Batwoman is a lesbian!

[socal_rob]

The only thing I would like to note is that Social Rob continues to use examples of a few to stereotype the many when dicussing Christians. You are the one with hatred inside you Rob. Your posts reek of it.

Hatred, no. Frustration, yes. I respect TRUE Christians. I do not respect those who claim to be Christian, yet use their faith to justify bigotry.

Also, your futile attempt to back up your statement that homosexuality is a genetic, bological, or simply anything other than choice was based on the Swedish study examining the reaction of a brain. Well this does not show anything of the sort. It is comparable to Pavlov's dog salivating when the dinner bell rings. Learned behavior.

Um, I think you need to head back to high school biology. The body's response to pheromones cannot be learned. It is a biological effect. The body encounters pheromones and reacts. There's nothing learned about it. Pavlov's dogs learned that bell = food. Eventually - and the key point is, eventually - they became conditioned to where they salivated when the bell rang in anticipation of food. In the case of the Swedish study, people were subjected to pheromones and the brain's response was measured. In the case of gay men and heterosexual women, the response was the same to male pheromones. Heterosexual men did not respond to the pheromones of other men; instead, they responded to female pheromones. There is absolutely no learned behavior here.

My problem is I am tired of people claiming that it is scientific fact that homosexuality is a genetic or biological condition. It is not scientific fact. That's all I am saying, that's why I asked for proof, and once again, it cannot be proven.

It's pretty darn hard to prove anything with 100% certainty. However, once can gather evidence and make reasonable conclusions. Has it been proven with absolute certainty that gay people are born gay? Not yet. But there is a pile of evidence that suggests homosexuality is biological in nature. Scientists have identified genes that govern sexuality for goodness sakes. So, in the end, there is evidence that sexuality is biologically determined. There is no evidence that it is a choice. And who would know better than gay people if it's a choice. Ask them. They'll all say no. So, either every gay person is lying or perhaps there's something to the biological argument after all.

Social Rob, you assume because I am unwilling to believe the fruitless claims of your community that I am some sort of gay-hater. I am not. I am a BS hater.

My community? Which community would that be? The free thinking one? And just like you, I am a BS hater. And saying that gay people choose their orientation is nothing but grade A+ BS.

You all have the right to do whatever you like, just don't distort the truth to make yourselves sound like poor victims of nature in order to justify it. If you are gay, and you like being gay, then be gay - without an explanation. It is pitiful to cower behind lies just because so many look down upon it. If you are comfortable with it then you shouldn't need to get anyone's consent.

What is pitiful is the "loving Christians" out there who subject gay people to all sorts of dehumanizing rhetoric, who bash them, who kill them, who subject them to pointless conversion therapy. The only people cowering behind a lie are those who believe sexuality is a choice. You didn't choose your heterosexuality, did you? No more than a gay person chose his or her homosexuality.

You just can't stand the idea that your "loving" God made gay people. So you lie about it. Gay people have to choose their orientation or you can't exactly look down upon them, can you? Maybe you don't hate them, but you do look down upon them. And you certainly don't want to show them the same respect you show other members of society.

Why it is so important for homosexuals to somehow justify their actions by trying to instill false beliefs unto society?

Because the beliefs aren't false. The idiotic false belief is the one that gay people choose their orientation. I've offered several bits of evidence - from scientific study to direct interviews - as proof that gay people are born gay. You have offered nothing - nada, zip, zilch - that gay people choose their orientation. Because you can't offer anything. All you can do is repeat the lie over and over and over again - and hope it sticks.

Luckily it is not sticking. Just look at the poll numbers. Each year more and more people accept that homosexuality is biological in nature. When I was in high school, there were no openly gay kids. Today gay kids take dates to the prom - and other kids could care less.

Why would it be so difficult to admit that you just prefer things that way? I'll tell you why - it's because you seek acceptance from those who would normally or naturally be repulsed by it, so you appeal to them as victims. It is cowardly. A very effective tactic, yes, but very cowardly.

How is love in any form repulsive? Or, are you also just fixated on the sex act?

Lastly, as for the one example of the guy in DC and the "therapy" you mentioned (again one example to try to describe the norm)...
I mentioned no therapy, you did. I am speaking of men and women that CHOSE to turn from that "lifestyle". They exist and I have personally met and discussed these very topics with them. They only strengthen my viewpoint.

