Path:
Supernews69!supernews.com!firehose.mindspring.com!news.mindspring.com!ip77.sea
t
tle3.wa.pub-ip.psi.net!user
From: rpvb3@mindspring.com (Bob Van Burkleo)
Newsgroups:
alt.pagan,alt.censorship,rec.org.mensa,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet,alt.re
l
igion.christian,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism,alt.homosexual,alt.politics.homos
e
xuality
Subject: Re: WHY? Baptist Boycott Is Bigoted Buffoonery
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 22:25:34 -0700
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
Lines: 226
Message-ID: 
References:  

 
 
 











NNTP-Posting-Host: ip77.seattle3.wa.pub-ip.psi.net
Xref: Supernews69 alt.pagan:238561 alt.censorship:169914 rec.org.mensa:216795
talk.religion.misc:318002 alt.christnet:291876 alt.religion.christian:263127
soc.culture.usa:220856 alt.activism:328566 alt.homosexual:147163
alt.politics.homosexuality:188921
In article , daveg@antispam.halcyon.com
wrote:
>rpvb3@mindspring.com (Bob Van Burkleo) wrote:
>>daveg@antispam.halcyon.com wrote:
>>>rpvb3@mindspring.com (Bob Van Burkleo) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hardly.  In fact there was a massive conservative church gathering that
>>>>wasn't an antigay rally just this weekend in a county park.  No plan of
>>>>protestors, no demonstrations.  
>>>
>>>So, as long as we are good little niggers and stay in our separate but
>>>equal parks on the Eastside we are OK with you Jim Crow gays?  Why should
>>>Seattle Christians have to come clear over to Marymoor Park in Redmond to
>>>have a peaceful gathering in a public park?  Furthermore, why are you
>>>stereotyping the gathering as "conservative" when it had nothing to do 
ith
>>>politics anyway?
>
>>One, I will remind you that you are posting to a number of groups.  Use of
>>profanity and racial slurs is inappropriate.
>
>What profanity?
If you don't think the N* word is profanity, then you have other problems
other than your gay bigotry.
Other than the profanity of your bigotry that would shut
>the use of public parks to other segments of the tax paying public and
>suffling them to the back of the bus of public services?  And may I now
>infer from your remarks that you are a supporter of Slade Gorton's CDA?
>
>>Two, I neither stated or implied that the location of the park was
>>instrumental in the reaction to the gathering.
>
>Maybe not then but in this post (item three) you did.
I thought about that - yes, 'Taking Back The Park' wouldn't provoke people
who wheren't users of the park.  So, I guess that is true - only the
neighbors and users of a park would be offended by someone from outside
coming in to 'take it back'.
>>Three, the church's whos bulletins proclaimed they were going to 'take
>>back the park' were conservative fundamentalist organizations who have
>>made themselves the traditional enemies of the Seattle gay community
>>attacking them for years.
>
>Riiiight!  Then why does the liberal Episcopal Church refuse to perform a
>"homosexual wedding" in St. Mark's Cathedral nearly adjacent to Volunteer
>Park while a Conservative Baptist Church in the U District has a Gay pastor
>on staff?
Oh, you are using the capital L and capital C with a trademark no doubt. I
don't see how two different situations have anything to do with the
Overlake church and the others of their ilk I was referring to.
>>So lets see, a traditional enemy declares they are going to come and 'take
>>back' part of your neighborhood.  How would you react to that?
>
>Probably I'd yawn ... unless I was a paranoid psychotic ...
>Now, take a close look at your own words - again you are claiming as your
>own a park that all Seattle residents pay for, it is not "yours" or the gay
>community's except in the fact that it belongs to all equally.  Yet you
>would deny the use of the park to others.  What a crock ...  Did it ever
>strike you that Volunteer Park is nearly dead center in the middle of
>Seattle between the North and South ends of town?
>
>>>>                                As much as you would like to pretend 
hese
>>>>poor souls were needlessly attacked, it just ain't so.  Real church
>>>>functions that are for the support other members and not an attack upon
>>>>others are welcome things.
>>>
>>>So what?  The picnic at Volunteer Park was not anti gay.  And why should a
>>>church march to the beat of your drum anyway?  When CRISTA Ministries set
>>>up an AIDS house the gay community went ballistic with opposition.
>
>>So many questions.  So what? The rally was perceived as an attack by the
>>local community because of the pre-rally literature circulated. 
>
>ROTFL!  Get a clue, big guy, it was not perceived as an attack by the
>"local community" but only by the gay portion of the "local community" 
>Did you ever stop to realize that the gay population on Capitol Hill is the
>*minority* of the population of Capitol Hill yet only the gays protested? 
>This was not a protest by the "local community" no matter how much you want
>to paint it that way.
Gays are the minority - I'd love to see your rationalization of that. 
Regardless they are the local community.
>>Why shoulld a church march to the beat of your drum anyway? The shouldn't,
but
>>if they attack people then they should expect resistance.  They did, they
>>got it.
>
>They should not march to the beat of my drum and I have pounded no drum for
>them to march to. You are the one wanking about their use of the park, not
>me.  No one was attacked except the guitar player who was shoved off the
>stage according to the Seattle Police.  Of cource the picnockers had a use
>permit for the stage but the heck with anyones else's lawful use of public
>facilities according to your standards.
I am?  Wanked, that is?  What gave you that idea?
>>>>>>Seems hypocritical of you to have misrepresented the situation in this
>>>>>>way.  The fundie rally was deliberately designed to provoke a negative
