Monday, July 16, 2012

Am I Obsessed?

It has been stated by a few left leaning visitors that I am obsessed with a particular topic.  In fact, it is stated by many on the left, that people of the conservative persuasion are also obsessed in the same way.  The charge is that we are obsessed with the sexual practices of others.  In my case, I am accused of being obsessed with the sexual practices of homosexuals particularly.  Well.  Is it truly a case of me being obsessed?  Let's see.

June was, as observed in my last post, was "Mental Dysfunc..." er, "Gay Pride Month".  But now June is over.  How do we account for what followed? 

-On 2July, my local newspaper ran an editorial encouraging the acceptance of "Gay Marriage" in this country.

Stories in a variety of media sources included"

-A lesbian soccer player (I believe she was) came out and encouraged other lesbians in sports to come out as well.
-Anderson Cooper officially came out (as if anyone was surprised), to which announcement an online source added a list of over thirty celebrities who have come out, as if more doing wrong makes it right.
-The Episcopal General Convention approves same-sex blessing rites.

This is just a sample of stories gleaned, just through my normal reading of news sources, but not all of them.  I've forgotten at least a couple and this is only since that July 2nd editorial.  I'm obsessed? 

Clearly someone's obsessed with all things homosexual, and it isn't me.  I merely observe the culture being pressured to accept this behavior as morally benign and no different than normal attractions.  It is pushed constantly through media images of all sorts, from entertainment to "serious" discussion pretending to educate to the political pandering of the Democratic Party.  It doesn't go away.  And I'm obsessed?

Not at all.  I simply join in with organizations like Illinois Family Institute, AFTAH and bloggers who seek to counter the onslaught as best we can. 

Is that obsession on my part?  I don't think so.  It isn't the only bad behavior I've highlighted.  I have posts on abortion, racism and being a liberal (yeah, that's bad behavior).  If I obsess about anything, it would be in encouraging proper behavior in many areas of human existence.  Heck, I obsess about my own behavior. 

I make no apologies about the number of posts I do on the subject of homosexuality in America.  I feel privileged to have the ability and outlet to express myself in a manner that honors both God and my fellow man in continuing to point out the many falsehoods perpetuated by activists and their willing and often misguided supporters and enablers.   It's a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it's just a few, or even one, makes it so.


John B said...

It really only seems like we're (Christians particularly) obcessed because we are the only demographic that this is foisted on in a personal fashion.

Muslim countries execute practicing homoszexuals but no outrage here about that. No, the outrage is pointed at "please continue to recognize marriage in its proper manifestation".

It might seem like we are obcessed because we are forced to become personally involved. It is taught in our schools to our children as normal against our will. If we raise any objection to samesex marriage we are called names, like bigot and homophobe.

Even though our objections aren't personal, they make it personal. They constantly put us on the defensive with parades, rallies, television shows all touting its glamor. This isn't so about other behaviors Christians consider sin. There are no adulterers pride parades. There isn't a NoH8 campaign to destigmatize theft.

Christians are vocal because we are resisting the constant push to wear us down on the issue. Some have given into the pressure (a semi-regular commenter on my blog) has already convinced himself God approves. There is a constant push, not to tolerate, but to champion and endorse.

If the homosexual community and homosexual activist community would ease up and quit demanding we go along to get along, I guarantee you'd hear less from Christians on this issue.

Stan said...

We're "obsessed" because we're standing on the front line of a battlefield. That battlefield may be saving the lives of the unborn or defending marriage or a host of other possible problems that might be the current "breach in the wall." It looks like obsession because that's where the fighting is going on. When the fighting stops there, we'll be "obsessed" with the next location, the next breach ... you know, like John B just said.

Are we obsessed? Since our worldview is a biblical worldview, we are obsessed with a biblical view. That might be true. But, in all honesty, "the sexual practices of others" is of little concern to me. God's view of right and wrong is, and the idea that we're obsessed about sexual practices completely misses the point ... whether or not the accusation is made by believers or by critics.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

When I moved to the Cedar Rapids, IA area in December 1995, I immediately subscribed to their "Gazette" newspaper. Within a month I wrote a letter to the editor complaining about their obsession with homosexuality - virtually every day had articles from around the country about some homosexual event.

The fact that none of this "news" was germane to anything in Iowa didn't seem to dawn on them.

As time went by I came to realize that Iowa City, just south of C.R., is one of the most liberal and homosexualist cities in the U.S., and the "Gayzette" just reflects that.

I have written many, many letters to the editor over the years, with the majority of them being on other topics. However, I have also written in rebuttal to the many homosexual claims, from twisting Scripture to condone it, to same-sex fake marriage. Yet regardless of how many other topics I've written about, some "gay" advocate would write in attacking my "obsession" with homosexuality.

The liberal media is obsessed with pushing the homosexual agenda, and yet those of us who protest are called "obsessed."

Go figure.

Anonymous said...

Yes, they are the ones who are obsessed with all things gay and shoving it down our throats, perverting the minds of kids, etc. It is part of their agenda to say we're obsessed.

And yes, there is an agenda -- Denying that there is an agenda is part of the agenda, too.

Satan is evil but not stupid.

Parklife said...

lol.. cant even handle it when I say "hi" to somebody.

Marshall Art said...

It's not a matter of "handling it", sad little troll. It's the fact that YOU are obliged to meet certain terms in order to comment here. These are terms that have been exhaustively explained multiple times in the past so that you cannot claim ignorance (well, maybe you can) and everyone else meets without trying very hard. As to "handling it", I "handle it" quite easily. I delete you.

Jim said...

So, I was going to do an analysis on how many times you've included homosexual "issues" in your posts. I started in December 2007 and pretty quickly gave up....

Because most of them included the topic. It would be only slightly easier to count the number of posts you didn't write about it.

Yeah, you're obsessed.

Marshall Art said...


I know about my settings options. Deleting you is the easiest because then everyone gets to enjoy seeing what troll you are.

If you have the courage, perhaps you could entertain us further by explaining how deleting the substance-free comments of a troll like you indicates dishonesty in any way.

I'll wait here.

Marshall Art said...


The point is regarding if it is an obsession to highlight the many lies of a group that wishes to foist bad behavior upon the nation and force its acceptance through legal sanctions, judicial decisions and the duping the a faction of the other 97%, such as morally bankrupt people like yourself. If I'm obsessed, it is akin to a cop living his life to fighting crime. I'm good with that. To defend against bad behavior should be every responsible person's obsession, especially those who laughingly pretend to be Christians, like yourself.

Jim said...

it is akin to a cop living his life to fighting crime.

Maybe you should get a cape. Might be more effective.

Marshall Art said...

There is a saying in sales, that you can't say the right thing to the wrong person, nor the wrong thing to the right person. It has to do with the person itself and in this case, the product is one of truth, logic and righteous virtue. You, Jim, are obviously the wrong person.

Parklife said...

"I'll wait here."

Sit.. Stay.. Good boy.

"indicates dishonesty"

Once you take off your brown shirt I'll explain it to you.

Marshall Art said...

Nice dodge, little troll. Avoiding explaining yourself is your greatest talent. You have no other.

And what law is broken? You're an atheistic buffoon, so laws of God, not to mention laws virtue and propriety are lost on you anyway. Being an ignorant buffoon is also a talent of yours. With all the practice you put in, you're quite the success.

Marshall Art said...

Copied and pasted with editing by me of Feo's comment. My response will follow.

Feodor said...

I agree with you, Marshall. Like when you scanned the news, if we compare your posts to the stories in media, you’re no more obsessed with homosexuality than average popular culture. Sex, money, and religion. Aside from sports, these are the persistent American obsessions.

So, on two of three you’re a typical American. But not a special Christian. Just typical of the masses.

I do think, however, that you represent popular culture in other lesser lights as well, which would be an inherent blindness to human rights for those are not currently included. This is a very familiar story around the world and we are not immune.

The paradox is that in your case, as in [Neil’s], it is your generic obsession with religion that blinds you to the issues of individual rights which naturally develop from the ideals if not the practice of the founding documents of our society - particularly the Bill of Rights.

While you and [Neil] are correct that there is an agenda, the paranoia you share wrongly identifies the source of that agenda and then - in a very weird way - somehow finds in that agenda a personal threat to your yourselves.

Of course the agenda is to legally extend individual rights fairly to all Americans rather than reserving them to only some as was the case in monarchical regimes in old Europe. Just like freed black men later gained the right to vote, and still later gained actual access to the voting booth; just like women later gained the right to vote, but later still gained legal rights over their own persons and possessions; so, too, we have a cause to lately extend the founding ideas of individual rights to marry whom one choses to all citizens of this country… to all citizens.

It’s simply continuing to be America.

Marshall Art said...

I really wanted to thank you for the overall gracious tone of your comment, Feo, but you had to go and insult another person who is not only not me, the only one I allow to be such a target, but someone who is a better man with a better understanding of Christianity. And considering the term you wish to use in reference to that other person (a favorite of Parkie's as well, which isn't a good thing for anyone's image) is far more appropriate for Parkie or, I don't know, YOU, well my kudos are rendered unjustified. So close.

As to your comments, you seem to equate my commenting on the obsession as indicating an obsession of my own. This is a fine line, I suppose, but to comment on an obsession does not indicate an obsession on the part of the commenter. That I continue to comment is for a defined purpose of exposing all the many falsehoods used to defend those who are indeed obsessed with a dysfunction manifested by their attraction to others of the same sex. You perpetuate many of these falsehoods as you do here in again trying to compare the dysfunction to race and gender. It is akin to early education exercises of picking what doesn't belong in a grouping of bananas, grapes and onions. Clearly the onions do not belong with the other two, and a mental dysfunction does not belong with race and gender. And before you suggest that homosexual attraction is not a mental dysfunction, you would be required to link to the defining studies that led to its removal from the APA's list of mental disorders. As no such studies exist or were used for this purpose, I won't hold my breath. By now they should be common knowledge if they did exist. The aren't because they don't.

All the while, I've never, nor has Neil or anyone else who share our understanding of truth and reality, considered myself a "special Christian". Far from it in fact.

What's more, we are not in the least bit blind to what human rights are and any who have been so deprived. This is another falsehood regarding the homosexual community that you have apparently fallen victim. They are not deprived of anything but unanimous acceptance of their desire to be regarded as normal and their sexual practices and unions as equal to heterosexual sex and unions. This is not a human rights violation in the least, but a childish demand for what they want only because they want it.

I have to pause here, but I will pick it up in about 8-9 hours. Stay tuned.

Feodor said...

Imagine my disappointment at ultimately missing your kind regards. (You’ll have to imagine them - fairy thoughts as they need to be.)

“… you seem to equate my commenting on the obsession as indicating an obsession of my own.” This is close, and not a bad reading as it is, but to be more simple, I am simply saying that your posts are typically engaged in popular American obsessions. You are simply in line with Entertainment Tonight, People magazine, and society pages of newspapers who are trying to keep their financial heads above water.

Still, I have to agree that others calling you obsessive with sex is just a carry over from college argument habits. You’re no more obsessed than is the general public. Congratulations.