I'm sure you've met some very sad gay people who have forced themselves back into the closet. I don't doubt this. But that doesn't mean they aren't gay. It just means they are doing everything possible to will themselves to be straight. The guy in DC is just one example of what happens when someone who chooses to deny his/her true identity finally breaks. And they do break. Over and over and over again. So, maybe the people you've met talk a good game. Maybe they even believe it themselves. But eventually, they will collapse under the weight of the lie - and seek out a guy on the Internet, or visit a gay bar on a business trip, or whatever. As they say, the leopard doesn't change its spots.

So, in the end, you offer no proof, no evidence, nothing to justify your bigotry. And all of the proof I've offered is somehow tainted or faulty. How convenient. Yet another example of how dogma enslaves the mind.

 

[socal_rob]

After just getting off the road for 13 hrs. (755 mi. in a day).................

#1: as to the original post, batwoman is not real.......I could care less about "her" sexual orientation. I think children should first be taught the differnce between "real" and "not real" (ie: video games, movies, comics). They learn a whole lot on their own, but seem to need direction with this.

#2: SoCal......science does lie, although they don't know it at the time (re: the earth is flat, man can't fly, etc., etc.) Heck, we might actually discover that E DOESN'T equal MC squared.......who knows? As mudwoman has pointed out to me, ART doesn't lie....it's from the heart of the artist. Science seeks the truth, but along the way, they are very often wrong.

#3: I am a Christian, but I wear it in my heart and not on my sleeve. It's sad to see that so many are unbelieving, but, alas, it just shows that the Holy Spirit's work is not yet done. So the world goes on.....yes it sucks, it always has (in my lifetime, anyway), and so we go our faulty ways and try to improve it. Intolerance is not the way, in my humble opinion.

#4: SoCal, I appreciate the fact that, although you don't seem to be a believer, you do at least show the respect of capitalization (Jesus, Christ, God, etc.)

#5: OutOfStep....you crack me up!! I like your outlook. Politics sucks, in my humble opinion. If you want to label me anything, label me "left handed"........you will be absolutely correct. Other than that, all this "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative", "Republican", "Democrat", etc. is just a bunch of BS!!!! Think for yourselves.

#6: So people being born homosexual shows God is faulty?????? I don't believe so. Perhaps he's testing our tolerance???.......I don't question God's plan for us..........He is the only one that knows. I believe His message is love one another......very, very hard thing to do, but I'm trying. Just another faulty human being, but I'm trying.

#7: I'm very tired and going to bed.


mud

Thank you for this wonderful example of TRUE Christianity.

You are right, I am not a believer. As an organized religion, I think Christianity has brought immense misery to the world primarily because most people who claim to be Christians do not behave in a Christian manner. I have developed my own ideas about where we come from and why we are here. And I am comfortable with the idea that no one has all of the answers, nor will they ever.

However, I have the utmost respect for anyone who truly abides by Christ's teachings and seeks to bring harmony, not dischord, to the world in His name. Use your faith to justify bigotry and I will show no respect whatsoever. Show love and, while I may not share your spiritual beliefs, I will show nothing but respect in return.

 

[socal_rob]

Now, have all the fun you want refuting the points above, like I predicted you would.

Actually, I find them very interesting. These are substantive points (although I have no idea where you get the 1090 electrons in the known universe...). I would far rather (for now) explore - than refute - any of them.

As far as I'm concerned, we're just as likely to be a computer simulation or some alien kid's science fair project as we are anything else. Heck, maybe we're inside the matrix. Sometimes this whole thing feels like a giant experiment.

I have no problem with other people's belief systems, creation theories, or anything else, so long as they aren't used to discriminate and demean other people. I don't believe in stating a conclusion and then seeking out data to support it, as creationists so often do. However, you've given me some interesting points to chew on. So, thanks!

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Rob, I admire your candor in stating your beliefs about Christianity as a whole, and I agree. I consider myself a Christian, not by the church but by the teachings of Christ. I rarely go to church anymore, and when I do it is to appease my mother or my wife. As my father always said, "Going to church no more makes me a Christian than standing in the garage makes me a Chevy." My father lived the teachings of Christ, and was my example to follow that led me down the right path in life (though I'll admit I strayed into some pretty dark alleys along the way).

