Flatearther

Well, it's not as if they (Okies) switched their options and declined a free lixury stay in Florida, is it? Even Eskimos and Mexicans in the same position could reasonably claim a fair-sized rip-off. Whether you regard Okies (or Mexicans) as people, of course, is another matter. Could be the Californians of that day were just practising their old form of traditional folk entertainment: "Okiephobia?" And Timothy McVeigh wasn't even born yet! Cheers!

Well, if you're the other one, you're the lazy one. You avoided my question as well. The comment I made to Vortex , in this thread about 'homophobia' was in response to his saying "you can't do much as an individual" - to which my response was, 'yes you can', - Steinbeck being the example among others. You then avoided committing yourself to a common page to sing from, being "Have you read "The Grapes of Wrath"?. If you have, then we can discuss the differences in the California labor laws between the periods before and after Steinbeck's publication. I am not prepared to sift through days of minutiae and legal statistics just to have someone like you playing me like a fiddle. The fact that the labour system changed slowly and over a period of many years is also a serious factor in the equation. Steinbeck's contribution is acknowledged even by his critics and adversaries. Are you saying that Steinbeck had no effect whatever? The evolution of those regulations happens to be a matter of record. You are free to chase up the jots and tittles of that specific legislation. I am not prepared to do free research, not so I can avoid your question (which I find hard to believe is genuine) but because to do justice to my comment would take far more space than would be sensible or appropriate in a 'bits & pieces' forum. I do not form serious opinions based on simplistic and piecemeal scraps of material - neither should you. I am quite prepared to debate in a separate forum thread the merits or otherwise of the California labor laws. This just doesn't seem the appropriate or sensible place to do so. Cheers!

Vortex wrote: Not just hard - impossible. Even Hitler didn't try a takeover in a single day. Smart operators change the course of a large ship one degree at a time. Try it - one opinion, then another. It gets better each time. Cheers!

Just take your finger off the 'Communist" or "Socialist" trigger and put the hardware down. I'm actually on your side. The quality of your comment, hence the quality of the reply it deserves rests on the assumption that either: a: You have not read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes Of Wrath" and are ignorant of the labor laws (esp in California) and in particular the things that could be and were done to the itinerant workers and the dispossessed of Oklahoma. In which case you might find it beneficial to dig out and compare the lot of people after publication of Steinbeck's work. b: You have read Steinbeck's novel, are familiar with the differences in the labor laws before and after publication and couldn't give a fig except as a cheap excuse for a cheap jibe and even cheaper argument. Failing that, you could actually check out the story behind my headline comment.I'd just love it if you concluded that Steinbecks whistleblow changed nothing. Crow tastes just fine with humble pie. I do look forward to your deep analysis and the investigative potency of your sincere inquiry. Cheers!

Couldn't disagree more. John Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" was a milestone in changing laws against human exploitation. The photographer who captured the public execution of the Vietcong prisoner in a Saigon marketplace set officials scurrying to shorten the war worldwide. Whistleblowers get things done in spite of the dangers to themselves and their families. If you're not brave enough to spell out what you want, you'll have others spelling out what you're allowed to have. Troublemakers - unite!. Cheers!

Just remember - things have a tendency to be the way they are. Cheers!

Vortex, mate - we're both singing from the same songbook. I'm not exactly prone to be accused of any 'subtlety'. Rest assured, if I was going to insult someone, they'd be just as aware of it as they would be if they'd been run over by a tractor. I like your style. Cheers!

snafu wrote: Sorry, mate, you get a debate over that one. The word "Racist" is an abstract noun. Objectively it means nothing.Politically, it's a slur word, an insult and it's a backhander and a substitute for physical violence.It is intended to terminate the risk of any discussion or explanation. It is absolute and fundamentalist in intent and substance. To justify that word you would need to establish what a 'racist' does, says, thinks and most importantly belongs to. A "Communist" makes sense, as does a Buddhist, because they state their position and their intentions and they are clearly labeled and identified. . I have never heard of an academic faculty called 'Racism". It does not exist. The term 'Critic" however, makes immediate sense. Whether the criticism is done through malice or a demonstrably legitemate complaint process is the important thing. Criticism invites explanation and and negotiation. "Racism" - never. Apply the same formula to the other words (Anti-Semitism Homophobia) and compare the resasoning. The slur weapons are used for exactly that purpose. To inflict damage. Cheers!

