On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 18:24:34 +0200, C Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In article <i9eegvooe03tl9b8cv92pgo06hgqf814sq[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 22:42:35 +0200, C Lund
>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>following wisdom:
>>>>>Using the Bible as a club to beat gay people with is bigoted and evil.
>>>>That's pretty much a common attitude amongst people doing any kind of
>>>>wrong.
>>>Want to explain what is so wrong about homosexuality?
>>I doubt if I could.
>
>I didn't expect otherwise.

It requires a pupil who is willing to understand to be taught. I am
lacking this with you.
>
>> You lack the necessary sense of right and wrong.
>
>I could say the same of you.

You could say almost anything. You'd still be wrong.

>Unlike you, I know that disapproving of
>somebody else's actions/tastes when I don't even know why is wrong.

But I do know why. They're willful detgenerates just like child
molesters, animal fuckers and necrophiliacs.

>
>I used to think homosexuality was wrong. Then I asked myself why
>homosexuality was wrong. I came to the conclusion that there was
>nothing wrong with it at all. It just wasn't to my taste.

*rim shot* 8)

>
>Live and let live, faux.

Where have I advocated otherwise? I'm just against them getting the
special rights that they want, anti-Semite.

>
>>>> Anyone who points out the error of their ways is being 'bigoted
>>>>and evil'. Its not much different from the way little kids have a fit
>>>>when their parents correct them.
>>>Claimiing that homosexuality is wrong "because the bible says so"
>>>isn't pointing out the errors of so-and-so's ways, it's being bigoted.
>>So now having standards is being 'bigoted'?
>
>When those standards are without logic and have a negative effect on
>other people's lives, then yes, it is being bigoted.

Does anyone who is proudly waving a swastika around and gleefully
justifying the murder of Jews simply because they're Jews really have
any standing to call anyone a bigot?

>
>> Would it be bigoted to say
>>that child molesters are wrong?
>
>And once more a bigot compares the actions of concenting adults to the
>rape of children.

You apparently haven't been keeping up. There's a movement within
psychiatric circles to remove pedophilia from the list of mental
illness. They give the excuses as 'they're born that way', there's
always been child molesters; we might as well get used to it',
'pedophilia is mainly a crime invented by society; in ancient times
most of these kids would have been married already'
And my absolute favorite 'we don't let kids have a say in anything
else why should they have a say in sexual matter'.
Pretty scary, eh? But its coming. The kid rapers have been inspired by
the success the homos have had with useful idiots such as yourself.
They're pretty much using the same tactics. Of course they should be
familiar enough with them what the large amounts of the same people
being in both camps.
Laughable you say? 30 years ago you would have said the same thing
about the homos.

>
>Sicko.

We find out who the sicko is in a bit. 8)

>> How about animal molesters? Is it
>>bigoted to think that there's something wrong with them?
>
>Ditto - although in this case it's a question of whether it's animal
>abise or not.

Bleaugh! anti-Semite justifies having sex with critters! And he has
the nerve to call me a sicko!

> Dogs will cheerfully hump anything and anyone so that's
>just a matter of taste (yechh, imho), but I don't think gerbils enjoy
>being shoved into various orifices (do people actually do that, btw?).

I'm sure it started out as an urban legend. I'm also sure that by now
at least one person has heard the story, got curious and tried it.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <upnlgv0d4briioclqjio75iq7mpfc3gpnn[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>>Want to explain what is so wrong about homosexuality?
> >>I doubt if I could.
> >
> >I didn't expect otherwise.
>
> It requires a pupil who is willing to understand to be taught. I am
> lacking this with you.
> >
> >> You lack the necessary sense of right and wrong.
> >
> >I could say the same of you.
>
> You could say almost anything. You'd still be wrong.
>
> >Unlike you, I know that disapproving of
> >somebody else's actions/tastes when I don't even know why is wrong.
>
> But I do know why. They're willful detgenerates just like child
> molesters, animal fuckers and necrophiliacs.

