shepp

^Well, yeah. Just eliding Aghanistan and Iraq makes me think, "That Aussie boy has no idea of what he's talking about." Saddam, however murderous, was a secularist who had absolutely no ties to 9/11, and the Bushies had their plans to overthrow him in place long before the WTC. (Interestingly, one similarity between the Taliban and Saddam was U.S. support. The U.S. heavily armed what was to become the Taliban when the Soviets were in Afghanistan, while during the Iran/Iraq war, when Saddam was on the ropes - and after his massacre of the Kurds was known - he received aid and comfort from a U.S. delegation headed by Donald Rumsfeld. Yeah, that Donald Rumsfeld. ) So now we have Osama still on the loose, the opium warlords once again in power in Afghanistan, pro-Iranian Shiites ruling over whatever's left of Iraq, we're still in bed with Saudi Arabia - which, unlike Saddam, did have ties to 9/11 - and we're about to nuke Iran. That'll show them danged Ay-rabs, huh? Of course, Howard Stern himself is a thoroughly outspoken critic of Bush and his trumped-up war, so maybe he's not the best source to quote in support of the invasion of Iraq?

Well, Spike suddenly turned up - after previously defining himself as happily gay and in a good relationship - crowing how Jesus brought him out of the "bondage" of homosexuality and referring us doubters to the Website of a pseudoscientific cult of fact-challenged Christbots. I think (and Wes pretty well ensured) that the discussion remained on a pretty polite level. (To the best of my knowledge, BTW, Spike didn't merely say he'd decided on celibacy; he said he no longer he had gay desires and/or that the skygod had turned him straight...he never made that quite clear.) Listen, just because I want to be accepted for who I am, that doesn't mean I have to nod my head sweetly at whatever anyone else says, even if it's utter garbahge. It's one thing to say, "I used to figure I was queer, but now I feel pretty much het." It's quite another to proclaim, "Gays are damnable sinners, but accepting Jesus will turn them straight." Phooey on that. As to your not being able to play around without puking...I refer you to an excellent scholarly tome, The Myth of Monogamy, which pretty well puts to rest the idea that sexual fidelity is a "natural" and "inherent" part of the human animal. It's social conditioning, pure and simple, just like the religiously fueled sexual guilt that underlies the Exodus, International tripe. However, I must confess that, despite my lovely open relationship, messing around with Log Cabin Republicans does make me a trifle queasy.

I strongly disagree. I found Epcot to be outdated with a lot of their rides, boring and downright dirty. I couldn't believe that I saw a 3 foot pile of garbage sitting in the corner, while on line for a ride. Um, I was talking about the architecture. And I should have specified "World Showcase," which certainly outdoes BGE for top-quality ersatz and faux: Busch's "France," Italy," and "Germany" can't hold a candle.

Yeah, like almost everybody else, I prefer Busch. But then, I like my parks more well-rounded than just coaster-packed - unless the coasters in question are top-notch, and most of PKD's aren't. (Hypersonic? OUCH!) Of course, that opinion is colored by Volcano's being down both days I was there. Also, I found Busch's customer relations and ride ops to be a lot friendlier and more helpful than PKD's. On the other hand, I didn't find it the "most beautiful" park I've been to. Nice setting and vegetation, but I found a lot of the buildings to be kinda clunky, like a second-rate EPCOT. Among parks I think are generally better-looking: BGT, IOA, DAK, Boomer's Dania Beach (just kidding).

Um, no offense, but I bet if you head to any retirement community, you'll see a lot more aviator-styles like yours than big wraparound plastic guys with broad temple pieces.

Actually, the first time I rode an inverted (PGA Top Gun) it was me and my honey and a pair of lesbians sharing the front row. Made me feel a lot more secure. And then there was the lesbian couple on Penguin's Blizzard River, but that's not really a coaster, so... Maybe (I'm thinking) that there seem to be relatively few open lesbians at theme parks is the general prevalence of teenage het boys at them, maybe?

Hmmm...I've been meaning to do this for another reason, anyway, so here goes... USA (cheat) Canada Mexico Guatemala Belize Costa Rica Honduras Ecuador Jamaica Bahamas England Portugal Spain France Monaco Netherlands Belgium Germany Austria the former Yugoslavia Italy Vatican City Greece Turkey Syria Jordan Israel Egypt Morocco Hong Kong (now China) Singapore India Sri Lanka Nepal Burma Thailand oh, and a stopover at the Dubai airport whew

Okay...no problem...in all my posts, I've tried to be civil...but, well...there are some provocations too great for my poor will to resist... Anyway, back on-topic: I'm actually not a big fan myself of all-gay events, cruises, whatever, but to those straights who ask "why a gay day?"... It's amazing that - even in 2006 - queers still have to put up with so much crap from 'phobes. (BTW, I just saw that Missouri has just revised its anti-discrimination laws to drop sexual-orientation protections, so if you're a gay employee of SFStL, you can once again be fired by an anti-gay supervisor with no recourse. Congrats.) One year at HHN, I gritted my teeth as an onstage comic made homophobic jokes, then got insulted by some guy who muttered "Fag" at me under his breath. A year later, some very butch white-trash guys at KBF threatened me, and though sexual orientation never was mentioned, it sure seemed like a possible subtext. I'm far from cowardly, but I'd think twice before giving my partner an innocent hug at a theme park. I remember going to a gay march on D.C., being surrounded by queers, and for once feeling totally safe and accepted. Even here in San Francisco, queers get bashed on a regular basis. (BTW, it's rather odd that those who question gay days almost always give a free pass to Christian days, Gospel days, La Raza days, South Asian days, and all those other affinity days at parks.)

