Gay Incest.

I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.)

Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not?

Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you?

Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge. 

So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic.

What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously! 

Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’

The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics.

As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry.

At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say. 

Why not!

Stayed within the 600 word limit....almost.

wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument.

definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze.


I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there.

Aussie's was on the correct topic.

Aussie defeats Londweekend.

Congrats Aussie.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there.

I have no doubt whatsoever it is in your C Drive.  It is the fantasy of someone else.  You did not write it, hence it is on your C Drive.  What mark did you give your student for producing crap?

Mine.  Meh.  I stuck within the 600 word limit, I stayed on topic and I blew you out of the water.  I know I wrote mine.  You know, just like we all, you did not write any of that, or the several OPs which people have brought into doubt.

You are a flake. 

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:51pm: wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there. I have no doubt whatsoever it is in your C Drive.  It is the fantasy of someone else.  You did not write it, hence it is on your C Drive.  What mark did you give your student for producing crap? Mine.  Meh.  I stuck within the 600 word limit, I stayed on topic and I blew you out of the water.  I know I wrote mine.  You know, just like we all, you did not write any of that, or the several OPs which people have brought into doubt. You are a flake.

what I am is a published author and way, way better than you at this.  I defy you to find the supposed source or even the so-called professor (who I made up btw).

go ahead... make my day!

---

and I swear on a stack of bibles that is my own work.  and you know that is NOT something I would take lightly.

---

In Support of Normality

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:08pm:

and I swear on a stack of bibles that is my own work.  and you know that is NOT something I would take lightly.

Your past speaks volumes ... all those past lies come back and haunt you.

Most here know of your dishonesty.

____ wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:08pm: and I swear on a stack of bibles that is my own work.  and you know that is NOT something I would take lightly. Your past speaks volumes ... all those past lies come back and haunt you. Most here know of your dishonesty.

wow your irony is good today.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:13pm:

____ wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:08pm: and I swear on a stack of bibles that is my own work.  and you know that is NOT something I would take lightly. Your past speaks volumes ... all those past lies come back and haunt you. Most here know of your dishonesty. wow your irony is good today.

You are the one begging ... not me.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:51pm:

wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there.

BING will...

Kat wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:51pm: wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there. BING will...

another good reason not to use it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:51pm: wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there. I have no doubt whatsoever it is in your C Drive.  It is the fantasy of someone else.  You did not write it, hence it is on your C Drive.  What mark did you give your student for producing crap? Mine.  Meh.  I stuck within the 600 word limit, I stayed on topic and I blew you out of the water.  I know I wrote mine.  You know, just like we all, you did not write any of that, or the several OPs which people have brought into doubt. You are a flake.  what I am is a published author and way, way better than you at this.  I defy you to find the supposed source or even the so-called professor (who I made up btw). go ahead... make my day!

Of course the "Professor" was a flake, just like you.  Who would think otherwise?  When was that Article written melielongtime?

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:06pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:51pm: wow, that was truly terrible.  atrocious writing style and similar content.  you made no argument or even reasoned thinking. Unless of course 'i dont give a crap' can be considered an argument. definitely dont give up your day job.  the only bar that might want your services sells booze. I not you didnt comment on my article.  still trying to google it and see where it came from?  CLUE: its on my C drive.  google doesnt search there. I have no doubt whatsoever it is in your C Drive.  It is the fantasy of someone else.  You did not write it, hence it is on your C Drive.  What mark did you give your student for producing crap? Mine.  Meh.  I stuck within the 600 word limit, I stayed on topic and I blew you out of the water.  I know I wrote mine.  You know, just like we all, you did not write any of that, or the several OPs which people have brought into doubt. You are a flake.  what I am is a published author and way, way better than you at this.  I defy you to find the supposed source or even the so-called professor (who I made up btw). go ahead... make my day! Of course the "Professor" was a flake, just like you.  Who would think otherwise?  When was that Article written melielongtime?

today, fake lawyer.  took an hour.

It took you an hour to manufacture, in a passion you demanded of me, and come up with that fantasy garbage?  I don't believe you, and I never will again.  You plagiarised that make believe from someone else, and it was written some time ago.

You can prove me wrong by posting an essay, within that same hour from now, a passionate piece supporting the proposition that "There is no God and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God."

No make believe Professors this time.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:47pm:

It took you an hour to manufacture, in a passion you demanded of me, and come up with that fantasy garbage?  I don't believe you, and I never will again.  You plagiarised that make believe from someone else, and it was written some time ago. You can prove me wrong by posting an essay, within that same hour from now, a passionate piece supporting the proposition that "There is no God and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God." No make believe Professors this time.

and you know exactly why I will not ever do that.  so you immature act is to try that on.

you got schooled, fake lawyer. COnned into a game you could never win. The next challenge is up and waiting for you.  Write a speech. any topic. let's see if you can make a high school effort this time.

Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument.

His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument.

You failed to do that.

My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 7:47pm: It took you an hour to manufacture, in a passion you demanded of me, and come up with that fantasy garbage?  I don't believe you, and I never will again.  You plagiarised that make believe from someone else, and it was written some time ago. You can prove me wrong by posting an essay, within that same hour from now, a passionate piece supporting the proposition that "There is no God and Jesus Christ is not the Son of God." No make believe Professors this time. and you know exactly why I will not ever do that.  so you immature act is to try that on. you got schooled, fake lawyer. COnned into a game you could never win. The next challenge is up and waiting for you.  Write a speech. any topic. let's see if you can make a high school effort this time.

Longy -

you were telling everyone for more than 7 years that you had a BSc -

I called it fake -

then you told Lisa that you had a higher qualification in another field.

Go away & live in your Adelaide fibro house & stop bothering the adults.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:02pm:

Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument. His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument. You failed to do that. My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second.

what argument?  or is "i dont give a crap' the kind of argument that gives you goosebumps? Clearly if anyone wants to convince you of anything all they have to do is turn the airconditioning very low.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:07pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument. His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument. You failed to do that. My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second. what argument?  or is "i dont give a crap' the kind of argument that gives you goosebumps? Clearly if anyone wants to convince you of anything all they have to do is turn the airconditioning very low.

I didn't say it gave me goosebumps .. i said it had more passion than yours.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:07pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument. His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument. You failed to do that. My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second. what argument?  or is "i dont give a crap' the kind of argument that gives you goosebumps? Clearly if anyone wants to convince you of anything all they have to do is turn the airconditioning very low. I didn't say it gave me goosebumps .. i said it had more passion than yours.

passion isnt much of a substitute for substance. You can find passion at a footy game, but not a lot of intelligence or logic being employed.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:07pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument. His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument. You failed to do that. My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second. what argument?  or is "i dont give a crap' the kind of argument that gives you goosebumps? Clearly if anyone wants to convince you of anything all they have to do is turn the airconditioning very low. I didn't say it gave me goosebumps .. i said it had more passion than yours. passion isnt much of a substitute for substance. You can find passion at a footy game, but not a lot of intelligence or logic being employed.

Yet it is required to make a compelling argument.

You failed to do just that.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 7:08pm:

and I swear on a stack of bibles that is my own work.  and you know that is NOT something I would take lightly.

And now we know you do.

You’re that good.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:

Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!

Why not indeed?

I agree completely. Good work, Aussie.

I like to enjoy a bit of incest myself. The old boy’s actually my sister.

You did it - in records time too. Good show.

is the idiot gloating that he won?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

doesn't he realise that he's not the judge? :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:06pm:

is the idiot gloating that he won?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D doesn't he realise that he's not the judge? :D :D :D

The true judgement came about when the insipid Aussie and the tantrum-throwing Aussie declared I couldnt have written it because it is 'too good'.

so funny. so awesomely entertaining.

Best fund I've had in months.  But now FD has gone and throw it all away into RElationships where Aussie can do what he does best. Destroy.

FUn's over boys.  and you lost SO BAD.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

The true judgement came about when the insipid Aussie and the tantrum-throwing Aussie declared I couldnt have written it because it is 'too good'.