Harry and 90, I gotta say, you guys are losing the debate. I take exception to your comments, Harry, that you don't have to prove your side, that Rob only has to prove his side. That's not the way it works, bud. As far as I'm concerned, had you provided one scintilla of evidence to support your "choice" theory, and Rob had provided none to support his, I would say you were winning the debate. Your belief that being gay is a choice is just that, a theory. However, you keep saying that Rob's belief that it is a born trait is theory, and therefore he must prove it, but you don't have to. Wrong. He's consistently asked both you and 90 for proof of your theory, and you have failed repeatedly to provide it, instead you keep stating over and over that you don't have to prove it.

For the sake of debate, let's see some proof. Rob's done his part, now you and 90 do your part.'

It's been a good debate so far, albeit rather one-sided as far as showing any evidence, and there have been few nasty remarks made (guilty). Let's keep it wholesome and keep it going, if you can find something to back your claim.

 

[90Xjay]

Actually, I find them very interesting. These are substantive points (although I have no idea where you get the 1090 electrons in the known universe...).

That was a typo. I was trying to type 10 to the 90th power.

 

[TwistedCU]

I take exception to your comments, Harry, that you don't have to prove your side, that Rob only has to prove his side. That's not the way it works, bud.

You, as well as Rob or anyone else, need to understand that my issue as stated in my very first post was with people making a claim based on theory. Call it a theory if you want, but it is not accurate to call it fact.

but hey - that's what we as a society do today. In our society, whatever seems "nicer", or more politically correct is what is made to be a standard, regardless of it's validity.

What I am going to do here, rather than spout off results of information or study from either (or likely biased) source, is explain my take:

AS FOR GOD'S HAND IN IT...

No, God did not make anyone a homosexual. We are born into a sinful world. Some of us have desires for one sin, some of us for others. Many men struggle with lusting after other women, even after they marry. Some men lust after just about anyone - man or woman, some lust after men. Lust is a sin. It is just as sinful for someone to commit adultry or to fornicate as it is for someone to engage in homosexuality or any other sexual perversion.

We were made in God's image, then we fell. Our lives on Earth are full of choices of free will. Sin is not from God. It is worldly, and a result of man's separation from God caused by original sin. To live a Godly life takes strength and perserverance to resist the temptation of sin - no matter what sin that may be.

To say it is biological does not mean we were created that way by God. I do not submit to it being biological, but I want to clarify that physical defects are not from God, they are a result of sin in the world. God does not give someone cancer, nor depression, nor homosexual tendancies. To say that Christians or anyone else is argueing the biology/choice issue to protect their beliefs or their God is wrong and shows a lack of understanding of Christianity.

It is a choice, yes. Maybe that choice is simple for some and a daily struggle for others. Just as some people struggle with lying, stealing, addiction, boasting, lusting, smoking (there's one of mine ), or any other sin. The choice is not to have the desire, but to act upon it.

Understand? I do not doubt for a second that some people are more likely to have these urges. We make choices everyday to act or not act on sinful urges. Anyone who says they don't are not being completely honest.

I'm done.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

I'm done.

And still you have not given one bit of evidence to support your theory that homosexuality is a choice. Instead you gave a rambling essay of your perception of what God has done or hasn't done.

First of all, not one mortal being knows beyond a shadow of a doubt what God has in mind for anyone, nor what he has done or will do. Nobody knows whether God has given Man cancer, birth defects, depression, or any other malady. I have heard it both ways from laymen and clergy: God doesn't give us bad things because he is a loving God. God does give us bad things because he wants us to overcome them and have a greater faith and appreciation for life.

Second, your post still makes it seem as though you believe the whole "choice" issue to be fact, because afterall, God wouldn't do that and science is secondary to religion, so therefore, it must be true.

Third, when you start preaching religion as a basis to support your theory, you must realize that not all who will read your opinion will be believers. There will always be agnostics and atheists, so anything you try to tell them dealing with what God does or doesn't do is wasted time. The debate over choice vs. genetics is scientific, not religious, so therefore you need to present your theory with some scientific evidence, not something ethereal such as your personal religious belief.