Refreshing to swap words with a reasonable approach. Thank you. Check my reply to "Phuck! It's the Phantom". That amplifies my complaint and argument. So far we seem to get along. . Amsterdam or Sydney is irrelevant, really, because the material is actually universal (worldwide) and there's plenty to draw from. Hear, hear! It's the stuf that doesn't get published that's really interesting. Usually (in politics) reporters sit on dynamite for most of their careers and can't tell a soul until after they're dead. Secrets leak out however, and that's when the fun starts. . Actually I'd say, because you seem to be a pretty decent sod, you'd have your conscience giving you a harder time than those who may not be quite as scrupulous, you'd have worked out a way of dealing with the less pleasant stuff. Pat on head for that, mate.When you see awful things done and you have choices, who's to say your dice didn't roll right? It's extremely relevant, because it's the central battle in the "Nature vs Nurture" war. Billions of dollars are at stake and so are careers, reputations and much more. Trust me on this one. Public legislation affecting millions hang off such matters. Delightful stuff - very funny. Good on you. Like I said, the big war is over "Nature Vs Nurture". The ones who said "My sexual preferences are my own to make" are basically in the "Nurture" camp. This was the official reality whicxh was used to mask any other opinion because psychotherapy and all manner of other industries were involved. By the way, the AIDS industry is also a huge scam woth zillions and people are being literally murdered in its name for the sake of the profit margin - but that's another tale - Google up a researcher called Peter Duisberg for the big jaw-dropper.Today's theme is "I am born that way and I want my uniqueness respected" - basically the "Nature" camp. I happen to be in the nature camp and accept nature's capricious and arbitrary and cruel and unpredictable variations, but that's just me. No harm done, mate, I'm big enough & ugly enough to land on my feet in most things anyway.But I like the honest approach and response. Keep the ball rolling. Cheers!

Phuck! It's the Phantom! Nice work, mate.I am constantly on the "mangled word" bandwagon. If they were just misused by ignorant dickheads, it wouldn't be such a problem. The trouble is that a lot of malicious, cunning and politically motivated agendas are filled with this stuff. The big war is always against that creature that no one seems able to tolerate - the CRITIC. You can flatter anyone and they'll not be able to get enough. But utter a word of criticism and the roof falls in. Critics of Jews are always called Anti-Semites. Critics of Negroes or Aborigines are always called Racists. Critics of Muslims are called Racists as well, even though they're not a race. Critics of women are called Sexists. Critics of homosexuals are now addressed as Homophobes. The list goes on and on ad nauseam. The only ones you don't need a licence to criticise and are offered every free kick in the book are white heterosexual males. Therein endeth the lesson, Pilgrims. Cheers!

hugo wrote: Maybe if the Muslim fags were allowed to do each other they'd be less inclined to strap on bombs and terrorise us decent white folk? Unhappy gays are a worry anywhere. Cheers!

Bite yourself on the arse, CYBERSLUT! Vortex is OK. More civilised than your goode selfe. He actually has a decency and coherence (unlike your goode selfe) that makes for a refreshing change in these here parts, Pilgrim.Cheers!

