Apologies

My youngest called this evening in a foul mood.
Apparently I had no fucking reason to be broadcasting his business. Might be
a little queer, but muscly and fast enough to make me regret having said too
much. Chris is furious too having read the full text now and absolutely WILD
that I have talked about Alan as loosely.
My Army mate reckons I'm a Dickhead. Too loose with Intel.
A sister phoned to call me an asshole.
They'd all read my original post and other ones too.
I'm back in the doghouse then.
I'll stick with recipes from now on. (If that's OK)
I feel a right PRICK.

"Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearnley@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:d6ydnf8vKYvWBHHYnZ2dnUVZ8v2vnZ2d@bt.com...

> My youngest called this evening in a foul mood.
> Apparently I had no fucking reason to be broadcasting his business. Might
> be a little queer, but muscly and fast enough to make me regret having
> said too much. Chris is furious too having read the full text now and
> absolutely WILD that I have talked about Alan as loosely.
> My Army mate reckons I'm a Dickhead. Too loose with Intel.
> A sister phoned to call me an asshole.
> They'd all read my original post and other ones too.
> I'm back in the doghouse then.
> I'll stick with recipes from now on. (If that's OK)
> I feel a right PRICK.

Hi, Hugh,

Did you come to this support group to share recipies?

Don't get me wrong. There seems to be a tremendous interest in the
recipies; both in discussing them and in eating their bi-product.

But, you came here, if you are like most of us, because you needed someone
with which to discuss your cancer, your death, your religion, your problems,
your disappointments, your successes, yadda, yadda, yadda.

You made a mistake, 'tis true. You showed your son that which you shared
with your confidants. Okay, mistake noted. Don't do it again.

Don't let your incorrigible son and ignorant sister talk you out of the
purpose of this group. And, I'm sure your Army mate meant dumbass, not
dickhead.




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

Dear Hughie,

On Mar 5, 5:27?pm, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> My youngest called this evening in a foul mood.
> Apparently I had no fucking reason to be broadcasting his business. Might be a little queer, but muscly and fast enough to make me regret having said too
> much.

Chris is furious too having read the full text now and absolutely
WILD
> that I have talked about Alan as loosely.
> My Army mate reckons I'm a Dickhead. Too loose with Intel.
> A sister phoned to call me an asshole.
> They'd all read my original post and other ones too.
> I'm back in the doghouse then.
> I'll stick with recipes from now on. (If that's OK)
> I feel a right PRICK.


On Mar 5, 5:27 pm, "Hugh Kearnley" <hughkearn...@btinternet.com>
wrote:

> My youngest called this evening in a foul mood.
> Apparently I had no fucking reason to be broadcasting his business. Might >be a little queer, but muscly and fast enough to make me regret having said >too much.

Well, maybe you need to behave yourself and stop being disrespectful
to your son when you say things like, he's "Queer and muscly" or
anything else for that matter. My husband and I got a laugh the other
day because he reminded me that my mother used to call me the
"atheist" and I don't know what else. She didn't know how to keep
anything to herself.

Why don't you talk about your other children? In fact, you haven't
even mentioned any of them. And yes, you shouldn't have said things
about Alan in "public", because it violates his privacy. Or you could
have used a psudonym. I am zealous about regarding J's privacy. *
However, I can't imagine why all these people are reading your posts.
Tell them to mind their own business*. *But I suspect you are the one
showing them to your family.

**I must say that what came through to me loud and clear was the great
love that you have for your son -- queer or otherwise. But I can see
him being upset, because you described him and his friend like so much
pieces of meat.

What you need to do is apologize, tell your son that you love him, and
genuinely try to change your behavior. You need to accept your son as
he is, and stop talking about him as if he's damaged goods. I think
this is your issue, not his. And you should do this sooner than
later.

Today on TV I saw a big, husky British basketball player named John
Amaechi, who was the first person in the NBA to come out as being gay,
and he has recently written a book about his life. And I assure you
that this man doesn't look like a "fairy". More like a monstrous hunk
of a man. He is 6' 10", 270 pounds. Ha ha, he's taller than you.

What impressed me about this guy is that he just plain looked like a
happy, well-adjusted person. He seemed to be enjoying his life and
being productive. He has raised two sons, and is pursuing a degree in
child psychology. Also, he engages in a lot of philanthropic
activities. Point is: *There's more to a person that their gender
identity*. I don't think this man has been sitting around on his
butt ruminating about his sexuality. And even though he's a young man,
he has said that what concerns him most is his "legacy".

Incidentally, this man had never picked up a basketball before he was
17.

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

What cured me of any traces of homophobia was an incident that
happened not long ago. I have a friend who is very interested in food/
cooking. I also have another very close friend, who lives in Denmark,
who happens to be gay (tall and rugged, very outdoorsy type) and who
is also very interested in food/cooking. This person is recuperating
from a serious illness, and he wrote a beautiful letter to us in which
he described how important buying and eating good food, cooking,
baking and dining with people whom he likes, is to his life. He felt
that sharing food brings you closer to people. Like baking fresh
bread to give to a neighbor, or bringing a home-baked cake to work. *
Anyway, the letter was about more than just cooking, literally . It
was a beautifully written meditation.

So I told Friend A, the foodie, that he might like reading this letter
from Friend B. All of a sudden, this guy burst out at me and said,
"Are you calling me a fag"? I was shocked, and just sat there
speechless. Then I said "No, I'm not calling you a fag, I just know
the two of you share an interest in food".

I must say that as soon as this guy had uttered those words, I felt
like I'd been stuck in the gut with a dagger. I was very angry, and I
realized how painful it is to actually be on the receiving end of such
a slur. I took it very personally. So I scolded the guy and told
him, "How would you like it if I called your brother a fag, because
the person you insulted is almost like a brother to me".

Anyway, I had never really suffered the effects of prejudice, but now
it was more than an abstraction to me. I have never uttered the f-
word again, and I haven't even had the impulse to. I realized that
words can kill and everybody deserved a chance to live. Period. Now
I feel that *the people who need to call other people names* are the
ones with the problem, not the recipients.

============
Chris is furious too having read the full text now and absolutely WILD
> that I have talked about Alan as loosely.
> My Army mate reckons I'm a Dickhead. Too loose with Intel.
> A sister phoned to call me an asshole.
> They'd all read my original post and other ones too.
> I'm back in the doghouse then.
> I'll stick with recipes from now on. (If that's OK)
> I feel a right PRICK.

Well, there must be more to this story, but maybe you should be a
little more discreet. But these people have no business at all
reading this stuff if you want it to be kept private.

Tell Chris that a lot of men wouldn't mind being described as a Greek
God. And you spoke about him so lovingly, as if you were savoring
every detail. So what's the problem?

I grew up without grandparents, and I would have been very happy to
have a grandfather who got weepy when he looked at me.

Take care.

Leah

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Howard Hughes to Robert Mitchum:

"You are like a pay toilet, you don't give a sh-- for nothing".

"callalily" <lfcjjk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173147965.211681.260330@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...
> Dear Hughie,

<snip about 8KB of text>

> Well, there must be more to this story, but maybe you should be a
> little more discreet. But these people have no business at all
> reading this stuff if you want it to be kept private.

Leah, I'm sorry but I don't understand how you would keep stuff *private* by
posting it on the Usenet. Why would "these people" have no business reading
it if the rest of the world with access to a computer can?
--
JerryW

Please respond to group; email address is not valid

2/11/04 PSA 2.6, Suspicious DRE (age 62)
2/23/04 Biopsy: Gleason 3+4=7, T2a, left lobe
5/18/04 RRP, Path: Gleason 4+3=7, T2c, both lobes
Fully continent by 9/04
PSA <0.1 since

Hugh:

Your posts about your family reunion moved me to tears; I sat here in
my office, hoping that none of my students would come in weeping over
it.

What I read was about a man happy that some family wounds were
healing, happy about reconciling with his son, and starting down the
path of shaking off some fear/anger at his son's choices. With all
the crap that those of us dealing with this disease must go through,
every little bit of hope is something to be treasured.

And since Hugh's family is apparently reading this newsgroup ...
forgive him. Please search the archives, and read all of his posts.
He's been through a lot, and compared to all of that, don't you think
this is a pretty small matter?

