(Oh well, I guess if Bill Clinton can speak at the Catholic Family Counselling Centre, what's the difference?)
This book has been labelled a "how-to" manual for lesbians according to various sources. The offensive material is apparently no longer available online, so we will have to take their word for it.
I have touched on this subject before, but I am just wondering what parents of young girls are thinking about this; especially those in Manitoba.
I guess in an all-inclusive Canada, we should not just be teaching where babies come from, right? What about the how-to's of swinging? Should that be on the agenda too? After all, it is legal.
Group Sex 101. Anyone want to sign up?
* * * *
UPDATE: More at Dust My Broom and Proud to Be Canadian.
Also check out Family Matters.
Bishop Fred Henry speaks out.
Also check out Family Matters.
Bishop Fred Henry speaks out.
59 comments:
Ah, Lifesite... a source of completely objective, unbiased information completely untainted by any sort of anti-gay, pro-Christian "values" agenda whatsoever.
You know it's funny that for someone who frequently gets irked at the bias of the MSM, that it doesn't seem to bother you in the least quoting/sourcing information from dubious outlets such as this.
Ah yes, Red. When you can't refute the argument, go after the source. You do it by the playbook.
If you get information from a source obviously biased in one direction and asource obviously biased in the other, you might be able to figure out something approaching the truth. What is really needed is an unbiased source of information. It will of course be accused of being biased by both the extremes.
What argument? You provide one dubious source, admit the material it references has been removed (so we cannot judge for ourselves), provide no reference to any statement from the group(s) being lambasted and then you want someone to refute the assertions made by a disreputable source like Lifesite. Heh. That's a joke.
Seems you have your own little playbook here.
Well, Red, here's a link to the 'taboo' material, which isn't overly offensive, but as a parent, I would certainly want to be made aware that this material was being taught to my children, and have some kind of input.
Can't imagine the nuns approving of it anyway.
How to manual for lesbians? Sriously?Is it a one page leaflet? Can't imagine their being much more than a dry hump or a few tongues flapping to talk about.
Red Tory said...
Ah, Lifesite... a source of completely objective, unbiased information completely untainted by any sort of anti-gay, pro-Christian "values" agenda whatsoever.
LOL! I believe that I addressed this site once before with Joanne when she attempted, in her slippery slope argument, to show this same article as "proof" that if homosexuality is mentioned in school that these supposed "how to" manuals wouldn't be too far behind.
Just for fun, I went and looked up who owned/operated the Lifesite.net site. Sure enough I found these guys. BTW, I love the picture of the wee ones holding up those wonderful signs. Reminds of the Operation Rescue crew that would put their kids in harm's way so the brave parents wouldn't get arrested.
Well, Red, here's a link to the 'taboo' material.
As a parent, I would certainly want to be made aware that this material was being taught to my children, and have some kind of input.
Can't imagine the nuns approving of it anyway. Although these days you never know.
For god's sake. I just took a look at the material in question. This material is going to teenagers and what exactly is the problem? This book is available for teenagers currently experiencing issues with their sexuality. Its not like they are having all the students eyelids taped open and forcing them to look at it. In the age of the internet you are concerned about your child seeing this???
I knew about the "birds and the bees" when I was 6 years old. By the time I was 7 I was fiddling with girls and boys and they were returning the favour. You'd be surprised how much more the average child knows and you will be blown away by how much more high school kids know compared to yourself.
Jay, I know I'm in a no-win debate here because of your sexual orientation, but let me put it this way. Let's arm the kids with knowledge about preventing disease, etc., but let them make their own choices rather than pushing homosexuality down their throats in school. I think we've gone way off in the opposite direction here.
Interesting comments at Dust my Broom on this topic!
Jay, I know I'm in a no-win debate here because of your sexual orientation, but let me put it this way. Let's arm the kids with knowledge about preventing disease, etc., but let them make their own choices rather than pushing homosexuality down their throats in school. I think we've gone way off in the opposite direction here. {to quote Joanne}
The thing is, there are infact gay kids in schools that need to be made aware that they are normal and that their feelings are natural for them. Just imagine how confusing and scary it must be for a gay teenager to wonder what is wrong with me, because there is no information given, only about straight sex.
Just because you do not like something, or agree with it { which happens to most people out of ignorance} does not mean it is not real.
I do have 2 children that are of the age of 14 and 12. I have no problems with them learning this in school. I am not worried that the "gay mafia" has an agenda to turn all the straight kids gay for pete's sake. You are who you are. Reading or coming across some material isn't going to change that. All it will do is hopefully bring some enlightenment and knowledge to gay teens and maybe if we are lucky, bring some tolerence of other's to my kids generation.
Thanks Nicole. It's great that you feel comfortable about this type of publication being used in schools. Some others don't, but it seems that their opinions won't matter anyway.
Well Joanne, I just think that it is realistic. Like I stated, there are , always has and always will be gay teenagers. There should be materials for them. I agree with swift, there should be unbiased material that explains facts..all the facts.
I am sure that with your beliefs you do not like to hear this from me, but my heart goes out to these kids. It is hard enough to be a teenager through all the 'trying' years without the confusion and realization of being 'different' from others. I have raised my kids to be tolerant of others and to value and respect humanity, which means not being selective of those you value and respect.
I certainly would not tolerate someone calling someone a sexual deviant for being a gay person. That to me is unacceptable
The entire reason that things are tackled on a classroom basis is the fact that kids who are different will not ask for the material as it will out them before they even know if they are gay or not. It has the added benefit of allowing other kids to understand what their peers are dealing with. Small price to pay if it prevents suicide. You do want to reduce suicides?
In high school there were resources available but I would not ask for it (later my guidance councillor exposed himself as a homophobe when he called his straight son a fag for dying his hair).
Teens cannot access resources on a school computer nor at home for the same reason. Students lookin over your shoulder or siblings finding out what you are accessing. Its a very confusing time at this age if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, 2 spirited, or questioning.
By having it given to all students in enables those who need it get it without opening themselves up to beatings, ridicule, and all the other tools bigots use.
I mean no offence but Joanne you seem to think that homosexuality is something that is marketed and forced on people like Coca Cola. Its not. The information is about what some kids already are not a choice they could make. That choice was made at conception. People need to stop transferring their lack of understanding on to others.
I am concerned about the children of people who think this way. To me that is child abuse. To put your own ideals above the reality of your children.
Not providing information results in a situation where people feel they have to marry the sex they are not attracted to and then spend the rest of their lives denying it and cheating on their wives just to feel "right". Need an example? Last night a 50ish "straight" married man who offered me cash for sex when I went to the bank machine. I was appalled and then later I realized that this man is living someone else life and not his own. Very sad and we can prevent this starting now.
Jay I think that when people are of the mindset that this is a "choice" there is just no rationalizing.
I do have to wonder that if indeed many people that are against gay people and are homophobic; and also oppose abortion would condone the abortion if it could be determined if the fetus was indeed gay....but that is a whole new can of worms and I frankly do not wish to be bothered .
I am sure that with your beliefs you do not like to hear this from me
Nicole, I would never judge you for your opinion. You have every right to your beliefs. Never apologize for that. I appreciate that you are contributing in the discussion.
I do have to wonder that if indeed many people that are against gay people and are homophobic; and also oppose abortion would condone the abortion if it could be determined if the fetus was indeed gay....but that is a whole new can of worms and I frankly do not wish to be bothered.
Interesting that you mentioned that. I brought up a similar question once and was labelled a bigot. I had asked if a woman could find out ahead of time that she was carrying a homosexual baby, and wanted to abort the child, would the feminists still be on board with allowing abortion? That question for some reason did not go over well.
Its a very confusing time at this age if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, 2 spirited, or questioning. O.K. Jay. I need some education here. What is the difference between bisexual and 2 spirited? Thanks.
Hello Joanne.
well I just visited your link to Dust my Broom and read all of the comments. There are a few that I would like to address and don't know where to begin.
Most of your readers are Liberals and Gay people and you don't know why.
well, I guess since you have stamped me a liberal, I will speak for myself, but not all of your "liberal" readers...RT..you can answer Joanne yourself, as all of the rest can too.
I stop in here once in awhile, as we share some of the same circle of bloggers. I guess the question can be asked back to you...Why do you frequent RT's and Zac's liberal blogs?
Some of the comments at Dust My Broom quite frankly sickened me.
I love my children and they always come first in my life.
And quite frankly I cannot see any school board giving out any "books" called "My First F*ck"
but introducing talk of all sex during the teen years, and I am not talking 10 years old for graphic frank discussion , but once kids get to 16, 17 whether you believe it, condone it, goes against your faith are mortified etc. kids for their wellbeing and safety should know the facts.
I love my children enough to put aside my personal feelings to want them to be safe. I would rather my children remain healthy and safe then have my head buried in the sand and end up with a kid with a disease or something worse.
Sara has called me long distance to try to smooth things over, and I have assured her that I am not upset, nor offended , because even IF you DO NOT respect my choices and beliefs for my childrem, it does not matter to me. That is what makes the world go round. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion for sure. You ask for equality for all parent's but I see that is denying all children's right's to belong, buy shunning gay students and keeping gay sex in the closet.
Sara and I also discussed views of the Catholic church and I am hoping that you will choose to clear this up for us. I believe that a tradional Catholic that is true to the teaching of the Catholic church does not accept gay people. Do you also agree with this Joanne?
Sara thinks that modern day Catholics do, but I am talking about the true tradional Catholics. I hope you will be honest about this.
Thanks, a liberal blogger, Nicole
I'm not going to get into a debate on the issue of the book, whether it is about the smurfs or the pope I don't care, parents have a right to decide what is best for their children. That is a parents right, in Canada at least.
Joanne,
Two spirited is what aboriginals have culturally recognized homosexuals as being. A body with two spirits, man and woman. Bisexuals are not equivalent.
Sara,
I agree that sex in general probably shouldn't be taught to children so young. Guidance councillors can keep an eye out for people they might consider needing to have some assistance since people mature at different rates. Gender Indentity should be mandatory because children start to show their gender identity fairly young and anyone different than straight will have problems.
Hel-lo Ni-cole,
(Funny, Nicole was one of the names we were considering for our first born)..
Anyway, I will echo the Pope and say that I am sorry if you were offended by my remarks. The fact is that most of the people that comment here are more to the left than I am, but many would say that that is hardly surprising since it might be difficult to be more right. ;)
Why do you frequent RT's and Zac's liberal blogs?
Well, Zac and I haven't been bothering too much with each other's blogs if you notice. Now Red Tory and I just have this love-hate thing going on. Mostly hate. But it's addictive.
In your comment you seem to say that you don't thing the use of the word f*ck is appropriate in educational materials. So we agree on that point. I would say that there is a bit of misinformation in the book as well, when it states that only 10% of the population is heterosexual.
On the other hand, that would be good, because then we could get some minority rights advocacy groups to go to bat on our behalf.
but I see that is denying all children's right's to belong, buy shunning gay students and keeping gay sex in the closet. How do your figure that I am saying that?
It seems to be all or nothing with you. No middle ground. No compromise. No consideration of other people's feelings. No choice for parents; just whatever the politically correct notion of the day dictates.
I believe that a tradional Catholic that is true to the teaching of the Catholic church does not accept gay people. Do you also agree with this Joanne?
Sara thinks that modern day Catholics do, but I am talking about the true tradional Catholics. I hope you will be honest about this.
I am always honest, Nicole, which is what irritates so many people.
Blunt honesty can be painful. I believe that a true Catholic needs to learn to accept and love all people. But that does not mean that all actions are also to be accepted and condoned. That is the crucial difference.
Gender Indentity should be mandatory because children start to show their gender identity fairly young and anyone different than straight will have problems.
I liked how you put that, gender identity. That would be perfect if we could work that in without the damn sex crap I don't think most would have problems with it.
Blunt honesty can be painful. I believe that a true Catholic needs to learn to accept and love all people
I believe that is what all people should be like, oh and Nic I said my family was new age Catholic, yet I am still not baptised so nananananannana
now I'm playing that song from Meatloaf and all I can see is JAY!!! uh oh... lol
I hear your story Jay and I wish to any god that no one ever goes through what you did and I wish you never had to. But you did, and I will do my damndest (or however you spell that) to make sure my kids don't ever treat anyone like that.
Ok here is a thought,,, hmmm
I'm in a new age catholic family yet not catholic and am not a real fan of the pope but... I'm getting tired of him apologizing over and over again. You can only push the Catholics so far then all hell is let loose (get it heehee)
Hel-lo Ni-cole,
(Funny, Nicole was one of the names we were considering for our first born)..
alright, if that is where it's at.
I'm sure right now you are happy that you went with a different choice for your first born :-D
No, it is not all or nothing with me. I in noway think that graphic language using swears is suitable in a school setting. But then again, I also have a hard time believing that any school board would actually promote a book as the one we are referring to.
To be quite honest with you, I jumped in on this thread and didn't actually go look at what you were talking about until today when I ventured over to Dust My Brooms link. I assumed that the ires were up because of the same thing the BC schoolboard is doing.
If I didn't care about other's feelings, I wouldn't have made an effort to clear up the misunderstanding when you thought I had called you a certain word over at RT's.
What I was talking about yesterday was introducing gay lifestyles into a classroom setting, not vulgar literature. Like I stated, whether you agree, condone whatever, there has always, will always be confused, scared gay teenagers and there will always be straight kids that perhaps would be more accepting , had they access to real information as well, instead of hearing the homophobic rubbish being spouted at home.
but I see that is denying all children's right's to belong, buy shunning gay students and keeping gay sex in the closet. How do your figure that I am saying that?
If you want to leave everything up to the parents because you think gay sex and sex education should only be taught at home, how exactly is this helping gay students when the majority of families will NOT be taught any information but hate; and that it is wrong and that they are experimenting..etc. Can you imagine if the majority of people believed that how you are, what you feel is wrong? That is denying children that are like this the right to belong. IMO.
Blunt honesty can be painful. I believe that a true Catholic needs to learn to accept and love all people. But that does not mean that all actions are also to be accepted and condoned. That is the crucial difference.
Joanne, this did not answer my question, but maybe you do not actually and are not dancing around the question. If anyone knows EXACTLY what the traditional Catholic teachings are regarding gay people, please inform us. I need to know to settle an arguement. I want to know what the actual teaching is, not what someone believes or wishes.
Thank you Jo-anne, go-odbye
Blunt honesty can be painful. I believe that a true Catholic needs to learn to accept and love all people
I believe that is what all people should be like, oh and Nic I said my family was new age Catholic, yet I am still not baptised so nananananannana
Once again not at all what I am talking about or asking.
You can call yourself newage whatever, but if you do not follow the actual tradtional teachings, you are not a true Catholic.
try and commit certain acts and then tell your pope....it's ok, I'm a newager!! LOL
ps Sara...I don't think there is enough holy water out there to baptize you and get all your demons out!!! But I love ya anyway;)
Oh boy. Um, Nicole, perhaps we both made some false assumptions about what the other was thinking. I do agree that there needs to be some discussion of "gay lifestyles" (your words, not mine!) in the classroom. I do think that parental input is crucial on something like this though.
Regarding the Catholic question, if it is for a bet you should probably contact a priest.
On the other hand many priests are not ideal models of virtue.
Maybe go back to my post What is a Catholic? Some good answers in the comments.
You are not going to like this, but the Christian ideal is to love the sinner, but not the sin.
So, if a gay person wanted to come to church, they would be welcomed, but they would also be encouraged to seek help to overcome what would be regarded as sin. Not politically correct.
New age Catholic? That is what Paul Martin considers himself, I suppose.
You are not going to like this, but the Christian ideal is to love the sinner, but not the sin.
Would that be Christian ideal or Catholic ideal?
I pretty much have my answers, because my good friend is very traditional Catholic and I am aware of what the views are. Infact, even though I love her children dearly and they are like neices and a nephew to me, for these very beliefs I refused to let her and her husband make us her children's guardians because I will NOT follow through on the shunning and not accepting of gay people as is their Catholic belief. I just more or less wanted it in writing here for someone to read.
as for consulting a priest...not bloody likely. My last dealings with a priest involved the baptism of one of my friend's children as mentioned above. Being that I have abandoned the catholic church, and my friend wanted me for the youngest's godmother, the priest refused to let me hold the baby at the ceremony as I was a heathen. Infact our friend's wanted both me and my husband to be the godparents but the priest refused because one of the godparents had to be a true Catholic believer.
Nic –- Why do we visit Joanne’s place…? Hmmm. Well, that’s an interesting question. Speaking for myself, to get a read on what the “social conservative” take on various issues is and to advance the “liberal” counter-argument on this particular front.
While I’m ostensibly a moderate liberal (some may disagree with that), I like to think my palette of opinions also draws from libertarian and even conservative sources depending on the matter at hand. When it comes to a wide range of social issues however, I am quite firmly on what is generally regarded as the “left” side of the fence.
If your readership is limited to one set of opinions that is mutually confirming and self-reinforcing (i.e., a “circle jerk”) that’s just boring. Joanne likes to intentionally poke things with sticks and attract opposing points of view, so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim to be puzzled in some way that so many commenters have opposing opinions.
If your readership is limited to one set of opinions that is mutually confirming and self-reinforcing (i.e., a “circle jerk”) that’s just boring. Joanne likes to intentionally poke things with sticks and attract opposing points of view, so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim to be puzzled in some way that so many commenters have opposing opinions.
Thank you RT :)
Joanne likes to intentionally poke things with sticks and attract opposing points of view, so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim to be puzzled in some way that so many commenters have opposing opinions.
That comment was made on DMB, in response to my observations that many of my fellow Blogging Tories tend to have even stronger opinions than myself, but seem to attract little dissent. I was expressing surprise that I seem to have relatively more "liberal" comments on my blog than they do. Purely an observation. Not a complaint.
It would be exceedingly boring to have everyone say 'Yes Joanne' after each post.
Joanne (True Blue) said...
I was expressing surprise that I seem to have relatively more "liberal" comments on my blog than they do.
I too had been thinking about this idea of commenting on a blog that posts things that I vehemently oppose. For me, I guess the answer is that I enjoy engaging in debate about a particular issue and feel that it helps to sharpen my debating and writing skills. If I can give someone insight or vice versa then so much the better.
I'm not a big believer in a bunch of "me too"ing of a subject and I definitely can't stand forums that do heavy moderation or, like in RepublicanVet's case, alteration or omission. I do believe that people can strongly disagree without it disintegrating in to a name-calling match.
Just my 2¢ worth -- yes, I realize that's all its worth :)
Counter-Coulter, at the risk of sounding too "me-tooing", I agree with your on this 100%.
Your input is always appreciated because it is thoughtful and civil. I enjoy a good debate. And I have learned a lot from various people on my blog and others.
I do agree that there needs to be some discussion of "gay lifestyles" (your words, not mine!) in the classroom. I do think that parental input is crucial on something like this though.
Thank you Joanne, I am happy to read this. I guess like all issues, parents can remove their child from the classroom, just as the Jehovah's do if and when "holidays" are celebrated.
Nicole, except that in BC the two activists in charge of redesigning the curriculum are lobbying to make sure that parents can't opt out. Instead, parents will be forced to schedule doctor and dental appointments if they disagree with the material. Even home schoolers may have to do an exam on the material.
Hence, we as parents have lost our fundamental right to have input into the education of our own children.
This is where I have a problem.
Well, Zac and I haven't been bothering too much with each other's blogs if you notice.
That's a bit of a shocker to me Joanne, as some of my posts have found their way into your oh so helpful "updates" as of late.
But since I have stopped by I suppose I should comment on your little argument here, since I guess I would be included as one of the liberals and "gay folks" that frequent your blog.
"Hence, we as parents have lost our fundamental right to have input into the education of our own children."
Fundamental right huh? That's a bit odd, as I was never heard of parents having a fundamental right in picking and choosing what their children learn.
Most parents who don't agree with what school's are teaching simply pull their kids out and educate them at home as opposed to complaining on the internet about it.
Most parents who don't agree with what school's are teaching simply pull their kids out and educate them at home as opposed to complaining on the internet about it.
And continue to pay their taxes to support the public school system.
Put up and shut up. I get it.
Well I guess to have what we all have in Canada, it is a case of put up and shut up most of the time.
That's right Nicole. Let the politically-correct police tell you what to do. Welcome to Canada.
Put up and shut up. I get it.
It's good that you get it, but sadly for the rest of us, I doubt that you'll shut up.
It's good that you get it, but sadly for the rest of us, I doubt that you'll shut up.
I know. Darn that stupid Charter with its Freedom of Speech clause!
Well I'm sure you young Grits will take care of that someday.
Joanne –- Free and open discourse is fun and challenging. There are many Blogging Tories (and quite a few Liberal Bloggers too!) that crack down with suffocating moderation, restrictive rules and so on. Then they wonder why nobody comments on their blog. Well, duh!
I keep coming back because you have a knack for picking provocative subjects for discussion and have (more so of late) a fairly open policy to dissenting opinions and letting the conversation roll. To me, this is what it’s all about.
Wow, Red. Better be careful. We could almost be friends.
Darn that stupid Charter with its Freedom of Speech clause!
Funny how you post so frequently about restricting Charter rights, then run and hid behind it when someone challenges you on your dribble. Pathetic!
* ahem..hide
Hey Joanne!
Just thought I'd mention I had dropped by RT's and told him to check out the comments as I for sure knew you had to be referring to him with the "for some reason Lib bloggers visit your site"
Glad to hear I helped swell your head and not in the way Cherniak_WTF mentioned!! LOL
Just thought I'd mention I had dropped by RT's and told him to check out the comments as I for sure knew you had to be referring to him with the "for some reason Lib bloggers visit your site"
Yes Nicole. I had read that earlier. You did a good job spreading the word. What I don't understand is why you find it offensive or worthy of such attention? But whatever.
Funny how you post so frequently about restricting Charter rights, then run and hid behind it when someone challenges you on your dribble. Pathetic!
Again we'll have to agree to disagree, thou "Knight in Shining Armour".
I know Nic pulled you into this debate for some reason, but we clearly waste our time challenging each other.
If you're really sick of hearing my rants, the remedy is clear - don't visit the blog. I will be happy to reciprocate.
Well to be honest I left RT a comment as I thought it was funny and a little surprising that you left that comment and Dust My Broom that you couldn't fugure out why most of your readers are Liberals and gay folks and I thought that comment was directed at us.
As for Zac...he's a big boy and trust me and I would love to have him under my thumb but being that these blogs are a free 'read', are open to anyone to drop in. Perhaps when he also read that comment, felt you were also referring to him.
But like RT stated :
Nic –- Why do we visit Joanne’s place…? Hmmm. Well, that’s an interesting question. Speaking for myself, to get a read on what the “social conservative” take on various issues is and to advance the “liberal” counter-argument on this particular front.
While I’m ostensibly a moderate liberal (some may disagree with that), I like to think my palette of opinions also draws from libertarian and even conservative sources depending on the matter at hand. When it comes to a wide range of social issues however, I am quite firmly on what is generally regarded as the “left” side of the fence.
If your readership is limited to one set of opinions that is mutually confirming and self-reinforcing (i.e., a “circle jerk”) that’s just boring. Joanne likes to intentionally poke things with sticks and attract opposing points of view, so it’s a bit disingenuous to claim to be puzzled in some way that so many commenters have opposing opinions.
I guess because really that is what bloggers do, is drop in with their 2cents, is why we post at each other's blogs. RT's last paragraph I quite agree with and like I stated before I was a little surprised you would question why you have the readers you do, esp. when you do use comment mod off and on.
That is all.
If you're really sick of hearing my rants, the remedy is clear - don't visit the blog.
Um, yes. That's what I've been doing. But I heard that you've been infested by horrid Liberals and "gay folks", so I decided to stroll on over and see what the fuss was about.
Sure enough, I was being talked about. Surely, you'll afford me the right to defend myself.
But, with that, I'm gone.
Um, yes. That's what I've been doing. But I heard that you've been infested by horrid Liberals and "gay folks", so I decided to stroll on over and see what the fuss was about.
Sure enough, I was being talked about. Surely, you'll afford me the right to defend myself.
Sorry, but that is total crap.
This is how it went down:
Darcey posted about the little Black Book with its F**k word, and incorrect information and so forth.
I said: "Funny but the Liberals and gay folks at my site didn’t think this was such a big deal. Go figure!" Note - no word "horrid", and how else should I describe gay people? Is that word not acceptable now? GOOD GRIEF!!!
Then Darcey said, "...you have to ask if they have kids. Its nothing to see porn out front in convenience stores in Toronto so I suppose you may get ‘naturalized’ to it."
Then I said, "Darcey, most of the folks who frequent my blog are Liberal (no idea why), have kids, and several are gay. The Liberal parents see nothing wrong with this material. I do, of course. I see it more as propaganda than anything of educational value. The intent is to say anything goes; no consequences."
The comment about no idea why most of the people who visit my blog seem to be Liberals was not a slight at anyone; simply an amused observation. Furthermore, many of the commenters at Darcey's seemed to be attacking ME for being too P.C.!!
Some days you just can't win.
Zac, when did I talk about you specifically? I want to know that.
Zac, when did I talk about you specifically? I want to know that.
Well, right here:
Well, Zac and I haven't been bothering too much with each other's blogs if you notice.
Zac, that was in reply to a direct question from Nicole: "Why do you frequent RT's and Zac's liberal blogs?" What did you want me to do; point?
You asked for a point where you mentioned me specifically, so I gave it to you.
So how does that translate into, "Sure enough, I was being talked about. Surely, you'll afford me the right to defend myself."?
You made it sound like I was talking behind your back.
Post a Comment