Oh Rastus, honey...how I've missed your snarky comments since the palmy days of yore, when I witnessed your antics on alt.rec.rollercoaster. I guess that the subject of sodomy just brings out the nonlurker in you. You just can't quit us?

Yeah, it's strictly different strokes. I rode ME a few years ago, and rather liked it. (Unlike, say, the abovementioned Psyclone and Zonga.) When I went back to Vegas in November - after reading all the negative stuff - I approached the ride with trepidation. OK, sorry, I feel like I have very limited tolerance for roughness, but, with the exception of a couple of bad transitions, I still quite enjoyed it. Twice. (However, I didn't suffer the $12.50 fee: I'd bought the 2-day Las Vegas Power Pass, a great prepaid bargain for folks who want to do a LOT of Vegas theme-parkish stuff, from ME and ST:TE to Madame Tussaud's and the Liberace Museum, and are willing to run madly around doing it.)

Children are, like Lladro figurines and Hummers, something I can understand other people liking but that I have absolutely no interest in possessing.

Haven't been to IAO in a year and a half, so I'm curious. What, specifically, has gone downhill? Their employees were never as imposingly friendly as WDW CMs, but their ride ops and restaurants were always, in my experience, pretty first-rate.

^ Quick-cooking noodles in broth that's tasty, really cheap, and (unfortunately) mostly loaded with salt and highly-saturated and transfat-laden hydrogenated oils, including palm oil...

Um, are we talking pathetic fast-food stabs at authentic Tex-Mex food, or the mouthwatering al pastor San-Francisco-Mission-style burrito from Taqueria San Jose (named by Arthur Frommer's Budget Travel magazine as the world's best taqueria), conveniently located three blocks from my house?

Here in San Francisco, the only music stations I listen to regularly are college-radio outlets KUSF and KALX - spotty reception, but no annoying commercials, no playlist straightjackets, and (especially in the case of KALX) amazing depth and variety. If I need, say, an oldies or reggae fix, I'll listen to the corresponding Music Choice channel through cable. KFOG does do amazing fireworks every May, though.

Oh, Spike, stop playing the martyr card - it doesn't suit you. I don't think anyone here disputes you are a believer in Jesus, or that you've stopped "choosing to live the gay life style." (Whatever that is. Listening to Cher?) The Real Question - which you were asked twice and never chose to answer - is "Did your Transcendent Experience in fact turn you even a little bit straighter than you already were? Or just make you decide to be celibate? And stop listening to Cher?" This thread has existed for quite a long while, with a high proportion of queer participation and a high degree of commendable mutual respect and civility. Then you pipe up and proclaim (I paraphrase very loosely) "Good news, guys! I found God and was healed of the bondage of homosexuality...(implied) unlike you unregenerate, unbelieving f-gs." Your use of the hot-button words "choose" and "lifestyle," and your referring us to the notorious b.s.-merchants at Exodus International didn't help matters. If you want me to engage in discourse about the roots of Biblical injunctions against homosexuality and the antigay mistranslations in the King James Version and other English-language texts, I'm ready. But if you're just gonna (to mangle a metaphor) shout "Sinners!" in a crowded gay bar, then perhaps it's you who should grow up and accept the (rather mild) responses your provocation has engendered.

What do you mean all Jews will burn in hell? Well, this is wayyyy off-topic, but since you asked...Jesus reputedly said "No man goes to the Father but through me." That means that belief in Jesus' intercessionary power is the only way to the Father, i.e., Heaven. Unless you believe, as Catholics do, in Limbo, that leaves precisely one other alternative for the theoretical afterlife, right? Catholics (and others) believe in "salvation through works"...that is, the chief deciding factor in going to Heaven is the record of your actions on Earth. On the other hand, evangelical Protestants believe in "salvation through faith"...that is, even the greatest sinner can, should he accept Jesus, be forgiven, while even the swellest of fellows, should he deny the Jesus story, is pretty well screwed. (Jews, by the way, place a lot less emphasis on the whole carrot-or-stick afterlife thing. You do God's will not in hope of harp-soundtracked eternal reward, but because it's the right thing to do and He told you to do it.) So Spike..calm down, turn the other cheek, and tell me...what's gonna happen posthumously to a Jew who knows of Jesus but steadfastly refuses to accept Him as the Son of God? Deal or no deal? And then can we go back to talking about cute guys?

To me, "no Kenny Loggins in the queue" is a coaster plus right up there with floating airtime...