I am in no way belittling your faith. I am very glad you have such a strong faith in God, however, you also need to realize that not everyone in the world will have that faith, the same God, or any God. What you are doing is no different than arguing with a meteorologist that says it's going to rain, based on what he sees on satellite images, forecast models, frontal boundaries, etc., and telling him it isn't because the Farmer's Almanac says it is supposed to be dry, warm, and sunny. Science over folklore. Tangible evidence over personal belief.

I know I will never change your mind on this issue, and that's ok. Your beliefs don't affect me directly. But, I would still like to see you put forth some type of tangible evidence on the subject, otherwise I will hold to the opinion that you have lost this debate.

 

[90Xjay]

The Gay Gene?
by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover

___________________________________


National Merit Scholar William Howard Taft High School 1965

Humanities and Science S.B.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1971 ('69)

Clinical Psychology in Public Practice Ed.M. Harvard University (GSE) 1973


Fine Art Ecole Supérieure des Beaux-Arts de Genève 1974-1975


William James Lectureship in Psychology and Religion (or) Harvard University 1975


Psychoanalysis Dipl. C. G. Jung Institute, Zurich 1976


Medicine M.D. University of Texas Medical School at Houston 1982


Pediatric Rotation Prize University of Texas Medical School at Houston 1982


Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Society University of Texas Medical School at Houston 1982


Internship in Internal Medicine with Neurology Yale University School of Medicine 982-1983


Fellowship in Adult Psychiatry Yale University School of Medicine 1983-1985


Seymour Lustman Research Award in Psychiatry for research conducted during the residency in psychiatry (second prize)


Yale University School of Medicine 1983 & 1985


Falk/Burroughs-Wellcome Fellow of the APA Yale University School of Medicine 1983-1985


Fellowship in Child Psychiatry Yale Child Study Center 1985-1986


Special Student in Mathematics & Physics Yale University 1996-2001

Clinical Lecturer in Psychiatry Yale University School of Medicine 1987-1989

NARTH Fellow Award 1998

Graduate Student & Teaching Fellow in Physics Yale University 2001-2003


Physics M.S. Yale University 2003


Visiting Lecturer in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law Princeton University 2004


Candidat Doctoral en Physique Pluridisciplinaire Laboratoire de Physique de la Matière Condenseé, Université Nice et Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique


2004-
_______________________________

His article on the topic.

Of course, everyone knows it’s true, right? It was reported on National Public Radio, in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, after all. “Research Points Toward a Gay Gene,” the Journal said. “Report Suggests Homosexuality Is Linked to Genes,” read the Times.

They were all reporting the release of a study in Science magazine in July 1993 that purported to find a genetic cause for homosexuality. Though the necessary caveats were added to the news stories, most people would already have turned off the radio or turned the page, thinking that homosexuality is caused by a gene.

But can you believe everything you read in the paper? Is there such a thing as a gay gene?

In the study the media was trumpeting, molecular geneticist Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a new kind of behavioral genetics study now becoming widespread — the so-called “linkage study.” Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family and is correlated to a chromosomal variant found in the genetic material of that family. Hamer’s study identified a link on the q28 region of the X chromosome in homosexual males.

Defining Terms

Even though a trait may have a chromosomal link, it does not necessarily mean it is genetic. Genetic traits are those, such as eye colors, that are coded for us by genes alone.

Each human gene can be thought of as a book that provides a complex set of instructions for the synthesis of a single protein. These proteins are then responsible for forming and operating everything else in the body.

Behavioral traits, such as weight, are influenced by genetics, but unlike genetic traits, most behavioral traits are programmed by multiple genes and things such as the environment in the womb, the mother’s health habits or postnatal effects of a virus. All of these and more may combine and influence one another throughout a lifetime. Behavioral traits, as opposed to simple, single-gene physiologic traits such as eye color, always interact in this way.

Demonstrating that any behavioral state is not only biological but genetic is well beyond our present research capacity. This is especially true for something so complex and nuanced as homosexuality. One psychiatric researcher, Brian Suarez, calculated that at least 8,000 people would be required for a study to confirm a behavioral trait as genetic. No study of homosexuality has come remotely close to these requirements.

Contested Evidence

As it is, the Hamer study is seriously flawed. Four months after its publication in Science, a critical commentary appeared in the same publication. It took issue with the many assumptions and questionable use of statistics that underlie Hamer’s conclusions, but not with his research methods and raw data, which met acceptable standards for linkage studies.