So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:46:34 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> chose to bless us
with the following wisdom:

>In article <upnlgv0d4briioclqjio75iq7mpfc3gpnn[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>Want to explain what is so wrong about homosexuality?
>> >>I doubt if I could.
>> >
>> >I didn't expect otherwise.
>>
>> It requires a pupil who is willing to understand to be taught. I am
>> lacking this with you.
>> >
>> >> You lack the necessary sense of right and wrong.
>> >
>> >I could say the same of you.
>>
>> You could say almost anything. You'd still be wrong.
>>
>> >Unlike you, I know that disapproving of
>> >somebody else's actions/tastes when I don't even know why is wrong.
>>
>> But I do know why. They're willful detgenerates just like child
>> molesters, animal fuckers and necrophiliacs.
>
>So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
>animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.

No one has ever been able to explain to me why homos are the Chosen
Perverts that are somehow above the others. Can you?


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:46:34 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> wrote:

>In article <upnlgv0d4briioclqjio75iq7mpfc3gpnn[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>>Want to explain what is so wrong about homosexuality?
>> >>I doubt if I could.
>> >
>> >I didn't expect otherwise.
>>
>> It requires a pupil who is willing to understand to be taught. I am
>> lacking this with you.
>> >
>> >> You lack the necessary sense of right and wrong.
>> >
>> >I could say the same of you.
>>
>> You could say almost anything. You'd still be wrong.
>>
>> >Unlike you, I know that disapproving of
>> >somebody else's actions/tastes when I don't even know why is wrong.
>>
>> But I do know why. They're willful detgenerates just like child
>> molesters, animal fuckers and necrophiliacs.
>
>So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
>animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.

Christian Lund has explicity said animal sex is OK - so you'd have to
take that up with him. If he's OK with it, why aren't you?

In article <gfamgv4hpmqhp4jor91ke24rg29e9ip0j7[at]4ax.com>,
foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

> >
> >So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
> >animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.
>
> Christian Lund has explicity said animal sex is OK - so you'd have to
> take that up with him. If he's OK with it, why aren't you?

Because he (I would assume) believe that sex with a animal can be
consentual for BOTH parties, and I do not.

In article <f78mgvctckm59ik1ffr6febg8rrckhtcla[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> >So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
> >animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.
>
> No one has ever been able to explain to me why homos are the Chosen
> Perverts that are somehow above the others. Can you?

For one thing "pervert" implies BEHAVIOUR and to be homosexual does not
imply behaviour. One can be homosexual yet not engage in sex. Is a
nun who is homosexual yet been celibate her whole life a pervert?

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:27:55 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:18:26 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <gfamgv4hpmqhp4jor91ke24rg29e9ip0j7[at]4ax.com>,
>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >
>>> >So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
>>> >animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.
>>>
>>> Christian Lund has explicity said animal sex is OK - so you'd have to
>>> take that up with him. If he's OK with it, why aren't you?
>>
>>Because he (I would assume) believe that sex with a animal can be
>>consentual for BOTH parties, and I do not.
>
>I'd love to know how the animal could give consent....

The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

In article <rd2ngv0c5vk0glkgphgfmmu7p7lsua55s7[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:43:25 -0700, Josiah Fizer <jfizer[at]classy.com>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:27:55 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
> >>I'd love to know how the animal could give consent....
> >The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
> Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
> The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
> make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
> you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
> out and slip it in.

No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
Plenty of consent there, faux.

--
C Lund

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:28:25 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]chello.no> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

>In article <rd2ngv0c5vk0glkgphgfmmu7p7lsua55s7[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 17:43:25 -0700, Josiah Fizer <jfizer[at]classy.com>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>> >On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:27:55 GMT, foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>I'd love to know how the animal could give consent....
>> >The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>> Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>> The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>> make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>> you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>> out and slip it in.
>
>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>Plenty of consent there, faux.

Have you ever even seen an animal? Most of them don't even think about
sex except for certain times of the year. A dog humping your leg is
not sexual behavior.


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <mcnugvkj8fhsscvm29ndja7vdgbbm6ucfg[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:28:25 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]chello.no> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
> >> >The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
> >> Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
> >> The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
> >> make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
> >> you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
> >> out and slip it in.
> >No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
> >Plenty of consent there, faux.
> Have you ever even seen an animal?

Please...

> Most of them don't even think about
> sex except for certain times of the year.

I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
domesticated animals such as dogs.

> A dog humping your leg is
> not sexual behavior.

Yes it is faux.

--
C Lund

In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >> >> >The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
> >> >> Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
> >> >> The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
> >> >> make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
> >> >> you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
> >> >> out and slip it in.
> >> >No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
> >> >Plenty of consent there, faux.
> >> Have you ever even seen an animal?
> >Please...
> Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
> experience with them is very low.

I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.

> >> Most of them don't even think about
> >> sex except for certain times of the year.
> >I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
> >domesticated animals such as dogs.
> Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
> heat?

That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
comes on them.

> >> A dog humping your leg is
> >> not sexual behavior.
> >Yes it is faux.
> No its not anti-Semite.

I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.

> And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
> would think so. Its dominance.

And how does it show dominance? Through sex.

> Perhaps its your stated strong desire
> to be a dog fucker that makes you think a dog's every move is based on
> sex.

And here we we have it: "you defend it so you must be one". I was
wondering when that "argument" would appear.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
<christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
following wisdom:

>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>> >> >> >The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>> >> >> Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>> >> >> The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>> >> >> make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>> >> >> you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>> >> >> out and slip it in.
>> >> >No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>> >> >Plenty of consent there, faux.
>> >> Have you ever even seen an animal?
>> >Please...
>> Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
>> experience with them is very low.
>
>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
>
>> >> Most of them don't even think about
>> >> sex except for certain times of the year.
>> >I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>> >domesticated animals such as dogs.
>> Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>> heat?
>
>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>comes on them.

You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
heat that activates the males' sex drive.

>> >> A dog humping your leg is
>> >> not sexual behavior.
>> >Yes it is faux.
>> No its not anti-Semite.
>
>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.

No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>
>> And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>> would think so. Its dominance.
>
>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.

You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
mouth they really want to tongue kiss.

>
>> Perhaps its your stated strong desire
>> to be a dog fucker that makes you think a dog's every move is based on
>> sex.
>
>And here we we have it: "you defend it so you must be one". I was
>wondering when that "argument" would appear.

You're the one defending the indefensible. Killing Jews because they
are Jews and fucking dogs. You're quite a piece of work.



--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

In article <7k52hv8f5f5q3tpq5g7mktgfpgti2u1rtj[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> following wisdom:
> >> >> Most of them don't even think about
> >> >> sex except for certain times of the year.
> >> >I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
> >> >domesticated animals such as dogs.
> >> Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
> >> heat?
> >That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
> >comes on them.
> You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.

"Get horny" then. Sheesh.

> They respond to the bitches being in heat.

Which means they don't have a season ("when the bitches come in heat" is
not a season). Male dogs get horny when the right situation arises
(usually caused by smell), not when some biological clock says so.

> Its the females coming into
> heat that activates the males' sex drive.

So that dog humping your leg thinks you smell like a bitch in heat?

> >> >> A dog humping your leg is
> >> >> not sexual behavior.
> >> >Yes it is faux.
> >> No its not anti-Semite.
> >I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
> >sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
> No its just pointing out a fact about you.

And it's relevance to this topic is...?

Face it faux; you used that stupid ad hominem because you're slipping.

> >> And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
> >> would think so. Its dominance.
> >And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
> You are one dumb sonofabitch.

That'll win you many argument.. B)

> You think that just because it looks
> like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
> animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
> make.

This topic seems to piss you off more than most. Why is that?

> I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
> mouth they really want to tongue kiss.

No. That's a greeting.

> >> Perhaps its your stated strong desire
> >> to be a dog fucker that makes you think a dog's every move is based on
> >> sex.
> >And here we we have it: "you defend it so you must be one". I was
> >wondering when that "argument" would appear.
> You're the one defending the indefensible. Killing Jews because they
> are Jews and fucking dogs. You're quite a piece of work.

And again your anti-smite lies pop in where they aren't wanted. I do not
advocate "killing Jews because they are Jews and fucking dogs", and you
know it. It's just more lies from you, faux. And somebody who advocates
ethnic cleansing really should not accuse others of things like that.
Glass house and all.

--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund

Christopher Lund wrote:
>
>>I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>>mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>
>
> No. That's a greeting.

In Mayor's case, it means he needs to brush his teeth.

--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he does.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:33:49 +0200, Christopher Lund
<clund[at]NOSPAMnotam02.no> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:

>In article <7k52hv8f5f5q3tpq5g7mktgfpgti2u1rtj[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>> >> >> Most of them don't even think about
>> >> >> sex except for certain times of the year.
>> >> >I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>> >> >domesticated animals such as dogs.
>> >> Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>> >> heat?
>> >That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>> >comes on them.
>> You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
>
>"Get horny" then. Sheesh.
>
>> They respond to the bitches being in heat.
>
>Which means they don't have a season ("when the bitches come in heat" is
>not a season).

Yes it is. They usually go into heat twice a year.

> Male dogs get horny when the right situation arises
>(usually caused by smell), not when some biological clock says so.

Its when a nearby female goes into heat.

>> Its the females coming into
>> heat that activates the males' sex drive.
>
>So that dog humping your leg thinks you smell like a bitch in heat?

No that dog humping your leg thinks that you're a rival and he's
challenging you. Its more like a wrestling match. Perhaps if you went
out and got a boyfriend you wouldn't think that your dog was putting
the moves on you.

>
>> >> >> A dog humping your leg is
>> >> >> not sexual behavior.
>> >> >Yes it is faux.
>> >> No its not anti-Semite.
>> >I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>> >sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
>> No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>
>And it's relevance to this topic is...?

Perhaps if you paid attention you'd notice a pattern.
>
>Face it faux; you used that stupid ad hominem because you're slipping.

No, dog fucking anti-Semite, I used it because you use them.
>
>> >> And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>> >> would think so. Its dominance.
>> >And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
>> You are one dumb sonofabitch.
>
>That'll win you many argument.. B)

What else is there to say to a guy who thinks his dog is making eyes
at him?

>
>> You think that just because it looks
>> like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
>> animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
>> make.
>
>This topic seems to piss you off more than most. Why is that?

Pissed off? I'm greatly amused. You've certainly lost any credibility
when it comes to decency with your support of this.
>
>> I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>> mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>
>No. That's a greeting.

No, sniffing butts is a greeting. Licking you in the mouth is trying
to get some of the food they smell there.

>
>> >> Perhaps its your stated strong desire
>> >> to be a dog fucker that makes you think a dog's every move is based on
>> >> sex.
>> >And here we we have it: "you defend it so you must be one". I was
>> >wondering when that "argument" would appear.
>> You're the one defending the indefensible. Killing Jews because they
>> are Jews and fucking dogs. You're quite a piece of work.
>
>And again your anti-smite lies pop in where they aren't wanted. I do not
>advocate "killing Jews because they are Jews and fucking dogs", and you
>know it. It's just more lies from you, faux. And somebody who advocates
>ethnic cleansing really should not accuse others of things like that.
>Glass house and all.

I advocate the the least bloody path to peace. You can scream and
shout all you want, dog fucking anti-Semite, but the reality is that
there is never going to peace between the Arabs and Jews so long as
this fifth column remains in Israel. They need to be moved out like
the Arab nations did their Jewish populations when Israel was founded.
Give the Arab refugees the property of the Jews that the Arab nations
confiscated on the Jews' way out. That's what they said they were
going to do with it all those years ago.



--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

Elizabot wrote in <3f111b11$0$199$75868355[at]news.frii.net>:

>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>> following wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>>>>>>>>The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>>>>>>>>make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>>>>>>>>you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>>>>>>>>out and slip it in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>>>>>>>Plenty of consent there, faux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you ever even seen an animal?
>>>>>
>>>>>Please...
>>>>
>>>>Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
>>>>experience with them is very low.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Most of them don't even think about
>>>>>>sex except for certain times of the year.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>>>>>domesticated animals such as dogs.
>>>>
>>>>Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>>>>heat?
>>>
>>>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>>>comes on them.
>>
>>
>> You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
>> They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
>> heat that activates the males' sex drive.
>>
>>
>>>>>>A dog humping your leg is
>>>>>>not sexual behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is faux.
>>>>
>>>>No its not anti-Semite.
>>>
>>>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>>>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
>>
>>
>> No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>>
>>>>And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>>>>would think so. Its dominance.
>>>
>>>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
>>
>>
>> You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
>> like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
>> animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
>> make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>> mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>
>No, silly, that just means they wuv you.

Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
get Elizabot showing up in this thread?

You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?

Christopher Lund wrote in
<christopher.lund-DF7E73.09314811072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>:

>In article <25cogv8kpd315oj7q3qlpc0qidas5h790k[at]4ax.com>,
> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 10:37:42 +0200, C Lund
>> <christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> wrote:
>> >In article <7aomgv4cog7289peicft0hmsq6h0piqkgq[at]4ax.com>,
>> > foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 23:18:26 GMT, no <no[at]no.com> wrote:
>> >>>In article <gfamgv4hpmqhp4jor91ke24rg29e9ip0j7[at]4ax.com>,
>> >>> foo <foo[at]bar.com> wrote:
>> >>>> >So homosexuals are equated by you to be the same as child molestors,
>> >>>> >animal fuckers and necrophiliacs. Cool.
>> >>>> Christian Lund has explicity said animal sex is OK - so you'd have to
>> >>>> take that up with him. If he's OK with it, why aren't you?
>> >>>Because he (I would assume) believe that sex with a animal can be
>> >>>consentual for BOTH parties, and I do not.
>> >>I'd love to know how the animal could give consent....
>> >Have you never seen a dog try to hump somebody's leg?
>
>> >You must lead a sheltered life...
>
>> Mayor's already answered this far better than I
>
>Faux explained why the dog was doing that and how to respond. But what
>he did had no bearing on whether the animal was giving consent or not.
>
>>, your now-apparent
>> animal sex fantasies notwithstanding.
>
>And here's that old "you're defending them so you must be one of them"
>canard.

The very concept of "consensual" sex with animals is just so very
European.

Steve Hanson wrote:
> Elizabot wrote in <3f111b11$0$199$75868355[at]news.frii.net>:
>
>
>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>following wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>>>>>>>>>The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>>>>>>>>>make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>>>>>>>>>you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>>>>>>>>>out and slip it in.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>>>>>>>>Plenty of consent there, faux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Have you ever even seen an animal?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please...
>>>>>
>>>>>Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
>>>>>experience with them is very low.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Most of them don't even think about
>>>>>>>sex except for certain times of the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>>>>>>domesticated animals such as dogs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>>>>>heat?
>>>>
>>>>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>>>>comes on them.
>>>
>>>
>>>You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
>>>They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
>>>heat that activates the males' sex drive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>A dog humping your leg is
>>>>>>>not sexual behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes it is faux.
>>>>>
>>>>>No its not anti-Semite.
>>>>
>>>>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>>>>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
>>>
>>>
>>>No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>>>>>would think so. Its dominance.
>>>>
>>>>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
>>>like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
>>>animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
>>>make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>>>mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>>
>>No, silly, that just means they wuv you.
>
>
> Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
> get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
>
> You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?

Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."

Why do you ask?

--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he does.

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:15:21 -0600, Elizabot
<booREMOVE[at]grayREMOVErock.org> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:

>Steve Hanson wrote:
>> Elizabot wrote in <3f111b11$0$199$75868355[at]news.frii.net>:
>>
>>
>>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>>>>>>>>>>The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>>>>>>>>>>make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>>>>>>>>>>you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>>>>>>>>>>out and slip it in.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>>>>>>>>>Plenty of consent there, faux.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Have you ever even seen an animal?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
>>>>>>experience with them is very low.
>>>>>
>>>>>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Most of them don't even think about
>>>>>>>>sex except for certain times of the year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>>>>>>>domesticated animals such as dogs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>>>>>>heat?
>>>>>
>>>>>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>>>>>comes on them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
>>>>They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
>>>>heat that activates the males' sex drive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>A dog humping your leg is
>>>>>>>>not sexual behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes it is faux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No its not anti-Semite.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>>>>>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>>>>>>would think so. Its dominance.
>>>>>
>>>>>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
>>>>like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
>>>>animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
>>>>make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>>>>mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>>>
>>>No, silly, that just means they wuv you.
>>
>>
>> Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
>> get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
>>
>> You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?
>
>Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."
>
>Why do you ask?

So you equate Steve Hanson's asshole with bitches in heat? How odd!


--

"Whoever is advising them [Democrats] on gun control
should be shot."

Blaine Rummel, spokesman for the Coalition to
Stop Gun Violence.

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:15:21 -0600, Elizabot
> <booREMOVE[at]grayREMOVErock.org> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>
>>Steve Hanson wrote:
>>
>>>Elizabot wrote in <3f111b11$0$199$75868355[at]news.frii.net>:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
>>>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
>>>>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
>>>>>>>following wisdom:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down and
>>>>>>>>>>>make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
>>>>>>>>>>>you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
>>>>>>>>>>>out and slip it in.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
>>>>>>>>>>Plenty of consent there, faux.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Have you ever even seen an animal?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Please...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
>>>>>>>experience with them is very low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Most of them don't even think about
>>>>>>>>>sex except for certain times of the year.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
>>>>>>>>domesticated animals such as dogs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
>>>>>>>heat?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
>>>>>>comes on them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
>>>>>They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
>>>>>heat that activates the males' sex drive.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A dog humping your leg is
>>>>>>>>>not sexual behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes it is faux.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No its not anti-Semite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
>>>>>>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No its just pointing out a fact about you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
>>>>>>>would think so. Its dominance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
>>>>>like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
>>>>>animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
>>>>>make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
>>>>>mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
>>>>
>>>>No, silly, that just means they wuv you.
>>>
>>>
>>>Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
>>>get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
>>>
>>>You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?
>>
>>Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."
>>
>>Why do you ask?
>
>
> So you equate Steve Hanson's asshole with bitches in heat? How odd!

Seems "rather fitting" to me!

--
If Bill Gates had a nickel for every time Windows crashed... oh wait, he does.

In article <a046hvc5d9msqqqnq2cteu72elgb02vll3[at]4ax.com>,
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:15:21 -0600, Elizabot
> <booREMOVE[at]grayREMOVErock.org> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
> >Steve Hanson wrote:
> >> Elizabot wrote in <3f111b11$0$199$75868355[at]news.frii.net>:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 08:57:51 +0200, Christopher Lund
> >>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> >>>>following wisdom:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>In article <hikvgvcl9vbodmk6k4iu0hlrm07unesji5[at]4ax.com>,
> >>>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:24:45 +0200, Christopher Lund
> >>>>>><christopher.lund[at]NOSPAMchello.no> chose to bless us with the
> >>>>>>following wisdom:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>The dog rubbing up and down your leg is giving his consent.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>Thd dog rubbing up and down on your leg is showing dominance to
> >>>>>>>>>>you.
> >>>>>>>>>>The proper response is to roll him over on his back, hold him down
> >>>>>>>>>>and
> >>>>>>>>>>make a low growling noise until he quits resisting to show him that
> >>>>>>>>>>you're the boss, not him. He doesn't want or expect you to whip it
> >>>>>>>>>>out and slip it in.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>No, but I doubt he'd mind if you bent over and let *him* slip it in.
> >>>>>>>>>Plenty of consent there, faux.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Have you ever even seen an animal?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Please...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Your almost complete ignorance of them seems to indicate that your
> >>>>>>experience with them is very low.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I wouldn't bring up ignorance if I were you, faux.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Most of them don't even think about
> >>>>>>>>sex except for certain times of the year.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I am well aware of that. But there are exceptions - especially among
> >>>>>>>domesticated animals such as dogs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Dogs have a season. Have you really never heard of a bitch coming into
> >>>>>>heat?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's the bitches. When do the males come in heat? Whenever the urge
> >>>>>comes on them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You ARE ignorant of animals. The males don't come into heat you moron.
> >>>>They respond to the bitches being in heat. Its the females coming into
> >>>>heat that activates the males' sex drive.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>A dog humping your leg is
> >>>>>>>>not sexual behavior.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Yes it is faux.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>No its not anti-Semite.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'll take the off-topic insertion of your silly anti-semite accusation a
> >>>>>sign that you've realized how weak your argument is.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>No its just pointing out a fact about you.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>And only someone entirely ignorant of dogs
> >>>>>>would think so. Its dominance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And how does it show dominance? Through sex.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>You are one dumb sonofabitch. You think that just because it looks
> >>>>like sex to you it must be sex. You're putting human behaviors onto
> >>>>animals. Its a quite common mistake the totally clueless about animals
> >>>>make. I suppose you also think that when a dog licks someone in the
> >>>>mouth they really want to tongue kiss.
> >>>
> >>>No, silly, that just means they wuv you.
> >>
> >>
> >> Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
> >> get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
> >>
> >> You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?
> >
> >Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."
> >
> >Why do you ask?
>
> So you equate Steve Hanson's asshole with bitches in heat? How odd!


Why is that so odd? He comes here every damn day to get buttf*cked. At
least we oblige him.

Steve

Christopher Lund wrote in
<clund-4CE693.10045815072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>:

>In article <a046hvc5d9msqqqnq2cteu72elgb02vll3[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
>> >> get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
>> >>
>> >> You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?
>> >
>> >Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."
>> >
>> >Why do you ask?
>>
>> So you equate Steve Hanson's asshole with bitches in heat? How odd!
>
>Maybe Hanson's dog is the one making that equation...? ;)

I think it's totally unfair to suggest that a female dog (or for that
matter my rectum) would be a more winning companion than our resident
Twinkie-gorging malcontent. That's simply not fair to Elizabot or her
obedience school trainer.

In article <clund-4CE693.10045815072003[at]amstwist00.chello.com>,
Christopher Lund <clund[at]NOSPAMnotam02.no> wrote:

> In article <a046hvc5d9msqqqnq2cteu72elgb02vll3[at]4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev515o[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Notice how soon after the phrase "bitches in heat" was mentioned we
> > >> get Elizabot showing up in this thread?
> > >>
> > >> You've been grepping Usenet again, haven't you, dear?
> > >
> > >Sometimes I do for stuff like "steve hanson" AND "asshole."
> > >
> > >Why do you ask?
> >
> > So you equate Steve Hanson's asshole with bitches in heat? How odd!
>
> Maybe Hanson's dog is the one making that equation...? ;)

How can one even tell the difference between Hanson's asshole and
Hanson? That's the REAL question. It's not apparent from this angle,
that there is any difference.

--
George Graves