I haven't seen that part ... go a link to it?


longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

so funny. so awesomely entertaining.

not as funny as watching you run around pretending you won


longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

Best fund I've had in months.

not that I believe is your writing ;D ;D ;D

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:30pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:07pm: mothra wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 8:02pm: Aussie beats you too Longy. he argued passionately for the topic and made a cogent argument. His style grates on me some (sorry Aussie) and it wasn't as well written as yours (if indeed you did write yours) ut it put forward a passionate argument. You failed to do that. My vote is still for Karnal with Aussie coming in second. what argument?  or is "i dont give a crap' the kind of argument that gives you goosebumps? Clearly if anyone wants to convince you of anything all they have to do is turn the airconditioning very low. I didn't say it gave me goosebumps .. i said it had more passion than yours. passion isnt much of a substitute for substance. You can find passion at a footy game, but not a lot of intelligence or logic being employed. Yet it is required to make a compelling argument. You failed to do just that.

Well, yes. Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources, the argument itself makes no sense. You’d think Longy could at least have added a couple of lines to tie the seams, but no. Not even that.

The only genre Longy can do is idiot posts. That’s fine, some of my best friends are illiterate old cranks.

Longy, however, has aspirations. He wants to learn how to cut and paste.

Stick with us, Longy. My advice is to learn how to read first.

You’ll learn.

Karnal wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources

you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:06pm: is the idiot gloating that he won?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D doesn't he realise that he's not the judge? :D :D :D The true judgement came about when the insipid Aussie and the tantrum-throwing Aussie declared I couldnt have written it because it is 'too good'.

No.  That's yet another fabrication.  I regard it as tripe (you now admit it is all fakiry involving fake 'Professor' sources etc etc)  written ages ago, by some very young student of yours, and along with that article, you have archived the efforts of other students on various topics.  You squirmed and refused to contribute on the two topics you were given (of course,) because there was none (written by others) in your c drive library.  It is so obvious, melielongtime.


Quote:

so funny. so awesomely entertaining.

You did get that right.


Quote:

Best fund I've had in months.  But now FD has gone and throw it all away into RElationships where Aussie can do what he does best. Destroy.

"Fund?"  Nothing whatsoever is destroyed in Relationships.  To the extent I regard it as necessary, I keep it very, very tidy, and I also keep the Forum Vandals at bay.


Quote:

FUn's over boys.  and you lost SO BAD.

No.  It is there now, and can safely continue there.  Cowards can run away if they wish.

Your eyes will not bleed, melielongtime, and your keyboard will not melt.

mothra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 8:33pm:

Yet it is required to make a compelling argument. You failed to do just that.

I think that sums it up. There was reason in the argument but it was rote, no passion, no conviction. Now I have to go back and read the others with the same critique! Damn! Not tonight.

John Smith wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 9:32pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D

I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me.

It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 9:04am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy.

sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D

you mean the 10 words that said Rosa Parks got on a bus and ignited the civil rights movement?  wow...  imagine that.  and the remaining 1190 words?  did you read them?  could you even understand them?

and btw 'word for word' doesnt mean having 3 of the same words in a sentence, illiterate ignoramus.

John Smith wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 9:19am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D

Longy didn't read your article, JS. He Googled a conservative Swedish professor and quoted his article verbatim. He added a completely unrelated speech on Rosa Parks. He wrote none of it. The similarities to your article are a coincidence.

[quote author=Aussie link=1437035145/0#0 date=1437035145]Gay Incest.

I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.)

Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not?

Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you?

Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge. 

So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic.

What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously! 

Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’

The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics.

As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry.

At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say. 
Why not!/[quote]

Because it is Sick, sick, sick.
Screw who ever you want even yourself but don't advertise it and impose on others. Lust is not love.
Leave normal people alone.

Karnal wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D Longy didn't read your article, JS. He Googled a conservative Swedish professor and quoted his article verbatim. He added a completely unrelated speech on Rosa Parks. He wrote none of it. The similarities to your article are a coincidence.

so why dont YOU google this 'professor' and see what you find.  oh, you havent done that yet?  you just make stuff up and present it to the forum noobs that would accept it?

and the tantrum continues...

athos wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

[quote author=Aussie link=1437035145/0#0 date=1437035145]Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!/[quote] Because it is Sick, sick, sick. Screw who ever you want even yourself but don't advertise it and impose on others. Lust is not love. Leave normal people alone.

a key concept not understood by the bogan masses.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 11:22am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 10:34am: John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D Longy didn't read your article, JS. He Googled a conservative Swedish professor and quoted his article verbatim. He added a completely unrelated speech on Rosa Parks. He wrote none of it. The similarities to your article are a coincidence. so why dont YOU google this 'professor' and see what you find.  oh, you havent done that yet?  you just make stuff up and present it to the forum noobs that would accept it? and the tantrum continues...

Why would I need to Google your professor? If your essay requires research to make sense of it, it's hardly an essay.

Your acknowledgement of this demonstrates your capitulation. Your contribution is simply a long-winded form of surrender.

Karnal wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 11:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 10:34am: John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D Longy didn't read your article, JS. He Googled a conservative Swedish professor and quoted his article verbatim. He added a completely unrelated speech on Rosa Parks. He wrote none of it. The similarities to your article are a coincidence. so why dont YOU google this 'professor' and see what you find.  oh, you havent done that yet?  you just make stuff up and present it to the forum noobs that would accept it? and the tantrum continues... Why would I need to Google your professor? If your essay requires research to make sense of it, it's hardly an essay. Your acknowledgement of this demonstrates your capitulation. Your contribution is simply a long-winded form of surrender.

When i asked, Longy claimed that he himself was the Professor.

He claims he was quoting himself all along.

mothra wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:02pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 11:22am: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 10:34am: John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:19am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 9:04am: John Smith wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:32pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: Aside from the fact that Longy cut and pasted three separate sources you noticed that too? I don't get how he thought he would get away with it  :D :D :D :D :D I am wondering when you realise that ever single word - including my 'source' was made up and written in its entirety by me. It has been so much fun showing you lot up - ad it was surprisingly easy. sure it was .... especially the bit that was almost word for word what was in the article I provided  :D :D :D :D Longy didn't read your article, JS. He Googled a conservative Swedish professor and quoted his article verbatim. He added a completely unrelated speech on Rosa Parks. He wrote none of it. The similarities to your article are a coincidence. so why dont YOU google this 'professor' and see what you find.  oh, you havent done that yet?  you just make stuff up and present it to the forum noobs that would accept it? and the tantrum continues... Why would I need to Google your professor? If your essay requires research to make sense of it, it's hardly an essay. Your acknowledgement of this demonstrates your capitulation. Your contribution is simply a long-winded form of surrender. When i asked, Longy claimed that he himself was the Professor. He claims he was quoting himself all along.

Longy doesn't even understand the position the "professor" is arguing. The "professor" is arguing from a classical conservative point of view, in the model of Edmund Burke. Longy's reactionary position is the very antithesis of this viewpoint. Longy, remember, is an expert in maths.

He's that good. 

Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded.

mothra wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded.

The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there.

It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here.

Karnal wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 1:38pm:

mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here.

and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that!

If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence?

I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

athos wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 11:00am: [quote author=Aussie link=1437035145/0#0 date=1437035145]Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!/[quote] Because it is Sick, sick, sick. Screw who ever you want even yourself but don't advertise it and impose on others. Lust is not love. Leave normal people alone. a key concept not understood by the bogan masses.

We are fed up of you brainies without wisdom and morals.
If we don't have morals then everything can be rationally permitted and justified.
Read "Crime and punishment" then you will understand and stop being arrogant.

"Arrogance and ignorance are twins they like to be together"
Lao Tzu

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:

Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!

SO, how long have you had this urge to shag your sister or brother (not that there's anything wrong with that)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 5:48pm:

SO, how long have you had this urge to shag your sister or brother (not that there's anything wrong with that)

you do understand that the whole point of the exercise was that they write in support of something they don't really agree with?

John Smith wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:48pm: SO, how long have you had this urge to shag your sister or brother (not that there's anything wrong with that) you do understand that the whole point of the exercise was that they write in support of something they don't really agree with?

Oh, was it??...must have missed that bit. Oops

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:38pm: mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here. and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that! If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence? I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not.

No need for a tantrum, Longy. You know not one of those words is yours.

Feel free to espouse on the ideas in your two separate quotes though. You won’t explain why incest is illegal, so I won’t hold my breath.

athos wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 5:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 11:23am: athos wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 11:00am: [quote author=Aussie link=1437035145/0#0 date=1437035145]Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!/[quote] Because it is Sick, sick, sick. Screw who ever you want even yourself but don't advertise it and impose on others. Lust is not love. Leave normal people alone. a key concept not understood by the bogan masses. We are fed up of you brainies without wisdom and morals. If we don't have morals then everything can be rationally permitted and justified. Read "Crime and punishment" then you will understand and stop being arrogant. "Arrogance and ignorance are twins they like to be together" Lao Tzu

you are very right. It is so common to read people like Aussie claiming that anything is right and okay as long as it doesnt affect him. The concept of right and wrong and moral standard fly out the window because they require a sense of integrity and character

Karnal wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 8:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:38pm: mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here. and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that! If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence? I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not. No need for a tantrum, Longy. You know not one of those words is yours. Feel free to espouse on the ideas in your two separate quotes though. You won’t explain why incest is illegal, so I won’t hold my breath.

your childish continuing tantrum has lost its shine. Now you just look pathetic. I can repeat my performance on other topics and in fact, will. and you will continue to claim they are plagiarised - despite providing zero evidence - because my writing is so, so much better than yours and often is aprofessional level.  That's kinda how I got my first book published.

karnal... the crying child.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 12:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:38pm: mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here. and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that! If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence? I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not. No need for a tantrum, Longy. You know not one of those words is yours. Feel free to espouse on the ideas in your two separate quotes though. You won’t explain why incest is illegal, so I won’t hold my breath. your childish continuing tantrum has lost its shine. Now you just look pathetic. I can repeat my performance on other topics and in fact, will. and you will continue to claim they are plagiarised - despite providing zero evidence - because my writing is so, so much better than yours and often is aprofessional level.  That's kinda how I got my first book published. karnal... the crying child.

Longy, you know those aren’t your own words - you’ve admitted this already. Try not to get so worked up.

Everyone knows you have no published books. I once assumed you did - why would anyone lie about this?

But now I know - we all do. You can’t even write a 600 word essay.

If you spent your time trying to write decent arguments that aimed to persuade people of your views, you might be able to learn. Unfortunately, you just want to write about how good you are.

That’s right, Longy, you’re that good.

Karnal wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 2:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 12:06pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:38pm: mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here. and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that! If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence? I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not. No need for a tantrum, Longy. You know not one of those words is yours. Feel free to espouse on the ideas in your two separate quotes though. You won’t explain why incest is illegal, so I won’t hold my breath. your childish continuing tantrum has lost its shine. Now you just look pathetic. I can repeat my performance on other topics and in fact, will. and you will continue to claim they are plagiarised - despite providing zero evidence - because my writing is so, so much better than yours and often is aprofessional level.  That's kinda how I got my first book published. karnal... the crying child. Longy, you know those aren’t your own words - you’ve admitted this already. Try not to get so worked up. Everyone knows you have no published books. I once assumed you did - why would anyone lie about this? But now I know - we all do. You can’t even write a 600 word essay. If you spent your time trying to write decent arguments that aimed to persuade people of your views, you might be able to learn. Unfortunately, you just want to write about how good you are. That’s right, Longy, you’re that good.

so now you resort to lying. wow. The respect I had for you continues to drop. You are a envious little turd who throws a mega tantrum when clearly beaten in a competition.

I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication.

So ai guess you wont be part of the Speech Writing Challenge?

Quote:

I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication.

Why wait.  Give us the details of the first of yours you reckon was published.

I'll bet you don't.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 2:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 12:06pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 8:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:29pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:38pm: mothra wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 1:32pm: Longy is, it has been made clear, seriously deluded. The obvious question is why he would pretend to be a Swedish professor and a published writer, but I'm not going there. It's clear enough now that he doesn't even write the threads he posts here. and the tantrum is STILL continueing.  how funny is that! If you had any sense of honor Karnal, you would back your claim up that it was plagiarised with some evidence.  A claim made by you without evidence is worthless.  So are you up for the challenge of proving your case or are you goint to continue to claim lies without evidence? I am guessing the latter will be your course of action because yes, I am that good.  You most certainly are not. No need for a tantrum, Longy. You know not one of those words is yours. Feel free to espouse on the ideas in your two separate quotes though. You won’t explain why incest is illegal, so I won’t hold my breath. your childish continuing tantrum has lost its shine. Now you just look pathetic. I can repeat my performance on other topics and in fact, will. and you will continue to claim they are plagiarised - despite providing zero evidence - because my writing is so, so much better than yours and often is aprofessional level.  That's kinda how I got my first book published. karnal... the crying child. Longy, you know those aren’t your own words - you’ve admitted this already. Try not to get so worked up. Everyone knows you have no published books. I once assumed you did - why would anyone lie about this? But now I know - we all do. You can’t even write a 600 word essay. If you spent your time trying to write decent arguments that aimed to persuade people of your views, you might be able to learn. Unfortunately, you just want to write about how good you are. That’s right, Longy, you’re that good. so now you resort to lying. wow.

Quote:

reprinted with permission

Quote:

It was after all, creative writing and if you want legitimate sources, I can do that just as easily.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18^th, 2015 at 5:08pm:

I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication.

Cool.

Until then, what was your last book called?

I'd like to read it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 9:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it.

coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 9:52am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it.

http://ithinkmymomscrazy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/insest.jpg

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 2:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here.

Then why this, yet another, hollow boast?


Quote:

I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication.

Aussie wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 2:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here. Then why this, yet another, hollow boast? Quote: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication.

and I will, bad-loser.  I just wont tell u my name

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 2:51pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here. Then why this, yet another, hollow boast? Quote: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. and I will, bad-loser.  I just wont tell u my name

that's ok, we know your name

Mr More On

John Smith wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:51pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here. Then why this, yet another, hollow boast? Quote: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. and I will, bad-loser.  I just wont tell u my name that's ok, we know your name Mr More On

you are welcome to join the writing competition, but you wont and we all know why...

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 2:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here.

So why did you say you were going to tell us about your next book, Longy?

I’m curious.

Being "published" is not that difficult really. It is also not necessarily a statement on one's writing ability per se.

So, this being published stuff really is not much of a big deal.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 3:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:51pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here. Then why this, yet another, hollow boast? Quote: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. and I will, bad-loser.  I just wont tell u my name that's ok, we know your name Mr More On you are welcome to join the writing competition, but you wont and we all know why...

But, Longy, as you’ve admitted, you didn’t do any writing yourself. How hard could it be for JS to do a quick Longy-style cut and  paste?

Miam miam.

Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit.

Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills.

Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait!

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 3:15pm:

Being "published" is not that difficult really. It is also not necessarily a statement on one's writing ability per se. So, this being published stuff really is not much of a big deal.

That statement is partly true but I not it came from someone who is UNpublished and therefore loses some power.

And you still Have to write the book.  My first novel (unpublished) was 87,000 words and the text book 96,000 words.  that does not happen overnight.

BTW one of the former denizens of this forum took my book and her kids read it and gave it a stellar review. and that poster was not exactly a fan.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 3:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:51pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 2:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 9:52am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 18th, 2015 at 5:08pm: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. Cool. Until then, what was your last book called? I'd like to read it. coz Im going to identify myself to you lot?  dream on. anyhow, you will only claim I didnt write it anyhow.  thats the low standard of integrity one expects - and gets - on here. Then why this, yet another, hollow boast? Quote: I'll let you know when my next book is complete and ready for publication. and I will, bad-loser.  I just wont tell u my name that's ok, we know your name Mr More On you are welcome to join the writing competition, but you wont and we all know why...

I won't because I don't give a crap what you think ... I wouldn't spend 2 seconds trying to impress you. Besides, I don't remember claiming I was a writer  ............. that was you  :D :D :D :D

Quote:

Besides, I don't remember claiming I was a writer  ............. that was you

Neither I nor Karnal claimed to be writers either.  It was all melielongtime doing the challenging, and the crowing.   He is still marking his and everyone else's homework.  There is something really seriously creepy about that.  I just can't yet put my finger on it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 3:45pm:

That statement is partly true but I not it came from someone who is UNpublished and therefore loses some power.

says who? one doesn't need to be a published writer to recognise good writing, one just needs to know how to read, which rules you out.

