Arkansas School Official Proclaims His “Enjoyment” Over The Death of “Fags” and “Queers”

Midland School District Vice President Clint McCance in Arkansas has shocked the school district by responding to a campaign to end bullying of gay students with a hateful (if not gleeful) Facebook commentary on gay teen suicides. Using the terms “queer” and “fag,” McCance promised to disown his own children if they are gay and refused to mourn the death of “sinners.”

McCance appeared to relish “the fact that [gay people] often give each other AIDS and die.” His diatribe was in response to the “Spirit Day” campaign that recognizes the problem of bullying of gay students and encourages students to wear purple to remember young people who committed suicide because of such bullying. McCance would have nothing of it, writing “Seriously they want me to wear purple because five queers committed suicide. The only way im wearin it for them is if they all commit suicide. I cant believe the people of this world have gotten this stupid. We are honoring the fact that they sinned and killed therselves because of their sin. REALLY PEOPLE.”

He then later wrote this little loving note for his children: ““I would disown my kids they were gay. They will not be welcome at my home or in my vicinity. I will absolutely run them off. Of course my kids will know better. My kids will have solid christian beliefs. See it infects everyone.” Would not be welcomed “in his vicinity”? What does that mean? He actually does not have the authority to “run off” gay people from his vicinity.

Then he shared his personal celebration of the death of gay people:

No because being a fag doesnt give you the right to ruin the rest of our lives. If you get easily offended by being called a fag then dont tell anyone you are a fag. Keep that shit to yourself. I dont care how people decide to live their lives. They dont bother me if they keep it to thereselves. It pisses me off though that we make a special purple fag day for them. I like that fags cant procreate. I also enjoy the fact that they often give each other aids and die. If you arent against it, you might as well be for it.”

Of course, “enjoying” the fact that some people have a long suffering illness and die is an admission of mental illness. Of course, what is most striking is how McCance uses religion to justify such hate. His pride in his instilling his beliefs in his children is a chilling thought of prejudice being passed down as a prized family legacy.

Source: CNN

Jonathan Turley

85 thoughts on “Arkansas School Official Proclaims His “Enjoyment” Over The Death of “Fags” and “Queers””

  1. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.

    Writes:

    What is it about humans that, as some works of other writers that I have read have written, makes humans the only people who kill for sport? What about humans allowed some humans to take train rides and shoot bison “for the fun of it?” What is it about humans, apparently unlike any other species, that drives us toward escalating reciprocal retaliation? What is it about humans that produces greed? What is it about humans that results in wars? What is it about humans which leads to child abuse? What is it about humans that allows anyone to drive while intoxicated? What is it about humans that leads some people into addiction?

    ——————————————————-

    If this is not a joke, and I assume it is not since today is Halloween and not April Fool’s Day, I remember seeing on TV a story about an autistic lady who could not communicate in speech, but who was brilliant once they found a way for her to communicate by computer. I hope you are another lucky autistic person such as she.

    I also have read about research on Apes which revealed that they did indeed, in groups, war on each other which was astonishing to the researchers. Whether it was escalating reciprocation or not, I don’t remember. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were.

    I’ve also read about a mother Ape who not only killed her own baby, but attempted to kill other Apes as well.

    I suppose the thing that allows humans to drive while intoxicated is the same thing that allows Apes to climb high surfaces, and sometimes fall, when inebrited on fermented fruit. I would speculate that were there some food or behaviour available to species other than humans that could cause addiction, it would. Perhaps behaviour that appears to be excessive if survival is the goal, which humans call in animals instinct, may indeed be addiction.

    I don’t know if the herd/group alpha male’s effort to get the best portion of the kill and keep as many females to mate with as possible from other males could be considered greed, as it is in human groups, or not. One would have to determine if greed is only a means of the strongest suriving or means trying to get more than is necessary for survival.

    As you will notice, I also have trouble communicating and I can only admire you for overcoming, in such a laudatory manner what must have been terribly frustrating for you for all of your life.

  2. HenMan
    1, October 30, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    The scroll wheel on my mouse is smoking. Is that normal?

    ===========================================================

    lol … mine broke

  3. One lives to be of service, Josh, and you’re “eloquent plenty”.

  4. For the purposes of this statement, true means verifiable and repeatable. True statements are possible within the context of of subsets of information, but “universally true” statements are not possible within the context of the whole set – you will eventually run into an unavoidable assumption.

