[quote]Originally posted by copman:


Actually I did make a choice... to accept myself.

---

Hey Cop. . . you're right on target with those couple of words. . . the only choice in this whole damn issue is: Choose to Live a Lie or Choose to Accept and Love yourself for who you are.

Now arrest me dude and call me a faggot!! (just a joke in my sick mind. . . : - /)

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Well, I for one don't buy for a second that the majority of the hate mailers are staunch champions of the First Amendment and freedom of speech and the nuances of both, that they're out fighting the good fight. The blood lust in some of them makes me more inclined to think that they simply agreed with Shockey's idiocy and when challenged, fell back on the tired old "This is America, we can say whatever the hell we want" defense.

---

Do they, Jim? OK. And the "gay" men in this discussion group are doing literally the SAME thing. Humans seem to notice what suits them and ignore the rest.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
And I strongly disagree that his words don't impose on anyone. Words DO matter and while certainly in the grand scheme of things, Jeremy Shockey is but a blink of an eye and this will blow over soon, it's one more tiny reinforcement of stereotypes such as gays are predators, gays are weak, gays can't be trusted and that gays can never be part of the larger society. That's why I think gays needed to speak up, that's all.
Mileage varies, of course.

---

OK Jim, you "strongly disagree". If you (and others) are put off by the negative words directed at you, THEN take the hint and begin reining in the negative comment so many "gays" toss out at themselves & others. THIS was a point made in a number of hate-mails, that "gays" seem to want to reserve the right to verbally trash with impunity. And in MY opinion, reading so many of these discussion responses, "gays" *DO*. let's not be hypocrites; if you trash, expect to be trashed.

What's with the "quotes" around the word "gays"? I'm going to assume you're hetero; by doing that, your post reeks of condescension. [quote]OK Jim, you "strongly disagree". If you (and others) are put off by the negative words directed at you, THEN take the hint and begin reining in the negative comment so many "gays" toss out at themselves & others.

---

So, what are you proposing? We say nothing in response to Shockey? What referee decides what is a negative comment? I'm sorry, I've seen this rhetorical trick used too many times by the Christian Right--"It's the gays and their shrillness that is the real problem". People came on here and said stuff that was VILE, that would qualify as hate speech in some jurisdictions and when we respond with anger, disdain and sarcasm it's us not being nice that's the problem? No f**king way. [quote]And in MY opinion, reading so many of these discussion responses, "gays" *DO*. let's not be hypocrites; if you trash, expect to be trashed

---

What crap! It's actually the heteros who wish to be treated with gloved hands. Queers are expected to be rational, calm, fair and impartial while heteros can say the most disgusting things but when challenged either retreat behind the Bible or Kant or "freedom of speech" issues.

The bottom line is that since heteros are the majority the debating playing field is in no way even close to being level. I don't see many--if any--of them condeming the way-over-the-top comments of their kind and in my view they forfeit the moral high ground in this debate by their silence.

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:

Just call me a heathen.

---

"Watchit sucka!"

[quote]Originally posted by D.E.:
begin reining in the negative comment so many "gays" toss out at themselves & others....

---

Hey DE, what IS with the quotes around the word Gay? It's like the running joke in last night's FRIENDS where Joey was using air quotes inappropriately. (Ross to Joey: You're doing it wrong, Joe.)

Meanwhile, I do agree with you on the abreviated quote listed above, and would like to take it a step further; I have never bought into the notion that it's okay to talk trash about your own self-identified group (or whatever) but it's not okay when others use the same terminology. I KNOW it has a great deal more to do with tone, but the truth is that we lead by example.

Set the standard fellas!

*I* don't like us calling each other "faggot" -- hell, I don't even like calling myself "gay". It's not about self loathing. Rather, it's about limiting oneself and others in the minds of those who hear those words.

Trash talking, cutting up, or debating within your own "group" has absolutely nothing to do with Shockey or this specific thread. That's a nice attempt at denial, D.E. or D.D., but it doesn't cut it. While I'm not someone who would ever use the term faggot towards someone even, yes even, in a humorous context, I do know that when a gay person calls another gay person this, it hardly means the same thing as when it's used by a str8 man who needs to demean another guy.

