Complaint Department discussion
POST COMPLAINTS HERE
message 4151:
by
Averin
(new)
Jun 12, 2013 09:16PM
"Coming-out relates back to debutantes in the 1920s! And one that I don't remember ever hearing of before, "Bash Back" from the 90s
reply
|
flag
Averin wrote: "I hate when someone plays fast and loose with history and I can't prove if it's an anachronism or not. Seriously, does anyone know, when the phrase "out and proud" originated? It seems to be from C..."I horribly regret to complain I don't know the answer to your question. Nevertheless it is reasonable to posit that the concept of coming out and that of gay pride would need to be in use before the two could be put together as 'out and proud.' ('Posit' ain't that a grand word it makes me feel so smart -- grin.)
An article on coming out in the online gay encyclopedia glbtq.com states that 'coming out' was a early 20 century invention but the only documentation they provide with a specific date is that "sexologist Dr. Evelyn Hooker’s observations introduced the use of "coming out" to the academic community in the 1950s."
Source: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/...
The first gay pride parade was held in New York City in 1970 (one year after the stonewall riots) also according to gay encyclopedia lgbtq.com
Source: http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/...
Thus it is reasonable to expect out and proud could possibly have come into use as a phrase as early as 1970. Without any further documentation I couldn't prove it was an anachronism after that that.
My brilliant friend Averin whose name I still love said, "Coming-out relates back to debutantes in the 1920s! And one that I don't remember ever hearing of before…"
It relates to female debutantes' coming out parties only as an analogy. In the 1920's in the US the meaning of 'coming out' was more like 'coming in' in the sense the first time a man appeared in a bar or other place among fellow homosexual men. He was being welcomed into gay society the way a debutante is welcomed into elite society with a coming out ball. Though there were no actual balls where gay men elegantly danced their way into gaydom, just showing up and joining in at a place known to be frequented by gay men was the "coming out." which most likely was not in high society like a young woman's debutante party.
Of course coming out and public showing of gay pride to the straight community were not associated together in the 1920s.
Not an answer unfortunately but must best attempt at the moment for dating the use of 'coming out' in an anachronistic way.
This is from the UT Houston's former student Vance Muse, writing about student life there in the early 1970's--just to put the "Out and Proud" into a historical perspective of when it possibly could have come from, and I'm thinking less and less from the 70's:"Many struggled with their sexuality, to the point of needing crisis intervention. This, after all, was during an era when homosexual acts between consenting adults were criminalized and the American Psychiatric Association still classified homosexuality as a mental disorder (along with illnesses such as schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa)."
I regret not to remember which book I have read it in, but "coming out" in the American and the British context as in the sense we know now, as Boyd has pointed out, belongs to 1970s although, if my memory serves me well, there were gay ghettos/villages as back as 1940s in the United States. I could have quoted my notes, but I left all those notes and most of my books that I bought in the UK in the UK because I thought I was going to be back there. How could I have known the uni would have made a mess of my application and refused to offer me a place for a reason they could have quoted before I had had to go back to Turkey. :-(
Ah yes, debutante balls. When young women joyously entered the 
Wendy wrote: "There's a book that just came out about gay history in Chicago from the 1920's that's called "Out and Proud" so a lot of hits are for that. It looks like an interesting book, for anyone who's int..."
I must complain (as I must) that it was published in 2008, so the title doesn't reflect the total of the history since the 1920s. I can find no immediate proof to back the claim but in London in the mid-to-later 1970s "Out and Proud" was one of the Gay Lib slogans and appeared at London gay Pride marches in that period. I'll probe further!
I am agitated to suggest that Coming Out by Jeffrey Weeks might be helpful as the book covers the period from 1885 till 1970s. I also remember having read in a book on Coming-out literature that coming out is a term of post-Stonewall era.
My friend the delightful and so darn brilliant Wendy (pronounced Windy) wrote: "This is from the UT Houston's former student Vance Muse, writing about student life there in the early 1970's"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder. So Mr Muse misleads us. It was only considered a psychiatric disorder for 3 years of that decade.
Individual States in the US began decriminalizing gay sex beginning in 1962 when Illinois became the first state in the U.S. to decriminalize homosexual acts between consenting adults in private.
Texas being Texas they never decriminalized homosexuality so it took the United States Supreme Court decision of 2003 which made all gay sodomy laws unconstitutional to defeat Texas.
