Wildest Bill, I have a couple of questions:
How do you define the term “sodomy,” and where does the Bible forbid it?
What have you taught your daughters about Islam?
You have stated that abstinence will not work in America, because we have “moved away from God.” You have later clarified this comment by stating that Hindus can learn abstinence, even though they do not believe in God. Which religious group or groups do you feel are unable to learn abstinence?
-Ben
I have a serious problem with this, because very frequently I meet rude born-agains who think that they are very polite, simply because they use polite language. Plainly WB has been quite rude to us, because he has ignored people’s arguments (how many times have we told him that Christianity and evolution are compatible?) and he’s put words in my mouth on more than one occasion. Frankly, when someone puts words in my mouth, I don’t see that as “courtesy,” as you put it.
But bear in mind that WB isn’t polite even by the fallacious standard of smiling and talking pretty. For example, take these quotes from WB’s past posts:
Bear in mind that these are only the most striking soundbites; the only illustrate the fact that time and again WB has tried to drag this conversation into the gutter. We argue that kids need to be taught that they can get diseases from oral sex; WB replies that next thing you know, we’ll be dragging kids off to see women have sex with donkeys. Is that courteous?
-Ben
According to the search engine, somebody “took my name in vain” 
somewhere in this thread. A cursory reading did not turn it up. Anybody want to enlighten me?
I did not post in this thread, I have nothing to do with this thred, and attacking me, with personal attacks & lies is not only morally wrong, but against the SDMB rules.
Ben, you like to ask some dozens of questions, many of which do not deserve an answer, or are outside the OP, but when a poster does not answer every one of your questions, you attack them. Next, I am NOT a “psuedo-Christian”. Nor am I anything at all like Bill, who I disagree with nearly 100% (execpt perhaps in his personal opinion of you, which I can only guess at). I do NOT ignore counterarguements- and i do try to answer every question put to me. However, we ALL, occasionally, when a lot of questions are asked, miss one or 2. Next, if a question is simply there to harrass, as many of your questions are, anyone can ignore them if they like. YOU have every right to ask harrassing, smartass, and problematical questions- WE have every right to ignore them. YOU, Ben, have on several occassions actually directly refused to answer questions, or back-up your theories.
However, that last line “you people”- which clearly refers to all Christians, as no-one could be further apart in Faith and still belong to the same Religion as Bill & I- that last line has revealed your true self. You are a bigot. You have insulted & tarred with the same brush, every Christian on this Board. No matter how clever you think you are, you are just another bigot, and every bigot is ignorant.
**
Gaudere, is this the case?
I will reply to DITWD’s rather self-serving lies in Gaudere’s “Bite my sweet ass” thread.
-Ben
Take it to the Pit.
BTW, I haven’t seen WB in AGES…hmmm…
Maybe he was assumed into Heaven…
To further the debate on the OT, go here:
I’ve just skimmed the article, so I won’t say more until I’ve read it more carefully. JDM
[Moderator Hat ON]
We generally prefer that personal grudges be handled in the Pit. However, there is no rule that says dopers cannot hassle each other to a degree in GD; witness some of the slaps Stoid or peace or Wildest Bill get. As long as direct personal insults are avoided, a certain amount of snarkiness is accepted; this is not the happy fluffy bunny forum, and debates can get extremely heated and personal. I’ll only step in when a poster is being hassled if I consider things to be getting out of hand, to the point that I consider it extremely detreimental to the overall forum. As for “lies” being against the rules, no they are not. If someone chronically and obviously lies about other posters they may qualify for banning as a “jerk”, but us Mods simply cannot analyze every statement people make about each other to determine if it is a malicious intentional falsehood. If someone lies about you, correct them; if you want to correct them well, do so with cites rather than he said/she said. We are moderators, not judges.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
WB: in any case, Bill- do what i do- it clearly drives him to apoplexy. Just ignore all of Bens “questions” & attacks. His “questions” are there to trap, harass & annoy you, not “eliminate ignorance” (which considering the source, is not surprizing). Just ignore him, and either he will explode with frustration, or go away, mad.
DITWD, need I point out that the moderator has asked you to take this to the Pit?
-Ben
However, since I was dragged into here, I will give my opinions on the OP. I see nothing wrong with Sex-Ed, and also with telling Kids about abstinence. But, face it, abstinece in un-natural. I think Kids should also be told about things like masturbation, mutual masturbation, and other 'sexual" things, that are not actually sex, and are SAFE.
At gunpoint? :rolleyes:
Where, oh where has my Wildest Bill gone? Oh where, oh where can he be?
Your “Charming Billy” is still around. My mother use to sing that song to me when I was little so at least one person thinks I’m charming. 
Anyway, gaaaleeee(gomer pyle style) this thread length is ridiculous. I think we have done beat this horse into Elmers glue. I thought we came to a amiable ending with the idea of parents teaching the kids the material so I thought I would let it die with that.
But I am glad to see you and Guin missed me though.
I gotta send a note to the Merriam-Webster webmaster, as “amicable” seems to have a different meaning than WB thinks it does.
(For the record, there seemed to be some disagreement over whether or not it was a good idea, so, no, you didn’t “win” with your proposal, Bill. I think it’s a bad idea, myself - sorry for not being more “amicable.”)
Esprix
In the interests of fairness, I would like to point out that “amiable” is indeed a word, and subtly different from “amicable”. “Amicable” has overtones of simple friendliness, while “amiable” has connotations of complacency. I do however agree that nowhere have “we” decided that parents alone should teach children about sex ed; rather, some (myself included) wish to see studies to establish that parents teaching their own children about sex while opting out of school-taught sex ed is effective at reducing spread of STDs, and if it is so, that the parents be given the option to opt out of school-taught sex ed and teach children on their own, provided the children can pass a test on the things we decide they should know. So, Bill, you can avoid having the school teach your child about rimming, but you better teach them about it yourself, and not just “don’t do it”–they must know what it is and the risks involved and how to ameliorate those risks if possible.
[Edited by Gaudere on 12-31-2000 at 01:52 AM]
WB, do you still feel that atheists have a responsibility to read the Gospel of Matthew to their children?
-Ben
I thought I had taught my two children everything they needed to know about sex. What the hell is rimming?
WB, while we’re at it, could you clarify your earlier comments regarding sodomy? How do you define the term, and where does the Bible forbid it?
-Ben
grienspace,
Trust me on this, I’m doing you a favor. If you don’t know what rimming is, don’t ask. It’s probably not something you want to know.
Also, while I’m handing out advice, do not ask what “felch,” “squick,” “munge,” or any other more obscure fexual terms you will see used on this board mean.
Your eyeballs will thank me. 
[sub]Note: I am NOT equating rimming with any of the other terms. I just don’t think Grienspace really wants to know…[/sub]
Why so squeamish? Rimming is pleasuring your partner’s backside orally. Yes, I know, “ewww,” but if your partner is clean, it can be very pleasurable for both of you.