Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Adrian


  • Please log in to reply
932 replies to this topic

#621 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:26 AM

can you please move these sexual discussions to another thread? (I know Dr. Ide that they are not relevant based on your comments, this request went more towards C.A.) :D

And Doctor, what have I done to warrant such a "Seal of Approval"? You realize that Indrid will suffer a major stroke once seeing your assertion that I am not evil and a waste of time. (One might even hazard a guess that he might consider - even you - a waste of time as he does everything else here in PravdaLand due to such a statement) ;) But I digress......... :D

By the way, are you in fact the prolific author, Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide? If so, I will have an idea as to your stand on issues (it is good to know where people stand regarding ideology). Your books dealing with Religion are interesting to say the least.

By the way, your comment about Ozzy is dead on. In the other corner, may I present Daytime TV (Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Rikki Lake, Maury Povich, etc......) whose constant lowering to the lowest common denominator is painful to watch, at the very least.

(A final note, I am 100% male)
  • 0

#622 YUGO

YUGO

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:10 AM

" It is irrelevant if someone looks or walks or talks gay."

Yes but Captain America is GAY, he wants to marry Sternilkov.
And if GOD wanted men to sex with other men he would have given one of them a Vagina...will Captain America or Strenilkov admit to having a Vagina..?


" Ozzy and family prove nothing but that people have a dull life--and those who watch it have one that is even more dull."


Ozzy is to Captain America as somelike Socrates is to me.

"Why not read a good book? listen to music? clean up the yard? do charity work?"

Because that would minimize the time Captain America could invest in his or Strenlikov's crotch...LOL.

" I am beginning to like the super moderator Viking American more and more--and I don't care if this super moderator is male or female--for Viking is welcome to visit with me any time."

I have nothing against VA, but just check his sexual preferences first, you know what young people are like these days.
  • 0

#623 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:16 AM

Good sir, vikingamerican, I will heartily welcome any movement away from all this querrying and discussion of sex and proclivities/actions. It is a waste of time. And thank you for letting me know that you are "100% male" although that does make a difference to me in any regard. You are bright, insightful, resourceful, and a joy. And I am male, so I mean this sincerely.

As for Indrid, I hope he/she reads my last post on the absurdity of his claim about Israel having a historical right to the lands of Palestine. We must approach fact--not fantasy. I have spent years studying the Old Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls--and there is no justification for Israel's occupation of the Lands of Canaan--which the mythical Abraham and his followers stole.


Yes, I am "the prolific author, Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide?" I don't know how "prolific" as I have only had 451 books published to date--and I have had a good number rejected, so not everything I write gets into print. My specialty is religion--especially Old Testement and Israeli theology. Fortunately I do speak and read all biblical languages and most of all ancient from that of the Hitittes to sanskrit--which tells us about Abraham etc.

Ozzy is identical to "Daytime TV (Jerry Springer, Jenny Jones, Rikki Lake, Maury Povich, etc......) whose constant lowering to the lowest common denominator is painful to watch, at the very least." I can't imagine wasting my time on them often--I do so only when I need it to write--as I did in my Unholy Rollers: Televangelism & the Selling of Jesus, and my other "Zionism Breastfed on Daytime TV."
  • 0

#624 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:23 AM

My very dear YUGO, I confess that I do find you more appealing as a conversant every day. You make me laugh. As for sexual preference or action--I don't mind--as long as I get to make the decision as to whether or not I would be interested--but I am old fashioned and believe in monogamy and fidelity.

However, I must disagree with you on one thing: You write, "And if GOD wanted men to sex with other men he would have given one of them a Vagina." Not true. For several reasons. Sex is natural. The male seahorse carries the young. Lesbianism is common among sea gulls, and many other animals are homosexual. The act is significant only in orgasm and it doesn't matter how it is done. A vagina is a part of female anatomy--and has a purpose in vaginal birth--but birth can come by caesarean as well. Also, not all fetuses are initiated or nutured in a womb. There is ipeptic pregnancy that could lead to a fetus growing on something other than the wall of the womb--such as in the flovian tube, etc.

You humored me with your delightful comment, "I have nothing against VA, but just check his sexual preferences first, you know what young people are like these days." I really don't know how old this good soul is--but even if he were gay--I doubt strongly that he would want to date an 57 year old man who is overweight. But thank you for the flattery. Just remember--I still get to decide, and it will be to decline with thanksgiving for the compliment.
  • 0

#625 YUGO

YUGO

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 10:42 AM

" Not true. For several reasons. Sex is natural."