Shockey's comments revealed an insecure man dissing gay men for no reason other than ignorance. Obviously, he's never been hit upon or inappropriately looked at in a locker room shower or he would have said so in his own defense. His comments are simply based on ignorance and insecurity. On one level, it's really no big deal because it's so COMMON...an american male insecure about his sexuality is hardly an anomaly...and to prove this, just ask any somewhat secure str8 guy and they'll tell ya just how many times they've gotten into idiotic fights with other str8 guys over the smallest, most insignificant things you can imagine...

[ October 04, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[ October 06, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[quote]Originally posted by D.E.:

THIS was a point made in a number of hate-mails, that "gays" seem to want to reserve the right to verbally trash with impunity. And in MY opinion, reading so many of these discussion responses, "gays" *DO*. let's not be hypocrites; if you trash, expect to be trashed.

---

Except it's the GAYS (removing the quotes) who get trashed FIRST. The difference is, nowadays, we fight back. And that's what led to all the hate mail.

During one of the gays-in-the-military discussions, I recall reading in the NYTimes that there were polls that asked those that don't approve of the "lifestyle" what they would do with gays, and I think the result was that 13-15% thought gays should die.

I was stunned at the time that no one was outraged. They quoted a spokesman from a gay organization as saying the poll results were gratifying in that they showed progress, and sadness that there were those that still believed we should die.

Imagine if there were that high % of the population that wanted Jews, blacks, latinos, asians, etc. to die? Justifiably, there would be incredible outrage. Why should we be silent and just "take it" when so many others don't even want to accept our existence?

In searching out those specific poll results, I came across a recent Gallup analysis of their polling about gays since 1977, and here are a few quotes:

*****

Gallup has recorded a gradual increase in the belief that homosexuality is an acceptable orientation or lifestyle, but this perception has only risen from 34% in 1977 to 51% today. At the same time, there has been even less long term change in attitudes about the legality of homosexuality, with Americans continuing to be closely divided on the question; 52% think it should be legal today compared to 43% in 1977.

An August 2002 Gallup Poll asked the public to estimate what percent of American men were gay, and the percent of American women who are lesbians. While the answers ranged widely, the average estimates by the public were that 21.4% of all men are gay, and that 22% of all women are lesbians. About a quarter of the public thinks that more than 25% of Americans are gay or lesbian.

Gallup first asked about the legality of homosexuality in 1977, with a basic question worded as follows: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal." At that point, Americans were evenly divided on the issue, as 43% said yes, 43% said no, and 14% were not sure. The question has been asked numerous times since. In the last asking in May 2002, the public had become somewhat, but not dramatically more liberal than was the case two decades earlier: 52% of those interviewed said that homosexual relations should be legal, 43% not legal, with 5% unsure. During the mid 1980s, the percentage saying that homosexual relations should be legal dropped to as low as 33% in 1985 and 1986, perhaps due to either the conservative environment ushered in by the Reagan administration, or the beginning of widespread publicity surrounding AIDS and its prevalence in the homosexual community.

Over the same period of time, there has been greater change in attitudes about the employment rights for homosexuals. The specific Gallup question asks: "As you may know, there has been considerable discussion in the news regarding the rights of homosexual men and women. In general, do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?" The percentage saying yes has risen from 56% in 1977 to a significantly higher 86% in 2002.

In 1977, the public was more likely to agree with the argument that homosexuality is due to factors such as one's upbringing and environment rather than the argument that homosexuality is something with which a person is born – by a margin of 56% to 13%. Twenty-five years later, in 2002, the percentage of Americans accepting the genetic argument has more than doubled to 40%, while the percentage that cites upbringing and environment has dropped to 36%.

****

There's a lot of juicy material in there--but the thing that surprised me most was the estimated % of gay people: 22%! So for those that think I overestimate how many closet-cases are running around, apparently I'm estimating FAR less than most Americans!