As for being a special Christian, you clearly want to be one: "It's a worthy cause and to open eyes and hearts to the truth, even if it's just a few, or even one, makes it so.” But you’re not. This is not evangelism. It’s just religious paparazzi-ism. Congratulations.

The DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) which is the legally recognized source for describing, diagnosing, and coding mental disorders. In the sixty years of its existence it’s had six distinct versions with a seventh coming soon. No two versions had the exact same list of disorders and very frequently completely changed, dropped, and predominantly added disorders. The way mental life has been understood has changed several times and the way mental disorders are described and classified has drastically changed over that time. DSM I is nothing like DSM IV TR.

As for the reliability of the coming DSM V, see:

That you don’t understand any of these basic matters explains why you’re not - nor is anybody reading popular culture - hip to the byzantine exchanges on sex researchers and their work.

There is a mountain of research on the ambiguous aspect of sexual identity and if you knew just some of what is said, well, who’s kidding whom; you’re not porous to learning new things.

So, if you want to think you’ve pinned down gay identity with the APA, think again. You’re way out your league.

As for: "What's more, we are not in the least bit blind to what human rights are and any who have been so deprived…”

Don’t sell yourself short, Marshall, you’re way, way, way in the dark. Again, congratulations.

Feodor said...

Here you go, Marshall - not because you’re obsessed - but because you’re scanning the news and because Dr. Roger Voegtlin sounds

Marshall Art said...


I'll have to ignore your last comment for now as I haven't yet finished my response to your first. What's with you lefties that you can't hold your water? I often must cut short my responses due to time concerns and though I state clearly that I am not finished, often requesting no further comments until I do, you obviously are too OBSESSED with finding fault in your opponents to hold off. A different dysfunction, obviously.

Anyway, to continue where I left off...

"While you and [Neil] are correct that there is an agenda, the paranoia you share wrongly identifies the source of that agenda and then - in a very weird way - somehow finds in that agenda a personal threat to your yourselves."

Of course there is an agenda, though whether you're honest or intelligent enough to fully grasp it is an issue apart. It is not "marriage equity" as Dan T. deceitfully puts it, but to legitimize their sinful behaviors and to normalize their dysfunction within the culture. What you like to call "paranoia" is the righteous concern about the impact of such an agenda on the culture should that agenda succeed in achieving its goals. Your side believes, foolishly, that it would have no impact at all, which is worse than naive.

Unless you're willing to extend "marriage rights" to the polygamous, incestuous and others, then you are hypocritical. What's more, there is no such thing as a "right to marry". It's just what people do who wish to commit themselves to each other. The state encourages the traditional (read: REAL) due to its proven benefits that other weaker versions of the concept do not provide. The state, that is, the people, are under no obligation to pretend that other weaker versions are equal and therefor equally beneficial and deserving of support.

Marshall Art said...

Oh, and by the way, if being forced to rent a room or photograph a ceremony, both of which gives tacit approval to that which one's God clearly prohibits is not a personal threat, then your intelligence is fantasy.

As for being a "special Christian", I clearly want to be regarded as within the terms set by God so as to be welcomed by Him when my time comes. That's "special" enough for me and all I need to to get there is live as He has clearly described we should.

Whether or not I succeed at explaining His clearly revealed Will is besides the point. It is still evangelism. Strange that this eludes one so "learned".

Your description of the DSM does add anything of worth to the discussion, unless you are suggesting that homosexual attraction has once again been added. In any case, if they can't settle on what is or isn't disorder, it is less of reason to point to the APA having dropped homosexual attraction from the list.

Again, I am out of time. Try to control yourself. You'll have plenty of opportunity to make a bigger fool of yourself when I'm through.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I just want to point out that the entire DSM is a work of fiction by the psychobabble industry. According to the DSM, everyone in the USA has some sort of dysfunction!

When you understand that the origin of the psych industry was atheists and those who wanted to do away with personal responsibility, with evolutionism and materialism as their worldview, then you'll understand why it is nothing but fairy tales.

Feodor said...

"What's with you lefties that you can't hold your water?”

We can’t sit still when stupid is in the house. Michele Bachmann types could never represent us.

Feodor said...

Glenn, what exactly do you think psychology’s origin to be?

The ancient Greeks and Roman who talked of evaluating and managing anger, rage, despair and grief? Medieval Christian theologians who did the same thing? Enlightenment writers like Rousseau who explored the rational and emotional patterns of their own minds and detailed how motivations and passions are shaped by experiences and desires?

I would bet you don’t really have the beginnings in mind and aren’t even cognizant of the early modern psychologists like Wundt and James, Pavlov and Kraft-Ebing.

You probably have in mind Austrians and Germans of a hundred years ago. Well, Jung was certainly no atheist. He was at least as religious as the ancient Greeks.

You know, those pagans who developed democracy?

Marshall Art said...

So once again, Feo, going back to your link to the DSM story, you have not helped your case by pointing to a badly written manual and constant changing of psychological opinion. Worse, you have not chosen to provide anything in the way even one study that has compelled any real consensus on the subject of homosexual attraction regarding whether or not it is a disorder. Thus, what info you've provided served only to waste my time. Sex "researchers" provide less value to understanding human nature. It's not as if ancient Scripture hasn't given us what we need to know on that score. But more to the point, the "experts" in whom you put your misguided faith won't even look at the bottom line, which is that a species having two genders indicates each is meant to be attracted to the other. One gender, therefor, being attracted to another of the same gender is a dysfunction, and there really is nothing that can be said by any "sex researcher" that can say it is normal. It simply isn't nor can it be. The work of honest researchers will reflect this blatantly obvious fact.

What's more, pretentious psuedo-intellectuals like yourself score no points by pretending honest people who understand reality just don't understand. Bullshit will never trump reality, regardless of how hard you wish it to be so.

I am more than aware that there is what passes for some as a "mountain of research" regarding many things. But the quantity doesn't indicate quality (and there is much of that mountain that is lacking quality), and it definitely doesn't indicate facts proving homosexual attraction is not disordered. More so, it doesn't, and can't, make the behavior it provokes moral.

You can try to pretend there is something mysterious about homosexual attraction if it makes you feel superior. I've no doubt your dysfunctional need for that drives so much of your blather. But what it is as regards normalcy is not mysterious at all. It is clearly disordered by virtue of the biological facts so obvious to all. The morally bankrupt, like yourself, desperately seek scientific permission to pretend otherwise as if it would render God's Will and reality obsolete, allowing you to ignore them both for selfish desire.

But science only provides data. The weak, the dishonest and the fools force meaning on the data to justify their agendas. You're a chump for such stuff. "Pin down sexual identity"? Sure. As if it is hard to see.

Marshall Art said...

AS for human rights, Feo, actual rights are being trampled over this non-"right" that you dishonestly defend. Those would be freedom of religion, speech and association to name the obvious and enumerated rights already protected. Those lacking character, like yourself, will claim rights that don't exist, such as the "right" to force the rest of society to accept what is clearly abnormal and sinful.

"We can’t sit still when stupid is in the house."

Yet, if you'll remember the early education exercise from above, all these things go together:

Leftist, liberal, progressive, false priests, stupid. If you can sit still in your own house, it must be honesty, character and/or intelligence that makes you antsy. Michele Bachmann types could never represent you because they possess all those qualities.

As to Voegtlin, there is no similarity between us but what you wish was true. Honesty is not in you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Just read my articles.

Feodor said...

Before I read anyone, Glenn, I need to know they know what they are talking about so I don’t waste my time.

Can you tell me how you were educated and how your writing has been received and reviewed by the professional and academic community germane to psychiatry/psychology and the responsible critique of the profession.

I dont’ want to read another Tom Cruise lecturing morning television about Ritalin.

Feodor said...

Marshall, you ask for data and I’ve attached the mother of all data gathering on sexual behavior in the last one hundred years. The data shows that homosexual and heterosexual behavior is prevalent throughout our society but makes no conclusion about identity since that is untestable. Only behavior. The data also shows that 30 to 40 % of American men engage in various behaviors of both kinds, heterosexual and homosexual engagement.

The conclusion based on behavior, therefore, is that there is not a demarcation between heterosexuality and homosexuality but a continuum between the two. Any one person may tend to live out a life closer to either side while another, for instance, may be 60/40 homosexual or heterosexual.

Now, don't be fooled. I don’t think these widely confirmed and standard findings are going to correct your imperviousness to learning.

After all, you cannot agree with a billion Christians on the parameters of salvation and the agency of Jesus Christ in offering salvation. And this inability to agree is based on how Christians read the Bible - sacred scripture which you claim to be clear and accurate data.

This will be your only opportunity to get real research data from me. I’m being exceptionally patient with you this morning. It’s raining and my espresso tastes particularly good.

If you know what I mean.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Not every educated person has a Ph.D. Abe Lincoln certainly didn't.

People in the psych industry would not review anything I write any more than a Mormon professor would bother with my writings exposing the fraudulent nature of their faith.

I have studied the psych field for many years. While I never attended college, I had access to college textbooks on psychology and was appalled at the nonsense which I read. I have studied many books on the subject.

Whether you consider my writings of value makes no difference to me. I expose the fraud of the psych field, demonstrate it origins as atheistic and materialistic, as well as being unscientific.

But Tom Cruise was 100% correct about Ritalin. Why is it only the USA has ADD/ADHD? Because the pharmaceutical industry developed a drug and needed an "illness" for it. And that is what doctors and pharmacists claim. But I guess their opinions are of no value either.

You have the audacity to talk about wasting people's time when all you do on these blogs is waste time with your liberal troll tripe.

Go away and grow up.

Feodor said...

“... rights are being trampled over this non-"right" that you dishonestly defend. Those would befreedom of religion, speech and association to name the obvious and enumerated rights already protected.”

You’re full of shit, Marshall.

You are perfectly free to be as hateful and narrow minded a Christian as you want. No one is stopping you and no one is forcing your to alter your faith.

No one is forcing you to accept anything. If you’re not pregnant then you’re not forced to make use of the parental leave act. Even those who are pregnant aren’t forced to use it. If you can walk on your own, they you don’t have to rely on the American Disabilities Act, and those who cannot walk are not forced to rely on it, either.

You’re nothing but an empty hat.

Feodor said...

Glenn says, "Why is it only the USA has ADD/ADHD?”


Glenn, the World Health Organization (WHO), an arm of the United Nations that is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, publishes the International Classification of Diseased manual, the standard diagnostic tool for epidemiology, health management and clinical purposes used worldwide.


In that manual, a cluster of diseases are found under the code, 314, for "Hyperkinetic syndrome of childhood.”

Guess what 314.0 is, Glenn? Attention deficit disorder

Guess what 314.00 is, Glenn? Attention deficit without hyperactivity.

Guess what 314.1 is, Glenn? Attention deficit with hyperactivity.

So, Glenn, you’ve read a few books, huh?


(and please stop wasting your time; you’re just not up to it.)

Feodor said...