Physiological compatibility and "efficiency" suggests that penis begets vagina, and the outcome is a child producing and rearing role.

Captain America and his lover will have to rely on artifical means of family creation or just adopt a readymade sociopath from your local adoption agency.


"The male seahorse carries the young. Lesbianism is common among sea gulls, and many other animals are homosexual."

I don't see the relevance of animal to human behaviour analogies beyond biomechanical and biochemical comparisons, as humans we differ in our ability to think and choose thus suggesting that instinctive displays equates as justification for reflective creatures doesn't wash with me.



." Just remember--I still get to decide, and it will be to decline with thanksgiving for the compliment."

Yes, you can choose, as Captain American has chosen a Gay lifestyle which rejects the reality of his biological apparatus.

VA is probably OK, but CA is not OK, in no way is that man normal, sane or a quality singer.
  • 0

#626 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 11:25 AM

Numerous problems with your response, dear friend YUGO:

1. You write, "Physiological compatibility and "efficiency" suggests that penis begets vagina, and the outcome is a child producing and rearing role."

Sorry--but the purpose of sex is not procreation. That is an outcome that only occasionally occurs. The purpose of sex is self-expression, ideally in a loving and romantic way. During my first marriage I tried nightly to have my spouse conceive. But at the end of a 5-year marriage I had neither son nor daughter born of the fruit of my loins.

2. You write, "Captain America and his lover will have to rely on artifical means of family creation or just adopt a readymade sociopath from your local adoption agency."

While there is no proof that Captain America is gay, or that his lover is a guy, more than gay people adopt. Homosexuality is nature's most perfect, and less painful and destructive form of birth control. And, dear friend, not all children adopted are sociopaths.

3. You write, "I don't see the relevance of animal to human behaviour analogies beyond biomechanical and biochemical comparisons, as humans we differ in our ability to think and choose thus suggesting that instinctive displays equates as justification for reflective creatures doesn't wash with me."

Mortals argue that only other mortals think cogent thought. There is no scientific proof of this. Animals do feel, sense, and have loyalties--as common with the dog. And while mortals are hot blooded, so are whales that carry their young before pushing them out in a shower of blood, etc. Your argument is weak.

4. You write, "Yes, you can choose, as Captain American has chosen a Gay lifestyle which rejects the reality of his biological apparatus."

Sorry--homosexuality is not chosen. It is a gene. You are born with it, or not.

5. You argue, "VA is probably OK, but CA is not OK, in no way is that man normal, sane or a quality singer." I know neither, and sanity is a legal term--not medical. And since the genes determine, I will let them [the genes] overpower me--but then one had better look like Brad Pitt--joking my friend--as there is just no way. But I have no adversion to others who express themselves that way. It is normal, natural, logical.
  • 0

#627 YUGO

YUGO

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 12:42 PM

"Sorry--but the purpose of sex is not procreation
That is an outcome that only occasionally occurs. The purpose of sex is self-expression, "

I'm not sure what the ratio has got to do with it.
That vaginal intercourse is intensly pleasurable is cleary how evolution entices us to have sex and lots of it, for it's goal of continuance of the species using a cycle of life and death as it's most efficient means of transfering it's blueprint to it's endpoint.


"While there is no proof that Captain America is gay, or that his lover is a guy,"

He was offered a concrete dildo by Strenilkov, I consider that proof.


" Homosexuality is nature's most perfect, and less painful and destructive form of birth control."

That's one way of looking at it.
I don't mind if people choose to engage in homo/bisexual activity, I only mind when these people have the audacity to suggest that bisexuality is the "normal" mode of human sexual behaviour, and by implication rendering the heterosexual YUGO as abnormal.




" And, dear friend, not all children adopted are sociopaths."


I was generalising....but most sociopaths are adopted.


"Mortals argue that only other mortals think cogent thought. There is no scientific proof of this. Your argument is weak."


Firstly, only mortals can argue this, and secondly, you have to decide what distinctions categorize humans from animals otherwise you render us as animals.
Whilst we are still physiologically animals, we are no longer psychologically animals, to grant animals the rights of humans or the distinctions of humans makes a mockery of the definition of human....the definition stands by it's distinctions, not it's similarity.
Our differences are of a consiousness and psychological kind, we have the ability to use self-reflection and reason enabling choices beyond those hardwired in the CNS of the lower animals.

"Sorry--homosexuality is not chosen. It is a gene. You are born with it, or not."