The problem for me with Shockey is not because he says something so unusual, but in fact what he says is so common. And that it now not only doesn't warrant outrage or protest, but in fact just the opposite: we should be tolerating, if not even defending Shockey for his bigotry as somehow part of our patriotic duty to defend the First Amendment.

To me the only red-white-and-blue thing about Shockey and the Giants in their reaction to this is their uniforms.

Their uniform lack of tolerance and fairness.

[quote]Originally posted by Brent:
There's a lot of juicy material in there--but the thing that surprised me most was the estimated % of gay people: 22%! So for those that think I overestimate how many closet-cases are running around, apparently I'm estimating FAR less than most Americans!

---

Maybe I'm the exception. In answering that question I would assume that the questioner is proposing a world in which being straight or gay were totally equally socially exceptable.

In that situation I would suspect that a large majority of men might have sex predominately with men because men are more highly sexually driven and like convenience without permanent attachments or, what we currently think of as monogamy. There would be long-term relationships but with fewer or none of the sexual, legal, territorial entanglements we currently associate with marriage.

However the term homosexual probably would be as meaningless for women as our image of homosexuality would be to ancient Greeks. Their attachments would be, as they are now, primarily emotionally, spiritually or domestically driven.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
What's with the "quotes" around the word "gays"? I'm going to assume you're hetero; by doing that...your post reeks of condescension.

---

You have GOT TO BE KIDDING, Jim. You are so quick to react emotionally...and with such ANGST. You seem to immediately think (without rational inquiry to be sure) that by enclosing "gay" in quotations I am offering offense--and you respond by straightaway attacking me. If you have not already, click on my homepage link.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
What crap! It's actually the heteros who wish to be treated with gloved hands. Queers are expected to be rational, calm, fair and impartial while heteros can say the most disgusting things but when challenged either retreat behind the Bible or Kant or "freedom of speech" issues.]

---

See your response above. More than a little "pot calling the kettle black" in there.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
The bottom line is that since heteros are the majority the debating playing field is in no way even close to being level. I don't see many--if any--of them condeming the way-over-the-top comments of their kind and in my view they forfeit the moral high ground in this debate by their silence.]

---

Their "kind"?? WHY OH WHY do people insist upon creating (and celebrating) artificial differences between one another? I use quotations around "gay" because I do not think there is such thing as a "gay/straight" person. TO ME there are ONLY human beings, all of which possess an inherent capacity to be attracted to ANY OTHER human being, regardless of gender. There is no innate limit of expression of this attraction and intimacy. But, IN MY OPINION, some humans create and impose artificial social limits upon the masses. Through either long-standing pop-culture traditions or some other reason, the masses unthinkingly accept these restrictions, effectively dividing themselves. They go so far as to label these divisions and attach behaviors and attitudes to these labels. As a result, we have created true social discord via an ingenious artificial means. A day will eventually come when a person may be attracted to any other person and the two may develop the attraction into a form of fulfilling intimacy without others, looking on outside their relationship, interfering in what is not their concern.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Trash talking, cutting up, or debating within your own "group" has absolutely nothing to do with Shockey or this specific thread. That's a nice attempt at denial, D.E. or D.D., but it doesn't cut it.

---

I agree, bryan d. But then I said nothing of "trash-talking". To me, when you "trash" someone, you wholeheartedly work to denigrate and/or verbally destroy. In a real sense YOU are trashing me in the response above. You have read into my meaning and projected your interpretation like a glaze over my words. You go on to say that I am attempting denial. Of WHAT I do not know. (WHO is "D.D.", bryan d?)

Anyone who writes from the heart and with no intention to insult has the right to his opinion in this discussion room. Even if you do not agree with what's written, you can respect another's stance. Or else we don't have an equitable DISCUSSION.

D.E. - On the contrary, you specifically said "when you trash, expect to be trashed" in your earlier post. I understood you to say that "gays" should rein in verbally assaulting (my wording) one another and others if they don't want to be verbally assaulted (my wording) or something like that. Which makes little sense in this context.