Abraham Lincoln was brilliant, Glenn. Guess who’s not?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The Kinsey Institute is known for its extremely fraudulent and biased data when it comes to sex. Their whole intent is to make sexual perversion routine. Accepting data from Kinsey demonstrates how biased one is when it comes to the homosexual agenda.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Again Fedor takes the word of a self-proclaimed expert industry, which has no scientific data to support their claims, and considers that the last word.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Oh, and I haven't read a "few" books - I've read close to a hundred on the subject of the psych industry, most being from their own mouths. It is as much of a fraud as evolution - but you probably believe you descended from the apes, too.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Abraham Lincoln was so "brilliant" that he violated the Constitution and started the very destructive civil war.

Even I would have known better than that.

Feodor said...

You raise Lincoln up as a defense and then you shoot him. No wonder the South lost.

No word on this, Glenn?:

Glenn says, "Why is it only the USA has ADD/ADHD?”

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

No one but the USA has the multitudes of children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD, a non-existent disease.

Schools who have children so diagnosed get federal funds for each student, and suddenly huge numbers are infected with this disease. It is one of the biggest frauds out there.

My point about Abe not being "educated" was that for an uneducated man he sure made it a success!

Feodor said...

Rabidly conservative, southern sympathizers are an industry as well. Maybe not as big, but damnably determined.

Here’s my point about you:

“The world dread nothing so much as being convinced of their errors.”

― William Hazlitt

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You have to first point out the errors. All you have provided is unscientific and biased research pretending to be factual.

When you have no facts, just make them up.

There is such a thing as objective truth.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Perhaps you should at least read the opposition before dismissing it out of hand. If you disagree with what my articles say, then demonstrate the error.

Feodor said...

Glenn, you’re not the opposition. You’re a kook. You live so far down an airless tunnel in a sealed bubble that facts down get to you. You’ve subconsciously put yourself there for the simple reason of survival.

This is why you have so much dread and need a logic-proof sound chamber of your own noise.

You are not Laing or Foucault or Szazs. You’re an idiot. That’s why the only place that will accept what you write is a blog. There is no possible option of refusal. It’s hermetic, at its best.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Typical of a liberal when he has no substantive argument, to resort to ad hominem attacks.

Well, sir, you are a fool. The Bible calls you one.

Feodor said...

This is why you are a kook, Glenn (and please accept this as data of simple logic from your comments in just this one post:

I gave Marshall a source for decades of research on sexuality from an institute that has participated in the review and critique process for sixty years - a process which is enormously competitive and cutthroat for precisely the reasons you mention: money. [Which, assuming you find the American capitalist system currently the best way to go about things, you ought to agree with - that is, if you were intellectually consistent.}

What do you say, factually? Nothing. But baseless ad hominem: "The Kinsey Institute is known for its extremely fraudulent and biased data when it comes to sex. Their whole intent is to make sexual perversion routine. Accepting data from Kinsey demonstrates how biased one is when it comes to the homosexual agenda.”

Further, you agree with a Scientology adherent (!) and claim that no where else in the world are there any ADD or ADHD kids being diagnosed except right here in the U.S.

Where’s your data?

When I show that you are quite wrong about that, you fudge. Now! you say that only the US has “the multitudes of children” diagnosed.

Where’s your data? Nowhere.

But, in fact, Glenn, if you count them all up, for every single diagnosis of mental illness that is currently described, no one, no one has as many diagnosed for each single disorder as the US. The US has an entire monopoly on winning the biggest numbers of all mental diseases.

Think of that, Glenn! The enormity of the conspiracy!

Surely there exist no other single explanation for this than that there is a comprehensive and government backed conspiracy on the part of medical elitists and the liberal minions working in the various industries.

Surely nothing, nothing else could satisfy as an explanation for this. Not possible.


Glenn E. Chatfield said...


The Kinsey institute is a fraud, and has been proven to be so. If you want to believe it is sound, be my guest. But you are still a fool.

Feodor said...

Glenn says, "No one but the USA has the multitudes of children diagnosed with ADD/ADHD…”

Do you know, Glenn, that no one but the USA has the multitudes of cars per capita?

Do you know, Glenn, that no one but the USA has the multitudes of lawyers per capita?

Do you know, Glenn, that no one but the USA has the multitudes of hamburger joints per capita?

Do you know, Glenn, that no one but the USA has the multitudes of dentists per capita?

Do you know Glenn, that no one but the USA has the multitudes per capita of:

- window air conditioners
- incarcerated prisoners?
- second homes?
- boats?
- desktop computers?
- laptop computers?
- iPods?
- iPads?
- bentonite producer?
- molybdenum producer?
- dogs?
- cats?
- fish?
- professional golfers
- news stations?
- newspapers?
- schools?
- beef?
- turkey?
- maize?
- books published each year?

It’s a shame this last doesn’t help you and Marshall more.

And finally,

- most money spent per capita on the military. BY SO FAR IT’S NOT EVEN IMAGINABLE.

Now, Glenn, if you want to hunt down a conspiracy, go after military spending. You’ll find something there. It’s been proven.

You wanted data, Glenn. Here is data to contextualize your meaningless statement about ADD/ADHD

Feodor said...

Stay in your bubble, Glenn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Not only are you a fool, but you are demonstrating that you are also an ass.

I'd suggest you read the book, "ADHD: Deceptive Diagnosis," by David M. Tyler, Ph.D. and Kurt P. Grady, Pharm. D. You might just learn something.

Marshall Art said...


For all you condescension, you have still not provided anything that proves "normalcy" of homosexual attraction. But, you are obsessed with defending this attraction and the behavior as normal and morally benign and you do so with nothing but conjecture, speculation and an unjustified sense of self-importance, intellectual superiority and self-promotion. Surely in all your vast reading and education you can provide that information and thus move the conversation forward. But like all enablers and morally corrupt false preachers and teachers, you avoid the crux to denigrate those with whom you disagree. Congrats on your consistency.

Feodor said...

You had your chance to investigate the data, Marshall. You still do. Start with Kinsey Institute. You may as well get in the lion’s den.

And you still have the chance to refuse.

I provided the beginning of the information you’re asking for. If you have the courage for compassion, it’s up to you to begin.

As I said, no one can force you.

Parklife said...

ha.. marsha wont investigate anything. Perhaps "skim"... yes.. but investigate? Hes not capable of reading AND comprehension. Besides.. hes only going to come to the same conclusion he started with. Once something contradicts his world view, he deems it wrong and moves on.

Marshall Art said...

I can respond to both Feo and Benny the troll with one comment.

It was research that exposed the lack of definitive scientific data that justifies removing homosexual attraction from the DSM. It was a vote forced by homosexual activism from both within and without the APA. The president of the APA at the time has recently confirmed this.

As to the abnormality of homosexual attraction, it is obvious given the fact of two genders of the human species. What Feo needs to do, since he has all the answers (pardon me, that thought just made me spit up my drink), is to present what he thinks is that definitive study or researh result that says otherwise.

Real compassion is to recognize truth and reality and deal with those, not the fantasy that there is nothing abnormal or sinful about homosexual attraction and behavior. Neither of you have brain cell one needed to understand this basic reality.

Jim said...

the fantasy that there is nothing abnormal or sinful about homosexual attraction and behavior. Neither of you have brain cell one needed to understand this basic reality.

Whether homosexual attraction and/or behavior is abnormal or sinful is simply and totally irrelevant when it comes to policy and the law. If we legislated and prosecuted based on sin, most of Wall Street and a lot of Congress would be in jail. But we don't. And if we legislated on the basis of abnormal, we could deprive people with club feet, blood disorders and nerve diseases of rights.

When it comes to same sex marriage, opponents have demonstrated no government interest in restricting it. None.

Sin? Doesn't matter. Abnormal? Doesn't matter.

Marshall Art said...

"If we legislated and prosecuted based on sin,"

And we do. Upon what do you think are laws are based now if not sin/bad behavior? What do you call murder, theft, perjury if not sinful/bad behavior.

And as far as legislating on the basis of what is normal, the point is that in this case, some wish to legislate on the basis of homosexual attraction being normal without having ever established that it is, when in fact it clearly is not. For any laws to be crafted on faulty propositions is absurd to say the least.

When it comes to same sex marriage, supporters have demonstrated no government interest in sanctioning it, and THAT is what needs to be done. There have been no arguments that come close to doing so. None.

Both sin and abnormal do matter. They just don't to the morally bankrupt and selfish.

Feodor said...

Marshall, the long and short of it is, you are simply limiting other persons' freedoms because of your religious faith.

That’s not American; it’s why people originally set sail to be American.

Jim said...

And we do.

Not on sin. If so, why no jail for gluttons, the prideful. We legislate against some bad behavior, but not because it's a sin. Because it's wrong. Because such behavior has victims. They are crimes. (We can talk about prostitution on another thread.)

some wish to legislate on the basis of homosexual attraction being normal

No they don't. Please cite any case in which the pro-same sex marriage party argues about normality. Or any legislation with says anything about "normal." People want legislation based on fairness, equality, and due process. Normal has nothing to do with it. Your faulty proposition argument is irrelevant.

supporters have demonstrated no government interest in sanctioning it, and THAT is what needs to be done.

Not one bit. It defies logic to require someone to demonstrate why their rights should not be restricted. Restrictions MUST be based on a government or social interest in restricting that right. Sin and abnormality don't cut it.

Marshall Art said...


The long and short of it is that there are no freedoms being withheld. There is no "freedom to be recognized by the vast majority of the people as being akin to traditional marriages whether they like it or not". There is no "freedom to force acceptance of what the vast majority of people regard as deviant behavior" regardless of the presence of religious belief.

This country's constitution guarantees the right to the pursuit of happiness, not happiness.

Marshall Art said...


"Not on sin. If so, why no jail for gluttons, the prideful."

Not a sound tactic to suppose that because not ALL sins are illegal that it means laws of prohibition do not render SOME sins illegal.

But the issue isn't about laws of prohibition. It's about whether a right is infringed upon simply because one particular group, one that doesn't and can't meet the definition of an institution sanctioned by the state, is somehow denied a basic right. They aren't and never were.

"No they don't. Please cite any case in which the pro-same sex marriage party argues about normality."

It's a given, Jim. The whole argument in favor is based on the false assumption that homosexual attraction is absolutely normal and morally benign, equal to heterosexual attraction and therefor must be treated the same way. None of this is true in the least. What also is untrue, is this:

"People want legislation based on fairness, equality, and due process."

The people to whom you refer want legislation based on what they say is fairness, equality and due process, not actual fairness, equality and due process.

"Not one bit. It defies logic to require someone to demonstrate why their rights should not be restricted."

Again, there is no restriction. There is only marriage, a word that is defined in a particular manner that does not include two people of the same gender. Their "right" to marry are totally intact and always have been. They want something different and they want it to be called "marriage". They simply frame it as being a matter of discrimination and unjustified denial.

Feodor said...

"There is no 'freedom to be recognized by the vast majority of the people as being akin to [free persons] whether they like it or not". There is no "freedom to force acceptance of what the vast majority of people regard as deviant behavior" regardless of the presence of religious belief.”

In they year 1855, your logic would take you to say the same thing against emancipation.

Congratulations, Marshall. But then we knew this about you.

Your moral thinking justifies being opposed to every extensions of freedom that came to be enshrined legally. And everything yet to come.

Law follows moral thinking. It does not precede it.

Marshall Art said...

