Suck it, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

Who am I? I've never belonged to a gay student club, you ****ing presumptuous bigot. Here you go again with your ****ing insulting "gay hive mind" bull****.

You brought up the issue with GLASS. Forgive me for assuming that you brought it up because you were a member and it directly affected you.

Where on earth did I say "all gay students are a member of the GLASS"? I never said this until after you brought it up for the first time. All I said is that YOU were a member of GLASS.

And yes, they were using the nudity as a "recruiting tool"

Thank you for admitting the truth.

in the same respect that the GAP people use the slaughter of children as a "recruiting tool".

Except that we don't. That's the difference. We don't tell people to sign onto the prolife club so you can do GAP. In many cases folks who are members are not even permitted to do GAP for a variety of reasons.

Frankly, one of these is far more evil than the other...

It's not an intellectually honest position to ban one and permit the other. I'd have much more respect if you said both should be permitted. I myself have been leaning towards that position for a long time, but I find myself much less willing to accommodate folks when I see folks like you pushing the double standard of only banning speech you dislike.

So, I think it's a much more reasonable position to permit the images when used for the purpose of journalism, for the same reason we permit images of the holocaust display. When the same images are used for both, I don't see how you can reasonably argue that one should be permitted and the other should not.

Pornography on the other hand is a different ball of wax. I don't care what the GLASS does amongst themselves but no distributing porn through advertising.

Because they are publicly inappropriate and offensive to many people. They're allowed to express their viewpoint and hold the events publicly, but only for people WILLING TO SEE IT.

Then why permit the same images in a holocaust memorial? You cannot hold a double standard and permit one, while banning the other when they are the exact same images. The display is offensive not because of the images that they use, but because of the idea they put out, which means that this whole 'publicly inappropriate' discussion is a smokescreen for discrimination and censorship.

You rave about how these people put up "warning signs" so people who didn't want to see the images didn't have to see it, but then you get your panties in a twist over a request to turn the posters inside so only those who want to see the images have to see them.

Yes, of course, because if people want to see the signs then they should be permitted to do so, and not censored by the University. Informed consent works both ways. I think university students are old enough to decide for themselves what they can or can't see, and that means permitting them to see GAP if that is what they decide to do.

Now, if you are insisting that GAP must turn their signs inward, there is no need for the warning signs. You've abrogated consent by refusing to permit students to see the sign.

Are you being disingenuous when you claim they put up signs to protect people from seeing the isgns they don't want to see

No, because I've put those signs up myself, and the only reason they were made is to warn others.

(which they don't do anyway),

Which they do, when people see them.

or are you too ****ing stupid to see that they both accomplish the same thing? Clearly, it is the motive of these groups to show the images to people who DON'T want to see them.

No, otherwise why would we voluntarily put up the signs? We want everybody to see them, and the students should be able to make the decision whether they want to see the display. If they want to see the display, then why should you be able to tell them no? Are you their keeper Asher?

No one ****ing took my toys away because I never belonged to a gay student club. I was making the point that there are CONTENT GUIDELINES for publicly-facing displays in public campus areas. This applies to ALL groups, not just the ones you circle jerk with and repent with after.

Which has what to do with condom distribution? You accused me of wanting to bar gay campus clubs from distributing condoms, so I said that it doesn't matter what they do with giving out condoms on campus, provided that they pay for the condoms themselves. I know for a fact that they are funded by the university which means that the general population is paying for their stuff. I have a problem with it. You wouldn't want to be financing prolife activities, so why should I have to pay so that GLASS runs?

[Asher]

You brought up the issue with GLASS. Forgive me for assuming that you brought it up because you were a member and it directly affected you.

Where on earth did I say "all gay students are a member of the GLASS"? I never said this until after you brought it up for the first time. All I said is that YOU were a member of GLASS.

You assumed I was, I don't know why. I never said or implied I was in there.

Explain your reasoning.

Except that we don't. That's the difference.

You absolutely do. You use the images of the slaughter of children to outrage people into joining your cause -- to recruit. You liar.

It's not an intellectually honest position to ban one and permit the other.

Yep. Which is precisely why both nudity and decapitated children are not valid images for public displays on campus.

Didn't read the rest of your post. You're too verbose. Knock it off.

