Comments on: Double publicity coup for CV

By: tom p

tom p — Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:34:25 +0000

That’s a perfectly natural position to take, except when the author is known cancer-charity blackmailing hypocritical thug stephen green, a man who will stop at nothing to besmirch the reputatioons of those he considers unholy.
that’s really me point

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:33:54 +0000

Well, it would take great ingenuity to write a wholly untrue report. When I read any report, I assume (not always correctly, but none the less justifiably) that it bears some general relation to the facts, and that the author is not deliberately trying to ,islead me.

By: tom p

tom p — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:15:56 +0000

You’re absoltely right, you did.
But you did say that “Presumably there is some truth in the reports” too.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Thu, 06 Oct 2005 08:49:59 +0000

Hi Tom
Hence (as I emphasised in #30) my use of the word ‘if’.

By: tom p

tom p — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:06:50 +0000

christopher – if the reports you refer to are those quote in the cv press release, then i’d say that your underlying presumption (one of their veracity) needs some serious examination.

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 11:06:24 +0000

1. Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice: as Dr Shell should well know. None of my friends woke up one moring and thought, “today, I’m going to start sucking dick/munching rug.”

2. Some truth in the reports that (1) Homosexuals partied amond the dead and dying like some bunch of gouls, -OR- (2) Homosexuals joined hetrosexuals (as fellow humans) in raising morale?

3. Christianity *is* a lifestyle choice and the consequence of that is being ridiculed by people who don’t need to defer to superstitious ideas to receive moral guidance.

By: Christopher Shell

Christopher Shell — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 11:41:11 +0000

Of course, but read what I said:
‘*If* the homosexuals merely partied on….’ I have no idea whether they did or didnt. Presumably there is some truth in the reports; and presumably some did and some didn’t. Those who did were being less helpful than those who didn’t (though those who were intending to raise morale were also being more helpful than those who were not). That stands to reason.

Isn’t the main reason for your objection an unwillingness to face the fact that actions and lifestyles have consequences?

By: Marc

Marc — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:03:50 +0000

Indeed Andrew. Much the same thing happened in the bunkers in WWII with people singing, “We’ll Meet Again” and such like. It’s called *raising moral* you fucking homophobe!

By: Darren

Darren — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:01:49 +0000

That press release is a load of crap.
What good is a day of prayer going to do, should these people be helping instead of praying?
Also “Most would say a Hurricane is an ‘Act of God’
That’s just a fucking insurance scam so they don’t have to pay for natures wrath not gods.

By: Andrew Nixon

Andrew Nixon — Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:01:06 +0000

If you can’t see whats wrong with the press release then you are an incredibly sick man Christopher.

Green says that the gay community didn’t help. This is not true. Indeed they provided much more help than the religious comminity. Just because a few people decide to try and raise peoples spirits, does not been that they should be condemned.

You, of course, will not accept this as you have already shown yourself to be nothing but a bigot as far as homosexuality is concerned.