Nice try, feo, but the "logic" of your argument is extremely faulty. Black is not a behavior. Your insistence that there is a parallel between sexual behavior and skin color or gender is a sign that your sense of morality is as corrupt as I've known it was. Tell your imaginary wife to stop being black and or a woman and see where that gets you. It isn't like telling a thief to stop stealing or a lazy person to get off his ass and be productive. Race and genders are not compulsive urges. They need not be controlled. Lying about race and gender struggles being akin to the Agenda That Does Not Exist is an urge you could control if you had any real sense of the difference between sinful behavior and acceptable behavior.

So my proper moral thinking could not oppose the protections afforded to blacks and women while still being proper in rejecting the lies-based arguments put forth to codify sexual immorality in civil law.

One hopes that law follows moral thinking. Unfortunately, there are people like you who support legislation based on corrupted thinking and outright lies put forth as reality. This is just such a case. But then, we knew that about you.

Feodor said...

Your belief that homosexuality is behavior is your belief.

Denying the freedom to others to marry is imposing your religious beliefs on others who don’t believe the way you do. You keep avoiding this truth.

That’s un-American at its very foundation.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Are you really serious in your believe that homosexual sexual relations are not behavior?


No one is denied the right to marry - but marriage has a definition and qualifications. If you aren't qualified, you can't marry.

Should we allow multiple partner marriages? Incestuous marriages? Human/animal marriages? Just because these people "love" their partners that doesn't qualify for marriage.

And religion has nothing to do with it.

Feodor said...

"but marriage has a definition and qualifications…”

We once said that about voting and the definition and qualifications ruled out white women and, of course, the lower category of human: anybody tainted with African blood.

Then, after the constitution made clear that black freedmen had the right to vote, further “definitions and qualification” were set - but nothing for women at all.

Have you read anything about history, Glenn?

When the vote was made constitutional for black freedmen, white men met in town and crowed, “what next, can my pig vote?”

[That would be called irrational paranoia, Glenn - by psychologists.]

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Fedor's ignorance comes front and center again.

"Voting" does not have a definition which is changed by skin color or gender.

You sure come up with bad logic.

Feodor said...

Oh my God, Glenn, how obtuse can you be?

You know the theory that, given unlimited time, a monkey with typewriter will write a novel simply because there is a limited combination of letter that can be typed? I am sure this is the level at which you have read books.

This clearly will not be understood by you, although, given unlimited time the impossible can happen, but I will try to make it stupefyingly simple:

What you NOW consider simply a difference in skin color (thereby wiping away all meaningful distinction between people), our ancestors considered to be God given markers of hierarchical distinctions in the value of human beings. In other words [I can’t believe I have to spell this out], there were moral and concrete orders to human beings. We were not considered to be one, equal species. [No doubt, some of the residue of this thinking continues unconsciously in people like you and Marshall.]

So, Glenn, people with darker skin did not have a color difference. They had a moral difference and the darker a person was the further in moral value they were from white people. Can I get any simpler when talking to an adult?

So, Glenn, this represents an absolute revolution in the way white people conceive of black people. We went from Inferior to Skin Color difference. You see the gaping chasm in between? In the first instance, slavery is justified. It is morally permissible. Scripture and the church backed it. In terms of enslaving Africans and members of the black diaspora. This went on for some 600 years. [I can’t be sure you know this history or, more problematical, what it means.]

NOW, TODAY, Glenn, we don’t think that way, generally. At least, it’s not so much written in our nation’s laws, now. However, a lot of time and killings and changed moral thinking and church theology shifted over a great deal of time.

Equally so, Glenn, is the case of gender. I don’t know if you bring down the above understanding to this new case of considering women, so I’ll have to be patient.

Women, you see, Glenn, were considered inferior as well - as intended by God. They were weak. This was one of their markers. They bled monthly. This was another. They had emptiness whereas we had phalluses. These were all divine markers of inferiority, and yet, in God’s wisdom, the womb - morally a lower dwelling than the man’s powerful organs - still gave birth to the Incarnation.

I use this language, Glenn, in order to impress upon you the centuries understanding of the church and Christians right up until, oh, forty years ago or yesterday, depending on the circumstances.

So, Glenn, what you simply think of as, “Gender,” is a category of equality that it never, NEVER, had in history. Women were never equal. Not because of an innocuous (too big?) category of gender. But because God willed it and gave it certain numbers of marks to witness to God’s will.

When you talk about homosexuality, Glenn, you use rhetoric, concepts, and a system of thinking that is precisely in line with the scientific, moral, and theological systems of a hundred to two thousand years ago when the nature of what WE call race and gender was considered.

But a lot of other people like me, Glenn, are simply applying history to all aspects of identity. Gender is neutral - NOW. Race is neutral - NOW. Sexuality is neutral - NOW.

You’re just a bit behind. But hopelessly dense.

Feodor said...

And skin color was just one of the many, many markers, by which white people believed God to have ordered different values among human beings. Lip size was another. Relative proportions of leg length to torso length was another. Shape of spine, shape of the nose.

And, let me quickly add before you continue to be selective about what constitutes racism… "style of family relationships" was described as having “clear moral differnces” between the races. Italians did come off particularly well, nor the Irish, nor Jews, nor Asians, and certainly not Africans. Some of this thinking, thinking there really is some concrete qualitative differences that are absolutely true in every case of race comparison continue to exist and are well entrenched in conservative ideology. [Part of why Marshall should not be so confused when blacks vote so overwhelmingly for white Democrats as the lessor of two evils.]

Intellectual tests were conducted and races where ordered according to “findings.” Charles Murray - a theorist who props us a lot of what you think - still does this.

All these ways of twisting and tweaking a whole range of ‘evidences’ - not just physical, and much less your category of skin color - were attempts to show how racial difference are based on moral and intellectual differences and that these differences were God willed.

Differences in skin color meant nothing to the racist. White people try to politely cover over how deeply and broadly we thought we were better by now condensing everything into just… skin color. Thus we reveal how we still mark privately held convictions that we are different. But we cover these private thoughts over in code - just to cover our guilt… and just to be safe.

This would be the kind of racist that Marshall clearly is - as drawn with his words and painted by his thinking.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Your stupidity and continual condescension does not demonstrate intelligence, rather it demonstrates arrogance.

Not ALL of our ancestors had a problem with skin color - only the ignorant did. Don’t make it a universal ideology, because it wasn’t. In fact, it wasn’t until Darwin came along that people thought of the “different species” of human beings - it was the fraud of evolutionism which propagated that.

Regardless of what ignorant people believed, there has always been an ultimate objective truth, and that happens to be that skin color has no bearing on morality.

By the way, neither Scripture nor the real church agreed with slavery as was done with the blacks. Twisting of Scripture does not equal what it actually says, and the true Church knows that skin color has no bearing on anything.

Your ignorance of Scripture continues with your claim that God made women inferior. I dare you to find that anywhere in Scripture, and it was Christianity which gave women equal status as men. Your “markers” are just stupidity with no basis in reality. In fact, it appears from your description of sexual organs that YOU are the misogynistic one. There are certainly role differences, but that doesn’t take away equality as a person.

It is not rhetoric to demonstrate that biologically, medically, and in every way that homosexuality is a perversion, an abuse of the human body as well as an abuse of human sexuality. Sexuality is not neutral; the idea that it is, is a construct of homosexualists such as yourself trying to justify that which is not justifiable.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Your whole dissertation on “race” has nothing to do with God, or the Bible, or Christianity, and everything to do with Darwinism.

And only ignorant people believe the trash you claim.

Feodor said...

So, now thinkings straight people acknowledge how we persisted longer in trying to theorize that gay people (notice that we do not say, “people who have sex with someone of their own gender and are therefore being homosexual in that moment, and then in that moment there, and just in those particular moments; notice how we acknowledge the truth when we say gay people, or when Marshall says, the homosex person: “the,” a definite article used for an object; so the gay person is an object, a truth, in just such a way: the gay person)…

at any rate, we have given up using all those old ways of theorizing moral differences between persons. Each person is an individual with rights in this country - or should be if we adhered to the Constitution.

It matters not how they behave. We’ve come to be clear that black people behave in all various ways and come in all various shapes. And we’ve finally become stupidly clear that are absolutely no lines to be found in skin color. Races cannot be distinguished by skin color. It’s all a grand lie - and you’re perpetuating it by thinking that race is now just a skin color issue. There are Italians you - I have no doubt - would think are black folks and Ethiopians you - I have no doubt - would think are white people. And, of course, now we are increasingly becoming blinded. (Just as there are gay people in your family, Glenn, there’s nigger blood too, I’m afraid. With our history it’s unavoidable.)

Anyway, black and brown and yellow folks have a wide range of behaviors. Some are straight, some gay. Some are purely intellectual, some act purely from the gut. Some have two acts: one for their white dominant world and one for home.

It’s a wide-stretching continuum of identity and behavior. It’s human being-hood.

We’ve come to be clear that gender is an amalgam of biology and psychology giving a range of identities. No man is a man in the same way all are. No woman is a women like all others. Genitalia is a small part of the story so to speak.

Women behave in vastly different ways. Your dependence on behavior crumbles here. Some women do not behave sexually at all by choice. Some behave very sexually with just men. Some behave very sexually with men and women, but men most of the time. Some with both but women most of the time. Some behave moderately with one or the other or both.

It’s a wide-stretching continuum of identity and behavior. It’s human being-hood.

To deny gays the right to vote, you’re inevitable going to be denying black gay men and women. Their identity is not compartmentalized, by the way. They are whole as God made them. Black and male and gay. Black and female and lesbian. Latina and lesbian. White and male and Southern and gay. An immigrant, given special immigration access because of special technological learning, and Indonesian and female and lesbian.

And then, Glenn, you will run into the fourth wall of your box: children of mixed marriages. And not only of their gay American/Spanish fathers. But of their straight Swedish/German American and Castilian/Moroccan Spanish grandparents.

Lord, Glenn, however, will you find the time to enter the late twentieth century.

Feodor said...

"Your whole dissertation on “race” has nothing to do with God, or the Bible, or Christianity…”

Of course we have theological differences, Glenn.

That’s your Achilles heal. You simply cannot try to impose on society your theology.

This is the country that proclaimed that wrong at its very birth.

Feodor said...

Though I am glad that you’ve limited your confidence to your theological commitments alone - seeming to realize that you cannot argue with the content on a purely rational basis.

Feodor said...

You can't really deny history, Glenn, not even by crawling between the bonded leather covers of your NIV.

Christians have always ended up apologizing when they do so.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are such an ass. Since it is foolish to argue with a fool such as you, I will make this my last comment and then you can blather all the ignorance you so care to do.

Not all behaviors are moral. We restrict people from robbing banks, murdering their neighbors, counterfeiting money, etc. We do not sanction adultery or bestiality or necrophilia. So we also should not be sanctioning homosexual behavior.

My statement about your rant having nothing to do with God, or the Bible, or Christianity was to refute your claims about what these subjects say about racism. It had nothing to do with imposing my theology on society. However, you are imposing your atheistic, naturalistic, evolutionist theology on society when you force society to accept homosexual behavior as something of value to society.

