Afraid of being seen as gay, are you?

[Liar]

<radiating innocence> Okay. If I suck your dick while you're arguing, will Joe's head explode?

Hmm, no that will probably be my head. Mutitasking like that isn't good for my brains.


Charley, I cook crossiants too. Whenever I can actually clear a walkable path in the kitchen.

 

[CharleyH]

Hmm, no that will probably be my head. Mutitasking like that isn't good for my brains.


Charley, I cook crossiants too. Whenever I can actually clear a walkable path in the kitchen.

MMMM - I love cooking. We will have to exchange recipes. I'm too into French cooking and foods. Nonetheless, I'll trade my own invention of a triple chocolate pate' for something Sveedish I'm such a 'queen'.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I don't eat meat. I love animals too much.

 

[Liar]

MMMM - I love cooking. We will have to exchange recipes. I'm too into French cooking and foods. Nonetheless, I'll trade my own invention of a triple chocolate pate' for something Sveedish I'm such a 'queen'.

Would be hard to get a functional recipe out of me. The most accurate measure I use when cooking is "some". As in "add some salt".

#L

 

[CharleyH]

Would be hard to get a functional recipe out of me. The most accurate measure I use when cooking is "some". As in "add some salt".

#L

Purrrrfect. We have the same recipes. we will understand eachother!

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Been out of town... sorry so long to post. So, from the top:

Originally posted by gauchecritic
Yeah Joe right ok. You win. I'm a stupid working class goit and you are the king of creation. Ok you go for the ad hominem shit because you know what you're talking about. I'm no logician (as I implied in a personal PM to you, which unfortunately you didn't infer, but decided for your own reason to publish)

I'll content myself with not going the tu quoque route and instead keep with the sarcasm (sound familiar?) and sometime wit. (obviously doesn't sound familiar)

By the way, the bad acting got through to someone, I'll let you try to guess who.

Come back when you're less crippled by youth and logic and we'll have a battle of wit instead. If it please you.

Gauche

I figured if you were going to be a fuck about things by outright lying about what I'd said... then I might as well consider what we're talking about, between you and me, to have absolutely nothing to do with truth, reason, or accuracy--you just wanted to be a bitch about something... so why hold either of us to any rational standard? Point is, you jump in with ham-handed accusations of fallacy and then have the gall to claim I said things I didn't (on a message board where posts are entirely visible, which is the fucked up part). It has nothing to do with "working class", it has nothing to do with "wit"... you decided to make a snide comment about me putting myself on equal with my instructor, and you lied. Period. Cover the shit up however you want, it doesn't really change that. Call me "young", call me what you like. None of that has /anything/ to do with my point in the matter.

Maybe you just fucked up. Had a bad day. Went a little nuts and decided "whoa, in this conversation, maybe it'd be a good idea to be a fuck and accuse the kid of claiming he was the equal of the entire psychological community... sure, why not? Not like he respects the academic or scholarly community enough to take that shit seriously". Maybe you thought you were being "witty". Doesn't matter. I didn't say it, I didn't mean it, and yeah... its a bit of an offense to have started shit with me starting from that point (I was keepin' it civil, 'till you decided to be a fuck).

Nevertheless, if I've stepped to far up... touched a nerve... I'm sorry. But you hit a live wire with your bullshit. I'm afraid when it comes to strictly misquoting me to make personal attacks about what "I think I am", that's a bit of a sore spot with my type.

Originally posted by Liar
Anyway, I fear I'm not eloquent enough in your language to explain those terms. Nor have I the time or energy to head into this dead end. But logic and reason are not different words just for the fuck of it.

You're using Swedish translated terms. There is, I suppose, a language barrier involved here. If you haven't the patience to explain, that's entirely your perrogative, but I'm curious as to what you were talking about.

 

[Liar]

You're using Swedish translated terms. There is, I suppose, a language barrier involved here. If you haven't the patience to explain, that's entirely your perrogative, but I'm curious as to what you were talking about.

I might be free for consulting in January. Mark thy calendar.

