One last thing StrngrInParadise. Were you aware that some malicious person has "stolen" my persona and posted at overgrow.com and marijuana.com under Chris Buors?

I mean anybody could register the name here and post under it.

Given that kind of reliability and once more the fact that my accusers are sock puppets......isn't that a concern to you?

Don't you check the reliability of the facts you print?


Did you ever like actually ask Chris Buors the person what his opinons were?

Just checking.

Like I said....If anyone ever asks what I got to say about Wikipiedia....it ain't going to be nice.....

A rumour publishing politcal rag that never ever checked the facts with me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana

1. I don't know what people are complaining about - the above link is about as accurate as any encyclopedia anywhere.

2. As for what is "normal" and what is not - I think that a non-homosexual calling homosexuals "abnormal" is similar to a non-cannabis user calling cannabis users "abnormal". It's your own fear-based bias superimposed upon the lives of others.

3. Homophobia is what leads some people to label deviations from the status-quo "abnormalities", and belongs on a spectrum that eventually leads to mandatory pink triangles on clothing and gas chambers. "Normal" is what we all define as normal, and the sooner the "normal" harmless pot-heads allow other scapegoats their "normalcy", the sooner they will get their own "normalcy".

Now Chris, please drop the idiot "homos are abnormal" arguments, before ex-NORML director and out-of-the-closet homosexual Dick Cowan has to come here and bitch-slap you.

Wikipedia is edited by about 500,000 highly diverse people. Slagging off "the editors", as if it were a small magazine makes no sense.


Your views on homosexuality are relevant because (in part) you have stood for public office and have made public statements. Why is this a problem, are you being misquoted?

(I have to ask, though, in passing: had there been a girl with you who was groped by some cinema pervert, would you shun heterosexuals as well?)

As for your views on Chomsky, your case is not helped by that you are misspelling his name. Nevertheless, the comments were cut because they were not relevant. Writing off the whole of Wikipedia because one anonymous editor slags you off momentarily doesn't make sense. Think of the editor who came next, and has been judiciously filtering out the crap from the biography, and put in your views on civil rights for gays. That's what Wikipedia is about.

Think about it.

Again, if you have ideas about how the article should be shaped, discuss it on the talk page for the article.

There is normal which is hetrosexual, 99% of the population, then there are sexual diviants. 1% made up of various others.

To me, the idea of two men or two women engaged in sex acts is repugnent. There is nothing anybody can say to have me accept the idea as beautiful. Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder an I am entitled to an opinion just like everbody else.

I choose women as sex partners. I don't see anything wrong or evil about that option or opinion. To each their own eh!

I could care less what you do with your lovers. But I don't have to invite you to social affairs, attend yours or associate with you in any way if I feel uncomfortable in your presence. It's like disco music to me, there is something wrong with the people who listen to it. And no matter how much you play rap music, it just don't appeal to me. I can't even make out the words. And I don't much care for classical or Jazz. So you can send me all the free tickets to Jazz festivals. I ain't going...Boring. Same thing...invite me to a homosexual party.....I ain't going to go...Boring...nothing there for me.

That is what freedom of association is all about.

Now if you happen to know where there are about a dozen blonde haired blued eyed hetrosexual women who have nothing to do, I would love to drop by and entertain them.


Now if the Homosexual Club of Canada invited me to attend the annual dinner and speak about libertarian politics, I would be the first in line at the dinner table.

So, my policy is each to their own rather than shun and persecute. I have no political opinions on the sexual practices of the nations citizens....as long as it's all voluntary....let it fly.....

I don't chum with any dominextress either. People enjoying getting whipped and hung up and all the other diviant behaviors. Next are the bodily fluid people. Do I have to accpet all that as just good old normal fun that I ought to get in on?

Or can I just say no thanks without being a sadistaphopbe?

Come to think of it, I'm a masochistaphobe too?

Man do I ever have a lot of personal short comings to get over.

I purposely avoid gamblers and boozers too.

What an evil discriminator I am.

But there is no persecution in any of that.

Now as far as behaviors go. All behaviors are chosen.

All behavior has reason. Even if the reasons are important only to the actors.

There are no biological "causations" of behavior.


Man is a rational animal.

We do not eat every morasl of food.

We do not strike dead every fellow we would like to kill.

We do not ravage every female (or male) who crosses our path.

We control ourselves. We prioritize and then we act. Everything a decision. Putting one foot in front of another.