Of course to be fair to the highly moral Texans, both gays and straights were treated equally. Until 2003 Texas through the same sodomy laws made it was a crime for straight people to have oral or anal sex too. That sodomy laws for heterosexual sodomy were not repealed until 2003 the same year homosexual sodomy laws were abolished by the Court.
So Mr. Muse living in Texas in the 1970's wasn't any worse off with anal or oral sex than straight people in terms of his sexual acts being a crime.
I am not saying that gays had it easy in the pre-AIDS 1970s but even in 2013 many homosexual guys struggle "...with their sexuality, to the point of needing crisis intervention" and counseling.
How is it that so many contemporary M/M Romance stories and Gay Male fiction is about coming of age, closeted men, problems coming out, family problems, and other subjects that were much the same as Muse's problems in the 1970s?
At the moment 19 States plus the District of Columbia (Washington, DC) make up 20 places where gay couples can become couples through marriage or civil unions. So there indeed has been a lot of progress since 40 years ago.
Nevertheless in the US gays can be fired for being gay, be tossed out of their apartment or condo for being gay and gays can be openly discriminated against in public accommodations such as hotels, restaurants, entertainment venues, churches, vacation spots including theme parks, plus organizations such as the Boy Scouts (which still prohibit gay scout leaders) and be openly and legally discriminated against in almost every aspect of life.
In the 1970s gay rights marches and pride parades and gay community centers existed in many cities just like they do today except in small towns, the bible belt and ultra-conservative communities and regions.
The Gay and Lesbian Community center in the small city (pop approx. 90,000) of Albany, NY celebrated it's 40th anniversary in 2010. with gay and straight partiers including the very supportive Mayor and the extremely gay-friendly Chief of Police. After the parade and party in the park a gay man who attended the celebration started walking to his nearby home was followed, attacked, robbed, and beaten.
So even in progressive cities we still have both the breakthroughs in 1970 and the gay bashings that existed 40 years ago and continue to exist now.
Basically, was that a complaint, Boyd? :)
Roger wrote: "Basically, was that a complaint, Boyd? :)"It was a response to message message 4297 in which Mr. Muse made the situation sound so unbearable in the early 70s that Wendy doubted Out and Proud could have come from 1970s. He made her feel "...just to put the "Out and Proud" into a historical perspective of when it possibly could have come from, and I'm thinking less and less from the 70's…" I simply pointed out how times weren't completely atrocious then and they despite our advances things aren't all that rosy today.
Just adding a little balance.
As far as complaints go people seem to have completely forgotten Rule 1 altogether. Should I remind them? I guess it wouldn't hurt.
Rule #1 says:
In the Post Complaints Here topic all posts must be posed in the form of complaints.
Hint: For variety consider starting your complaint with I am miffed, annoyed, irritated, displeased, aggrieved, nettled, hurt, offended, put out, resentful, upset, vexed, irked, disgruntled, chagrined, piqued, in a huff, peeved, cheesed off, narked, irritated, P.O.’d, enraged, etc.
If you wish to say something positive when posting a comment use something like "I am really annoyed that I can not tell you how wonderful Lucas Lyons is considering he's a dumb jock.
I huffily posit that our Eye Candy is taking this opportunity to overthrow types and come out as a Tart (cf. 4294!) Bonbon of Substantial Intellect. Most disturbingly PS: Not a chance, little tiger, I'd have 'Green Giant' for lunch.
Goesta wrote: "I huffily posit that our Eye Candy is taking this opportunity to overthrow types and come out as a Tart (cf. 4294!) Bonbon of Substantial Intellect. Most disturbingly attractive confounding."I wish Gabbo would make me pander to his desires :)"
Well my sweetie sweetheart, how are you and I supposed do get festive together with your husband home? I mean, What's a Boy (of my hormonal age) Supposed to Do?
Boyd wrote: "Roger wrote: "Basically, was that a complaint, Boyd? :)"It was a response to message message 4297 in which Mr. Muse made the situation sound so unbearable in the early 70s that Wendy doubted Out ..."
I must vehemently protest that I was assumed to be leaning one way or the other after reading Mr. Muse's statement, it just seemed that after reading what he had to say and other things written from the same era, some things are the same, some things are different. For example, I don't know how common it is now for a woman to have her child taken away simply for being a lesbian. In most cities now, two men, or women, can't be arrested for walking down the street holding hands, but the flip side of that is nothing prevents them from being the targets of violence, either.