But there's clearly a language barrier when even a dictionary is useless to descpiher your forum posts.

'Perrogative'?

#L

Edit: On a second try, I found 'prerogative'. Ok, got it.

 

[Guest]

'Perrogative'?

#L

Edit: On a second try, I found 'prerogative'. Ok, got it.

It's Swedish.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Liar
I might be free for consulting in January. Mark thy calendar.

But there's clearly a language barrier when even a dictionary is useless to descpiher your forum posts.

'Perrogative'?

#L

Edit: On a second try, I found 'prerogative'. Ok, got it.

If you actually need a dictionary to figure out that I mis-spelled "perogative" by accident... we'll have to take this entirely conversation very, very slowly later.

 

[Liar]

If you actually need a dictionary to figure out that I mis-spelled "perogative" by accident... we'll have to take this entirely conversation very, very slowly later.

I needed a dictionary for the right spelled word too. Which means but one thing: Your English vocabulary is more elaborate than mine. Quelle surprise.

If you can not use a layman's copia and make yourself understood, then you're right. We'd have serious issues communicating.

#L

 

[minsue]

Is it wrong that I've the urge to settle in with some popcorn?

 

[Guest]

Is it wrong that I've the urge to settle in with some popcorn?

I've got the butter, Mingey. P.

 

[Liar]

Is it wrong that I've the urge to settle in with some popcorn?

 

[Belegon]

This best identifies the reasons I stand against it being considered the same thing as other phobias (and psychological disorders, in general)...

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/674/CFI/cfreport/

Even though I got bored and bowed out a while back, I wondered if anyone else bothered to click and research Joe's choice of commentary.

Go ahead. Take advantage of what he so thoughtfully provided us. Then click through the site, or do a google search on some of it's main authors.

If these sources indicate the true political and ethical beliefs of Mr. Wordsworth, I have to wonder why he is here in the first place. Certainly, it places perspective on his objectives in this thread.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
Even though I got bored and bowed out a while back, I wondered if anyone else bothered to click and research Joe's choice of commentary.

Go ahead. Take advantage of what he so thoughtfully provided us. Then click through the site, or do a google search on some of it's main authors.

If these sources indicate the true political and ethical beliefs of Mr. Wordsworth, I have to wonder why he is here in the first place. Certainly, it places perspective on his objectives in this thread.

If you're talking about Bunmi Olatunji, Dr. Timothy Dailey, or Dr. Jeffrey M. Lohr (the people interviewed concerning the subject of the article, and quoted), then I consider it a high mark of distinction to be categorized with them (concerning the subject of the article, as they were quoted).

If you're talking about the author of the article, as it was merely a vehicle for the topic of U of A's research... I'm not sure how correspondance is to be drawn between my political or ethical beliefs and theirs. No moreso than someone talking about a news report that Maria Shriver did automatically meaning that they want to tag Austrians.

The political or ethical affiliations of the writers of the article are not the subject of the article. The research and the researchers are. I suggest that if people are going to look at the article, they look at its substance... not the other things on the website... and judge it on its having (or its lacking) merit or accuracy.

That's a lot more sensible than the dog-and-pony-show of "looky, looky... the news article is on a website about [something that doesn't have bearing on the article]". Oh, and I'm bored, too.

 

[Belegon]

No, the agenda of the website on which the article is posted is VERY relevant in this day and age...and, I actually was referring to the author of the piece and the some of the other writers that the site chooses to use.

Joe, if you want to respond , that's great. I personally find the political views of a great majority of the writers and their articles on that site to be very scary. I found articles decrying not only the practice of gay marriage but even opposing civil union rights. There are views expressed on the place of women in society that I find to be a minimum of fifty years out of date.

The author of the article you posted was incensed enough by the title of "The Vagina Monologues" that she helped lead a campagn to have it's ads pulled from a radio station and she took great personal pride in her success doing so.

 

[Belegon]

The link Joe posted leads to the website for Concerned Women For America.