Prefering sex with women to sex with men or both or a dozen all chosen behaviors.....even the bodily fluids people.

Biology has nothing to do with any of that kind of behavior.

Hetrosexual is the norm.

You'd think you'd jump at the chance to right what is wrong instead of just attacking it and pouring fuel on what is, at worst a smoldering ember.

Just think. If you'd spent this time posting this in the Wikipedia then people would know how you actually felt.

You know, I got a lot on my plate already and like I said I already got a pretty good flavor of what goes on there. So why take on the challange of appearing at the kangaroo court?


I challange you to link Wikipiedia to the answer I provided DML. There I address all sexual diviants and my true opinion is expressed.

I fail to see any homophobia (which implies maliciousness) at all. In fact, I'm a pretty open minded kind of guy.

I don't care if you want to whip yourself with a mace or pay someone to do it for you. I don't care what you want to do with whatever orifice you want to do it with.

I just don't want to do it with you or pretend that all that diviancy is normal.

What elements of homosexuality do you think fall into the diviancy [sic] category? Is it just the sexual aspects? To those people who find homosexuals repugnent [sic], I've often wanted to pose this scenario:

There are two men who are deeply in love with each other. They are committed, monogamous, and happy together. Both men, due to various physical injuries and traumas, are impotent and completely unable to achieve an erection and orgasm. Both men also tend to abstain from hugging, kissing, and other physical displays of affection. It's just not their thing. They are simply two gay men in love but there is no physical intimacy between them. They just share a deep emotional, spiritual, and mental bond as soul mates and friends.

Are these men, in your opinion, deviants? Are they repugnant? Or do they rank slightly higher in your moral scale because they don't dwell on who does what to whose orifice? I certainly hope you consider people like this, rare though they may be, in your passionate pursuit to define normality.

"There is normal which is hetrosexual, 99% of the population, then there are sexual diviants. 1% made up of various others."

You pulled that number out of your ass - the sources I gave you say 8-10% homosexual is normal for both animal and human species.








"To me, the idea of two men or two women engaged in sex acts is repugnent. There is nothing anybody can say to have me accept the idea as beautiful. Beauty is after all in the eye of the beholder an I am entitled to an opinion just like everbody else."

Nobody here is saying you're "not allowed" to be homophobic - just accept the fact that you are, and we'll all move on from there.

You and I are both heterosexual. The difference between you and me is that I understand that people being different from me is "normal", and for you the whole world has to fuck just like you fuck to be considered "normal" by you.

Just like the Franti song says, it's not about "who you love", it's all about "do you love?".








"I choose women as sex partners. I don't see anything wrong or evil about that option or opinion. To each their own eh!"

Again, we're both heterosexual, but only one of us is homophobic.





"I could care less what you do with your lovers."

If you actually DID care less, you wouldn't feel the need to lable other "abnormal".







"But I don't have to invite you to social affairs, attend yours or associate with you in any way if I feel uncomfortable in your presence."

You sound just like a Southern Racist sometimes did ....

"I don't hate nigras, I just don't want any of them around me!"




"It's like disco music to me, there is something wrong with the people who listen to it."

I see. If you don't share the same taste as Chris, you're pathological. I don't know, I hate most disco, but I like a few ABBA and BeeGee songs and if I'm with the right girl ... it's sometimes fun. Does that mean there's something "wrong with me" - I think there's more of a chance there's something wrong with closed-minded bigotry (whatever the form it takes).







"And no matter how much you play rap music, it just don't appeal to me."

That makes rap music "unappealing to Chris" - not "abnormal" or "pathological".


It's like anchovies. I don't like them. Many people don't like them. But calling those few who do like them "abnormal" is kind of fuct. "Different", yes - the word contains no perjoritive meaning.




"I can't even make out the words. And I don't much care for classical or Jazz."

I guess that makes you different, or in your words "abnormal", as (I bet) your dislike of Jazz places you in the minority.

"Melancholy Blues," performed by Armstrong and his Hot Seven was included on the Voyager Golden Record sent into outer space to represent one of the greatest achievements of humanity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Armstrong

Does that mean there's "something wrong with you"? No, it just means you're different, that's all.








"So you can send me all the free tickets to Jazz festivals. I ain't going...Boring. Same thing...invite me to a homosexual party.....I ain't going to go...Boring...nothing there for me."

