Comments on: Gay and lesbian rights

By: Krypto

Krypto — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:35:39 +0000

with the exception of caffeine ian, I am entirely drug free, let’s hope you are on drugs though because then there is the outside chance you may straighten out and recover.
If on the other hand you are already straight and that is as good as you are going to get…your’e fucked.
I can understand you might have difficulty reading my posts, they are after all written in english, clearly a language foreign to you.

By: tbsaka iain hall

tbsaka iain hall — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:54:00 +0000

Look out Krypto, Iain may have you put through the tree shredder like what happened to Carl Showalter in Fargo then fed to some pigs like in Mason Verger in Hannibal*.

*Comment in third person to add emphasis :lol: **

** emiticon to add emphasis

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:12:21 +0000

Cut back on the drugs Krypto your brain is well enough fried as it is already. Your last commment makes no sense at all.

By: Krypto

Krypto — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:49:45 +0000

ah ian, do you or do you not drive a home made noddy car and are you or are you not proud of it? So the source of the post is irrelevant, it could be a post from freddo frog the content is still factually accurate, and I think we all know that your struggle with the english language is not merely limited to the spelling of your own name, it is the stuff of internet folklore.

By: tbsaka iain hall

tbsaka iain hall — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:33:55 +0000

I just want it on record that Andrew Blot and Tim Blur copied my post on Kyoto today not the other way around.

Me too plus perhaps

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:41:12 +0000

Krypto
You have not got a clue mate You are probably too stupid to realise that it is TBAFKAF that is posting in my name at BB’s blog and not me.
As to the spelling of my name there are many Scotsmen who spell it as I do and who would make the argument that those who don’t use the second “i” do so because they are Sassenachs who can’t spell properly.

By: Krypto

Krypto — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:26:03 +0000

mechanical ability? quite a boast for a fuckwit who drives a noddy car made of spare mechano parts, is completely incapable of grasping the mechanics of the english language and STILL remains unable to spell the name “Ian” correctly.

By: The Editor

The Editor — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:32:47 +0000

I never claimed, or even suggested that mechanical ability was predicated upon political loyalty.

My mistake, Iain. You’re right. You said it was political loyalty combined with a tendency to “whinge”.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:28:14 +0000

I never claimed, or even suggested that mechanical ability was predicated upon political loyalty.
However the reactions here have been amusing.

By: TBSAKA Iain Hall

TBSAKA Iain Hall — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 11:28:35 +0000

Just to clarify, I am not saying that I am a pedophile, I was just trying to touch base with the pop culture of the younger generation.

By: TBSAKA Iain Hall

TBSAKA Iain Hall — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:58:53 +0000

Look , this might Seem tedious however , I just want to know if ;

a) Lachlan Conner can change a tyre and ;

b) if you bat for the other team you can’t possibly change a tyre because you have a limp wrist and could not possibly undo the nuts, or pump the jack up and down and up and down and do all the blowing.

Also I would rather be a pedophile rather than a lesbian.

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:16:51 +0000

I grew up on a farm and I can change the oil, water, coolant, tyres and battery. I just wasn’t keen on getting involved in brainless left-vs-right generalisations and childish you-cant-do-nuthin slanging matches.

By: Mikey

Mikey — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:00:25 +0000

I would probably look it up on wiki then work out how to do it.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:10:19 +0000

So mechanical knowledge is exclusive to those of the ‘right’ then, Iain? Your hysterical banging on about the left/right dichotomy gets more hilarious by the day.

Yeah, it’s pretty dumb. For the record I can change the oil and have done so for others.

Iain’s dug through the bottom of the barrel with this one.

By: John Surname

John Surname — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:14:23 +0000

This is tedious in the extreme.

By: TBSAKA Iain Hall

TBSAKA Iain Hall — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 05:05:44 +0000

I like to think of myself as an ordinary bloke living life to the full Bridget (or should I say Naomi) so maybe you should think about that.

I was talking about my IQ anyhow.

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:49:55 +0000

I never listed my age as “42″ but in any case who in their right mind ever give out their real DOB on the internet? No, my mistake, you listed it as 41. The evidence is here. And since when is posting your age in years the equivalent of posting your date-of-birth? I'm not sure how you think you can claim the moral high ground on honesty, Iain;41;Hall.

