Well it's time again...Flamewars

[42nd_Street_Freak]

Brother Ragnarok wrote:

>  I can't imagine howsomeone with such hardcore right-wing Bible Nazi views could possibly enjoy even the tamest of the movies we talk about
> here.  It would be like Jerry Falwell trying to enjoy Cannibal
> Ferox. <

That is exactly my thought.!!
And this shall be my last post on a Board that has such people as members.  
It's a disgrace, and I do not want to spend anytime in their rather disgusting company.

[Eirik]

"And this shall be my last post on a Board that has such people as members.
It's a disgrace, and I do not want to spend anytime in their rather disgusting company."

He keeps saying that.

[Velvet Brotha]

You're still here?! I thought I told you to go f**k ya mutha! ; )

[ulthar]

trek_geezer wrote:

> 119 posts and counting.  My question is, why?
>

Well, now it's getting posts just to get the reply count up..silly stuff like it started out to be.

[Andrew]

Egad, okay - I closed that thread and am catching up on what is going on. Jenna had a high fever and could not go to daycare, so I am taking care of her today.  All sorts of fun at the unit, tomorrow starts a short training exercise to prepare for what we are doing in Korea in March.  

Really, one or two disgruntled people who cannot discuss anything without turning to insults is not helping.  Well, I will just have to find the time to watch the board more often, even if it means less sleep.  Sorry for my delays lately, when I am on I am trying to get rid of all this backed up email.

[AndyC]

Agreed Eirik. Not sure why I gave in to temptation on that one either. The first time I saw the title of the thread, I knew it would end badly. Still, coming in today and seeing 122 posts (more than double what it was when I went home yesterday) was kind of a shock. A pity really. It could have been an interesting discussion if it were not such an emotionally charged issue.

By the way, I hope everyone who has made generalizations about "right-wing bible nazis" understands that there are many progressive Christians, and moderate conservatives for that matter, who might object to the term. I understand if it refers only to those with extreme views, but it's easy to tar everyone with the same brush. Tolerance does go both ways.

On a bright note, I've noticed a crop of new, movie-related posts have sprung up to divert us from this unpleasantness.

[Neon Noodle]

Yeah, I skipped that post too. I could care less about anyone else's sexual preferences.

[jmc]

I think the topic title started it...if they'd just called it "Homosexual Elements in George Lucas' films?" or something like that it might have remained movie-related without it become a forum for people's opinions on homosexuality.  Then again, probably not.

[The Burgomaster]

It's amazing how many comments were posted to the Lucas/gay thread.  I even posted to it (with one of my typical silly remarks . . . I refused to get into the ensuing moral discussion, which would have been a "no win" situation anyway).

One thing I can say about the word "gay" is that I can often get a good idea of someone's age based on the way they use the word.  When I see a post that says something like "Logan's Run is gay," then I am pretty sure that the writer is under 18 years of age.  At that age, when you don't like something, you say that it's "gay."

This could give birth to a whole new thread . . . slang that reveals your age!!!!

[Cullen]

The Burgomaster wrote:

> One thing I can say about the word "gay" is that I can often
> get a good idea of someone's age based on the way they use the
> word.  When I see a post that says something like "Logan's Run
> is gay," then I am pretty sure that the writer is under 18
> years of age.  At that age, when you don't like something, you
> say that it's "gay."

Valid enough, but not always accurate.  I don't know if he's used it here, but Grumpy Guy has been known to use "gay" in that way, as well as "retarded."

I probably was a big offender myself, back in the day, but I eventually grew out of it.

God, does that sound snotty or what?

[The Burgomaster]

Maybe we should try to be a bit more clinical, and say:

"That movie is homosexual" or "that movie is mentally challenged."

[Cullen]

The Burgomaster wrote:

> Maybe we should try to be a bit more clinical, and say:
>
> "That movie is homosexual" or "that movie is mentally
> challenged."
>

That cracked me up.

PC insults.  Gotta love 'em.

[Grumpy Guy]

Cullen's comments toward me are mentally challanged.



Post Edited (02-08-04 17:46)

[Cullen]

Grumpy Guy wrote:

> Collen's comments toward me are mentally challanged.
 
Thank you.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.

You want to talk mentally challanged?  How many years have you known me?  Try your whole life.  And in that time have I EVER even ONCE spelt my name with an "O"?

Hmm?

Anything?

Didn't think so.

But what makes this oh so better is that it is spelt right here on the page.  So you have no excuse.

So, without further ado

COME SON OF JOR-EL, KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean, ha ha.
 Col...I mean Cullen.  Cullen, damn it!

Now he's got me doing it...

[Cullen]

Grumpy Guy went back and used the Edit feature, changing "Collen" into "Cullen"!  Thus rendering my post a bit silly!

That's cheatin'!

And here I called him the son of Jor-El and all.  For shame!

(Who knew he'd figure out how to use THAT feature?)
Cullen - Who would have done the same, had their positions been reversed.