To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.generalOpen lugnet.admin.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / General / 11873
    Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
   (...) I think the counterargument to this is that _all_ the subgroups are for heterosexuals because we're in the majority. And the reason that you've gotten along just fine is that no one thinks you're weird (er...queer). (...) Could you possibly (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
   
        Re: Lavender Brick Society —Tim Courtney
     (...) ... (...) I've hesitated inserting my own comments (other than expressing agreement) on this subject until now -- but this is a question I feel comfortable answering. I believe my experience would be hurt by the addition of any or all of the (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general) ! 
    
         Re: Lavender Brick Society —Michael Huffman
     (...) Though I agree in concept to what Tim is saying -- that LEGO brings people from different backgrounds together -- the reality is the LEGO community is fragmented. Precedent has already been set... we group discussions about space here, train (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
   
        Re: Lavender Brick Society —Joakim Olsson
      "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I451p6.234v@lugnet.com... (...) gotten (...) Is there any difference in beeing interested in Lego depending on your sexual orientation? How about a subgroup for communists, I bet they (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
    
         Re: Lavender Brick Society —Anders Isaksson
     (...) I'd say being left-handed has a greater significance for your Lego building... (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
    
         Re: Lavender Brick Society —Joakim Olsson
       "Anders Isaksson" <isaksson.etuna@REMO...telia.com> wrote in message news:I45Jn5.1Cnr@lugnet.com... (...) I´m in luck then, becuase I am "dual handed" =) /J (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
       (...) Yep, pretty much swing both ways when it comes to my particular hobby. Dave K (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
       "Jocke" <terje029SPAMBLOCK@xpress.se> wrote in message news:I46zpy.17xn@lugnet.com... (...) One thing I'm of a mind to point out is that this sort of marginalizing is perhaps just why a group might be necessary. I'm trying hard to think of any of (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)  
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Joakim Olsson
        "Frank Filz" <ffilz-lists@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:I471EM.1IKr@lugnet.com... (...) any (...) can't (...) to (...) to (...) laws (...) You have a good point, but I would find it strange if you told me that you were married, and the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
       (...) 'Marginalizing' someone's viewpoint with wit and banter? Yeah that doesn't happen in any other group-- Hey Anthony, read any good things from Toronto lately? ;) Lets see what happens when I mention that I love Star Trek, Bab 5, and LEGO all in (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
        (...) What's the hurry? I'm still not done making fun of you for being Canadian! Dave! (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
       (...) You know, down here in the States, technology has advanced to the point where we don't have to hand-crank our television sets to make them run. We can just plug them into electrical sockets in the wall. Or some people even use batteries, for (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
      In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz wrote: (snip) (...) Being gay presents a special problem, because their behavior is repulsive to heterosexuals. I don't mean to offend gays, but it is the truth. And it goes beyond mere intolerance. We are (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Joakim Olsson
        "John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:I473CK.1uzM@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) goes (...) Even if " their behavior is repulsive to heterosexuals", it would not show in a forum. I hardly think that you can pick what MOC is built by a (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Thomas Stangl
       "John" <John@TCLTC.org> wrote in message news:I473CK.1uzM@lugnet.com... (...) Maybe truth in your, as usual, twisted, bigotted, totally-intolerant-t...Y-like-you mind, but I'm strictly hetero, and I certainly don't find homo/bi repulsive. Just not (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Eaton
       (...) I'm not sure I agree-- I don't find it repulsive at all-- rather like, I dunno, say, Islam. I'm not Islamic and I'm not gay. Neither are my cup of tea, and I'm not about to start praying to Allah or jumping in bed with another guy, but I'm not (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
       (...) What behaviour are we talking about here? Being together? Flirting? Significant glances? Holding hands? Dancing? More specific acts of affection? None of those behaviours, except perhaps flirting, can happen in a virtual forum like this one. (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)  
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
        (...) I think the most demonstrable harm that could come of this is open persecution in lieu of pretending that they don't exist. But if the LGBTs feel strongly enough about this that they're willing to risk that, I can't see why they should be (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
        (...) The administrators will look very unfavorably on any open persecution of anyone. You can be quite sure of that. (...) Precisely. (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
       (...) I was speaking specifically about sex with the same sex-- you know, GAY. (...) Well, even hetero PDA can be offensive. Sex should be a private thing. When people make private things public it is at the least embarrassing and at the most (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
        (...) Whether or not you think sex should be private is irrelevant. Sexuality has never been private, even if the act of sex has been forced to take place behind closed doors. (...) It may be embarrassing or offensive to the viewer and not the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) I disagree. (...) Explain why the actual act has been forced to take place privately. Are you for allowing public displays of sexual acts? (...) Well, I think it's both their problems. (...) So what? (...) How do you know how I treat (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
         (...) That's not what's being debated here. The public display of sexual orientation is. There is a hugely vast difference between having an orgy in the nearest intersection and publicly acknowledging that your SO shops in the same section of the (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
         (...) Well, before you snipped it, the particular point being discussed was PDA. (...) The point I was trying to make is that sexuality is private thing and that overt attempts to disclose personal matters is appropriate IMO. (...) ARRRG (not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
