This subject has had its day well and truly. Why don't we all just agree to disagree and leave it at that...

Name calling is about as effective as a fart in a blizzard

RObert, I see that you also bit at my comment. Obviously, you believed that I would somehow seek out CJ's partner and make her a proposition. Come on, get real.
Does your impression of CJ's comfort stem from his declaration of being an 'enthusiastic heterosexual'? Does that mean he is trying really hard to be hetero? If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again.
Another catch was Foxy. I cast a line and get so many bites. I should join the North Sea Fishing Fleet. Also, Foxy wrote 'If you get down to personal insults in academic discussions - well, you've lost the argument'. Hasn't she read CJ's posts which were the first (as always) to hurl insults?

jpw2040, your comment regarding dogs just points to my conviction that to give concessions to you and your kind just leaves you wanting freedom to follow further perversions. BTW, no-one has yet answered to "So, if anal sex is not filthy and unnatural, where's your evidence?". I suppose no-one can.

I think that Foxy's recent post says it all. Most posters here ( the heterophobes) are unable to conduct a debate without spitting the dummy. It's a bad day when we have to 'agree to disagree ' on such a controversial subject. I can only hope that a backlash against this perversion will occur here as has already started in Africa.

Jack the Lad,

Robert is normally really respectful and friendly. Basically the opposite of CJ. (CJ by the way is probably using the word bigot alot partly because I either directly called him one or strongly implied it in a recent thread so some of his recent behaviour is exagerated to the extent of adding that word) Robert also tries to be fair so your highly effectual revenge on CJ wouldn't seem to be grounds for an attack (cf. if CJ was like him and you just attacked him). Look at his other posts. Something obviously set him off but being like that is out of character. I'm not trying to imply anything about Foxy etc. I just don't know one way or another for others.

Jw2040's comment about the dog was so unique it went over my head at first but it might confirm Foxy's belief that it is time to agree to disagree. We wouldn't want too much more like that.

jpw2040,

I'm happy to call it a day if you are finished with me...

Quite so, Foxy. A fair bit of blizzard farting since you posted that, I see. Yawn.

I think I'll leave the smut-obsessed lads to it, but could somebody please tell Jack that it's impossible to prove a negative? The onus is on the maker of an assertion to support it, not the other way around. Logic's another of his small-statured areas, I'm afraid.

As for mjpb's folksy analysis - leave it for church fellowship. While your fantasies about others are sort of creepily interesting, you really are a precious and impertinent twerp, aren't you? Your presumption to know what I think is ludicrous.

mjpb, thanks for the comments. I found Jack the Lad's choice to involve CJ's partner in his attack on CJ particularly disgusting. As far as I'm aware CJ's partner has not been a part of this thread and there was no justifiable reason to bring her into the discussion in that manner.

I'll stop there. Foxy has made a good point about this discussion, those of who remain are unlikely to change our views and we've had the opportunity to make whatever points we wish to make.

R0bert