Blogcritics: Comments on The F-Word Should Be Allowed

Comment by Dave Nalle

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:13:08 EDT

Nice to see you're still ressurecting ancient threads so you can snipe at people, MCH. Why not do something useful with your time instead? Perhaps share some of your half-formed thoughts in a post, even. Dave

Comment by MCH

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 11:07:17 EDT

Yo, Bobby (RJ) Elliott...I'm curious...does your mother read Blog Critics?

Comment by assas

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:29:34 EST

hi sucker ! wat up

Comment by angela cruz

Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:25:21 EST

i love calculator and it sucks too sometimes

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 14:10:53 EDT

Gaydar is not always a myth. Some gay people are so gay you can tell from a million miles off My personal opinion of it is that if someone is so 'nelly', 'swishy' or whatever you want to call it, that you can immediately identify them as gay, that isn't gaydar. If someone has a rainbow tattoed on their shoulder, my gaydar doesn't go off, common sense though tells me that person is gay. I still think gaydar is a myth. If I meet a man who is completely straight-acting, but who has never been married, lives with a 'roommate' at 40 years old, has the stereotypical high-maintenance look, etc. well, let me just say gaydar, or the ability to zero in on somebody isn't some unique thing. It's just a more astute observation and having a more astute observation of human behavior is not exclusive to the gay community. Gay people continually read me as straight.

Comment by Sandra Smallson

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:37:21 EDT

Boomcrash: I'm a gay man, 39 years old, been monogamous for 18 years and have a 19 month old daughter." RJ: Huh? This does not parse... Sandra: LOL:) BTW, Gaydar is not always a myth. Some gay people are so gay you can tell from a million miles off...come on now, boom crash..be real! Forget about the fight for equality just now and call a spade a spade. Some people do have gaydar and some people are so gay no one needs gay dar to tell they like it without the "schwing".

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:20:32 EDT

You claim Gaydar is a "myth." So, WTF is your point? Huh? You brought up gaydar. My point was about: 1) diversity exposure in school can only help students not hurt them. 2) not having a problem with kids seeing/hearing 'fuck' outside of school but inside of school is ridiculous. 3) There's more to learning than math, history and english, although they are all important. 4) Sometimes you've got to stand up and fight harassment and continual discrimination, which is what Natalie did. 5) Your viewpoint that gay people should walk around being sexless, generic, bland beings in uniform so as not to 'disrupt' is ridiculous. If you mean what was my point in regards to saying that gay people who hit on you don't know if you are straight or not, well, the point is simply that. Gay people cannot tell who is straight or gay any more than a straight person can. I never claimed otherwise, you did.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:00:49 EDT

"No, RJ, of course not. But they must not be 100% sure you are straight. Does that bother you?" Not at all. Should it? You claim Gaydar is a "myth." So, WTF is your point?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:28:14 EDT

I do not equate a gay man or woman with a retard. Why do you think this? Because my comment on other "minorities" included the mentally handicapped? It could have just as easily included Native Americans and the blind. It could have, but it didn't. Do you understand the Constitutional Amendment process at all? Yes. I think it will die without a President who supports it. While the process is difficult with a President who does support it, there have been numerous amendments to state constitutions already, no less than 5, so it is a possibility/threat, I cannot disregard. "It's interesting that gay people hit on you more than once. Most gay people I know won't do that if they are 100% sure the person they are hitting on is straight." Uh huh. This is rather typical. I must be queer, right? No, RJ, of course not. But they must not be 100% sure you are straight. Does that bother you? Maybe "Gaydar" is over-rated? It's not over-rated. It's a myth.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:23:04 EDT

"You might not attack a gay person, but those with the mentality of gay=mentally retarded=handicapped can. Doesn't mean they all do, 'all the time'." I do not equate a gay man or woman with a retard. Why do you think this? Because my comment on other "minorities" included the mentally handicapped? It could have just as easily included Native Americans and the blind. "I'm so hearted to hear that you think we will be able to marry in a few years. That means that you believe Bush is a one-term president." Do you understand the Constitutional Amendment process at all? "It's interesting that gay people hit on you more than once. Most gay people I know won't do that if they are 100% sure the person they are hitting on is straight." Uh huh. This is rather typical. I must be queer, right? Maybe "Gaydar" is over-rated? No, of course gays are preternaturally able to discern straight from gay, far better than the heterosexual untermensch.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:22:44 EDT

