Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On 12/24/13, 3:38 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:


I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a
pain to
go back.



What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad?



An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I
used
it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my
iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say,
Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good.


I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac.
Thunderbird
fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with
software.


I read somewhere that Thunderbird was not supported on the newer Apple
operating systems but have not tried it yet. The OS version I have is
OSX 10.8.5 There's an update to 10.9 something available but I
haven't upgraded to it yet. I read about some horror stories about it
on a couple of the Apple support forums, so until I feel more
comfortable with the iMac, I think I'll leave things as they are for now.




I'm running 10.9.1. on my iMac and current model Macbook Air and also
the latest version of T'Bird. No problems.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On 12/24/2013 4:40 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/24/13, 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:


I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a
pain to
go back.



What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad?



An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I
used
it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my
iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say,
Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good.


I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac.
Thunderbird
fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with
software.


I am running the latest Apple OS on my iMac and Thunderbird runs fine on
it.



hmmmm... Once I become more comfortable with the iMac, I'll give it a
try. One step at a time.

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 12/24/2013 3:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 12/24/13, 4:53 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/24/2013 1:13 AM, Califbill wrote:


I am posting from an ipad, so sometimes I miss type, and too much a
pain to
go back.



What newsgroup reader do you use on an iPad?



An app called "NewsTap" works well on iPhones and of course iPads. I used
it on my iPad when I had one, and I use it now from time to time on my
iPhone. You can read, post, filter. It isn't as convenient as, say,
Thunderbird for "grown up computers," but it is pretty good.


I use Newstaplite and have not got a reader yet for the iMac. Thunderbird
fails on the latest OS. So much for Apple not causing problems with
software.


I read somewhere that Thunderbird was not supported on the newer Apple
operating systems but have not tried it yet. The OS version I have is
OSX 10.8.5 There's an update to 10.9 something available but I haven't
upgraded to it yet. I read about some horror stories about it on a
couple of the Apple support forums, so until I feel more comfortable with
the iMac, I think I'll leave things as they are for now.

Mine is 10.9 and they remove a transport mechanism that Thunderbird used
from what I read.

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
...to the many haters he

--

I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah
dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or
girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking
up heterosexual marriages.

You have quite an imagination!

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On Wed, 25 Dec 2013 11:09:37 -0600, amdx wrote:

On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
...to the many haters he

--

I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah
dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or
girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking
up heterosexual marriages.

You have quite an imagination!

I expect he's somewhat ****ed that he got married well before Maryland passed the gay marriage law.
--

Have a Blessed Chrismahanukwanzakah and a Spectacular New Year!

John H

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On 12/25/13, 12:09 PM, amdx wrote:
On 12/22/2013 9:05 PM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
...to the many haters he

--

I can see it now...thousands of married heterosexual couples in Utah
dumping their spouses so they can marry their same-sex boyfriends or
girlfriends. Gays ringing the doorbells in Salt Lake City and breaking
up heterosexual marriages.

You have quite an imagination!



Well, I do, but...most of us who are unconcerned about gay marriage like
to poke a little fun at those who are against, and many times their
stated reason is that legal gay marriage will somehow ruin "straight
marriage." *How* that would be accomplished is unknown, so, for fun, we
imagine straights dumping their spouses so they can enter into a gay
marriage. But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hey, it gets boring to only poke fun at the other mindless right-wing
group...the teabaggers.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.

Hope you're having a great day!

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/


I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.

I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.

What's left in reasons to object?
--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:16:18 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/

I see the 'Q', but couldn't find what it was supposed to represent. I found this story interesting:

http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2013/12/fla-teen-convicted-of-having-sex-with-underage-girlfriend-released-from-jail/

"The case garnered attention as Hunt’s lawyers claimed that authorities wouldn’t have gone after her
if the situation had involved a male and a female instead of two teenage girls."

I guess the lawyer is saying if a man had sex with the 14 year-old, that would have been OK. I'm
wondering when the push will come to add 'P' (for pedophilia) to the list of letters.

Hope you're having a great day!

Hope this gives apoplexy...
 

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:28:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory. I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/


I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.

I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.

What's left in reasons to object?

I have no objections whatsoever to any of the Glibitzers marrying any of the other Glibitzers. Hell,
I think it's pretty much a joke. Do they 'need' the word 'marriage' to make themselves feel 'whole'?

Just stop cramming the behavior down my throat in every TV show as though it's 'the norm' in the
country.

Hope you're having a great day!