Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[bilmore]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I have long since learned that if these so called moral people can't win their way fairly, they will do whatever it takes to win all the same.

Didja see ELF's latest $20M fire? Cool, huh?

(Let's not speak intemperately. We all have our pet assholes.)

[Jack Manfred]

Originally posted by W.W.L.D.
Larry Flynt's prayer service for the death of Bill O'Reilly.

Sadly, I missed this. A democratic operative on the radio lamented that Californians could approve a recall with 51% of the vote (meaning that 49% of the voters wanted to keep Gray Davis), but that Larry Flynt could win the governorshp with 6% of the vote on the recall ballot. It was the best news I heard all day. I think Larry Flynt would make a far more entertaining governor than Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Fugee]

Originally posted by leagleaze
You assume I am looking at it as a gay rights issue, in fact I am not. I don't think religion is a gay rights issue at all.

I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Originally posted by leagleaze
Similarly, when at the last moment someone tries to derail something that in the past has just been a rubber stamp by clearly false efforts, that just is a problem for me. Is it a gay rights issue? No. It is a hypocricy issue.

Not being Episcopal, I'm not sure whether they've ever had a situation where a bishop-elect was violating church tenets. If not, then it's a different situation.

Originally posted by leagleaze
Last night was an effort by one side in which they said we are losing, we don't like it, and we don't care what we have to do to stop it, so lets lie, lets make stuff up. That's just wrong, and it is especially wrong in so called men of God.

. . .

But whether it is a religious issue or not, the fact that someone decided to attempt to sabatoge the effort at the last minute is what I am talking about. And it is so common.

I agree but, having been part of a bitter vote over the role of women in church leadership (I'm for it, just so you know), I understand the desperation they must have felt. And desperation makes even Christians more susceptible to sinful behavior.

Originally posted by leagleaze
If on the other hand the issue was forced, i.e. bringing him up to be a bishop, in an unfair or dishonest way, and that should come out, I would agree with you, that is no more right than what the people who didn't want him ordained did. I haven't seen any suggestion that happened.

I guess I take the position that nominating someone for church leadership whose lifestyle is defined as a sin by church tenets is per se unfair. If you disagree with church doctrine then tackle the issue head on or leave and find a denomination that is more in line with your beliefs, but don't do an end run around it. But my church background is in denominations founded by people who left or were kicked out of the state church of Sweden for flouting official positions so that influences my thoughts.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bilmore
Didja see ELF's latest $20M fire? Cool, huh?

(Let's not speak intemperately. We all have our pet assholes.)

What's your point? You think I would support that? Of course not. Nor would I support animal rights activists blowing up a lab, nor antiabortionists killing doctors, nor gay rights advocates faking signatures to get an anti-gay law recalled. I may be rare in this, but I apply my views on this equally. I don't consider one group superior to another if it engages in things such as this, and lord knows burning something to make an environmental point is not only absurd, it could result in deaths of innocent people never mind the loss of property. Criminal, disgusting, really there are no words to express how I feel about things like that.

No matter what you are attempting to accomplish going directly against the very things you espouse, and behaving in a way that actively sullies (or risks harming innocent people or property) what you are trying to accomplish sucks, to put it plainly.

Edited to say sometimes I think I am one of the few people I know who left law school more naive then when I entered it, in terms of how I apply my philosophy of things to the world. Such is life. Hell, righteous indignation is fun.


On a more interesting subject I saw Tomb Raider 2, and in fact the water does get quite nippy in the beginning.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by Fugee
I'm sorry I misinterpreted you.

Happens to the best of us, we all have our pet issues and sometimes read them into things. I am enjoying our conversation, however, I think probably I've bored enough people and harping on gay issues gets tiresome even to me. I'd be happy to discuss it more off board with you though.

[Jack Manfred]

Originally posted by leagleaze
SPOILERS HO!






SPOILERS FOR LAST COMIC STANDING





MORE SPOILERS





Did anyone see anything that suggested he deserved to be singled out the way he was?