My argument has been 100% rational - it is yours which distorts history, misrepresents the Christian faith and the Bible, and even illogically assigns new ideas to biology and nature!

Real Christians only apologize for those deeds done by unbelievers claiming to be Christians. And that is indeed history.

Now go read some real history books instead of liberal revisionism.

Marshall Art said...

This is incredible!

"So, now thinkings(sic) straight people... have given up using all those old ways of theorizing moral differences between persons."

"Thinking" straight people? Try "scheming" people who no longer wish to be bound by the moral dictates of either tradition or Judeo-Christian thought.


You continue to prove you know nothing and have learned nothing regarding my own character by pretending you perceive in me some kind of racism. Do I acknowledge differences between the races and genders? Of course I do and you're an idiot to pretend they don't exist. The question isn't differences, but how one perceives the person based on differences that have no meaning, such as race and gender.

Behaviors, however, are a totally different issue and if behaviors were meaningless justifications for discriminating then there's be no law at all. It doesn't matter if a black man is pious or satanic as regards his skin color. Nor does it matter for white people. Both are simply people first and if their skin color is all I know, then to me they are simply men. Try as you might, you cannot show anything in any of my comments that indicates racism on my part, either conscious or unconscious. YOU, on the other hand, are an entirely different story.

In the meantime, you cannot show that I am bigoted against homosexuals, simply because they suffer from their abnormal attractions. I find it to be a sad situation that is obviously as much a struggle as any other sexual urge that must be controlled. But just as I am less than cool with the blatant adulterer, I do not pretend that homosexual behavior has magically become less than an abomination to God than it ever was, or that it is somehow morally equal to heterosexual behavior between a husband and wife. I've been consistent on this point in all my writings and comments on the issue.

But here's the real comparison: Just as people have distorted Scripture in the past, consciously or unconsciously, with purpose or innocent misinterpretation, to justify oppressing women or people of other races, you now engage in the same activity to justify the heresy that homosexuals are to given equal consideration morally. But then, we know you're a false priest working to perpetuate lies. The issue, though is that you deceitfully try to demonize those who maintain true Biblical understanding of this issue of human sexuality. Such people do not look to science to alter Biblical meaning regarding sinful practices and pretend new insights by the Spirit are guiding them.

Feodor said...

Glenn, how surprising that you’ve run out of substantial things to write in response and so go with the juvenile flight song.

Before you’re gone, I think what’s just outside the reach of your mind is this term: crime against nature. Extolled in US legal cases since the early 18th century, bestiality was indeed one of them (and, I agree, distasteful and probably harmful to mental health), so was incest and necrophilia which you mentioned, as, indeed, was homosexuality.

But, then, so was oral sex of both kinds.

As well as anal sex; granted, not everyone’s cup of tea.

And finally, my favorite, miscegenation. Now miscegenation, Glenn, is sex or cohabitation or marriage between two people of different races. [Now please remember that back in the day, it was not just skin color that distinguished race. It really was where one was from, genetically speaking. You could be dark, dark sepia, but if that was just a little Indian blood, why that was romantic. But if you were manilla white but had tight curly hair - you were in trouble, dog.]

So, sex, cohabitation, or marriage… between races. Why I believer that’s behavior, don’t you. And a crime against humanity according to scripture, the church, and the laws of these United States.


"The issue, though is that you deceitfully try to demonize those who maintain true Biblical understanding of this issue of human sexuality.”

So, Marshall, let me clearly in agreement with you. Yes. I demonize all those who maintain true Biblical understanding of this issue of human sexuality: miscegenation.

And this one: gay marriage.

And Lawrence v Texas (2003) is on my side in both cases, as it held that sexual relations between any consenting adults in private was protected by the Constitution and could not be criminalised under 'crimes against nature' laws."

You see, boys, my theology is not like yours and neither is more than half of Christendom, thank God. My commitments are to love and not to damn so that I am not damned. And my citizenship is such that I find Constitutional promises enshrined and expanded over our history to be remarkable instruments for civil society if I don’t impose my theology on anyone.

And don’t tell me, Glenn, that gay marriage forces you to do anything than to keep right being your small hearted Judaizing self. You want to stop what they want to do. They have no interest in stopping you living like Miss Prim.

Marshall Art said...

Oh FEO! It is true! Your theology is NOT anything like mine. Yours is bullshit and not Christian. It is self-made and you simply call it Christian because you pretend to worship Christ while you crap all over the truth of His teachings.

And here, you continue with this crap about how those of the past either misused or misunderstood Scripture. There is NOTHING in Scripture that can rightfully be used to defend prohibiting mixed race marriages. There IS Scripture that describes what marriage is and it doesn't include prohibitions regarding skin color. It does describe one man and one woman and NEVER gives any indication that same sex relations is anything but an abomination to God. So you're a common liar when it comes to this issue, trying to pretend there is any connection between the righteous presentation of Biblical truth regarding homosexual behavior and bad interpretations, innocent or otherwise, regarding race and gender.

We, meaning myself and those like Glenn and others, do not "damn" anyone when we speak the truth about homosexual behavior. They damn themselves by ignoring God's clearly revealed position on the subject, and you do as well for pretending He has changed His stance when there is no support for the notion.

But it is true that we want to stop what they are trying to do as regards the marriage issue. And the activists absolutely have a great interest in forcing righteous and honest believers in the truth to deny that truth in favor of their selfish desires. And that goes for Christian truth and biological and psychological truth.

Feodor said...

Marshall, you’re ad hominem meter hit 100% with that. Absolutely no substantial content whatsoever. 100%. That’s hard to do, boy.

Marshall Art said...


It might be ad hom if I haven't shown the charges to be true so many times in the past, as well as in the comment you're addressing now. If you try to say the Christian faith presents a way to regard homosexual behavior as acceptable at any time, in any context for any reason, you're a liar. It does not and you've never shown otherwise any more than anyone else has.

If you're trying to say that the homosexual "struggle" for "rights" is analogous to the civil rights struggle of blacks or the suffrage movement of women, you're a liar because they are not analogous. How is race or gender a behavior? How is race or gender a desire or urge? When you can resolve these issues in a straightforward manner, then you might have an argument regarding ad hom attacks. Once again, you fail.

Parklife said...

Call it whatever you want marsha.. I call it capitalism. Of the millions of terrible things that go on in this country that are legal, you choose gay rights to harp on. I strongly suggest you grow up, put down your al qaeda handbook and join the rest of us to support the very heart of this country..

Marshall Art said...

The little troll thinks I need to grow up. That's rich.

You do not support the "very heart" of this country as you have no idea what that would even look like. But since you are such a big boy now, why don't you give me an example of one of those millions of terrible things that are legal in this country. Aside from abortion, which I oppose, that is.

Or, you can explain what it is you call capitalism and why you thought saying that was relevant to anything in this post.

Parklife said...

Lol.. Douche..

Try reading something for once.

Parklife said...

Heh.. People like Sally Ride must give you heartburn.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The problem with Sally Ride is that she only got her seat due to political correctness. Much more qualified people were waiting their turn, but they didn't have the PC qualifications of being female and lesbian.

Parklife said...

Nice Glenn.. Perhaps next time you can wait till the body is cold before trashing them.

Parklife said...

Wow.. Cant believe I read that pile of cow manure. You tricked me this time Glenny.. But next time, Im just going to guess youre linking to an asshat.

Marshall Art said...


Show some courage, boy. Put on those big boy pants your momma saves for special occasions and show what is bullshit in that link. Or are you simply going to add this to your list of examples of having proven something when it, like all the rest, doesn't prove anything about anyone but yourself (and not in a good way)?

For me, I don't know if Glenn's link is true or not. But YOU, tough guy, have made another accusation and think it means something. It doesn't. It means you know how to make accusations. It doesn't mean you know anything at all. So, prove the story is crap or again expose yourself as the cretin you are.

Here's another thought: Is Glenn really trashing Ride, or the means by which she was given the opportunity? I know he said "The problem with Sally Ride...", but what follows indicates he's not truly referring to her but to how she got the gig. Of course, that doesn't work as well for you who is more focused on finding fault with people you don't have the skills or intelligence to debate.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So it is "trashing" someone to show that she got where she was by PC? That if she had been a man she'd have never gotten that Shuttle ride?

You are so hopeless.

Parklife said...

Wow.. Glenny. Just when you do something so dumb you come back and top yourself. Perhaps you should first figure out what it means to be qualified.You know, start at the beginning. And, yes.. to suggest that she was handed a golden tix to space is offensive if not completely ignorant. Even worse, for your side, we have the opportunity to see what happened after she was selected and after she came back from her first mission.

But, thanks for playing Glenny.

Marshall Art said...

OK, Parkie the troll,

Perhaps you should first show what about the link (and here it is again) that is not true, especially considering Schlussel cited sources that confirm her allegations (not really "allegations" since they are proven true). So, your reading and comprehension skills? Non-existent. If you have ANYTHING that refutes the admissions of NASA and the other source she uses, bring it or put the pacifier back in your mouth.

So now that we have the opportunity, just what happened after she was selected and returned from her mission that YOU think was so significant? You're a hopeless cretin and it is just so sad that you don't realize how you embarrass yourself by commenting without anything akin to substance while expecting to be taken as someone with an intellect. That might work for you on the playground, but it merely provokes great sadness here.

Ride's selection IS offensive given the facts, as is any time a woman or minority gets pushed ahead of more qualified people on the basis of gender or race, and the policy of doing so, much like the people who support the policy of affirmative action, is indeed ignorant. It purposely lowers the quality of whatever is altered by not focusing on the best available.

Parklife said...

I believe I have answered every insulting question you have asked on this subject. Im not sure, douche, how asking the same thing glenny did, is furthering the conversation.

I would say I am shocked, but misogyny is just one of the things offered here at The Douche. Believe what you like d-bag, but she is an American hero. And I say that backed by the knowledge that every newspaper and commentator I have seen agrees 100% with me. Of course I encourage you to pull your head out of your ass. But, its your choice to live in ignorance.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Parked brain,
How is Sally Ride a "hero." Just what was it she did that was so heroic? She flew in a space shuttle - does that make all astronauts heroic?

You don't know what a hero is.

Parklife said...

Glenny, are you pretending to be this dumb? Dealing with you two is like some sort of late April Fools joke.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are an ass Parked brain,

It was a simple question but apparently too simple for you. She did nothing heroic.

Parklife said...

Sadly Glenny, with the huge number of people that agree with me, simply claiming that "she did nothing heroic" does not make it true. You are the one that has to come up with some sort of "proof". There are hundreds? of articles online right now from people being inspired by her, calling her heroic. Please read one these. Perhaps use Google to search for one. SPOILER ALERT** Stanford PHD, Astronaut, Inspired school kids and battled cancer. Each one of these events is heroic. Putting them all together in one lifetime.. and you dont think shes heroic? You wont ever agree with me and I would never expect you to grow up. But I was right with my original comment, "People like Sally Ride must give you heartburn". You cant stand that a woman had a great life and did something positive for society. It turned out she was gay, but that doesnt impact her huge positive impact she had on kids and girls.

