@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @Thread It'd a good thing Deluxe Paint is no longer in development because I don't think I'd be buying the next release from EA

Didn't think it was possible and I've even thought to myself during this thread "BigD can't be that bad, surely"...

Congratulations, you have proven me wrong...

You really are that bad, not to mention sad, really really sad...

_________________

@BigD

I prefer Dunn Bros over Starbucks but I've now started frequenting Starbucks. Sports games aren't my favorite but it looks like time to buy some EA Games.

@Franko

Quote:

Didn't think it was possible and I've even thought to myself during this thread "BigD can't be that bad, surely"... Congratulations, you have proven me wrong... You really are that bad, not to mention sad, really really sad...

I agree I find it sad too. HOWEVER, I do enable BigD the right to live his life the way he wants to live it. If he doesn't want to support companies with compassion like Starbucks and EA then he shouldn't have to do that. That being said. It's also wrong to enable BigD to force his impressions on the rest of society.

We should have an open society that enables people to live the way they want. That's why I support gay marriage. If those two people want to make such a commitment then go for it. BigD has a right to not like it. But, that's where it ends. BigD does not have a right to foist his hatred as a 'moral' and demand the rest of society follow it.

@BigD
Quote:

It seems there have been further delays to the decision because they know that school teachers will be forced to teach this liberal same-sex marriage mantra or face demotion or expulsion from the profession

And yet you are perfectly happy for these same poor defenceless teachers to stand up in front of a class of children and preach the message that anybody who does not conform to their own narrow view of the world is a disgusting pervert who must be excluded from all forms of human contact that does not involve pain. Some of the worst bullies it has been my displeasure to meet have been schoolteachers who abuse their position of authority. I clearly remember one particular individual who opposed the Race relations act because it took away his right to express his opinion.
Just as that law did not require me to turn black, this law will not require me to "turn gay", they both simply remove an integral bias and prejudice.
You and others keep pushing this particular red herring about "attacks on freedom of conscience", and then link to each others assertions as proof that you are right. I bet that somebody somewhere is posting links to your drivel, claiming that even computer buffs are worried about this creeping advance of homosexuality in the community.

Quote:

This isn't the simple 'equality' proposal that it's been painted as by the BBC and liberally biased media,

While I am perfectly willing to accept that the BBC can be inept, incompetent, or ignorant of the facts, the so called "liberal bias" is a function of the fact that they are required to give a balanced viewpoint, rather than lurching so far to one extreme or another that the majority view has disappeared over the horizon. And despite your claims to the contrary, the majority view on homosexual rights and equality is "why not."

Quote:

IGN - EA becomes a Gay Rights Activist

So what is your huge grievance against other people having rights? Is it your opinion that people "turn queer!" as a consequence of eating American ice cream? My own grievance against Starbucks is that their product is overpriced, and the staff rude, but they seem to have suddenly gone up in my estimation, though not enough for me to return to one of their premises. Are you truly so hate filled that you will deny people the opportunity to have a little bit of happiness?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Just as that law did not require me to turn black, this law will not require me to "turn gay", they both simply remove an integral bias and prejudice.

Colour of skin is something people are born with and as such is not at all comparable to someone's sexual activity which can change with age, past history, life experience and family breakdown experiences. They are not comparable, there is no proof that people are born gay and in my experience most of the gay people I know had bad or absent father figures. I have never heard of a person changing skin colour because they didn't get on with their father (other than Michael Jackson and that involved plastic surgery )

Quote:

And despite your claims to the contrary, the majority view on homosexual rights and equality is "why not."

Wrong. Lots of people value the institution of marriage itself not just their own individual marriage but the concept i.e. the building block of society. We are not as the British Gas advert advocates; all living on our individual little planetoids with no bearing on each other, we live in communities and this 'redefining exercise' has the potential to weaken our communities not strengthen them!

Elton John worries about the day when his child realises he hasn't got a mummy and George Michael thinks Civil Partnerships are enough for 'equality' to have been implemented. This should be enough to start the liberals thinking that maybe the 'Gay Rights' agenda should be but back on the top shelf of a dusty bookcase rather than wheeled out as a pseudo-manifesto for a coalition government with no REAL mandate to do this!