This subject is a 'wind up' guaranteed to press all the right buttons. On an worth level it's too low for zero.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait!

That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse.

Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in.

You are welcome to do something about it.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it.

You are so pathetic, meilielongtime.  You are quite happy to set topics for others (and they take up the challenge.....well, I did) yet you sob like some dumped 12 year old when I offer you a subject directly in accord with your own challenge rules.

And, for the record, I reject outright your gratuitous abuse of me and the genuine, practical attempt I made to get over an impasse of your creation.

You join a short list of people I'd like to buy at my price and sell at theirs.  Grendel is the only other on that list.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 5:32pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it. You are so pathetic, meilielongtime.  You are quite happy to set topics for others (and they take up the challenge.....well, I did) yet you sob like some dumped 12 year old when I offer you a subject directly in accord with your own challenge rules. And, for the record, I reject outright your gratuitous abuse of me and the genuine, practical attempt I made to get over an impasse of your creation. You join a short list of people I'd like to buy at my price and sell at theirs.  Grendel is the only other on that list.

poor dear. bad day in the taxi?  your writing was truly pitiful. it was no better than a longer than usual post and with precisely zero effort into making a case.  You were an entirely unworthy candidate and remain so. The fact you and Karnal are unwilling to accept I even wrote my post is perhaps the most pitiful example of childish behavior I have seen here for some time and yet ironically, the best compliment you could pay.  Didnt think that out beforehand, did you?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it.

So, it's ok with you if I set something up, but hey wait a minute, clearly, from the highlighted bits, I am not intelligent or intellectually honest either. It would seem that no one here (well seemingly apart from your good self) is...

Clearly then, the only obvious choice is for you to set it up.

Further, in a "real" competition a competitor would take what they get (as it were). What happens if a competitor does not wish to do the topic - they concede.

I have not bought into the "you did not write that piece...." argument quite deliberately. Whether or not I have doubts as to its authorship is totally irrelevant. My comments about your piece were on the piece itself. As I have maintained, by the way, it was not as good as you claim it was. Those reasons have all been laid out, plus a few other posters have pointed to some flaws. I would, respectfully, suggest that if in fact you are a serious writer, it is the negative comments that you would pay more heed to - that's how you will improve your skill set and that is also how you will write and appeal to a wider audience.

Quote:

poor dear. bad day in the taxi?  your writing was truly pitiful. it was no better than a longer than usual post and with precisely zero effort into making a case.  You were an entirely unworthy candidate and remain so. The fact you and Karnal are unwilling to accept I even wrote my post is perhaps the most pitiful example of childish behavior I have seen here for some time and yet ironically, the best compliment you could pay.  Didnt think that out beforehand, did you?

As far as I was concerned, I was producing an opinion piece on a subject you selected as one I would oppose.  I never claimed to be a creative writer, and I have known from Primary/High School that I am not gifted in any way in that direction.  Yet, when I need to tell a story based on facts in an interesting way (as I did with 'A Cabbies Day') which attracted tens of thousands of readers with every post I made, I can perform quite well.

When you accept your own criteria and write an opinion piece on a subject you do not support set by someone like me, I might listen to your sobbings about ~ "Oh dear, they don't believe me."

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 5:32pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it. So, it's ok with you if I set something up, but hey wait a minute, clearly, from the highlighted bits, I am not intelligent or intellectually honest either. It would seem that no one here (well seemingly apart from your good self) is... Clearly then, the only obvious choice is for you to set it up. Further, in a "real" competition a competitor would take what they get (as it were). What happens if a competitor does not wish to do the topic - they concede. I have not bought into the "you did not write that piece...." argument quite deliberately. Whether or not I have doubts as to its authorship is totally irrelevant. My comments about your piece were on the piece itself. As I have maintained, by the way, it was not as good as you claim it was. Those reasons have all been laid out, plus a few other posters have pointed to some flaws. I would, respectfully, suggest that if in fact you are a serious writer, it is the negative comments that you would pay more heed to - that's how you will improve your skill set and that is also how you will write and appeal to a wider audience.

a real competition would never suggest a topic that is massively unacceptable to any competitor. Would you for instance ask anyone to write in support of paedophilia?  what about in support of the Holocaust or perhaps pro-slavery?

There is a real difference between writing for a position you are actually against and being asked to cross a moral line you are not prepared to do. The truly pitiful thing is that that needs to be explained.

as for your comments about my article... you may have a point, but the subsequent discussion went nowhere other than the claim it was plagiarised (without any proof).  Its a bit hard to take serious some commentators who applaud Aussies support of incest based 100% on his disinterest in people's actions and my legnthy and substantial support for social evolution of gay marriage. Aussie could support murder, rape and peadophilia using his argument.

yes, I long for a serious and capable competition with people who can actually write and formulate arguments rather than merely quoting their ideology.

I would happily write a treatise on the proof of God, but that will never be asked for, in case I am too persuasive.  Cant have that.

Now, are you going to take the job of reasonable moderator with reasonable topics?

Gee, Longy. It’s been almost a week. You’re still trying to clear your name.

We know this is a subject close to your heart, but try not to get yourself in a tizz. Do try to stay balanced - for your own sake.

You’ll always be free to express yourself here. No one cares whether you cut and paste or not.

Quote:

yes, I long for a serious and capable competition with people who can actually write and formulate arguments rather than merely quoting their ideology.

And do you really believe that 'you' did that by writing some wanky garbage and quoting some 'fictitious' academic 'you' reckon 'you' created (I acknowledge 'he' is fictitious) in support of 'your' views?  'Your' entire piece was centered on what 'you' reckon a fairy of 'your' own creation wrote!

Ferk me, I could write a bewdy if I was also allowed to cite fictitious sources I created!  No-one could defeat me.

As I said, you have made a spot of worth in my Hall of Fame.  Second on the list of those to buy at my price and sell at theirs.

Have a nice day, melielongtime.

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 5:32pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it. So, it's ok with you if I set something up, but hey wait a minute, clearly, from the highlighted bits, I am not intelligent or intellectually honest either. It would seem that no one here (well seemingly apart from your good self) is... Clearly then, the only obvious choice is for you to set it up. Further, in a "real" competition a competitor would take what they get (as it were). What happens if a competitor does not wish to do the topic - they concede. I have not bought into the "you did not write that piece...." argument quite deliberately. Whether or not I have doubts as to its authorship is totally irrelevant. My comments about your piece were on the piece itself. As I have maintained, by the way, it was not as good as you claim it was. Those reasons have all been laid out, plus a few other posters have pointed to some flaws. I would, respectfully, suggest that if in fact you are a serious writer, it is the negative comments that you would pay more heed to - that's how you will improve your skill set and that is also how you will write and appeal to a wider audience.

Please set something up, Phemanderac. I’d be happy to argue in support of paedophilia, the Holocaust or slavery. That’s the whole point of this excercise.

We"ll miss Longy’s endevours, but I welcome the challenge.

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 5:32pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it. So, it's ok with you if I set something up, but hey wait a minute, clearly, from the highlighted bits, I am not intelligent or intellectually honest either. It would seem that no one here (well seemingly apart from your good self) is... Clearly then, the only obvious choice is for you to set it up. Further, in a "real" competition a competitor would take what they get (as it were). What happens if a competitor does not wish to do the topic - they concede. I have not bought into the "you did not write that piece...." argument quite deliberately. Whether or not I have doubts as to its authorship is totally irrelevant. My comments about your piece were on the piece itself. As I have maintained, by the way, it was not as good as you claim it was. Those reasons have all been laid out, plus a few other posters have pointed to some flaws. I would, respectfully, suggest that if in fact you are a serious writer, it is the negative comments that you would pay more heed to - that's how you will improve your skill set and that is also how you will write and appeal to a wider audience. Please set something up, Phemanderac. I’d be happy to argue in support of paedophilia, the Holocaust or slavery. That’s the whole point of this excercise. We"ll miss Longy’s endevours, but I welcome the challenge.

which is why we know you dont even get the point of the exercise.  it is not about defending the indefensible you retarded twit, it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with.

sadly, you are way stupider than I previously thought. You try and use satire and comedy (and fail) as a substitute for having anything of substance to say.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:36pm:

Quote: yes, I long for a serious and capable competition with people who can actually write and formulate arguments rather than merely quoting their ideology. And do you really believe that 'you' did that by writing some wanky garbage and quoting some 'fictitious' academic 'you' reckon 'you' created (I acknowledge 'he' is fictitious) in support of 'your' views?  'Your' entire piece was centered on what 'you' reckon a fairy of 'your' own creation wrote! Ferk me, I could write a bewdy if I was also allowed to cite fictitious sources I created!  No-one could defeat me. As I said, you have made a spot of worth in my Hall of Fame.  Second on the list of those to buy at my price and sell at theirs. Have a nice day, melielongtime.