Oh, I don't think that's true, or even what's happened here. Everybody is actually acting rather nice, if pitying, toward you. No one, for instance, has yet pointed out that two of the "ex-gay" founding members of Exodus International left the organization and went off with each other as a committed same-sex couple, or that later Exodus spokesman and much-publicized success story John Paulk ended up being spotted flirting in a gay bar. I do think rightwing Christian fundamentalists get bad press because so many of them are willfully ignorant, politically grasping theocrats who are for some reason more obsessed with homosexuality - which the recorded words of Jesus are utterly silent about - than the things he did speak of - universal forgiveness, economic justice, and an end to posessiveness and warmongering. If Jesus did indeed tell George Bush to invade Iraq, then I'm certainly not going to take His advice. Face it, plenty of leaders of the anti-gay Christian right (like Jim Bakker, Howard Carter, Billy James Hargis, and Ralph Reed) have been exposed as greedy and/or sexually hypocritical, while others (Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon) are just massively unpleasant human beings. Give me the Dalai Lama anytime. Lest you think I'm anti-Christian, I'm not. I'm anti-fundamentalism, be it Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu. On the other hand, Reform Judaism, under which I was raised, officially supports same-sex marriage, but then, the Jews will all burn in hell anyway, correct?

^ Well, okay. Whatever floats your theological boat. Just a few questions. Are you actually heterosexual now, possessing a deep desire for women, or just non-homosexual? Or were you always somewhere in the middle of the straight-bi-gay continuum? You do realize that there is no single "gay lifestyle," just as there is no archetypal "straight lifestyle?" (Unless you count drinking beer while watching football on TV, and then heading for Hooters.) And you do realize that some people's self-perceived sexual orientations are malleable, Jesus or no, right? (I just saw a documentary on same-sex marriage in which a woman says, "I was straight and married to a man for 25 years, until I became a lesbian." I suppose by your lights, she got possessed by the Devil, no?) And that studies of theologically based "ex-gay ministries" are kinda mixed, longterm-results-wise? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay#Failures_of_ex-gay_ministries Come to think of it, just what did Jesus say about sexual orientation? And - not a question - I'm not feeling particularly "unfree" myself, and I suppose if I did, I'd go on an existential quest, not buy into some antique mythic system or other, but that's just me. I guess if you felt so unhappy about being queer, it's just as well you no longer feel you are. Lots of luck.

^ Sorry - you're asking about the Superman excerpt? Then, nope. Never saw it before. But yes, everybody needs a good copy editor. It's a shame there are so few out there. And hell, I should use spell check more often, too...

Coming out of the closet a bit here...I'm actually a professional author. I've sold over 200 short pieces (including one set in a coaster queue), have written four books that have been published by a commercial firm, and am editing my third anthology. But when I look back at what I wrote when I was your age...well, it's mostly pretty awful. Not to sound discouraging or ageist, but there are very few folks your age capable of consistently good writing. (Except JT Leroy - inside joke.) Writing well is a matter both of possessing technical skill and having things to say; it takes work to hone skills, and experience to gain something original to communicate. By all means, continue writing. And if you're serious, join a writing workshop, take classes, go to open readings, expose your work to criticism. Read. Read good works and good criticism. And go through life with an open and inquiring mind. I salute your bravery in putting yourself out there - best of luck.

Well, y'know...whenever I have this discussion, I'm careful not to cast aspersions, but often get this kind of judgmental crap back anyway. A couple of us have said that we have stable, wonderful open relationships. Did you really mean to call us uncaring liars? Don't, please, tell me that I "don't care what I do." Telling me that "my relationship doesn't mean anything to me" and is "pointless" really takes nerve, dearie. My partner and I have been solidly in love for 3-plus decades, since you were in damn diapers, and have managed to endure quite without your approval, thank you very much. See, I don't think of my partner as an XBox 360 or somethin' that I can "share" or not, as I wish. We're both autonomous human beings who get a lot out of sex with each other, but with other people as well. Presumably, your "husbear" (a term, since we're getting personal, that's so twee it makes me gag) is your best friend as well as your sex buddy. Does that means you can't have other friends as well? What if - gasp - you turn out to like them more, sex aside, than your partner and want to be with them instead? Or is sex the defining factor in your relationship? And, come to think of it, are you telling me that theoretically monogamous realtionships don't often dissolve into infidelity, dishonesty, and breakup? Listen, I've often said that monogamy is just great, as long as it stems from true desire, not insecurity or fear. Pardon my saying so, but the vehemance and vitriol with which you attack others' lives - as well as your "what if?" scenario - suggests that, um, well... Edit: I agree with Nrthwnd that this is sorta OT, and beyond responding (maybe overemphatically) to what I perceived, perhaps erroneously, as a personal attack, I'm more than happy to see the thread revert to the "Who do you like to do?" question. We now return you to your regularly scheduled TPR...

Mazel tov! You're a year ahead of us. Ain't love grand?

Ever since my first ride on PGA's Vortex, I've liked stand-ups, both for the increased feeling of vulnerability standing gives me and for the unusual forces created by a higher center of gravity. I found Mantis to be something of a banger, but RR, with its swoops and loops, is pure pleasure. But yeah, the load times are awful - there's always somebody who needs his restraint released and readjusted - and there's also a problem selling the concept: "flying coaster" sounds so much better than "standing coaster."