           (...) overt (...) I'll accept that if you never mention your wife... Or indicate that Ross is your son (since that also comes with pre-conceived baggage about your sexuality - or even firm baggage if some folks have their way and only man-woman (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
          (...) No, many people are bi. Gays are gay and straights are straight. Everyone else is bi. Chris (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
         (...) Maybe we should get rid of the Clikits and Primo groups, too, since they go mostly unused. And keep your eye on Quatro and Galidor--they're both ripe for culling, by this use-it-or-lose-it criterion. Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
         (...) No. (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
        (...) In the Western world, Victorian prudishness is the primary closeting force. But before I answer further, can you give me an ironclad reason why sexual acts must be private? And I caution you against such moral relativism as "society has (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) I believe sexual intercourse is an intimate bonding experience physically, emotionall, spiritually, and psychologically. It is the ultimate "giving" of oneself, and thus should be considered to be a highly meaningful experience. It should be (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
        (...) Oddly, this is straight out of Mircea Eliade's "The Sacred and The Profane," which speaks of the investment of "sacredness" into certain places/customs/actions so that those places/customs/actions are preserved against alteration due to (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) Though I've never even heard of Eliade or his/her? work, why would that be "odd"? That you aren't a fan and that I sound like (okay, I googled it...) him should sound about right, no;-) (...) Again, the ultimate expression of society isn't (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
        (...) Well, just in terms of parallel evolution of ideas re: sacred v. profane. And whatever other oddity you'd care to contribute, of course. (...) I do not believe that there are any absolute standards for society, and all standards are determined (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
        (...) Since that happened well before the civil rights movement, the only applicable legality that I can think of is the 5th Amendment (nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law), but I believe they were classified as (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
         (...) Oh, absolutely, but I was giving situation-type examples, and today's racial profiling (of black drivers, of Arab airline passengers, etc.) is of the same species. And regardless of the civil rights movement, it was wrong of the government to (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
        (...) US citizens of Japanese descent were classified as POWs? I did not know that. It's scary if true. It also gives ammo to the Bushies and their Enemy Combatant thingie. I hope you're wrong... I'm scared you're right. Also I thought the Geneva (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
        (...) Officially all J-A citizens/residents were termed "dangerous enemy aliens" (technically, so were all German- and Italian-Americans, but everyone collectively turned a blind eye to them). Once you've classified them as enemies, it's pretty easy (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Internment (was Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
        (...) There were German internment camps also. The numbers were much smaller, so they have got less exposure. (...) Except most of the "enemy combatant detainees" are not citizens. And those who are citizens should certainly have the constitution (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Kevin Blocksidge
        (...) Oh ya, I forgot that you can say anything you want and it's assumed true until someone can prove otherwise... In that case, can I start ribald rumors about you? I bet I can come up with some that you can never truly refute. ~Kevoh (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
        (...) I have NO problem with that. It should be the norm. (...) Because to lock it in taboo damages people. I know you get off on people being harmed in various ways, but most of us do not. (...) ??? What a crock. (...) The historical body of (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) Clarity, Chris. That's all I want. I think you will find that your views are in the vast minority. (...) Excuse me??? What exactly do you mean by "get off"? Why don't you just shut your ignorant piehole, Chris. And who is this "most of us" you (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
         (...) Okay, so put your money where your mouth is and give the pudding a chance to prove itself. If it goes unused, you're right, and no harm done, except the loss of Todd's time in setting up the newsgroup. If it sees use, you're wrong, and there's (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Larry Pieniazek
         (...) John, I think you're starting to cross the line here, even for off-topic.debate... take a stress tab and think about the success of the mission. (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
         (...) Why don't you mind your own snipping beeswax? JOHN (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            human sexuality —Christopher L. Weeks
        John, I know my views are in the minority. I'm not sure what made you think that I didn't know that. (How could I not?) That doesn't make them wrong. There have been a great many people through history who had unpopular ideas that are now widely (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: human sexuality —Larry Pieniazek
        (I'm at a client, so it's a hassle to switch identities, but I'm wearing my Admin hat in this post) This post is not just directed at Chris. (...) To clarify. we did not censor anyone, nor did we wish to. LUGNET does not practice censorship. I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: human sexuality —Dave Schuler
         (...) Are you saying that you're a closeted Admin some of the time? How long will you persist in this dual life? Dave! (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: human sexuality —Christopher L. Weeks
        (...) Yes, typing fast. And I think you all have been handling it fine. Chris (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Amy Hughes
       (...) Knowing someone is gay doesn't tell you anything about their sex life any more than knowing someone is heterosexual tells you anything about their sex life. It doesn't tell you if they've ever had sex, or if they ever will. Maybe I'm naive. (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
       (...) Um...not all of us. I am genuinely shocked. I didn't think you could say anything at this point that would actually surprise me, but you have, in my mind, found to a new low. Congratulations. I don't even know what to say. Chris (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
       (...) There's a guy in my office who exhibits all sorts of gay behavior all day long. He sits in his cube, and he's gay. He pours himself some coffee, and he's gay. He leaves the office at the end of the day, and he's gay. It's like he doesn't even (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
