December 16, 2004

• What's so hilarious is how detailed the description is: "cooked him with onion and tomatoes...Of course, he also added some cilantro and garlic, cooked medium fire and topped him with a bit of spicy Cuahatequan Mole and cheese. This is perfect filling for Soft Shell tacos or flautas...YUM!" Disturbing.
• I love the things Reuters files under "oddly enough." Tee hee, what an odd burst of whimsy to lighten up my afternoon! Somehow when I see that heading, I picture more cute stories of puppies adpoting ducks or what have you...
• Didn't something like this make the headlines in Mexico a few months ago? I could have sworn we were all joking about something like this earlier this summer. Guess I'll skip the tacos in Tijuana.
• Fag Ragu Sorry
• Aren't there enough witty things to say without resorting to "homo" and "fag" comments?
• How fucking sad, You read the whole article and at the end all you could think about was that the guy was a "homo". wow, you're a moron.
• Before y'all go rushing onto a PC pigpile, darlings, you might want to reconsider that "Warrior" might better be renicked "Spartan." If. you. get. my. drift.
• "There was a grill where he was cooking part of the heart and bits he had cut off the body. It was terrible, terrible," said local police chief Martin Estrada, "I mean, grilled heart? Jesus, man, it should be served diced, lightly sauteed in a red wine sauce and served on a bed of fucking cous cous! You must have been taking a leak when God gave all the other gays the cooking skills." I think the only people making 'homo' or 'fag' jokes are, in fact, to some extent, at least in some respects, how shall I put this, men who may occasionally, to some extent, as it were, have sex with other men, in some form or other. So, er, not so much on the morons.
• What? No fava bean jokes? This would make for an excellent "why I failed my drug screen" story upon returning from holiday in the Yucatan. You see, there was this guy who murdered his lover who was on drugs and served him in a restaurant where I ate......
• Aren't there enough witty things to say without resorting to "homo" and "fag" comments? Maybe Warrior meant "homo sapiens"..?
• There are dark places in the human heart that I will never comprehend. Should I grill them or would a stew be more in keeping with the season?
• Should I grill them or would a stew be more in keeping with the season? If he was a lean cut, I'd definitely go with grilling.
• Grilling is so frat boy. I recommend a nice heart saltimbocca.
• grilling rotting human flesh for his breakfast oh dear. i hope he doesn't end up with food poisoning. fresh flesh is always recommended. "They said there was a person eating a person" heh.
• Monkeyfilter: I think the only people making 'homo' or 'fag' jokes are, in fact, to some extent, at least in some respects, how shall I put this, men who may occasionally, to some extent, as it were, have sex with other men, in some form or other.
• i could make a 'flaming' comment or about how i love having the gays for dinner but-- is it me or is this just the latest in a rash of 'cannibal' stories this year? For me it started with a UK kid who ate someone to "gain their power" in some misguided "witch thing", then a rapper who ate part of his date-- --seems to have superceded the incest ceiling, but hasn't broken into the mainstream media-- thank grod for little flavors
• This thread is cracking me up. It can only get funnier if Alex Reynolds makes a joke here and somebody else piles on him. *waits patiently*
• So people who *may* be "friends of Dorothy" are allowed to make homo or fag comments, and guys who prefer girls are morons if they make the same comments? Is this the way it works around here, 'cause I didn't see that rule in the FAQ. Look, either a word is offensive or it aint, no matter who says it. The double standard is the most annoying thing about knee-jerk political correctness. I don't want to see it apply here.
• "He was preparing stews. There was a grill where he was cooking part of the heart and bits he had cut off the body. It was terrible, terrible." Far too much garlic and not at all salted to taste ...
• my friends and i had a conversation about this recently and concluded we much prefer free range beer marinated homeless people.
• And if I eat your heart, I'll also bite your soul, And when I'm done with that I'll use your skull as a bowl. Apart from the whole murder aspect, of which I dissaprove, what is the problem with eating humans? I gather that hands, arms & buttocks are the best cuts. Of course the taste varies depending upon the diet of the individual that is consumed. I would go for a curry or perhaps a variant on a pork dish.
