Disqus - Friends of Infidelesto

Re: That's What He Said - Tumblr Test

brooksbayne — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:16:26 -0000

test

Re: Twitter CEO Gives Twitter Overview

brooksbayne — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 03:58:40 -0000

a boy and his mamma's handbags, yo. does he play on our team? dispatch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... loved the analogy, but i wonder why they used the name twitter instead of dizzpatch

Re: I Have a Ton of Beta Invitations - Want One?

brooksbayne — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:25:07 -0000

socialthing yo. thx.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:43:31 -0000

lol, i got blocked by duncan on friendfeed for not agreeing with what google is doing.

my comments again that got me blocked by duncan on friendfeed:

the queer agenda is nothing more than modern secular progressive attempts to normalize something that was always unacceptable in america - beyond the closet, that is. newsflash: not everyone agrees on this issue. and those that are against the queer agenda aren't all idots. we just disagree with it, fundamentally. i'd like to think we're entitled to disagree with that agenda here in this free land, especially considering we're in the majority. no vitriol here, just statements.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:02:35 -0000

i'm talking about anyone trying to negate standard "accepted" values. not queers specifically. largely, it's the whole of the secular progressives that push the queer agenda. your examples don't follow since they don't have anything to do with America, the nation. the american indians were deemed savages by almost every white person back then so they weren't really looked at as role models. and the ancient greeks weren't known for their morality either. bottom line, there are more ppl against homosexuality in this country than are for it, and that's just something you'll have to get used to. as much as you hate that fact, the majority doesn't like the gay agenda.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:42:50 -0000

again with the non-sequiturs? this is america we're talking about. we're not talking about any of the countries mentioned. but i think it's funny you threw in countries like luxembourg, as if that was your big "gotcha". i think you're inferring things that aren't stated in my posts. you can call me names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of americans are against the queer agenda. for the record, i'm not part of the religious right. don't assume that only the religious right isn't supportive of the queer agenda.

i don't have to agree with you. this is called disagreement. your secular progressive views may cause you to think anyone without your views is stupid, but i assure you, we're not. we're the majority in america and we still have the strongest and most innovative country in the history of the planet. do any of you secular progressives ever wonder why that is?

if you don't like america, don't live here or visit here. maybe you should all consider helping build up the empire of luxembourg.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:45:31 -0000

agreed.

Re: Google’s Gay Agenda

brooksbayne — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:54:50 -0000

there's no phobia here. what would we be afraid of? that you'll plot to come redecorate our homes? the old ad hominem of "homophobe" doesn't work around here. for the record, i didn't see anyone abuse duncan or google.

sure, i disagree with gay marriage and i think it's okay for us to disagree. there's also a majority here in the u.s. that doesn't agree with it.

the queer agenda is how i refer to the pc agenda from folks who are similar to the ones that get all huffy over the word "oriental". you know, secular progressives.

however, i think it's sad that the california court set ppl up for a fall. sadness and anger is what a lot of ppl will feel when the constitution of california is amended to define what marriage has always been understood to be in this country - a union between a man and a woman.

i do understand that ppl make their choices and they want to feel accepted after making said choices, but you have to know that not everyone will like your choices. there's 200+ years of judeo-christian worldvew in this country. would you respect any with those deeply held views if they marginalized their beliefs by kicking their morality to the curb simply to satisfy a boisterous pc minority? maybe you're the one who's intolerant of ppl with that worldview. if you wanna rail against the majority in the public square, be prepared to have ppl disagree with you at the very least. i believe some ppl are too thin-skinned to deal with the consequences of their own choices.

any polygamists wanna chime in? they should have a voice in this marriage debate too, right?