I ain't going to a homo party - but I did have fun at a gay bar, once (good music to dance to). Again, just because you teach through repetition, I assume you will learn from it: Both of us are heterosexual, one of us is homophobic.











"Now if the Homosexual Club of Canada invited me to attend the annual dinner and speak about libertarian politics, I would be the first in line at the dinner table."

Mr. "homosexuals are abnormal" representing all libertarians to homosexuals? Surely we can find a better representative that you. Perhaps someone able to read (and handle) the information about animal populations being about 8 percent homosexual.






"So, my policy is each to their own rather than shun and persecute. I have no political opinions on the sexual practices of the nations citizens....as long as it's all voluntary....let it fly....."

You lend weight to those who would want to "fix" the abnormalities so that everything gets "back to normal". Through your closed-mindedness, through your "passive homophobia", you help the "activist homophobes" do their dirty work.

It's like cannabophobes helping "partnership for a drug free america" do their work by considering cannabis use "abnormal" and "pathological". Like Mayor Larry Campbell who is all for legalization but considers cannabis use inherently unhealthy - the stigma produced and perpetuated hurts the scapegoats even though "tolerance" is the policy advocated.







"I don't chum with any dominextress either. People enjoying getting whipped and hung up and all the other diviant behaviors."

Most people like a bit of spanking. Who are you to label the majority "diviant"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_spanking







"Next are the bodily fluid people. Do I have to accpet all that as just good old normal fun that I ought to get in on?"

You could see any "not-harmful-to-others" activity as "normal" and take it or leave it according to your own taste - that IS the other option you keep ignoring.






"Or can I just say no thanks without being a sadistaphopbe? Come to think of it, I'm a masochistaphobe too?"

Anything you lable as "abnormal" that doesn't involve unconsentual harm-to-others is probably stuff you're afraid you'll like if you try it. Nobody appointed you the "normalcy" cop - and deviations only become "abnormalities" if people see them as being problematic - nonproblematic deviant behavior is normal and should be seen as such.








"Man do I ever have a lot of personal short comings to get over."

Finally, we agree on something.








"I purposely avoid gamblers and boozers too."

Two examples of "non-deviant", "often-pathological" "normal" behavior.








"What an evil discriminator I am."

Bigoted, yes. It only becomes evil when you get "activist" and make public pronouncements that help activist homophobes achieve their political aims.





"But there is no persecution in any of that."

That's like Larry Campbell saying "there's no persecution with me lying about cannabis causing cancer" or some stupid thing like that - the anti-cannabis laws are based upon lies like the cancer lie, and the anti-sodomy laws are based upon lies like the "abnormal" lie.







"Now as far as behaviors go. All behaviors are chosen."

I choose to be a pothead because of the health facts and the feeling of "this feels right". Perhaps homosexuals have an innate "it just feels right" feeling that causes them to be homosexuals. Perhaps feelings and natural inclinations are PART of choice.







"There are no biological "causations" of behavior."

What about all those animals and insects who "chose" to be homosexuals - are they going on reasons or feelings?




"Man is a rational animal."

Humans are capable of BOTH reason and feeling.







"Biology has nothing to do with any of that kind of behavior."

You really, really ought to use search engines to back up what you say - I certainly will use them to point out how ridiculous your statements are.




"The biology of behavior
How do the brain and mind work together to produce action and reaction?"
http://www.wi.mit.edu/news/archives/2004/cpa_0609.html


The Biology of Sexual Orientation
© Simon LeVay, 2003. Latest update: August 2005
http://members.aol.com/slevay/page22.html


The biology of behavior and the study of human fertility: a review essay
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2642/is_200309/ai_n9247568


The Biology of Behavior:
Ethology and Sociobiology
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/ib/494/behavior.html


The Biology of Behavior
A Guide for Parents Searching for Solutions for their Child
http://www.cos.edu/view_page.asp?nodeid=2807&parentid=2099&moduleid=1


http://www.chec.org/Resources/NewsMagazine/Articles/
TheBiologyofBehaviorandLearning/Index.html

Biology of Behavior
Sample Syllabus
http://www.washburn.edu/cas/biology/lboyd/Courses.dir/syllabus202.html


Just the first few examples of about 12 thousand on google. I guess the world is wrong and you're right.






"Hetrosexual is the norm."

90 percent het, 10 percent homo is the norm. Grab some facts the next time you post, PLEASE.