Dave Heil wrote:
an Old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

cut

That is not gay bashing.cut
it certainly is
cut I object to homosexuality on religious grounds.cut
so what?
cut I object to the concept of gay marriage.
so what?
I find homosexual
practice to be disgusting and repugnant.


clearly gay bashing

I'm sorry, Mark. They aren't gay bashing, no matter how much you choose
to believe that they are. I'm not going to engage you and have you play
a game of "so?" or "yes, it is" with me.

certianly are gay bashing

engaging me?

It is irelavant to me what your beliefs are, so of course my repsonse
is along the lines of so what

You lack the right in this country to try and make me accept your faith
above my own


that you are too bigoted to admit and to dishonest to admit it not
withstanding

No law in this country can
force me to like or accept your perverse form of sexuality but I make
no attempt to prevent it or to harm you in any way.
another lie
That just isn't correct, Mark.

it sure is
you seek and support harm the Gay and bisexaul citizins of the nations
by dening them te same legal standing for theire relationship as you
enjoy in yours

cuting more bs in which Dave repeats his gay bashing rants

you also seek to use the fact I am Bisexual as an excuse to attack me
in forum where my sexual orientation is not relavant, this harms me and
proves you a liar

Mark, you have a number of issues. If you thought your bisexuality
would harm you, you surely wouldn't have posted the things you did in
other newsgroups.

another lie Dave you are and have been using my sexual orientation as a
excuse to attack me

Right now, you're attempting to engage me in an
argument over your bisexuality.

another lie

I am asking what my being Bisexual has to do with the ARS? you still
will not answer that


cuting more assorted bashing

disgust. I'm sure that you didn't find the material I suggested that
you seek because you are incapable of using Google's search engine.


no it is becuase of one of 2 thing (i can't tell which at this point)

One possiblity is that I lack enough details about your claims to have
a narrow enough search to have a chance to find it

That was addressed by my earlier comment.


no it wasn't you have refused to provide enough detail to make a real
search

Then so be it.

which means you lied in saying you provided it

cut
none of these folks to my knwoledge hhas any such claim

but based on your accounts we have formed opinions

You can form opinions until you're blue in the face. You're forming
them based on second-hand and sometimes third-hand knowledge.

so? I am forming them on the best info I have.

cut

I am under no obligation to provide you answers just because you have
questions.


I never claimed you did but if you want me to accept your claims then
you must met my terms

If you'll recall, I wasn't making the claims. Brian Burke made claims
about me. Wow, you're thick.

you made a number of claims

One that you did nothing wrong

Two that you do not support doing anything wrong

Three you claimed that Brain was lying

you refuse to support these claims


Based on the info you have provide I can see no other conclusion but
that you are willing to knowingly aid and bet others in the breaking of
thier local laws
cut
You might be able to change that opinion but you have to answer my
questions to do so

That you will not answer a few simple questions makes me believe the
answers will support my existing conclusion.

that you refuse to take such a simple to establish my trust means I
will consider taking any "challenge" of yours.

Let's cut to the chase, Mark. I don't really care about answering
questions for you,cut

Cut what your conclusions are cut

a clear and obvious lie.

You clearly carea great deal or else you let it go

You also clearly care a great deal what Brain Burke says about them


cutor whether you consider
taking the FD challenge which you've already said you wouldn't take.

meaning you never took your Challenge seriously in the fist place,
likely because you never intended to abide by it