Genetics researchers from Yale, Columbia and Louisiana State Universities noted that much of the Hamer report focused on social and political ramifications of genetic homosexuality rather than discussing scientific evidence. They also indicated that the results were not consistent with any genetic model and should be interpreted cautiously.

Hamer responded, indicating that his research was not conclusive that Xq28 underlies sexuality, only that it contributes to it in some families, and that its influence was statistically detectable in the population that he studied.

Hamer gave another report in a 1994 issue of Science devoted to behavioral genetics. He indicated that complex behavioral traits are the product of multiple genetic and environmental agents. He clarified that “environment” meant not only social environment but also the flux of hormones during development, whether you were lying on your right or left side in the womb and a number of other factors.

Science revisited the topic this year, publishing two articles questioning supposed links to a gay gene. Both articles reference an independent genetic study conducted in Canada in 1989 with research continuing today by four researchers from the University of Western Ontario and Stanford Medical School. This study used 52 pairs of gay siblings from 48 families. Hamer’s research used 40 homosexual brother pairs. The study concluded, “It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer’s original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al., we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position Xq28.”

In other words, any claim to have found a “gay gene” were overblown if not outright wrong.

Figuring It All Out

What can we conclude about the biology of homosexuality? Consider a comprehensive review article, “Human Sexual Orientation: The Biological Theories Reappraised,” written by William Byne and Bruce Parsons from Columbia University in 1993.

The article reviews 135 research studies, prior reviews, academic summaries, books, and chapters of books — in essence the entire literature on homosexuality, of which only a small portion is actual research. The abstract summarized in its findings that there is no evidence at present to substantiate that biological factors are the primary basis for sexual orientation.

Whatever genetic contribution to homosexuality exists, it probably contributes not to homosexuality per se, but rather to some other trait that makes the homosexual “option” more readily available to some than others.

Most studies to date have many flaws. Some are caused by the intrusion of political agendas into what should be objective research, and some are due to the complex nature of the subject. These flaws must temper any conclusions we make. It is premature, and will almost certainly prove to be incorrect, to state that homosexuality is genetic.

 

[TwistedCU]

Sparky,
What I have done, is proven that it is not a fact that it is genetic. I have proven it to be merely a theory. That was my only claim.

When someone makes a statement, then is asked to support it, a very easy out is for them to reply with "prove me wrong".
One could make fruitless claims all day long but to say they are accurate becaus they cannot be disproven is assinine. Rob himself admitted it was not proven... My point is made, and your request is futile (although 90Xjay just posted the most concrete evidence brought forth in this discussion yet).

I consider myself a Christian, not by the church but by the teachings of Christ. I rarely go to church anymore, and when I do it is to appease my mother or my wife.

The Church is the body of Christ.

Oh, and your statements about what we know about God are wrong from a Biblical standpoint. Want me to prove that?

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Sparky,
What I have done, is proven that it is not a fact that it is genetic. I have proven it to be merely a theory. That was my only claim.

When someone makes a statement, then is asked to support it, a very easy out is for them to reply with "prove me wrong".
One could make fruitless claims all day long but to say they are accurate becaus they cannot be disproven is assinine. Rob himself admitted it was not proven... My point is made, and your request is futile (although 90Xjay just posted the most concrete evidence brought forth in this discussion yet).

Then in essence, you are saying that you are no more right on this debate than I or Rob.

The Church is the body of Christ.

That statement is true. However, the Church that is the body of Christ is not a building, not a weekly session of sermons and songs. The Church that is mentioned in that statement is the congregation of his believers worldwide. I do attend that Church. I just rarely attend a church.

Oh, and your statements about what we know about God are wrong from a Biblical standpoint. Want me to prove that?

Yes, tell me exactly what god has planned for you tomorrow. Prove to me that he did not create cancer. Tell me what he is thinking right at this moment in time.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Oh, and 90? Very good! That's exactly what I've been waiting for. Now your arguement holds a little water. However, I still have seen more on the other side to show a tendency to it being a trait from birth.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

And, to answer your original post before you edited it:

Sparky,

What version of the Bible do you read?

I read the King James Version and the NIV.