• MonkeyFilter: We much prefer free range beer marinated homeless people
• Nostril - I think that most mammal species avoid cannibalism for health reasons. E.g. kuru in New Guinea.
• Yes, I had heard the same thing - it's not health-safe to eat your own species, or maybe even species close to you. Bacteria, viruses or prions can move too easily from food to eater.
• So people who *may* be "friends of Dorothy" are allowed to make homo or fag comments, and guys who prefer girls are morons if they make the same comments? You got it backwards. The only people getting offended by the terms are the ones who aren't gay. "Homo" might've been a derogatory term when you were growing up, like the term "nerd" used to be, but they aren't derogatory any more. The only reason why the word "homo" was derogatory was because it described "offensive behavior". Now that the behavior is no longer offensive, the descriptors quit being derogatory. It's like a bunch of people trying to defends nerds against the word "nerd", even though nerds are perfectly comfortable with the term.
• Mr. Knickerbocker...would you care to defend the use of the word "fag"?
• Context is everything in comunication. A gay man was beaten to death by a bunch of drunken teenage punks here two summers ago. One of them is already up for parole, as a "youthful offender". He pled guilty and implicated the others; in his statement of fact, he admitted that they went to the park to beat up some "peeping toms". Admitting that they went to the gay-stroll there to beat up "fags" would make it a "hate" crime in the eyes of law. Thus the use of the expression "peeping tom", as if a naked man chased and beaten by a gang of thugs in a 1000 acre park after midnight was a victim of anything other than a vicious, pre-meditated hate crime. Visible minorities are free to use whatever expressions they want, but hate is hate, no matter where it's directed. On the Internet, we lack any clues as to whether someone is Gay or Black or Arabic, or Jewish, or any other minority. My own policy is to avoid the use of such terms. It's just my practice, and it has nothing to do with being "PC". It is about respecting others, and judging them based on what they say and do, not on who the "are". Those who are not part of such groups should avoid such expressions, lest the bigots come to believe that their own prejudices are somehow acceptable. They're not.
• I'm with carfilhiot and Zanshin on this. When a heterosexual uses terms that are or recently were used to denigrate homosexuals, the onus is on the person making the comment to make it abundantly clear that no offense was intended, and that they are consciously attempting to remove the power from the word taboo. To make it clear, I, as a non-Jewish man would expect to be met with reproach if I were idiotic enough to headline a post 'Hook-nose gets killed and eaten. Ha ha ha.', or 'Kike-kebabs anyone?'. It's utterly simplistic think that reclaiming the language is as easy as tolerating slurs against marginalized groups. Many people actually think that non-heterosexuals are worth less than heterosexuals, that their rights to marry, be employed, have children, live openly and even just to live at all should not be granted by 'decent' society. Hearing hate speech uttered or seeing a denigrating post on a message board should, indeed must inspire a challenge to the person making the odious statement. Otherwise we foster a climate in which it is seen to be acceptable to deny marginalized people their full humanity. Believe it or not, language does have power. We have the capacity to challenge, corrupt, restrict and even remove that power, but please don't think of this as an abstract concept. Recall that 'homos' and 'fags' have only recently been accorded any rights at all, and that conservative 'christian' bigots are working to restrict and remove them. This needs to be examined and challenged as a real-world problem before the abstractions can have much value. Non-heterosexuals are fired from their jobs, denied children, beaten and killed in the real world, and a good part of the problem is the tacit tolerance of people who really do know better than to not tell bigots to shut the fuck up. And, rocket88, this has nothing to do with 'knee-jerk political correctness'. It has everything to do with opposing prejudice, hatred and denigration when witness to it, even if you are not the target. And, since you brought up what you don't want to see here, I'll mention two things I don't want to see: bigotry and knee-jerk dismissals of challenges to bigotry using the idiotic phrase 'politically correct'. I've mentioned before that I have a gay son. Growing up for him was in many ways no picnic because of the homophobic assholes in our town. Being labelled as a hateful, less than human thing and suffering implied and very real acts of violence is often a simple fact of life for non-heterosexuals (and perceived non-heterosexuals), and those of us who accept this and dismiss attempts to correct this horrifying social problem are not deserving of sympathy or tolerance. Why tolerate those who are intolerant?
