What if God was a gay recording artist one of us?
HalifaxTalk: Jennifer Knapp coming to SOBO!!! (Innocently named threads make for horribly fun ThreadSpottings!)
Look at that… South Boston’s getting an accomplished recording artist to appear at a local restaurant for a small concert at a reasonable price! What could be possibly wrong with that? Not so fast, Sparky! Our good friend Grasshopper throws some bigotry (It’s ok, folks… It’s Christian bigotry) and says that Jennifer Knapp is one of Them There People! Not one of them there Australian people, but one of them there people that’s done “come out”. The Horrors!
After taking a small amount of Righteously Deserved heat for her Revelation, Ms. Hopper drops this instant classic line…
…Yall don’t have to freaking slaughter me on HT though….geez…seems like HT is out of control lately. We all make choices, just mine not to support gays.
We’re glad to report that the aforementioned “freaking slaughter” did continue in a mild format. Various participants shoot holes into the Holy Ground under Ms. Hopper’s feet and she begins tap-dancing as the Hate-filled Hilarity Ensues. Ms. ras expresses my feelings (albeit a lot more mildly than I would have put it) when she says “Why does this turn of this thread leave me feeling sad?” Unfortunately, Ms. ras, there are narrow-minded people in the world.
I’d like to end this ThreadSpotting with the following hypocritical quote from Ms. Hopper…
…I am not God and can’t judge…
…while she sits on Her Throne and judges anyway.
Springer’s Bruce’s Final Thought: I have zero tolerance for any form of discrimination and this world would be a lot better if everybody else had the same thought process. I’m ashamed to see somebody like Grasshopper show disdain against other people because of their sexual preference. She says that people would totally understand why she thinks like she does, but the only reason I can think of is that she’s taking her religion way too far when she’s filled with prejudicial hatred. I’m betting that she works alongside people who are gay, so I have to wonder how far her bigotry extends past the recording industry. LeAnn Creasy, your discrimination and prejudices embarrass me. Shrouding your hatred by the cover of religion just pisses me off.
Oh yeah… Freddie Mercury was gay.
Update #1: In the thread, wildhandyman said…
My advice to Grasshopper and others whose identity is known to those who might thread spot an opinion here and there: You might want to contact Darrin and ask that you be given a completely new user name that is not connected with any of your current or past posts… and this time try to keep your user name/identity a little closer to the vest. I cannot speak for DT, but I don’t think he would mind considering that option.
Bruce, you know that I like you (you’re a smart guy, talented and personable), but I think you are doing a disservice to yourself, your current employer and others by thread spotting here.
Since I can’t reply to Mr. handyman over there, here’s my reply here.
- First of all, LeAnn Creasy revealed her own name long before I did. As for you, being the staunch defender of conservative principles, I find it disingenuous that you would encourage someone to assume a new identity to “hide” from public scrutiny of their comments. Her right to free speech does not come with the right to avoid the controversy that comes with that free speech.
- Next, I’m disappointed that you feel that calling out the religion-cloaked disdain of a societal group is a “disservice”. Discrimination in any form (even as mild as this, being done by only one narrow-minded person) should be condemned strongly and publicly. Perhaps you failed to notice the disapproval of other people who posted in that thread. I have (and had) no fear of being banned from that website therefore I always spoke my mind and continue to do that today.
- Finally, you’re completely wrong about me doing a disservice to my employer. My employer strongly urges me to have my own opinions and to continue to express them. SouthsideCentral has absolutely no relation to Star News and both parties have made that clear. Unsurprisingly, discrimination in the form that LeAnn has shown makes an excellent topic for our discussion shows. I’d love to hear more from our viewers on this issue whether they agree or disagree with me, and I’m 100% confident that our viewers will want to see that discussion as well.
Update #2: Darrin comes up with some reply about SouthsideCentral’s TipLine Policy and how it is similar to something that Mr. handyman wrote. I have no idea what the hell he’s talking about. Every media source has to be willing to listen to anonymous tips but unlike Halifax Talk (which offers instant publication), I don’t run them unless they’re checked out first and verified.