Then presumably heterosexuality is genetically determined, if so, all arguments by bisexual people or their supporters that bisexuality is the natural expression of human sexuality is bogus.
Btw, I have Dean Hammers book, he's the discoverer of the gay gene....of course it's been discredited lately...so there is NO scientific proof that their is a gay gene.



"sanity is a legal term--not medical"

I was using sanity in the topical sense.



" And since the genes determine, I will let them [the genes] overpower me--"

You are anthropomorphically empowering genes, genes are the blueprint of the force of evolution, they determine structure and some instincts, but being humans, we have the powers of reason, self-reflection and choice.


"It is normal, natural, logical."

It occurs...referencing animal behaviour has no legitimacy in my view, normal is ridiculously subjective and I've yet to hear a persuasive logical argument for it, only chauvinistic ones.
  • 0

#628 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 02:37 PM

Doktor Ide wrote:
"As for Indrid, I hope he/she reads my last post on the absurdity of his claim about Israel having a historical right to the lands of Palestine. We must approach fact--not fantasy. I have spent years studying the Old Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls--and there is no justification for Israel's occupation of the Lands of Canaan--which the mythical Abraham and his followers stole."


Your statement is simply wrong. I have made
no such remark, and support no such claim
about Israel...

You have me confused with another poster here.
I have no particular feelings about the Jews in
particular, but dislike racism as a concept.

As to your discussion with vikingamerican, I only
read your side of it, since his behaviour on this
forum has warranted him being placed on "Ignore"
by myself. I am quite sure I've missed nothing
of importance in not seeing his commentary.

Poka
  • 0

#629 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Indrid Cole
Doktor Ide wrote:
"As for Indrid, I hope he/she reads my last post on the absurdity of his claim about Israel having a historical right to the lands of Palestine. We must approach fact--not fantasy. I have spent years studying the Old Testament and Dead Sea Scrolls--and there is no justification for Israel's occupation of the Lands of Canaan--which the mythical Abraham and his followers stole."


Your statement is simply wrong. I have made
no such remark, and support no such claim
about Israel...

You have me confused with another poster here.
I have no particular feelings about the Jews in
particular, but dislike racism as a concept.

As to your discussion with vikingamerican, I only
read your side of it, since his behaviour on this
forum has warranted him being placed on "Ignore"
by myself. I am quite sure I've missed nothing
of importance in not seeing his commentary.

Poka



I apologize for any error made by myself. My reference to "his claim" refers to the previous writer--not you. I must master these quotes better. Again, my apologies.
  • 0

#630 Indrid Cole

Indrid Cole

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 03:07 PM

Doktor Ide:

Yes, I understand now. I don't allow myself to be
drawn in to anything I deem as a pointless or
timewasting debate, so you will rarely if ever
find me making any statements here about the
Jews or Israel--endless discussions hold no
fascination for me. I do not approve of the Ariel
Sharon government. Other then that, I am neutral
on the topic.

As to the quotes: stop trying to use that "quote"
button when you make a reply. That feature is
broken. You must copy/paste the text itself
if you wish it to be seen. Otherwise, all we see
is your attempt at using the button, not the
actual words themselves.

HTH
  • 0

#631 Dr. Arthur Ide

Dr. Arthur Ide

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 184 posts

Posted 29 April 2003 - 04:05 PM

Indrid Cole, thanks for the good advice "As to the quotes: stop trying to use that "quote"
button when you make a reply. That feature is
broken. You must copy/paste the text itself
if you wish it to be seen. Otherwise, all we see
is your attempt at using the button, not the
actual words themselves."

I will follow it.
  • 0

#632 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:07 PM

What is amazing about Joe is that he has the time to expound upon such minutia (have you seen his site?....... he must be retired or disabled). He tries to play himself up as an intellectual on his and others websites (while discounting others opinions or positions with a plethera of opinions regarding where the others are wrong). He also tries to pass himself off as above the fray regarding personal attacks and then points others foibles out because they choose to either engage him (of which he may or may not like how he is being engaged) or because they ignore him (as I have chosen to do) of which he claims that the person is weak for not engaging him. And last but not least, he shoots both Barrels by identifying what he considers as public domain pictures of a member and mocking him.... all the while saying he is free to do so and that has legal standing to do so (while not identifying what laws he is using that "protect" him). The fact that he spends much time in trying to identify any Internet user who disagrees with him in any way and then when he finds "cause" to publish any info gleaned from "public" sources is very disconcerting, as he feels he has the right to say anything he wants, even at the expense of one's privacy. He wants us to play by his rules. What he doesn't realize is that he is not an Administrator or Moderator at this forum. And his comments are always with the goal of discrediting those who are. He has already proven that no matter what we say to him, he will disagree with what we state. So when we are in a one sided conversation with a banned member, what incentive do we have to converse with the individual who disdains our very existence and disagrees with everything we say as he thinks we are unqualified to be doing what we are tasked with doing.