Honestly Glenny, it must be tough being you.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

All that shows is that no one knows what the words "hero" or "heroic" are any more. It has come to mean just about anything.

To paraphrase, "when everyone is a hero, no one is a hero."

She was NOT a hero except to pinheads like you who make words mean what you want them to mean.

Parklife said...

lol.. well done Glenny. Only you know how do define a word correctly and everybody else is wrong? Guess we can also add to the list that Glenny doesnt understand how language works.

Hey, at least you can somehow relate to the 1%.

Marshall Art said...

That's funny. To hear a lib, and one so obviously mentally challenged as Parkie, suggest a right-winger doesn't understand how language works. The actual truth is that those of us on the right refuse to acknowledge the manner in which lefties want language to be used, especially whatever word they think will suit their purpose, drive their rhetorical attacks, and deny the appropriate usages of words for the same reasons.

More obvious is that Parkie continues to talk without adding anything of substance. Here, he insists that because some have referred to Ride as a hero, then by golly she is, even though he can't provide anything about her that qualifies her as a hero. He says, "Stanford PHD, Astronaut, Inspired school kids and battled cancer. Each one of these events is heroic." How so? Saying it doesn't make it so. Is she the only one to earn a PHD from Stanford or any other top university? Millions have. Are they all heroes because of it? There are many astronauts, most with more experience than she had and more highly qualified at the time she got her ticket. Are they greater heroes because of it? So many people have inspired kids, most of them the parents of those kids. Does that make them heroic? Cancer survivor? Heroic? Aside from Parkie himself who shows little heroism as he dodges the long standing invitation to provide some depth and substance rather than "nya-nya-nya-nya-nya" annoyances, who ISN'T a hero by such standards?

So now I'm going to start asking kids if they know who Sally Ride is, and in what manner her "heroism" impacted their lives. This should be a great poll. Stay tuned.

Parklife said...

Jim was right. The only proper response to you is.. You're an idiot.

The list is too long to point out why you are wrong. For starters, neither of you appears to have looked up the actual def. of "hero". I dont have the time for such ignorance and I cant do everything for you. One day you will have to grow up (perhaps you can be an astronaut, we all know you are a space-cadet). When that day comes, feel free to let me know. Until then the al qaeda wing of the republican party appears to be doing very well.

Oh.. and marsha.. you really shouldnt be interacting with kids, I believe that is against your parole.

Cheers, the Opening Ceremony is about to start and I dont want to miss another Romney blunder.

Marshall Art said...

There you have it, folks. Parkie proves he is both a coward and fraud. He thinks we don't understand the word "hero", but he cannot say why. Even in the loosest sense, that is, of a person known for their achievements, that person must be compared to others of his field. If Ride is a hero for being an astronaut, in what way are her astronautical achievements more noteworthy than other astronauts, especially given her advancement by virtue of her gender, rather than because or in spite of it?

"The list is too long..." What a pathetic dodge! How typical of Ben to duck a simple question or two. No one expects that he answers all questions, particularly since he never answers any. ONE example, ONE question would do to disprove what his history on blogs so clearly exposes about him. If you don't have time for ignorance, cretin, why do you so routinely exhibit it? Why do you cling to it with such ferocity? Ignorance, thy name is Ben. You couldn't explain why anything I've ever said is ignorant if a gun was put to your empty head. What a complete joke of a human being you are!

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

“hero”: 1. a man of distinguished valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger; as a hero in arms.
2. A great, illustrious or extraordinary person; as a hero in learning. [Little used]
3. In a poem, or romance, the principal personage, or the person who has the principle share in the transactions related; as Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey, and Aeneas in the Aeneid.
4. In pagan mythology, a hero was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death to be placed among the gods.

Websters' American Dictionary of the English Language.

So which definition does Sally Ride fit? NADA!

Parklife said...

There it is.. #100.. and just in time.. Seems both of you actually did some research. Congrats.

So.. yes.. she fits the def. Glenny. Thank you. You have yet to point out how she is not extraordinary or illustrious.. or great! It seems only you, The Douche and that one commentator you linked to think otherwise. I'll go ahead and side with the rest of the internet.

Im sure you can run along and find your own misogynist hero. Create your own cannon. That would be exciting. How about nominating yourself? Or noted racist, homophobe and great misogynist.. Rush. Perhaps build a statue to the heavy gentleman Missouri..

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

So a lady doesn't have the higher qualifications of other astronauts, has done nothing out of the ordinary in her field of astronauts (except get a PC selection), and you call that extraordinary or illustrious?!?!? I guess you need to look up those words, too.

All you have are ad hominem attacks and nothing of substance. Just a typical liberal.

Parklife said...

Ahh.. yes.. Glenny.. I'll spell it out for you a bit more.

Its impossible to have "higher qualifications". Hey.. there is another word you can look up!

Bottom line is she was qualified, just like many other people. Next, she was selected and went to space. Only to come back inspiring a generation of young people, in particular young women and girls. But that was not enough, she filled her remaining years on this planet working for NASA and promoting science and education.

Attacking her accomplishment as a PC selection only insults what is left of your intelligence and sadly attempts to diminish her experiences as a women.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The point, parked brain, is that she did nothing unusual in her field except get a PC selection.

THAT is not heroic in any sense of the word.

She would have been more of a hero if she had refused the selection, rather than allowing herself to be used by the PC crowd.

Marshall Art said...

The really sad thing, Glenn, is that the troll doesn't ever do what he believes we must do, such as research, providing evidence, bringing about support to bolster whatever the hell it is he believes, if some on the left is available to tell him what that is.

No one here has dismissed her as an astronaut with qualifications. But only an idiot like Parkie would suggest that there is no such thing as one being MORE qualified than another. Even if two people score equally on all available tests, one will still be more qualified than the other, even if they are too close to determine which it is.

Ride would have been more of a heroic figure if there was no affirmative action-type push by NASA to put women in space, and got herself qualified to go by virtue of her abilities and skills being above other possible candidates. But even if she was perceived as equal to the best of the best, to have been put aboard to fulfill some idiotic affirmative action move diminishes her real accomplishments, as if she couldn't get there without the AA help. Parkie is too mentally challenged to understand this very elementary point. I feel sorry for him, his parents and caretakers. He's pathetic.

Feodor said...

Wow. Glenns’ not hesitant to show the depths of his misogyny, combined with a blatant lie.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


YOU ARE A LIAR! That's the best I can say about you.
There is not a misogynistic bone in my body. You don't know a thing about me. You just keep braying like the ass you are.

Feodor said...

A misogynistic lie: "she did nothing unusual in her field except get a PC selection…”

That would be you, Glenn, wouldn’t it?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And that is misogynistic how? You obviously don't know the meaning of the word.

I would have the same thing to say about ANYONE - male/female, black/white, short/tall, beautiful/ugly, etc - who got where they got because of PC.

She did nothing unusual in her field - NOTHING.

Feodor said...

Let’s look at what is “not unusual,” in Glenn’s judgment, about Sally Ride.

1) Undergraduate degrees in Physics and English from Stanford.

That’s kind of unusual, don’t you think, Glenn? Not too many people do that. And by “not too many” we’re surely talking about a minuscule number. “But," I hear you saying, "this is not unusual for astronauts.”

OK, maybe not for some astronauts, so maybe “not unusual” after all. Though an English degree is probably rare.

2) She got her Ph.D in physics at Stanford, particularly in electron laser research.

Not too shabby and something that most astronauts do not have.

Remember, Glenn, something that every reader of popular news knows but perhaps you do not: astronauts have different specialities and a crew is made up from a diversity of specialties.

So, a Ph.D. in electron laser physics is pretty specialized. But even that is not where she makes the lie out of your “not unusual.”

3) You and Marshall misogynistically put a lot into an incredibly biased article about aggressive NASA recruitment policies.

Dr. Ride saw a newspaper ad. Wow. Such aggressive recruitment. OK, this part doesn’t sound unusual. It just gives the lie to you and Marshall and the article cited.

4) So she went through the usual NASA training. Incredibly special but not relative to other astronauts, granted.

But, and here is where your misogyny and lies really come to bear, she decided to add yet another speciality: astrophysical engineering. Not that you or I know what that is, Glenn, but it’s pretty damn unusual for an electron laser specialist to then add astrophysical engineering.

Why did she do it?

To be a part of developing the robotic arm on the shuttle.

Pretty unusual. So unusual this expertise is cited as the reason the Challenger commander picked her to be a mission specialist on his flight.

Pretty unusual.

Though not for the Soviets who had already sent up two women cosmonauts. When one arrived on their space station, a “welcoming” cosmonaut told her the kitchen and an apron were ready.

This would be the tiresomely usual male humor that you would appreciate.

As for the hero bit, I put it down to her being the only person serving on the review committees investigating both shuttle disasters and being the only member who supported the engineer who tried desperately to warn his company and NASA that the O-ring could easily give bad performance under cold conditions. He was shut out by both. And then by the members of the NASA Safety review.

By all of them. Except Sally Ride. She showed courage in supporting a hero. That would make two of them.

Feodor said...

This would be easier, Glenn, if you were a reader.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

You are hopeless.

Nothing you recount is unusual for people in her field.

You liberals just want to redefine words to suit your worldview.

Let’s see:

What are you going to redefine next?

And again you lie and slander me by saying I would appreciate a particular type of humor.

I'm waiting for you to support your claim that I am a misogynist.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Oh, and just because I don't read your liberal tripe, that doesn't mean I'm not a reader. Again you make accusations without substance.

Typical liberal jackass

If this was my blog, I would have banned you long ago.

Feodor said...

Still can’t read, Glenn? You’re more clueless than Romney.

To wit: Sally Ride was a mission specialist on Challenger’s 1982 flight because she helped build and was expert at maneuvering the robotic arm on the Shuttle as used for deployment and re-capture of satellites. The commander of the mission picked her because of this.

She had specialized degrees, answered a newspaper ad, and then passed NASA training. She then added additional specialized expertise.

In the face of this of this history, which you ignore, you want to claim that she was a PC pick because… she was just a woman.

Misogynist and a liar. Punto e final.

Feodor said...

You ban because you cannot face any truths. It disturbs your bubble.

Stay in your bubble, Glenn.

Feodor said...

Jeez, Glenn, you really need a more vehement enemy than “liberals.” Your’e kooky irrationality is much too pronounced for “liberals” to match up with, regardless of how diverse we are.

As for, "just because I don't read your liberal tripe…”, do you mean to say, Glenn, that only liberals think that Dr. Ride had a Ph.D. in physics and specialties in electron laser physics and engineering? Are you saying that only liberals think she helped develop robotic arms for space shuttles? Do you disbelieve the reports that the commander, who approves his crew, did not choose Dr. Ride because she was an expert with operating just such a robotic arm?

These are the things of substance which have now been put before you a third time.

Are you going to deny these facts for a third time? Just because she was a woman?

Marshall Art said...

Once again we see another lefty defending nonsense. Either Ride got a boost from PC policy or she didn't. Was she on the short list before the policy went into effect? Were there other, more qualified, experienced and proven candidates for her seat before the policy went into effect?