• This thread is cracking me up. It can only get funnier if Alex Reynolds makes a joke here and somebody else piles on him. The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. *cough*
• Context is everything. The comment "Fag Ragu" was an attempt at word-humour, and followed by an apology (I'm guessing more for the bad humour than the choice of words...but probably a bit of both). It can hardly be reasonably seen as fueled by hate or intolerance. If someone had said "Fucking fag deserved to die", of course that would be different. My original problem wasn't with people asking that terms like fag and homo not be used, it was with the idea that it was OK because the comments were made by someone thought to be homosexual. If those terms aren't welcome here, then that must apply to everybody...and I would have no problem with that. That being said...you're all assholes! I can say that because I'm one too. :)
• Context is everything. The comment "Fag Ragu" was an attempt at word-humour, and followed by an apology (I'm guessing more for the bad humour than the choice of words...but probably a bit of both). Hear, hear! Personally, I would have gone with 'Fagu' rather than the somewhat prolix 'fag ragu,' and trusted my readers to make the cognitive leap. And maybe I'd have tried to work in some bit about "It's in there!" though that would have probably dated me as I doubt that ad campaign has been used in recent history, though I could be wrong. What really popped to mind first though, was that comment from Heinlein's 'The Cat Who Walks Through Walls about "Was General Evans a man of good taste?" "Well no, I would not say so. I found him tough and a bit stringy."
• God, I hate heterosexuals. Fuckin' breeders. Cannibals on the other hand. Them's good eatin'!
• I think on my part, I thought this appalling piece of news can elicit only two responses: black humor, or despair at man's nature. That a man can be so callous as to kill someone he had a (fleeting) relationship with and eat him up, is something I find rather disturbing. So jokes help me cope with this. Thank you, Alex :)
• ...piles on Alex Reynolds just for the fun of it, not just 'cause Alnedra suggested it...
• Rubbish. Words do not have power. Words can be assembled into sentences that have meaning, subjectively, but words themselves should not be censored or censured. My wife ate me last nite.
• Words do not have power. Yes they do
• You say words have no power, Nostrildamus, yet you continue to post.
• I continue to post out of sheer bloody mindedness.
• In an attempt to be culturely sensitive, the Cartoon Network took their Speedy Gonzales reruns off the air. This action upset the Mexican-American community. Speedy was one of the few on-air Mexican role models they had. He always triumphed over the grinko cat, and he did it with out giving up his cultural heritage. Speedy didn't have to hide his roots to be successful. Cartoon Network execs saw Speedy as offensive because they saw his behaviour and personality as a Bad Thing. Their decision to yank Speedy was the true offense— it showed that they thought it was wrong to for people to act the way Speedy did. Eventually, Speedy was brought back on the air, once the CN execs were made aware of their mistake. What's the point? It's up to the recievers of the "offensive" action to determine if it's truly offensive. You have no business making the decision for them. If homos and fags are comfortable with the terms "homo" and "fag", then who the fuck are you to get offended by it? It's their perogative, not yours, to deem the term offensive or not.
• Two anecdotes: Out with a gay friend, a stranger comes up to ask directions, smiles alluringly at my friend and walks off. "Fag," my gay friend immediately says, nodding in the stranger's direction. To inform me that the stranger was gay (as I can sometimes be as dense as a lead block). I book a room for my 2 gay friends in my town. Sit down with the owner of the B&B. I get a double room, and write down their names. Landlady hesitates and asks, "Homosexual?" I say yes, and apologise for not saying so earlier. She waves it off, saying she's had "those people before." Which phrase would be more offensive, do you think? Words may have power, but I think in the end the delivery and the person delivering them are of more importance than the words themselves.
• Can I bum a fag?
• Tell it to the dead "fag's" family. I'm sure your holier-than-thou attitude will comfort them in their grief. Actually, here's a better idea. Let's test your theory. Go put your language ideas into practice in any large American inner-city. Start calling anyone you see a Nigger, and see how that works out.
• The context is the power of words. Some words have completely transient, mutable context, provided by nothing other than situation in which they are uttered. With the right context, almost any word could have the power to offend, to hurt, or to incite; equally, any could be warmly affectionate. But other words come with context pre-loaded by history and society, and that context can be incredibly hard to strip away. Like the words we're talking about here. But still, the context can be changed, and one of the most powerful ways of doing that is for the targets of the word to adopt it themselves. I'm a little surprised that some people here still seem to be unclear on the how a word and its context changes through re-appropriation by a community, and why it's an ongoing process, and why that's okay and a good thing. But hey ho. "I'm queer. I'm gay. I'm homosexual. I'm a poof, I'm a poofter, I'm a ponce. I'm a bumboy, batty-boy, backside artist, bugger. I'm bent. I am that arsebandit. I lift those shirts. I'm a faggot-ass, fudge-packing, shit-stabbing uphill gardener. I dine at the downstairs restaurant, I dance at the other end of the ballroom. I'm Moses and the parting of the red cheeks. I fuck and I am fucked. I suck and I am sucked. I rim them and wank them, and every single man's had the fucking time of his life. And I am not a pervert." - Stuart Allen Jones, Queer As Folk
• Ok, what I *really* want to know is, did he eat his penis?
• That a man can be so callous as to kill someone he had a (fleeting) relationship with and eat him up, is something I find rather disturbing. So jokes help me cope with this. Frankly, Alneda, I just see this as the victim's way of getting out of paying for the meal. I hate it when guys expect you to pick up the check on a first and last date.
• Words do not have power. Yes they do No, they don't. /raising the level of discourse in here a notch
• Ok, what I *really* want to know is, did he eat his penis? If he did, I'm guessing he smoked it first.
• I really love you guys! *HUGS*
• I'm sure your holier-than-thou attitude will comfort them in their grief. That's cute, since your the one who thinks himself holy, trying to create offenses where there aren't any, so that you can look like you're sensitive and holy.
• The context is the power of words. In this case the context is provided by the internet(s). I only know Warrior and ActuallySettle through MoFi, so any comment from them comes with a certain amount of anonymity -- I have zero previous knowledge regarding their sexual identity. In the flesh and bone world, when gay friends use "homo" and "fag" I understand that they have "re-appropriated" these words. One of the reasons I enjoy MoFi and MeFi is that they are places where people are working out how to communicate on the internet. The internet is culturally young and, because of this, methods of discourse and social norms of communication are still being developed. Language and its context is very different on radio, tv, film, telephones, etc than it was at the time those technologies first appeared. Each one of those mediums went through (and continues to go through) a period where the standards of communication were worked out. The internet is working through this right now (part of the reason for the Blog-phenomena.) One area that needs work is how to express sub-culture re-appropriation of an epithet within a general audience forum. ps. Nostrildamus: I ate your wife last nite.
• whoa...lol you funny monkeys
• Not to pile on or get all moralistic on your asses, but I'm really surprised that there isn't more negative reaction in this thread. I'm glad there's no serious flaming going on, but I've seen more anger on this site over "kick the cat" jokes than on this thread, which is about one human being murdering and then eating another human being. I like dark and inappropriate humor, and god knows I've made more than a few jokes in life that could earn me a punch in the face, so I'm not casting judgment here, but I just don't see what's funny.
• I like dark and inappropriate humor, and god knows I've made more than a few jokes in life that could earn me a punch in the face, so I'm not casting judgment here, but I just don't see what's funny. I don't think its funny, but I am making fun of my horror at the absurdity of the crime. Most people don't like the idea of being eaten; I'd say most of us like being at the top of the food chain. So laughter is one way to deal with nervousness about the idea of being chopped up and thrown into a pot. If you read my MeFi comments, I have a much darker view about the people reporting about this stuff.