By: TBSAKA Iain Hall

TBSAKA Iain Hall — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 04:18:02 +0000

Nothing Wannabe about my sports car Bridgit

Except for this claim:

This vehicle is a high performance specialized sports car.

By: The Editor

The Editor — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:26:00 +0000

Come on, an open question; how many of you whining lefties that hang out here can even change the oil in your cars?

So mechanical knowledge is exclusive to those of the ‘right’ then, Iain? Your hysterical banging on about the left/right dichotomy gets more hilarious by the day.

ps/- I don’t have a car so cannot answer your question. Is it only righties that have cars?

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:13:16 +0000

No lie here Bridgit, it is a photo of me, and I acknowledge that it is not a recent picture but I have not changed substantially since that picture was taken though.

I’d believe that – your posts have the immaturity of a frustrated 20-youth.

Come on, an open question; how many of you whining lefties that hang out here can even change the oil in your cars?
Well, I can, but it hardly seems relevant to anything.

Incidentally, you didn’t actually respond to my two points above.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 03:05:33 +0000

This coming from someone who runs a 20-year-old photograph of himself on his blog

No lie here Bridgit, it is a photo of me, and I acknowledge that it is not a recent picture but I have not changed substantially since that picture was taken though.

and last year listed his age as ‘42′ on a blog directory.

I never listed my age as “42″ but in any case who in their right mind ever give out their real DOB on the internet? Only fools who want to have their identity stolen like Young Scott…

Together with the wannabe sports-car I’d say this adds up to just one thing…

Nothing Wannabe about my sports car Bridgit, I bet that every one here would be incapable of even assembling Ikea furniture without studying the instructions for a very long time and compared to designing and building a car that is nothing…

Come on, an open question; how many of you whining lefties that hang out here can even change the oil in your cars?

By: TBSAKA Iain Hall

TBSAKA Iain Hall — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:19:42 +0000

Oh but what about this glamour shot of me Bridget? This is sure to get the men at the Peel hot under the collar.

*Also I have a bright red helmet to make men look at me.

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:14:40 +0000

Worse than that imagine having a discussion about honesty and personal integrity from “Bridgit, the boastful liar Gread

This coming from someone who runs a 20-year-old photograph of himself on his blog and last year listed his age as ‘42′ on a blog directory. Together with the wannabe sports-car I’d say this adds up to just one thing…

Mid-life crisis.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:43:35 +0000

Hap
On point one
If we look at the fact that the fact that at least 95%of people are heterosexual and yet a the number of people who, when surveyed, report having some level of attraction to their own gender exceeds 5% then it is reasonable to infer that those who can are making choices about their orientation.
On Point two
From a biological point of view being heterosexual is clearly superior (in that it facilitates reproduction of the species) but in sociological terms it is quite a virtue that there be tolerance for those who are gay. This does not however mean that we should offer a blank cheque to all aspects of the subculture and the mythology that it’s advocates want to promote.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:27:16 +0000

Now THAT is scary. Imagine getting the birds-and-bees chat from Iain.

Worse than that imagine having a discussion about honesty and personal integrity from “Bridgit, the boastful liar Gread…

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 07:03:56 +0000

…make idiotic presumptions about the knowledge and experience of your interlocutors

Hap, never doubt Iain Hall’s knowledge of Jeremy and Jeremy’s life. Iain has spend years tirelessly researching this subject (Pete Townshend-style research, that is).

…my eldest child is only eight years old I have already had to field questions and discuss the issue of sexuality with her

Now THAT is scary. Imagine getting the birds-and-bees chat from Iain.

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:12:29 +0000

So it is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is possible that some individuals who are not at the exclusively homosexual end of the continuum could very well be encouraged to choose either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation.

I’m afraid it’s not ‘reasonable’ at all, for at least two good reasons:

1. All gay people must themselves have been born into households that ‘promoted’ heterosexuality, otherwise, they would not have been born at all. I’m not sure how anyone would even begin to ‘promote’ a sexual orientation. Would an ad campaign or something similar compel you to bat for the other side?