On the page explaining their "Core Issues" you will find these statements....

Pornography
CWA endeavors to fight all pornography and obscenity.

Definition of the Family
CWA believes the traditional family consists of one man and one woman joined in marriage, along with any children they may have. We seek to protect traditional values that support the Biblical design of the family.

For a discussion centered on an issue of homosexuality on a website dedicated to erotica that is something I consider very relevant when discussing a source quoted to support a point of view.

On the page discussing the concerns of the organization...

10. The increasing availability of pornography and the lack of judicial enforcement of existing laws.

11. The growing impact of "alternative" lifestyles and the redefinition of "family" and "marriage" on our society.

Under "Goals"

10. The strict enforcement of laws restricting the use and sale of pornography, and raising public awareness about the harm of pornography to men, women and children, including digitally-enhanced and virtual pornography.
11. Public policy to address the physical and moral dangers of "alternative" lifestyles and same-sex "marriages" on our society.

Can you honestly say that you feel these statements are not important when evaluating the article as regards to the possible bias or non-bias of when and how statements are used?

Please. Here is a token, there should be a clue bus along anytime now. Make sure you are on it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
No, the agenda of the website on which the article is posted is VERY relevant in this day and age...and, I actually was referring to the author of the piece and the some of the other writers that the site chooses to use.

Mine hasn't been the point that it isn't relavent to "this day and age', but that it isn't relavent to the issue of the research having been done at UofA (why it was referenced), the subject of the article (relating to the previous argument), or my political or ethical views.

Joe, if you want to respond , that's great. I personally find the political views of a great majority of the writers and their articles on that site to be very scary. I found articles decrying not only the practice of gay marriage but even opposing civil union rights. There are views expressed on the place of women in society that I find to be a minimum of fifty years out of date.

The author of the article you posted was incensed enough by the title of "The Vagina Monologues" that she helped lead a campagn to have it's ads pulled from a radio station and she took great personal pride in her success doing so.

Which is fine. It has nothing to do with my point or the quality of the reference. If you'd like to say "the subject of the article is biased", I'm inclined to disagree. The researchers don't appear to have anything to say on the matter of political or ethical concerns. If you want to say "the sponsors of the article are biased", that's fine... as I haven't anything intelligent to say about them.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
Can you honestly say that you feel these statements are not important when evaluating the article as regards to the possible bias or non-bias of when and how statements are used?

Please. Here is a token, there should be a clue bus along anytime now. Make sure you are on it.

I entirely encourage people to check out, through searching, the work of the people mentioned in the article. The grad-student, the concerned doctor, and the advocating doctor, are well-published and accomplished professionals in the field of behavioral analysis... if you want to get hung up on where the article was hosted, that's fine, if you want to make an intelligent decision about the thesis presented in it, look to the sources.

The former is a very narrow-minded approach, the latter is truly a "make an informed decision" one.

If it will make Bel feel better, here's more websites (with a diverse cross-section of political viewpoints and neutralities) posting on the same news out of UofA (giving creedance to the notion that it may be that whats in the news matters, not necessarily whose telling it):

http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/703NoFearFactorInHomophobiaStudyClaims.htm
http://listbot.csustan.edu/pipermail/cause-members/2002-July.txt
http://www.patriotvocals.info/HomosexualRED ALERTS.htm
http://advancement.uark.edu/pubs/Research_Frontiers/fall_2002/03_Research_Briefs4.html
http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/20020509222641data_trunc_sys.shtml

 

[Belegon]

I entirely encourage people to check out, through searching, the work of the people mentioned in the article. The grad-student, the concerned doctor, and the advocating doctor, are well-published and accomplished professionals in the field of behavioral analysis... if you want to get hung up on where the article was hosted, that's fine, if you want to make an intelligent decision about the thesis presented in it, look to the sources.

The former is a very narrow-minded approach, the latter is truly a "make an informed decision" one.

So, if you don't want your audience to be influenced by the location of the article, why did you not find a place to reference the original research that was not so obviously flawed?

