[kj] OT: Are we still talking about Evanescence here?

[Leigh Newton]

There's no way peter west is really Rangecroft. 

Leigh

--- "culture.virus" <culturevirus@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> At 09:44 PM 12/19/03, you wrote:
> >Just a couple of points.....
> >1. I think we should probably leave off getting
> excited about Peter West
> >now, as the whole thing was obviously quite a
> leg-pull.. and some of us at
> >least have twigged who was probably behind it. As
> usual, some are too dull
> >to get the joke....
> 
> If you are implying that I am too dense I assure you
> that it would not 
> surprise me to see Rangecroft pull such a joke. he's
> proven himself to be 
> more than capable of such a ply. But I have not seen
> any indication that it 
> was in fact him. Perhaps I missed the post, if so
> please point it out to me.
> 
> But the point remains that the responses to the
> situation do show how 
> people feel about prejudice against folks on purely
> religous or racial 
> grounds is deemed seriously undesirable by members
> of this least. These 
> incidents have occurred often in the past and I've
> commented on them before.
> 
> >2. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED (thought I would try
> capitals, as this phrase is
> >obviously otherwise invisible to some eyes) the
> whole notion of 'tolerance'
> >has to do with living and letting others live, and
> not that much to do with
> >the peculiar notions of the few thought-police
> hanging around here who seem
> >inordinately concerned that we think the 'right'
> things.
> 
> On the whole I'm not interested in thought policing.
> As a matter of fact I 
> stayed out that entire thread even though I had
> thoughts of my own on the 
> topic. Nor am I suggesting that Alex shouldn't post
> how he feels about a 
> topic, even if it may be disruptive to people on the
> list. But I do feel 
> that I have a right to express my opinion of what I
> see just as others have 
> in regard to the Peter West fiasco.
> 
> >I happen to carry
> >around a whole bag of rather unwholesome
> prejudices, and I frankly doubt if
> >there are many of us who have thoroughly exorcised
> these ....I despise all
> >forms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and
> rarely have much time for
> >their adherents.
> 
> How very sad for you.
> 
> >I also hate the falseness of the term 'Xtian' - why
> fly in
> >the face of history and obscure an intelligible
> term with a silly neologism
> >that adds nothing? Or is the 'x' a kiss for a man
> betrayed by one?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by falseness here Ross.
> The neologism as you put 
> it isn't that horribly new. IIRC X is the first
> letter of "christ" in 
> greek. The term is often used in it's shortened form
> on discussion lists 
> where spiritual matters are discussed. It also is
> why Christmas is 
> sometimes shortened to Xmas. It just makes it
> quicker to type.
> 
> 
> >I find most queers extremely dull and irritating
> company, and would like to
> >see all the modest head-scarved women of Islam and
> their cloistered
> >Christian counterparts stripped naked, horsewhipped
> and gang-raped by herds
> >of goats in public. I won't even get started on the
> Jews....( I find most
> >Buddhists amiable fools, and have little beef with
> Hindus)
> 
> Ugh, seek help :^)
> 
> >BUT....THE POINT IS......FREEDOM &TOLERANCE ( on my
> terms, of course) are
> >the ONLY social principles worth having, and they
> encompass all others.
> 
> They are without a doubt the cornerstone of western
> civilization as we know 
> it and too a great degree civilization as a whole.
> Maybe I'm just too 
> hippy/universal nice guy for my own good, but I
> don't see what you're 
> saying above or Alex's comment as being particularly
> "tolerant" in fact 
> quite the opposite. Notice that you've wished the
> greatest ill (even in 
> jest) on the monotheists above while allowing that
> "queers, Buddhists and 
> Hindi's" are merely annoying. BTW do have an extreme
> dislike of neopagans, 
> Qabbalists, Crowleyites and other practitioners of
> high magicks as well?
> 
> >I
> >would be the first to take up arms and leap into
> the trenches in defence of
> >the rights of any of the above-mentioned 
> pains-in-the-fecking-arse to
> >continue to add to my existential discomfort. This
> doesn't actually  require
> >that I like any of them. (Jacques Chirac should be
> shot).
> >So, now, take it easy : we're not the same.
> 
> How gracious of you to let them live. But you
> wouldn't want them living 
> next door right? BTW I'm not particularly would up
> at the moment.
> >Ye have been warned!
> 
> Uh, thanks
> 
> >Ross.
> 
> I am culturevirus 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering@misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering


=====
http://www.daiquiri.tvheaven.com
http://www.tweek.tvheaven.com

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/