On Jun 7, 8:33*pm, D Peter Maus wrote:
dxAce wrote:

D Peter Maus wrote:

David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
* Perhaps we should send a packet of your postings to your corporate
headquarters for their evaluation.
When you don't have a valid argument, you always resort to threats. You have
done this several times before.
* *And when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to evasion,
change of subject, semantics, and/or pedantry. You do this alot.

* *There. Feel better, now?

The fact is that I do not condone illegal immigration, but do believe in a
program to convert long term illegal residents into legal ones.
* *So, the ones who have been illegal the longest, should be rewarded
with citizenship?

* *Got it.

I also
believe that new regulations and enforcement should be put in place for the
future.
* *And what would you like to see embraced by those regulations and
enforcements.....

In other jobs, the restrictions from union work rules has made
competitiveness, innovation and technical advancement suffer. I have seen
the same in many US industries, which have fled out of necessity to other
nations.
* *And there we have change-of-suject. *What's the matter, uncomfortable
admitting that Steve may actually have paid into the programs he claims?

* *Or do you just get bored easily, and decide to take the discussion to
a different subject where your ready rants are drop-in fits.

As to Mr. Lare, his comments to others and to me convinces me that he is a
subsistence level misanthrope who tries to divert attention from himself by
insulting others. And that's without analyzing his overt homophobia, which
surely masks an even darker side to his personality.
* *I've been in this group as long as Steve Lare. Perhaps longer. What
I've not seen is him diverting attention by resorting to insults. He
resorts to insults in response to insults.

* *Historically, you and the others on Steve's ****list had been more
than graciously insulting before he fired his first response.

* *You can't claim the high ground in the insult game. You've been more
than insulting, not only to Steve, but to all of us, since your first
appearance. You can't cry foul when your argument is 'He hit me back first."

* *As for Steve's homophobia....well, I'm reasonably certain that he's
not afraid of anything. Let along homosexuals. Not believing in their
lifestyle is not a phobia. Not liking them as individuals is not a phobia.

Actually, I know quite a few homosexuals. They respect me. I respect them. The
ones I have a problem with, and frankly, they themselves have a problem with the
'shove it in your face' folks.

I interact on at least a weekly basis with them, and surprisingly enough, they
themselves utter the words 'damn faggots' with those who tend to step out of line.

Heard it last week.

* *I worked with a guy at CBS, who was quite 'in your face,' about it.
It got pretty old. At the same time, both the continuity director and
the PD at one station in the group were both gay. Neither of them tried
to hide it. But they didn't put up billboards on Michigan Avenue, either.

* *Well, one day this kid was going on and on and on....and got right up
in my face about it....and did this at an appearance. And I said
something really tasteless. That he found mortifyingly embarrassing.

* *Of course there was a 'meeting' about it on Monday morning, and this
kid was on about homophobia-this and gay-bashing-that...and he ended his
diatribe with 'now how the hell do you expect me to work in such a
personally hostile environment as that.

* *The PD was there, of course, and he asked a few questions. I never
had a problem working with either he, or the continuity director, and in
fact, I was the one responsible for the continuity director being hired.
I recommended he be hired from the station I'd previously worked at in
Louisiana...where I'd worked with him for a couple of years. So, this
case wasn't really going to go anywhere.

* *I was asked to make my own statement....and I looked right at this
kid and asked him if he knew who I was sleeping with. He said, 'no.'

* *I asked if he knew who the afternoon guy was sleeping with. Again, 'no.'

* *The overnighter? 'no.' The weekenders?

* *Hmmmm...

* *He saw where this was going.

* *I said, "If I'm not sleeping with you, I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. It's nobody's business. If you're gay, who cares?
Nobody here. *The only one who seems to be making this an issue is YOU."

* *That didn't sit real well.

* *"Nobody's saying you need to keep this under wraps. Neither the PD,
or the continuity director do. No closets here. *But if you don't want
it to BE and issue, don't MAKE IT an issue. I don't need to know who
you're sleeping with. That doesn't rise to the level of a phobia."

* *Pretty much ended the meeting.

* *Gay-Lib has been real effective at getting 'homophobia' dropped into
the vernacular. Trouble is that a phobia is an extreme and irrational
reaction. *There's very little about the Gay struggle that's based in
phobia.

* *Not needing to know who someone is sleeping with is neither extreme,
nor is it irrational.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

DPM,

Sort of like a persons Religion : It's a 'personal' thing and
OK by Me -provided- They Don Not Preach To Me About
It 24/7 and Try To Convert Me from My Own Religion.

god help us all - all humans big and small - amen ~ RHF