• mct, culturally, being eaten after you're dead is even more horrifying for a Chinese; one of the worse curses you can say in Chinese is that one has an incomplete corpse after death (si3 wu2 quan2 shi1). This is still so strong a taboo, that though in Singapore, all dead are cremated, Chinese have to pick their dead with chopsticks, making sure the bones remaining are in the right positions in the urn before shaking all the ashes in.I did that with for my grandfather's cremains.
• i once read about a culture in which they'd keep a small piece of the body of a loved one (fingers are good) in their pocket and when they find themselves missing the deceased, pull out of the aforementioned part and gnaw on it awhile. i like that idea.
• Zanshin - that's very true. I don't think it's entirely correct that a lack of personal information on the poster renders the comments context-free. I take the tone of the site, which pretty much unanimously gay-friendly, to give context; in other words, I assume that comments are made in a companionable, non-aggressive way, as I would with friends. In many cases - those where the terms refer to something not immediately apparent, be it sexuality, religion, nationality, ideology, whatever - the use of offensive terms are upsetting not because of something intrinsic to the terms themself, but because of the assumption that they can be safely used; that nobody they refer to is present. It's the sense of exclusion that hurts. And that's the reason why it rankled slightly when some people here (with the best intentions) assumed that the people saying 'homo' or 'fag' were necessarily straight. It works the same in reverse. It's a minor point, I know, and not really a complaint - just trying to explain why I didn't think twice about the supposedly offensive terms, but the rebukes against them made me feel a little awkward. (It's also one reason why some American-centric content or comments can irritate non-US members, while most of the time it can be quite happily chalked up to the natural majority of American users.) On preview: I ph34r SideDish.
• I don't think its funny, but I am making fun of my horror at the absurdity of the crime. Okay, this I get. I've known people who told me of how they dealt with day-to-day horrors (my father in Vietnam, an old buddy who used to be a firefighter) with humor that would turn a polite person's stomach. I don't know why I didn't make that connection before. Alnedra, that's fascinating. The image I have in my head is one of a fairly deliberate ritual. Sounds like a good way to care for a loved one's remains. What are the "right positions?
• The people defending the use of the terms 'homo' and 'fag' should really think about, as i pointed out in my earlier post, the real-world implications of their posts. Tolerating the vilification of a marginalized group is to participate in the oppression of said group. Want to see more non-heterosexuals be further marginalized, attacked, denied basic human rights and killed? Simply don't challenge bigots and the ignorant when they toss out terms that malign, vilify and traduce non-heterosexuals and you're well on your way to helping create or maintain the society in which you deserve to live. flashboy, I don't assume that anyone is straight, gay or anything else here. However, providing a convenient blanket for bigots to hide under is foolish. The person tossing off offensive terms, not the rest of us reading the bullshit, has the onus on him or her to establish the context. rocket88, how would I have any idea if your words are fueled by hatred and intolerance or by an attempt at wordplay? There is no context here, and all that was apparent was that you were comfortable using a word which is generally used to denigrate a group of people. I don't think you were attacked here, but you were challenged, and rightly so. I'm glad you were challenged, too, because it shows that some people have decent values here. I wish more had questioned you and Warrior (especially her or him, as s/he seems not to understand the problem), though. Letting what appear to be bigots attack others is bullshit.
• coppermac, I didn't use the words in question, I just questioned why they were considered OK for known homosexuals to use, but offensive when assumed heterosexuals used them. As for the words themselves, I still say context is everything. Consider these two statements: 1. My friend is going to his favourite fag bar tonight. 2. I hate those fuckin' homosexuals...they should all die. If it's the words that count, you'll say statement 1 is more offensive. If you look at context you'll see that statement 2 is worse. And a third statement: 3. That guy is a homo. is benign. There are no clues given from the context as to whether it's offensive or not.
• Actually, rocket88, you did use the words: "So people who *may* be "friends of Dorothy" are allowed to make homo or fag comments, and guys who prefer girls are morons if they make the same comments?" is the first sentence in your first post in this thread. Not only did you use the words 'fag' and 'homo', you added a new term. Why is it ok for known homosexuals to use these words? -- Do you understand anything about the concept of reclaiming language? Do you not agree that these 'assumed' heterosexuals (and I already pointed out that I don't assume any orientation for the people posting here) should be challenged for questionable behaviour? I agree that context is important here, but the onus is on the person posting to actually provide the context (which I mentioned in my last post).