If the original research is as non-biased as you say, great. I'm a believer in the scientific method, which, surprisingly, not everyone is.

The article you referenced WAS biased. Since you provided a link to the article, not to the original research, that was what I evaluated.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Belegon
So, if you don't want your audience to be influenced by the location of the article, why did you not find a place to reference the original research that was not so obviously flawed?

If the original research is as non-biased as you say, great. I'm am a believer in the scientific method, which, surprisingly, not everyone is.

The article you referenced WAS biased. Since you provided a link to the article, not to the original research, that was what I evaluated.

Well, looking at the article and then the other one by the guy in Kentucky, and the research done by O... they're giving the same information.

If you want to get bent out of shape by the article's location, that's cool--that's your bag, do what feels good. But, its not really biased, is it? What about the article, itself, is not the giving of the facts of the research and those in the know about it?

I posted a link to an article that said what I felt was a good summarization of my views concerning the subject that was at hand--namely, that homophobia may not be a phobia, clinically speaking, at all. As the article didn't contain any editorialization that I felt interfered with the giving of facts concerning the research, I felt no quams about posting the link.

I still don't.

Look past the messenger, man, look at the message. That's good advice. Books and covers and judging and all that.

You say "The article you referenced WAS biased."... I'm looking at it and I have to ask "How?" If you mean "the site is biased", that's one thing, but the article is just giving the facts.

Or would you like to do some more backpeddling...?

I totally wasn't going to throw that last bit in, but the whole "clue bus" thing was kinda bitchy, man.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, looking at the article and then the other one by the guy in Kentucky, and the research done by O... they're giving the same information.

If you want to get bent out of shape by the article's location, that's cool--that's your bag, do what feels good. But, its not really biased, is it? What about the article, itself, is not the giving of the facts of the research and those in the know about it?

I posted a link to an article that said what I felt was a good summarization of my views concerning the subject that was at hand--namely, that homophobia may not be a phobia, clinically speaking, at all. As the article didn't contain any editorialization that I felt interfered with the giving of facts concerning the research, I felt no quams about posting the link.

I still don't.

Look past the messenger, man, look at the message. That's good advice. Books and covers and judging and all that.

come on, don't tell me that you don't know about the importance of sources and the difference between a good source and a not so good one?

Rather than look past the messenger, you should try remembering the phrase, "consider the source"

thanks for posting more links.

 

[Belegon]

After finding this line:

The UA researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general.

...I think that the original research definitely needs to be evaluated outside of other people's opinions.

Joe, how does that original research relate to this statement?

Not necessarily, no. For instance, they could just really hate gay people.

It is an unfortunate (and irrational) misconception that people who don't feel comfortable around homosexual things and people (even to extremes) aren't confident about their own sexuality.

...especially the "concerns about contamination" part.

 

[Belegon]

Originally posted by Joe Wordsworth
I totally wasn't going to throw that last bit in, but the whole "clue bus" thing was kinda bitchy, man.

Admitted, it was kinda me being bitchy. I apologize for the tone of it.

But I do feel that you are being a little naive. Things are very often quoted out of context in order to make it look as though one has the "backing" of legitimate sources. I believe that was the intention of that author. And no, I can not prove it.

edited to add: I was not backpeddling. My original statement was about the author of the piece and the website it appeared on. Clarifying that it was that which I evaluated is not in any way a retraction of anything.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

...I think that the original research definitely needs to be evaluated outside of other people's opinions.

Joe, how does that original research relate to this statement?[/b]

They're talking about the concern of homophobic people that they have been "contaminated". The research found close associations between homophobia and concern about contamination... make sense? They also found associations between homophobia and conservative views about sexuality.

That's not the article being biased, thats the homophobic people being biased in the study--thus producing associations with other things about either homosexuals (a fear of "becoming gay") or sex ("conservative practices").

Again, the article isn't biased... its giving the facts of the study. Namely, that these associations came up. If you'd care to read the actual study (I have a link for it and read it tonite), you'll find I'm accurate on this.