Re: Google’s Gay Agenda

brooksbayne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 02:50:56 -0000

where did we talk about gays being intolerant of liars and haters? i said i didn't see anyone abuse duncan or google. you lost me there.

your argument about ppl of faith is a bit faulty. marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman. so why would you or any other person who doesn't share those beliefs want to force your way into their institution? you're trying to force your way into their institution and they are gonna get mad - naturally. i don't think it's a sign of disrespect to disallow gays traditional marriage when there's nothing traditional about homosexuality in this country.

you're not going to get the religious segment of society to EVER agree to gay marriage. how could they agree? god, according to scripture, calls homosexuality an abomination. by asking that segment to accept what you want, you're asking them to deny their beliefs - ain't gonna happen, so get used to that. but i agree with your point about violence towards queers - it shouldn't happen - unless they beat their spouses.

ah, you took the bait about polygamy. thanks! according to whose morals, or worldview, is polygamy bad? the majority? yours? why can't ppl who love one another be denied their expressions of love? why are you so intolerant toward polygamists? elaborate about how polygamy is different than homosexuality in relation to traditional conservative views.

Re: Google’s Gay Agenda

brooksbayne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:11:18 -0000

regarding the seeking of rights for property, you're assuming that ppl care about the queer lifestyle. if ppl don't care, then you're not gonna get any rights. crazy judges can try and sidestep the will of the ppl and 200+ years of marriage between one man and one woman by judicial fiat, but in the end the ppl will amend their constitutions to make the term marriage ironclad. wait and see what happens this november in california, for example.

again, we aren't talking about england. they still have monarchs don't they?

regarding Christians, they aren't bound by ritual anymore, after the life/death/resurrection of Christ. however, behavior is still looked at as evidence within their testimony. so, doves/meat/any other ritualistic restriction are ignored. but murder, homosexuality, theft, adultery, etc. aren't ignored. that's not them picking and choosing, that's just you not understanding the difference Christ made to the "law".

some modern Jews still keep the law, but many are just Jew-"ish" - kinda like Jews, maybe call themselves Jews, but really aren't Jews, save by birth.

so, polygamists don't have the right to marry? interesting reason for your justification. you state that marriage has always been between two ppl, and if polygamists wanna want to change this, they have to change the law. well, my friend, homosexuals have to do the same thing. because, as has been stated here already, marriage, in this country, has ALWAYS been between two ppl, but those two ppl are one man and one woman.

because secular progressives keep pushing, 41 states now have statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. and 27 states currently have constitutional language defining marriage as such. and more will follow, just watch. you're up against a "moral" majority that rejects your views concerning queers marrying.

maybe you'd get more results pushing for domestic partnerships and not marriage.

it's your blog, so, i'll give ya the last word. enjoyed the chat. peace.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:48:39 -0000

lol, that's not how it works here in america. see all of the above for context. it's not me, it's the history and majority of america that says so - replete with constitutional amendments and such. you don't have to like it, but that's just how it is. gays can't do "whatever they want" in america. they are very much limited here. not opinion...fact. maybe you should try luxembourg, i hear they are a queer bastion.

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:04:02 -0000

Ooo trollin' for colon? You're kinda classy...or not.

Queer marriage is mostly *not* legal here in the U.S., contrary to your foreign misunderstanding. 41 states now have language defining marriage as between a man and a woman and 27 now have constitutional amendments defining marriage as such. A few more states have current ballot initiatives that will define marriage as between a man and a woman per their respective constitutions.

Nearly all of these states passed these resolutions since 1996. Prior to 1996, only 3 states felt they had to define marriage because back then people just inherently understood what marriage has always been here - between what? Oh yeah, a man and a woman.

The problem you and other secular progressives have with America is the worldview that goes along with 200+ years of judeo-christian morals. America is still "under God" in the minds of most of my fellow Americans, or they just don't like supporting queer marriage, or both.

Your comments simply don't follow the facts. Since you revert to name calling, and your statements use weak substance, this doesn't surprise me.

Arguing against an American with knowledge AND understanding (context is everything ain't it) of American law, history and traditions probably isn't your strong suit. Maybe you're used to dealing with Canadians pretending to be Americans. They always want to be like us. Who can blame them? Just kidding my Canadian friends, or am I?

Next please...