• personally, it first struck me as in bad taste (oh ha ha Ha hA) but rather than derail a thread i thought might go on about the cannibalism thing, i played along, but still felt ick about it after the fact *existing in the nebulous land of the unlabelable* i do have to go with rocket just because this thread never seemed to transcend into either the funny or productive i'm all for "reclaiming words" but it wasn't clear, hence my lingering ick
• This is one of those arguments that doesn't seem to have a right or wrong side. It just goes on and on and round in circles. If someone who's gay wants to use words like "fag" and "homo", to me they are the ones who have the most right to use those words and, if they're not offended by them, there shouldn't be a problem. There are people in the world who will be offended by anything, and there's no point in censoring every single word we say for the benefit of a few.
• I don't advocate censorship either, tracicle. I do advocate challenging expressions generally used to display and promote bigotry.
• mct, just the correct skeletal positions. You know, leg bone, thigh bone, hip, etc... like the old song goes :) it wasn't so much of a ritual, as a desire to get it right. Don't want grandpa to be uncomfortable. Not really a joke, that. I'm glad this didn't become a total trainwreck. I think we're still feeling out the boundaries of the language for GLBT community in the mainstream. There's still alot that's difficult to articulate, or too heavily dependent on context. Then again, "nigger" is an unacceptable word - except when blacks use it to refer to each other. So perhaps these terms will remain unacceptable in the mainstream, unless colonised by the people whom these terms refer to.
• *looks at thread* Did I somehow stumble into lavender metafilter? *tiptoes away*
• Wow, Alnedra, that's deeply touching. Thank you for that.
• Why is it ok for known homosexuals to use these words? -- Do you understand anything about the concept of reclaiming language? I understand it's quite difficult to reclaim words that nobody's allowed to use. I mean, you even have a problem with the phrase "friend of Dorothy" - a term entirely created from gay subculture, used approvingly by gay people, and (to my knowledge) hardly ever used or, often, even known about by homophobes. I don't assume that anyone is straight, gay or anything else here. As your hounding of Warrior in the other thread ably demonstrated, you do, you have done and you continued to do so. I appreciate where you're coming from, coppermac, and indeed I thank you - I really do - for your commitment and good will. But I reiterate what I said earlier. Casual assumptions, hostility, and the apparent belief that the gay members of this community cannot defend themselves (and cannot be allowed to choose what to defend themsleves against), are in the context of this community more offensive and unsettling than simple words. I would rather continue to assume that the people of this community are all friends, until I see evidence otherwise, rather than to assume they are all bigots until they can prove me wrong. Conviviality, connection and the joy of unfettered language demand it be thus. Perhaps I'm one of the lucky ones - hell, no, I am lucky - but far more than protection from bad words, I crave the opportunity to be open, to be relaxed, and to not have to subject myself to the imposition of limitations. That's what's most precious to me. And on that note, I think I'll just get back to over-identifying with the character of Sammy Klayman, an activity I've let slip somewhat over the past hour or so, which is lax of me.
• down with censorship! up with funny! can we get back to the flesheaters now, degenerate to discussing the frazetta cover or-- eh, i'll just wait for the next random transgression of bio/socio taboo
• ummm, I know some of you are in other countries but... Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
• These are NOT "generally used to denigrate homosexuals". They are generally used by homosexuals with pride. Thirty years ago you would've been right, but not today. You don't like homosexuals calling themselves "fag"? Tough. It's their fucking right to choose their own labels. You don't get to take that right from them.
• Surrender Dorothy about halfway down the page
• Can we get back to talking about the gay cannibals, please? I want to know if they're left-handed.
• Was he eating the guy because he was crazy, or because he was hungry? Homeless people have to be resourceful, and many social taboos are lost in the process of survival. Seems to me he might have just been trying to stay alive. Sure, it's still a psychosis, but not the Dahmer kind of psychosis.