--charlie

On Mar 6, 9:43�am, "JerryW" <jer...@seemysig.net> wrote:
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173147965.211681.260330@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Dear Hughie,
>
> <snip about 8KB of text>
>
> > Well, there must be more to this story, but maybe you should be a
> > little more discreet. *But these people have no business at all
> > reading this stuff if you want it to be kept private.
>
> Leah, I'm sorry but I don't understand how you would keep stuff *private*by
> posting it on the Usenet. Why would "these people" have no business reading
> it if the rest of the world with access to a computer can?
> --
> JerryW
>
> Please respond to group; email address is not valid
>

On Mar 6, 9:43 am, "JerryW" <jer...@seemysig.net> wrote:
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173147965.211681.260330@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > Dear Hughie,
>
> <snip about 8KB of text>
>
> > Well, there must be more to this story, but maybe you should be a
> > little more discreet. But these people have no business at all
> > reading this stuff if you want it to be kept private.
>
> Leah, I'm sorry but I don't understand how you would keep stuff *private*by
> posting it on the Usenet. Why would "these people" have no business reading
> it if the rest of the world with access to a computer can?

> JerryW
================================================== =========

Dear Jerry and All,

Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic human
right.

Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
even more generous. They're usually a few steps ahead of us. We are
also entitled to *personal privacy*, and Hughie is no exception. And
this doesn't need to be enshrined in a statute.

Just because a person converses on Usenet doesn't mean that they're
wanting to go public with everything they say. In fact, I think it's
just the opposite. *And this is most emphatically true when you're
dicussing a subject as personal as prostate cancer*. So I think
outsiders should knowo instinctively to "Keep Out", even if there's no
sign on the door.

Then, as a practical matter, there are so many PC forums around, you'd
have to go on a fishing expedition just to know where a person posts.
I'd say I belong to about 10 PC forums. And then of course I use a
nickname, so nobody is ever going to know what I say here. Thank God.

I've only been in these groups about 6 mos, but I realize that the
real pleasure in this type of exchange is the ability to be
anonymous. It is totally liberating. (I even read a study by some
shrinks which said there is a growing problem with people becoming
"disinhibited", i.e., uncivilized or rude, when they talk online.)
Believe me, I would not say a word here if I thought *anybody* I knew
was reading it.

Also, I told my husband from the get-go that I'm using a new email
address here which I want to be kept private, *and* that this "club"
is *off-limits* to him. And I'm sure he respects that.

So unless they're given an engraved invitation, I think one's family
should know to stay the hevk out of a venue where a person commonly
shares his most intimate thoughts. Everybody should have the luxury of
being completely free online to say whatever they want. I don't
believe in censorship.

Hughie, like a lot of people, has talked about his life, his work, his
love interests, his hobbies, his faith and his children, among other
things. And obviously I can only speak for myself, but I assure you I
would not even *want* to poke my nose into my father's personal
conversations. It reminds me of the time when my Dad was in the
hospital and I had to look at his medical charts, and it said that he
had "a very enlarged prostate". Frankly, that was a lot more than I
wanted to know. No thank you!

Also, this type of group is similar to a confessional. People
routinely unburden themselves here, and they should be free to do so
without fear of anybody looking over their shoulder.

My guess is that Hughie's family and army buddies would have never
have heard of this site if Hughie hadn't told them about it. So he
made that choice, and now he has to take the consequences of it.
Which are not dire, by the way, because most everything can be fixed.
And Dear Hughie, you are not a PRICK or a Dickhead at all. The only
person saying this is you. So be gentle.

I think you're a sweet, nurturing guy who has given this group a
"homey" atmosphere just by even bringing up the subject of cooking.
To me, cooking and love are really intertwined. And I have no doubt
that you get a lot of pleasure from feeding other people. You also
keep us laughing, which in this setting is just a blessing. There's
more, but I have to move on.

I do hope your nosy family reads this, Hughie, so they'll know all
this, too. Which they probably do already.

Hughie has written some incredibly beautiful prose about his grandson,
Chris, and I'm sure it was nothing but a loving gesture to want to
show it to him. If the boy rejected it, it was because he was just
behaving like a teenager. And as far as H's youngest son, Alan, is
concerned, I can tell that H. loves him plenty as well -- and he has
said so explicitly. Sometimes people grouse about their loved ones in
a sort of affectionate way, and I think this is what Hughie was
doing. He meant no harm. I recognize this because my mother used to
talk that way about my father. She would say, "Oh my husband, God
Bless Him, , , , and then a whole litany of complaints would follow.
But underneath it all I knew that she loved him. She just expressed
it in a peculiar way.