I know where you are going with this, so let me cut you off at the pass. We all know God's plan for us as far as being good Christians and recieving the Kingdom on our passing. Any second-grader can give that answer. That's not what I meant. I want you to show me exactly what God is thinking, exactly what He has planned for you tomorrow, the next day, the next day and so on.

 

[TwistedCU]

Yes, tell me exactly what god has planned for you tomorrow. Tell me what he is thinking right at this moment in time.[/QUOTE]
Wow, those are pretty big demands, there Sparko. You and I both know that I cannot. Now tell me what made you think I made a claim like that?!?!?!?!?

Prove to me that he did not create cancer.

That, I can prove.

BUT

before I do, I am going to take your approach... Prove that he did.

That's your tactic, so have at it.

Then in essence, you are saying that you are no more right on this debate than I or Rob.

Nope. read thoroughly next time.

I do attend that Church. I just rarely attend a church.

I'm well aware what it means, but what you wrote above is very interesting nonetheless.

So, you sit at home and read the 2 versions of the Bible that you read, not fully believing in them because of "translation and language barriers" that you claimed in another thread, drawing your own conclusions... but you want to lecture me on what I wrote when it comes straight from the book?

I'm done with you. I learned not to debate you long ago, as all you do is go in circles and make shots in the dark.

Buh-bye

oh, 1 TImothy 4:4 may help you a bit...

 

[mud4feet]

........... I was told to never argue with an idiot.......

Oh, Mods???? The name calling has begun. I don't believe this is what jumppr had in mind. Can we lock this thing, or do I have to call on Batwoman?:???:

disgusted mud

 

[JeepMonkey]

Seriously! This is not what I had in mind. I regret posting it and I probably won't ever post anything like this again. I should've known better and now I do. From now on if I want to post stuff like this then I'll go to the DC comics forum!

 

[90Xjay]

It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle at this point.:-|

If it violates policy and or offends folks....I vote to lock it up.

 

[TwistedCU]

The name calling has begun.

Sorry, I got carried away. I edited it out (although Sparky will probably repost my "original post" as he usually does.

I am very disappointed with myself for once again getting into a descussion with Sparky. They never go anywhere and always end ugly. This time I was at fault.

Locking doesn't matter to me at this point, I said I'm done and I am. The only reason for this last post was the need for an apology for the comment to Sparky Watts.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

I was told to never argue with an idiot, that it may confuse people.

Yeah, that was a real Christian attitude.:roll:

Yes, tell me exactly what god has planned for you tomorrow. Tell me what he is thinking right at this moment in time.

Wow, those are pretty big demands, there Sparko. You and I both know that I cannot. Now tell me what made you think I made a claim like that?!?!?!?!?

Oh, and your statements about what we know about God are wrong from a Biblical standpoint. Want me to prove that?

That's what made me think you made a claim like that.

That, I can prove.

No, you can't and you won't. Instead, you've reverted back to your old self that always comes out in these posts and turned to the name calling and nastiness. And you've gone back to your old ways of rather than facing a challenge accusing me of "talking in circles and taking shots in the dark" when you know you've been cornered. That's sad, Harry. Really sad. I thought you were sincere after our last big fight when you said you would change, but I guess I was wrong, huh? Well, at least you apologized this time.....of course after being called out and threatened with moderation. That's too bad, I was really starting to have faith in you again, and enjoying debating you, but apparently you can't handle losing, so I won't debate you anymore. I'll still ask your opinions on Jeep stuff, as I have great respect for you in that realm. On a personal level, however, I have lost that respect. I had lost it before, but thought you had changed and gained some of it back. Burn me once......well, you know.

Buh-bye

oh, 1 TImothy 4:4 may help you a bit...

Buh-bye

oh, Genesis 1:1 through Revelations 22:21 may help you a bit....especially Revelations 22:21.:roll:

And to the Moderators, I also vote for this thread to be locked. It was going well until post #113. Pretty much every other post was relatively intelligent and well thought out, making points for or against the issue.

 

[laxpug19]

Why Is Everybody Yellinggg :d

 

[Laph]

Why Is Everybody Yellinggg :d

I think it is because they belive that somone will get their point and understand where they are coming from by yelling. They don't understand that yelling in somones ear isn't going to make them understand.