Jim C. Hines has been completely and utterly negligent in his coverage in his blog on the topic of violence and civil rights involving gay men and young adults.
In terms of things not being, as Boyd puts it, not all that rosy today, I ran across a couple of articles about why that could be, and I'm truly interested in the mens' opinions on it. I will attempt to post the links. I'm still working on that. I don't want to bias anyone towards it or against it before they get there, but I'm genuinely curious:
http://www.salon.com/1999/06/30/pride//a>
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pride/Content?oid=1313/a>
Need to go--SO needs some TLC.
I am out of words and don't want to curse! An attorney general did not allow a late protestor's family to donate his organs, because the donation would be a political move. Unbelievable!
Boyd wrote: "Goesta wrote: "I huffily posit that our Eye Candy is taking this opportunity to overthrow types and come out as a Tart (cf. 4294!) Bonbon of Substantial Intellect. Most disturbingly attractive conf..."I'm most discouraged by my apparent failure to adequately fulfill the role of fiendishly fulgurating fan. I'm not scary at all, in a sinisterly attractive way, am I. So sorry, sweetie! I am not worthy! Go exercise your hormones. (Will I need the telephoto attachment again?)
In a piqued attempt to make a somewhat more substantial contribution to the ongoing discussion that is verbosely interfering with my much more amusing attempt at a jealous candy tantrum, I shall repost Wendy's vaguely historically interesting links, hope they work:"We're here, we're queer, I'm sick of it" from Salon, June 1999
Dan Savage on Pride, 1999
Anil wrote: "I am out of words and don't want to curse! An attorney general did not allow a late protestor's family to donate his organs, because the donation would be a political move. Unbelievable!"Was trying to google this but couldn't find the reference. Sounds reprehensible. Expand?
I'm extremely grumpy that the storms woke me and kept me up most of the night. Thank goodness I was in the middle of a good book to keep me company while the storms raged on. Even grumpier that I'm almost too tired to trek to the kitchen to make me some awake tea. :(
Wendy wrote: "I ran across a couple of articles about why that could be, and I'm truly interested in the mens' opinions on it."Och, what a can of worms. You will find that the Salon article eventually gets to its alternative suggestion of "gay equality," which back then and now still is equally hotly contested.
I remember the debate and agree with some aspects, but in retrospect realize the focus on the pride event is all wrong. It is, nowadays, a ritualistic commemoration of certain aspects of our history and identity-in-diversity. As such, it has, to my mind, a different significance now. Here in Berlin it's called not pride parade but after Christopher Street. I would propose that it is as absurd, poignant, cartoonish and pertinent as Christmas or Easter are to celebrate Christianity. No one "misunderstands" these to illustrate the worship of dead trees, unborn chickens and live bunnies by said sect, and yet these expressions have significance.
In the interim 15-odd years, the definition of "gay pride" seems to have mollified in any case into something more closely approximating the use of the word in the sense of "proud to be a..." (insert country/city/profession). Which also implies (and always did) a right to be considered as a member of equal value in society, rather than being somehow arrogantly gleeful about particular sexual practices (which, yes, at some time we had to throw in their faces, because it was how they defined us).
Most of what goes on now, in terms of "gay rights," seems to be happening behind the surface (lobbying etc.). Which is not as much fun, admittedly, and is also somewhat disquieting, because we are now being evaluated (and courted/shunned, depending) as a political and commercial commodity. Which is just as superficial. As long as the results are generally positive, fair enough. Dan Savage reaches much the same conclusion, except about "pride" rather than gayness itself. But it's false logic, I think, since in effect, sooner or later, advertising takes any socially positive/desirable state (beauty, happiness, cleanliness, horniness...) and makes it a marketing tool.
For me the rainbow flag, by the way, is a symbol of inclusion and identification (and, on storefronts, of my particular needs being welcome and catered to) rather than of "pride" per se. Which gets confusing at times as there are other political movements here that uses it. You have to start counting stripes and identify relative colour positions.