Assume for a moment that there was no one MORE or LESS qualified than Ride. Assume all candidates were equally qualified. All abilities, knowledge and fields of expertise were identical. Under those circumstances, she would still not be worthy of any special recognition if she was chosen on the basis of her gender. A coin toss would have been far more appropriate.

The situation here is far less than the above hypothetical. If it is true that she alone stood up for the guy who warned against the O-ring failure, then she deserves props for that absolutely. Hardly good enough for "hero" status, even conceding the heroic nature of the support. Said another way, it is a weak argument by itself.

One simply cannot say she is anything special based on any of the listed accomplishments unless none of her peers were able to come anywhere near close to similar levels of accomplishment, even if not identical accomplishments.

Even more importantly, to acknowledge this obvious truth is not akin to disparaging what she has accomplished for herself. No one here is diminishing that. Cooler heads, not gorged on PC crap sandwiches and fearful of anger from those who serve them, are simply seeing it for what it is. Her being the first woman is diminished by virtue of her not having achieved her seat on the shuttle in straight up competition with other candidates for the job. That's too bad for her, but absolutely true nonetheless.

Feodor said...

If I were the commander, when it comes to operating the robotic arm I’d want an expert.

Which she was.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Thanks Marshall, for that eloquent response/rebuttal to Fedor.

Fedor has leveled to false accusations against me which he has yet to substantiate:

1. That I am a misogynist. A belief that ONE woman got her position based on PC does not make one a misogynist. In fact, if I were to prove MANY women got their positions by Affirmative Action rather than on merit or competition, that would still not make me a misogynist. As stated before, it is apparent you don't know what that word means and just use it to marginalize any debate.

2. That I am a non-reader. I could read a dozen books a day, read dozens more news sites or newspapers, read technical journals, etc and you would never know it. Without knowing my reading habits (which are quite extensive, by the way, as anyone who knows me would testify to), for you to charge me with being a non-reader for the sole reason I don't read something you may have read is the height of stupidity and an arrogant belief in mind-reading!

Now, was Sally Ride the ONLY robotic arm expert? I doubt that to be the case, since I've never seen any thing which would even hint at having only one expert on any of their equipment.

The discussion still boils down to whether Ride was a "hero," and the answer is "NO," unless you want to say all astronauts are heros.

Feodor said...


1. "A belief that ONE woman got her position based on PC does not make one a misogynist…”

Well, a belief that one incredibly prepared and brilliant expert in the development and operation of the shuttle’s robotic arm was picked as the mission specialist for that robotic arm just because she was a women does beg the question whether your are a misogynist.

And that you stick to your baseless judgment in the face of these substantial facts indicates that I’m on the right track.

What do you and Marshall know about the particular process of her appointment besides, now, these facts as I have found them?


2. I do believe you read, Glenn. It’s just that you read helicopter engineers for your biblical truths and blind biblicists for your science.

At least that who Marshall reads and you guys think alike.

Marshall Art said...

Feo can't let go of Olliff and Hodges having a better understanding of Scripture than he does. Talk about accomplishments, that one is both a helicopter engineer AND a darned good Biblical scholar is too much for feo who wants desperately for others to believe his insights are profound and deep, when they are only more dressed up regurgitations of already poor self-serving theologies.

And, Glenn, you point out the obvious flaw in feo's droolings that he has provided no proof that she was either the ONLY expert or even the best regarding robotic arms or anything else.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


Your arrogance in your "education" knows no bounds.

Even if I actually hated Sally Ride to the very depths of my heart (which I certainly don't), that would not make me a misogynist. It is extremely stupid to suggest such a thing. One can only be a misogynist if he hates women - PLURAL. But I guess that's what great education does for one's thinking processes.

Your #2 item about what I read again just demonstrates your complete stupidity to even think you know what I read. But I will tell you one thing: I get my biblical truths from the Bible - something that you have demonstrated to be absent from your studies.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

By the way,
I don't know any helicopter engineers, nor have I ever read anything by them.

But I do have a commercial pilot license, with both airplane (including multi-engined) and helicopter ratings, as well as instrument rating. But that has nothing to do with my studies of Scripture.

Feodor said...

You guys are way too hilarious!

Marshall extolling some guys who are akin to weekend, paintball Bible warriors and Glenn raising up his skills. Helicopter ratings… and instrument ratings!!!!! Gah!!!!

All while trying to tear down an astrophysicist who helped build a robotic arm for the space shuttle!!!

Too much. Way, way, way too much. You’re killing me!!!

Marshall Art said...

Ah. See how feo switches his ploy to now denigrating Glenn's achievements. And still, the fraud tries to insist our position is an attempt to tear down Ride's abilities. He doesn't know which way is up. Like my post on the athlete being denied for an opinion an Olympic committee doesn't like, where the point is the over-reaction of the committee, the point here regards the affirmative action policy that played a role in Ride's selection. Was she the only one who worked on developing the robotic arm that was already in use? More to the point, for whatever technical reason may have played a role in her selection, what does feo offer that proves her gender had NO role which, if it did, itself diminishes anything she did on her own? Only his desire that we be wrong in daring to give any attention to Schlussel's post.

And again, there is nothing in any of feo's alleged collegiate education that has furnished him with the least bit of the wisdom that he imagines he now possesses regarding Scripture or anything else. That is, nothing that has ever been evident in any of his overwrought and bullshit laden comments.

Ride's expertise has never been in question. What has been is whether or not it was of such a level that she deserved selection over anyone else, or whether her gender played a role. If her gender played a role, and it seems that it did given the push for women in space, then one cannot hold her up as anything special. If she was chosen because no one, male or female, could match her expertise, then kudos are in order. That does not seem to be the case. As such, as an astronaut, PHD, or even as a woman, "hero" is a term inappropriate in applying to her.

We simply do not use the term so loosely. Thus, any real slight on our part is directed to those who would apply it where it doesn't belong, not to the one on whom the term was applied.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You are so dense. You made a stupid comment about me reading from helicopter engineers, so I thought I make it into a bit of humor by stating my ratings - which included helicopter.

Too dense for humor, are you?

Feodor said...

You forget, Glenn, I was laughing at the bigger joke.

Marshall Art said...

You're the bigger joke, feo, in thinking you've made a noteworthy point. You pretend someone's understanding of Scripture is somehow diminished due to his career, when with your own educational background you can't seem to trump his sound reasoning. So you dismiss it due to that engineering background rather than the merits of his position.

Now, you dismiss Schlussel's position without providing anything in the way of proof that Ride achieved anything that hasn't been equaled by other astronauts, that she was the only choice based on her level of expertise rather than her gender.

Through it all, you insist on misogyny for our questioning those who selected her rather than any direct attack from us on her abilities.

Indeed. You are the bigger joke.

Feodor said...

I dismissed "Schlussel's position” because she did not “provid[e] anything in the way of proof that Ride [did not] achieve anything…”

And you swallowed it without thinking.

You ask from me to disprove ad hominem innuendo from her and you. In other words, you ask the senseless. Give what you have for evidence particular to Sally Ride and I’ll take that on.

Marshall Art said...

Schlussel's piece did not set out prove that Ride did not achieve anything. It was that her position wasn't solely based on any particular achievement that made her the most qualified for the selection, and instead pushed her ahead of more qualified people. The argument is sound given the climate of the times and the lack of experience on her part compared to that of those passed over in favor of her.

And I didn't swallow anything, since I didn't bring up the subject of Sally Ride, her death or her being elevated to hero status. That elevation by those willing to bestow the title on anyone that the left feels helps their agenda is a worthy point of speculation and scrutiny. Is she a hero? Why? How has her achievements made her worthy of the title? These and other questions are legitimate if others are to laud her existence and hype her impact on the culture. They are so of anyone who is called "hero".

Feodor said...

Schlussel’s piece is not an argument. She has no evidence pertaining to Sally Ride’s inclusion in a group of highly educated, trained, and proficient astronauts.

You trump up your non-argument by portraying everyone else as claiming Ride was The Preeminent Astronaut of the century - above everybody.

No one claims that.

The evidence available to all is that she was among a very small group of astronauts with expertise in the operation of the robotic arm and fit for the highly demanding tasks that are the normal part of being on the flight crew.

There are two dozen or more astronauts in the pool who, in addition to immense technical and physical readiness, also test out on the psychological exams. And even then, no astronaut flies with one shuttle after another. They are enlisted in turns.

She was one of the best. As are they all who make it to that point.

You and Schlussel can’t admit the obvious evidence because you both - and little Glenn - have an AGENDA. You are simply haters. Which is called misogyny.

Marshall Art said...

Try to pay attention, feo. No one on this side is portraying Ride as unworthy of a degree of accolades, but only that it is not a given that she totally earned her position on merit alone. Schlussel indeed provided evidence, even if you want to argue that to you it is not compelling. But given that there is no doubt that NASA began to seek "diversity" in selected astronauts, and that Ride came to be granted her place during this period, to question her selection on the basis of merit is legitimate.

The fact of the matter is that affirmative action, be it for matters or race OR gender, concerns itself with race or gender above selection of the best. It is legitimate to question such AA based selections as granting the limited opportunities of important work to anyone less than the absolute best available dilutes the chances for the best outcomes. Regardless of her abilities, if she was not the best available, she should not have been given the opportunity for which the best was then passed over. Can you offer proof that her first flight was the result of no better option being available, or are you simply buying into the notion that she was? As long as the ugly head of political correctness has arisen in NASA, we can't be sure.

Parklife said...

lol.. the ugly head of political correctness in 1983..

marsha.. in the opinion of the selection committee, she was the "best available". The people selecting apparently thought she was the best option. Where there other qualified applicants? Of course. Its embarrassing that you sit here, pounding sand at your computer, under the impression that you know more about the selection process than those people that actually selected her...nearly 30 years ago!

Would it matter to you if she were a "babe". Does that count in her application?

Feodor said...

“… only that it is not a given that she totally earned her position on merit alone.”

You and what’s her name have given no shred of evidence pertinent to Sally Ride’s appointment on Shuttle missions.

"But given that there is no doubt that NASA began to seek "diversity" in selected astronauts, and that Ride came to be granted her place during this period, to question her selection on the basis of merit is legitimate.”

NASA began to seek diversity is correct. It is logically true to say that when NASA decided to include women in its program, Sally Ride and all other women were now potential applicants.

Moronically simplistic, but logically true, nonetheless. I concede, Marshall, that Sally Ride applied to NASA when NASA said women could apply.

Then, of course, she had to earn her way thereafter. And did.

Whew. If that’s your point then, whoopeee!, what a grand one you and what’s her name have made.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Fedor goes back to the name-calling of “haters” because that is the last resort of a liberal when he is losing the debate.

As noted before, even if we did HATE Ride (which I certainly don’t), that would not make anyone a misogynist. A misogynist hates women period. I only dislike the politics that puts a woman or other minority ahead of those more qualified just satisfy their bean-counting.

Your false accusation of “hater” and “misogynist” is just like every other liberal claim of “hate” and “bigotry” - totally without evidence or substance.

Marshall Art said...

For both Parkie and feo,

Where's the evidence that Ride was the "best available" as opposed to "best woman available in order to demonstrate our 'diversity'"?

Feodor said...