Re: The Religious Right Is Going To Boycott Google In 3…2…1…

brooksbayne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:19:18 -0000

lol. nice ad hominems...not really. i'm thinkin you're giving yourself way too much credit for thinking you know things. but on this issue, you really don't know that you don't know.

so, you're not american and you don't know our history or laws as well as you think you do. i know history even that which occurred outside this country, but we're talking about america and i'll keep bringing us back if you keep straying from point.

we're not talking about stringing up queers. so homo behavior isn't being debated. well, you keep doing it for some reason. i'm pointing out that americans are not ready for queer marriage and may never be. nothing you state is supported by the facts regarding queer marriage in america. 41 states codified the definition as between a man a woman. 27 states, with 3 more on the way, have inserted the definition of marriage as one man and one woman into their respective constitutions. and all that state movement occurred since 1996.

here's the beauty of debating someone who doesn't know american law:
the feds did pass a ban on queer marriage regardless of whether or not you were aware of it! lol. it happened in 1996.

btw, even if obama likes parts of the queer agenda, he's *against* gay marriage and has stated that many times.

quick clarification since you don't know context as well as you think you do. you mentioned something about indians as being an influence on our view of queers here in america. i pointed out that assertion was invalid because ppl back then considered them savages, not me. reread that section if you need to.

i don't know why you're obsessed with europe to the point that you keep getting sidetracked from our america conversation. the uk has nothing to do with us on this issue. here's why...those early americans left england because the retarded (and probably queer) king distorted the christian doctrine. ppl didn't like it and they came here to get away from the bastard and the crappy (at the time) church of england. plenty of history books on the subject. maybe you didn't get one of those versions but instead got a redacted uk version at whichever uk influenced school you attended.

aquinas? cmon now, let's stay focused. i'm not here to debate the entire christian history and how some periods may have been affected by the karesh's of their day. i've been talking about the american view on queer marriage. your eu and uk points are just irrelevant. please stay on topic.

please present the parts of american history i ignored that pertains to queer marriage. there really hasn't been ANY movement in this area until the last 20 years or so. i have provided the reasons why queer marriage isn't gonna happen here. i'm here giving you the insight as to why america is the way she is and you're ignoring that to attack me. if you take a step back and read both blogs' comments you'll see that i'm trying to educate ppl who don't understand. sure i can be cheeky, but i try to amuse myself without getting too tastless or disrespectful.

don't let your bias cause you to miss what i'm trying to say, which is basically this, if ppl push the queer agenda too hard and too fast they are gonna get shut down - not by a few bunker dwelling right-wing loonies, but rather the majority. and the effect of the shutdown is likely a constitutional amendment in every state that may never be repealed. mess with the "moral" majority in america at your own peril.

i won't respond to the rest since it was mostly irrelevant, factless and bordering on a tirade. maybe tone down the rhetoric and stick to actual facts that are relevant to the topic. you might believe you're the most enlightened intellectual to ever walk the secular progressive walk, but you're not gonna win any converts engaging ppl in that manner. i am part of the majority in america. i don't need your side's approval on this issue - you need my side's. if you don't want the majority's approval, then be prepared for the status quo, or maybe even worse, a backlash, if you push with too much vitriol.

Re: Google’s Gay Agenda

brooksbayne — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:23:16 -0000

lol. you're following me. i was following the topic. for the record it's not just my agenda, it's the "moral" majority's.

america 1
secular progressive 0

Re: That's What He Said

brooksbayne — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:25:27 -0000

but they sure taste good.

Re: Innovate, Iterate or Obliterate

brooksbayne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:06:32 -0000

Thanks! Oh, you meant literally?

http://www.techzulu.com/Inn...

;)

Re: Innovate, Iterate or Obliterate

brooksbayne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:09:56 -0000

And then there's the challenge of trying to get an entire organization to take up a consolidated customer development process. The folks in charge of the product driven approach have a hard time allowing another paradigm in the door. It can take some dialog, but eventually they get it.

Re: Innovate, Iterate or Obliterate

brooksbayne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:44:44 -0000

Sure, that's the difference between Facebook at 100 million users, and Twitter with 2.3 million users. Honestly, though, I'd love to develop either customer base. :)

Re: Innovate, Iterate or Obliterate

brooksbayne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:50:17 -0000

Thanks, Tim. I appreciate the response.

My hope is that part of the team's execution will consider developing those customers. We're trying to mitigate unnecessary startup "Darwinism" where death is the result versus moving or adapting/changing.

Re: Innovate, Iterate or Obliterate

brooksbayne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 21:58:34 -0000

Thanks for the comment and the props Jared. It's such a tricky balance.

Do you know the group's name up there in the valley?

