On 14/01/2011 gordoste wrote:
>Gran Torino is bad-ass. Million Dollar Baby is pretty damn good but not
>really very bad-ass.
I never saw Gran Torino, might check it out.
Million Dollar Baby? What a pile of shit! The 1st half is Rocky with a chick (stock standard zero to hero.....they even have a training montage "gotta have a montaaaage") the second half is like a separate film sticky taped on, stupid boring "issue movie"!
On 14/01/2011 pensionerpower wrote:
>As a gay climber I find it beyond amazing that chockstone posters still
But it just rolls off the tounge so well. What are you supposed to call your mate when they grab the draw instead of going for the move? 'Softc--k" gets a bit overused, and may be offensive to climbers who can't get it up!
>I don't see people referring to "kikes", "niggers", "spicks", "coons",
>"slopes", and so on - even jokingly - so there must be a perception that
>gay people are easy marks, and won't object.
My mates give me shit about being a wog all the time. I climb with a guy who's a spick, sometimes I use it to wind him up a bit.
>What is it with you, ODH? Are you deliberately offensive for some purpose
>- or are you just a farkin idiot?
A little from column A, and a little from column B
>Chockstone recently had a huge imbroglio about this issue. It beggars
>belief that a regular poster (fool though he may be) is apparently keen
>to revisit it.
The difference which I see is that Phil openly admitted that he does not approve of homosexuality and would force his views onto others if he were able (actual interference in other people's lives).
I, on the other hand, am fully supportive of equal rights for people of all sexualities, and am rather bemused by the folk who want to keep marriage straight...........however, I also like throw shit around and insult people. If I were thoughtful and kind, I wouldn't use the term ***......but I wouldn't write most of the other stuff I write either, so tough shit.
Besides, I was going to explain the idea of "a conspiracy of hollywood power brokers, who are seen to be a bit of a gay mafia".......but "***********" is a much more amusing way to say it........don't you reckon?
I agree with ODHs response to pensionerpower to a large degree.
pensionerpower you lived through a time where your life was not villified, it was illegal. I do not approve of government. I have posted numerous times of my hatred of the protection racket for families, theists and property owners.I believe we have no rights just the benefits afforded to us by our enviroment. I'm very much a sticks and stones person. My nig, kike, spick, (ww used coon, wrong) boong and (ww used slope, wrong) gook friends, not to mention the wogs and fuktards I know are ok with this. You personally have probably had a battle. At least you aren't a Palestinian having your country over run for over half a century by european migrants who have a different imaginary friend to you.
ODH brought up marriage. Isnt that so antiquated its not funny? Supporting over population with tax breaks?
I'm off for a beer with some blackfellas, some sheilas, some uni students and some bumf---ers and beanflickers.
ODH, Unforgiven, on tele the other night, the one where clint helps the slash face whore. Not the best but I rate it.
On 15/01/2011 One Day Hero wrote:
>The difference which I see is that Phil openly admitted that he does not approve of homosexuality and would force his views onto others if he were able (actual interference in other people's lives).
The difference with Phil was the utter hatred in his post.
I think pensionerpower's request not to use the word "fag" is fair enough, I'm sure you guys are creative enough to find other words to call each other.
On 14/01/2011 pensionerpower wrote:
>As a gay climber I find it beyond amazing that chockstone posters still say "fag".
When you say 'gay' climber do you mean nut-less lame-arsed ring-clipper or just a 'happy chappy'?
And isn't a 'fag' a cigarette - what's wrong with saying that? Apart from it being a bit old-fashioned . . .
So I actually thought he was referring to 'cigar suckers' . . .
Oh , someone just pointed out that both words are probably being used to refer to 'homosexuals' . . . Ok that put's it in perspective . . .
fag 1 |fag|
noun [in sing. ] informal chiefly Brit.
a tiring or unwelcome task : it's too much of a fag to drive all the way there and back again.
• Brit. a junior pupil at a private preparatory school who works and runs errands for a senior pupil (Hmm - this seems a bit gay)
noun informal chiefly offensive
a male homosexual. See usage at queer .
ORIGIN 1920s: short for faggot .
noun Brit., informal
adjective ( gayer , gayest )
1 (of a person, esp. a man) homosexual : that friend of yours, is he gay?
• relating to or used by homosexuals : feminist, black, and gay perspectives.
2 lighthearted and carefree : Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face.
• characterized by cheerfulness or pleasure : we had a gay old time.
• brightly colored; showy; brilliant : a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas.
a homosexual, esp. a man.
ORIGIN Middle English (sense 2) : from Old French gai, of unknown origin.
USAGE Gay meaning ‘homosexual,’ dating back to the 1930s (if not earlier), became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy,’ once common in speech and literature, are much less frequent. The word gay cannot be readily used unselfconsciously today in these older senses without sounding old-fashioned or arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men ( lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women), but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women.
Geez the homos are even redefining our language - Gay should be returned to it's original meaning so I can go back to be lighthearted and carefree whilst skipping thru tulips, with less words. . .
And why does cigarette only come in third not second in the list?
And what's with all this ''gay' and 'lesbian'' shite - is that blatant sexism, or what? or does it really mean 'happy, carefree' leso's?
And as for hetro's being 'straight' - I find that offensive as some of my sexual proclivities are probably considered a bit 'bent' by some heteros . . . . . .