Longy demonstrated how futile plagurism is. Not only did his attempt make no sense, it didn’t make a persuasive case for his argument.

It would have been a far more convincing piece of writing if he had just made a case in his own words, as you did. As it stands, Longy didn’t even enter a piece of his own writing.

He’s that good, you see.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:41pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 5:32pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it. So, it's ok with you if I set something up, but hey wait a minute, clearly, from the highlighted bits, I am not intelligent or intellectually honest either. It would seem that no one here (well seemingly apart from your good self) is... Clearly then, the only obvious choice is for you to set it up. Further, in a "real" competition a competitor would take what they get (as it were). What happens if a competitor does not wish to do the topic - they concede. I have not bought into the "you did not write that piece...." argument quite deliberately. Whether or not I have doubts as to its authorship is totally irrelevant. My comments about your piece were on the piece itself. As I have maintained, by the way, it was not as good as you claim it was. Those reasons have all been laid out, plus a few other posters have pointed to some flaws. I would, respectfully, suggest that if in fact you are a serious writer, it is the negative comments that you would pay more heed to - that's how you will improve your skill set and that is also how you will write and appeal to a wider audience. Please set something up, Phemanderac. I’d be happy to argue in support of paedophilia, the Holocaust or slavery. That’s the whole point of this excercise. We"ll miss Longy’s endevours, but I welcome the challenge. which is why we know you dont even get the point of the exercise.  it is not about defending the indefensible you retarded twit, it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. sadly, you are way stupider than I previously thought. You try and use satire and comedy (and fail) as a substitute for having anything of substance to say.

Now that’s what I call a tantrum.

Stick to this genre, Longy. Essay writing can’t be everybody’s cup of tea.

Quote:

it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with.

By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 5:32pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 19th, 2015 at 3:22pm: Longy, you want a bit of cred? Let someone else fully set the challenge, word limit, rules and time limit. Then see how you go if anyone else takes up the challenge. Anything else is just you "roping" people in, it lacks honesty, credibility and demonstration of genuine writing skills. Anything other than that is just you saying you won.... Oh wait! That is a fine idea, but lacks one thing - a decent reasonable intelligent and intellectually honest person to run the Challenge.  Aussie 'decided' that e would stup in  - uninvited and unwanted of course - and declare that mytopic was to disprove the existence of God for the sole reason that he knows it is a topic I would refuse. Now, if you want to step up and do soemthing about it then you are free to do so.  I figured that three semi-reasonable people could so it as an un-marked exercise but bam and peccahead declined (of course) while Karnal - who is still throwing a tantrum - joined in. You are welcome to do something about it.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

it's excuse after excuse after excuse ..  :D :D :D :D

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k!

Not only a w ank, but an automatic fail at any educational level.

You up for the challenge?

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! Not only a w ank, but an automatic fail at any educational level. You up for the challenge?

Sure.  I have no dog in the fight.  I am not a writer's keyboard, but I'm quite happy to have a go, even if I fail in the eyes of some.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 7:38pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 7:03pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! Not only a w ank, but an automatic fail at any educational level. You up for the challenge? Sure.  I have no dog in the fight.  I am not a writer's keyboard, but I'm quite happy to have a go, even if I fail in the eyes of some.

What do you pick? I’m happy to do slavery or paedophilia.

Melielingtime can pick mine, even if he will not agree that I may pick his. 

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

Melielingtime can pick mine, even if he will not agree that I may pick his.

He picked mine as paedophilia, so I’ll do that. Do you want to do slavery?

Longy did suggest these subjects, after all. Shall we say this Sunday?

Longy will only throw his usual tantrum, so let’s do things properly this time.

Anyone else? The Holocaust is still up for grabs.

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 7:45pm: Melielingtime can pick mine, even if he will not agree that I may pick his.  He picked mine as paedophilia, so I’ll do that. Do you want to do slavery? Longy did suggest these subjects, after all. Shall we say this Sunday? Longy will only throw his usual tantrum, so let’s do things properly this time. Anyone else? The Holocaust is still up for grabs.

Okay.  I'll do a thing on slavery.  What is the specific slavery topic title?  Am I to be in favour or opposed?

Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification.

The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. As Jewish theologians  have argued, the Holocaust can be seen as a form of historical purification. If you see the Jewish race as God’s chosen people, it’s hard to argue the Holocaust was not the will of God.

Any takers?

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone?

Okay.  Mine will be 'Even this day, western society would not function without slavery."

That okay with you, melielongtime?

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone?

Not me, but I will note that the state of Israel probably would have come into being without the holocaust.  Balfour decleration and all that.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:24pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone? Okay.  Mine will be 'Even this day, western society would not function without slavery." That okay with you, melielongtime?

And I’m doing paedophilia, or "the love of children". I’ll let you know if I can’t get it in by Sunday.

The Great Writing Challenge is on - this time, for real.

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone? Not me, but I will note that the state of Israel probably would have come into being without the holocaust.  Balfour decleration and all that.

Amazing what you can write when you stop seeing subjects as "indefensible", innit.

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:28pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:24pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone? Okay.  Mine will be 'Even this day, western society would not function without slavery." That okay with you, melielongtime? And I’m doing paedophilia, or "the love of children". I’ll let you know if I can’t get it in by Sunday. The Great Writing Challenge is on - this time, for real.

Mine will be posted in Relationships just to piss melielongtime off.  I do hope you can share that sentiment.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:28pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:24pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone? Okay.  Mine will be 'Even this day, western society would not function without slavery." That okay with you, melielongtime? And I’m doing paedophilia, or "the love of children". I’ll let you know if I can’t get it in by Sunday. The Great Writing Challenge is on - this time, for real. Mine will be posted in Relationships just to piss melielongtime off.  I do hope you can share that sentiment.

I don’t mind, but it would be good to get a bit of traffic.

That place is a ghost town at the best of times - the Mod excluded.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 6:56pm:

Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k!

and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument?

fake lawyer.

Fair comment.....but I'll bung mine there.  Maybe we'll get some of that traffic you correctly describe.

Karnal wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:30pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:26pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Make one up. The thing I like about slavery is role clarification. The Holocaust had benefits too. The state of Israel would never have been created without it. Anyone? Not me, but I will note that the state of Israel probably would have come into being without the holocaust.  Balfour decleration and all that. Amazing what you can write when you stop seeing subjects as "indefensible", innit.

It is amazing how clear the world becomes when you realise that  there actually ARE indefensible things.  As a buddhist you seem to be saying that everything is okay. No wonder you guys achieve nothing

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:37pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer.

More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based. 

When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.'

How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.'

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.'

the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt.

I give Longy's effort an appropriate score for originality:

90* sqrt (-1)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt.

I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination.

Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?'

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 8:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt.

Good point, Longy. But you must admit:  the same applies to fake writers.

Aussie wrote on Jul 20^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt. I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination. Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?'

an opinion of 'i dont give a crap' is not exactly something that has any value. We all know you dont give a crap about ANYTHING other than the fat buffoon. (is he still alive, no one talks about him any more)

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 10:35am:

Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 9:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt. I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination. Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?' an opinion of 'i dont give a crap' is not exactly something that has any value.

No, Longy, in our game, we have to pretend we give a krap. I've got paedophilia. Aussie has slavery. The Holocaust is still up for grabs. You're out of the running.

You're free to sneer from the sidelines.

Karnal wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 11:09am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:35am: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 9:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt. I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination. Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?' an opinion of 'i dont give a crap' is not exactly something that has any value. No, Longy, in our game, we have to pretend we give a krap. I've got paedophilia. Aussie has slavery. The Holocaust is still up for grabs. You're out of the running. You're free to sneer from the sidelines.