>>>>>>response in the community it was held in.  By the fact that the
organizers
>>>>>>of Disney Gay Days do their best to avoid such negative encounters 
hows
>>>>>>that the two incidences aren't even comparable.
>>>>>
>>>>>They are not comparable because you would steal a public park away from
the
>>>>>taxpayers who fund it.  The Gay protesters claimed it was an anti-
>>>>>homosexual gathering by supposedly citing GO '90 literature about the
>>>>>event.  When challenged to produce any such literature they were unable 
to
>>>>>do so.  The Seattle residents using the park chose it because they 
anted
a
>>>>>facility with an ampitheater to use for musical purposes.  According to
the
>>>>>police, the demonstrators initiated a shoving match and took over the
stage
>>>>>which Go '90 had a right to use granted by a Parks department permit.
>>>>>
>>>>>According to the Seattle Times (8/4/1990) many of those attending the
>>>>>picnic were 12 and 13 year old girls who were surrounded by a larger 
group
>>>>>of older protesters who jeered and taunted while tossing packs of 
ondoms
>>>>>at them. Apparently, some of the gay protesters were chagrined at the 
ay
>>>>>the protest organizers misrepresented the picnic and one of them walked 
to
>>>>>his nearby home and returned with a bunch of sandwiches he made for 
hose
>>>>>attending the picnic.
>>>
>>>>So you're admiting that if there was an error, it was by the
>>>>demonstrations organizers, and the participants were duped?  Very 
ossible
>>>>that there some of that going the other way too.
>>>
>>>Possibly.  Where was any anti-homosexual agenda indicated in any of the
>>>picnic brochures, though?
>
>>Yes - conservative churches coming from over across the lake saying they
>>are going to take back the park in the center of the gay district of
>>town.  Yep, any reasonable person would see that as anti-gay.
>
>1.  Why do you state that it was churches from across the lake and continue
>to deny the involvement of Seattle churches and tax payers.  Do you have
>evidence that Seattle churches did not participate or is this another
>propaganda attempt?
I haven't denied there participation at anytime (you really are desperate,
aren't you?
>2.  Would you care to try answering the question again?  "Where was any
>anti-homosexual agenda indicated in any of the picnic brochures, though?"
Yes, they were going to 'take back the park' in the middle of the gay
district of town.  Anyone confused about that must think 'duh' is a big
word.
>3.  What makes you think a public park in the center of the gay district is
>the property of the gay community when they are not even the majority of
>residents in the gay district and are not the sole taxpayers funding the
>park?
I have never said it was the property of same.  Are strawdog arguments all
you have left to resort to?
>>>>>I realize it is a tough pill for you to swallow, Bob, that the gay
>>>>>community could ever do anything dispicable and that not all of their
>>>>>behavior is holy and righteous but this is the way it was on that day.
>>>
>>>>Ditto for the conservative pseudoChristians. Again, selective factoid
>>>>presentations mean nothing. The group picks a fight and then complains
>>>>when those attacked respond.  Oh well. Maybe some on both sides painted
>>>>varied pictures to their respective participants.  A fight was picked (I
>>>>saw a brochure for it, it said the Christians were going to "Take Back 
he
>>>>Park"), and that's what they got.  Hey, that's what pseudoChristianity's
>>>>all about - People who in the name of Christ do the Devil's works.
>>>
>>>True, that is what pseudo Christianity does.  How is it that you are
>>>judging the picnic as pseudo Christianity?
>
>>Because real Christians are loving to everyone, they don't look for the
>>bad in people, but find the good.
>
>This of course is why rapists and other criminals are allowed to run loose
>on the streets.  Say, why did the gay community "look for the bad" in the
>picnickers instead of lovingly looking for the good?
You'll have to ask them.
>>Are you the one to define God's agenda? More so than a pseudoChristian.
>
>No, Bob, I'm not going to follow your example.
PsuedoChristians are free to go their own way, however misguided it may be.
>>>As for taking back the Park?  Probably a good idea 
>>>considering all the used syringes and condoms one could find in the 
>>>bushes back in 1990 when the event occured.  Did the brochure you saw
>>>mention homosexuality?
>
>>Then you admit it was a premptive strike?  
>
>If it had been a pre-emptive strike then it would have occured before the
>used condoms and syringes were deposited in the park.  BTW, did the
>brochure you saw mention homosexuality?
>
>>Good, I knew we could reach an agreement.  I think that resisting that 
>>kind of garbage is a 'probably a good idea' too.
>
>Amen, then.  I take it you agree to "taking back the park."  Funny you
>should attack your allies in doing so.
>>Again, a non-confrontational conservative church rally this weekend went
>>just swimmingly.  Maybe the 1990 lesson taught them the value of being
>>nonjudgmental and turning the other cheek.
>
>Obviously it didn't teach they gay community that as they were the ones
>being judgemental and slapping the cheeks of others.  Besides, it is easier
>for you guys to mount your manly attacks against a small picnic which
>mostly consists of teen age kids than a major worship service with 10,000
>participants.  As an aside, I don't think the recent rally in Marymoor Park
>was particularly "conservative" and I think you are just throwing terms
>around for propaganda purposes.
Well, according to the Seattle PI it was a gathering of conservative 
urches.
Lets fact it David, your whine doesn't even go well with cheese.  Your
fascination with this ancient history shows how little you have to really
recouncil your position with.
-----
Bob Van Burkleo  rpvb3 at mindspring.com
.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------