    This statement comports with both relativity and Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.

  5. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E. said,

    “I am familiar with the views of the sources you cited, and they do not accomplish in any way or manner any valid “answer” to what I meant to ask.”

    Perhaps not, but they do address what it was you actually asked for. Which was “for one actual example which, being actual, would be capable of refutation if false.” An example of what you ask? “Any achievable process through which the mistake (or accident or event) which actually happened could actually have been avoided.” Unfortunately, we are unable as yet to actually time travel backward, but there is still a promising direction we can turn to look for such an example, to the future. The example to which I linked was not meant to prove/disprove any valid scientific work you have done, but merely to provide the example for which you requested. It does aptly address your request, because if the experimentors are to be believed, then they have a method to accurately predict a specific future event (because it happens) and conciously make a choice to avoid that event which is then recorded into our present and past. You can see that, despite your own reservations about the validity of the experiment, it is exactly the kind of verifiable experiment you asked for. It implies that a future that actually occurrs effects the present, which in turn changes the future. If the implication is true, it would therefore show that choice is indeed real and that we are not on a fixed path. You simply want the result to be past tense, which will not be possible unless and until we invent a way of traveling backwards in time, but the results would both speak to the truth of your claims, be they positive or negative results.

    “Why do I believe that? Because the sources cited all contain, as internal premises, variations of the fallacy of assuming the consequent. All of those cited sources are, as I observe, written from within the belief which my work ‘challenges.'”

    Of course they do, they must. It is inescapable that your task and work are in pursuit of proving a negative, namely, that we are not able to effect the future. You can not prove a negative as such, you can only substantiate it by failing to disprove it. Therefore, one must seek to disprove it by “assuming the consequent.” To assume otherwise is to invalidate your own experiment.

    “The view of Einstein’s work that I often hear from those who have not studied the theories of relativity in sufficient depth and detail, to wit, that “everything is relative” is a view that contradicts itself, because, “if everything is relative,” then “everything is relative” is itself relative, and cannot be an absolute, and therefore everything is not necessarily relative.”

    Wow, that’s a doozy, and also false. “Everything is relative” is indeed relative being that the sentence itself or any other observeable aspect of the sentence is relative in the Einsteinian sense. However, Einstein did not mean to imply that simply because the universe is wholely constructed from relative phenomenon, that it could prevent you from making a true statement regarding its composition of entirely relative phenomenon. You simply included ‘ideas’ into Einsteins ‘everything’ when Einstein meant ‘reality’. It’s akin to correcting a friend after he notes that everything in a particular room is red by saying, “Everything is red.” You could factually say he was wrong (Not EVERYTHING is red.), but that wouldn’t be what he meant.

  6. If I may, please allow me to attempt a reply to the comments by JoshOnPC of Oct. 28, 2010 at 7:20, 7:21, and 11:12 pm…

    I am familiar with the views of the sources you cited, and they do not accomplish in any way or manner any valid “answer” to what I meant to ask. Why do I believe that? Because the sources cited all contain, as internal premises, variations of the fallacy of assuming the consequent. All of those cited sources are, as I observe, written from within the belief which my work “challenges.”

    Let me restate my concern, if I may do so with reasonable consent… If no consent, please observe that I have never commanded anyone to read anything I have written, and I command no one to read this.

    Not so long ago, “everyone” knew that the earth was the fixed, motionless firmament, and Galileo Galilei was subjected to house arrest for his heretical views. Much more recently, long after Galileo’s death, the successor(s) to those who so arrested Galileo apologized to his memory (and his soul? [is the notion of soul valid?]).

    I note that sincerity is not truthfulness, even though “sincere” is derived from the Latin “sine” (without) and “cero” (to wax) and sincerely (without wax) originally meant something like, without deception, because wax, in ancient times, was used to fill space so an object might appear to be more valuable than it was, ergo, Archmedes and the bathtub.

    Okay, so quantum mechanics appears to allow something which happens in the future to affect what is happening now. That does not change my observation, which is about what is actually observable and what is actually observably achievable. For such a time interval as the future has not changed the past, the past will be what it was, and a decision made will be the decision made; when the future changes the past, so the decision made in the past is no longer the decision made in the past, that does not change that the past changed.