Quote:

My own grievance against Starbucks is that their product is overpriced, and the staff rude, but they seem to have suddenly gone up in my estimation, though not enough for me to return to one of their premises. Are you truly so hate filled that you will deny people the opportunity to have a little bit of happiness?

I don't think the sale of coffee has anything to do with the 'Gay Rights agenda' and so a coffee, computer games or ice cream manufacturer should keep out of politics and stick to what they are qualified and expected to do i.e. sell coffee, games or ice cream!!!!

Last edited by BigD on 21-Jul-2012 at 11:20 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

. They are not comparable, there is no proof that people are born gay

Due to 1900 other species having homosexual relations is a good sign that nature is part of the answer. However if one is born, or not born gay, is fairly unimportant to the question. The larger question is how should society treat people when it comes to matters of the heart. And if two people decide they want to form a family bond then they should be allowed to do so.

If you want to know nature something we do have is MRI scans of brains in romantic love. We can tell where the romantic love areas of the brain are. And these are the same for hetrosexuals in love and homosexuals in love. It appears the same chemical processes are at work and neurons are stimulated in one's brain during love no matter the sex of the partner. If we're using love as the reason behind a marriage coupling then those that claim to love each other and feel sufficently for another should be enabled to be married. We could, in theory, test their brains to see what they are saying is true or not. (For example, we know some straights have gotten married, not for love, but to avoid immigration laws. It could be detected. Or perhaps if done we'd be able to tell Britney Spears that her 1 week long whirlwind marriage in Vegas was not truly based on love)

Quote:

in my experience most of the gay people I know had bad or absent father figures

If you want to blame their Dad then go for it. However, in my experience each person is fairly unique. I have a number of friends who have married parents. Dad stayed around and they have a better relationship than I do with my Dad. But, that broken relationship didn't make me gay. Nor did their non-broken relationship make them straight.

Quote:

I don't think the sale of coffee has anything to do with the 'Gay Rights agenda' and so a coffee, computer games or ice cream manufacturer should keep out of politics and stick to what they are qualified and expected to do

Businesses collect money. As long as we allow money to be spent in elections then businesses are going to be a political force. Businesses, afterall, are made up of people. And if those people see a social-ill they believe needs correcting and have the ability to aid in it's correction they should be enabled to do so. For example the business of religion certainly claims to be in the business of giving to the social downtroden. Perhaps I've watched too much Spider-Man but with greater power comes even greater responsibility.

I'd take exception to the 'Gay Rights Agenda'... It isn't a Gay Rights Agenda it's an 'Equal Rights Agenda' where one is measured by their actions not by stereotyping the group. (As you've mentioned Nazi Germany it's such stereotyping which lead to imprisioning and torture of not only the jews but homsexuals as well.)

Last edited by BrianK on 22-Jul-2012 at 01:57 AM.

@BrianK

I posted a post here a few hours ago and it's gone missing...

If anyone spots it could they please let me know and return it to it's rightful owner... ta...

_________________

@BigD

Quote:

Colour of skin is something people are born with and as such is not at all comparable to someone's sexual activity which can change with age, past history, life experience and family breakdown experiences

This is not a question of "Race Rights" Versus "GayRights". I quoted the opposition by an individual bigot, representing a group of bigots as an example of people opposing the granting of Human Rights to a section of the population. As long as somebody else's right to enjoy their life in peace and tranquility does not infringe anothers right to do likewise then neither I nor you have any right to oppose that right. What two other people do to each other in the privacy of their own home is of no concern to me as long as it causes no harm to others.

Quote:

I don't think the sale of coffee has anything to do with the 'Gay Rights agenda' and so a coffee, computer games or ice cream manufacturer should keep out of politics

I totally agree with you insofar as I would boycott any cafe that put up posters for a particular candidate in an election, or likewise if a computer game urged me to vote Republican. On the other hand, if a business were to fund a political or charitable group with their post tax profits, that is not a problem to me. It is, after all, their own money, and as they cannot tell me how to spend what I have, I am also not empowered to dictate how they spend theirs, nor will I complain if you sign over a tithe to your chosen church. You on the other hand, demand the right to tell me how to think, and wealthy people how to spend their money. By whose authority do you make these demands?