PS: They do not put up the signs at the UofC. Your attempt to imply you put the signs up yourself (at the UofC) is just dishonest. You've never been to the UofC or its campus, you've certainly never been involved there in putting up signs. I know this because 1) the warning signs never existed at the UofC, and 2) you are a pathological liar, and 3) you've never been to the UofC

[Ben Kenobi]

I don't give a **** what you think standard procedure is.

The way it works is that they follow the rules or they don't have GAP. Simple as that. We help the campus group get the signs, set them up and the rest of the organisation. One of the rules are the warning signs. The reason I know that they have been following the rules is because CCBR was there at the display with the signs. It's their job to make sure that everything is done, including the warning signs. It's possible they forgot them, but I very much doubt that as I know the folks with CCBR and how careful they are to make sure all the rules are followed.

Their actions detailed in the article speak volumes. They're interested in showing the pictures to people who DON'T want to see them, that's why they refused to turn the displays inwards so only people who go to see them, can see them.

Your logic doesn't hold up. If they have put up warning signs voluntarily, then the only conclusion that follows is they only want to show the signs to people who are willing to see them. They refused to turn the display inward because it was censorship and discrimination. They were right to defy the rule, which doesn't apply to any other clubs, but is specifically targetted at them.

The signs would have the same effect: If they put up big disclaimers about graphic images of mutilated children ahead,

Which they do.

people would steer clear of it -- so they don't do it.

Some do, some don't. You are presuming that other people are not curious about what all the fuss is about.

I'm not sure WTF you mean by I can't get the year right -- it's inconsequential! It was 1st or 2nd year, I can't remember which but it doesn't ****ing matter.

If you can't get the year right, how can we trust your memory on other matters, as to whether or not the signs were there?

I "attended" the display because the display was in a bottleneck on campus.

Then you chose to see the display over the inconvenience of changing your route slightly to avoid the signs. Tough, actions have consequences. No one forced you to see the signs, and no one forced you to walk that way such that you saw the signs.

99% of students had to walk by it every day to get from class to class, you act like it was in some obscure area of campus that I must've missed every year they did it.

Where did I say that? All I said is that the prolife club should have the same access to common student areas where they can hold demonstrations, no different from any other club. I would expect such areas to be high traffic. All I'm insisting is that the university treat the prolife club wrt to access the exact same as the other clubs, including Falun Gong.

Now we know for a fact, that other clubs were protesting in the same area, so what's the beef? Why should we treat the prolife club differently?

That's absurd. It wasn't just ONE year, Ben, it was EVERY year -- so EXCUSE ME for not remembering the exact year they started doing it, but it DOESN'T MATTER (you ****ing lying scum).

If you only saw it in 2002 or 3 or whatever, why do you assume that the same would be true now?

[MOBIUS]

Why, was Ben finally banned? I can't see through ignore.

Instead of banning Ben, can we abort him?

[Asher]

Your logic doesn't hold up. If they have put up warning signs voluntarily, then the only conclusion that follows is they only want to show the signs to people who are willing to see them.

Yes, and this is precisely why they did not put up warning signs voluntarily.

If you can't get the year right, how can we trust your memory on other matters, as to whether or not the signs were there?

Because the year doesn't matter when it first happened. It happened many years. And they never had signs. And each time there was a huge uproar and demands they use signs. I specifically remember the SU adding their own signs to quell the uproar the first year, before they just gave up completely on the GAP people for the next years (forcing GAP to not protest on SU property).

If you only saw it in 2002 or 3 or whatever, why do you assume that the same would be true now?

YOU ARE SO ****ING STUPID.

2002 or 3 was the FIRST YEAR they did it at the UofC. They've done it every year since. I've seen it in 04, 05, and 06 as well.

Why should we treat the prolife club differently?

I HAVE ALREADY SAID THIS MANY TIMES. There are SEVERAL PROLIFE clubs at the UofC. The only one who is not permitted is the GAP group, because of their extreme content and lack of respect for the guidelines ALL CLUBS agree to when they are provided their space. The other pro-life clubs have their exhibits just fine.

[Ben Kenobi]

You assumed I was, I don't know why. I never said or implied I was in there.

Explain your reasoning.

You brought it up without prompting, so I assumed that the issue of the banning of porn distribution affected you personally.

You absolutely do. You use the images of the slaughter of children to outrage people into joining your cause -- to recruit. You liar.

No we don't. We use clubs days to recruit. There are many members who don't want to participate in GAP, and we don't permit anyone to go to GAP unless they are prepared.