Update #3: LeAnn posts this um… interesting remark…
I never told Bruce who I was PB. I don’t hang out with him and don’t appreciate idiots using my name on some crappy blog without my permission. If I have to take Bruce to court if something happens to my or my property, believe me I WILL.
Let’s go to the Big Board, shall we?
- I don’t need anybody’s permission to use their name here.
- “Crappy”? Bwahahahaha!
- Now let’s get to the really fun part, the threat of her taking me to court. My reply is “Bring it on because you’ve got nothing.” This is coming from the woman who has threatened asinine legal action before. I’m not scared one bit of her blustering.
Update #4: Now she’s blustering about the fact that her Secret Identity was Maliciously Revealed…
…i never revealed myself here, only my close friends knew who i was. get your facts right.
…only to have her “facts” immediately blown out of the water by other people. LeAnn immediately races to do a WWJD (What Would Jesus Delete?) on her self-identification on Facebook, but Mr. Bateman remains multiple steps ahead and takes a screen capture to prove his point. LeAnn then gets all Revelations on their asses and starts making her Enemies List (which worked so well for Richard Nixon, didn’t it?). After that, she restates her Lionel Hutz Legal Theory that says that I had no right to post her name without her permission and calls the people idiots for not buying her irrationality.
When the comedy has written itself as it has here, Jesus wept pulled up a lawnchair, pointed and laughed.
Update #5: (in a Larry King voice) Let’s go to our next caller. Darrin from Halifax County, Hello!
…Now a message for Bruce:
If you do not have to follow the rules here of respecting anybody who wants to remain anonymous, why should anyone believe that you will respect your own policy on your blog of keeping a source anonymous? Lord knows you’ve shown if there is a chance for controversy, you will drop names.
Thanks for the call, Darrin. Since you posted your question at your board, I appreciate it if you would post my answer to it at your board as well. It would be the right thing to do. You’re always welcome to comment here and my offer of partnership between WMDV-TV & HalifaxTalk still stands even though you’ve never acknowledged it nor given an answer publicly.
Here’s my answer to your question: I’ve never revealed an anonymous source’s name on SouthsideCentral or at work and I never will. You may try to insinuate that I have, but I dare you to show any proof that I have. Also, I feel that your “Never Guess Nor Reveal” rule is asinine. One reason that Halifax Talk has never gained traction with governmental and business leaders of the community is because of the incessant sniping by “anonymous” people. When’s the last time that the IDA or John Cannon have posted?
Update #6 (a new record for # of updates… yay!): (done in the same Larry King voice) Let’s take another call. Riverdale, VA! HELLO!
You should read what I posted and not just assume what you want. Again, the question:
“If you do not have to follow the rules here of respecting anybody who wants to remain anonymous, why should anyone believe that you will respect your own policy on your blog of keeping a source anonymous? Lord knows you’ve shown if there is a chance for controversy, you will drop names.”
On the Internet, it’s hard to repeat my answer slowly so that you can understand it. But hey, I’ll give it a try. (reading slowly) I’ve. never. revealed. an. anonymous. source’s. name. on. SouthsideCentral. or. at. work. and. I. never. will. You. may. try. to. insinuate. that. I. have. but. I. dare. you. to. show. any. proof. that. I. have.
Whew. Caller? Got anything else?
Now you want a public answer to your ridiculous proposal? I am not interested in a partnership with you, at all.
Lots of other people didn’t think my offer was “ridiculous”. Anyway, here’s a piece of unsolicited business advice for you. If you keep summarily rejecting potential business partnerships that could be beneficial even in a small amount to you like this one, it’s going to be a lot harder for you to own “Darrin’s Honda”.
Seriously, thanks for putting my first answer on your board in a unedited format. I hope that you’ll do the same with this one. The offer still stands if you ever decide to think rationally and consider it objectively. And you’re always welcome to be a guest on a show. You’d make Real Good TV. (Oh yeah, you’re welcome to visit anytime as well.)
Update #7: Let’s just make this one quick. Darrin thinks I need him more than he needs me & that the offer is from an unproven company and public access television. That thought of is as logical as the rest of his thought processes, nuff’ said. Anyway, back to the main topic.
Darrin continues to insinuate that I can’t be trusted by potential anonymous sources because I had the nerve to mention LeAnn’s real name. He fails to provide any kind of proof for that then when he’s questioned about it, he says he’s not going to find proof. Listen up, buddy. Your claim, your search. Anyway, after that he says it’s been so long enough ago that he doesn’t remember the details. If you can’t remember the details, Darrin, it wasn’t that important to you. Keep blustering anyway… it makes you sound important.
Here’s one quote from another person that I want to address so that I can make my point clear…
Not taking sides, but isn’t it a bit indiscreet to reveal some one the way Bruce did? We all know who GH is. We all know who most of the posters here are, but do we reveal that info to “strangers” or “lurkers”? Should we? It’s certainly a question of ethics.
It’s NOT a “question of ethics”. There’s no ethical issues involved. “Strangers” & “lurkers” are everywhere and if you’re going to hide from them, get off the Internet now and lock yourself in the house. Here’s another point for you to consider around the “ethics” question. If someone is stupid enough to make an offensive statement as LeAnn’s, that becomes newsworthy in itself.
Bottom Line: You might not like the fact that I broke your Sacred Rule, but your Sacred Rule was a Stupid Rule to begin with. When people can snipe away anonymously with no fear of being named because of a Stupid Rule, you get people like that quote’s author’s mother being called the Grand Wizard of the KKK. Remember that? If Ogy was held accountable by his real name, perhaps things would be different.
Bottomer Line: I don’t live in fear of Darrin Talbott or being banned from HalifaxTalk like a lot of the people seem to do. If he’s The Emperor, I’m the one who’s proud to say that he has on No Clothes. The “Thou Shalt Name Nobody” rule was stupid from Day #1 and the Unintended Consequences of that rule has severely limited the amount of participation there.
Just once I don’t read a thread and look what I miss! I guess we’d all better hope that Adam Lambert doesn’t come to town!
There is no reason, none, to discriminate against a person because of their sexual preference.
This demonstrates that most of the anti-gay rhetoric that is cloaked in religion is really simple bigotry. If it were truly about sin, one sin would not be singled out.
Yes, there are activities that we all choose not to be around. But unless Jennifer Knapp plans to engage in sexual activities on stage, that’s not what we’re talking about here.
You might want to know that you’ve been mentioned in that thread. wildhandyman seems to be shocked that you’ve mentioned somebody’s real name and Grasshopper says you have your own problems and is blaming you for making her leave the site. I support what you’ve done here and based on the reaction, most other people do.
Keep up the great work. I enjoy watching your TV shows and reading here.
Reply: Thanks for the kind words. I’m sorry that Mr. handyman feels that way but if 6 people suggested this ThreadSpotting, I agreed that it needed to be said. I made Darrin a gracious offer for HalifaxTalk to work together with the new TV station and he rejected it with a “I’m not interested” I never heard anything from Bunny, so I’m not bound by that Secret Code to never reveal somebody’s name. Narrow-minded people & their attitudes deserve this “publicity”. If LeAnn Creasy does go away from the board, that means one voice of unacceptable hate has disappeared… but she’ll be back.
I’ll make LeAnn an offer: She’s welcome to appear as a guest on WMDV-TV and tell her side of the story. I’d be glad to have somebody else at the station host that show as well. She could tell her reasoning and let people decide who’s right in this situation. The only condition is that the phone lines would be open and she’d have to take callers whether they supported her or not.
Here’s a prediction: My Favorite Stalker & her Boxy friend will join in and attempt to attack me within 24 hours.
BruceH
I have never understood that rule on never mentioning anybody’s real name. I also can not believe that Darrin rejected your offer because it would have helped Halifax Talk.
It is getting even weirder over there now. Wild Handyman has made the suggestion that Grasshopper get a new username so that she can hide from the things that she’s said. I think it would be funny if somebody published a list of everybody’s real name just so the anonumous comments would stop.
Reply: Although you support my efforts, I have to point out the irony of you wanting anonymous names to be revealed while you comment here under an anonymous name. 😉
Even though you’re about 45 minutes late (Thank you for on-the-road internet access, Blackberry phones!), I checked it out and I’m disappointingly unsurprised that Darrin likes the idea.
I just called her out on the board. Go to the Halifaxtalk Facebook page and she posted her board identity.
And also here:
http://halifaxtalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=7508&start=0
Game over.
I just realized that Robin said this:
“But unless Jennifer Knapp plans to engage in sexual activities on stage, that’s not what we’re talking about here.”
I’m no fan of her music, but I’d pay to see that stage show.
Robin said; “This demonstrates that most of the anti-gay rhetoric that is cloaked in religion is really simple bigotry.”
Really?
Does your somewhat definitive, and sweeping statement regarding the motives of those who speak out against homosexuality extend to those who espouse anti-christian rhetoric cloaked in a quest for tolerance?
Isn’t that too just simple bigotry, and should that be condemned?
I saw no place in the thread where the performer was actually discriminated against.
No place did anyone say she should not be allowed to come here, nor was it implied. That would be discrimination on the basis of sexual lifestyle, no one called her any vulgar names or espoused any open hatred (except perhaps those indignant at the ‘intolerance’). Meanness, IMO came only from those who were claiming to be the tolerant ones.
No place was actual bigotry espoused, only a personal religious preference against supporting this singer and her lifestyle.
It is easy and apparently fun for some to throw around those words (discrimination, bigotry, etc…) as a weapons, using them to intimidate and silence those who oppose an openly sinful lifestyle. It gets old, though.
I said “bigotry” and I mean “bigotry”. I used the word to characterize her disdain for a societally defined group and I am sticking with it. Words have meanings.
You also used the word discrimination and said you hate it in every from, and even lamented that others do not agree.
and I ask again, is it possible that other forms of rhetoric espoused by the ‘more tolerant’ ones on HT, and yourself, are simply cloaked bigotry toward a “societally defined group” called bible believing Christians.
Your post here, sir…is chalked full of such rhetoric, IMO.
Yes, it’s possible. Monkeys flying out of my butt are possible, too.
When somebody has been called out for unacceptable remarks and they attempt to defend themselves by means of religion, you jump into the debate as fast as Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton do when they find a racial incident.
Here’s a direct question for you. Do you agree or disagree with LeAnn’s logic and thought process that has been featured in this ThreadSpotting?
Bruce, your blatantly incendiary rhetoric aside…whether I agree with LeAnne or not is really irrelevant. I am taking issue with your comments which, I contend, and stand by are out of line and over the top.
You accused her of hatred, bigotry and discrimination. I have already demonstrated that neither of the three fit this incident, but will do so again.
Hatred and bigotry require more than a poster on a local forum posting a phrase something like “I do not want to go to the concert and support her homosexual lifestyle”. That is merely an opinion that, in this case may be rooted in religion, but those feelings regarding homosexuality are not necessarily exclusive to religion either.
If someone said “I would never pay to hear Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, because I do not want to appear to/ or actually support them by giving them my money” would you, and the other HT talkers who are so indigent about this have jumped on this like you all did…I think we all know the answer to that….an emphatic NO!
But we all know that homosexuality is one of the ‘hot button’ in vogue issues to make sure one is ‘on the correct side of a discussion’….calling someone a racist and a bigot is right up there with accusing them of being a rapist or a murderer in civil discussion. It should not be done without extreme care and good evidence…it is anathema in this culture, and it those words are used far too often as weapons of mass intimidation (ya like that don’t ya?). Not to mention the fact that it serves to cheapen the real episodes of hatred and bigotry when they take place.
Discrimination requires an actual act that precludes one from enjoying a freedom based on some sort of distinction. Let me say this again, that.did.not.happen.here.
As you said…words have meanings, and you sir…have missed the target on these.
I for the life of me, really do not understand what is so “unacceptable” about these remarks.
You nor any of the other indigents got all riled up when Duck was called a “grand wizard”? Or about any number of offensive statements that have been made by numerous posters on a multiplicity of topics…. Where were those threadspottings?
I really think this has more to do with the fact that you for some reason do not like LeeAnn and took her on for the heck of it. You also wanted to embarrass DT and Ras over there…this is personal…and it is obvious. That, my friend, is beneath you. I wish you would reconsider.
Let’s play another round of “Words Have Meanings”.
Discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.
LeAnn made a distinction against the recording artist because of her homosexuality instead of her individual merit. Ding!
Bigotry: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Her quote: “If I absolutely KNEW beyond a shadow of doubt that the store was owned/operated by gays, no, I would not patron the store or restaurant.” Ding!
Hatred: the feeling of one who hates; intense dislike or extreme aversion or hostility
See above.
And that sounds means our game is over. Final score: Bruce 3, Mr. heel 0. Our departing contestants get our lovely home game and access to dictionary.com, our source for today’s meanings. Thanks for watching this episode of “Words Have Meanings”
Now to a few other thingies…
Whether you agree or not with LeAnn is entirely relevent because I want to know what your motivation is. I want to make sure that you’re not going to pull a “I was just yanking your chain” at the end of it. I’m distrustful of the aforementioned Mr. Jackson & Mr. Sharpton’s motivations every time they interject themselves into a discussion because they never seem to go on record about the originating issue. I’d like you to state your position clearly so that our studio audience knows exactly where you stand on LeAnn’s comments. For the purposes of clarification, it’s not too much to ask for.
Regarding the lack of ThreadSpottings on other topics, I’m just not able to devote the time to produce a lot of them. I pretty much work on submitted ideas now. ThreadSpottings are designed to be humorous and they do require a lot of time and rewrites to make them publishable. If you’d like to try your hand at a few (like the one you mentioned), I’d be more than happy to offer up a guest writer position and help on the editing.
You really think wrong, then. I wouldn’t know LeAnn if she bit me on the ass. That thread was submitted by six people and it had a lot of humorous potential, so I started writing the ThreadSpot. As you can see, it’s became one of the more popular ones. The ThreadSpotting was entertainment and comedy. The only thing personal in this is my utter disdain for LeAnn’s anti-homosexuality beliefs and the way she manifests them. What exactly would you have me “reconsider”?
I await direct answers to both of my questions.
Oh , this made my night. Bruce,,,just the image of the monkeys flying from the nether regions cracked me up! I needed a silly laugh. Can you imagine what Mouthy would do if such a thing happened!
I have NEVER understood why people get all worked up about “threadspotting”. Isn’t it just like shining a flashlight on something that is already right there, easily viewed when pointed out? It is not made up. Folks better realize if you put it on the internet, it is ON the internet.
It is not called “the web’ for nuthin….
Bruce, apparently you and I disagree on a few of things, like whether or not thread spotting is a good idea (it isn’t; it’s a cheap shot and beneath you), whether people should be allowed to keep or regain their anonymity on a web forum (they should, and you know it), and whether what an employee publicly says and does reflects on an employer and future employment (it does and it does, whether the employer or employee wants to admit it or not – ask Tiger Woods about sponsorship).
As for what a person believes, deep in their heart, about the way others choose to live their lives… well, that IS a personal decision. It may not be the beliefs that you and I have, but here in America we are free to do and say what we want (within reason) as long as we keep things civil and are willing to take the flack for our own public statements. Personally, I view performers as just that: people I allow to entertain me, nothing more and nothing less. I do not care how they live their lives, what they believe, like or do not like. Unfortunately, some entertainers act in public ways that reflect their ability to entertain (the Dixie Chicks come immediately to mind), so I can easily understand how others may see the publicly flouted lifestyles of certain entertainers as a turnoff. You may not think that things should work that exact way in a perfect world, but since this is not a perfect world that is the way it goes.
Reply: Stop the clock. First, you say that “people should be allowed to keep or regain their anonymity on a web forum” but then you say that people must be “willing to take the flack for our own public statements”. Statements made on a web forum become public statements. You can’t have it both ways, Sparky. Which one of those do you want to lock in?
Next, ThreadSpottings are entertainment with occasional opinions thrown in. If they’re not your form of entertainment, you don’t have to watch. However, based of the amount of participation and affirmative comments that I’ve received on this one, it’s pretty clear that you’re in the minority with your opinion.