Re: Straight off the boat

brooksbayne — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 15:43:45 -0000

welcome to lala land, meine freund.

lol at the "i start companies" guy. he was soooo fun. negative. i wonder if he's sold any companies or generated any revenue with any companies...hmm... /plonkage

#burninate

Re: Hypocritical Palin Haters On Twitter

brooksbayne — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 17:17:14 -0000

Who you calling "you ppl"? And I'm missing your pot kettle black reference. Whom did I mention I hated? Maybe child predators? Maybe Muslim extremists? Maybe Rick Astley (not really, just tired of getting rick rolled)?

You obviously missed those dozens of ppl claiming to hate Palin I included in my post. We should take Obama's Twitter followers at their word, no? Or should we assume that Obama followers are untruthful. And, as I mentioned, I personally know ppl who hate her. so your comment is a non-sequitur because ppl *do* hate her.

I'm not self-righteous, b*tch. ;) How's that?

This isn't all I can come up with. However, this was a post to show liberal hate and hypocrisy on Twitter and this blog post accomplished my objective. You're wanting to engage in something else, apparently. Let's stay on topic maybe? Or give me a topic to blog about and we can engage on that topic when that post is up.

Re: Hypocritical Palin Haters On Twitter

brooksbayne — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:11:23 -0000

No, I'm saying liberals on Twitter hate Palin. Their words, not mine.

You're underestimating how many of the tech elite are on Twitter and most all of them are liberal. They are not the bumpkins you describe. You might wanna research the demographic that hangs out on Twitter before you make assumptions about it. Here's a link for you to start your research: http://is.gd/4c6G

"Not one of us" means? You're making assumptions. There's no proof that term means what you think it does. Sure, there were a few ppl that said stupid things at McCain rallies, but McCain repudiates those comments and corrects ppl - even taking the mic from ppl in the crowd who say stupid things. Obama doesn't repudiate ppl like McCain does. I wonder how many of these loony ppl at rallies are "plants" from the other side.

Again. this was a blog post intending to show liberal hate on Twitter and is successful doing so. BTW, AOL is old-hat. Does anyone still use it?

There's no difference between Ayers and McVeigh, other than Ayers was not held accountable for his actions, so he's still breathing as a free man, unfortunately. Trying to equate Ayers to Todd Palin is laughable. Ayers tried to kill ppl and has never repented for it. Todd Palin races snowmobiles and catches fish. Did Todd Palin bury guns? Nope.

Don't lump me in with Republicans. I am not "one of them". I am against an Obama presidency, however. If McCain is the vehicle for a Nobama America, oh well.

Re: More Online Ad Nonsense. This Time: Google's "Masterdebators" Ad

brooksbayne — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:27:44 -0000

i'm hardly sensitive. i'm just pointing out the silliness directed at me via my inbox. that's the distinction. i'm not referring to general internet display ads.

i wouldn't assume ppl are clicking on the ad. however, i would assume someone is paying for it to be displayed in my inbox.

private entities can police themselves, but there are plenty of laws and guidelines that are there to protect children which are not socialist. "family friendly" is a term used to describe the suitability of something for children. kids can't watch porn, for example. laws protecting children are not a socialist tenet. although, socialists may want to protect their children too, but i wouldn't wanna assume that.

Re: Hypocritical Palin Haters On Twitter

brooksbayne — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:43:59 -0000

You might wanna research the demographic that hangs out on Twitter before you make assumptions about it. Here's a link for you to start your research: http://is.gd/4c6G

Regarding Palin's beliefs, I think most frightened little atheists (they seem to be afraid of *everything*. funny what a little faith can do) are completely braindead with their assertions.

Being from Nashville and having attended many evangelical churches there, I can tell you that just because a person might believe in the biblical view of Armageddon, doesn't mean they want it to happen. I've not met one evangelical who wants, or looks forward to, the end of the world. Atheists who believe this have no experience interacting with evangelicals. Period.

I usually don't bet on things like this, but I'd bet my life that Palin isn't looking to get elected to ensure there's an end times scenario. Any assertion to the contrary has no basis in fact, or experience.

I'd engage on the other topics, but that would be off-topic. The topic here was about liberal hatred toward Palin.