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BrianK

Quote:

I'd take exception to the 'Gay Rights Agenda'... It isn't a Gay Rights Agenda it's an 'Equal Rights Agenda' where one is measured by their actions not by stereotyping the group.

A previously stated, the ideals written down in the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto, 1971 are very much alive and well at the charity 'Stonewall' and amongst the MPs and members of the Liberal Democrat Party. As stated by George Michael, David Starkey, Elton John and others; marriage simply isn't necessary for homosexuals as they already have 'Equality'! The 'Gay Rights agenda' is a continuation of where the GLF left off. It uses 'equality' arguments to justify its agenda to undermine and destroy the nuclear family.

Quote:

I have a number of friends who have married parents. Dad stayed around and they have a better relationship than I do with my Dad.

Other factors come into play obviously. Maybe abuse took place when they were children, maybe they were bullied at school, maybe it became clear to them that they couldn't like the 'Absolutely Fabulous TV series' and be straight but for whatever reason they turned to the homosexual community to find acceptance and they weren't born that way. People should be free to disagree with these 'life choice' decisions, there not a brand new gendre of humanity they just for a range of different reasons reject their gendre roles and on the whole have dangerous promiscuous sex with a range of same-sex partners. I don't think society should be encouraging these confused and vulnerable people to experiment with this dangerous lifestyle because they're a bit different to the rest of us! They are free under our society to experiment if they want but we shouldn't be teaching our children to 'give it a go' or that this way of living is comparable to 'marriage'!

Quote:

And if those people see a social-ill they believe needs correcting and have the ability to aid in it's correction they should be enabled to do so. For example the business of religion certainly claims to be in the business of giving to the social downtroden.

Except homosexuals are not downtrodden or underprivileged they already have relationship equality and are no trying to destroy 'marriage' a far more stable and beneficial relationship to society because they can never have a stake in it. This wreaks of selfishness and activism progressing way out of control. They are pushing for the persecution of regular teachers, church leaders, registrars, wedding service workers etc who want no part in this homosexual service industry. It is absolutely wrong to...

A) Destroy marriage which is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others", and to replace with a watered down contract!

and...

B) Put countless people under threat of litigation so a small handful of homosexuals can call their 'Partnership Party' a 'Wedding'.

And all in the name of 'Equality'!!!! It seems homosexuals are very much more equal than others in your eyes!!! What other cherished institutions shall we destroy to placate them? Maybe we should destroy all football stadium unless Premier Football teams agree to place at least 1 homosexual player in each team? Absolute madness!!!

Homosexuals have Civil Partnerships and the minority of homosexuals who actually want to sign up to monogamy rather than the average promiscuous 7 partners a year lifestyle are catered for! The fact you are willing to destroy marriage and put children, workers and society at large at risk is a reflection on how little you value marriage and how little you understand diversity, equality and freedom of speech.

Last edited by BigD on 22-Jul-2012 at 09:30 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

Maybe abuse took place when they were children

What abuse?
In order to denigrate this section of the population you make up any baseless accusation that pops into your head, regardless of the fact that there is neither any evidence for the claim of abuse, or recognition that this "abuse" would have taken place within the bounds of the "christian nuclear family" that you espouse as such a paragon of virtue.

Quote:

Except homosexuals are not downtrodden or underprivileged they already have relationship equality and are no trying to destroy 'marriage' a far more stable and beneficial relationship to society because they can never have a stake in it.

First point, Civil Partnership does not have the same status as marriage, therefore is not equal. If a woman earns 50% of my wage for doing the same job, she does not have equal pay. If we subsequently raise her salary to 95% of mine, her pay may be more equal than it was, but it is still not equal, so you cannot tell her to shut up and be satisfied with what she has been given. Likewise, giving her the extra 5% to achieve true equality will not make my pay packet become worthless.
Second point. You keep claiming that there is an attempt to destabilise my marriage. Can you either provide evidence for this assertion, or stop spreading malicious baseless dishonest propoganda, in an attempt to malign a minority section of the populace of this country.
Oh, and by the way, once this new legislation is signed into law, they will have a stake in marriage, whether you accept it or not.