I've given it you - preemptively: you've given no evidence to counter the many eulogies that she was.

Marshall Art said...

Really? I don't recall a link to any eulogies from you. I don't recall anything in any obit presented evidence that there were no better people available than her, that she was head and shoulders above any and all other contenders for the slot, nor have I seen any statements attesting to the fact that her gender played absolutely no role in her selection.

Marshall Art said...

BTW, kudos to Sally for being in the right place at the right time. I do not take anything away from anyone who benefits from AA policies as long as they are otherwise qualified. I doubt Glenn would disagree, nor would Schlussel.

Feodor said...

You really are dense aren't you?

1. She helped develop and was expert at operating the robotic arm on the Shuttle.

2. Point proven

Marshall Art said...

1. No one here disputes either. Not the point.

2. Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but your word isn't proof, and your version of events hasn't confirmed that only her abilities made her the best choice without AA policy pressure to find a woman to fill the role.

How dense must you be to continue to ignore these facts?

Feodor said...

There are only two facts, Marshall. One you’ve now conceded:

1. Sally Ride helped develop and was an expert at operating the robotic arm for the Shuttle.

(This is the sole factual evidence for considering her ultimately qualified for the mission, and that alone proves that the Commander was justified in asking her to be on his Challenger team.)

2. The other fact is negative. Neither you or I or Ms. Schlussel have access to any other factual evidence pertinent to Sally Ride’s appointment.

That is why point #1 is the sole fact here.

It’s not even a fact that misogyny and homophobia have combined in the twisted narrative that Ms. Schlussel weaves and that you swalllow day after day. To say so is only a judgment. And since I am way better educated than you, and so much more conversant with a diversity of views, I rest comfortable that God has prepared me for situations that require good judgment - in a way that God has done for you, having other purposes (bizarrely strange thought they may seem to us) for you.

Parklife said...

lol.. 140 posts in and the douche still cant make his point.

How long do we have to wait?

Marshall Art said...


I have not just conceded what I didn't previously refuse to accept. As stated more than once, no one on this side has said that Ride wasn't qualified. Do you even know how to read?

As to point 2, it is the lack of this info that plays a part in the suspicion of AA influence in her selection. Info available suggests it was on the rise at the time in NASA selection processes. To then wonder how much it played a part in Ride's selection is therefor logical and legitimate. Nothing is "swallowed" but by you in supposing that it couldn't in any way have played a part during such a period and under such policies in play at the time. Thus, I am again pushed away from believing that you "better education" has provided you with anything akin to wisdom or true intelligence. You show neither here.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie the troll,

You wouldn't know a point if it was plunged into your chest. You've never made one nor understood any made here. In the meantime, therefor, you and the frog in your pocket will have to wait until after such time as you have lodged a thoughtful and articulate comment anywhere at any blog that I write or read. I fear that day will never come because you lack the capacity to eliminate that fear.

Feodor said...

Can’t do anything about your suspicions, Marshall. Nor do I want to.

But I’m glad to see you in enough frame of right mind to downgrade your "facts” to your prejudicial suspicions.

Medication may help you further with your gnarly suspicions.

Marshall Art said...

Once again, feo, my suspicions aren't being put forth here. I've only been defending legitimate suspicions put forth by others that you have totally failed assuage. No one doubts that whoever selected Ride found her qualified. But it was more than suggested that her selection was a result of the AA policies set in motion at the time, and the source Schlussel cites is merely the one she had chosen. Are there more sources that agree it was the case? Who cares? What's clear here is that you've provided nothing to counter it. Are you really suggesting that affirmative action sentiments are isolated and confined to only certain areas of human existence? That NASA is immune to pressures of political correctness?

Feodor said...

"legitimate suspicions” is an oxymoron that no amount of reason can assuage.

You kept asking for evidence and facts - which I gave - but Schlussel did not begin with any facts known to be pertinent to Sally Ride’s achievements.

And you boy, Glenn, said she accomplished nothing and was not qualified, by the way. A position you’ve agreed is illegitimate.

Marshall Art said...

You have indeed NOT given evidence to support your implication of complete objectivity in the selection of Ride, which is the point of contention. Schlussel at the very least provides something that alludes to her position as having basis in fact. You simply insist that there's nothing to it without any evidence whatsoever related directly to that point of contention. More to the point, you have only provided your opinions and expect us to take your word for it, without any hard evidence such as a link to any official from NASA confirming that no one else measured up to Ride insofar as her level of ability and qualification. For example, to take part in the development of the robotic arm is a very general statement that could mean anything from being the most indispensable person without whom no robotic arm would be available, or the chick who got coffee and filed the paperwork or something somewhere in between.

And "my boy" Glenn was speaking relative to all other candidates for the job and that her accomplishments and qualifications were not so great as to justify passing over other possibilities. Try to be honest or seek help with your comprehension. (of course it's not a comprehension problem with you as much as the desire to demonize your opponents)

Parklife said...

"the chick who got coffee"

lol.. Did somebody say misogyny?

btw.. Still waiting for you to show anything negative about Sally Ride.

Marsha just creates hypothetical situations then nitpicks around her accomplishments. Im sure that makes him feel good about himself.

Feodor said...

There is no "point of contention” - just unfounded suspicions, as you’ve said.

[You need to be more consistent with your sense to be credible, Marshall. You’re sloppy and all over the place of late.]

Not needing to respond to factual evidence - there being none put forward by Schlussel on which to found suspicions - I provided the only facts pertinent to Sally Ride’s supreme qualifications.

Marshall Art said...

Did somebody say, "Hey, everyone! I'm stupid!"? Yes. Someone did. That would be Parkie the troll.

Ben, you sad little cretin,

You don't understand the word "misogyny".

You'll have to wait forever to for anyone to show anything negative about Ride, since no one here is interested in doing so, except you for bringing her up on the announcement of her lesbianism.

As for feeling good about myself, all I need do is read comments from lefties, particularly really stupid ones like yourself, and I feel great that I am not a lefty. But even that isn't necessary in order for me to feel good about myself. I just naturally do. I can't help it. I'm just so blessed by God.

Parklife said...

The Douche!
"except you for bringing her up on the announcement of her lesbianism"

umm.. how is her private sex life something negative?

Still dont get why you hate her so much. Jeesshh.. all she did was work hard her whole life and inspire others. Why do you hate these attributes? Why do you hate the American spirit?

"You don't understand the word "misogyny"."

Ahh.. yes.. please explain how calling somebody a "chick" is not demeaning.

"As for feeling good about myself..."

LOL! The Douche has spoken!

Feodor said...

Further evidence of the exceptional Sally Ride:

Marshall Art said...


Thanks for the unnecessary and irrelevant link, feo. But until you can confirm that AA played no part, you will not have addressed the point of contention.

Ben the cretin,

Thanks for another worthless comment demonstrating your abject stupidity. You are truly expert, making it look so incredibly easy.

Keep in mind also that if I'm a "douche", that makes you the foul odor that requires a douche. But I liken you more to a herpes than to a mere bacteria.

Parklife said...

The Douche!
You and I actually agree that you are a douche, dont try to take that away from us.

Feodor said...

Why do I have to disprove allegations you’ve backed up that have given no factual evidence in the particular case of Sally Ride?

Even so, I’ve given conclusive factual evidence to argue the opposite.

Marshall Art said...


Like that herpes, you just keep on giving! Can you provide any proof that I agree with you that I'm a douche? Can you little troll?

Marshall Art said...


I don't have time to keep reading through all the comments, and I'm not sure my stomach can handle reading yours multiple times. You've given nothing to show the suspicion of Ride's selection being influenced by AA is unfounded. Nothing in the least. No links. No quotes. Nothing. The reason why you need to provide them is because you insist that it wasn't the case. Personally, I don't care one way or the other if it was. I'm not the one who brought up Ride or her selection. Glenn provided Schlussel's piece and you've provided nothing but "is not". In fact, Parkie the cretin, who is obsessed with defending all things homosexual, likely because he is one, brought up Ride in one of his usual off topic cracks meant to be clever.

The suspicion of Ride's selection might be nothing more, but is not without basis, as Schlussel's link points out. That is ALL that was ever suggested here. Nothing about Ride's abilities, smarts or anything else. Untwist your panties (and then help Parkie with his diaper) and relax. If you don't have anything to put it to rest, don't sweat it. You're still my go-to false priest.

Feodor said...

You’re trying to purify yourself from another of your missteps: Schlussel’s article does not point to any basis. And you swallowed it with vigor.

Parklife said...

"Can you provide any proof that I agree with you that I'm a douche?"

Umm.. yes.. You said at one point, after I called you a douche, that you were and made up some reason why this would be a good thing. I've stated several times that we agree on this topic and you have not complained so far.

"who is obsessed with defending all things homosexual"

lol... you mean after you drop some homophobic comment and I come by to point it out to you. I guess Im defending fellow honest Americans from the Reich wing of the republican party. Jesus would be proud.

The best part about my original Sally Ride comment is that marsha continues to comment on it. He grabbed onto some nutty commentary and waddled off down the same path.

Marsha, there is no suspicion about her selection. You made that up in the hollow chamber of your head. We are all waiting for you, or Glenny, to give any proof of your wild accusations. About all that you have shown is what a douche you really are.

Marshall Art said...


Just so it's clear, I'm not all that concerned about what a cretin like you might say about me. If you need to believe that I agree with you, why you just go right ahead with your little fantasies. Your opinion, such as it is, is of no concern since it has no value.

Marshall Art said...


The basis is NASA's admitted move to attract women to the program. Are you that stupid and Parkie-like to pretend otherwise? With such an imperative, to wonder to what level gender played a role, especially considering qualified people were already available, does not even require a stretch of imagination. That you, and that boil on your ass, Parkie, would pretend total objectivity and completely merit based procedures in light of this admission by NASA demands proof from you. You've provided none. Any further comment from you or the boil without such proof is just more dancing.

Parklife said...

"The basis is NASA's admitted move to attract women to the program."

Lol.. wow.. you are stoopid! Just how dark is it inside your ass?

"With such an imperative, to wonder to what level gender played a role, especially considering qualified people were already available"

LoL.. nope.. not misogyny.. no way.. nope nope nope. How dare you even consider such things!

Parklife said...

"With such an imperative, to wonder to what level gender played a role, especially considering qualified people were already available"

lol.. amazingly that comment is also racist! marsha.. you have outdone yourself today! All we need is a homophobic comment and you can hit for the cycle.

Marshall Art said...

Perhaps when you can explain what was misogynistic or racist, I'll give you one, just for you. I won't hold my breath. You're only capable of throwing out accusations without even knowing what they mean. If you did, you'd be all over me with clear, cogent explanations for them. You never come across with any, so you're just a sad little cretin.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...


You have so much patience with these fools.

Marshall Art said...

You don't set terms here, little troll. And if you truly hate "wasting" your time here (as if you have anything important to do before SpongeBob comes on), that is easily remedied, isn't it, cretin?

Parklife said...

Never said I set the terms. Just let me know when you get a base of knowledge and we can go from there. Meh.. its up to you. 'Till then, youre still a racist and misogynist. But, not necessarily in that order!