       (...) I was of course speaking specifically about sexual behaviors-- the only ones that truly distinguish a homosexual from a heterosexual. (...) Fair enough. I'd be against a .beastiality or .swingers group as well. JOHN (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Bruce Schlickbernd
       (...) I take that comment I made about "no homophobic remarks" earlier in the thread back. -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
       (...) Are you going to deny that the average heterosexual finds the thought of gay sex repulsive? I've heard the same sentiment from (non-bi) gay men about hetero-sex! And this has nothing to do with a pathologically diagnosed phobia, so give the (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
        (...) The thought of it? No, not really. The thought of participating in it? Yes. Actually watching it? I'd have to say yes, though I can't draw on personal experience here. (...) Language, like life, evolves. Deal with it. Nice used to not be such (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Bruce Schlickbernd
       (...) I heartily dislike accusations like homophobe or racist at the mere hint of disagreement - it is a dishonest form of argument by attack and intimidation. I don't use the words cheaply, in part so that when I do say it carries more weight. You (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
        (...) I'm kinda with Bruce o nthis one--I mean there are those who eat oysters. Personally, I find for my dietary pleasures oysters ranking pretty much down there with mud--For myself, me eating oysters is repulsive. I have, on the other hand, been (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
        (...) No, they think it's performance art. Voyeurs think it's a spectator sport. (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) I apologize for being unclear (I have since clarified my statement twice elsewhere). I meant specific sexual activity. (...) Fair enough. And on that point I think we agree. JOHN (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Lee Meyer
       (...) Bruce, it is clear from your posts you don't understand what true homophobia is. It is irrational fear/hatred of homosexuals. You do corectly point out that it is not mere disagreements concerning homosexual behavior. But a heterosexual being (...) (20 years ago, 18-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
       (...) I highly doubt it ties back to DNA. Various cultures have had strong homosexual tendancies throughout history, including ancient Greece/Rome. Also, if it is genetic, why would the self-titled "melting pot of the world" be one of the most (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Lee Meyer
       (...) Nope David, you're totally wrong about acceptance. Acceptance equals approval of it as something legitimate, something you can agree with even if you don't participate. Toleration means you give others the same freedom you have to make right (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Scott Arthur
       (...) It is not, it is utter claptrap. Scott A (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Kevin Heckel
       (...) (snip) (...) You might have to resort to Christian Science to prove that one ;) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Terry Prosper
      (...) Oh I believe you DO want to offend gays. And NO, it's not the truth. I do not find it repulsive. I would in fact say that I find it nice to see people loving each other freely nowadays, compared to some eras or some places in the world where (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society — Larry Pieniazek
       (...) Please review the rules against baiting, Terry. This sort of tone is not appropriate, even in off-topic.debate The admins are going to be taking a jaundiced view of inflammatory posts, of whatever stripe, on this topic. or others. Larry (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
      (...) Logic dictates that he cannot think that LGBT tendancies are genetically influenced, since simultaneously claiming them to be sinful would be as socially regressive as saying that it's sinful to be born with a birthspot. He can't have it both (...) (20 years ago, 19-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
       (...) Specifically, the revulsion of heterosexuals by the idea of engaging in homosexual sex. I wouldn't put that "feeling" on par with even incest, which probably is just deep taboo (whatever that is). JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Ross Crawford
        (...) You've asked them all, have you? I would say many heterosexuals would probably have such revulsion, but I wouldn't be arrogant enought to assume they ALL do. ROSCO (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
        (...) Well, the ones that didn't I wouldn't categorize as "heterosexual", but as "heterosexual with homosexual tendencies", or some other such qualification. JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Ross Crawford
         (...) Even if they are only attracted to women, and only sleep with women? There is nothing in the definition of heterosexual that says you have to be REPULSED by homosexuality. How much "homosexual tendency" does a heterosexual have to have before (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
         (...) So, are you saying that heterosexuals in prison who engage in homosexual sex are still heterosexuals? This is an interesting distinction and I have heard it before among Latin men. They believe that they can have sex with a Gay man (they, (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —Todd Lehman
          (...) Someone who's bisexual in prison isn't necessarily also bisexual outside of prison. BTW, in Kiss of the Spider Woman, do you consider the kiss between Luis and Valentin to be one of a bisexual nature or just brotherly love? I don't think the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
          (...) Erm, sorry, I missed that flick. (...) (shrugs) They are bi? :-) I find this topic very confusing and very inconsistent, because there always seems to be exceptions, but in doing a little googling, I just found (URL) this article> which drew (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —Todd Lehman
          (...) Well didn't you know that all left-handed people are gay? (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
          (...) What's so interesting is that about the same percentage of the population is gay as is left-handed.... (just not the same percentages:-) JOHN (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —Allister McLaren
          (...) There was a time when being left-handed was looked down upon. Great lengths were taken in schools to get kids to go against their nature and many were forced into writing with the right hand. Of course, society is much more grown up about this (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
           (...) Language even still reflects this, as most of us use the "right" hand, and an outmoded synonym for the left is "sinister". (...) You'd think so, but it's not completely true. Left-handers get left alone, but ambidextrous people might not. I (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
          
