off responding to my main reason for posting in this thread in the first place. I will bring it back on track now.
One of the things that I like to do is lurk on several boards. Pam on PHB, if you read her, wades into the FreeRepublic and so do I. I am not sure if she reads here or not, but would probably find it fascinating, as do I.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 2:31 pm - October 19, 2006
Here’s an example of something that I have been thinking about for two days because of this board. Now revealing it does not mean that I wish to engage anyone on it at all. I do not wish to engage anyone on it. It is simply a curiosity.
Michigan-Matt said in another thread, I don’t remember which, that he has an H2 in his garage.
I’ve gone around for two days thinking about this because in my mind it is like crossing the red wire with the black wire.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 2:39 pm - October 19, 2006
#80 – #81 cont – Wait, I get it.
Daniel’s tortured words are trying to say that, just because I claim there is a contradiction in his words / actions doesn’t mean there is one, and it is up to me to prove there is.
But – I already did! (#72) LOL
Daniel, since you’re sincerely interested in informative exchanges, I am willing to make one more shot at helping you understand. I will spell this out at length, as carefully as I can.
You implied in #63 that you visit GP because “differing opinions make conversation informative and interesting” and you like that.
But then in #68, you said “the main contributors [sic - really meaning visitors] are just as nasty and hateful as the visitors from the left.” (Which us GP regulars know to be pretty damn bad.)
If that’s true, Daniel: Why would you come here? You go on to say, “I come to this right wing blog, to see what the gay right wingers have to say. ” But that only re-iterates what we gathered from #63, having no new explanatory power.
The bottom line is: If the other visitors here (not just the lefties) are so hateful and nasty in your opinion, Daniel, then you couldn’t be having genuine “informative and interesting” conversations with them (i.e., as genuine, MUTUAL exchanges).
Either the comment-visitors on this blog are “informative and interesting” mainly (or a majority of the time), so it’s worth conversing in the threads – or mainly they are not, i.e., are majority “hateful and nasty”. Which is it?
Do you see now? My interest in this, quite frankly, is in finding out if you’re worth reading or engaging (e.g., future). It’s not clear if you can face and resolve a contradiction; I am finding out. And it’s not clear if your claims to respect the “right wingers” here (your phrase; I personally am a centrist-libertarian, registered Independent) are genuine; again I am finding out. Your non-answers (if any further) are as informative as your answers.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - October 19, 2006
#83 – That, Daniel, says a great deal about your stereotypes.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 3:02 pm - October 19, 2006
P.S. To be completely precise about this:
You are now telling us, in effect, that you are here for science-like OBSERVATION, rather than any genuine conversational exchanges.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 3:04 pm - October 19, 2006
now you get it! dan is approaching you guys as a liberal snob….slumming.
Comment by anon — October 19, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - October 19, 2006
I am whatever you think I am Calarato and you should believe about me whatever you like. Whatever works for you, works for me.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - October 19, 2006
Ah, and the name calling begins.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - October 19, 2006
Perhaps not conversational, but informative. It would have never occurred to me that a gay man would have an H2.
Stereotype? Probably, but so what? Everyone stereotypes, and stereotypes are shattered or upheld or just exist and nobody cares.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 3:32 pm - October 19, 2006
Am I wrong in calling a group of people gay right wingers? Even the subtitle of the blog mentions it:
“Blogcasting from the worldwide headquarters of the not-so-vast GAY RIGHT WING conspiracy. ”
People, gay, on the right…gay right wingers. Not a big leap.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 3:43 pm - October 19, 2006
Scratch that. I don’t want to be called a “liberal snob” so I can understand why someone does not want to be called a “gay right winger.”
Sorry for so many posts. I post as it occurs to me.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 3:49 pm - October 19, 2006
Umm, well you’re certainly wrong in calling me a right-winger. As you put it earlier, “I cannot speak for anyone else.”
And now, something for you to consider, in your heart.
Is it true? that you approach the people here as a snob would? (Looking-down. No genuine exchanges.)
If so: Wouldn’t you then expect people to pick up on it – even if you never name-call, think you’re disguising it, etc. – and react to you with appropriate skepticism and brusqueness?
You don’t have to answer.
I do want to point out though, that with the openly hateful / nasty lefties we get – raj, Ian, the Kewpie sockpuppets, monty, and so forth – at least we know what they really think. They just get on with flinging the crap they came here to fling. There’s a touch of honesty in that.
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 3:55 pm - October 19, 2006
#92 – Sorry, didn’t see it in time. I post kind of freely as well, as you can see.
“Right winger” and “left winger” both have a certain reductive, dismissive quality to them. But they should be worn with pride, if they apply.
An occasional commentor here, rightwingprof, does that for “right wing”. So does Bruce, in the blog header you pointed out.