On 15/01/2011 davidn wrote:
>Ok, let me elaborate. I'm an ex-teacher,
Oh ok , well that really makes a difference then doesn't it? Ex-!?
and your post was pretty much what any 'teacher' comes up with when they want to control their young students . . .
'But, but, I am the teacher; I don't think any of those are good arguments; and what I say goes! '
Give me a break. Do you think we're all your f---ing students?
>As for your 'i know you are, you said you are' post above... Well, I think I'm getting the measure of you :P
Oh right, it is only the teacher (who thinks he's an arbiter) who is allowed to make sarcastic comments, sorry . . .
And as to getting one's measure - only ten year olds poke there tongue out - Grow up!
On 14/01/2011 gordoste wrote: Re - The Pintle (original Pitch two)
>>Horrible horrible grade 14.
On 14/01/2011 kieranl wrote:
>Oh, its not that bad. Step in from the left, one thrutch move and you pop through the slot.
I fully agree with kieranl.
Also interesting that PW originally thought it needed the bolt, as there are many offwidthy and flared-trenchy things at Buffalo that he has his moniker attached to for first (or early repeat), ascents of, that don't have such extravagance!
On 15/01/2011 IdratherbeclimbingM9 wrote:
>On 14/01/2011 gordoste wrote: Re - The Pintle (original Pitch two)
>>>Horrible horrible grade 14.
>On 14/01/2011 kieranl wrote:
>>Oh, its not that bad. Step in from the left, one thrutch move and you
>pop through the slot.
>I fully agree with kieranl.
>Also interesting that PW originally thought it needed the bolt, as there
>are many offwidthy and flared-trenchy things at Buffalo that he has his
>moniker attached to for first (or early repeat), ascents of, that don't
>have such extravagance!
Don't get me wrong, it's a classic. "Horrible" was meant in the sense that it's very physically intensive compared to almost any other grade 14.
I agree with the posts above - it's the intent behind the word that's important. If it's meant to hurt then we should be concerned. For those using the word - just remember that word has probably been used abusively to every gay man in the past, sometimes accompanied with physical violence. Be thankful you haven't ever experienced that. Is your joke still funny?
Well, having read chockstone on a regular basis for several years, this will be my last visit. [cue einstein comments about shutting the door on the way out]
When pushed to the limit, eg. by the revolting Phil, a few of you gritted your teeth, and said the right thing. But on a casual "day to day" basis, none of you, including the moderators, care enough about offensive and degrading homophobic language, to step up to the plate and oppose it.
I doubt that any of you would say "nigger" in general public conversation - even jokingly. But all of you are happy with the equally incendiary term, "fag". This is confirmed by google, which finds only two uses of "nigger" on chockstone - and 168 uses of "fag".
The people I feel sorry for, are the gay climbers reading this thread and thinking gosh, I agree, I hate the term "fag" - but who won't say anything publically, because they do not want their climbing friends to know they are gay. To those folk I say: get off your ass, grit your teeth, and start objecting to homophobic language wherever you find it. Even chockstone would change, if enough gay climbers objected.
Any gay climbers who'd like to correspond on this issue are welcome to contact me at gc dot 20 dot keen4some at spamgourmet dot com.
Sorry to hear that, I hope you return at some stage, so do leave the door open . . .
I don't believe the intent was ever to offend homosexuals in any of these posts, it certainly was not mine. I have several homosexual, transvestite, trans-gender friends and have had many lively debates across the hole gamut of associated issues, not just linguistics and etymologies. Moralistic interpretations of words change over time and perceptions of good/evil can be dependant on numerous variables; compounded by the fact that the intended meaning may easily be mis-interpreted by the receiver. Ultimately it is I, the receiver who must attempt to contextualise and decide my personal reaction to the communication I receive.
I have been directly insulted, abused and threatened on Chockstone for expressing my personal preference for various climbing styles; aid, trad, scary etc; and I can choose to be offended, outraged or re-evaluate the issue and simply re-evaluate and disagree / continue on, or further refine my beliefs.
AS to discriminations in society, I unfortunately belong to a group that I believe to be one of the most discriminated against in society today; that of an illicit recreational drug user, more specifically cannabis. I am discriminated against every single day, my actions and relationship to a plant are defined as criminal; my portrayal as a 'druggie or stoner' in the media is abysmal. I have been beaten up by Police, those who are supposed to protect us; lied to by our government and exploited by our politicians. And I am insulted, denigrated and libel with just about every classical logical fallacy daily for my choice
I find it unfortunate that you are so offended, but am glad that you have the courage of your convictions and are prepared to argue your beliefs, not at all a milquetoast (wimp) . . .
Hoping nobody gets offended, cheers,
On 17/01/2011 Macciza wrote:
>AS to discriminations in society, I unfortunately belong to a group that
>I believe to be one of the most discriminated against in society today;
>that of an illicit recreational drug user, more specifically cannabis.
There's a confusion here between discrimination based on who you are versus what choices you make.
Regardless of the counter-productive nature of the drug laws, you are making a choice to indulge and thereby opening yourself up to what goes with it. You can also choose not to be part of that group, so to say that you "unfortunately" belong to it is a bit self-indulgent.
People don't choose their race, sex, disability, sexual orientation and that is the essential difference.
Slightly poxy argument Kieran. Macca may choose not to smoke dope, and that may make him terribly unhappy. A gay person may choose to be in the closet (thereby avoiding persecution) and that will probably make them terrribly unhappy.
I have less sympathy for the rights of stoners, but its on a continuum rather than your neat dividing line