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:11:22 EDT

What perspective should I view things from? That gay people should be happy with the 10 benefits of civil unions and not the 1,700 of marriage? That gay people should wear no clothing that indicates self-expression? I'm not sure what perspective you are wanting me to consider.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:06:19 EDT

Also, I do not like the implied assertion that "those with your mentality have put me on the emergency room table more than once." I would NEVER attack someone simply for being gay. RJ, you need to step outside of your one-tract mentality. I'd rather discuss/debate with you than argue/fight with you. Think outside the box, if it's possible. You might not attack a gay person, but those with the mentality of gay=mentally retarded=handicapped can. Doesn't mean they all do, 'all the time'. I'm so hearted to hear that you think we will be able to marry in a few years. That means that you believe Bush is a one-term president. It's interesting that gay people hit on you more than once. Most gay people I know won't do that if they are 100% sure the person they are hitting on is straight. I'm not sure of the definition of 'chip on my shoulder', perhaps I have one, perhaps I don't, but I do believe in standing up for what is right, and not being quiet when someone goes around preaching (even subconsciously) intolerance and close-mindedness.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:00:53 EDT

Your insulting tone is noted. I have no problem with you, or other gay people. What you do on your own time is up to you. Sodomy laws are idiotic. And Civil Unions are something I do not oppose. I don't want you to "go back in the closet." I just want you to stop being an asshole. And to maybe stop being so "closeminded" and view things from another perspective. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:51:40 EST

Also, I do not like the implied assertion that "those with your mentality have put me on the emergency room table more than once." I would NEVER attack someone simply for being gay. Never. In fact, I have had gay guys make unwanted advances in my direction more than a few times, and I have NEVER physically attacked them. In a weird sense, it is flattering. It means I must be attractive, on at least some level. These individuals were told where to go, but not punched, or kicked, or spit upon. And the idea that "people who think like me" do such things all the time is foul and insulting and dishonest. America is such a welcoming, open place that you and your ilk will likely enjoy the "right" to marry in a matter of a few years. I won't agree with this. But then again, I won't be clubbing homosexuals to death in the streets in response either. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder. Fine. That;s your right. But just because someone has a different worldview from your own does not make him/her a "gay bashing subhuman." You really aren't winning any ideological allies by making such assumptions, either.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:51:06 EST

What part do you not understand? I'm 39. I met my partner when I was 21. We went through a surrogacy process for 5 long difficult years, culminating in the birth of my daughter who is now 19 months old. Do you need a chart or graph? Perhaps you should have paid better attention in your school. Oh, wait a minute, all you learned is english and math, so you can't figure much else out. Welcome to the real world.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:42:27 EST

"I'm a gay man, 39 years old, been monogamous for 18 years and have a 19 month old daughter." Huh? This does not parse...

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:27:54 EST

...Then you watch some TV after dinner, see all kinds of diverse people, gays, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, etc. Then you go to bed. You don't have to agree with me. I just you to know where I'm coming from. I know where you are coming from, but I think you and I both know it's a place I can never go. It's too single-tract, close-minded and condescending for me. We are all entitled to our own opinion. I don't think I could agree with you on anything. I think if any educational system adopted your philosophy then our future generations are doomed. I'm sure you are a good person at heart, if not close-minded, and I hope I don't sound like I'm attacking or singling you out, I have just never read such a single-tract philosophy before (on all topics we have discussed), so I just feel compelled to continually counter-comment. You cannot learn about diversity by watching tv. Tv stereotypes people for easy identification. Jack from Will and Grace is a stereotype, although one with some witty lines every now and then. Queer Eye is a stereotype. I'm a gay man, 39 years old, been monogamous for 18 years and have a 19 month old daughter. I don't lurk in the shadows seeking anonymous strangers, I have never known the meaning of the word promiscuous, I have no fashion sense, I cannot decorate to save my life, I am not flamboyant, women chase me all the time (for some reason even more so when me and my daughter are out somewhere), I don't know how to do hair, I don't go to bars or do drugs but I can survive in the wilderness and build a car from just the parts. Thank you for your description of diverse people being gays, handicapped people and mentally retarded people. Your list of only those specific three didn't escape me. RJ, if you want gay people to disappear back into hiding (you've never said it, but it's obvious in your posts), you are entitled to that, I don't want to fight for YOUR acceptance, but thankfully in the real world that will never happen. It is reading posts like yours or meeting people like you that causes people like me to say 'go Natalie, sue that school system for all they got, because they'll never learn live-and-let-live any other way'. And if that drives semi-accepting people like Mac Diva away, so be it. There comes a time to stand for what is right. Yes, RJ, I know where you are coming from. I grew up in the bible belt and those with your mentality have put me on the emergency room table more than once. Continue to push for a math/english/history only school system, devoid of any self-identification all you want, continue to want gay people to remove all indications of who they are from their clothes, their mannerisms, their public displays of affections, or their lawsuits for equality all you want, all I can say is 'ain't gonna happen'.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 01:01:26 EST