    Is the universe, or the universe of the set of all universes, large or small, smaller than a dimensionless point or larger than an infinitude of infinities? Tell me how you can get outside the universe of the set of all sets of universes to make the measurement…

    Consider the wave-particle duality… An electron may be observed to be like a wave (try some multiple slit experiments) or like a particle (as in Einstein’s photoelectric effect work that helped him to earn the Nobel Prize); however, an electron itself is never a wave and is never a particle, yet, in certain conditions is observed to be usefully modeled as a particle and is observed to be usefully modeled as a wave in other conditions. So, given the above, what is an electron? It is a probability pattern which may be observed under some differing conditions, and the conditions of the observation process affect the nature of the observations which occur.

    Probability patterns may be modeled as of being of three classes; one being the class of all possibilities, which class includes all impossibilities as a proper subset; another being the class of all probabilities which are possibilities in the process of becoming actualized; and the third class is the probabilities which have already been actualized. Within one religious tradition with which I have some familiarity, it is my understanding that the first above-mentioned class has sometimes been named “Holy Spirit or “Holy Ghost,” the second class has been named “Father” (or sometimes “Mother” or “Father/Mother” or “Mother/Father”), and the third class has been named “Son.” Existence is existence itself, and is not divided into possibilities, probabilities, and actualities; that dividing is of the mental modeling of the encounter of existence in the form of people with existence in the form of people and everything else. The language seems to get really messy, even if existence itself is not messy, and even if all the observations of existence, which can only occur within existence, are also really messy.
    I have worked very hard to make even a little personally-intelligible sense of the ramifications of recent (the past 100 years or so) work in the philosophy of science, including such philosophers as Werkmeister, Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos, and Feyerabend. The philosophical relationship between the religious notion of the trinity and the quantum-mechanical notion of the trinity was, as I have so far learned, first described in serious detail by Carleton College philosophy professor, Karl Schmidt, in his book, “From Science to God: Prolegomena to a Future Theology,” Harper & Brothers, New York, 1944. My dad majored in philosophy at Carleton, Schmidt was on the faculty at that time. I am hardly the first serious scientist to inquire into the nature of nature, including the nature of the human experience of religious beliefs being an aspect of nature that is worthy of serious scientific scrutiny.
    Why do I not regard the observations that “time travel” may be possible as a refutation? Suppose something happened in the past, and, in the future, I go back and change it. Once I have changed it, that becomes the actual past, and what actually happened was changed not before it happened, but from the future, after it first happened. Even if we allow the (nearly infinite?) cycles of Hindu tradition to be the real reality, the same argument I just gave remains, for each cycle will be what it was, no matter how it is later modeled.
    The view of Einstein’s work that I often hear from those who have not studied the theories of relativity in sufficient depth and detail, to wit, that “everything is relative” is a view that contradicts itself, because, “if everything is relative,” then “everything is relative” is itself relative, and cannot be an absolute, and therefore everything is not necessarily relative. On the other hand, if there are absolutely no absolutes, then “there are no absolutely no absolutes” is an absolute, and there cannot not be absolutes even if it absolutely impossible to ever know what they are.
    The trap of idolatry, in whatever for it takes, is that idolatry makes the symbol equal to the symbolized, the word equal to its meaning, the model equal to what it models; idolatry in whatever form it takes, always violates the law of non-contradiction by claiming that something is what it isn’t.
    Regardless of time-travel, at any given location in space-time, what happens is what is possible, and what does not happen is what is impossible, and one learns of which is which as one observes what happens.
    The late psychiatrist, Boris Astrachan, who was a member of my thesis committee, when I began to describe the sort of things I have attempted to over-simply describe here, regularly said to me, “Save it for your book.” I am taking his advice, only, I have yet to learn how to use words well enough to begin to write the book Astrachan thought I might eventually write. I share with other people what I am able to share, without judgment of any sort on my part, yet using a language which I find has embedded within it the expectation that judgment is utterly inescapable; the only language structure I can find to use to share what I may have learned is as though made to preclude my sharing what I may have learned.
    So, for those willing to read this…
    The observation is neither the observer nor the observed, yet, without the observer and the observed, the observation is not. In the same sense of trinity of the probability patterns of the nature of observable existence, the observed corresponds to the realm of possibility, the observer to the realm of probability, and the observation to the realm of actuality after it has happened (and not before it has happened). For those who prefer Latin jargon, one might name what I have called “probability” “a-prori probability and name what I have called “actuality” “a-posteriori probability. My stumbling into wondering about the philosophy of philosophy seems to be hard to describe in words.

    Consider the following, found on page 250 of my copy of Black’s Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, Thomson Reuters, St. Paul, 2009:
    ” ” ‘Proximate cause’ — in itself an unfortunate term — is merely the limitation which the courts have placed upon the actor’s responsibility for the consequences of the actor’s conduct. In a philosophical sense, the consequences of an act go forward to eternity, and the causes of an event go back to the dawn of human events, and beyond. But any attempt to impose responsibility on such a basis would result in infinite liability for all wrongful acts, and would ‘set society on edge and fill the courts with endless litigation.’ [North v. Johnson, 58 Minn. 242, 59 N.W. 1012 (1894).] As a practical matter, legal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Some boundary must be set to liability for the consequences of any act, upon some social idea of justice or policy.” W. Page Keeton, et. al., Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 41, at 264, (5th ed. 1984).”

    Please pardon the nested double quotes… I live in a world in which the traditional notion of “responsibility” (which imposes liabilty for wrongful acts) is purely a delusion grounded in errors of attribution, especially the fundamental attribution error. The Wikipedia page on the “Fundamental Attribution Error” seems like a rather decent explanation for anyone not already well versed in said error.

    Instead of “responsibilities,” I observe that I have “response abilities” and I am only able to learn what my response abilities were in any given situation after I have used my response abilities in response to the given situation. People fail to “meet their responsibilities” when there response abilities prevent meeting their responsibilities. Response abilities are real, responsibilities are imaginary. Yet, people tend to define the imaginary responsibilities in such ways that people’s response abilities often allow the actual response abilities to permit the person to meet the imaginary responsibilities. When a person’s actual response abilities prevent the person from meeting the imaginary responsibilities, the effect, given time-corrupted learning trauma, is to assign fault to the person and not to the imagined nature of the responsibilities.

    So, I have written what my situation has allowed me to write, and thus my response abilities have surfaced in the manner of these words. I do not have different response abilities than the ones I have, and so cannot have responded in the way someone not me, who has response abilities different than mine, might have responded.

    The effort of writing this leads me to be profoundly grateful for the gift of being unable to think in pictures or words. To the limit of my practical ability, I find being unable to think in words prevents me from being willing to actually fight anyone, myself included.

  7. What finally occurred to me is that I have a fair way to go yet in learning how words work with other people. Sorry about that, alas, I cannot find a way to be someone I am not.

    In absolutely no manner, way, or form, am I joking. If “my story” got published in the media, and I am unaware of that having happened, I would jump with joy. Anyone with Internet access can search the University of Illinois at Chicago and find my dissertation in the main library catalog. Anyone can check my P.E. license with the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing, and can check my Master Electrician Certification with the Wisconsin Department of Commerce Safety and Buildings Division.

    Some time ago, I posted some of my views on the Association for Psychological Science blog run by Wray Herbert, and posted them on the blog item, “The Matrix of Autism.” I just did a google advanced search with the search terms, “J. Brian Harris” and “The Matrix of Autism” and got three valid “hits,” two on “The Matrix of Autism” and one about “The Vaccine Court” and autism.
    If you do not mind doing so, please read the three of them.

    A google advanced search for “J. Brian Harris” got a bunch of “hits.” Anyone interested might get to the Carleton College Class of 1961 web site (it is not “members only”) by searching for “B.J. Raz” “Freshman Physics” “Brian Harris” and find what David McKercher wrote, he mentions me as a classmate. His comment is dated (8-03-05).

    As I understand so far, in the Buddhist tradition, there are the four noble truths and the eight-fold path, and the first noble truth is of suffering. As I understand the Taoist tradition, there is the eternal Tao that cannot be told yet can be understood. As I understand the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, there is something which has various names, one of which is sin. Based partly on my life experiences, based partly on the course in contemporary religious thought I took with Ian G. Barbour at Carleton College in 1959, based partly on my having worked to understand biology and biophysics since I was in third grade, I began to work to understand the sociobiology of whatever it is about the human condition which leads people to as-though willfully and intentionally do harm to self and others.