Quote:

They are pushing for the persecution of regular teachers, church leaders, registrars, wedding service workers etc

No... All that is happening is that people are being asked to stop persecuting. Just because the people who have been responsible for the persecution are teachers, church leaders, registrars etc does not mean that it is not persecution. Remember T-J's graphic post. Teachers are required to teach the truth, not a bigoted opinion. Registrars are required to keep an accurate record of information, not edit it to suit their personal prejudice, and churches that have maintained a closed door policy will be free to continue, however those that have preached one doctrine while practising another among their officials and hierarchy will be a bit less secure.

Quote:

It is absolutely wrong to... A) Destroy marriage which is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others"

I know that you find it almost impossible to open your mind, but you could at least try to open your eyes and see the information that BrianK presented to show that your narrow view of marriage is not even supported by your own religion. Another revision, on top of the countless other revisions to the definition will make absolutely no difference at all to marriage.

Quote:

B) Put countless people under threat of litigation

As I already explained, the only people inconvenienced by this legislation are those who wish to maintain a policy of discrimination, and even then, not all such people, as long as they can prove consistency in their discrimination and legal protection for where the discrimination took place. For example a religion that has never accepted or tolerated homosexual activity can refuse the use of its premises for celebration of a homosexual wedding. If a minister of that church is also a shop keeper, he may not refuse to serve a known or suspected homosexual.

Quote:

The fact you are willing to destroy marriage and put children, workers and society at large at risk is a reflection on how little you value marriage and how little you understand diversity, equality and freedom of speech.

Again the baseless and dishonest assertion about the destruction of marriage. Until such time as you can produce evidence for your claim, it remains dishonest FUD. Your claim that I do not value marriage is based on absolutely no evidence and runs counter the the simple fact that I have remained married to the same partner for over a quarter of a century, and have worked at it rather than expecting "happy ever after" delivered to me on a plate. As to your own understanding on the subjects of diversity, equality and freedom of speech, it seems that you wish to deny those benefits to anybody who does not parrot your own views.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

A previously stated, the ideals written down in the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto, 1971 are very much alive and well at the charity 'Stonewall' and amongst the MPs and members of the Liberal Democrat Party.

The GLF Manifesto is not a requirement in anyway to be gay. And certainly people will differ on their opinions. No gay is required to March in step with Elton John.

In the USA we saw many that believed the seperation between blacks and whites brought equality. The courts, famously, ruled against the 'seperate but equal' as being equal. So perhaps the 'seperate but equal' is one the USA culture/laws accept as wrong but perhaps the UK has a different approach? Additionally, It makes no sense to me to have two different 'coupling' contracts one for gays and one for straights. Especially if the terms of the contract are equal and they're exactly the same thing, as you claim them to be.

Now you are worried about 3.7Million expense of changing all the forms. If equality really exists then we should be changing all the forms to include married partners or civil partners. If equality exists the cost should be a wash and therefore being absorbed. If the forms aren't being changed then equality doesn't truly exist.

Quote:

Other factors come into play obviously.

The point is you are stereotyping individuals by a characteristic of a 'group'. It's clearly not true when we look at individuals. As for 'not born that way' - what we can say is from MRI scans their emotions of love for their same sex partner functions in their brain the same way that BigD's love for your opposite sex partner. So indeed there is a biologically measured characteristic that love is indistinguishable. If they learned to somehow change their brain it simply doesn't matter. The fact is the same processes are going on and therefore we should treat these in the same manner. (Assuming we want equality of course.) (Oh and I love Ab Fab and I know gays that hate it. And it's one the few Facebook TV publicity pages I subscribe to.)

Quote:

People should be free to disagree with these 'life choice'

You are free to disagree with that 'life choice' option for the way you want to live your life. People should not be free to limit the liberties and freedoms of other individuals in society by banning that 'life choice'.

Quote:

I don't think society should be encouraging

What is encouraging? EQUALITY!

Quote:

Except homosexuals are not downtrodden or underprivileged

Don't know about the UK but in the USA they are. In 28 out of 50 US States one can be fired from their job for being gay. Even though sexual preference has no dependence whatsoever on ability to perform the tasks. Many States allow not selling homes or renting apartments to gays. Only 12 out of 50 States ban discrimination based on sexual preference. -- So indeed homosexuality in the USA has not acheived equality.

Quote:

It seems homosexuals are very much more equal than others in your eyes

Really? What other characteristics of people are denied the ability to marry in your society? I've asked for no rights above marriage for gays. I've asked for exactly the same rights. The same rights and definitions makes them equal not more equal. Your concept here is false.

Quote:

The fact you are willing to destroy marriage and put children, workers and society at large at risk is a reflection on how little you value marriage and how little you understand diversity, equality and freedom of speech

Nice summary and you are completely wrong.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Teachers are required to teach the truth, not a bigoted opinion. Registrars are required to keep an accurate record of information, not edit it to suit their personal prejudice, and churches that have maintained a closed door policy will be free to continue

This is absolute rubbish! Why do you think the Scottish decision is being delayed? It's because of the concern that the 'closed door' policy (in your words) of churches to same-sex marriage will be liable to litigation unless the UK Equality Laws are amended. This is backed up by the European Court of Human Rights. Your opinions are not based on real world eventuality!

In regards to your first point; the truth is that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which should have nothing to do with the same-sex agreements you seem to hold a candle for! The truth is that most homosexuals are promiscuous and that homosexuals have a far higher risk of contracting AIDS and due to their risky lifestyle and have on average a lower life expectancy. Why don't we teach these FACTS to the children instead of force feeding them 'Gay Agenda' propaganda like the 'Sissy Duckling' and 'King and King' books that are already making the rounds in UK primary schools?

@BigD

Quote:

This is absolute rubbish! Why do you think the Scottish decision is being delayed

Because a self interested self centred pressure group is threatening legal and indistrial action that will cause disruption in the self same manner that certain unions are threatening to disrupt the olympics unless they are paid a huge unearned dividend as a form of protection racketeering. or to put it another way it is the church saying that the rest of the world must do it their way, or else! the only reason that certain religious groups are under threat from this legislation is because its members preach "thou shalt not" while gaily rogering the choirboys. Where homosexuality is practised, it must be tolerated.

Quote:

In regards to your first point; the truth is that marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others

check

the

facts

The truth is, your holy book has changed its mind too many times about what the definition of a "normal" marriage is to be believable. One more minor adjustment makes no difference at all.

Quote:

which should have nothing to do with the same-sex agreements you seem to hold a candle for!

I am male. My lifelong sexual partner (wife) is female. We are heterosexual Unlike you, I am sufficiently self confident not to feel threatened by the fact that other people feel able to make alternative choices in their lives. I do not champion homosexuality, nor do I carry a candle for it, but unlike you I am willing to accept the existence of something called diversity

Quote:

The truth is that most homosexuals are promiscuous

The truth is that most humans are promiscuous. the majority of the sex trade is male clients paying for sex with female prostitutes. To the best of my knowledge that is defined as heterosexual activity, not homosexual.
The truth is that most homosexuals just want to get on with their lives without outside interference.

Quote:

homosexuals have a far higher risk of contracting AIDS

That may have been true at one point, but these days the highest rate of HIV infection worldwide is among male clients of cheap prostitutes at transport hubs, either near railway stations, port facilities, or long distance truck stops.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

Interesting article on the BBC today regarding the way homosexuality is treated on the web:

BBC News Article

AndyC

@Nimrod

Quote:

That may have been true at one point, but these days the highest rate of HIV infection worldwide is among male clients of cheap prostitutes at transport hubs, either near railway stations, port facilities, or long distance truck stops.

Great! We can add both topics to the progressive sex education course the liberals are pushing for. i.e. How it is both dangerous and unadvantageous to...

A) Pick up prostitutes (especially at transport hubs as Nimrod says they're especially riddled with STDs and we'll take his world for that ).

B) Get involved with the homosexual lifestyle due to the health risks and the inexplicable tendency to become 'PROUD' of your own sexual preferences to the degree where individuals will throw festivals and set up specific bars to the exclusion of others in a deeply divisive and exclusive manner.

It seems true equality would to allow the celebration of a 'Relationship day' rather than councils giving license to allow 'Gay Pride Marches' which are exclusive! Double standards I say

Jim Hensen Company cuts ties with Chick-fil-a over Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay support!

Time to go out and buy the complete Fraggle Rock Collection I always wanted to have for my kids.

@BrianK

Quote:

Jim Hensen Company cuts ties with Chick-fil-a over Chick-Fil-A's anti-gay support!

It is entirely in keeping that businesses serving the needs of families like Chick-fil-A should have traditional family values! However, in my opinion they should all stick to what they're best at and stay out of politics. That goes the same for Jim Henson, Oreos, Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's, Microsoft etc.

I repeat true equality would see 'Gay Pride Marches' and events like 'National Same-Sex Kiss Day' should be removed and replaced with inclusive events like a 'Relationship Day' or a 'Give Us a Kiss Day'. It's one rule for the homosexual community and another for the rest of us. Society doesn't exist to promote this minority life choice or single out practicing homosexuals as a special group!

Last edited by BigD on 24-Jul-2012 at 07:38 AM.

@BigD

Quote:

B) Get involved with the homosexual lifestyle due to the health risks and the inexplicable tendency to become 'PROUD' of your own sexual preferences to the degree where individuals will throw festivals and set up specific bars to the exclusion of others in a deeply divisive and exclusive manner. It seems true equality would to allow the celebration of a 'Relationship day' rather than councils giving license to allow 'Gay Pride Marches' which are exclusive! Double standards I say

That's a rather ignorant way of seeing things.

It's always advisable to practice safe-sex, no matter what your sexual preferences might be. It taks only one person to infect you with an STD. And that should be educated.

Further more, the reason for having pride marches is to make people aware, to protest for equal rights. To stops laws that killed scientists and made it illegal for two people to love each other.

There is no reason to be proud of one's sexuality, unless someone like yourself put shame to it.

I'm assuming that if someone of the same sex as you came to your local club and started flirting with you, I'd guess you'd, in the christian way, would smack him up and kill him? Right? Well, that's at least one reason for having special bars. Avoiding the risk of being beaten to death.

Last edited by jaokim on 24-Jul-2012 at 10:52 AM.
Last edited by jaokim on 24-Jul-2012 at 09:43 AM.

_________________
Developer for JAmiga - Java for Amiga

@BigD

Quote:

It is entirely in keeping that businesses serving the needs of families like Chick-fil-A should have traditional family values

What you, and Chick-Fil-A is saying is Gay Families are less equal and less worthy than Straight Families. Would you support a business that stands against blacks? Or would you support a Protestant business that stands against Catholics? It's hard for me, and many others, to see 'Christian Love' in such a judgemental and divisive environment as you, and Chick-Fil-A which to exist.

Quote:

I repeat true equality would see 'Gay Pride Marches' and events like 'National Same-Sex Kiss Day' should be removed and replaced with inclusive events like a 'Relationship Day' or a 'Give Us a Kiss Day'.

I doubt that will happen. The reason I say that is we still see pro-black rallies and pro-women rallies in the USA. We, also, see Christian Hate rallies such as the Westboro Baptists and the KKK. Personally I see both sides of inclusion and exclusion get to hold their rallies even though the law is more inclusivie than it was 50 years ago.

Quote:

It's one rule for the homosexual community and another for the rest of us.

I think the divisiveness you support there is unfair. It should be 1 rule for all of us. Thus, drop the one rule (civil partnership) for gays and another rule (marriage) for straights.

Quote:

Society doesn't exist to promote this minority life choice or single out practicing homosexuals as a special group

Your concept is either be part of the majority or get out. I disagree that type of ochlocracy is the way the US was inteded to be run. As for the UK I can't say as I don't know your laws as deeply. But, looking at things like Protestant and Catholic terrorists and wars in Ireland I don't think your nation exists to force everyone into the same narrow mold.

Sally Ride First USA Woman in space. Was in a committed same-sex relationship for the last 27 years.

Britney Spears Marriage - 55 hours
Carmen Electric - 9 days
Drew Barrymore Marriage - 6 weeks
My next door neighbor - 6 years
One of my best friends - 14 years

But somehow Sally Ride's relationship is not as good as those people and shouldn't be respected equally? Pshaw!

Last edited by BrianK on 24-Jul-2012 at 06:12 PM.