So, What Is It That The Anti-Gay Groups Actually Fear?

Aug 17, 2012 Full story: lezgetreal.com 18,016

What makes hate, well, hate? Given that today is something of a quiet news day, it may be nice to give ourselves a breather and think about some things.

Full Story

Since: May 11

Slough, UK

#17903 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
the internet has no jurisdiction when it involves criminal activity.
you think you can file false reports on people and it go UNnoticed.
there have been websites perminately closed over such things.
The internet has no jurisdiction...wait-what? Shall I explain the concept of extra-judicial to you...

The US government can make any law it chooses. If the US makes it illegal to chew gum in Singapore does that make it illegal to chew gum in Singapore? NO it does not because the US has no JURISDICTION in Singapore.

Does the Kentucky cyber stalking internet task force thingy(if there was such a thing) have Jurisdiction in Canada? It does not.

Where are Topix servers? They are in California, does Kentucky have jurisdiction in California? It does not. Does California have Jurisdiction in Canada? It does not.

Are you mental? Yes you are.

Take your medication and then why don't you go and file suit against booots with the clerk of the imaginary internet court.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#17904 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
you are in trouble.....you just posted a name you shouldn't of.
YOU, not me. and if i were you, i would remove yourself from this NOW. cause i have your post printed off where you ask me if i knew what computer hacking was........
you want to be added to that cyber stalking list?
how stupid you are.
you must want to wind up where boots is headed awfully bad.
You could save yourself a ton of printer ink, time, energy, and sanity if you simply stop posting. If you went so long before and never posted, why can't you do it now?

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#17905 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
because she called them, after i relayed the continuous PMS from him to ME. and i was there.
speaker phones are a wonderful thing.
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
BULL.
.. read this post carefully:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7...

UIF WRITES: "YO DUMMY, boots BEGGED me to call them.
so i did. HE told me to."

.. United In Faith indicates SHE called the RS police. Once again, Patricia incriminates herself and exposes her pathological lying ..

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#17906 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
you are in trouble.....you just posted a name you shouldn't of.
YOU, not me. and if i were you, i would remove yourself from this NOW. cause i have your post printed off where you ask me if i knew what computer hacking was........
you want to be added to that cyber stalking list?
how stupid you are.
you must want to wind up where boots is headed awfully bad.
Patty, in light of what you claimed here yesterday, whether it is true or not, I think it would legally be in your best interest, and in the best interest of the lady you stated you spoke to at the police station in RS, that you shut up. You have said enough just today to get both of you into some very severe hot water, and that would not have to involve me at all.

Remember that there are other people, allegedly, on this site, from RS, and any one of them could report your friend and then she would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. I just hope that doesn't happen, as I was not wanting to cause any problems for a public employee in RS; I was only attempting to get someone to act on a report that we had received here that you are not capable of caring for your mother (that still is my only concern, but you seem to be bending over backward trying to make this a criminal matter, a law suit matter, and a job loss matter).

Cyber stalking is not contacting the police, Patty. A cyber stalker, except if he was trying to play games with the police, to see if they could catch him, would never contact the police if he was stalking someone online.

None of the information I gave the police came from anything that I personally had found out about my own, but was provided to me by other people, and they did not get it by stalking you either, but mostly from you yourself, and the rest is public record.

Would this be the correct name if I was to contact the mayor there, Patty?

Mayor Hollis DeHart

It gives his email address, telephone, and fax numbers, so I could use any or all of those.

I am not threatening to do that, Patty. This is hopefully a wake up call to you that perhaps you have gone too far.

Let's put it this way. If I plan to contact anyone else, except if they contact me first, regarding you, I will tell you first on here or by PM on here. That way, as has been the case from the beginning, no secrets will be kept.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#17907 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
you think i care about your 'THREATS'? let me assure you, i do not.
the fact you and boots wish to cause INNOCENT people trouble is a clear indication of what defines a true cyber stalker.
my only retort to you is if egging a mentally unbalanced person on to do unethical things, is what you find amusing and fun, then it is a safe bet that you have done your time in a mental facility as well.
there are UMPTEEN posts of your threats to pattycake and myself
and UMTEEN posts of your revealing PERSONAL information
you wanna stir the pot some more, knock your stupid self out.
i have right on my side.
stalkers always get caught hl.
count on it.
HL AND I DID *NOT*....I REPEAT,*NOT*, EGG BOOOOTS ON ABOUT THIS SITUATION. We repeatedly DIScouraged him from doing so. STOP SAYING WE DID. This is not a request, it is a DEMAND.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#17908 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI, just so ya know, this post is being forwarded to her now.
she wanted to know if her name was mentioned.
and now they can 'open topix if they want to, and find out who YOU are.
They can't "open" topix and retrieve personal data, crack-head. They aren't the FBI, they're the RSPD.

“MEET ROSEMARY-She Seeks Home”

Since: Oct 10

With Established Harem

#17909 Jan 10, 2013
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'm defending his right to privacy. Just like I defended YOU when he was making his report and calls. I advised him MULTIPLE times (publicly and privately) to NOT contact authorities, as did HL. I made that effort and you can NOT shame me in this situation. His actions do not justify your revenge. I know God would agree with me about that.
I understand boundaries and recognize that you've both crossed them.
.. Patricia doesn't have any morals or ethics and does not understand boundaries ..

.. we counseled Boooots regarding this matter, encouraged him to drop the matter, because we knew it was the right thing to do ..

.. if the shoe were on the other foot, Patricia would have encouraged Boooots to contact the police department. She loves whirlwinds, makes her feel alive ..

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17910 Jan 10, 2013
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was given to Patty and you're not her, why did YOU post it online?
plh, pattycake NEVER EVER gave her consent for her private name to be used on here.
and as i explained to you, the wicked and mentally disturbed are posting to me UIF and addressing me as patty.
you think that is fine and dandy.
you don't care about that.
NOR do you care about someone filing FALSE reports on pattycake, but you get all upset when the tables are turned and the stalkers name is freely given BY THE STALKER himself, and uncovered.

DO YOU REALLY think you have a just cause to be complaining to me?

as a matter of fact i am tired of you defending the immoral actions against pattycake to me.

enough.

if you were the right kind of person, you would be aiming your rebuking at those who are acting on those threats here.
but you don't, you never do.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#17911 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
i didn't call YOU demonic, in that post.
i said when confronted with hatemongers and demonic
that was a general statement but since you say all the stuff you do to me on here, demonic is a pretty good description of your mindset.
So while trying to say that you don't call others demonic, you called me demonic again right here...Patty, you really aren't thinking straight, are you?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#17912 Jan 10, 2013
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
You've said, MANY TIMES, that just because you may find personal information on someone, it doesn't mean you have the RIGHT to share it on the internet. You are the biggest hypocrite, Patty. You posted for REVENGE.
How would they (dispatch) "know" he has a mental history?
boooots did NOT report you/Patty for opposing ssm. I know that idea serves your need to become a martyr, but that is NOT what he reported. He reported potential elder abuse. Or did they not give you the actual report? Perhaps they did and you discarded it because it doesn't serve your full purpose.
As for public agencies like this, it is incorrect that the agency is allowed to provide the name of the person(s) who file a report on someone because it can become a legal liability. By sharing info from that report, you CREATED that liability for your local PD. Congrats.
Actually I kind of feel bad about that as the lady seemed like a nice lady too, on the phone. I know in small towns public officials tend to be a bit too free with personal information, but they are still legally liable if someone wants to make an issue about it.

Back somewhere between 1982 and 1986 (the period I worked at one branch of my former employer. I worked for two major Canadian banks), I had a client who I had seen before and was well known in the branch, and his family were fairly well to do and prominent farmers in the area, who came into my ofice, slammed the door shut hard, and stood over me at my desk, yelling at the top of his voice about how I had spread nasty stories around town about him, and so on and so forth. He was either drunk or on drugs or both, at the time. Becuse he was a borrowing client of mine, I would have had pesonal information from him, and he claimed that I had been telling around town about his bad record at the bank.

I had not discussed him with anyone in that town. In fact I probably didn't know anyone in that town who I would have thought might also know him, as he was from a farm, and I was new in the area and knew very few local people. Anyway, he finally picked up a very heavy rectangular shaped fancy pen holder from my desk and threw it at my desk. It put a hole right through the thick desk pad that was on my desk, and also damaged a small handheld calculator, which I still have with me in this room, though the battery is now dead. There is a groove in the outside metal covering of the calculator where the heavy object struck it. Finally hearing all the noise, the manager and the other assistance manager (I was one of the assistant managers) became frightened that I was in danger so they burst into the room and persuaded the gentleman to leave my office, but they had already call the cops whose office was only a couple doors away from the branch, and an officer came there and escorted the man out of the bank.

I think the cop explained to us later that the gentleman was known to have a rather angry side to him when inebriated.

My point is when one works in an office or a business that has personal information on other people, not only are they not permitted by law to divulge that information, but they are bound by the terms of their employment that they not do so.

Had I actually had been talking about this guy to others outside the bank, and it could be proved, I would likely have been fired. Fortunately, the only concern anyone had at that time was that he might be about to kill me.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17913 Jan 10, 2013
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was given to Patty and you're not her, why did YOU post it online?
WHAT? are you kidding me?

pattycake isn't posting on here.
I AM
and you and boots and hl and some others REFUSE to acknowledge UIF
so boots threats were given TO ME.
UIF.
not to pattycake

pattycake knows thru me.
are you unable to understand that?

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#17914 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
SURE THEY CAN. if someone files a report against you, you have a RIGHT to know where that complaint came from.
what makes you think you can violate someones privacy, file FALSE reports based on lies, and then not have to stand accountable for it. YOU COWARD.
you think you can trash someone and hide safely while doing it?
If they believe your report was bogas and unethical, and a concern for patty's safety, they most certainly CAN give information to protect someone they feel is being stalked.
all bets are off when you are filing a false report.
what is it about your brain that keeps you from understanding that?
its against the law to file false reports on someone.
patty didn't break any laws you idiot.
what you did was WRONG and falls under the title of slander and invasion of privacy
why don't you stop this maddness.
do you want to go back to the hosp, is this why you are doing this?
LEAVE ME ALONE.
and if you think trying to get a law enforcement person in trouble will help you in anyway, then you are crazier than i thought you were.
What part of "All information will be held confidential" do you not understand? Sure, they *can* share the confidential report with people...it doesn't make it LEGAL. How would they *know* boooots was filing a "false" report unless they spent the time and effort to investigate his claim. Even mental patients can provide accurate information when filing a report. They have no right to disregard his report until they follow through and investigate.

You can't repeatedly share someone's real name on the internet, for purposes of revenge, and then tell them to leave you alone. You opened Pandora's box and are trying to blame it on others, like a fart. YOU got that police department employee in trouble...not boooots, not HL. YOU.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#17915 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
YO DUMMY, boots BEGGED me to call them.
so i did.
HE told me to.
He didn't tell you to find out his name and post it on a public forum.
Not that it's his real name anyways, but as PLH mentioned, if your story is true, you made a bunch of people, including Amy, get into big trouble.

Since: Jul 12

Daytona Beach, FL

#17916 Jan 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
<quoted text>
.. Patricia doesn't care who she hurts ..
.. Amy trusted her. Big mistake. Might cost her a job and Patricia will chuckle while she cleans toilets ..
.. she's sick Boooots, very, very sick, as close to evil as you can come ..
I was thinking the same thing. That poor girl probably thought Patty was the "sane" one in this situation and shared the info without realizing Patty would run as fast as she could to her computer and share it.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17917 Jan 10, 2013
MisterCharrington wrote:
<quoted text>
The internet has no jurisdiction...wait-what? Shall I explain the concept of extra-judicial to you...
The US government can make any law it chooses. If the US makes it illegal to chew gum in Singapore does that make it illegal to chew gum in Singapore? NO it does not because the US has no JURISDICTION in Singapore.
Does the Kentucky cyber stalking internet task force thingy(if there was such a thing) have Jurisdiction in Canada? It does not.
Where are Topix servers? They are in California, does Kentucky have jurisdiction in California? It does not. Does California have Jurisdiction in Canada? It does not.
Are you mental? Yes you are.
Take your medication and then why don't you go and file suit against booots with the clerk of the imaginary internet court.
you are mental.

the U.S law covers every state in America.
if a person from KY goes to Cal and commits a crime they will stand trial in Cal for it.
matters not where they live or lived.

and i don't believe the police lied to me.
they assured me that the state is able to deal with cyber stalking.
you can't threaten peoples lives with slander and harm, and get away with it.
you are mental if you think they can.