The seemingly arbitrary backlash in benighted countries east of here and in Africa disturbs me deeply. If we are becoming complacent and a bit muddled because of no longer being brashly "special" (face it, the outrageousness of the pride parade was a symbolic way of uniting an invisible minority that has very little other common ground), and being now, nationally, just one cause among many of equal or greater urgency, we also become less capable of helping the rising number of victims of anti-gay persecution abroad. Gay-bashing (and -killing) seems to be a grotesque sort of political badge of honour in these places.
Sorry, getting side-tracked. Dan Savage's article reads to me, nowadays, as facetious, though it wasn't meant that way, I'm sure, but as a counter-effort to the increasing sense, at the time, that "gay pride" had become something self-congratulatory and frivolous (but what celebrations of identity aren't?). If it were more rigorous, it would have needed to define, for instance, the nature of sin.
The Salon article is, well, a Salon article. I used to like the rag when it came out. But that 1999 article reads much like the 2013 one whose link appeared next to it, "Are straight actors in gay roles the new blackface?" Ugh. Regurgitating already tepid controversies for the sake of, what exactly.
I'm afraid in summary I'm just too old, jaded and non-political to have a clear opinion on any of it.
But just to return for a second to the issue of "equality." I'm all for it, but that term, too, needs (and won't get) more precise definition in context. More radical activists point out (legitimately, I suppose, though at the same time they're not helping anyone) that it is up to marginalized groups to point out -- and avoid -- the pitfalls of blithe assimilation. They rail against "hetero-normative" (term makes me hurl, mostly) homos wanting to marry, form traditionally structured families etc. Ironically, those 'forward-thinking' critics seem to me to be hold-overs from the good old, much simpler days of protest and rainbow revolution. It's perhaps more complicated now, which maybe makes truly working for change nowadays so much more unsexy. There is nothing wrong with wanting the freedom (and legal acknowledgement) to form other kinds of families and personal unions; but I think that, then, is something equally relevant to people of all orientations, a societal, not a 'gay' thing.
We are not by and large being 'hetero-normative," I don't think, because we're now changing the definition of society from within, and causing awkward questions to be raised about how it functions, or doesn't. Also, the term suggests that heteros are fundamentally different creatures from homos, in terms of what fulfills us, which I also think is problematic. If you have a problem with the institution of marriage as it exists now (which I do, but not on gay v. straight grounds), attack it on that basis. Using gay marriage rights as a platform in that way, though, is rather arrogant and unconstructive, even if, of course, anyone's right.
In summary, we seem to be at the stage where, outside the gates, the barbarian hordes are marauding louder than ever, while in here, we're squabbling over traffic circles because the time to just bulldoze a pink brick road to the beach has passed. We have enough political clout to have to be taken notice of (provided we can agree among ourselves on anything) but not enough to force anyone to make the world a better place. So I think the best strategy, in the long term, is to keep convincing powerful people that being actively supportive of us is cool and laudable, in the same way that working for world peace and sustainable energy are. Am I being cynical or practical or neither? No idea.
Caffeine buzz is over.
I am terribly sorry that the piece of news I shared might be faux. There are contradictory statements on the matter. Some say the attorney general didn't make such a comment. An autopsy will be performed since he was shot by a policeman. On the other hand, the Ministry of Health made a statement that it is faux news that the protestor has passed away or his brain is dead. His treatment is ongoing. However, the Ministry of Health is not that trustworthy. So, I will share the real deal as soon as it is confirmed.
The only truth about this incident is that the Police Headquarter does not reveal the policeman's name to the court although his helmet number is known.
PS. Over here, the current debate seems to be about tax breaks for couples, and whether these are/were intended to facilitate child-rearing and whether they therefore do/don't apply to same-sex couples, or indeed whether they are outdated (as assuming a working dad and stay-at-home-mom family, e.g.) and should be abolished altogether. The number of conflicting interests in that discussion alone is dizzying. That's the sort of thing I mean by stirring things up, internally. Of course, whatever the outcome, it'll end up pleasing no one. Meanwhile, we still can't marry as such, but the laws apply to registered partnerships.
PPS: to put my pen where my mouth is:For what it's worth, please sign this petition against new Russian anti-gay law.
Wendy wrote: "in terms of things not being, as Boyd puts it, not all that rosy today, I ran across a couple of articles about why that could be, and I'm truly interested in the mens' opinions on it."WTF? This slimeball nutcase Dan Savage in your link for http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/pr... is trying to piss on our parade saying " gay pride is a line of crap"
He quotes Pope Gregory and all this religious bullshirt about pride is a sin and to read a copy of St. Thomas Aquinas' thoughts on pride.
