Emotional moment TV host comes out on morning show saying he felt compelled to do so after a gay nine-year-old boy in Denver committed suicide

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...


So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...


So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

Eilzel wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Didge... you repeat the same lies... lies that I have gone through with you before and shown you to be wrong... but you pop up with the same shit again and again...


So when you do this now... I will just post as I did earlier...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:With all due respect to you Quill, you happily sit back and say nothing, even positively encourage your little mate by taking his side, when he has said the crudest personal things to people, especially the women on the forum.

Fred is right, WW seldom posts without hurling insults and lies out about others.......thats why the doughnut is more often than not ignored by some on here.

Gd. morning Syl (6 am here).  Wolf was not abusive here, and that is the point.

We don't advance the cause of civility, when we bang on people because of reputation or 'other posts'.  Wolf made a simple point, quite appropriate in it's own right.  That's what I meant about the doughnut metaphor: look at the substance, and not at the air in between.  When someone makes a valid point, don't immediately go to your perceived reputation of him.

Don't you see that this continues the animosity and antagonisms, without advancing any point at all.  Give the spark of life, however small, to the possibility that we can all be friendly toward one another.

Tommy Monk wrote:If you do something for long enough, the brain will change accordingly... for example, black taxi drivers in London have been shown to have developed unusually large hippocampus areas of the brain...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/677048.stm


And you forget that the whole purpose of biological attraction is physically designed to be of male/female attraction... hard wired in normal people... anything else is abnormal.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gd. morning Syl (6 am here).  Wolf was not abusive here, and that is the point.

We don't advance the cause of civility, when we bang on people because of reputation or 'other posts'.  Wolf made a simple point, quite appropriate in it's own right.  That's what I meant about the doughnut metaphor: look at the substance, and not at the air in between.  When someone makes a valid point, don't immediately go to your perceived reputation of him.

Don't you see that this continues the animosity and antagonisms, without advancing any point at all.  Give the spark of life, however small, to the possibility that we can all be friendly toward one another.

Afternoon  Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Afternoon  Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Yes, and the fable of the little boy who called 'wolf' was intended to teach exactly what I am saying.

That fable is normally invoked to admonish to little boy, who all too frequently sends out alarms that wear the villagers numb with anxiety.  But, note, it is also a caution to the villagers who don't take each occasion on it's own merits.  That is my message.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Afternoon  Quill....its 2.40pm here.
You will have heard the fable about the boy who cried Wolf? (no pun intended) he made so many false claims that when he really needed help no one even bothered to listen.
Well I feel like that about someone who constantly trolls, abuses and lies, I dont bother to read....so on the rare occasion a worthwhile point is made....it gets ignored.

Yes, and the fable of the little boy who called 'wolf' was intended to teach exactly what I am saying.

That fable is normally invoked to admonish to little boy, who all too frequently sends out alarms that wear the villagers numb with anxiety.  But, note, it is also a caution to the villagers who don't take each occasion on it's own merits.  That is my message.

Syl wrote:I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:If you do something for long enough, the brain will change accordingly... for example, black taxi drivers in London have been shown to have developed unusually large hippocampus areas of the brain...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/677048.stm


And you forget that the whole purpose of biological attraction is physically designed to be of male/female attraction... hard wired in normal people... anything else is abnormal.

What has that got to do with homosexuality from birth?

Your example shows ulterior applications to effect people later in life on a given job role

Hence not even the same ball park. hence you are utterly clueless on this Tommy

Sorry you say the design?

What design?

Who designed it?

So in other words, you are simple posting up gibberish

You need to first propose how something is designed.

If as seen, homosexuality is also designed within the brain, where does that leave your argument?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

What has that got to do with homosexuality from birth?

Your example shows ulterior applications to effect people later in life on a given job role

Hence not even the same ball park. hence you are utterly clueless on this Tommy

Sorry you say the design?

What design?

Who designed it?

So in other words, you are simple posting up gibberish

You need to first propose how something is designed.

If as seen, homosexuality is also designed within the brain, where does that leave your argument?

The biological structural design of the reproductive system of humans, animals & plants is undeniably that which is for the attraction and sexual interaction of male/female coupling.

Tommy Monk wrote:The origin of the design is not what we're discussing here... but the purpose of the design, as seen throughout all species of animal & plant life, is undeniable...!