FYI, the police don't 'cotton to' receiving false and bogas reports either. That takes up their valuable time.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#17918 Jan 10, 2013
United in faith wrote:
<quoted text>
SURE THEY CAN. if someone files a report against you, you have a RIGHT to know where that complaint came from.
But didn't you just say you weren't Patty? Haven't you been trying to say that this whole time (not that anyone believed you)?
The report was filed against Patty, so you just admitted to being Patty.

Since: May 11

Slough, UK

#17919 Jan 10, 2013
Pattiecake58 wrote:
<quoted text>
NOPE. I am Patty Hadley.
nahh patty never gave her consent for her name to be used on here, not ever.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17920 Jan 10, 2013
Peace-Love-Happiness wrote:
<quoted text>
You could save yourself a ton of printer ink, time, energy, and sanity if you simply stop posting. If you went so long before and never posted, why can't you do it now?
of course you say that. SILENCING people is the goal of every anti-God person on topix.

I find it irratating as all get out that if you can't make a person conform to your thinking, then the next step is to run them off and shut them up.

“O'si yo!”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#17921 Jan 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
United in faith wrote:
because she called them, after i relayed the continuous PMS from him to ME. and i was there.
speaker phones are a wonderful thing.
<quoted text>
.. read this post carefully:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/gay/T85ELBGC7...
UIF WRITES: "YO DUMMY, boots BEGGED me to call them.
so i did. HE told me to."
.. United In Faith indicates SHE called the RS police. Once again, Patricia incriminates herself and exposes her pathological lying ..
YO dummy is right on here,
because,'calling "THEM" is not mentioning any names.

HL incriminates herself as being UUUPID.
Horatio Caine

Miami, FL

#17922 Jan 10, 2013
A childs Nightmare

Two recent government actions, one legislative and one judicial, have called into question our society’s willingness to protect its youngest and most vulnerable members.

A hate crimes bill (H.R. 1913 and S. 909), dubbed by critics the “Pedophile Protection Act,” has already passed the House and is up for vote in the Senate. The bill earned its unofficial name when Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude pedophiles from legal protection. No doubt this legislation serves as a precursor to onerous hate speech legislation in the future.
Ads by Google

On the judicial front, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in a divorce case that two minor children must be forced to mingle against their will with their homosexual father’s “gay” and lesbian friends during visitation. Claiming the children of Eric and Sandy Mongerson will not suffer harm from this contact, Justice Robert Benham overturned an earlier lower court ruling protecting the children from exposure to “overnight company with a member of the opposite sex, or with any person deemed to be a paramour, unrelated by blood or marriage, in the presence of a child.”

Beth Littrell, an attorney for the pro-homosexual group Lambda Legal, said,“The court has done the right thing today by focusing on the needs of the children instead of perpetuating stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.”

An AP report said the mother’s attorney, Lance McMillian,“claimed the father subjected the children to an ‘array of violent, sexual, abusive and wholly inappropriate conduct’ during a trip to Arkansas and contended the father was in a series of affairs with other men while still married.”

During the trial the two oldest children expressed fear for the safety of their younger siblings due to their homosexual father’s violent outbursts. One of the girls told of finding a magazine with naked men while visiting her father.

So much for “justice” and the assertion that children’s needs are a priority.

Benham might have done his homework and discovered a plethora of reasons to block easy access to these children by the friends of their homosexual father. He could have started with the wealth of material found at the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Numerous scientific studies show soaring rates of violence within homosexual and lesbian relationships, shortened life spans caused by diseases influenced by their lifestyle, and a significantly higher rate of child molestation as compared with heterosexual populations.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 15 min Frankie Rizzo 59
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 17 min NorCal Native 55,923
What counts as a 'real name' on Facebook? 18 min Tre H 13
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 23 min Frankie Rizzo 1,073
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 54 min Pro Ukraine 1,446
Gay marriage cases await early Supreme Court de... 56 min Tre H 453
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 1 hr ptettee 200,974
Coach tied to beating of gay couple leaves job 1 hr Belle Sexton 7
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 1 hr Terra Firma 820
•••

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••