Poor taste, yes. Offensive ? May the definition of the word is stretched to the extreme, but it's definitely not th the strength of reaction.

Strength of my reaction? I called his comments homophobic, which they are. I pointed out that being homophobic is a sign of supressed homosexuality, which it is. I was kind enough not to call him out on his racism. I was damn mild conidering.

I can think of no other term to describe the current "New Speak" where words ending in "-obe" and "-ist" are used purely as means to silence debate and discussion. I really hate bringing the "right wing/left wing" BS into a discussion like this because some attitudes cross political borders. IMO the term was coined to describe the use of certain words to silence debate. i.e "If you disagree with me, you are an *obe/*ist". Once this card is played, the debate is dead as the person being accused is diverted into proving they are not. This is often to the detriment of the group under discussion as a true resolution to their problems becomes impossible

Yet sometimes those obes are exactly what they are called out to be. I've seen enough of sattlers posts to know exactly where he's coming from.

A typical example of this are the policies of the Australian Government regarding our Indigenous People. To be quite frank they are an abomination that do nothing to improve the indigenous position and are Maternalistic in the extreme. Yet any time a discussion on them is opened it is shut down by someone playing the "Racist" card. We even had the ridiculous situation where a very activist Indigenous politician was accused of "Racism" for criticising the attitude of some other indigenous people.

I assume you are calling the debates an abomination, and not the indigenous people. I don't know enough of Australias race policy to comment on this.

If the situation doesn't effect you and is none of your business, why do you get so fired up about it ?

I don't have an opinion on thier lifestyle, and neither should anyone else. I think McLeod covered this point pretty well.

And your reaction is also very interesting. If you were male and I had used the the term "a man of your intellect" not an eyebrow would have been raised !

It would have seemed odd. The phrase is generally "A person of your intellect."

Point 1) You are a woman
Point 2) From the quality of your posts to these boards you are obviously an intelligent person. (A subjective judgement certainly, but complementary to you in a non gender specific way)
Point 3) Read that line again. The phrase "capable of much better" refers to the quality of your reply to Mark's post (which was a cheap shot and meant to inflame, not critique his statements). It in no way refers to your intelligence.

You are so right, "Language is very important, it gives away so much". ;)

T.A.

Mark is not worth my time. He should however NOT be colluded with. He got the exactly the quality of reply he deserved.

---

Reality Internet Personality

At what age did you make your sexual choice to be straight ID?
Are you actually going to tell us it was a coin toss for you?

C'mon man, that argument is long dead.
You keep calling yourself a constitutionalist but you won't allow gay citizens the opportunity to exercise the pursuit of happiness for themselves.

You and Mark worship an evil beast for a god. What kind of supreme being, with full knowledge of all future events, creates people with contrary sexual preferences?

Screw him. I'll do time on his damned meat rack in hell before I'd kiss his arse to open the pearly gates for hate filled lifeforms like yourselves while sending decent people to eternal agony for loving the same sex.

I'll also do time on that meat rack to avoid spending eternity with the likes of you two.

---

I do not fight fascists because I think I can win.
I fight them because they are fascists.
Chris Hedges

A riot is the language of the unheard. -Martin Luther King, Jr.