Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 your original farfetched remark was answered thoroughly many days ago. specifically addressed were your mischaracterizations of the publications you referred to, and, in painstaking detail, why your comments were a reaction to the voices in your head and nothing else. are we going to be treated to an "is not!" retort from you every other week now?<br><br>as stated, your crusty, old, rotting "prism of gay sex" non sequitur bore no relation to anything anyone had written previously, as no one had mentioned the word or implied the concept of "gay" or "sex." it was your creation from whole cloth, apparently after perusing my website, where, what do you know! you were informed that i am gay! in 2001! how revolutionary!<br><br>the ensuing anti-gay attacks have been commented upon by several others, articulately and objectively, and with admirable restraint. as they had never run through my imagination with video cameras, i guess they too must have been reacting to the bile-infused essays you and others had posted. (by the way, my imagination is filled with pretty sights and sounds. something to do with practicing yoga -- you might give it a shot.)<br><br>ironic, is it not, that as one of the few people here actually practicing brahmacharya i seem to have become a magnet for sex-obsessed repressives like yourself?<br><br>your fluttering about has served a useful purpose though, as it did introduce the topic of one fifth of one limb of the ashtanga - brahmacharya. so let me repeat yet again something i was taught and that my experience has proven: brahmacharya is a spiritual resolution of sensual desire. it is an element one chooses for oneself at one time or another as one's broader practice naturally embraces it. brahmacharya should not be mistaken for a neurotic urge to repress one's own impulses or to judge or restrict the personal choices of others. that would be as yogic as surgically removing muscles to increase flexibility. the christian coalition's pat robertson fretting puritanically about the godless homosexual lifestyle and the godless hindus in the same breath may make sense to you, but most in the civilised world find him to be demogogic, at best funny without being vulgar.<br><br>cont'd>>>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2001 Report Share Posted April 7, 2001 But that's just the point: Vulgarity. Yours.<br><br>That is, your comments about "huge orifices" was vulgar, and obviously was related to your sexual orientation -- which orientation, btw, you announced *immediately* upon entering this club.<br>I never visited your website.<br><br>Just because you're called out on your behavior here, doesn't make others "gay-bashers." And again, that you so quickly resort to such perjorative labels in defense of your vulgarity makes you, IMO...well, you remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2001 Report Share Posted April 8, 2001 the record speaks for itself. no he said/she said necessary. there are message boards where you can express your agitation over anything gay among those sharing your interesting obsession. this is not one of them. move on now, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.