               Re: Lavender Brick Society —Joakim Olsson
            "Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I4CG4p.nt4@lugnet.com... (...) alone, but (...) and he (...) either (...) grab a (...) the (...) trained (...) I can only write with my left hand.. and only use a scissor with my (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
          
               Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
            (...) I was pretty much ambidexterous when I was young--wrote with both hands until my Gr. 1 or 2 teacher (can't remember which) sat me down and told me to 'pick a hand' 'cause my printing of letters would either slant to the left or to the right, (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
            (...) Plus, you've got that goofy metric system to worry about. I don't doubt your tale at all, though it reminds me of other people I've known who've made claims of ambidexterity: Usually it amounts to "I write with my right hand, and I can use a (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
             (...) <snipp> (...) Does writing with your left hand make you left handed, or, as in my case, since I'm basically right-handed predominant except for writing (and who writes anymore, anyway) would I be considered right-handed? Dave K (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
            
                 Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
             (...) If you saw that a baseball was about to smack you in your noggin from directly in front of you, would you catch/deflect it with your left or right hand? (Assuming, of course, that simple dodging was not an option). Hardly a scientific (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
            
                 Even-handedness Was Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
              (...) When you ask the question, it requires thought--all spontaneousness reflexive action is then ignored... What would I do... Right now I think that if something was thrown at my face, I'd throw up both arms to protect my face. When someone (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
            
                 Re: Lavender Brick Society —Frank Filz
               "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com> wrote in message news:I4CL81.1qo7@lugnet.com... (...) case, since (...) writes (...) directly (...) Hmm, I feel like I would block with my left hand/arm, but I am probably right handed (I used to mix hands for some (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
             
                  Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
              (...) Well, it's clear that you and Purple Dave have thought about this more carefully than I did. Shame on me for coming up with a weak example! Dave! (still left-handed) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
             
