On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 11:16:23 +0100, gareth evans
<headstone255@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 08/07/2021 06:33, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 18:28:28 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/07/2021 18:02, Laurence Taylor wrote:
>>>> In William Young's "The Shack", God is presented as a black woman.
>>>
>>>
>>> Surprised the transvestites are not claiming she is one of them, they
>>> seem to poke their nose into everything now.
>>
>> They might want everyone to use plural pronouns, because that seems to
>> be one of the affectations of the tiny minority who don't want to pick
>> a side and think the rest of us should care. This would probably upset
>> the believers in gods of course, because it seems every faction likes
>> to insist that there is only one.
>
>What percentage of humanity are sexually abnormal? 5%?
>
>If that, why should the remaining 95% of we be expected to
>accept their abnormalities as normal?
>
>The BBC is particularly remiss in that direction. Why does it seem
>to me that every entertainment series, such as the Sewing Bee, etc,
>have a homosexual presenter?
>

I think the minority that makes an issue out of pronouns is
microscopic compared even with homosexuals, probably a fraction of one
percent of the population. Nobody disputes that homosexual men are
men, and that lesbians are women. All the noise seems to come from the
ones who use surgery and/or wishful thinking to try to convince the
rest of the world that they are something that they are not, and in
the grand scheme of things their numbers are vanishingly small,
despite the impression given by most of today's broadcasters and
newspaper publishers. Drama just doesn't represent reality any more.

Rod.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2021 17:54:19 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <sc3sff$1d4b$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
> <MrSpud_fhd@f7dqa1mpc4__zs7kfjpb5i.co.uk> wrote:
>> >If there really is a God I can't help suspecting she laughs a lot at
>> >the absurdly daft religions people devise.
>
>> Probably another chuckle at the wokery of using the feminine pronoun to
>> deliberately make a virtue signalling point.
>
>I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male' God as a
>given.
>
>Jim

Religious types are probably guided by what it says in their book.

Rod.

On 08/07/2021 06:22, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jul 2021 16:37:48 +0100, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> On 07/07/2021 11:11, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> This was a joke back in the 60's - a NASA astronaut comes back from a trip around the moon and announces that he has seen god.
>>
>> God is a proper noun.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Not if you're Christopher Hitchens.

He doesn't own the English language. All he does by not capitalising
words that need it is show himself up as either an ignoramus or a poser.

Bill

On 08/07/2021 11:16, gareth evans wrote:
> The BBC is particularly remiss in that direction. Why does it seem
> to me that every entertainment series, such as the Sewing Bee, etc,
> have a homosexual presenter?

And then like some other minorities, they claim they are under-represented!

On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male' God as a
> given.

I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions that are
very biased against women. From ignoring them right up mistreating them
because of their gender.

In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> > I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male' God as a
> > given.

> I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions that are
> very biased against women. From ignoring them right up mistreating them
> because of their gender.

Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a general
movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <seldegtpb88t2pqt3hr8lh8ij1cqn76p03@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> Religious types are probably guided by what it says in their book.

Yes, that seems to be the case. (pun alert!) However with religions like
Christianity there are many different versions of the 'book', and often
even in a given version it will say contradictory things in different
parts.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <5948e35346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> > On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:

> > > I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male'
> > > God as a given.

> > I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions
> > that are very biased against women. From ignoring them right up
> > mistreating them because of their gender.

> Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
> general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.

With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
"dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.

Wow.

Bob.

On 09/07/2021 11:26, Bob Latham wrote:
> With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
> "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.
>
> Wow.

I was thinking similarly.

At least we do not ban them from taking part in services or segregate
them (even the Labour party allow that at their meeting) and we
certainly have stopped killing them unlike more Medieval cults.

"Jim Lesurf" <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5948e32ebfnoise@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <seldegtpb88t2pqt3hr8lh8ij1cqn76p03@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Religious types are probably guided by what it says in their book.
>
> Yes, that seems to be the case. (pun alert!) However with religions like
> Christianity there are many different versions of the 'book', and often
> even in a given version it will say contradictory things in different
> parts.

Also the book reflects attitudes to women and to homosexual relationships
that were prevalent when the book was written, many centuries ago. Religious
fundamentalists think that because the book says something, this trumps the
law of the land and current social norms. A wise religious person knows when
to disregard advice that is out of date because laws/attitudes have changed
as we have become (in theory) more enlightened and more tolerant.

"It's the law of the land" *always* wins over "it's against my religion",
IMHO. Hence people who run B&Bs being prosecuted for discrimination if they
refuse to rent rooms to a gay/lesbian couple. I work on the principle that
if something is not illegal, preventing that legal "thing" happening for
specious religious or animal rights reasons should be illegal. Every is
entitled to hold their own views, but not to foist them on other people.

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:5949479256bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <5948e35346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> > On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>> > > I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male'
>> > > God as a given.
>
>> > I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions
>> > that are very biased against women. From ignoring them right up
>> > mistreating them because of their gender.
>
>> Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
>> general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.
>
> With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
> "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.

I've always thought that it was a very insulting cop-out that the Sex
Discrimination Act allowed an exemption for religious reasons (preventing
women being ordained bishops etc). I bet if the SDA was being proposed and
refined today, with a view to making it law, such an exemption would not be
made.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:26:01 +0100
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>"It's the law of the land" *always* wins over "it's against my religion",
>IMHO. Hence people who run B&Bs being prosecuted for discrimination if they
>refuse to rent rooms to a gay/lesbian couple. I work on the principle that

I'm not religious at all, but if the owner of a private B&B doesn't want
to rent to gay couples because blunty they don't want to have to wash shit off
the sheets the next morning then they should be entitled to refuse them.

>if something is not illegal, preventing that legal "thing" happening for
>specious religious or animal rights reasons should be illegal. Every is
>entitled to hold their own views, but not to foist them on other people.

If you choose to go to a private home and that person says no, in what way
are they "foisting" their views on you?

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5949479256bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>> In article <5948e35346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>> Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>
>>>>> I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male'
>>>>> God as a given.
>>
>>>> I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions
>>>> that are very biased against women. From ignoring them right up
>>>> mistreating them because of their gender.
>>
>>> Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
>>> general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.
>>
>> With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
>> "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.
>
> I've always thought that it was a very insulting cop-out that the Sex
> Discrimination Act allowed an exemption for religious reasons (preventing
> women being ordained bishops etc). I bet if the SDA was being proposed and
> refined today, with a view to making it law, such an exemption would not be
> made.
>
>

Sometimes it’s better to use time to bring the stick in the muds around (or
to simply die off). Forcefully imposing what you suggest on religious
groups tends to harden and entrench attitudes and thus give them a lease of
life they may not otherwise have had.

On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:26:01 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>>> Religious types are probably guided by what it says in their book.
>>
>> Yes, that seems to be the case. (pun alert!) However with religions like
>> Christianity there are many different versions of the 'book', and often
>> even in a given version it will say contradictory things in different
>> parts.
>
>Also the book reflects attitudes to women and to homosexual relationships
>that were prevalent when the book was written, many centuries ago.

It also reflects attitudes to the existence of a god that were
prevalent when the book was written. If we're to update our attitudes
to homosexuals because the book is out of date, by the same logic we
ought to update everything else too, including the crazy notion of a
supernatural entity that created the universe, transcends the laws of
physics but for some reason never breaks them, and expects to be
prayed to despite no evidence that it has any effect.

I think the book is supposed to be an ultimate universal authority of
some sort, but it seems believers just keep the bits they want.

Rod.

On 09/07/2021 14:02, MrSpud_5zl3p92@ee4zo.net wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 13:26:01 +0100
> "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "It's the law of the land" *always* wins over "it's against my religion",
>> IMHO. Hence people who run B&Bs being prosecuted for discrimination if they
>> refuse to rent rooms to a gay/lesbian couple. I work on the principle that
>
> I'm not religious at all, but if the owner of a private B&B doesn't want
> to rent to gay couples because blunty they don't want to have to wash shit off
> the sheets the next morning then they should be entitled to refuse them.

Blunty????????

Otherwise ...

+1 +1 +1 +1

In article <sc9ffh$csb$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:5949479256bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> > In article <5948e35346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> >> > On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> >
> >> > > I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male' God
> >> > > as a given.
> >
> >> > I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions that
> >> > are very biased against women. From ignoring them right up
> >> > mistreating them because of their gender.
> >
> >> Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
> >> general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.
> >
> > With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
> > "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.

> I've always thought that it was a very insulting cop-out that the Sex
> Discrimination Act allowed an exemption for religious reasons (preventing
> women being ordained bishops etc). I bet if the SDA was being proposed
> and refined today, with a view to making it law, such an exemption would
> not be made.

There are, in both Scotland & England, female Bishops. But the law should
not concern tself with private members' clubs.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <sc9ffh$csb$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:5949479256bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
>>> In article <5948e35346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
>>> <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In article <sc6r49$hvj$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2021 17:54, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I did it because Religious Types often seem to take a 'male' God
>>>>>> as a given.
>>>
>>>>> I think many call god a Woman just to laugh at those religions that
>>>>> are very biased against women. From ignoring them right up
>>>>> mistreating them because of their gender.
>>>
>>>> Yes. Part of my decision was because of that. 'Christians' as a
>>>> general movement tend to have a dodgy track record on that.
>>>
>>> With all that's going down in the UK you single out christians for a
>>> "dodgy track record" when it comes to how we treat women.
>
>> I've always thought that it was a very insulting cop-out that the Sex
>> Discrimination Act allowed an exemption for religious reasons (preventing
>> women being ordained bishops etc). I bet if the SDA was being proposed
>> and refined today, with a view to making it law, such an exemption would
>> not be made.
>
> There are, in both Scotland & England, female Bishops. But the law should
> not concern tself with private members' clubs.
>

So should a private members’ club be allowed to forbid, for example, non
white people?

In article <sca7u0$k6k$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> So should a private members' club be allowed to forbid, for
> example, non white people?

It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites
only. Apparently this isn't discrimination, I assume because
discrimination is only a white thing.

I still hold to the former ideal that we should be colour blind in
everything. The current Identity politics mess is making race
relations worse and breeds resentment.

Bob.

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sca7u0$k6k$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So should a private members' club be allowed to forbid, for
>> example, non white people?
>
> It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
> whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites
> only. Apparently this isn't discrimination, I assume because
> discrimination is only a white thing.
>
> I still hold to the former ideal that we should be colour blind in
> everything. The current Identity politics mess is making race
> relations worse and breeds resentment.
>
> Bob.
>
>

That wasn’t my point. The original proposal was that the law should not
intervene in what private members clubs got up to. The law has to apply to
everyone, including private members’ clubs.

"Bob Latham" <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:59497c7a87bob@sick-of-spam.invalid...
> In article <sca7u0$k6k$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So should a private members' club be allowed to forbid, for
>> example, non white people?
>
> It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
> whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites
> only. Apparently this isn't discrimination, I assume because
> discrimination is only a white thing.
>
> I still hold to the former ideal that we should be colour blind in
> everything. The current Identity politics mess is making race
> relations worse and breeds resentment.

As does the quota system that recommends that there must always be a woman
and/or non-white person in every TV play, committee, candidate for
parliamentary seat or whatever. Everyone should have an equal chance of
being selected, on merit, without gender or ethnic background being a
factor.

I read a few years ago of a job in a company which was advertised, received
a number of applicants and then was withdrawn without even interviewing
anyone because none of the applicants was female or non-white, despite the
fact that some of the people who applied may have been perfectly suited for
the job.

In article <59497c7a87bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sca7u0$k6k$1@dont-email.me>,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> > So should a private members' club be allowed to forbid, for
> > example, non white people?

> It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
> whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites
> only. Apparently this isn't discrimination, I assume because
> discrimination is only a white thing.

> I still hold to the former ideal that we should be colour blind in
> everything. The current Identity politics mess is making race
> relations worse and breeds resentment.

In the 1960s, I had a Nigerian colleague. Someone asked him why he didn't
return to Nigerias since they'd just started a TV service. "Wrong Tribe"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In article <sc2i57$67a$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> scribeth
thus
>On 06/07/2021 19:56, charles wrote:
>> In article<sc277r$t5t$1@dont-email.me>,
>> MB<MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 06/07/2021 07:12, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Presumably that was down to the quality of the Post Office distribution
>>>> links to transmitters in the north?
>>> Unlikely, I think very little went over PO lines.
>> Dependa on when. Throughout the 405 era, sound to Fort William went down a
>> PO line from Rosemarkie
>

BBC sheet on that area here!...

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1964-24.pdf

>It came in answer

> to someone who was claiming continental VHF FM
>(possibly stereo) sounded much better than BBC ones.

Well i did once know someone who was involved in Broadcasting who lived
on the German/French and the Swiss border wasn't that far away, he did
say then the quality of their early Stereo transmissions was very good
indeed and that area is quite some way from the main broadcast
centres!...

That was around mid 1970's IIRC now!..
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 09/07/2021 19:44, charles wrote:
> There are, in both Scotland & England, female Bishops.

I don't think the Catholics have many!

On 09/07/2021 20:26, Tweed wrote:
> So should a private members’ club be allowed to forbid, for example, non
> white people?

Of course not but there can be awards restricted to black people and
organisations like the Black Police Officers Association (or whatever it
is called).

On 09/07/2021 21:04, Bob Latham wrote:
> It seems to be fine to have local authority swimming clubs for non
> whites only and for trade unions to hold meetings for non whites
> only.

And Labour have segregated meetings where the women have to sit apart.