Xsarus wrote:
Actually I only responded after bard explained what he meant wrt to discrimination and belk explained what she understood you to mean. Then you responded indignantly, and I clarified. Your victim complex is really acting up today.
You stated the same thing twice, which indicates either your second post was useless and/or the posts discussed in between them were useless. In either case, you only identified my post as useless.
I'm just stating the facts...
Xsarus wrote:
Sure, doesn't mean it's hypocritical.
So, wait. If an organization creates a rule banning activity "x", but allows people to openly admit to doing activity "x" with no repercussions, while chastising others for activity "x", that's not hypocritical? o.o?
Xsarus wrote:
Oh ok, I can do that. Seems easier for you just to not use them, but editing your posts won't take a lot of time. Thanks for the permission.
I
didn't give you permission, I was referring to the site itself. You know that. We already had this conversation when you said "good point" or something similar, so we both know that I
didn't give you any permission..
Nadenu wrote:
All I'm getting from this thread is that Alma is keeping it going so he has an excuse to talk about sodomy. Since, ya know, he'd get kicked out of the military for talking about it there.
Actually, there is no need to talk about it at all now.
The repeal was overturned...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gays_military wrote:
The partisan vote was a defeat for Senate Democrats and gay rights advocates, who saw the bill as their last chance before November's elections to overturn the law known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Quadkit wrote:
Ah. She probably didn't answer it because it's a terrible question. You're comparing homosexuality to @#%^philia. Try asking a well thought out, reasonable question, and you'll get your answer.
I didn't Eske that question, I asked her if someone's size was considered a personal trait.
So, are you going to answer the question that you keep blowing off or not?