Everyone I talk to seems to love it. But I have a difficult time relating to protagonists who are such murderous scum.

Comment by bhw

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:46:31 EST

When I first saw the promos for The Sopranos a few years ago, I thought, "Oh great, another mobster show." I thought it was going to suck, like the network shows did. But then about mid-way through the first season, I watched one episode and was hooked. It's a good show, one of the few that I watch.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:36:42 EST

When I started watching the Sopranos, my new favorite epithet became "motherless fuck." I don't watch the Sopranos. I don't have HBO, and I'm not really into the whole Mobster thing (I haven't seen any of the Godfather flicks from start to finish). BTW, my favorite epithet is "mindless Communist." Which probably says a lot about me... ;-]

Comment by bhw

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:23:22 EST

Almost forgot, fuck is a great word. When I started watching the Sopranos, my new favorite epithet became "motherless fuck."

Comment by bhw

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:19:07 EST

When a nation starts bleeping out a person using the word Jesus on their TV screens, then you know there is trouble brewing. Sandra, you can cool off. Some Christians were happy that Janet was bleeped, because she wasn't saying "Jesus is my savior" she was saying, "Jesus!" as in "Jesus Christ!" as in using it as a swear. Most of the devout Christians I know find it offensive, to say the least. Now, I happen to agree that it didn't need bleeping, but I don't think it was religious censorship, just overzealous censorship of anything Janet might say or do because everyone's still torqued up about the nekkid breast. So please leave the Jews [and their slang], the red-robed Kaballah people, Scientologists, Holocaust historians, and turban or scarf-wearing Muslims alone. Thanks.

Comment by RJ Elliott

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:17:03 EST

Why can't kids learn all about diversity and socialization after school? I mean, how about, you go to school, learn hard facts, and then after school you go to the park and play basketball with two black guys and a Puerto Rican dude. After the game, you talk with them about the hot Asian chick in 3rd period, and how bad you wanna fuck her. Then you go home and your parents tell you about the birds and the bees (which you already know about) instead of some creepy Health teacher. Then you watch some TV after dinner, see all kinds of diverse people, gays, the handicapped, the mentally retarded, etc. Then you go to bed. And the next day, at school, you go back to quiet book-learning and hard facts, eagerly awaiting the after-school diversity-and-socialization "class" that is life. You don't have to agree with me. I just you to know where I'm coming from.

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Sun, 4 Apr 2004 00:08:27 EST

Okay, that's clearer. Agreed. School is for learning. And one of the most valuable things a child can learn, to prepare them for the real world, is about all the diversity, all the differences, all the good, all the bad, all the different self-identities, all the different religions, and all the different ways we communicate - whether it is saying fuck or whether it is saying intercourse, and no I'm not suggesting teaching kids foul language. They learn that on their own. I'm suggesting that the most important thing you can learn in school is socialization. I learned math, but all the math I do for my job is done by my calculator. I learned history, but anything I forget, I can look up on the web or in a book. But this world is full of a wide array of people. Learning the differences, and accepting (not necessarily endorsing) those differences is what will enable your child to survive in the real world upon graduation. And I have read many comments on this website that all students should be similiarly dressed in uniform (prison garb, anyone?), and they should be exposed to nothing but math and history and geography, etc. in school. I would feel sorry for any child who went to a school like that. They would be eaten alive in the real world within one week.