He is dangerous as he is not a prankster (he does this out in the open), and is operating from a self serving "righteous" position. For example (in my opinion), he is like a person who would kill an abortion physician because he feels that his position is morally justified. Joe will hurt someone by his actions, intended or otherwise. It's just a matter of time.

Best to steer clear of him. As he has no one's interest at heart save his own.
  • 0

#633 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 29 April 2003 - 09:13 PM

Indrid find his time wasted by many individuals.

He got to see one side of a conversation. Such is the life of an individual who wears blinders going into any conversation.

However, I see that you have engaged him to the point that he thinks his time isn't wasted by discussing issues with you. As you are the first (in my opinion) to accomplish this, I offer my congratulations. Be careful though, as discourse with an individual who believes himself above most discourse..... could be a two edged sword regarding the results.
  • 0

#634 Jet Li

Jet Li

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 09:45 AM

:) :) :)
Posted Image
  • 0

#635 Guest_CaptainAmerica_*

Guest_CaptainAmerica_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2003 - 03:55 PM

Strelnikov writes:
*************************************
"EDIT: In an ATTEMPT to put this stupidity to rest, I'm staying the hell away from Joe and his weirdness. As fun as flaming on message boards can be, I had no idea this guy was as crazy as he is. Now it is just weird and creepy and I want no part of it.
That goes for you too YUGO. Enough is enough. The denizens of Pravda are sick of it and so am I. I'd like to get back to yelling at Chornyvolk for a change."
***************************************

NOW your catching on Strelly. As you know I have had this guy on my ignore list for so long that I am not really aware of what kind of dilusional bullshit he is up to these days. But judging by your responses, he must be getting pretty desperate.

I got a kick out of the "gay" thing too. Joe...er...Yugo is the one who is obviously smitten with either you or me or both of us. I just assumed that since Yugo and Joe were male names they were obviously gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I merely requested that they bark up another tree. I am not interested in their advances in this forum, on that other one or in my personal message box.

Also, Strelly, don't be talking about my girlfriend dude, my wife and kids might be reading this. ;)

Old Irish toast: Here's to our wives and lovers....may they never meet!

Just kidding y'all...I'm too damn old to fool around. Besides, my wife would kick my butt!!
  • 0

#636 Jet Li

Jet Li

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 04:37 PM

So, what do we have on this forum, people who are pro-Russia and people who are against it, right? As always....
  • 0

#637 Guest_Viking396_*

Guest_Viking396_*
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2003 - 05:01 PM

bullypulpiteer,

Keep this a secret, he was a moderator over there as well... :D

Lighten up, he didn't thrash anybody who didn't thrash first. I guess if you're a liberal, only you are allowed to thrash, but don't allow others the same right. If this is so, let us know and we will know where you stand.
  • 0

#638 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 30 April 2003 - 08:35 PM

Dr. Ide...

You say:

==75% of all American students cannot locate Germany or Russia or France on a world map. 81% of all Americans don't read even one book a year, 93% of all Americans first turn to the cartoon page, then the sports section of American newspapers, and only 27% read the headlines, 13% read the articles. 79% believe that the price of a box of cereal is based on the content of the box--not realizing that 53% of the cost of that box of cereal goes for packaging and advertising.

83.5% believe that Lincoln freed the slaves (he only freed those in states and territories that were in revolt against the Union); 77.34% believe that Eisenhower endorsed the military (he actually warned the people to be wary of the "military-industrial" complex), 91% that Richard Nixon committed no crime, 93% believe that non-marital sex in the White House is an impeachable offense (impeachment is only valid for "treason and high crimes and misdemeanors" both which relate to international affairs), etc.

I'd like you to back up these stats with your sources...if you don't mind.
  • 0

#639 Guest__*

Guest__*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2003 - 01:06 AM

How do I go about replying to any comments on this site? I would like to discuss issues with those interested in starting or who have started their own small businesses in Russia. I may be able to help.
  • 0

#640 Jet Li

Jet Li

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 01 May 2003 - 07:48 AM

That's a great idea. I think the problem is always the money. Confident banking system is essential. The problem is that even in developed economies the small businesses are always the firts to go whan *** hits the fan. Now imagine the sort of capitalism we have in Russia: a total domination of the big guys.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru