(May 24, 2013 at 7:16 am)ideologue08 Wrote: I did not equate homosexuality with pedophilia, what a vile thing to accuse someone of. Read properly next you cunt. Boys do unfortunately get raped sometimes by those who are meant to be looking after them, have a look at what happened to Ronald Reagan's adopted son, Micheal Reagan. I was asking whether or not admitting gay boys was a ploy by scout leaders to fulfill their sexual fantasies.I did read properly. If you meant something other than to equate homosexuality with paedophilia then you should have written properly. You can't defer the responsibility on this one, I'm afraid. Your shouting match with (at?) festive1 was telling:
1. if two people commented on the equation, you can assume that many more recognised it (not just festive & I). The problem is with the ambiguity of the sentence not the reader's interpretation. The sentence failed to do the job you claim it was supposed to do.
2. even when festive showed that you'd not got your point across and had, in fact, equated homosexuality with paedophilia, you failed to apologise for that, instead wailing at her to the point where she capitulated rather than continue the conflict
That's out of order.
I don't care if you wail on me, I'm still right for calling out the reference, whether you meant it or not; at very least it's given you the opportunity to clarify your point.
But you owe festive an apology.
Sum ergo sum