Homosexuals are a maligned minority in most of our country and world. When someone says something like Shockey did, there will be a response and it will likely be a heated one. This is a result of years of minority status, discrimination and other indignities (like hate crimes - heard of them?). Shockey represents an often envied majority: a young white athlete - he doesn't have a f**king clue on what it's like to marginalized, abused, and sometimes murdered for your sexuality. Of course there's a heated response, of course gay people have something to say...why wouldn't we counter such an idiotic and hurtful public statement? How you leapt from this to gay on gay verbal sparring, I'll never know, but I'll restate it's a form of denial. You're denying the reality of the situation and trying to deflect it back as something created by "gays." As if our verbal skills and habits somehow created Shockey's common ignorance.

Perhaps what you're also denying is that your posts are mostly attacks upon the "gay" reaction to Shockey's commments. I ask you, what would you prefer? That we all just chuckle and chalk it up to a young athlete's lack of experience and maturity? I'm sure that's partly if not mostly true. But I don't think it's actually going to help anyone to be silent about stuff like this. I'd prefer that a young gay teenager see that while prejudice and discrimination is still rampant, to slander publicly isn't appropriate and won't be ignored or go unchallenged. That's how the media works, and that's how things must be right now.

And D.E., so far, there's little about your stance that is respectful. In fact, it appears that you'd prefer that anyone who disagrees with you just be quiet. Do you know that song "It's a Thin Line Between Love and Hate?" It's about one of those guys who gets pushed down the stairs after his wife decides she's had enough of his (demeaning & mysognistic) bullshit.

Every fight counts...and as Oracene Williams says in the most recent issue of Tennis magazine: Take this with you onto the court or the field: "I ain't gonna lose."

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

Not to detract from the serious discussion going on here, but has anyone else seen Jeremy Shockey's new commercial for his shoes with Steve Madden? I was floored that the Mr. Supposed Homophobe is licensing his name to a Steve Madden trend-oid shoe.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
D.E. - On the contrary, you specifically said "when you trash, expect to be trashed" in your earlier post. I understood you to say that "gays" should rein in verbally assaulting (my wording) one another and others if they don't want to be verbally assaulted (my wording) or something like that. Which makes little sense in this context.

---

bryan d, YOU are doing just what some of the writers of the "Shockey hate-mail" related that "gays" do when they encounter something they don't like--and what I meant when I used the term to "trash". You have either taken my words out of context or selectively ignored what I have written and have responded with a purely negative, insulting diatribe.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Homosexuals are a maligned minority in most of our country and world.

---

You would never guess this if you went for a walk in West Hollywood. You would never suppose so if you looked at the crews of virtually all US film and TV productions where quite open "gay" men have enormous clout. If you are talking of "maligned minority", people of color still hold that status. Much has been said of Stonewall and what it meant to "gay rights", but I have heard from older friends that "gays" in the pre-70s times reflected the social climate of the times when it came to racial sensitivity. These older "gays" who went to Stonewall before the riot said that the bar allowed no blacks or dark-skinned people to enter. Odd to have "gays" dealing with bigotry and discrimination yet exercising it themselves. Even my generation dealt with "gay" bigotry, as I mentioned to Jim Allen, with the 3 picture ID requirement for men of color, in the 70s and early 80s. I am SPEAKING OUT to you about it here, what do you plan to do, bryan d, make light of it?

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
When someone says something like Shockey did, there will be a response and it will likely be a heated one. This is a result of years of minority status, discrimination and other indignities (like hate crimes - heard of them?).]

---

Have I heard of hate crimes, bryan d? Not just heard of them, I've experienced them. I've been chased by gangs and had beer bottles thrown at me, some with the beer still in them. On three occasions I nearly died what might have been a very unpleasant death at the hands of white youths. The irony is that it was a white person who saved me on two of those occasions. Nowadays in the "gay.com" chat rooms, you can often read the slurs. Blacks have been referred to as "nigger-lips" and "towelheads".

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
Of course there's a heated response, of course gay people have something to say...why wouldn't we counter such an idiotic and hurtful public statement?