Tommy Monk wrote:The splitting hairs, that you always do, is the only real cop out here didge...

Tommy Monk wrote:You are the one ignoring points... and you are trying to split hairs by trying to question the origin of the male/female biological design instead of admitting the undeniable purpose of the design that is witnessed throughout life on earth!!!

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before.  You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content.  Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before.  You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content.  Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

The fable only has one message Quill....cry wolf too often and you will be ignored thereafter if you dont mend your ways....the shepherd in the story was the loser, no one else.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


The fable only has one message Quill....cry wolf too often and you will be ignored thereafter if you dont mend your ways....the shepherd in the story was the loser, no one else.

The evidence is right before your eyes, and I've walked you through the logic of it.  Are you Russian?

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You are the one ignoring points... and you are trying to split hairs by trying to question the origin of the male/female biological design instead of admitting the undeniable purpose of the design that is witnessed throughout life on earth!!!

Actually I gave scientific evidence

You gave bullshit and bigoted bullshit at that

Try again

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Actually I gave scientific evidence

You gave bullshit and bigoted bullshit at that

Try again

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!

Is it?

Is that why again you have avoided my points on neuroology?

Again I have to take it, you simple do not understand what the science does say

You simple repeat verbatim, the same load of crap

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Is it?

Is that why again you have avoided my points on neuroology?

Again I have to take it, you simple do not understand what the science does say

You simple repeat verbatim, the same load of crap

The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!


That is all there is too it!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Mickey mouse waffle is not science!


The evidence of the natural biological purpose of sexual interaction being intentionally between male and female couples is empirical and undeniable!!!


That is all there is too it!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

What about it?

What about it?

So what?

What about it?

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

What about it?

What about it?

So what?

What about it?

You're arguing that sex is strictly for procreation, when clearly that's not the only purpose of sex. Your argument is nonsense.

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm saying the intended attraction and interaction is undeniably male and female coupling... that is normal and natural...

Didge wrote:Oh and just to add to my point on neuroscience

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/jun/16/neuroscience.psychology

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=5176835&page=1

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

Which would help explain why a number of people growing up, are confused on their sexulaity and gender. Some clearly have gender dysphoria. Whilst the majority are simple gay. The facts show this to be true, where 60-90% who whilst growing up. Claim to have gender dysphoria. End up growing out of this and the majority end up realising they are simple gay. Many go through such anxiety, as many would, not understanding the way they feel towards the same sex or their own bodies.

More and more neuroscience is helping people understand how the brains functions with attractions.

This is why i am so annoyed with some on the left promoting and brainwashing some kids who are confused. To wrongly believe they are Transgender. When in reality they are simple gay and thus not having the support they should be getting. For what they are going through, where they are feeling confused through the earliest of ages. Through then to puberty.

Hence, support should be given based neutrally, until that individual grows up and is clear as to whether they come to understand they are indeed gay or that they do have gender dysphoria.

Hence I am not lying Tommy. Its simple a case, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Eilzel wrote:Sure tommy was bitching about other people repeating themselves not long

Man must bore himself to sleep sometimes. It's his wife I feel for...

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The evidence is right before your eyes, and I've walked you through the logic of it.  Are you Russian?

Your logic is obviously not on kilter with mine on this matter Quill, so fraid we will have to agree to disagree...night.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Sure tommy was bitching about other people repeating themselves not long

Man must bore himself to sleep sometimes. It's his wife I feel for...

Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

At no point did I insult his wife.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Unfair mate.

I can understand your frustrations and have no idea if Tommy is even married, but that is crossing a line buddy

Whatever I think of Tommy, bringing that into the debate is poor.

You would not like the reverse said to you about your partner mate and the love of your life.

At no point did I insult his wife.

Why did you bring her into this?

Its unfair mate and you know it

I would say the same if this was views made on your partner

Its out of order mate

Tommy, may well have a loving wife or partner and to bring this into the equation, is crossing a line and you know it

Take your frustrations out on Tommy, not people who are not here

You know very well I am on your side of the debate here, so what you said was clearly crossing a line

You should apologise mate

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why did you bring her into this?

Its unfair mate and you know it

I would say the same if this was views made on your partner

Its out of order mate

Tommy, may well have a loving wife or partner and to bring this into the equation, is crossing a line and you know it

Take your frustrations out on Tommy, not people who are not here

You know very well I am on your side of the debate here, so what you said was clearly crossing a line

You should apologise mate

You're entitled to think that way.