IM quite happy to mock you but hardly likely to participate in a writing contest with you.  Everytime I write better than you you simply declare it plagiarism because you cannot conceive of someone writing better than you despite the clear evidence I do.

petulant child.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 3:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 11:09am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 10:35am: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 9:30pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 8:37pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 20th, 2015 at 6:56pm: Quote: it is about defending a position you inherently disagree with. By creating fictitious sources?  What a wan k! and your support for incest amounted to "i dont give a sh1t".  you think that is a considered argument? fake lawyer. More of the dumb and really petty insults.  Whatever you want to say about what I produced, you will never be able to say that I made up fictitious sources upon which 'my considered argument' was based.  When 'you' next have a go melielongtime, please write it yourself and please do not justify whatever 'your' position is on the basis of some made up 'professor.' How about this topic for you?  'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened.' the whole creative-writing concept utterly eludes you, dont it? the reason I dont believe you were ever a lawyer is that whenever there is an opportunity to demonstrate some of those skills you make a fool of yourself.  Even a lamo lawyer could construct a reasonable justification and case for almost any position and yet, your attempt was so weak, so pitifully pathetic that I was surprised at just how poor it was. 'I dont care' was the 3 word slogan you could have used instead.  A real lawyer would have made a much better attempt. I never signed up for a test on 'creative writing.'  I took your challenge to produce an opinion piece on a subject I was opposed to, as set by you.  I produced the piece.  "Lawyers" are not professional creative writers.  We write or orate or address based on facts or precedent, not imagination. Have you agreed to write an opinion piece supporting the proposition ~ 'The Virgin Birth of Jesus never happened?' an opinion of 'i dont give a crap' is not exactly something that has any value. No, Longy, in our game, we have to pretend we give a krap. I've got paedophilia. Aussie has slavery. The Holocaust is still up for grabs. You're out of the running. You're free to sneer from the sidelines. IM quite happy to mock you but hardly likely to participate in a writing contest with you.

Oh, I know.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:

Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!

Actually I posted that story a couple of months ago, and the two brothers involved were utterly revolted by what they had done, so for all your wankery you forgot the most important aspect of the story even the participants were revolted and knew it was wrong.


But your statements looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, sometimes wrong is just wrong.

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:21pm:

But it looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, some time wrong is just wrong.

another one  :D :D :D




John Smith wrote on Jul 17^th, 2015 at 5:54pm:

you do understand that the whole point of the exercise was that they write in support of something they don't really agree with?

It was merely a writing challenge

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:21pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:25pm: Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not! Actually I posted that story a couple of months ago, and the two brothers involved were utterly revolted by what they had done, so for all your wankery you forgot the most important aspect of the story even the participants were revolted and knew it was wrong. But your statements looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, sometimes wrong is just wrong.

There ya go melielongtime.  I've now convinced three I was fairbloodydinkum!  Who did 'you' similarly convince using 'your' imaginary professor?  Isn't producing an opinion piece only worth the effort if it is the catalyst for comment?


Ha!

John Smith wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:27pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 4:21pm: But it looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, some time wrong is just wrong. another one  :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:54pm: you do understand that the whole point of the exercise was that they write in support of something they don't really agree with? It was merely a writing challenge

Posted the entire OP, not a lot about this being an exercise in prose, maybe should have been in the first sentence rather than as an ring covering exercise on the second age.

What do you think?

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 4:27pm: BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 4:21pm: But it looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, some time wrong is just wrong. another one  :D :D :D John Smith wrote on Jul 17th, 2015 at 5:54pm: you do understand that the whole point of the exercise was that they write in support of something they don't really agree with? It was merely a writing challenge Posted the entire OP, not a lot about this being an exercise in prose, maybe should have been in the first sentence rather than as an ring covering exercise on the second age. What do you think?

I think you either need to keep up or stop whinging .....

three threads were set up on separate topics so that the 3 participants could post their entry into a creative writing challenge that longstupidone issued and then ran away from.

Aussie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 4:49pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 4:21pm: Aussie wrote on Jul 16th, 2015 at 6:25pm: Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not! Actually I posted that story a couple of months ago, and the two brothers involved were utterly revolted by what they had done, so for all your wankery you forgot the most important aspect of the story even the participants were revolted and knew it was wrong. But your statements looks much like the justifications given by active child rapists for their predilections as well, sometimes wrong is just wrong. There ya go melielongtime.  I've now convinced three I was fairbloodydinkum!  Who did 'you' similarly convince using 'your' imaginary professor?  Isn't producing an opinion piece only worth the effort if it is the catalyst for comment? Ha!

IM not sure why you think that people thinking u to be a fool is some reason to celebrate, fake lawyer.  And if you bothered to count there were quite a number of posters commenting on my article and positively so.

I await your support for pedophilia, the holocaust etc.

PS the purpose of an opinion article is to convince people of the rightness of your opinion or were you not aware of that, fake lawyer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCGvONbVCa0

I'm doing the topic I posted about slavery.  I am not a 'fake lawyer,' and every time you post that, yet another false assertion makes me laugh at you, and your insecurity.

Aussie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:15pm:

I'm doing the topic I posted about slavery.  I am not a 'fake lawyer,' and every time you post that, yet another false assertion makes me laugh at you, and your insecurity.

I call them as I see them and you have provided zero reason to believe your claim to having been a lawyer other than perhaps  very, very bad one who was disbarred for incompetence. The general quality of your postings are riddle with hate, anger and sociopathic behaviour and a complete disregard for a single living being other than perhaps the Fat Buffoon.

And writing an article praising slavery kinda proves my point.  Just like Karnal is too stupid to see what the value is on writing articles supporting a position you actually disagree with, so you choose to write a stupid and inherently unbeleivable article supporting the indefensible. 

A brighter person  - say a lawyer perhaps - might get the point.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 21st, 2015 at 6:15pm: I'm doing the topic I posted about slavery.  I am not a 'fake lawyer,' and every time you post that, yet another false assertion makes me laugh at you, and your insecurity. I call them as I see them and you have provided zero reason to believe your claim to having been a lawyer other than perhaps  very, very bad one who was disbarred for incompetence. The general quality of your postings are riddle with hate, anger and sociopathic behaviour and a complete disregard for a single living being other than perhaps the Fat Buffoon. And writing an article praising slavery kinda proves my point.  Just like Karnal is too stupid to see what the value is on writing articles supporting a position you actually disagree with, so you choose to write a stupid and inherently unbeleivable article supporting the indefensible.  A brighter person  - say a lawyer perhaps - might get the point.

Wasn't the whole point of your challenge that people produce a piece in support of a proposition they personally oppose?

Yeas?

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 5:57pm:

And if you bothered to count there were quite a number of posters commenting on my article and positively so

really? link?

Actually, Aussie, according to Longy, the point of his challenge was to string the board along for a couple of weeks and ultimately trick us. For Longy, it was all an elaborate attempt to out-manipulate everybody, and it worked a treat.

No one believes him now.

For some reason though, Longy is still really anxious that everyone consider him a "serious" writer. He refuses to prove this, of course, he just keeps repeating it.

But yeas, we’re free to get to the point of Longy’s trick challenge and post our own work - no plagiarism, no limits. The challenge is to persuade people of something we truly disagree with.

I look forward to your argument, Aussie. I’m open to being turned onto slavery, and I hope you feel the same way about paedophilia.

Karnal wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 8:13pm:

Actually, Aussie, according to Longy, the point of his challenge was to string the board along for a couple of weeks and ultimately trick us. For Longy, it was all an elaborate attempt to out-manipulate everybody, and it worked a treat. No one believes him now. For some reason though, Longy is still really anxious that everyone consider him a "serious" writer. He refuses to prove this, of course, he just keeps repeating it. But yeas, we’re free to get to the point of Longy’s trick challenge and post our own work - no plagiarism, no limits. The challenge is to persuade people of something we truly disagree with. I look forward to your argument, Aussie. I’m open to being turned onto slavery, and I hope you feel the same way about paedophilia.

Well, it is hard to disagree with any of that.  Melielongtime bragged long and loud about how he could produce a piece in support of something he personally was opposed to, and yet, when given two topics of that kind, he ran.  I guess he did not have responses on those two topics on his c drive.  Meh, I don't care.  I'll produce my thaing on the topic 'Even this day, western society would not function without slavery,' and melielongtime can cry in his cot as much and as long as he likes. It'll take me about 10-15 minutes.

Karnal wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 8:13pm:

For Longy, it was all an elaborate attempt to out-manipulate everybody, and it worked a treat.

I think he out manipulated himself in the process  :D :D :D

What I have proven is what I have stated for some time: Aussie is a sociopath with zero compassion for anyone. His interest in and understanding of social behaviour is close to nil which is why being pro-incest and pro-slavery would be so easy for him - because people dont matter to him

Karnal of course has proved what I long suspected that he is a lightweight with a bad temper when bested. The bad temper was a surprise, but the lightweight approach to a serious challenge was not. That is why I wanted Bam and Pecca since both are clearly very intelligent and possess something neither of you do: seriousness and talent.

Not your best look, children.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:03am:

What I have proven is what I have stated for some time: Aussie is a sociopath with zero compassion for anyone. His interest in and understanding of social behaviour is close to nil which is why being pro-incest and pro-slavery would be so easy for him - because people dont matter to him Karnal of course has proved what I long suspected that he is a lightweight with a bad temper when bested. The bad temper was a surprise, but the lightweight approach to a serious challenge was not. That is why I wanted Bam and Pecca since both are clearly very intelligent and possess something neither of you do: seriousness and talent. Not your best look, children.

Bad temper? Not at all! We've all welcomed your challenge, Longy, and in particular, your response to it. The lack of any actual writing was most educational.

I'll hold off my judgment on seriousness and talent until I read Aussie and my own arguments on subjects you consider untouchable: slavery and paedophilia. Who knows? I might find myself lost for an argument, just as I did on Bill Shorten.

It's a telling state of affairs that paedophilia seems easier to defend than the alternative prime minister, but that's the dearth of Australian political leadership for you.

The difference between those who have accepted the challenge and the poster who issued it is one of what John Howard called ticker. Some see a challenge like this as an opportunity to extend their writing and critical thinking skills. It's about having a bit of fun.

The challenger sees it as a way to "out-manipulate" others, offering increasingly desperate excuses for why he refuses to actually write anything. It's about fear, intimidation and saving face at all costs. The challenger would rather write pages of insults and self-flattery than sit down and draft a good argument. It's a testament to his skills in writing and persuasion, and the best example I've ever seen of delusional self-indulgence.

And on this board, that's saying something.

I'm really grateful for the challenge, Longy. I don't feel bad tempered about it at all. I look forward to your critique of our arguments. I'm sure that will be educational too.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 10:03am:

What I have proven is what I have stated for some time: Aussie is a sociopath with zero compassion for anyone. His interest in and understanding of social behaviour is close to nil which is why being pro-incest and pro-slavery would be so easy for him - because people dont matter to him Karnal of course has proved what I long suspected that he is a lightweight with a bad temper when bested. The bad temper was a surprise, but the lightweight approach to a serious challenge was not. That is why I wanted Bam and Pecca since both are clearly very intelligent and possess something neither of you do: seriousness and talent. Not your best look, children.

http://www.majorleaguedating.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/loser.gif

I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:08pm:

I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it.

why adults?  what draws you to excuse a ten thousand year old taboo as irrelevent (incest) but to still accept a very recent invention (age of consent)?  it seems to be a curiously uneven approach to the topic.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:08pm: I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it. why adults?  what draws you to excuse a ten thousand year old taboo as irrelevent (incest) but to still accept a very recent invention (age of consent)?  it seems to be a curiously uneven approach to the topic.

Now that’s the closest you’ve got to explaining your aversion to gay incest, Longy.

Looks like you’re learning after all.

Quote:

In support of gay incest...???

Aussie haven't you got anything better to think about dude..!!!...seriously....?????

Makes me want to barf.....LOL..... :-[

Ajax wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 6:52pm:

[quote]In support of gay incest...???

Aussie haven't you got anything better to think about dude..!!!...seriously....?????

Makes me want to barf.....LOL..... :-[/quote]

Thanks for taking what I produced as fair dinkum.  Melielongtime will not thank you for it, though.  He reckons I am unable to produce a credible opinion piece on a subject I do not support.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 3:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:08pm: I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it. why adults?  what draws you to excuse a ten thousand year old taboo as irrelevent (incest) but to still accept a very recent invention (age of consent)?  it seems to be a curiously uneven approach to the topic.

If family cannot protect their children from abuse, then the state must take the responsibility of guardianship over those children. A case of (say) a father sexually abusing his child daughter is a case of the family failing to protect their child from abuse. In which case the state must step in and protect the child. And its not just children - any victim of abuse deserves protection from the state. But two consenting adults engaging in whatever depraved activity that satisfies their desires - providing it doesn't harm anyone else - is an entirely different matter, that the state has no business in.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 11:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 3:26pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22nd, 2015 at 12:08pm: I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it. why adults?  what draws you to excuse a ten thousand year old taboo as irrelevent (incest) but to still accept a very recent invention (age of consent)?  it seems to be a curiously uneven approach to the topic. If family cannot protect their children from abuse, then the state must take the responsibility of guardianship over those children. A case of (say) a father sexually abusing his child daughter is a case of the family failing to protect their child from abuse. In which case the state must step in and protect the child. And its not just children - any victim of abuse deserves protection from the state. But two consenting adults engaging in whatever depraved activity that satisfies their desires - providing it doesn't harm anyone else - is an entirely different matter, that the state has no business in.

Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent.

Aussie wrote on Jul 16^th, 2015 at 6:25pm:

Gay Incest. I support it completely.  Why not?  I guess Gay Incest involves sexual activity between brothers, or a father and son, male cousins, and similarly between sisters, a mother and daughter and female cousins.  Throw in aunts and uncles with nieces and nephews, and there you have a very unproductive melting pot, but presumably heights of passion.  (There’s  that word ~ passion, and I’ll come back to it.) Exactly what is the problem with any of that, assuming it occurs (as the Law will require) with adult consent, and lack of power balance or any sense of compulsion.  If there is appropriate consent in the sense the Law and everyone would expect, why not? Historically, I am sure there will be plenty of examples but I can’t be bothered looking.  It is irrelevant to my point.  Why ought we concern ourselves with the intercourse of whatever kind between two people if and when there is absolutely no negative to it?  If two brother blokes want to play tennis, and they get their jollies doing it, why should I or you care?  It’s none of our bloody business, is it.  Two brother blokes wrestle in the Olympic Games….get all very close and personal, and one gets an erection.  Embarrassing for him but, so what?  And……who cares if the combatants are brothers?  No me.  Why, you? Way back at the dawn of prude, incest was frowned upon.  It was a genetic thing, or concern.  Not so much a social taboo, but explained on the basis that defects in the dna would be spread and thus the herd would be weakened.  I don’t even subscribe to that theory, because, at the end of the day, Mr Darwin’s theory of evolution blows it out of the water…..the fittest survive, so that’s the end of that wimpy whinge.  So if two of the same sex get at it and there is zero chance of reproduction, who cares, and if so, why.  Buggered if I can think of any logical reason.  Precious pups like the ‘flake melielongtime of the righteous (???) indignation’ will drag out biblical propaganda and tell us that those who get their rocks off with their immediate family are doooooooomed to hell and damnation for eternity.  Oh well, there are always voodoo snake oil salesman on just about any topic. What sort of test is applicable here.  Is it a NIMBY?  Is it the Pub Test?  Is it the recently developed ‘sniff test?’ Is it biological?  Nah, it cannot be that as is bleedingly obvious.  What are we left with?  Well, why ought it bother you if two brothers were living next door, and you knew they were screwing the crap out of each other? Seriously!  Why is that any skin off your nose, any more than it worries you not that Mr and Mrs Deepthroat are doing the same at the other ‘next door?’ The ‘Pub Test.’  Yeas, I can imagine all those tradies, and bar flies swilling their schooners  to skin full level, and convincing each other ~ (before they left for home to beat the sheet out of their spouses and probably their kids) fist pumping their breasts and saying, “bloody poofter brothers, let’s get ‘em.  Hang ‘em high,” ~ that this is a real threat to their bar-room heroics. As for the sniff failure.   Yeas, I can see it, but I reject it as bigotry. At the end of the day, we are left with two people, brothers, sisters etc, who for reasons I cannot explain, are passionate about exploring sexual pleasure with each other.  Let them have their way I say.  Why not!

many blessings

it is of no surprise that this freemason is being

tormented by his self invoked demon ..

this is not rational or loving thinking

more warped and depraved

yet you are now exposed as by their works

you shall know them ..

and so be it

namaste

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:08pm:

I don't "support" incest from a moral point of view. But I am against laws that forbid it. As long as it is a matter between consenting adults, the state has no business to stop it.

many blessings

another is exposed as by their works

ye shall know them and greet them at any and all incest events they do literally care to empower

as this incest apologist does announce

all are forgiven for confusions

yet exposed as predicted

so be at peace

namaste

Thanks for exposing them, Light. Have you got something on the Longweekender?