He says, "For a group of people long labeled sinners--and understandably sensitive to the charge, which is still made--it's more than a little ironic that gays and lesbians should select a sin as our annual rallying cry. And it's not just any sin but the sin Pope Gregory the Great called "the queen of them all."
Gay pride is a sin?
I don't need some self-satisfied smug wanker telling me "Gay pride is a line of crap" I don't need his particular brand of homophobia where he talks about mean and slimy gay people and tells me not to celebrate because these rotten gay scumbags and greedy business people are all out to get me and to celebrate gay pride with them is going to kill me. Us.
What about Black Pride?. What about Breast Cancer Survivor's Pride? What about the pride of people who are differently abled (not disabled like some old wrecked car)? There would be no Civil Rights Act or Americans with Disabilities Act or breast cancer awareness campaign without the pride these groups can rally and use as a tool for freedom.
Are they sinners too because they comfort, encourage, talk about their strengths and celebrate their civil rights movements?
The Christophe Ott fellow at your recommended link www.salon.com/1999/06/30/pride puts up a big headline "We're here, we're queer, I'm sick of it" then proceeds to lecture us not to be stereotypes. I will be whatever type I want to thank you and you can just shut up you mucosanguineous arseboil.
He claims that he is not saying we need stop celebrating something that actually hurts our cause because we are different and instead we must become assimilated. But yet that is exactly what he is saying very clearly. He wants us to become normal so we will gain acceptance.
Damn anyone who tells me to fit in and be normal because I'm not normal. Growing up there were no gay heroes or lovers on TV. All the music and movies were about boys and girls in love and not anything in school, newsstand and checkout rack magazines, or any popular culture was gay like me.
Every thing back then was all about straight culture. Even when in school learning about great scientists and artists and men in history we were never told they were gay. As a school kid I was never told Leonardo de Vinci, Michelangelo and Alexander the Great were gay like me. They were all straight guys as far as I knew. I did not know the great gay men in history
So I grew up in a wrong culture everyone was perversely and repulsively heterosexual which was as disgusting to me as homosexuality is to the self-proclaimed "Reverend" Phelps. The world was (and still is) upside down. I knew I guys loving guys was right and never doubted it. However, I could understand why I was put on the wrong planet with all these hetero aliens.
I am not normal and I won't assimilate to the alien heterosexual Borg. So Mr. Ott do not tell me to fit in because you claim it is necessary to blend with the crowd since it's a better way to get my civil rights.
We should look and act mainstream America instead of waving rainbow flags avers Ott. Who does Ott quote to back him up? Why Dan Savage and our great sin of pride of course!
They both think like a great mindless Borg "You will be assimilated." "Resistance is futile."
I'm disgusted that someone would think these opinions were worth reading instead of instantly recognizing their gospel of sin and fitting in is an insult to any gay man who ever only accepted himself when he accepted his difference.
I love dick. I love tasty and beauteous bubble butts just waiting impatiently with desire for me to freaking fug it hard. I like licking hairy armpits. I love kissing perineums and pleasuring my partners prostate till he quivers and his chest flushes red with the blood of excitement. And that is different and I'm not going to hide what I do to "tone down" my Pride.
Straight is not normal. Straight is Borg. I will not be assimilated nor stop celebrating my "sinful" pride because some idiot editor bought the crap the traitorous Savage and Ott were selling to line their greedy pockets like the slimy gay businessmen they warned me about.
So if you're truly interested in men's opinion on it that's what this gay man thinks. It disgusts me.
I'm miffed to have to say that unfortunately Ive decided on reflection to remove myself as prime moderator of the group and leave it in the gorgeous eye candy hands of Boyd at this moment in time as he has jumped in like a trooper since the loss of our beloved dumb jock founder. To be honest Ive not been feeling too well recently and my moods are a bit iffy leaving me feeling less than able to lead our whinging group. I think the duo of Boyd and Preston who were here from the beginning and know this group inside out, as well as having the great admiration of our past and much missed leader will be über worthy leaders. Lets be honest I am as I said a wussy person... My leadership skills nil. Thank you though for putting up with me for so long. From now on I just want to be a complainer plain and simple.
I am sorry to hear that you don't feel well recently, Macky. Hope everything will get better soon. x
Anil wrote: "I am sorry to hear that you don't feel well recently, Macky. Hope everything will get better soon. x"Thanks Anil. Sorry you're going through such a bad time with uni too. X
Thank you, Macky. I am still angry and couldn't sleep well. Tbh, I feel my brain hurts. Hope it won't turn into a serious damage.I will challenge the uni legally in terms of breaching their rules, leaving something at last minute but writing the general e-mail that misled me, misinforming, misinterpreting UKBA rules to attempt to justify their actions (I'll consult several universities first to make certain), deferring my application till the next semester without asking me, causing financial loss, causing distress and anxiety. We'll see what will happen.
Roger wrote: "Wendy wrote: "There's a book in London in the mid-to-later 1970s … "Out and Proud" was one of the Gay Lib slogans and appeared at London gay Pride marches in that period. I'll probe further! "Hmm, there are the Hall-Carpenter Archives at Mick Jagger's alma mater, the LSE; however, "no search results for your criteria."
Grumpy thanks to Preston for his, erm, cautiously balanced analysis. Me likes, albeit in a totally whingy sense of the word, of course.I grew up on Dan Savage's pull-no-punches gay advice column and, though not always agreeing, was comforted by his presence in the mainstream media (in this case, our free, local weekly rag of goings-on, the -- don't laugh -- 'Georgia Strait'). So I think what he wrote here was meant to be read in that context; he did not strike me as an internalized homophobe, though strenuously opinionated for sure, and was most definitely using the term "sin" to get a rise rather than to denigrate gays. All the more interesting to read your explosive (and annoyingly pleasurable) response (interesting too that, though you're twenty years my junior, your experience sounds much like mine, growing up).
I can see the point that, back then, when the public presence of queerness was more or less limited to the annual pride parade (and the recent memory of the initial AIDS aftermath), the picture thus painted might have been a skewed one. I think my point, if any, was that getting a satisfactory handle on equality-in-diversity and how that translates to legal as well as cultural recognition and integration (or not), especially concerning familial units, is as difficult now (if not more so than) as it was then.
"Underneath, we're all the same" -- "No, we're not!"
Essentially the same argument, or not? In any case, not really all that relevant in some ways, since both views could be used for or against any group, and historically, have. So I prefer to think of people as being all the same in a myriad of different, important ways. Because the flip-side of Borgness is anarchy. Romantic, but equally untenable. Humans will organize, somehow. To assure the greatest individual freedom and mutual support at the same time, within that structure, is, I suppose, the constant goal, which can ever only be approximated.
Macky wrote: "I'm miffed to have to say that unfortunately Ive decided on reflection to remove myself as prime moderator of the group and leave it in the gorgeous eye candy hands of Boyd at this moment in time a..."Dreadfully sorry to hear you're not feeling snuffy. On the flip-side, delighted to have care-free, run-of-the-mill member Mack back. Not at all sure (though bursting with curious anticipation) where we shall be heading under the devastatingly handsome new leadership. Afeard I shall be utterly tongue-tied for the next months, while I pay silent tribute at the temple of exquisite Boyd-Prestonness. Will there be a new flag? Commemorative mugs? Suggestive souvenir toys?
EDITED to correct my slip-up, to Boyd-Prestonness, which doesn't sound right...
Goesta wrote: "Wendy wrote: "I ran across a couple of articles about why that could be, and I'm truly interested in the mens' opinions on it."Och, what a can of worms. You will find that the Salon article event..."
OMG, Goesta, that was
I add my sorrow to be losing Mistress Whip-wielder Macky as moderatorix, and I hope you will feel angry enough to complain about it, Macky!@ Goesta, has your muscular hydrostat ever been silent, let alone tied up? I think we need diagrams to see how this might happen…
All hail Boyd-Preston! I shall start work on the commemorative mugs so beloved of Goesta.
Macky wrote: "I'm miffed to have to say that unfortunately Ive decided on reflection to remove myself as prime moderator of the group and leave it in the gorgeous eye candy hands of Boyd at this moment in time a..."I'm wrecked and traumatized by your decision Macky. Feel better soon!