    As for not thinking in words or pictures, Dr. Temple Grandin put out a book, “Thinking in Pictures” as she finds she does not think in words. I never got even that far with conventional socialization. Perhaps it would help, if you ever “had a word o the tip of the tongue,” to imagine trying to say something, finding the word on the tip of the tongue, and wanting to tell of something so abstract that no picture is possible. I never went through the infant-child transition, and so have no infant-child discontinuity. I experience life in the same manner as I did before I was born, before any actual light registered on my retinas, and before I had heard anything that I would now deem to be a word.

    In my life, events happen, and I adapt as I am able to adapt, and how I am able to adapt, as I adapt, moment by moment, is good enough for me because such is what I am actually able to do. Because my thought processes are not limited to words or pictures, in my work as a technician and engineer, I have, from time to time, been able to quickly solve technical problems that no one else with whom I was working could solve.

    Having, as best I can tell, been invited by some here to continue, I accept the invitation. If I was not so invited, please let me know, I do sometimes misunderstand words.

    It has been my observation for decades by now that the commonplace approach to a problem is to identify the symptoms and find a way to make the identified symptoms disappear. What I have almost always found, when I have done that, is that the underlying problem, being unresolved, creates another set of symptoms. Regarding the symptoms of a condition as the condition itself is largely why, at clinical conferences I have attended with leading members of the psychiatry and psychology professions, I have sometimes said that I regard the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision” (American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC, 2000) as more accurately renamed to the “Damning and Stupefying Mishmash of Malevolent Dichotomies, Fourth Exacerbation, Trashing Reality” and I do so in part because of the way dichotonomous taxonomic key methodology confuses the patient’s experiences with the clinical signs as interpreted by the diagnosing clinician.

    The underlying classification predicament is making equivalent the symbol of something and the something symbolized, which I find is the mechanism of what has been called idolatary. If the name and the named are regarded as one and the same, one can deal with procedures declaratively, only that is actually impossible in practice.

    I sort what happens in my life into two categories, entities and constructs. Entities have the property of existing whether anyone knows about them or not. Constructs (or make-believes), with respect to humans, exist only within human minds, and have no independent existence, in sharp contrast with entities.

    Why is what I have made an effort (and many of my efforts seem to fail) to write relevant to the “homophobic” teacher? Because I set out, with conscious, deliberate intent, decades ago, to learn what I could about what about that which causes hatred might be prevented if humanity were to be able to learn enough about hatred. No matter how much effort I have made, I can find no way one person can hate something about another person in the total absence of any form of hatred.

    I apologize to rafflaw; alas, it takes time and effort on my part to find words that make any sense to me when I find I have not been understood by someone I care about. And I do care about the concern rafflaw expressed. If the words I have found do not make sense to me, I am unable to imagine how those words would make decent sense to anyone else.

    The only intelligible (to me, and perhaps to me alone) model of human destructiveness (Anthony Storr) that I have been able to devise is one grounded in brain trauma as described by many neurologists, including Oliver Sacks and Robert Scaer, and by many more psychologists/psychiatrists, including Fritz Redl & David Wineman, Alice Miller, R.D. Laing, Peter Breggin, Erik H. Erikson, Milton Erikson, Nick Cummings, and thousands more I could name here were I to be ridiculous enough to bother.

    Palliation of symptoms without repairing the mechanism which generates the symptoms palliated, seems to invariably result in the mechanism generating another set of symptoms, and, to me, merely palliating symptoms is rather like a tailless dog running in circles, chasing its tail. Alas, if one has come to believe that the symptoms are the mechanism (which I observe is the usual approach), then the mechanism consistently regenerates itself in its process of replacing one palliated set of symptoms with a set of symptoms not yet palliated.

    There is a reason some folks concerned about “mental illness” tend to think of many psychotropic medications as “chemical straightjackets.” There is a reason some folks who have been put through terrible life experiences by taking some psychotropic medications think of the unintended effects, not as “side effects,” but rather as “sigh defects.”

    When a person cannot avoid expressing a concern, and when the use of words is blocked, what remains is acting out the concern, or, did I miss something?