Karnal wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 9:41am:

Thanks for exposing them, Light. Have you got something on the Longweekender?

many blessings master karnal

all is how it is and should be

as we continue and observe

those that are known by their works

and so be it

namaste

- : ) =

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 8:53am:

Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent.

You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:26pm:

so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

that's OK, neither does he ... he simply thinks that muddying the waters will give his argument more validity

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:53am: Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent. You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

The point I am making is this: you are saying that a millenia-old taboo and legal objecttion to incest 'doesnt matter' largely because it doesnt concern you.  AS an argument for overturning such a prevailing taboo, it fails miserably because applying your logic to another are of behaviour - post-pubescent sexuality - comes up with an outcome you are not expecting nor wanting. The age of consent limitation is a very, very recent invention and the incest taboo is far stronger and older.

If you want to make an argument supporting incest then you in addition, need to explain why it should be adults only and also, why adult is 18+.  All you have done is make an ill-considered comment that is inconsistent with any kind of logical argument..


JS will not understand a word of the above.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 12:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:53am: Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent. You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make.

just picked this up..  YOU are conflating the two issues by stating it must be adults only, thus excluding consensual incestual relationships under the artificially chosen age of 18.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 1:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:53am: Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent. You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make. just picked this up..  YOU are conflating the two issues by stating it must be adults only, thus excluding consensual incestual relationships under the artificially chosen age of 18.

ahhm, i think the LAW says they must be consenting adults

John Smith wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 2:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:56pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:53am: Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent. You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make. just picked this up..  YOU are conflating the two issues by stating it must be adults only, thus excluding consensual incestual relationships under the artificially chosen age of 18. ahhm, i think the LAW says they must be consenting adults

it also prohibits incest, fool.  trying understanding what the grownups are talking about first.

Longy why would you think that pointing out that its a "millenia old taboo" mean anything relevant here? There are lots of stupid and very old laws that we have only recently began to realise were stupid - like banning homosexuality.

Stop complicating my point - its very simple:

- children need protection, and the state should step in if they can't get that protection from their family

- when people are no longer in need of said protection (on account of them being adults), then they should be able to consent with each other to do whatever depraved acts they choose - free from state intervention. And it can be anything - hetero sex, gay sex, incest, gay incest, group sex etc etc. Its not that I approve of it - I don't, but its not the role of the state to stop them unless there are victims involved.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 2:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 2:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 1:56pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 12:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 8:53am: Historically, sexual activity began as soon as puberty developed. it is only in the very recent past that this has been changed. So if the strict laws forbidding incest -which has been forbidden for millenia - are irrelevent to you, why should consensual incest for any post-pubescent be a problem.  Your position is inconsistent. You're conflating two separate issues longy (incest and age of consent). The age of consent issue is not one that is unique to incest, so I really don't know what point you are trying to make. just picked this up..  YOU are conflating the two issues by stating it must be adults only, thus excluding consensual incestual relationships under the artificially chosen age of 18. ahhm, i think the LAW says they must be consenting adults it also prohibits incest, fool.  trying understanding what the grownups are talking about first.

yes, and a discussion about allowing incest doesn't automatically mean all laws become obsolete ... you idiot.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 2:32pm:

Longy why would you think that pointing out that its a "millenia old taboo" mean anything relevant here? There are lots of stupid and very old laws that we have only recently began to realise were stupid - like banning homosexuality. Stop complicating my point - its very simple: - children need protection, and the state should step in if they can't get that protection from their family - when people are no longer in need of said protection (on account of them being adults), then they should be able to consent with each other to do whatever depraved acts they choose - free from state intervention. And it can be anything - hetero sex, gay sex, incest, gay incest, group sex etc etc. Its not that I approve of it - I don't, but its not the role of the state to stop them unless there are victims involved.

and you think that despite the fact that until 200 years ago, most people were sexually active at 13/14 and having children at the same age.  were they all 'victims'? or was it the culture of the time? the point is that you define as 'children' those that biology and history define as adults. to be clear, I am not opposing the age of consent laws at all, merely pointing out that your distinction is arbitrary and inconsistent with your incest attitude. After all, the average age of first sex in UK is 11.5 years.  That ship has long since sailed.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:39pm:

the point is that you define as 'children' those that biology and history define as adults.

I don't recall defining children anywhere. Nevertheless the line must be drawn somewhere - and yes it will necessarily be completely arbitrary, but that is a separate issue and has no relevance to my point.

I dunno if this is relevant but talking about age old taboos against incest, wasn't that based on biological reasons? You know, birth deformities etc - clearly incest was a thing we just did at some point, otherwise how did we work out it was a taboo - anyway, that's its own question I suspect...

So, an age old taboo, presumably, based on issues regarding pregnancy, in particular, birth deformities would be irrelevant wouldn't it in a discussion about GAY incest? After all, barring an absolute miracle, pregnancy is not going to happen... Wow, imagine the upset if pregnancy did pop up (yep, pun intended!)!

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:

I dunno if this is relevant but talking about age old taboos against incest, wasn't that based on biological reasons? You know, birth deformities etc - clearly incest was a thing we just did at some point, otherwise how did we work out it was a taboo - anyway, that's its own question I suspect... So, an age old taboo, presumably, based on issues regarding pregnancy, in particular, birth deformities would be irrelevant wouldn't it in a discussion about GAY incest? After all, barring an absolute miracle, pregnancy is not going to happen... Wow, imagine the upset if pregnancy did pop up (yep, pun intended!)!

Weeeeeellll, I reckon I covered all of that in my 'piece.'

Aussie wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 5:58pm: I dunno if this is relevant but talking about age old taboos against incest, wasn't that based on biological reasons? You know, birth deformities etc - clearly incest was a thing we just did at some point, otherwise how did we work out it was a taboo - anyway, that's its own question I suspect... So, an age old taboo, presumably, based on issues regarding pregnancy, in particular, birth deformities would be irrelevant wouldn't it in a discussion about GAY incest? After all, barring an absolute miracle, pregnancy is not going to happen... Wow, imagine the upset if pregnancy did pop up (yep, pun intended!)! Weeeeeellll, I reckon I covered all of that in my 'piece.'

LOL, OK so I just did it more succinctly - muwahahahahahaha!

(I need to let you know, it is only out of respect that I am using great restraint from emoticoning it out here...)

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 6:03pm: Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23rd, 2015 at 5:58pm: I dunno if this is relevant but talking about age old taboos against incest, wasn't that based on biological reasons? You know, birth deformities etc - clearly incest was a thing we just did at some point, otherwise how did we work out it was a taboo - anyway, that's its own question I suspect... So, an age old taboo, presumably, based on issues regarding pregnancy, in particular, birth deformities would be irrelevant wouldn't it in a discussion about GAY incest? After all, barring an absolute miracle, pregnancy is not going to happen... Wow, imagine the upset if pregnancy did pop up (yep, pun intended!)! Weeeeeellll, I reckon I covered all of that in my 'piece.' LOL, OK so I just did it more succinctly - muwahahahahahaha! (I need to let you know, it is only out of respect that I am using great restraint from emoticoning it out here...)

I beg to disagree on the 'succinct' claim.  I reckon I covered that in just one word.......'unproductive.'

*No emoticons will ever be abused in the making of my posts.*