Clarkson censured for 'bit gay' car gibe

On May 24, 10:57 pm, "Agamemnon" wrote:
"the dog from that film you saw" wrote
in ...







"Agamemnon" wrote in message
.uk...

"marc_CH" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual acts
pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

And you are the person who said that your cat has given you the come-on.

WRONG. The cat that tried to entice me belonged to a neighbour. My own
cats never behaved that way because I brought them up decently. ]

too silly now - for a while i took you seriously - now you get 4 out of 10
only.

You want something silly do you?

Well, I've just finished watching Look East and abomination knows no bounds.
A transgenic human has been made mayor of one of the towns in the region.
Not that there is any thing wrong in that. What the abomination that I am
refereeing is that this man-woman has a partner, not a man as you might
think to complement its artificial femininity, oh no, this creatures partner
is another woman, oh yes. If this creature fancied women then why didn't it
remain a man instead of becoming a lesbian? But no, it gets much worse than
this, because it turns out that this creatures partner is not actually a
woman at all but another transgenic human, oh yes, another man-woman. For
****s sake, if both these creatures were gay then why didn't they become
partners as men. But yer, they were not satisfied with eating snails, they
had to eat oysters instead, and farm grown ones too, not ala natural. But
no, what the **** has this country become?- Hide quoted text -


Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells regenerates in Fagaymemnon of Northampton

You are an amusing little man aren't you

Regards

H

"Lytton" wrote in message
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...gyrou/Evidence

"He does not seem to be open to any compromise, and stubbornly wants his
views to be spread on wikipedia. Any view that differs from his does not
seem to be acceptable to him, and he obviously thinks this gives him the
right to break all wikipedia rules and standards of interpersonal
behaviour."

Spot on.

On May 24, 11:13 pm, hulahoop wrote:
On May 24, 10:57 pm, "Agamemnon" wrote:





"the dog from that film you saw" wrote
in ...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
.uk...

"marc_CH" wrote in message
...
Agamemnon wrote:

Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual acts
pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

And you are the person who said that your cat has given you the come-on.

WRONG. The cat that tried to entice me belonged to a neighbour. My own
cats never behaved that way because I brought them up decently. ]

too silly now - for a while i took you seriously - now you get 4 out of 10
only.

You want something silly do you?

Well, I've just finished watching Look East and abomination knows no bounds.
A transgenic human has been made mayor of one of the towns in the region.
Not that there is any thing wrong in that. What the abomination that I am
refereeing is that this man-woman has a partner, not a man as you might
think to complement its artificial femininity, oh no, this creatures partner
is another woman, oh yes. If this creature fancied women then why didn't it
remain a man instead of becoming a lesbian? But no, it gets much worse than
this, because it turns out that this creatures partner is not actually a
woman at all but another transgenic human, oh yes, another man-woman. For
****s sake, if both these creatures were gay then why didn't they become
partners as men. But yer, they were not satisfied with eating snails, they
had to eat oysters instead, and farm grown ones too, not ala natural. But
no, what the **** has this country become?- Hide quoted text -

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells regenerates in Fagaymemnon of Northampton

You are an amusing little man aren't you

Regards


and you can reply "Yes I am, unlike you" but I am not sure if you are
up to that level of repartee yet

Regards

H

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

"Lytton" wrote in message
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...gyrou/Evidence

"He does not seem to be open to any compromise, and stubbornly wants his
views to be spread on wikipedia. Any view that differs from his does not
seem to be acceptable to him, and he obviously thinks this gives him the
right to break all wikipedia rules and standards of interpersonal
behaviour."

Statement by ANK99
All statements here except user UNFanatic statement are of pro Turkish or
Turkish Cypriot POV so they cannot be considered impartial and are not
offering good advice. It is true that most articles where Argyrosargyrou was
trying to add a pro Greek Cypriot POV were for long and painstakingly been
edited with the opposite sides views. His attempts alarmed these individuals
who mounted a concerted effort (I dare say) to deny him expressing his
views. I have experienced a similar attempt trying to edit Cyprus dispute.
See [33] and an immediate revert [34] by Snchduer without any warning or
discussion. So Argyrosargyrou is not the only one that has violated
Wikipedia rules here. In my opinion he has been trying in vain to record his
POV and his contributions have been attacked repeatedly. Users E.A,
Snchduer, Expatkiwi have been trying to run over him in any of his attempts.
I disagree with denying him access. This forum should be terminated since it
is another attempt to silence a POV contributor. I should mention that the
Cyprus Issue in general IS a hotly debated controversial issue (not only in
Wikipedia) and a NPOV is practically non existent. --Ank99 06:30, 7 Jun 2005
(UTC)





Spot on.

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
...


You want something silly do you?

Well, I've just finished watching Look East and abomination knows no
bounds. A transgenic human has been made mayor of one of the towns in the
region. Not that there is any thing wrong in that. What the abomination
that I am refereeing is that this man-woman has a partner, not a man as
you might think to complement its artificial femininity, oh no, this
creatures partner is another woman, oh yes. If this creature fancied women
then why didn't it remain a man instead of becoming a lesbian? But no, it
gets much worse than this, because it turns out that this creatures
partner is not actually a woman at all but another transgenic human, oh
yes, another man-woman. For ****s sake, if both these creatures were gay
then why didn't they become partners as men. But yer, they were not
satisfied with eating snails, they had to eat oysters instead, and farm
grown ones too, not ala natural. But no, what the **** has this country
become?

Yep, you're right. That's pretty silly.

Actually, no it's pretty sad. How did you become so bitter and twisted?
Hating anyone who has any type of sex you don't approve of. Hating Turks.
Hating anyone who dares hold a different opinion to you on any matter. One
sad man...