                  Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
              (...) Since you are admittedly baseball-knowledge challenged, I will tell you that if you are right handed, you'd probably attempt to catch/deflect the ball with your left hand (the hand that would normally wear the baseball glove). The right hand (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
             
                  Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Koudys
              In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) ANd if you catch better with your right hand, and throw better with your right hand... what does that make you? Dave K -now confused about how handedness he is... (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
             
                  Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
              (...) You guessed it...."confused";-) "I'm sorry, I have a cold" JOHN (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
            
                 Re: Lavender Brick Society —Thomas Stangl
             (...) Whichever hand was closer. Or whichever had a mitt on ;-) I catch with either hand equally well. But while "left-handed", I can only throw accurately right-handed. So I pretty much ended up catching LH, so that I wouldn't have to catch RH, (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
            (...) I've always viewed it as mixed-handedness when you do some things with one and some things with the other. Being fully ambidextrous should require being able to do everything with either hand at will, and being partially ambidextrous should (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
             (...) There is some evidence that dyslexia is caused by making kids learn to read before their brain is ready for that kind of processing. I'm the first to admit that it's weak evidence, but there are a bunch of schools that adhere to a philosophy (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
             (...) Oh, I don't doubt that it's a real condition, and I don't even doubt that it may have a higher incidence than previously known. But I'm uncomfortable with the correlation between the ease-of-diagnosis and the availability-of-prof...edication. (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
           
                Re: Lavender Brick Society —Dave Schuler
            (...) I just realized that you're making a correct and finer distinction than I did. I didn't mean to suggest that these disorder are mere behavior problems in need of more discipline. On the other hand, sympton-lists are problematic because it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
          
               Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
           (...) I actually sat down and examined the way right- and left-handed scissors work and figured out how to use either style in either hand. It's visciously uncomfortable to use scissors in the wrong hand, but it can be done. (...) I've also trained (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —Thomas Stangl
          (...) They tried, they REALLY tried with me in school. But I'm more stubborn than any teacher I've ever run into, and my left-handedness won out ;-) Then again, I can write semi-legibly with my right hand if given time. About the only things I can't (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —Kevin Wilson
          (...) Did that include beating your hands with a ruler if you wrote with your left hand, Tom? That's what happened to my bf, who is left handed but still writes (very slowly and badly) with his right. Kevin (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
         
              Re: Lavender Brick Society —Thomas Stangl
          Nope. Even when I was that young, if they would have hit me with a ruler, I probably would have yanked it out of their hand and beat them back. Up until senior year in HS, I was always a bit large for my age ;-) And my parents, while probably (...) (20 years ago, 23-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
        
             Re: Lavender Brick Society —David Laswell
         (...) It parsed with the ancient Greeks. It was considered socially acceptable for mentors to engage in consensual acts with their also-male students, but only the passive partner was considered to be gay. Also, I've heard theories stated that the (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
       
            Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
        (...) Like open-mindedness. Chris (now with homosexual-tendencies!) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Mike Rayhawk
       (...) I'm a heterosexual. I'm not repulsed by seeing homosexual intercourse. I'm not turned on by it either. It just doesn't mean anything to me, probably because my particular religious upbringing never told me what I was supposed to think about (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Christopher L. Weeks
       (...) Are you discussing some certain circumstance? I know people under horomone-treatment for gender reassignment and people who've been surgically gender-reassigned and they don't report such repulsion. I know a woman who had a radical (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
      
           Re: Lavender Brick Society —Mike Rayhawk
       (...) The article I read dealt with dysfunction related to clinical depression, and didn't describe the hormones as sex hormones specifically - so I conjecture that by "arousal hormones" it was referring to something more along the lines of (...) (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
     
          Re: Lavender Brick Society —Kevin Wilson
      (...) Perhaps he's like the White Queen, who could "believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast" :-) Kevin (20 years ago, 20-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
    
         Re: Lavender Brick Society —John Neal
     (...) A .left-handed group would be gauche! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general, FTX)
   
        Re: Lavender Brick Society —Lee Meyer
   (...) Ummmm, Chris, the 'you dont get it because no one thinks you're weird' line of logic, doesn't fly with me because my sexuality never enters the picture when I am thinking about Lego. I have never tied my sexuality into hobbies. There is no (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.general)
 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR