Are Parker and Stone queer?

What the fuck is their fucking problem? It seems every episode they have to have something on the show to do with gays and queers. The episode where Kyle's dad jerked off in a hottub in front of another man was fucking sick. Parker and Stone are obsessed with assholes and gay sex. What is up with them?

[email] wrote:

Maybe they just enjoy seeing people like you get their panties in a knot about it. It sure is entertaining.

Obviously if you're still watching (you imply you've seen "every episode"), then it doesn't *really* upset you enough to make a difference, does it? If you keep watching something that you claim is "fucking sick," then who's the real sicko? Or the real queer?

In article ,

have

episode

sex.

knot

episode"),

it?

who's

I didn't say I watched every episode you asswipe

Actually, you anonymous coward, by discussion what seems to happen in "every episode", you did imply that.

• Drew

In article ,

wrote:

Go fuck yourself you sorry ass piece of dog shit.

[email] wrote...

Way to go, Render007! I commend you on your articulate, insightful, and carefully thought out rebuttal. You sure blew Drew's statement full of holes! You must have had extensive experience on high school and college debating teams.

I look forward to reading your 26-page thesis on gayness on South Park which I'm sure you're working on.

In article , "Eric Perlin" wrote:

Go screw yourself with a fucking frozen bratwurst you pea brained, fat assed moron.

[email] wrote:

Nobody's ever made my killfile after one post before.

Congrats.

You just set the record.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

This man is.. a genius.

Thank you, render007. Without you, this newsgroup would not be half as insightful or entertaining.

In response to accusations made against him by Drew, charter Mensa member render007 articulated the following:

What brilliant wit, render007! As if the above was not brilliant enough, he later responded to one of my posts with the following:

I am once again in awe of your brilliance, render007. I wish I could write messages as intelligent as yours. But, alas, I will never be as smart as you are.

You spelled every word correctly! Even hard words like "screw" and "frozen"! Did you need a dictionary or did you know all of those big words on your own?

Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom here on the web. I'm off to buy a frozen bratwurst. :D

P.S. Do you teach creative writing in any university? If so, please let me know so I can enroll. I want to learn how to write as well as you do.

As an editor, I cannot concur. He omitted *three* (gasp) hyphens in the compound adjectives "pea-brained," "fat-assed," and "sorry-ass." Two commas are also missing. No, there'll be no Phi Beta Kappa key waiting for this fellow. It'll be more like "Would you like fries with that?"

In article ,

I came here to talk about South Park. Do you want to do that, or do you want to sit here all day jerking your keyboard off?

You should know you sorry asshole that I am a woman, not a "he". Remember it you ignorant fuckhead. Go screw a donkey without using a condom.

[email] wrote:

Actually there is no reason anyone should know that. It's not supposed to matter.

Yes, missy.

Grow up. Didn't anyone ever teach you to take the tampon *out* when it's soaked?

In article ,

supposed

it's

OMIGOD!!! ROTFLMAO!!

That's why I love coming here. It's just like South Park: crude rude and unabashedly vulgar.

why do you even respond to this fucking bitch. just let her go and fuck herself

For starters, this thread was started without her participation, and I first answered only Eric, the originator. When she then arrived with her customary gentility, I felt it would be rude not to edify her at least slightly. The fact that she *laughed* -- or claimed to laugh -- at the last barb I tossed her way (quote below) almost implies she actually came around. A little.

Or maybe not. In any case do you think you're adding much? As you probably know, with no new episodes coming soon, the newsgroup is ripe for catfights over nothing, which can start whenever someone posts something like -- well, like what you've posted here.

Hm. Maybe you should start a thread detailing how others should post. (We could even talk about how lazy it is to quote the whole original post.) It *might* be something everyone wants. And monkeys *might* fly out of my ass.

In article , Mark Tangard wrote:

first

customary

The

tossed

little.

I found it hysterical and am going to remember it for future use. When a person is slick, I give them their props, even if it is at my expense. I've hardly gotten a chance to talk about SP because i'm constantly having to defend myself. Is this place normally this nasty?

[email] wrote:

Good. That's 50 points. (But you get 20 points off each time you just fire back a defensive comment attacking your attacker without satirical value.) (They told me that at the initiation & branding ceremony.)

Yes.

One way to get a clearer view of who's a dildo and who's worth reading is to unthread the messages and click on the "Sender" column heading, then read maybe 4 or 5 from each major poster and ponder each one -- without answering. (You may have to set your newsreader to show you all earlier messages in order to get to that point, so some posts will be old and not timely, meaning you'll draw flames if you answer them.)

(Note: It's *slightly* less nasty here when there are fresh SP episodes airing for U.S. viewers. But only slightly.)

Well, it had levelled off, but there was a MAJOR upsurge in nastiness that coincided with the release of the movie.

The nastiness is falling..

But I don't like Mark's insistance that it gets better when there are new US episodes.....

The mjority of the bad posts were when the movie was released.... In the US.....

Covenant. A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

Alt.Tv.Southpark FAQ: http://www.angelfire.com/oh/joesfaqforsp/

Dave wrote in message ...

expense.

Good point. We probably need to say that any analysis of how nasty things get is very subjective. And that it also depends on whom you've already killfiled. ;)

Another good point.

I just emptied out tmy killfile out of curiosity, and it appears that most of the people I've placed in there have stopped posting altogether, so I'd definitely have to agree with Cove's "the nastiness is falling" comment.

(Although I may have used "subsiding", or even "abating" instead of
"falling".) <g>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

And, as if on cue, this 'render' idjit pops up.

Sigh.

Tennnn-hutt!

Ratboy's Killfile, reporting for duty sir!

KF, please take out the trash.

Sir, yes sir!!

Plonk.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Dave wrote:

ROTFLOL!!!!

Dave- you are just too cool :-)

-Toni

In article , "cyberian bear" wrote:

fuck

Who are you calling a bitch, you fucking buttplug? Shut your wordhole!

it seems that u r brain damaged so to clarify i am calling u a bitch. need me to clarify it a litle bit further so that ur little pea sized brain can precess it.

it seems that u r brain damaged, so to clarify i am calling u a bitch. Need me to clarify it a litle bit further so that your little pea sized brain can process it?

it seems that u r brain damaged, so to clarify i am calling u a bitch. Need me to clarify it a litle bit further so that your little pea sized brain can process it?

In article , "cyberian bear" wrote:

sized

Shove it up your stank, fat, hairy, pimply white ass you friggin moron.

it seems that u r brain damaged, so to clarify i am calling u a bitch. Need me to clarify it a litle bit further so that your little pea sized brain can process it?

[email] wrote:

<sarcasm>

Yeah.....don't you guys know that render007 is a woman's name? Geez- what the fuck is wrong with you all? For shame you guys- for shame.

</sarcasm>

-Toni

Toni wrote...

Despite render007's feminine name and ladylike way with words, it was nevertheless easy to mistake her for a man, what with all that grotesque facial hair.

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:57:07 GMT, [email] wrote:

It's funny. If you don't approve, feel free to stop watching.

----- Lone Wolf I'm rooting for the crocodile.

"It's fun to make fun of people who stammer." - Howard Stern

In article ,

have

sex.

No, it's not funny. I want to keep watching, but it wouldn't hurt if they would lay off some of the gay stuff. There comes a point when you've gone too far across the line and need to step back.

[email] wrote:

If crossing "the line" were your real problem, you'd have choked on your own vomit a long time ago. South Park makes continual mention of things that are a lot more off-the-wall than homosexuality. Funny how you're so totally repulsed by even the most oblique, marginal references to homosexuality (like two men having masturbated -- off-camera, even), but things like fucking chickens, a talking piece of shit that smears itself on people's faces, or a coprophagic video starring Cartman's mom don't even rate a peep. Don't be such a control freak; you'll never get the dildo out.

Probably with you screaming til you're hoarse in a desperate attempt to make the world conform to your hallucinations.

You make your whole "argument" (if you can call it that) forgettable when you burst into lame bratty insults at anyone who tells you you're wrong. You can either grow up, or not. NOBODY HERE WILL CARE. And certainly Parker & Stone won't give a damn either. Get a life. And some testicles.

Amazing. Going to far and crossing the line has been pretty much what Matt and Trey have been doing since they came about.

With such a vast knowledge of the show and Matt/Trey themselves, you would think you would have caught onto that by now.

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 17:02:18 GMT, [email] wrote:

Funny is in the eye of the beholder. I'd wager the majority of this newsgroujp got the joke and laughed it off. If you're taking it this seriously then you're a closet homosexual, a homophobe, or both.

Take a chill pill.

----- Lone Wolf I'm rooting for the crocodile.

"It's fun to make fun of people who stammer." - Howard Stern

Or a chill suppository.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

[email] wrote:

I don't know what problem you refer too, but it's definitely not homophobia.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

OK PEOPLE- They are NOT gay. If you pay attention to some of the video tapes (south park), and read sometime in your life...you may understand why Matt and Trey make up things having to do with gay people. Have you seen BASEKETBALL??? You might understand a little more if you pay attention to that particular movie. IN ROLLING STONE- They are as straight as an arrow, but like people to make laugh a little. Its all a big joke, and people dont catch on to it...TRUST ME...Look in my sources...:)

[email] wrote:

Parker makes me wonder, though--he's got a serious hard-on for Brian Boitano, Broadway, show tunes, and musicals in general.

On Dennis Miller, he admitted to crying like a woman every time he sees Le Mis.

G

So he cries. And likes Broadway. <shrugs> He's bi if anything, and I'm convinced that's what it is, though, as feminine as he can be he can also be *very* hetero..

-Kim "Because of my beliefs I must stay here where evil is sown. But what is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme? Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes."- "Up There", South Park Movie

ok, the big question is-if they are, in fact, a couple-who gets to be on top? ;-) Ash "Scars are souvenirs you never lose"

"The moral majority is neither moral nor a majority. they are a bunch of old white dudes who think they know how my mom and dad should run my life"

Somebody wrote:

Yes, we all know how wussy it is to show emotion.

so he's a drama guy. god for fucking bid. i'm a drama guy. and i'm not gay...neither are most of my friends.

have you ever seen the musical version of les mis? now that's a play to cry at.

-jake (ok) [email] http://www.angelfire.com/va/loserboi

"We are such stuff As dreams are made on; and our little life Is rounded with a sleep." -shakespeare, "the tempest"

When are ya ever gonna learn -- except for a relative few who match the stereotype that lives in your own head, you can't discern gayness for sure from outward signs or adding up imaginary hints, etc. That's especially true for celebrities, because us ordinary people usually DO NOT ever really know the real person behind the image. Just for an example, compare what you thought -- before you knew -- about, say, Jerry Lewis and Rock Hudson. JL is straight, RH was gay. Could you tell, before you knew?

As I said in a post last year, right now it's actually to Matt's & Trey's advantage to make people *wonder* if they're gay -- simply because it keeps their names that much more in the spotlight (and in the tabloids, and in this newsgroup, or maybe that's redundant).

If we had incontrovertible proof that Matt and/or Trey were gay OR proof that they weren't, we might see a few splashy/bitchy articles about it in the Enquirer & the other starsucker rags for a few weeks. But after that, the topic, being *resolved*. wouldn't fuel nearly as much discussion anymore, because there'd be nothing to speculate about. They would still be in the news (and if it was proof they're gay, the fundies would shit in their pants for a while, big woop). But their *total* newsworthiness would actually DECREASE, because after a while there'd be no reason to write (or read) articles about whether they're gay or not.

This works with any celebrity. Example: Speculation about Elton John's sexuality used to be all over the supermarket rags and gossip columns. Now that he's totally out, nobody gives a shit, and if his gayness is mentioned in print at all, it barely gets a single sentence. With Ellen DeGeneres, it's similar -- she still makes news sometimes, but no writer wastes paragraphs *wondering* if she's a lesbian, cuz it's not a question.

Any of us who are *concerned* enough about Matt's or Trey's sexuality to discuss it to death here are just continuously re-fueling the discussion. That is, you're doing exactly what the publicity mill wants you to do. And to what end? Why would it matter to you -- I'm excluding the women here who seek to bed Trey; good luck, ladies -- but why would it matter to you if they are or aren't gay? Would it make South Park less funny? (Would it make it MORE funny?) To put it very plainly: Would you try to deliberately decrease your enthusiasm for the show, based entirely on what you know about who its writers fuck?

I can't imagine why anyone with a brain would answer yes to that, because most people who are *that* shallow wouldn't watch or understand South Park to begin with. And since it probably wouldn't matter to the majority of their fans, I can't imagine why Matt or Trey would care either.

<snip>

<massive applause, standing ovation, cookies by the thousand> *Thank* you, Mark. This was a debate since BASEketball last year, and was very recently making hundreds of posts in a mailing list of mine. Quite frankly, I'm pissed off. Everyone, keep your theories to *yourself*, because we're never going to know who's right.

My thanks. Good luck in..uhm..whatever fantasy you hold present at the moment. However, for some strange reason, it doesn't even matter to me with that little span of thoughts revolving around in my head. After all, I'd never get him, right? <shrugs>

You know one of the weirdest things about society? I honestly believe that some homophobic assholes-the type at my school who love the show for the fact that it curses and considers Cartman to be a god-actually would. When a relationship in a Disney movie is homosexual..when where someone stands isn't a matter of heavy debate, and nobody has to be in the closet..when there's no shock at the statement 'I'm gay'..then our society is getting somewhere.

-Kim "Because of my beliefs I must stay here where evil is sown. But what is evil anyway? Is there reason to the rhyme? Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes."- "Up There", South Park Movie

On 31 Jul 1999 17:02:19 GMT, [email] (Kim DeCina) wrote:

What everyone seems to be missing is that -- given the irreverent attitude that the guys have about our society (and everything in general) -- that the gay stuff is deliberately designed to "zing" those who are uptight about it. I think that Trey and Matt like to try to make people think that they're gay, just to get that extra attention... much like punkers who dye their hair yellow/purple/magenta/blue/etc and get 400 piercings, they're trying to shock people. The best thing is that the homophobic types never get the joke.

It *doesn't* matter, of course, but in our society, and in the entertainment biz, being perceived as gay causes more problems than it prevents (trust me on this). But I *do* think that Trey and Matt like to play the gay angle for the social advantages it creates. Let's face it.. gay guys are often funny, smart, witty, entertaining, sensitive, cosmopolitain, creative, etc-- all things that chicks dig in guys but rarely get with the average straight guy. Throw in the "you can look but can't touch" factor, and chicks must flock to them. It's just an elaborate pick up angle, I tell ya! :)

BTW, there's a whole article on this very topic at http://www.ontheblvd.com

GreenGeen

Has anyone here heard the Bloodhound Gang song "I Wish I Was Queer So I Could Get Chicks?" OK, so maybe it's not that extreme, but I wonder if the strategy is working for the guys. GreenGeen wrote in message news:[email]...

sure

I get chicks by telling them I that I used to Hector Macho Comacho before the plastic surgery.

Sorry, that was my pseudo-retarded siamese twin Larry. What I meant to say was...ah forget it...

Great article, a definite keeper. (For anyone having trouble finding it, it's under the "How Gay Is That?" link on the "Fun Stuff" subpage.)

I've got an article to recommend for that. See the following link:

http://www.journalx.com/columns/kip/kl101697.html

This is a piece written by one of my favorite straight guys, a magnificently abrasive, entertaining writer whom I've known since he was 2. You may wonder after reading the first several paragraphs how it relates to this topic, but trust me, the connection becomes clear at just about halfway through.

Mark Tangard wrote:

Nice article, but I perferred the one at ontheblvd.com *much* better. I mean, is this guy obsessed with getting laid or what? Geez...

~Starla

I told ya it was abrasive. And yes, just about anything he writes is about something he's obsessed with, at least at that moment. I posted it mainly to illustrate how the misperception can work -- I mean, I actually HAVE known straight men who pretend to be gay to make it easier to meet women, and they actually DO claim it has worked.

Mark

Umm...noo...he just portrays Boitano as a role model for the kids. I don't see how that's being in love with the guy!

So? What's wrong with that? Now guys aren't permitted to like those things without being gay? Excuse me while I go announce that to the definitely-half-or-more-than-half of the audience at all of the Broadway shows I've been at...

So? It's a sad play (from what I hear of it...we sang some music this year in chorus, but I mean, that really wouldn't give me an accurate picture of it..). So now if someone shows some sort of normal human emotion, and they're male, then they're gay? Some people may cry, some may not. Sexual preferences are not reflected in that at all. I'm a heterosexual girl, and I don't cry easily. Everybody shows different types of emotion in different types of situations, and that really has no bearing on what they are...gay, straight, etc.

In some parts of the country, in some twisted mindsets, in some softbrained ideologies: Yes. It's real sad.

Just look at the message that started this thread, if it's still on your server. The writer (who hails from Marietta, Georgia, according to his DN profile. and you can draw your own conclusions there) is *so* bent out of shape at the fact that the show mentions gayness more than most shows do -- which isn't saying much -- that he can barely write a coherent sentence about it. (His few other public posts aren't anywhere near as strained & tormented as this one. That is, he *isn't* an illiterate like a lot of other bigots are; he just can handle the mere fact that gay people exist and get mentioned and joked about.)

People like that are sad, because there's so much of reality that they simply don't ever see. A lot of them think they've never met or talked to a gay person, believing that they could pick one out of a crowd in an instant (because it'd be a man in pink ruffles walking with a mince). But he might have had gay teachers, may even have gay relatives. Etc. He just won't ever cool his jets down enough to find out; he's way too threatened by things that he finds to be foreign. You can bet he'd be real hesitant about, say, learning a foreign language, or befriending someone of a different race, or even trying out new kinds of food.

When you think about it, it's a very self-absorbed way to go through life, assuming that everyone is either just like you or needs to be.

your

his

Amazing, you talk about being open-minded about people's sexuality, yet you draw conclusions on someone based on where they live.

You call that open-minded?

In this case, it's more of a carefully rendered conclusion.

Bill Lynch <G>

Michael Pitts wrote:

BTW, I never once used the word openminded or any synonym for it. You might draw the conclusion that that's what I was talking about, but I had intended my comments to focus on the poster's self-absorption, volatility, bad temper, and overall lameness. Most of my post was in fact a suggested *explanation* of his behavior, not a plea for openmindedness or anything else.

I suppose you could infer a link to openmindedness from any of those things, but it seems pretty kneejerk of you to bark at me about it when there's nothing in my post that bangs a drum for it. In fact, that kind of phony whine is getting to be a running joke, where the most xenophobic, close- minded people in any discussion accuse their opponents of [undemonstrated] hypocrisy -- when they can't think of anything else to say.

On Thu, 05 Aug 1999 06:08:55 -0700, Mark Tangard wrote:

Is this Bill Clinton talking? man, talk about double talk.

Draw your conclusion.... I didn't say draw conclusions... Be open minded... I never said be open minded.. (yes, you never said "open minded" but you infered that's what you meant) Semantics man, Get real.

Another boy who claims to summarize someone else's comments without proof.

*Quote* what you're claiming I said -- that's what you have a newsreader program for, so you can quote directly from what you're answering -- and you might have an argument. Until then, you're all foam & no beer.

might

intended

temper,

*explanation*

things,

there's

phony

close-

[undemonstrated]

Talk about a kneejerk reaction. You can get off your soapbox now. You can go ahead an accuse me of being the "xenophonic, close-minded" person you were obviously alluding to..

Oh wait, we wouldn't want to ASSUME that it was ME you were talking about. God forbid we should draw our own conclusions on YOUR words.

All I was saying is that you are telling people to draw conclusions on someone based solely on the fact of where they live, then you turn around and say something like this (clipped from the original post):

You don't think people are going to infer that this is you bashing someone because of their short-sightedness or closed mind? You can't have it both ways. Read what you originally wrote subjectively and see what you can conclude from it. Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to read into what you are trying to say, or maybe I just read to far into it..

I *wasn't* referring to you, and that'd be OBVIOUS to anyone who bothered to *read* the post instead of going off half-cocked at its 5th sentence. The comment addressed the ORIGINATOR of the thread, a user named render007, not you -- unless you're him, which seems unlikely because he could barely spit out 5 words in a row without barfing up the word "fuck." I wouldn't call *you* xenophobic (or xenophonic [sic]) or closeminded. I might call you overreactive and inattentive, though, *if* all I'd ever seen of your posts was this recent spate of weird harrumphing.

Wrong again. I said "you CAN draw your own conclusions," not you *shall* or you *should* or please do, etc. I choose my words carefully. You have now *twice* put words in my mouth that I never said. It's very immature to claim to summarize someone else's words using very different words and still expect them to take you seriously. If you'd quote properly and intersperse your comments (as I've done here), you'd see how little sense your complaints are making. It's pretty lazy to just shovel the whole original post onto the top or bottom of your comments. (It also implies that you don't want to make direct counterpoints, that you'd rather make standalone speeches. Which is a good way to get yourself ignored.)

No thanks. I took my time writing it. I already understand it. You, on the other hand, sound like you didn't even pause at the periods.

Mm, maybe. Or could it just be too much caffeine? I've read a lot of your other posts and have never seen you this flaky.

But I wouldn't wanna draw any *conclusions*....

Mark

You

person

bothered

sentence.

render007,

barely

wouldn't

call

your

Amazing how close the "n" and "b" keys are.. Regardless.. I understand where you are coming from. I try to be an articulate person. If I have misinterpreted your posts, I apologize. I don't usually fly off the handle unless I have completely understood what the person is trying to say. In this case, it seemed to me that you were alluding to the fact that this person has a severe problem with gay people (a trait that can be associated with short-sighted, closedminded people), yet we "can" draw conclusions on them based on where they live.

*shall*

have

immature

and

sense

implies

make

It is just a bunch of double talk. Christ.. Am I the ONLY one who sees this? I'm not trying to make "standalone speeches". You say "I never SAID open-minded" yet you have never denied that you insinuated it. You say "you CAN draw your own conclusions" but you never said that anyone "should or shall" draw them. I have never intended to put words in your mouth. If I have, again, I apologize.

conclude

on

There is nothing easier to do that be belligerent. I read your post very carefully, and even though you never TOLD me to, I drew my own conclusions. My conclusion was even though you preach about how this person has such a severe problem with gays, you feel people can draw conclusions on him/her due since he/she lives in Marietta, GA. What type of conclusions would you expect that one would draw on that fact? Please explain exactly what it is you were trying to say with that statement.

trying

your

I'm usually not.

I never said you should.. :)

I didn't draw ANY conclusions. You're drawing conclusions about what conclusions I've drawn.

on

to

You insinuate that due to the fact that the original author of the post was from Marietta, Georgia, that we should be able to determine something about them. What exactly did you think people would think? What were you attempting to say with that remark?

Not a thing really, when you get right down to it, except to push a small pin into his balloon because (as another poster pointed out) he thinks he's totally anonymous.

But now that you mention it, I've been to Marietta, Georgia, and found it seriously lacking in the refinement to which that whole region tends to lay claim. Perhaps I unconsciously tossed that in because of the way a local cop tailgated us for 10 miles although we were doing nothing wrong (except sporting out-of-state plates). Or maybe not.

In any case, I don't plan to cough up any more defenses for your complaint. Considering the gratuitous insults that are heaped upon dozens of regions, races, sexes, etc., all over the Internet every day, I hardly think one *perceived* insult to a random Atlanta suburb should put anyone in such a state for so long. Each of the last 3 places I've lived has been the subject of *continuous* bonehead-level insults, in the popular press and TV and on the Net, for years. But I hardly ever spend the time to take issue with any of those comments. Why? Because pouting endlessly over such slights -- real or imagined -- is a waste of time.

Mark

post

think?

small

he's

Understood.

it

to

a

wrong

I just recently moved to Atlanta, and I understand what you are saying. But when you are arguing as poignantly as you do (yes, a compliment!), it is difficult to understand why you would toss something like that in. You do a good job of expressing and defending yourself, but that remark seemed out of place and I wanted to know what you meant by it. Nothing more

complaint.

regions,

one

such

the

and

take

over

Agreed.

In article ,

tapes

Matt

to

make

it...TRUST

news:7ns3ug$9qb$[email]...

have

episode

sex.

I never really thought they were gay, and if they were, it wouldn't bother me. What does rouse my curiosity is why two straight guys are just so obsessed with the anus and male homosexuality. I think they actually are bi curious and use characters on the show to explore how they feel inside. I bet they've gone down on one another at least once, and probably jacked off while the other one watched.

Just because they bring up issues of homosexuality in some of their episodes and in the movie doesn't mean that they're gay. Trey and Matt like to push buttons, to get people talking, and homosexuality issues are a great way to do that, especially where the fundies are concerned. The fact that you even asked this question, and the length this thread has gotten, shows that their tactics work.

And besides, who the hell cares if they're gay or not? Say that they were gay- does that mean that you'll stop watching the show? Or for that matter, that others will stop watching the show?

-Toni

[email] wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 1999 02:45:24 -0700, Toni wrote:

Yeah, right. that scene where they French Kiss for 20 seconds means their NOT gay. LOL

Tom Bisset wrote:

Ummmm dude.....I didn't say this. Look carefully next time to see who you're quoting :-)

-Toni

Toni wrote...

Parker and Stone are straight, but I suspect that Hanna and Barbera are gay. Did you notice that every single episode of The Flintstones ends with the lyric, "We'll have a gay old time" repeated TWICE?!

(ATTENTION ALL MORONS: I'm being sarcastic.)

On Fri, 30 Jul 1999 11:57:07 GMT, [email] wrote:

OOOOOhhhhhhh, get you!!! There's a serious case of denial.

Lisa

In article , [email] wrote:

have

because of all the hangups people have about shit and homosexuality, it is funny when something forces people to confront those issues.

In article , [email] wrote:

episode

sex.

I guess shit and homosexuality do go hand in hand, don't they? But really, South Park is not The Learning Channel. I'm not having to confront any issues about homosexuality by watching this show. Some of the gay stuff is extremely fun, like the kids going down to South America with the group Getting Gay With Kids. On the other hand, the episode that I have a problem with, Kyle's dad masturbating in front of another guy, goes beyond the line that Parker and Stone had redrawn when they crossed the first line. Where does it end?

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

Perhaps you should tune into the Learning Channel instead.

A pun. A play on words. And they never really said that the kids (or anyone) was gay. So it is OK to IMPLY that they get gay with kids , as long as no one comes out and does it.

of

when

It never will. Trey and Matt press the issue and continue to get away with as much as possible. It is one of the reasons I watch the show.

Oh, and by the way, masturbating in front of another guy doesn't make you gay. So why do you have a problem with it? Is it just too touchy of a subject for you to laugh at?

On Mon, 09 Aug 1999 17:07:45 GMT, [email] wrote:

How do you know he really did it? They didn't show it onscreen in the version I saw. Maybe you subscribe to the special "Fire Island" Comedy Central that shows graphic versions of all of the regular shows.

Far out.

----- Lone Wolf I'm rooting for the crocodile.

"It's fun to make fun of people who stammer." - Howard Stern