Finally, you re-address the employment issue. I’ll repeat what I said in Update #1: “Finally, you’re completely wrong about me doing a disservice to my employer. My employer strongly urges me to have my own opinions and to continue to express them. SouthsideCentral has absolutely no relation to Star News and both parties have made that clear.” If you’d like clarification and/or verification on that, I’d be quite glad in arranging a meeting with you, me and my employer. In fact, you may contact him directly and express your concerns that I’m doing a disservice. Let me know and I’ll get you the contact information. This sorta reminds me about when Ken Peade called Darrin’s father to complain about something on Halifax Talk. How’d that work out?
Discrimination requires an act of exclusion of another individual or group…words alone cannot be discriminatory, and you know it.
Bigotry and hatred require more than a single conversation to be revealed. It is jumping the gun to assign them so easily….it has only been done to re-boost your readership by placing ‘new content’ on your site as that has been in rare form lately. You are welcome for the help, by the way.
She said “she” would not patron it…she never imposed her view on others. She, you, me, or anyone else can make those decisions based on any reasoning we chose…and they may or may not fit the definitions of the words you used….or they may not….point is you used those incendiary words merely to inflame…and as I said before, that cheapens the real meaning of the words.
Reply: Meow! I’m sorry that I haven’t provided enough “new content” lately for you. Actual reality comes before virtual reality. Oh yeah, my readership has remained steady according to the statistics). I’m not sure what I should be thanking you for to get your “You are welcome”, can you enlighten me on what you’ve done? That being said, your opinion is noted for the record.
I am not jerking your chain and you know it…and while I feel the same way as LeeAnn when it comes to this entertainer…I do wish she had not done this the way she did…on HalifaxTalk (but it took me a long time to realize the futility of trying to express opinions there that are contrary to the thinking of the thought/tolerance police)….but then again…not everyone is the expert that you think you are in posting and making statements. This all started when she made a simple comment about not going because Knapp is gay…and the interrogation started from the tolerance police…(although those police are very selective in their/your tolerance enforcements)….
Lastly, thanks a lot for telling me where I stand with you. This too has been enlightening.
Reply: Meow and a hiss on that cattiness. Since you finally said that you agree with LeAnn’s refusal to see the entertainer, would you also like to weigh on an agree/disagree about her refusal to patronize a business if the owner is gay? I’d like to hear your answer on that. If you’ve also got the time, let me know where I’ve told you where you stand with me. I can’t seem to find that on the page.
As far as what I would like for you to reconsider…nevermind. I have come to the conclusion that you do not care enough about my concern for me to waste time sharing them with you any further.
Reply: Darn, that’s the end. (Schoolhouse Rock reference). And the OddsMakers of your alluded self-imposed banishment lasting is 0 %. You get the squadoosh on that because I know you better than that.
This is getting slightly confusing for people to read, so here is what’s going on.
I’m adding Updates for additions to the original ThreadSpotting. I’m replying to the comments by either writing a new comment or putting my reply into the original comment.
This strikes me as absolutely hilarious. I needed a laugh tonight. Well done.
Side note, I’m assuming I’m part of Tarheel’s “tolerance police.” I’m waiting for my badge in the mail.
Wonder what would happen if all of these church going people decided to not support ministers who are sinning by participating in gluttony and are obese? Guess that would leave _______ without a job. Wonder if he would feel that these people were right or if he would cry discrimination? Wouldn’t this situation be just as ludicrous as not frequenting a business because the owner is gay?
Editor’s Note: I removed a name. – BruceH
I realize I’m late with a reply, but I wanted to clarify my earlier statement, especially as interpreted by Tarheel.
What I did not say: A person has no moral right to refuse to support businesses that do not align with his/her personal beliefs.
What I did say: A person who has chosen one particular “sin” as a basis for discrimination awhile ignoring others is not acting on a religious belief but on bigotry
P.S. to P.B. – You would!
Funniest. Post. Ever.
Everyone touts free speech, as long as they’re the one speaking. LeAnn was free to say whatever she wanted, but when others exercise their right to free speech and come down on her, SHE SHOULDN’T BE SURPRISED. That’s just the way free speech works.
Everyone wants to be as offensive as they please, but let the offense start hitting home, and they start squealing like a stuck pig.
ROFLMAO!!!