From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Education Regarding Alternative Family Units (Re: The Analogy Betwixt Gays & Blacks (Re: Children in Same-gender Families))
Date: 30 Dec 92 19:47:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

In article <1hr064INN5j0@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass) writes:
>> And I replied with a question to you if you feel that children should
>> be taught the heterosexual 'sexuality' of rape of women/children?
>
>Which (I hope) was a bad joke.  
>
>> I wasn't tieing them together, just thinking with the same logic as you
>> are....Please answer this....we are all waiting...
>
>Bill, as I already said, I wasn't tying the 2 together.  So what is it 
>you are waiting for me to answer? (hate to keep "you all" waiting...) 


Why then did you bring up the teaching of beastiality in a classroom
when we were discussing teaching homosexuality......along with 
heterosexuality?  You brought beastiality into the conversation....why?
It looks like a tie into me......

>
>> Nope, most of the people you wanted to hook were smart enough to see
>> a bigot when they read your posting....
>
>Ah, now I see.  Like Owen and his 'baiting'...Bill, I wasn't out to 
>'hook' anyone, although you seem remarkably game to be baited.  I'm 
>sorry that you saw what was meant as a legit, non-flamebait question 
>as a 'hook'.  Maybe you just were looking for an excuse for a flame, 
>who knows.  But don't transfer your eagerness to be baited into my 
>desire to 'hook' you...
> 
>> Hey I was just tieing things together with your type of logic.....
>> Can't stand the heat can you?
>
>Please...
>
>> >And if a substantial chunk of the tax dollars gets vouchered off to 
>> >private and parochial schools, they'll have less money to do their jobs. 
>> >And money is part of the problem. 
>> 
>> Rush would not agree with you on this one.  
>
>*gasp*!!!!!!!!!
>
>> I did not bring it up at all.  You brought it in to confuse the issue.
>> It is hard for you to focus or to reply when someone uses your same
>> logic jumps......
>
>Wow, you're really have an appetite for flames...you jumped into this 
>discussion, and that was part of the discussion well before you did. 
>If you missed some of it, it aint my fault, jack...


I am sorry, but you ediited out what I was replying to again....
We were talking about my coming to the aid of a person whose values
were different than mine....and you brought up seperation of Church and
state and for the second time, above I am replying that I didn't bring
that up...and that it was a different topic matter all together....

>
>> Walter you are so funny.... I think that is why I am still posting.
>
>Yeah, you just enjoy a good flame sooooooo much.....

Naw I havne't flamed yet....I for you my dear I won't flame.  It is fun
to have you twist things in public.....


>
>> You still after three postings have not once refered to my original
>> posting when I supported the 'values' of a man who didn't agree with
>> my lifestyle.  That is what I was talking about.....You still haven't said
>> you agree....YOu just bring in bestiality, teaching, church, and paying
>> parents to be better parents.......
>
>Oh!  You want me to explicitly say when I *agree* with you!  Oh, OK. 
>Sure, I have no problem with you supporting the 'values' of someone who 
>doesn't agree with your lifestyle.  Is that all you wanted to hear? 

Nope, I didn't ask you ever to agree with me.  I, just right above for the
third time, asked for you to post to my original posting.  Not for you to
agree....Where do you read that I want you to agree with me????  I just
was trying to help you focus.....on this issue since you were replying to
my response.....


>
>Walter


Bil