My insult was to emphasise how boring tommy is, added to the fact he implies is sex is strictly for having babies making him hardly an appealing choice of partner.

If I'd insulted anyone else inadvertantly, I'd apologise, and be disgusted with myself. But I don't see it that way.

So I won't. I am however sorry you see it that way.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
Your logic is obviously not on kilter with mine on this matter Quill, so fraid we will have to agree to disagree...night.

The point is academic now, but you don't feel the boy had any purpose for the villagers in policing for the wolf?

So, what was he doing out there?  Why didn't he just come in?

Original Quill wrote:If the villagers were disinterested, why would the boy call 'wolf'?  The villagers would shrug and go on with their lives.

Syl wrote:They were disinterested AFTER the boy had repeatedly and falsely cried wolf.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:They were disinterested AFTER the boy had repeatedly and falsely cried wolf.

Why would they care at anytime, if they had no interest in the sheep.  Tough kid, so we don't eat lamb.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
I think the moral of the story is to NOT cry wolf....else it'll be you who comes off worse, simply because people dont believe what you re saying.

But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before.  You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content.  Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
But you completely miss the other point of the story: to not ignore the boy when he does call 'wolf', even if he's done it many times before.  You do so at your own peril as it's your interests he's there to protect.

As didge says, wolf has a lot to say of content.  Listen to him, and only if there's no content, should you criticize if he deserves it.

I don't know what was going on with either Fred or Sly's pointless and unproked attacks against me yesterday;  especially seeing how Sly's hatemongering vitriol was loaded with total bullshit throughout...   I'll put Fred's usual lunacy down to his potential galloping senility..

Maybe neither of them got enough hugs when they were children  ???

Considering that I haven't insulted either of those nongs for some time, perhaps they were starting to feel a bit neglected and undervalued over there..

Didge wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


I don't know what was going on with either Fred or Sly's pointless and unproked attacks against me yesterday;  especially seeing how Sly's hatemongering vitriol was loaded with total bullshit throughout...   I'll put Fred's usual lunacy down to his potential galloping senility..

Maybe neither of them got enough hugs when they were children  ???

Considering that I haven't insulted either of those nongs for some time, perhaps they were starting to feel a bit neglected and undervalued over there..

Considering you have attacked her mate many times, that is really hypocritical. As you have certainly gone after her and poorly so, for no valid reason. She is simple being critical of when you are abusive, which at times, like me, you are. To say you have no insulted for sometime, to then actually insult her, is when you do not recognise when you do.

You are better than that, and hold you in respect. Hence there is no need, for you to attempt and poorly so, to play the victim card.

How about you both meet half way and drop the animosity towards each other

I Know Syl would do so and why I hold her in great respect, even when we both argue like cats and dogs.

So for the sake of the forum, how about, you both organise a ceasefire, with a view to having ongoing peace with each other. As there is nothing wrong with being humble

Anyway, have to go, so be the better person I know you can be and reach out and make up

Laters

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


Considering you have attacked her mate many times, that is really hypocritical. As you have certainly gone after her and poorly so, for no valid reason. She is simple being critical of when you are abusive, which at times, like me, you are. To say you have no insulted for sometime, to then actually insult her, is when you do not recognise when you do.

You are better than that, and hold you in respect. Hence there is no need, for you to attempt and poorly so, to play the victim card.

How about you both meet half way and drop the animosity towards each other

I Know Syl would do so and why I hold her in great respect, even when we both argue like cats and dogs.

So for the sake of the forum, how about, you both organise a ceasefire, with a view to having ongoing peace with each other. As there is nothing wrong with being humble

Anyway, have to go, so be the better person I know you can be and reach out and make up

Laters

I ignore his abuse 99% of the time Didge so no worries.

I will say this, I have tried on at least two occasions to enter into dialogue with him, asking him why from the outset he has insulted and lied about me on here...unfortunately he is a hit and run poster, he never answers a genuine request to sort out any differences, he lies low for a bit then pops up in an unrelated thread to spew more abuse....and the cycle continues.
He is the same with several posters on here, HT, Rags and Magica all get regular uncalled for abuse, if anyone bothers to answer him he plays the victim.

In short, he is a classic troll.....every forum has one, he takes the title here.