The winner may not have deserved the derision he received, but it was to be expected. His material falls into two categories (1) not funny, and (2) hack/derivative. Comics hate both with a passion. That's why Dave Mordahl was so well-liked by the other comics (and also why he lost to Dat Phan weeks ago.) Dave's stuff was original and off beat, but it's rare when that stuff gets mainstream success. Margaret Cho should sue Dat Phan for royalties.

Having said that, I still want a co-exec producer credit if any of my sitcom scenarios (Long Duc Dong 2K3 or Toshiro from Revenge of the Nerds 2003) are developed.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by leagleaze
What's your point?

My point is that I am too used to people moving on to encompass conservative thought in their morality play ("Look at those intolerant people who aren't willing to let others choose their own course!") and so reacted too quickly when that wasn't what you said. Sorry. But, if you ever have that thought again, and think that it is validly targeted at right-wingers, think of that last post, and the Bilmore that you once knew, and cleanse your thoughts.

((Edited to delete a line that I decided wasn't fair.)

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by bilmore
My point is that I am too used to people (yes, including you) moving on to encompass conservative thought in your morality play ("Look at those intolerant people who aren't willing to let others choose their own course!") and so reacted too quickly when that wasn't what you said. Sorry. But, if you ever have that thought again, and think that it is validly targeted at right-wingers, think of that last post, and the Bilmore that you once knew, and cleanse your thoughts.

Oh no problem, this seems to be my day for confusing people. I'll file it for future use under B, for both Bilmore and Bullshit.

Darn you edited it and now my Bullshit line just seems mean. But I'm leaving it, because it made me laugh, of course insomnia does that.

[idle acts]

Originally posted by Fugee
The Episcopal Church has interesting days ahead. I suspect the result will be, as with other large denominations over other issues, a split into two separate denominations, one more liberal and one more conservative.

Leagl, I agree that the tactics used to stop a vote on his election were sleazy and I said so last night. But you are looking at this as just another gay rights issue and not as a religious doctrine issue. Would you feel as excited if they had elected a bishop who was married but having an affair? It really isn't any different because each would be living a lifestyle that is contrary to their church teaching.

I'm not convinced the people who brought those charges to stall his election were the only ones not acting fairly. It seems to me that before the vote on this guy's nomination, they should have had a debate and vote on whether the gay lifestyle is consistent with being a good Episcopal Christian. But instead they made it a vote about one guy and as a result have a bishop whose life violates church doctrine. This is not a good thing for a church.

On the other hand, if there are heterosexual bishops who are openly having affairs or otherwise living contrary to church doctrine and haven't been given the boot, then they get what they deserve.

Let me state at the outset that I am not an expert on Episcopalian ("E") doctrine. But I believe that the whole point of the recent nominating convention and the debate surrounding Bishop Robinson's confirmation has been that there is in fact NO consensus within the E church on these issues. One of the reasons that Es have been able to move forward in this area, unlike the Roman Catholic Church, is that there is no single head of the E church who interprets scripture and tells the larger body of congregants what they should believe on these issues. Rather, there is a meeting every ten years (the Anglican Conference), at which a group of delegates meet and debate these issues. As I understand it, even the decisions made at the Anglican Conference may not be "binding," as some Es consider them to be advisory in nature. Thus, as I understand it, the group that confirmed Bishop Robinson was free to do so without violating church doctrine.

Does that mean that there might be a schism? It is possible. But one was predicted before, in the 19th century, when there was a similar lack of consensus regarding the morality of owning slaves. No formal schism actually occured, though different factions of the E church took different positions on the issue.

As for whether the debate should have been about the larger issue, instead of this one man, it was, until David Lewis (writer of yesterday's e-mail) chose to smear Robinson by claiming that he lacked appropriate boundaries and had "harrassed" Lewis by touching him inappropriately (on the arm and back, in front of witnesses), rather than debate the merits.

Finally, would I feel as happy if they had elected an adulterer? No. But then, I don't equate adultery (a broken promise both to one's spouse and to god, if married in a church) with homosexuality.

[idle acts]

Originally posted by leagleaze
SPOILERS HO!






SPOILERS FOR LAST COMIC STANDING





MORE SPOILERS




I was amused at who won. . . .

Did anyone see anything that suggested he deserved to be singled out the way he was?

MORE SPOILERS FOR LAST COMIC STANDING



Ah, say it ain't so. I have no idea what that he did in the house to be so reviled by the other comics, but the guy was simply the least funny, most annoying person in the group, based on the bits we saw on the show.

[ias_39]

Originally posted by ias 39

One other thing <for shin splints> is that <slave> can do some exercises with surgical tubing tying <his> foot to a table leg to strengthen the muscles on the front of <his> shin.

Originally posted by bilmore

I get this mental picture of Slave running down the road with a table dragging off his foot and I just can't deal with this seriously anymore.

Don't laugh, it's a fine addition to slave's training regimen. Given his propensity for hooking up and his aversion to marriage, he could be slipped a mickey and awaken shackled to the altar.

Originally posted by NotFromHere
classic case of second baby syndrome. this guy's afraid that he'll never get any booty again - probably slept with the first when his wife was in her last months of hugeness and the other one was just for good measure - she probably wasn't very good looking, but showed some interest and he was ripe for the picking. He's probably just now realized that his "single living days of carousing with the guys" are officially over, and is just trying to recapture his younger days.

It was either have an affair, or buy a Porsche because now he'll be forever stuck with the minivan.

I am late here but I have one question.

1Isnt Austintacious a guy? (and if so, why is he asking?)


edited to remove a question that was answered

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Absolutely. The second girl just might JUSTIFY it. "But honey, it was THREE-WAY! Do you know how long I've wanted that? Are you trying to prevent me from reaching my dreams?"

So happy you feel that way. Abbatrim, are you in?

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
that's pretty cool. us Catholics can't even ordain a woman yet...

BHB

This is why, for the life of me, I cannot understand how anyone can be Catholic in the twenty first century except for misogynists, homophobes, people afraid that death equals rotting in a hole in the ground and thats it, people who are oppressed by society, and utter morons.

This might explain why the catholic guy dumped me. Like I am gonna raise my kids in that tradition of hatred and exclusion?

Originally posted by leagleaze
SPOILERS HO!






SPOILERS FOR LAST COMIC STANDING





MORE SPOILERS




I was amused at who won. Mainly because I thought that if he could get past the first part of the show, given the awful treatment he received, he could well get the underdog vote. They cut off their noses to spite their faces with how they treated him. I always wondered what exactly he did to deserve it. I didn't see much of the show, so perhaps he did something, but I cannot imagine what it would have been.

Did anyone see anything that suggested he deserved to be singled out the way he was?

SPOILERS






















While I missed one or two of the early episodes that set p the hate fest, it appears to me that people hated him for the same reason people hate the guy who starts outlining the first week of law school and does his reading every day. He fucking works so hard and the fact that he might be successful makes you feel threatened that you arent doing enough. Thats my theory and I am sticking with it. They wanted him gone to prove that workingso hard doesnt guarantee results. Like hwo we are so thrilled that these studying freaks get the Cs. It justifies our hedonistic lazy asses.

May I just applaud myself on how much better I was than whoever Lester's odds source is? I was so right on. Clearly I could be doing something much cooler based on my pure understanding of the American psyche and outstanding observatino skills. What do these bookmakers make anyway?

BB4- is there anyway Dana won't go? Its a shame bc I want that hideous bulldog freshman fifteen pig gonzo and she is the best way . I dont see how Dana can stay, but I hope she gets a spot on the jury. But man is she ugly.

Cupid= this show runs again tonight, right? Tuesdsay night is a clusterfuck of outstnading schlock. I have a huge crush on Laura and am bummed to be missing this. Lisa's total resemblance to Coureney Cox is a little offputting though and I cant figure out what is wrong with the face of the other chick. She just looks disgfigured.

BoyMeetsBoy- missed this for the most part. I still have a huge crush on Dan and am really hoping he is straight. I think his oscillating on the manfriend in NYC is my best hope, though his highlights tell me there is no hope. Does thies run again per chance?