VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]
Subject: Re: reply


Author:
Rodney
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 05:57:30 12/21/03 Sun
In reply to: Rachel 's message, "Re: reply" on 12:14:08 12/14/03 Sun

Gosh, you are still mad aren't you?

Thats ok, because your still reading the paper and the forum.

I still think you are confused between fact and opinion, but what do I know about facts? I do feel that I should respond to at least one point you made. You stated "And I'm sure theres some mindless psychobabble for everything, including why I'm so "hateful." It doesnt matter why people are the way they are though, does it?" Well, of course it matters why people are the way they are. Thats part of how they make the determinations on how many milligrams of medication to give those who need it.

I think you have lost sight of the issue. You are off point here. You really should focus not on the article that exposed what the people said. The real issue is that they said it. They said it thinking they were in a place among others of like minds. Thinking they would be safe in spewing their hatred of those unlike themselves. The real issue is not the exposure of this bitter, petty minded group of homophobes...the issue is their desire to spew this filth and expect some form of protection.

Fortunatley, they did it on a public forum. There is no more protection on a public forum than there would be on the bulletin board at Wal Mart. Its open to the public and readily available for all to see. Therefore there is no protection afforded, and rightfully so.

I am sure if they search they can find a white supremist group, or an anti-semite group, or something of that nature that will allow them to get on there and just be as rude and hateful as they desire.

It wasn't the articles that made these people look bad. They made themselves look bad. The paper just reported what they said. Now, who really made them look bad?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.