2. Even if it could be demonstrated that kids could be directly influenced in sexual matters as to being straight or gay, why would it be an issue if they took the latter path?

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 06:03:09 +0000

Hap
The fact of the matter is that Jeremy has no children; Jeremy has a cat (a rather dull moggie called Polly) all of this is both on the public record and well known. And although my eldest child is only eight years old I have already had to field questions and discuss the issue of sexuality with her, so I do have the first hand experience to draw on. Thus I have the right to draw on my own contemporary experience and argue from its authority. I am making no presumptions at all about my interlocutor at all.
I doubt that you have very much understanding of the way that human sexual orientation is expressed because most research shows that being Gay is not an either or situation, rather there is a variation in the degree to which any one person may find members of their own gender attractive in a sexual sense. So it is entirely reasonable to suggest that it is possible that some individuals who are not at the exclusively homosexual end of the continuum could very well be encouraged to choose either a heterosexual or a homosexual orientation.

Is there any chance that you could be a civilised human being and drop the personal abuse?
It makes you look stupid by the way.

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:25:39 +0000

Hall,

When you have brains rather than bat guano in your head, then you will understand how stupid and offensive it is to argue from authority (’I have kids, so I am right…’) and to make idiotic presumptions about the knowledge and experience of your interlocutors.

The foster parents refused to sign up to the sexual equality guidelines, when it’s quite possible they could be asked to foster young people with confusion/difficulties with sexuality.

Educating young people and maintaining non-discriminatory policies re: sexual preference is hardly tantamount to ‘promoting homosexuality’, except to the tinfoil set.

In any case, I’d like to have someone explain to me how you ‘promote’ any kind of sexuality. In Western culture, homosexuals, for instance, have remained resolutely gay in spite of plenty of attempts, formal and informal, to ‘promote’ heterosexuality.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:56:58 +0000

Jeremy
It is you who makes unfounded assumptions here. Do you have one iota of evidence to backup your argument here? For instance the details of the actual requirements of the “sexuality courses”?
When you have children rather than just a cat then you will understand just how stupid and offensive it is to mandate teaching children about sexuality to a particular schedule. It likewise places an unreasonable burden on foster parents, that would not be acceptable to natural parents, for whom they act as proxies.

By: John Surname

John Surname — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:26:42 +0000

I took the article to mean that 11 year olds are explicitly taught about anal sex. Pictures and everything. Real wicked stuff.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:56:30 +0000

“Whilst I have no problem with anyone batting for the other team the requirement to do as is suggested in the quote above is beyond just accepting that some people are same sex attracted and not discriminating against them.”

Iain, you know as well as I do that the article quote to which you refer is a disingenuous beat-up and exaggeration, which does not accurately or fairly represent the rule it’s pretending to describe. (Which is why it’s done as a paraphrse rather than in the words of the actual requirement.)

Before you accuse British authorities of trying to force parents to “teach 11 year olds about gay sex” or whatever the implication was that you drew from the article, you might try looking into it a bit further. Let me guess, the original quote’s from a Murdoch tabloid? How long will it take you to realise that they deliberately leave context out when they’re trying to beat something up. They also deliberately rephrase things to make them sound as bad as possible, usually becoming completely divorced from reality in the process.

No way was the British requirement that the parents start telling 11 year olds about gay sex. It could well have been that when they are teaching their children about sex in general that they let the kids know that some people are gay and that if they are then they’re not freaks and do not deserve to be discriminated against. That’s part of teaching tolerance, not teaching gay sex as you dishonestly imply.

By: tbsaka iain hall

tbsaka iain hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:49:21 +0000

They seem like a lovely bunch iain. I should have them over for a bbq one day.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:53:25 +0000

TBAFKAF
The guys at AWH sussed you out all by themselves, you are pretty easy to spot, just look for someone who has a confused argument, who is saying something that they do not actually believe in. Oh yeah claiming a news site as your “home Page” is a dead give a way to your MO.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:40:15 +0000

And they deleted my point that showed them up all up as hall-style hypocrites.

Nice emailing iain.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:28:28 +0000

Thanks Iain. BTW, your mates want to ban me (Roger) over at AWH.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jamesozark/2613079902327497278/#917436

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:22:23 +0000

The Bullshit Artist Formally Known As Fang

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:11:36 +0000

OH yeah I am Roger too.

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:09:30 +0000

That’s ‘preoccupied’…

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:08:59 +0000

I’m not sure why you’d call the PC types ‘tsars’ Hall. You’re getting your metaphors mixed up – lefties were throwing molotov cocktails at the tsars!
I think you and your mates are a little to preoccipied with homosexuality. I won’t quote it here, but take, for example, this pearler from your pal Tiberius in response to a bit of gentle criticism from a chap called Roger:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/jamesozark/2613079902327497278/#917436

The ‘disagreement’ of which you speak is a phantasm, over which you’ve whipped yourself into a frenzy.
Good luck with that.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:03:03 +0000

regardless of your status of a parent

Should read “your status as a parent notwithstanding”… yawn… no biggy…

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:02:59 +0000

Excuse my ignorance but what is “TBAFKAF”?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:01:50 +0000

Iain,

Teaching sex ed. by year/developmental level has never done any harm. Somehow, regardless of your status of a parent, I doubt your capacity to recognise good teaching isn’t as good as mine.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:58:58 +0000

Bruce
How is what I say not accepting homosexuals as equal under the law?
When you have children (god forbid) then you will realise that teaching them about the nature of sexuality does not work the way that the PC Tsars think it does, and that it should be based not on some external timetable but on honest responses to any questions that the child may have as they ask them.
Hap
As you seem as keen as TBAFKAF to pursue our disagreement here how about you poll you leftist mates here about the morality of your vile aspersions on both John Ray and myself?
I some how expect that the only one who will offer you unqualified support will be TBAFKAF.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:58:50 +0000

I think Iain’s got his own kind of roster. He moves on to someone on the list when the current one gets bored with pointing out his errors.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:55:55 +0000

beforeithappens was not about you iain you egotistical moron. Christ you are deluded. As if I would spend six months writing a blog just to call you a fuckwit on “Black Wednesday” and say I didn’t like you. Jeezus.

iainfukall was an about page with all my comments you deleted from your blog on “Black Wednesday” to show how you rewrite history. It was deleted ages ago because I couldn’t give a fuck anymore about it. Who would?

boltwatch-watch-watch was the only blog I did about you and it lasted a whole five mintutes.

As for this:

From: Computer Socks (noreply-comment@blogger.com)
Sent: Friday, 26 May 2006 12:20:42 AM
To: iambeingnice@hotmail.com
Just to let you know, I have renamed my blog dedicated to you. http://iainhall-watch.blogspot.com/ –Posted by Computer Socks to Thoughts and Comments by Iain Hall at 5/26/2006 12:23:28 AM

I don’t remember it. I haven’t used the name Computer Socks since 2005 and I only started using it again because you reminded me of it a few weeks back. Great name isn’t it?

Get some real evidence iain. Not every site on the net is about you.

…even if some of the sites that I attribute to you are the work of some one else …

Too right shit for brains. By admission your accusations are lies.

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:44:01 +0000

Thanks for that Bruce.

He’s extraordinarily dishonest, and dangerously obsessed.

Given that many of us are lefties here, can we get everybody to pitch in with an Iain Hall stalkee roster? We can each take it in turns to be villified and stalked, you know, share the load a little.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:38:44 +0000

Hap,

He’s using Legal Eagle’s usually calm and thought out comments threads to further his vendetta with you now.

Interrupted at nice discussion about defamation on the blogosphere. I feel for the host.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:35:51 +0000

Whilst I have no problem with anyone batting for the other team the requirement to do as is suggested in the quote above is beyond just accepting that some people are same sex attracted and not discriminating against them.

No it isn’t. Accepting them as equals is part and parcel of not discriminating.

Iain, you are getting really, really bad at this.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:33:47 +0000

Damn!! You are right Jangari! I apologise to all for the error in my acronym. It will be TBAFKAF in all future instances.
Scott
My last comment has tripped the askimet would you please rescue it? As it has links to three more hate sites owned by TBAFKAF.