---

And if you are so inclined to speak a rebuttal, YOU SHOULD. I never said "gays" should be silent. I argued that you might attack his words with maturity and reason, instead of trading negativity for negativity. To just remark that Shockey's 'a stupid dumb jock' is to sound no better than he.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
How you leapt from this to gay on gay verbal sparring, I'll never know...

---

How my reference to "trashing", even after I provided a point of view definition, could be construed as you have is a mystery to ME. Why not forget what YOU THINK trashing means and accept what I HAVE DESCRIBED (as trashing).

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
...but I'll restate it's a form of denial. You're denying the reality of the situation and trying to deflect it back as something created by "gays."

---

IN YOUR OPINION, bryan d. Please cut and paste where I said that this matter is WHOLLY a "gay" created thing? To me, it is not but, "gays" *DO*, in my opinion, have a hand in it.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
And D.E., so far, there's little about your stance that is respectful.

---

You tell us about yourself and your character with this remark, bryan d. I obviously do not agree with your comments, but I respect your right to express them. I just wish you would be a bit more circumspect.

D.E.- Obviously when someone posts their opinions, it's their opinions. And when I say that gays are still a maligned minority in most places, I'm not competing with your maligned minority as you imply...

It's appears more clear where you're coming from now. Twenty years ago or more, you or someone you know had some bad experiences in gay bars somewhere. That's sad and unfortunate but hardly a factor in this discussion unless you're holding on to that anger and resentment.
Your earlier post, if you remember it, stated that "gays" should rein in so-called negative comments to each other and others if they wanted to stop hearing comments like Shockey's and that perhaps it's "gays" that are partially responsible for bringing on behavior like Shockey's. As I've now said a few times, and as other posters have said (IN OUR OPINIONS) that's bullsh*t.

So you think "Gays" are everywhere in West Hollywood (surprise, surprise) and on the crews of most film and TV shows (film and tv crews are predominately heterosexual, behind the scenes is another story - if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that)...

Basically, you're homophobic...you've got an axe to grind with homosexuals apparently based on your past experiences. Which is unfortunate for you as a person of color who's no doubt seen first hand how people can have one bad experience with a black person and decide "they're all bad." Perhaps what's important here (way beyond the Shockey thing) is for you to take a look at your rigidity and your own prejudice against homosexuals. Consider when it started and why it pisses you off so much that you've come to this site and spent considerable time expressing yourself. You live in LA: what is that "gays" are doing that pisses you off so much?

I hope you'll take a more honest look at your attitude towards gay people before calling us partially responsible for ignorant comments from individuals like Shockey. Staying silent and hidden isn't an option for the present generation.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

Yikes! I'm reading this for the first time. While I'm all for a good ole healthy debate, I think the tension is causing some cloudiness. In the 60s,70s and maybe into the 80s, no one would have blinked over Shockey's comment. Or, if one had a reaction, one would have to keep it to one's self. In a rather paradoxical way, Shockey, Rocker and the like do us a favor. They keep us on our toes, they remind us that we must never rest. Sometimes I fear that gays in their 20s assume that there were always gay bars with windows to the outside world, gay sports leagues, openly gay politicians, gay community centers, gay chat lines, gay newspapers, gay legal centers, gay rights organizations, gay parades, gay neighborhoods, domestic partner benefits, gay college groups, and on and on. Sure, let's react to Shockey, let's give him an earful, let's express our displeasure. Let's do it in a mature, thoughtful, credible, stern manner. But, let us guard against attacking each other. Let us agree to disagree while keeping our eye on the prize. P

[quote]Odd to have "gays" dealing with bigotry and discrimination yet exercising it themselves.

---

Riiiggghhhtttt.....and I've NEVER heard a "black" man spew the most vile anti-Semitism (i.e. "Hitler should have finished the job"). Nope, never have.

So, obviously, we can conclude that all "blacks" are vicious anti-Semites. Right?

Or the "black" guys that beat the crap out of, what, 5 guys in WeHo, because they thought that homos would be easy pickings and besides, the "blacks" were out looking for "rich white people" to rob, are obviously racist homophobes. Right?

Well, no, actually. It's not. To play the "more opressed than thou" game is futile and there's plenty of evidence on either side of the fence to support one's position. I could link to some artitcles about historic "black" homophobia, but why bother? It proves nothing, really, except that stupidity cuts across all the lines that divide us.

[quote]If you are talking of "maligned minority", people of color still hold that status

---

Well, let's imagine the reaction if Jeremy "His Neck Is Too Big" Shockey had said "I don't wanna shower with "Black"/Latino/Asian guys". The outcry would have been swift and furious, with, I'm sure, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leading rallys to boycott the Giants, as well it should have been. Instead, because he mentioned The Gays, it's barely a blip on the national media screen and we have to spend 5 pages here defending our right to speak out against his comments, and in some cases, speak out for our very right to exist. Not that I'm playing the More Opressed Than Thou card, you understand.

And really, D.E. your comments about West Hollywood and the film/TV business are laughable. As Bryan D. pointed out, you are at best uninformed about the reality of the composition of TV/film crews; I live in a part of Los Angeles where filming goes on all the time (I live across the street from a hotel built in 1929 so it's used for filming period pieces). I see the crews all the time and I guarantee you that they're more likely to be seen on their off-hours at a Monster Truck Pull than a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser. The whole "Lavender Mafia" thing (see: Michael Ovitz) is just subtle homophobia; it's no different from the whisper campaign that "Jews control the media"; it's demonizing and scapegoating, a not very subtle way of saying "Ohmygod, they're taking over". Hmmmm...it sounds suspiciously like the racists who whisper about the racial makeup of the NBA.

And you would never know that "blacks" were a maligned minority if you went for a walk in Leimert Park or Baldwin Hills or Central Avenue or Compton or South Central or Signal Hill or...... Your comment about WeHo just reeks of the old "those damn gays, why can't they just keep it to themselves" mentality. So boo f**king hoo, we have basically a tiny strip of one street in a HUGE county (and a few other little scenes like in Silver Lake (a few bars scattered here and there), Long Beach (a tiny enclave) and a few other places). And really, heteros have the rest of the county. But I guess that's not good enough.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

Thank you Jim, it's exhausting trying to address this blatant homophobia in a civilized manner.

Well, Bryan D., you've mentioned something that's always very frustrating for me. The Gays should be spending our time fighting for equality in discrimination legislation (though I know some libertians have issues with doing that because they oppose the legislation for ALL groups), making sure that queer kids don't kill themselves, fighting AIDS etc. But so many of our resources are spent fighting battles that are just examples of pig-ignorance on the other side. Example: Defense of Marriage-type legislation. In almost every case where this waste of taxpayer's money has been floated/passed, there is already existing legislation on the books stating that marriage is between men and women. But gay orginizations in the individual states, already strapped for cash, have to fight the wild homophobia that these measures engender and they still pass by huge margins anyways. As I've mentioned before, I'm beyond tired of my homosexuality being blamed for that fact that heterosexual institutions are f**ked up because heterosexuals can't get their shit together. If they'd spend half as much energy in fixing the 50% hetero divorce rate as they did in passing useless, crap legislation, we'd ALL be better off.

Talk about an exhausting subject. I defy someone to show me one negative effect of gay marriage upon traditional marriage?! It's ludicrous. The fact is most people still don't get homosexuality so jumping ahead and imagining gay marriage is simply too big of a leap. The Defense of Marriage act is one of the most pathetic and insecure things I've ever heard of...If heterosexuals want to defend marriage, they should stop having affairs, stop ignoring their spouses, and stop defining themselves by their careers and how much money they make...marriage would get much stronger fast!