• "BEACH Of CARMEN, SOLIDARITY, 15 of December. - "I do not regret it to have killed, the meat left like a lamb to me and if they had left me to me ate everything and to leave only the bones it, it took to two kilos and means and he was already rich", indicated without no remorse the cannibal assassin after afternoon rendering of this Wednesday his declaration before the investigating agent of the Public Ministry of Fuero Comu'n (MPFC), where it accepted his responsibility because the now murdered one, that still remain in quality of stranger, did not give back the 500 pesos to him that it gave him for the drug. The constitutional term so that it is briefed the Penal Primera Court Instancia (JPPI) overcomes east Thursday to 9:20 hours, reason why the assassin confeso Gumaro de God Aryan, of 26 years of age, original of ranchería Lily Fourth Section of the municipality of Cardinal red in the State of Tabasco, rendered afternoon from the three of his ministerial declaration. At the end of the interrogation, around the 16:10 hours, that in fact were made in the office and behind closed doors the Judicial Police of Estado (PJE) to consider it of extreme danger, to express question of the reporters of different mass media, Gumaro Aryan de God assured that it does not regret to have killed his sentimental companion, to which knows only like "Guacho". According to the cannibal tabasqueño killed it because it did not want to give back the 500 pesos to him that it had given him to buy drug, of denominated "crack", so it began to him to beat, "desmayó and I took advantage of to hang it and to finish off it with block there when desperto '". Around which if it has some remorse and how much it had eaten of the body of its companion, it said very textually: "I do not regret anything, already I did it, I believe that they were like two kilos and average that I still ate and it wanted to continue eating, the meat left like very good a lamb to me and". On the other hand, the lawyer Luis Alberto May Herrera, regional director of Previous Inquiries in the Mayan Riviera, seated that the prisoner in his ministerial declaration seats that the facts occurred from Friday, accepting all the responsibility and detailing how is that it gave death him. He indicated that indeed they maintained sexual relations between both, although later discussed by the 500 pesos that he had given him for "crack", reason why began to strike it with a cable, soon hung it and when waking up he finished off it with block, he was then that began to eat it part by part, doing a broth with vegetables, but it did not like and began to roast it. The prisoner also refers that two days later he happened through the course a friend which knows like "the Sparing one", to who was going to him to invite to eat, but left running without knowing why, although its intention was to eat all the body and to leave the skeleton hung, but when waking up Tuesday stopped the police, facts that were left in the previous inquiry number 2954/2004 by the homicide crime based." Translated page (obviously) Yes, he killed for crack.
• It's really creepy if you read it with that "put the fucking lotion in the basket" way.
• Its even creepier if you read it in a dead-calm Anthony Hopkins-like voice.
• Creepiest of all if you read it in the voice of Barney the Dinosaur.
• *shudder*
• Mr. Knickerbocker -- having numerous gay family members and friends, I certainly understand that they use the language they choose. However, hearing (or reading) 'homo' and 'fag' out of context, in an apparenntly offensive manner, makes me challege the person using the words. That's what happened here, in case your reading comprehension skills are dull. As for your assessment of the frequency of use of denigrating terms: you've obviously not been around a lot of people in North America for a while, for most of whom the ultimate insult which can be directed toward a man is 'fag', and witnessed that word and its synonyms tossed about about as commonly as the word 'fuck' or 'asshole'. And, drjimmy, I don't advocate censoring anyone, just challenging them. So you can put your little piece of irrelevant paper back in your kit-bag.
• Good! it's about time! Weve need a moral compass here. It's just so rowdy.
• for most of whom the ultimate insult which can be directed toward a man is 'fag' Eh, I've been called 'fag' a few times. It wasn't that insulting. On one memorable occassion I got up from my seat, sat on a gay friend's lap, and gave a picture pose. Much embarassment was had by everyone. However, I live in a godless, immoral Blue State. The worst possible insult is quickly becoming being outed as a Bush voter. I'm sure 'fag' still rules in Missouri, though.
• Yes, it does