By: The Happy Revolutionary

The Happy Revolutionary — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:33:28 +0000

Hall, dear Hall.
When not making threats to all and sundry, he’s using other people’s threads to further his personal vendettas.
You and your pals really have an issue with homosexuality, eh?

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:26:28 +0000

but wait there’s more!!!

http://boltwatch-watch-watch.blogspot.com/
http://trollwarchronicle.blogspot.com/
http://boltwatch-watch-watch-watch.blogspot.com/

Face it Fang, you are just a low rent obsessive who is laughed at by all of those who you seek to champion.

By: Jangari

Jangari — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:24:33 +0000

TBAFNAF? You mean TBAFKAF, right? ‘Known’ starts with a ‘k’ (orthographically speaking).

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:17:18 +0000

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings.

Jeremy
Whilst I have no problem with anyone batting for the other team the requirement to do as is suggested in the quote above is beyond just accepting that some people are same sex attracted and not discriminating against them. You do not have children and I’m sure that you have no idea how stupid such regulations actually are. They are stupid because no child reaches a certain age and then they have to be fed particular data sets on sexuality. This sort of stuff is just a sad expression of your pals from the left wanting to do a bit of social engineering. The question of their suitability as foster parents should not be predicated on their falling into line on the PC view of sexuality but on their ability to provide a caring, safe and loving environment for what are often some very damaged children. As I say in my piece there is only a very small proportion of the population who actually are homosexual and the requirement that foster parents have to discuss this matter with ALL children strikes me as being like a very small tail wagging a big dog.
TBAFNAF
I stand by all of my claims about you are you going to try to deny this one?

Or this one
http://beforeithappens.wordpress.com/
or this one
http://iainfukall.wordpress.com/
You have been a serial pest and even if some of the sites that I attribute to you are the work of some one else enough of them are actually yours to show the world what a sad sorry scumbag you are.
In any case what give you the right to act as a vigilante in relation to fights that have had nothing to do with you?

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 05:50:47 +0000

re 20

At least the boy wonder is straight up with baring all.

“I’ve landed the plane the way he wanted.” Hmm.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:41:08 +0000

“You of all people should appreciate sarcasm, given that it is your blogging stock in trade, and any one who can’t see my reference to “Buggery 101″ was of course sarcasm is very thick indeed.”

IT was “sarcasm” in the context of your claim that they were being punished for not “promoting homosexuality”.

And funnily enough, you appear to have missed Bridgit’s point again. Given that that what you described is clearly not the case, are you planning on withdrawing the claim any time soon, or will you continue to obfuscate and try to pretend that no contradiction exists? Do you admit that your reference “the big time promotion of homosexuality this story presents” is simply misleading? (Warning: to admit this will severely dent your AWH credentials. On the other hand, to deny it will confirm you as the bad faith polemicist you are.)

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:36:23 +0000

Very poor detective work there Iain.

1. I don’t own the dramatica site

2. I never did any of this:

Then in the light of my stoush with Jeremy he became “nastyperson” and he intensified his harassment. Then he created a blog pretending to be me and claiming that I was a homosexual called “Iain Hall Gay activist” and he posted my photo and details to a gay dating site, Like wise he then created another blog under the name “Ian Haul” There are others as well but under the name of fang he created a blog that he thought would work as well to entrap me as Bridget’s scam did…

3. I did in 2005 create a short lived site called boltwatch-watch-watch using the name Computer socks.

Get some proof for your claims before you make them.

Yes I am nasty to you because you deserve it because of your past and present behavior. Your a big boy now Iain and you are getting just what you did to others. Minus the outings, threats, stalking and attempts to sack people.

Stop spamming everyone blogs with your crap about me. It’s boring. At least I’m funny; I think.