Vortex wrote: I don't really have a desperate need for a sneering homily on the use of language. I'm quite acquainted with the academic etymology AND meaning of the word and I also am aware of the way that such terms can be used, but more importantly ABUSED for a variety of effects, tone of voice not being the least. However, my main point is that to call a 'woman hater' a mysoginist and then switch to calling a gay hater a 'homophobe' is both dishonest, inconsistent and misleading. It is telling porkies for the sake of an emotional advantage. I am complaining about the deliberate misuse of a word in a context that does not deserve such loose application and the deliberate avoidance of the original complaint. A slur simply terminates any further discussion. . If a gay is criticised then that criticism should be handled on its merits. A cheap slander from either side is just not good enough, let alone acceptable. If I were to come to a simple conclusion based on one or two bits of material, it would be not only irresponsible, but dog ignorant. I, like yourself, have travelled around the block a few times and we have gathered much material for our experiences. Many colours make up our perceptive rainbow. I trust my observations and the way I process those observations. I can assure you I would not have included such a piece into the puzzle without having thought it through. I have met gays and non gays who have been scrupulously honest with and about themselves and I have seen the reverse as well. I bother to read the material that the gay capital of the world (Sydney) produces and I have a good feel for what the 'vibe' is transmitting. I do not need to lie to make my point, which is but a short paraphrasing from a vast store of digested material.. We're obviously singing from the same hymn book here. But quality trumps quantity and every exception tests (not proves) the rule. Actually it's an ongoing thing. We used to be told that the only 'queers' around were those limp wristed window dressers in the department stores. This left all the footy players, the cops, the firemen, the bikers etc to be free to have their wars and stoushes. I saw more bloodshed between the macho-drag set 'interbitch' sessions than in any war movie. You soon knew who was doing what and to whom. Let's not get too precious about interfag rivalry - you know what I'm saying. And I also respond in the spirit of friendship. If my observation was based on malice, you'd be entitled to draw such a drastic curtain call. However, you, of all people would know that in the gay world, not all its inhabitants are cut from the cloth of angels. Recruitment is an industry in itself and it is as varied as the people who run it. You know that gays are just as capable of doing some horrific things in pursuit of their pleasures as are the ostensibly 'straight' ones who may have something dark to hide. We could both tell stories to straighten the hair on a billiard ball. Once you've bothered to read the 1966 article in Scientific American called "Sex Differences In The Brain" all the ducks line up. We're talking hormone distribution that gets set for the life of the animal, human or otherwise. All biological systems go sideways to some degree sooner or later. On the personal and social level, we come across gays who have "identity crises", along with conflicts ranging across a spectrum of symptoms, including self loathing, angst of humungous proportions and lots more. The old adage "My mother made me a homosexual" was ok for a while, but you can soon spot when someone is using excuses for questionable behaviour. Many more than you think. But when your appearance is the essential base of your existence, then the spectre of it being dissolved is far more acute. For example, ballet dancers have an intensely short public shelflife and you soon get to read between the lines once they put aside the bravado front. Shortlived careers produce intense angst in most all walks of life. Gays are no exception and privately their angst is more deeply felt, given the opportunity to alow it free rein. I never even implied that there was a shortage of dickheads, especially among Christians. But that doesn't mean you can't accept and handle the ignorance on its merit - or lack of it, as we do with dickheads and ignorami anywhere else. Nothing wrong with a bit of sensible perspective, no? So what? I don't see anything to disagree with. We're actually discussing the psychology and pathology of theme, meaning and aspiration. Conceptual stuff doesn't rely on specific pictures or words about anything. Like a good joke, it needs no 'explanation' - you either 'get it' or you don't. Not all things are set in kiddie style plasticine.I assume I can mention the odd abstract thing and be comprehended from time to time, or does everything need to be a PPT presentation? They're not looking for anything. It was found back in 1966 "Sex Differences In The Brain". They have also found far bigger things than 'white elephants' but weeding out the criminals and other anti social layers is easier said than done. Eventually we'll probably have a safe place to live, but we still have a lot of jungle to clear. Then you are a heretic to mainstream gays. They now accept that 'We're born that way & accept and embrace our uniqueness". You had as much choice in that matter as a left hander has a choice in his 'handedness'. It's a natural trait that has nothing to do with social values, religious alliance, will-power or won't-power or any other power. It's just like some eggs have two yolks. Hormones happen. I'm not sure why you had to slot in such a cheap shot. If you can't tell from the rest of my material that I don't need to be a thief of any description, then you've basically devalued yourself in the eyes of others. I hope in time you can forgive yourself and just get on with it. That's as sincere as any atheist can get. Cheers!

Mockingbird whined: Obviously different crap to the crap you're on about. Straighten yourself out and do what most people here do without prompting - speak plain English. Indeed, I MUST. Apparently 'thinking' and worse, saying so, seems to you to be on the same level as treason and criminality. You've certainly got a way with words, bonehead - both of them. Therein lies your problem, Einstein - you DON"T think. If you did, you'd understand that to criticise someone, for whatever reason, does not automatically make them mentally ill. "Phobia" is exclusively used as a trerm of mental illness. I haven't seen anyone show the connection betwen mental illness and criticism. If you're saying that homosexuals are beyond criticism, you're just lying. Everyone is entitled to criticism. People like you also use that sleazy slur 'racism' when in fact you're vilifying critics and you know it has nothing to do with race. You'll find it shocking that you can shout a huge "Boo!" (racist, homophobe) and you're seen for the liar you essentially are. Grow up. Take a holiday - under a tour bus. Cheers!

builder wrote: Well, clearly it was meant for Clarity, but I'll clarify to make it clear that clearly you are not unclear about Clarity just for the sake of clarity, for clearly it's obvious that Clarity is unclear about being clear and does not need either to clarify or even to re-clarify. Clear? Clears!