I don’t wear it simply because I don’t feel it applies to me – as a gay marriage-, drug legalization- and abortion- supporting kind of guy. And non-religious.
(I don’t support unlimited late-term abortion, but that’s another long discussion!)
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 3:59 pm - October 19, 2006
Well I don’t look down on anyone here. They’re still people even if I don’t agree with their beliefs, their politics or their arguments.
I’ve been hanging around for a few months. I just voted absentee ballot yesterday and I still voted straight Democrat (because I don’t vote for Republicans
), but I certainly realize that there are more Gay Republicans than I would have ever guessed in the past.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 4:23 pm - October 19, 2006
I am a big flaming liberal!
I am also a member of the ACLU and AU. I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in guns. My parents are extremely religious. My mother is a dyed in the wool Republican and my father is a St. Louis Democrat. Map that craziness.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 4:32 pm - October 19, 2006
DanielFtL writes: “Michigan-Matt said in another thread, I don’t remember which, that he has an H2 in his garage. I’ve gone around for two days thinking about this because in my mind it is like crossing the red wire with the black wire.”
I know you said you didn’t care to speak further about it, but I wonder if this is another example of the single-brain mindset that drives our gay brothers into speedos, thongs on the feet, and the waxing salon.
for the record DanielFtL, it is a H2Lux –big, black, lots of chrome, all the toys and then some… we use it around town but mostly to get UpNorth to the lake. It’s safe. It’s quiet. Along with defensive driving, it protects the three most precious things in my life: my partner and my boys.
The other car is a very fast 350Z convertible… and we have a pair of red, even faster Moto Guzzi Sport Corsa bikes –frankly, all three vehicles and our mountain bikes are very gay. So are the jetskis… being gay in Michigan doesn’t mean we have to drive a volvo, a Ford Expo, or an old gremlin that grandma gave us before she croaked. for us, being gay didn’t tranlsate into being one paycheck removed from the collections agent.
I’ve never understood that element in the gay community that shoves PETA down our throats, glorifies ecoTerrorism as a political artform or thinks disposable income MUST be spent on preening products for their self-inflating habits. Or that if you aren’t looking “gay” you have your GayCard revoked by the nearest three snapping twink swilling a pink comso.
I think you need to get out of gay Florida and move to Maine as soon as possible, DanielFtL. You can still touch base with that inner gay self by heading to Vermont for weekends… except there, “gay” means womyn in flannel shirts doing small engine repair out of the trailer.
The Hummer is gay labeled… we have the HRC sticker turned on its side to represent the 11 states the GayLeft leadership LOST to the animated anti-gay marriage advocates in 2004… you know, all those voters the GayLeftBorg has been pissing-off for the last three decades.
I’m glad our choices in transportation don’t stirke you as gay enough, DanielFtL. Mission accomplished.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - October 19, 2006
And to clarify, Daniel… I wasn’t suggesting you are a three snapping, pink cosmo swilling twink. Or you were shoving PETA’s agenda down our throats or an ecoTerrorist just because you can’t imagine a gay guy –or in this case, gay guys– having an H2.
O was speaking about the liberal, GayLeftBorg brothers. Kneejerk guys like monty, sean, jimmy and others.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — October 19, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - October 19, 2006
Ha! Twink, that’s funny. That I am not. With that auto set-up you’re going to have your gay card revoked down here, that’s for sure, but they’ll all want to sleep with you. LOL. By the by, I was born in Michigan and spent most of my life in Saint Louis, so I am really from the midwest, not Florida. It was certainly eye opening when I moved down here. The thing is, my hubby and I keep very much to ourselves…people find it odd, but I like it. No one loves Agatha Christie as much as I do anyway and he’s the only one who can tolerate my obsession with all things Agatha.
Sorry, I am ranting.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 19, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - October 19, 2006
#99 – Personally, I prefer Miss Marple over Hercule Poirot. But the one I really enjoy is “N or M?” featuring Tommy and Tuppence Beresford.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 19, 2006 @ 5:47 pm - October 19, 2006
#95 – “Well I don’t look down on anyone here. They’re still people even if I don’t agree with their beliefs, their politics or their arguments.”
OK, let’s take that as sincere.
But then – Why ally yourself (as in this thread) with certain of the most immature and toxic of the Left name-callers?
Why condone their behavior, by drawing moral equivalences between them and, say, Matt – who (while challenging you) has been pretty civil to you in this thread, when you get right down to it?
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - October 19, 2006
(p.s. I already mentioned where that condoning or that “drawing a moral equivalence” is to be found, in #68)
Comment by Calarato — October 19, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - October 19, 2006
I’d probably say that I like Hercule Poirot better, but I like both.
Comment by DanielFTL — October 20, 2006 @ 3:00 am - October 20, 2006
My favorite Poirot novel is “Sad Cypress.” Very well written.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — October 20, 2006 @ 4:40 pm - October 20, 2006