Gay or Not? The Last Rock 'N Roll Poll.

[*EqualOpportunityHater*]

CrystalGeezer, the ONLY reason they started this is to get a rise out of you!

NOONE thinks Morrissey is gay, really.
It's all about teasing you.

I posted that he is Gay, and added "the end" as a way of telling the thread starter to STFU & f*** off... but CrystalGeezer obviously didn't get it

 

[Sunbags]

I nearly explained that I wasn't talking about morons, but decided against it.

Sorry you've never heard the word "genderf***." Never stop learning.

Of course I knew you weren't talking about a moron - it would be silly of you to discuss yourself on a public forum, wouldn't it?

I had heard of and understand the word 'genderf***' - I wasn't, however, aware that you have a complete catalogue of my entire vocabulary and had noticed that "genderf***" was missing. Some things aren't worth learning, my dear.

 

[Dave]

Of course I knew you weren't talking about a moron - it would be silly of you to discuss yourself on a public forum, wouldn't it?

These sorts of remarks rarely have the desired effect, assuming that you want to insult someone.

Would it really be silly to discuss oneself on a public forum? That is what the majority of people here do.

I thought that you started out arguing against an idea that you did not understand but now we find that you don't want to know anyway, with the "some things are not worth learning" remark.

Your colleague probably doesn't post cheesecake pictures in the office because he is gay, but depending on what type of office you work in, it wouldn't seem to be normal behavior for a man his age. There's nothing wrong with it, in my opinion, but it doesn't work as an example of what is typical. No offense meant. It's just that you answered a post that was well reasoned with one that wasn't. In my opinion, and again, no offense intended.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

I posted that he is Gay, and added "the end" as a way of telling the thread starter to STFU & f*** off... but CrystalGeezer obviously didn't get it

I KNOW! Sarcasm really doesn't translate on the internet. Sometimes I type little jokes and go back a few days later and think, "Oh, that did not go over well." But thanks EOH.

 

[Sunbags]

These sorts of remarks rarely have the desired effect, assuming that you want to insult someone.

Would it really be silly to discuss oneself on a public forum? That is what the majority of people here do.

I thought that you started out arguing against an idea that you did not understand but now we find that you don't want to know anyway, with the "some things are not worth learning" remark.

Your colleague probably doesn't post cheesecake pictures in the office because he is gay, but depending on what type of office you work in, it wouldn't seem to be normal behavior for a man his age. There's nothing wrong with it, in my opinion, but it doesn't work as an example of what is typical. No offense meant. It's just that you answered a post that was well reasoned with one that wasn't. In my opinion, and again, no offense intended.

You're right - it's not silly to discuss oneself on a public forum. Boring is probably the more appropriate word. As I said in my last post - I already knew what 'genderf***' meant and roman assumed, like yourself, that I didn't know what it meant, merely because I disagreed with his initial statement.

I realise that my colleague hanging such a picture on his wall is odd behaviour for a man of his age and I also realise that this behaviour is not typical. The latter point is important - roman's post stated that "grown-ups don't do pin-ups" which is a generalisation and is inaccurate when my atypical colleague is considered. I wasn't trying to provide a typical example - my point was that while his statement was true of most people, it cannot be true of everyone and that it is just a generalisation.
I merely followed romans' logic and in applying this logic to my colleague, I could only come to one conclusion - my 54 year old colleague is not an adult because he has a picture of Charlize Theron on his cubicle wall. Roman's line of reasoning seems daft to me and if it seems daft to you, I would recommend that you reconsider your assertion that I answered a well-reasoned post with one that wasn't.

 

[Dave]

You're right - it's not silly to discuss oneself on a public forum. Boring is probably the more appropriate word. As I said in my last post - I already knew what 'genderf***' meant and roman assumed, like yourself, that I didn't know what it meant, merely because I disagreed with his initial statement.

I realise that my colleague hanging such a picture on his wall is odd behaviour for a man of his age and I also realise that this behaviour is not typical. The latter point is important - roman's post stated that "grown-ups don't do pin-ups" which is a generalisation and is inaccurate when my atypical colleague is considered. I wasn't trying to provide a typical example - my point was that while his statement was true of most people, it cannot be true of everyone and that it is just a generalisation.
I merely followed romans' logic and in applying this logic to my colleague, I could only come to one conclusion - my 54 year old colleague is not an adult because he has a picture of Charlize Theron on his cubicle wall. Roman's line of reasoning seems daft to me and if it seems daft to you, I would recommend that you reconsider your assertion that I answered a well-reasoned post with one that wasn't.

I think we all agree that your colleague's behavior is atypical, and I think that sort of proves the point. We're all making generalizations, yet we all agree. If you had said that it was typical behavior, and therefore disproves the assertion that "grownups don't do pinups" that would still be a generalization but one that we don't agree on.