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
Well, let's imagine the reaction if Jeremy "His Neck Is Too Big" Shockey had said "I don't wanna shower with "Black"/Latino/Asian guys". The outcry would have been swift and furious, with, I'm sure, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton leading rallys to boycott the Giants, as well it should have been. Instead, because he mentioned The Gays, it's barely a blip on the national media screen and we have to spend 5 pages here defending our right to speak out against his comments, and in some cases, speak out for our very right to exist. Not that I'm playing the More Opressed Than Thou card, you understand.10, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

---

If Shockey had been unfortunate enough to utter such remarks, Jesse Jackson and company would be the LAST thing he'd have to worry about. I am CERTAIN that a host of his black/latino teammates would form a line to kick his ass.

[quote]Originally posted by Jim Allen:
And really, D.E. your comments about West Hollywood and the film/TV business are laughable. As Bryan D. pointed out, you are at best uninformed about the reality of the composition of TV/film crews...[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

---

Jim, I'm an actor...I work frequently on sets and know straight-up who is there. To my knowledge, you are an admin assistant who, until recently, was working for the County. Have you ever been on a set? Has "bryan d"? What these fellows LOOK LIKE says nothing about whether or not they are attracted to those of the same gender.

Whatever D.E. Yes, I've been on film sets. The building I live in IS a film set at least every couple of months etc. Yes, I have friends in the business, who all say the same thing: crews are overwhelmingly straight. Just because a set dresser is gay doesn't prove your point at all. People in The Business who have been quoted about this say the same thing. Your original point was lame to begin with, just more "the gays are taking over" bullshit. So, whatever.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

My deceased partner of fourteen years was a working actor on TV series, commercials, movies, and on stage, and also did occasional voiceovers, so I've been on a lot of sets, backstages, etc. I live on a street in Manhattan that is often used as a setting for "Law and Order" and several other TV series. My experience is that crews, technical people, stagehands, and any other type of blue-collar, unionized employees in these fields are overwhelmingly straight.

[quote] If Shockey had been unfortunate enough to utter such remarks, Jesse Jackson and company would be the LAST thing he'd have to worry about. I am CERTAIN that a host of his black/latino teammates would form a line to kick his ass.

---

Bad analogy perhaps. The black players might be generally supported if they responded that way but they probably would not - they've got sponsors to worry about.

He might more likely face a dangerous situation on the playing field - from black as well as white players who might target him for especially brutal blocks or tackles.

Perhaps someone with playing experience would know more but I suspect that this sort of off-the-books personal vendetta may also occur in the case of gay players, but is more likely to happen against them than in their support.

Maybe Rocker could help us out here.

More vomit from D.E....what a surprise. So Jim's an admin assistant so he can't possibly know what he's talking about? This coming from you, D.E., a what? An all knowing bit actor? Yeah, sure...Your pathetic little attempt to belittle Jim because of your limited impression of his job has failed..and reveals more about you than anything.

I was an actor in Chicago and Los Angeles for fifteen years. I worked extensively in theater and commercials. I worked at Universal for a major film producer for over three years. D.E.'s inaccurate and uninformed comments about film crews were purely meant to imply that homo's are everywhere and that that's a dangerous thing. Point concluded.

And D.E...Your original claim stated that "Gays" should rein in the negative stuff they say so they don't provoke reactions like Shockey's, yet you're sure that Shockey's black teammates would kick his ass if he said the same about them...So, it's fine for the black folk to kick his ass if he disses them, but the gay folk need to be quiet and not stir up in trouble! The contradiction is obvious and hypocrisy even more so.

Again, your views are homophobic and hypocritical. Why don't you just be honest and reveal when and where this kind of thinking started for you? Maybe this forum could help you purge and heal...walking around with the misdirected anger that you carry isn't going to do much for you as an actor or for your health....

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[quote]More vomit from D.E....what a surprise. So Jim's an admin assistant so he can't possibly know what he's talking about? This coming from you, D.E., a what? An all knowing bit actor? Yeah, sure...Your pathetic little attempt to belittle Jim because of your limited impression of his job has failed..and reveals more about you than anything.

---

This is getting way too personal and the 3 of you barking back and forth at each other are equally responsible. I'm closing this thread for now; 200+ exchanges has pretty much exhausted the subject.