Goesta wrote: "Grumpy thanks to Preston for his, erm, cautiously balanced analysis. Me likes, albeit in a totally whingy sense of the word, of course.."Damn I put in "mucosanguineous arseboil" just for you Goesta and you didn't even mention it.
I'm so heartbroken I think I'll go back to my technician job now pulling some levers and pushing some buttons if I can get the blasted steam engine going.
Anil wrote: "Thank you, Macky. I am still angry and couldn't sleep well. Tbh, I feel my brain hurts. Hope it won't turn into a serious damage.I will challenge the uni legally in terms of breaching their rules..."
The local ABC station has an anchorman who just came back from vacation in Turkey. He had a clip of nightly protests where people in the countryside, far from Istanbul, bang on pots and pans. Alas, I cannot find it to link here.
Good luck Anil.
Begrudgingly thanking all for grumping at my giving up my whip weilding duties which I could never have used. Fluffy duster would have been more my style...
Macky wrote: "I'm miffed to have to say that unfortunately Ive decided on reflection to remove myself as prime moderator of the group and leave it in the gorgeous eye candy hands of Boyd at this moment in time a..."Naughty Macky!! I must admit, though, that I'll definitely
Preston wrote: "Goesta wrote: "Grumpy thanks to Preston for his, erm, cautiously balanced analysis. Me likes, albeit in a totally whingy sense of the word, of course.."Damn I put in "mucosanguineous arseboil" ju..."
I was getting to that, but had to correct my enormous faux-pax first. Boyd-Preston, of course, which doesn't sound right, but neither does Preston-Boyd (well, it does, *fans self* but not in the intended way...)
All I can think of now (mucosanguineous arseboil) is the equally icky substance now known as 'santorum', which is a lovely neologism for which none other than Dan Savage must be credited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign...
Zack wrote: "Macky wrote: "I'm miffed to have to say that unfortunately Ive decided on reflection to remove myself as prime moderator of the group and leave it in the gorgeous eye candy hands of Boyd at this mo..."How nettling that Zack saw through my alter ego and realised that I'm a big softie! Even my evil threat of drawing spots, scars and moustaches on his
My goat has been got, my feathers ruffled that I ask a simple question of the very
I'm angry with myself for making myself put in this situation, Averin. I should have studied harder.Thanks. I hope I will win the case and that will teach them a lesson.
The pot thing has been going on since the demonstrations began. It can be deafening.:-)
Roger wrote: "All hail Boyd-Preston! I shall start work on the commemorative mugs so beloved of Goesta."Leave me out of this. I'm just a regular member who helps do some of the tech stuff. I am not a moderator and never will be one.
Besides Boyd does most of the tech stuff himself since he knows his way around a steam engine, levers, ropes, pulleys, and buttons so mostly I just take up space.
Though sad-faced and miffed that Preston
Averin wrote: "My goat has been got, my feathers ruffled that I ask a simple question of the very smart denizens of the Complaint Department only to have it become this tedious den of fascinating discussion only ..."Erm, what was the question?
Goesta wrote: "Averin wrote: "My goat has been got, my feathers ruffled that I ask a simple question of the very smart denizens of the Complaint Department only to have it become this tedious den of fascinating d..."When was the phrase "out and proud" first used?
Why Isn't There A Straight Pride Month?LZ Granderson, CNN Contributer
See the brief article at this link:
http://pastehtml.com/view/d5lwt2zgi.txt
Boyd wrote: "Why Isn't There A Straight Pride Month?"Grrrr…..don’t get me started on this one!
To wit: "The subtext to every family wedding is “those two are going to f*** tonight.” Whenever a baby is due you know the parents screwed. Whenever you mention a spouse or someone you’re dating you’re indirectly talking about sex. The problem isn’t that gay people make such a big deal out of it but that, especially when someone is an entertainer, politician, or athlete, straight people make a big deal out of it.”
Anonymous
And I did open the link. Thank you!
Heavens, Aves, I must protest at your 
Complaint Department
Books mentioned in this topic
The Pompeiian Horse (other topics)Gutter Sludge: Poems from Your Scary Ex (other topics)
The Fantasy Art of Oliver Frey (other topics)
Ethan, Who Loved Carter (other topics)
Zippadacious (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Byrne (other topics)Stephen Hawking (other topics)
Stephen Hawking (other topics)
Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)
A.R. Noble (other topics)
More...