It comes down to this. Morrissey's choice of wall decoration is atypical for men his age. However, his entire aesthetic is not at all untypical for gay men. Of course that is a generalization.

 

[Musley]

Don't know and don't care. In fact it is something I never even think about any more.

 

[the beast]

woof woow woof

 

[CrystalGeezer]

woof woow woof

Seriously, if you were really a naughty boy, you'd say "ruff ruff ruff."

 

[the beast]

Seriously, if you were really a naughty boy, you'd say "ruff ruff ruff."

you'd never believe how naughty this boy iswas

 

[CrystalGeezer]

you'd never believe how naughty this boy iswas

Really? PM me.

 

[Roman]

As I said in my last post - I already knew what 'genderf***' meant and roman assumed, like yourself, that I didn't know what it meant, merely because I disagreed with his initial statement.

First of all, you're really f***ing touchy.

I took you to have probably not seen the word "genderf***" before, or at least to have found it idiotic, because of the context you used it in, which seemed mocking of the word itself rather than of my remarks. It had nothing to do with your disagreeing with me that Morrissey's bedroom portrait of Diana Dors likely depended upon more complex motivations than did your colleague's cubicle 'pin-up' (I'll use scare quotes too, since you inexplicably did).

I realise that my colleague hanging such a picture on his wall is odd behaviour for a man of his age and I also realise that this behaviour is not typical. The latter point is important - roman's post stated that "grown-ups don't do pin-ups" which is a generalisation and is inaccurate when my atypical colleague is considered. I wasn't trying to provide a typical example - my point was that while his statement was true of most people, it cannot be true of everyone and that it is just a generalisation.

In other words, you're moving us away from the dreary world of generalities, and toward a more exciting world of atypicalities, one of which, important for you, would be Morrissey falling asleep nightly with a boner for Diana Dors.

If one of us is skewing logic to suit an a priori conclusion, it isn't me.

I merely followed romans' logic and in applying this logic to my colleague, I could only come to one conclusion - my 54 year old colleague is not an adult because he has a picture of Charlize Theron on his cubicle wall.

I'm sorry that generalizations lead to your hallucinating Tom Hanks comedies. This is a serious condition, I think, as most adults have a weapon called "common sense" which allows them to suffer the imperfection of a generalization while gleening its factual content, and without such side effects as you've experienced.

Roman's line of reasoning seems daft to me and if it seems daft to you, I would recommend that you reconsider your assertion that I answered a well-reasoned post with one that wasn't.

Irrelevant anecdote: I walked in on a man in a public restroom today. He was sat on the toilet. Do you know what he said? "That sucks."

What empathy!

 

[SparkleBoy]

Wait though. Why is everyone voting gay then?

Because he is.

 

[SparkleBoy]

I posted that he is Gay, and added "the end" as a way of telling the thread starter to STFU & f*** off.

The best way to end a thread is not to post in it.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Because he is.

Gay for tomboys.

 

[Sunbags]

First of all, you're really f***ing touchy.

I never laid a finger on you, darling. Furthermore, I did not feel such a surge of emotion that I simply had to use an expletive in my posts, as you did in the quote above.

I took you to have probably not seen the word "genderf***" before, or at least to have found it idiotic, because of the context you used it in, which seemed mocking of the word itself rather than of my remarks. It had nothing to do with your disagreeing with me that Morrissey's bedroom portrait of Diana Dors likely depended upon more complex motivations than did your colleague's cubicle 'pin-up' (I'll use scare quotes too, since you inexplicably did).

I see what lead you to believe that I had never heard of that word before, but I don't deal in "I kinda sorta thought that maybe" lines of thought and I certainly don't deal in generalisations, because they are inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that you were wrong when you assumed that I had never heard of that word.

In other words, you're moving us away from the dreary world of generalities, and toward a more exciting world of atypicalities, one of which, important for you, would be Morrissey falling asleep nightly with a boner for Diana Dors.

If one of us is skewing logic to suit an a priori conclusion, it isn't me.

If you found that my desire to be specific lead you away from the dreary world of generalisations (since when was making wild generalisations considered dreary??), and toward a more exciting world of atypicalities, then I am surprised. That Morrissey/Diana Dors image which you conjoured up, not me, would be rather disturbing for me rather than.......important, given that any sexual fantasies involving Diana Dors in her current state would point more towards necrophilia than raging heterosexuality.

I'm sorry that generalizations lead to your hallucinating Tom Hanks comedies. This is a serious condition, I think, as most adults have a weapon called "common sense" which allows them to suffer the imperfection of a generalization while gleening its factual content, and without such side effects as you've experienced.

Ok, I think I understand now. So will you suffer such generalisations as "all homosexuals wear pink, listen to Kylie and become either air stewards or clothes designers" or the famous "all men are potential rapists" or "all americans are gun-toting, red-necks with very limited intelligence" so that you can gleen their factual content? These are generalisations that I have heard people make, and although I understand that you are trying to say that generalisations are useful, once the correct generalisation has been made, it's really not good enough, is it? What else can we say except that those are your standards but they are not mine.

Irrelevant anecdote: I walked in on a man in a public restroom today. He was sat on the toilet. Do you know what he said? "That sucks."

What empathy!

Empathy?? Sounds more like he was spotting an opportunity to get sucked - exclaiming that the being in front of him, indeed, 'sucks'.

 

[teeth]

What Kind Of Tabloid Came Up With This Idea???

It's just trolls at work, Nothing to see Here....

 

[Barking]

What Kind Of Tabloid Came Up With This Idea???

Hmmmmmmmm...

 

[Roman]

Nothing starts off the weekend like a load of semantic niggling.

I never laid a finger on you, darling. Furthermore, I did not feel such a surge of emotion that I simply had to use an expletive in my posts, as you did in the quote above.

So, while profanity is beneath your dignity, you're going to be a great big wind-up now, and tell me you've gone and wound me up. I appreciate the service.

I see what lead you to believe that I had never heard of that word before... The fact of the matter is that you were wrong when you assumed that I had never heard of that word.

And it was your fault, as you admit right there. Good, humble man.

...but I don't deal in "I kinda sorta thought that maybe" lines of thought and I certainly don't deal in generalisations, because they are inaccurate.

Yes, we've gathered that you're the new Count Korzybski. Oh, yes.

That Morrissey/Diana Dors image which you conjoured up, not me, would be rather disturbing for me rather than.......important, given that any sexual fantasies involving Diana Dors in her current state would point more towards necrophilia than raging heterosexuality.

Or perhaps you're literal-minded to the point of autism? Did I really need to remind you that we've been talking about a picture of Diana Dors? But since I didn't again specify that to you, you specificity maven, in binary code or propositional calculus, there you go, seeing dead people.

Are you even aware of the argument you've been implicitly supporting? It was this:

There was no Bisexual in the poll! Which he most definitely is! For f***s sake in his old bedroom in LA he had one of the most beautiful and sexual blonde bombshells Diana Dors framed above his bed. I am sure he had fun looking at that for many hours

Anyone who likes sex would most defintely choose someone they would like to have sex with above their bed rather than someone they just admire if they had the choice.

I am sure he would choose an old pic of james dean or terrance stamp if he were undoubtedly gay.

These last two being generalizations you haven't yet taken issue with. Is that because they particularly provide for Morrissey being other than gay? That's what we're discussing, as you may (or may not!) have noticed. You wrote earlier:

The latter point is important - roman's post stated that "grown-ups don't do pin-ups" which is a generalisation and is inaccurate when my atypical colleague is considered. I wasn't trying to provide a typical example - my point was that while his statement was true of most people, it cannot be true of everyone and that it is just a generalisation.

To paraphrase Dave, I understand your point, and find it irrelevant to the current discussion, except insofar as your passion for exceptions allows you to categorize Morrissey as an exceptionally camp non-homosexual. This isn't a thread about your colleague.

Ok, I think I understand now. So will you suffer such generalisations as "all homosexuals wear pink, listen to Kylie and become either air stewards or clothes designers" or the famous "all men are potential rapists" or "all americans are gun-toting, red-necks with very limited intelligence" so that you can gleen their factual content? These are generalisations that I have heard people make, and although I understand that you are trying to say that generalisations are useful, once the correct generalisation has been made, it's really not good enough, is it? What else can we say except that those are your standards but they are not mine.

I see why someone who throws around the dear's and darling's as you do would be concerned about the flight attendant thing; but what you've listed there are stereotypes, generalizations which are importantly misleading. The question of importance, of the weight attributed to different points, seems to be what's eluding you. This is a thread about what Morrissey probably is. Can you not see why, in a discussion about a probability, the rule is of greater interest than the exception? You seem to fixate on the exception because you're not interested in what he probably is, but in what he possibly is--i.e., not gay. And that's a matter of your own personal wishes, not of objective consideration.

If I've wrongly generalized about what you've been arguing, again, it's probably only because you've been inarticulate, again.

Empathy?? Sounds more like he was spotting an opportunity to get sucked - exclaiming that the being in front of him, indeed, 'sucks'.

Predictable. Why did I ever pour my heart out to you?

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Hmmmmmmmm...

Wow. You should get a job at a design firm.