In article ,
Stephen Wilson wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
.uk...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Doctor wrote:
Get back to reality. Homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity,
Judaism and Islam

I'd suggest you read all the other 'sexual guidance' given by these
various religions and see how much you agree with and how much is
actually
taken notice of these days - even by those praticing those religions. And
since the majority in this country don't actively follow any religion why
should they care what those religions say?

Thing is you can't have it all ways, if you call yourself a Christian.
Either every single word of the authorised version of the Bible is gospel
and must be followed to the letter or parts are only for guidance. If the
latter it just comes down to interpretation. And that interpretation is
done by humans who are fallible and will allow their prejudices to
influence them.

POPPYCOCK.

Leviticus 20

13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.

15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.

16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.

The teaching or guidance of these religions is perfectly clear.
Idiogenogamois and bestiality are unacceptable.

Now show me how you can interpret these passages otherwise?

There is a passage in Leviticus that states, quite unambiguously, that all
male babies should be circumcised when they are 8 days old.

There is a passage in Leviticus that states, equally unambiguously, that
pork should not be eaten.

I don't see Christians obeying these laws.

You cannot quote one rule in Leviticus as evidence if you then turn a blind
eye to the next rule.




HAve you met Dr. Laura Schlessinger?
--
Member - Liberal International
This is Ici
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
PEI!! On 28 May Get rid of the extremists and VOTE LIBERAL!

In article ,
Stephen Wilson wrote:

"The Doctor" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Agamemnon wrote:
POPPYCOCK.

Leviticus 20

13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.

15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.

16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.

The teaching or guidance of these religions is perfectly clear.
Idiogenogamois and bestiality are unacceptable.

Now show me how you can interpret these passages otherwise?

What does 'lie with a man as one lies with a woman' actually mean? If it

It means an act that is punishable by death.

means having a **** it should say so but doesn't. Ok to say to put to
death - that's clear enough - but not say what you mean about sex. Of
course bigots like you will read into it what you will. That's exactly
why
much of the bible is translated in an ambiguous way.

Bigots, ambiguous, ha.... You are the bigot kolofile and there is NOTHING
ambiguous about what Leviticus says about idiogenogamotics. It uses the
expression as one lies with a woman because it not only means having sex
with them but also touching them up, kissing them, and treating them in
any
other way that you would treat a woman sexually.



Welcome to a warped society. Do not give in.

You're absolutely right. If guys like you stopped being so warped, society
would be so much less interesting.



Referring to yourself I see Steve.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is Ici
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
PEI!! On 28 May Get rid of the extremists and VOTE LIBERAL!

Agamemnon told the audient void (and rec.arts.drwho):
Here is a list of people who have defended kolofilia and/or sexual acts
pertaining to idiogenogamosis in the Jeremy Clarkson thread.

"Beeblebear" the presidentfsnet.co.uk
"Stephen Wilson"
"Dave Plowman (News)"
"Roderick Stewart"
"Diane L."
"marc_CH"
"+tacos+"
"hulahoop"
"zarbiface"
"Darren Wilkinson" [email protected]
"Chris Slade"

I apologise for my failure to disagree with you in this thread. I must
be slipping. Please add me to this list.

--
"I want you, Johnny, to know all of this
****ed him in the ass, 'cause I want my Johnny bleeding"

["Kill The Cool Kids" - Gay For Johnny Depp]

In article ,
Stephen Wilson wrote:

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

"Stephen Wilson" wrote in message
...

There is a passage in Leviticus that states, quite unambiguously, that
all male babies should be circumcised when they are 8 days old.
There is a passage in Leviticus that states, equally unambiguously, that
pork should not be eaten.

Well they wouldn't need it would they with all those foreskins lying
around.

On a more serious note, I don't really see how rules for behaviour laid
down for the very different societies that existed two or three thousand
years ago can have any relevance to modern society. You wouldn't use a
1969 texbook to learn about colour TV maintenance would you?

I can. If you've been brought up as a Christian, you've been taught that the
Bible is the word of God. Take away someone's religion and part of their
world crumbles.

It could also be argued that technology has changed a lot in 38 years
(although the humble cathode ray tube hasn't changed much since its
invention). The human being has not changed that much in thousands of year.



Humanity has not chenged since Adam and Eve.
--
Member - Liberal International
This is Ici
God Queen and country! Beware Anti-Christ rising!
PEI!! On 28 May Get rid of the extremists and VOTE LIBERAL!

On May 24, 11:29 pm, (The Doctor) wrote:
In article ,





Stephen Wilson wrote:

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
.uk...

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
The Doctor wrote:
Get back to reality. Homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity,
Judaism and Islam

I'd suggest you read all the other 'sexual guidance' given by these
various religions and see how much you agree with and how much is
actually
taken notice of these days - even by those praticing those religions. And
since the majority in this country don't actively follow any religion why
should they care what those religions say?

Thing is you can't have it all ways, if you call yourself a Christian.
Either every single word of the authorised version of the Bible is gospel
and must be followed to the letter or parts are only for guidance. If the
latter it just comes down to interpretation. And that interpretation is
done by humans who are fallible and will allow their prejudices to
influence them.

POPPYCOCK.

Leviticus 20

13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.

15 If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.

16 If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.

The teaching or guidance of these religions is perfectly clear.
Idiogenogamois and bestiality are unacceptable.

Now show me how you can interpret these passages otherwise?

There is a passage in Leviticus that states, quite unambiguously, that all
male babies should be circumcised when they are 8 days old.

There is a passage in Leviticus that states, equally unambiguously, that
pork should not be eaten.

I don't see Christians obeying these laws.

You cannot quote one rule in Leviticus as evidence if you then turn a blind
eye to the next rule.

HAve you met Dr. Laura Schlessinger?

nO, HAve yOu?

rEgaRDs

h