Good luck with all that petal.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:09:43 +0000

Jeremy
You of all people should appreciate sarcasm, given that it is your blogging stock in trade, and any one who can’t see my reference to “Buggery 101″ was of course sarcasm is very thick indeed.
Scott
You run your blog as you please and I’m not even asking you to ban the bullshit artist formally known as fang (TBAFNAF) but as he has become one of your most prolific commenters of late I felt that the time had come to point out to your readers what a nasty piece of work he is, You may think that my fights with you lot to be evidence of someone obsessed but his harassment of me is clearly worse by many orders of magnitude.
You were understandably pissed off about some nasty things said about your wife, well I am equally disgusted by some one who insults, my late mother, suggests that my late father beat my mum up and finally claims that my brother committed suicide by driving into a tree.
I take the pieces critical of me that you have posted here, as part of the cut and thrust of political blogging but TBAFNAF has no agenda but some very low rent trolling and frankly I think that you are better than that and claiming an open door policy for comments sounds like a rather hollow response in the face a really evil little scrote who is using your blog as the venue for the propagation of his lies, half truths, and outright slanders.
Cheers

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:16:51 +0000

“We don’t ban commenters or delete comments here at GrodsCorp.”

That’s my general policy too, but it has its limits – when you get a persistent troll who’s just trying to kill discussion for everyone else.

I note Iain still has, of course, utterly failed to justify his “buggery 101″ lunacy once confronted with Bridgit’s directing him back to reality –
“Bruce is right. The parents were informed of regulations that required them to (i) acknowledge that homosexuals are entirely equal to heterosexuals, and (ii) if the foster child demonstrates an inclination toward homosexuality then he should be taken to a counselling group. It is not ‘promotion’ of homosexuality unless you are a bigoted, mind-warped zonk, as these people – and Iain – both are.”

How about, for a change, admitting you were wrong, Iain?

By: The Editor

The Editor — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:42:04 +0000

I have a certain amount of respect for Bruce, Mikey , Scott, Jeremy and even Bridgit…

Awww shucks, Iain.

Any support or encouragement that you offer him reflects very badly on your own credibility, even among your fellow lefties.

We don’t ban commenters or delete comments here at GrodsCorp. (Actually, I lie. I have deleted one comment in the history of this blog. It was a highly inappropriate comment about my wife that pissed me off heaps. And there are the two times that GrodsCorp migrated between CMSs when all comments were lost. This is why there are no comments before 8 November, 2005 in the archives.)

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:57:03 +0000

A little history on the bullshit artist formally known as Fang.
As far as I can tell his first incarnation was as “Computer socks” and in this guise he began to harass my early blogger blogs who is surprised that he has revived that identity here?
Then in the light of my stoush with Jeremy he became “nastyperson” and he intensified his harassment. Then he created a blog pretending to be me and claiming that I was a homosexual called “Iain Hall Gay activist” and he posted my photo and details to a gay dating site, Like wise he then created another blog under the name “Ian Haul” There are others as well but under the name of fang he created a blog that he thought would work as well to entrap me as Bridget’s scam did, sadly for him I would not bite on the bait (Jeremy’s address) that he offered then in late august his frustration boiled over and he invented an affront, had a hissy fit and basically went public about the authorship of the Dramatica page by turning it into a vehicle for his own self promotion . Now that I blog at WordPress and can exclude him from spamming my blogs his options to harass me are much more limited.
I have a certain amount of respect for Bruce, Mikey , Scott, Jeremy and even Bridgit, but do you lot really want to encourage a sad looser like Fang/ Computer socks/ insert name here?
Any support or encouragement that you offer him reflects very badly on your own credibility, even among your fellow lefties.
Think about it
Cheers

By: Mikey

Mikey — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:42:53 +0000

Side by side reading in bed I think

This isn’t it but it’s funny nonetheless

http://www.bongonews.com/layout1.php?event=3149&topic=

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:33:38 +0000

But MIkey, was it top-to-toe, spooning or Team America Uncut Style?

By: Mikey

Mikey — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:26:22 +0000

In the earlier comics Batman and Robin shared a bed. I shit you not.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:02:30 +0000

Fuck it . “By” Burt Ward not “buy”. Lucky I quit advertising. Sometimes I subliminalise (sic) even my self.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:00:31 +0000

Not sure of there ever will be Bridget, however, Boy Wonder: My Life in Tights buy Burt Ward is a great read.

On camera it was as camp as a row of AFL tents, but behind the scenes a different story.

A memorable quote from Adam West playing the SGT Maajor when he had a bunch of groupies in his caravan:

On your knees girls and stay in line!

Sexist as but funny all the same. Poor Burt didn’t even get a stunt man unlike Adam.

I think Stephen Fielding could be a Robin to Ted Haggard as back doorman. Hmm…

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:25:49 +0000

Bruce, I’d be surprised if there was ever a television couple as camp as Batman (sorry, Bat;man) and Robin. Two single men, one fabulously rich and one young and impressionable, living in a cave and wearing their underwear on the outside – an entirely plausible lifestyle scenario.

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:42:26 +0000

Thanks for noticing my “brilliant juxtaposition” Ed.

My archetypal homophobia does suggest may have participated in some sweaty man sex in my youth and sometimes still think about it; hence my feigned abhorrence at it.

Now await my post on that evil HIV spreading Dumbledore. (Only if it is the Daily Mail first though!)

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:37:57 +0000

It is not ‘promotion’ of homosexuality unless you are a bigoted, mind-warped zonk…

I don’t usually go for Internet name calling of persons, but “zonk” has be laughing for some reason. Maybe it sounds like a 70s Batman tv series effect.

“BAM! KABLOOEY! POW! BIFF! Take that gay lifestyle crims trying to steal heterosexual rights! Now Robin, just climb up that rope while I follow you… Oh…. yeah…”

By: John Surname

John Surname — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:27:57 +0000

But it’s not promotion of homosexuality – it’s promotion of Iain’s imagined homosexual lifestyle.

Say WHA…?

By: Bridgit Gread

Bridgit Gread — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:25:18 +0000

Bruce is right. The parents were informed of regulations that required them to (i) acknowledge that homosexuals are entirely equal to heterosexuals, and (ii) if the foster child demonstrates an inclination toward homosexuality then he should be taken to a counselling group. It is not ‘promotion’ of homosexuality unless you are a bigoted, mind-warped zonk, as these people – and Iain – both are.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:11:43 +0000

I did read it Iain. The foster parents claimed (wrongly) that telling their kid that homosexuals are equal is promoting homosexuality.

Someone with as many hits to their blog as you get Iain, shouldn’t be trying to milk every hit they can get.

By: Iain Hall

Iain Hall — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:06:37 +0000

Scott & Bruce
Did either of you actually read the source page for that piece? Because from your comments I don’t think that you actually did so.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:50:00 +0000

I suspect that there was more than homosexuality that the parents were willing to block discussion of. There usually is.

It’s usually not limited to Harry Potter and EVILUSHUN either.

Nobody was asking them to have homosexuality promoted, they were just expecting the child to get to know about a substantial percentage of Australians that they are going to have to get along with when they grow up. Stopping a child from getting this education is like trying to block kids learning about Jews.

By: The Editor

The Editor — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 21:44:12 +0000

Yeah, I saw that CS. A brilliant juxtaposition from Iain; Hall. There is a big difference between being tolerant of difference in matters such as sexual orientation (which I endorse without reservation) and the big time promotion of homosexuality this story presents. Really it seems like the ideologues in power in the UK won’t be happy until “Buggery 101” is a compulsory subject in all of the schools. I'm not homophobic, BUT...

By: Computer Socks

Computer Socks — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:10:12 +0000

Really it seems like the politicians in OZ won’t be happy until “Buggery 101” is a compulsory subject in all of the schools.

By: The Editor

The Editor — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:09:35 +0000

I reckon Jacob might swing both ways.

By: Magic Bellybutton

Magic Bellybutton — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 08:58:28 +0000

I suppose this means Lachlan Connor will have to be burnt at the stake for being a homo sympathiser?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 06:14:41 +0000

Rudd: “What do I believe in? What do I stand for? What is my party’s policy?”

Not impressed. What ever happened to the “broad church of ideas” rhetoric? He’s forgetting that his party has a left faction.

At least he didn’t talk about the “Judaeo-Christian tradition”.

By: sowhat

sowhat — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:44:52 +0000

Ouch. How bout;

“Gay and lesbian people are normal”.

More queer friendly than rudd and even more policy obscure than howard. Win-win.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:35:33 +0000

“Gay and lesbian people to receive the same rights as normal people.”

Anti-family! Anti-family!