    Delusional projection by a person of said person’s delusional self-imago, which may be the result of internalizing a parent’s delusionally-idealized imago, can result in forms of intractable self-disrespect, and self-disrespect can develop over time into self-hatred, and self-hatred, acted out delusionally, can produce the symptoms of hating something about someone else.

    There is the predicament of attribution error and the fundamental attribution error, which error erroneously assigns personal (dispositional) responsibility to a person in consequence of situational factors which are truthfully outside the person’s actual locus of control.

    So, the relevance to what I have meant to communicate is terribly simple: I am making an effort to learn whether what I have come to understand about hatred can usefully be communicated to anyone else.

    Less is more when less works, and more is more when less does not work. I use words the way I do because, moment by moment, I do what I am actually able to do, and I learn what I am actually able to do by doing it.

    What happened to Dr. James Drummond, the acting head of bioengineering whose efforts to block my Ph.D. failed? He was replaced by Dr. Richard Magin, who took responsibility for format issues (including typographical errors) in the dissertation after he became head of bioengineering in January, 1998. Prior to the reign of Dr. Drummond, the head of bioengineering was Dr. Irving F. Miller. Miller and Magin were very supportive of my work, Magin commented to me that he thought the actual research excellent, and I understood that he decided to overlook the numerous typos because he found they did not seriously interfere with the scientific merit of the work and because he, so I believe, deemed “prolonging my suffering” in working toward the Ph.D. to be inappropriate.

    When Drummond was doing things that made it harder for me to get the Ph.D., it occurred to me that I was being tested as to whether I, or Drummond, might be the better engineer. If he was able to engineer my not getting the Ph.D., I would allow that he was the better engineer. If I was able to get it, I would wonder whether I might be the better engineer… I still wonder…

    What is it about humans that, as some works of other writers that I have read have written, makes humans the only people who kill for sport? What about humans allowed some humans to take train rides and shoot bison “for the fun of it?” What is it about humans, apparently unlike any other species, that drives us toward escalating reciprocal retaliation? What is it about humans that produces greed? What is it about humans that results in wars? What is it about humans which leads to child abuse? What is it about humans that allows anyone to drive while intoxicated? What is it about humans that leads some people into addiction?

    In contrast with the view of Mark Twain, I find that it is better to be a fool than to not be, and so, if being a fool is what I can be, so be it!

    Perhaps something from Thomas Merton will be helpful:
    “Do not depend on the hope of results – When you are doing the sort of work that you have taken on, you may have to face the fact that you work will be apparently worthless, and even achieve no worth at all, if not results opposite to what you expect. As you get used to this idea, you will start more and more to concentrate not on the results, but on the value, the rightness, the truth of the work itself.”

  8. J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.

    I think you are correct in considering autism a gift. Thanks for sharing what illumination yours offered.

  9. Dr. Harris:

    “And, being autistic, and not able to think in words or pictures makes writing difficult for me.”

    How do you think then? If not in words or pictures how? do you “see” the number 9 or the color blue for say the word yellow? How do you make connections and how would you be able to learn or categorize anything? How do you understand the concept “table” if you cannot see the word or the picture of a table in your mind? And how do you expand on the concept table to include a conference table, a kitchen table, an operating table? And each one of those tables takes additional knowledge to understand how it fits into a broader scheme. So how do you learn if you cant form concepts?

    Are you sure you aren’t using words or pictures and just cant make the connection? Or is all of your writing just a joke to put one over on all of us?

  10. There are waaaaay too many comments in this thread. Sorry for not reading them all.

    I just wanted to say that this really looked like he got his account hacked. People in his position make particularly good targets for such pranks. I hope people double-checked with him before publishing the story in the media.

  11. One last comment for the night…

    JBH also wrote the following:

    “Methinks it is biologically impossible to hate anyone else without first having been traumatized into hatred of self.”

    There are relevant kernels — they just aren’t obvious.

  12. FF LEO, No problem, but thanks for the comment. Signing off for the night. Have a good one.

  13. anon nurse,

    My post was delayed in displaying and that caused the ‘problem’.

  14. Former Federal Leo,

    JBH said the following in one of his comments:

    “Homophobia, in my observation set so far, is invariably some form of trauma response.”

Comments are closed.