Didn't read the rest of your post. You're too verbose. Knock it off.

This is boring.

PS: They do not put up the signs at the UofC. Your attempt to imply you put the signs up yourself (at the UofC) is just dishonest.

Where did I say that? I've put up the warning signs at UBC and at SFU.

You've never been to the UofC or its campus

I've been there twice. It was on my short list of schools, and I got a good scholarship there in '99. Why you persist in making wide-sweeping generalisations is beyond me.

you've certainly never been involved there in putting up signs. I know this because 1) the warning signs never existed at the UofC, and 2) you are a pathological liar, and 3) you've never been to the UofC

1, is false. I have pictures.

2, again is false.

3, is false.

Takes effort to have every premise wrong, let alone the fact that I never claimed that I put the signs up at the U of C.

[Ben Kenobi]

2002 or 3 was the FIRST YEAR they did it at the UofC. They've done it every year since. I've seen it in 04, 05, and 06 as well.

That you are fixated on 2002 or 3 leads me to believe that you are saying they didn't have the signs up the first time, and you are silent about the other times.

Because the year doesn't matter when it first happened. It happened many years. And they never had signs.

I have pictures that say they did.
I really don't know why you are insisting this point to the bitter end Asher.

Just concede and let it go.

[Asher]

You brought it up without prompting, so I assumed that the issue of the banning of porn distribution affected you personally.

I didn't say **** all about ME PERSONALLY. I clearly brought it up as an example of having CONTENT GUIDELINES for public displays, and the fact that it's NOT just the Christian pro-life militants who have to adhere to them.

You assumed that I was personally affected by it and you assumed I was part of the gay students union. That's all you.

No we don't. We use clubs days to recruit.

What in the flying **** are you talking about?

You seem to be getting confused with the terminology here. I'm not talking about recruiting as in "join the club", I'm talking about recruiting as in the ideology -- the goal of the displays are openly to try to get people to oppose abortions. They use the graphic images of dismembered children as part of their campaign to recruit into that ideology.

I've been there twice. It was on my short list of schools, and I got a good scholarship there in '99. Why you persist in making wide-sweeping generalisations is beyond me.

Because you are a liar. Previously you've done nothing but insult the school on this very site and now you're saying it was on your shortlist like you were considering going there. ****ing liar.

1, is false. I have pictures.

Show me the pictures of the warning signs posted at the University of Calgary, or admit you are a liar.

[Asher]

That you are fixated on 2002 or 3 leads me to believe that you are saying they didn't have the signs up the first time, and you are silent about the other times.



I have pictures that say they did.
I really don't know why you are insisting this point to the bitter end Asher.

Just concede and let it go.

If you have pictures showing the warning signs posted at the UofC, THEN ****ING POST THEM.

The problem is YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PICTURES because they DID NOT EXIST and YOU ARE A ****ING LIAR.

[Ninot]

Asher

[Ben Kenobi]

You assumed that I was personally affected by it and you assumed I was part of the gay students union. That's all you.

Fair enough, but that's a far cry from the 'gay hive mind'. That's all you.

You seem to be getting confused with the terminology here. I'm not talking about recruiting as in "join the club", I'm talking about recruiting as in the ideology

I was speaking of recruiting as in getting people to join the club, which is what the pornography GLASS distributed was doing.

-- the goal of the displays are openly to try to get people to oppose abortions. They use the graphic images of dismembered children as part of their campaign to recruit into that ideology.

To change hearts and minds, yes, but that's a far cry from recruitment. I've never heard the term used in such a way before. You can't recruit minds, you recruit bodies. You convince and sway minds. Yes we are trying to convince people that abortion is wrong.

Because you are a liar. Previously you've done nothing but insult the school on this very site and now you're saying it was on your shortlist like you were considering going there. ****ing liar.

I've insulted you, not the school. There's a difference.

I have no problem with U of C. It's you I have the problem with.

Show me the pictures of the warning signs posted at the University of Calgary, or admit you are a liar.

If rah says yes, then I will. It's their site, so it's their say.

[BeBMan]

This thread is nothing without pictures

[rah]

Please feel free to pm him the pictures.

[Ben Kenobi]

I've only been saying that, what? 60 posts ago?

[Ben Kenobi]

Please feel free to pm him the pictures.

Ok. I'd love to see your reaction, Asher.