To get to the point: I am very fond of Hughie, and I think it comes
through crystal-clear in my writings. So if it sounded like I'm
admonishing H. in some way, I can tell you it's just tough love. But
if I have said anything wrong, I'm sorry.

At this point, all I'm interested in is seeing how we can help H. use
this group to his (and our) advantage. Hughie has become a part of
this "family", and I for one would be disappointed if he kept his
conversation to cooking. I would miss the all the laughs and the
stories.

Indeed, my husband *insists* that Hughie would make a good subject for
a movie, and I am just wondering how many actors out there are 6' 4".
Only person I could think of is John Cleese. So Hughie might have to
play himself.

I also need to say that this whole issue is very personal to me,
because I had had similar "issues" with my father. So in effect, I'm
going to hijack this discussion and talk about myself now. I'm going
to tell my story, but I think it may also be someone else's story.

Let's just say that I chose to live my life in a way that was totally
antagonistic to everything I'd been taught at home. So I felt -- and
still do feel -- like the black sheep of the family. And I can tell
you that that's not a pleasant feeling at all. In fact, it's
extremely painful, and the hurt never goes away.

But my father, much as I may have done things he disapproved of, just
gritted his teeth and said nothing. If he felt disappointed in me,
which I know he did in some ways, he was able to look past it. People
always asked me if my parents had rejected me because I was different
from them, and I said, "No way, I'm still their child". And I knew
that I could do the most wicked, vile thing, and nothing would change
that. I can't even imagine how horrible it would feel to be rejected
by one's own parents.

I have to say, that by modern standards, my Dad was a poor father. He
was from the old school, and he believed parenting meant providing
food and shelter for your children. And a good education for his
*sons*. He never really inquired much about my personal aspirations,
and didn't attend any PTA meetings or school events. Plus, he was
always working.

So I really only got to know my father well after he retired. And my
best memories are of him making me feel loved. It could be the
simplest thing. Once he was at my house, and I was walking around,
singing to myself, and he said to me, "Can you make a tape of this for
me?" And I said to him, "You really don't want to hear this. I
can't sing to save my life!" Well, he said he wanted it anyway. So I
guess I can say that I actuall "sang for my father".

Also, I remember the way my Dad used to "glow" when he introduced me
to people. He really thought I was Miss America. Which I was not.

My father had a severe stroke on his 80th birthday. After that he was
hospitalized, kept on a respirator, and was unable to speak or move.
This was because the stroke had affected him on both sides, which is
unusual.

Anyway, all of us took turns staying with him. We didn't trust the
hospital to take care of him, so we tried to arrange to have somebody
with him 24 hours. I often spent weekends sleeping in his room. But,
strangely, I didn't resent it, and I even felt like it was a sort of
privilege to help my father out. And I think that was when I really
"bonded" with him. When he had a fever I would put a cold washcloth on
his head. Those are the details I remember.

The truth is that tending a sick person isn't only bad. In fact, when
you are caring for somebody who is completely helpless and dependent
on you for everything, you develop a sort of "communion" with the
patient. That is, if you have good feelings about the person to begin
with.

On rare occasions when he was sick, my father was taken off the
respirator, and then he was able to say a few words. So one time I
said to him, "I love you", thinking he was "out of it". But he
responded, "I love you too". I can't describe the pleasure I got out
of that, and how I often I have replayed that scene in my mind.

I also felt privileged to be there with my father when he died. I had
not come around all that week, and I hadn't been in the mood to make
the trip. But I forced myself. By the time I arrived at the
hospital, he was in a very bad condition, in a coma, the doctors
said. But I got real close to him and whispered in his ear, "If you
want to go, it's okay. Know that we will all be alright. And then I
said, "You will always live in my heart". Amazingly, he started to
cry.

Well, about a half hour later, he expired. And of course I just knew
that he had waited to say goodbye to me.

Death is supposed to be a bad thing, but it isn't really so. After a
while, you feel like the person you lost is almost a part of you, a
companion, in some way. I saw this best expressed in a letter by
Abraham Lincoln, which he wrote to a young girl whose father had been
killed in the Civil War. I felt it was so accurate that I could have
written it myself.

"It is with great grief that I learn of the death of your kind and
brave father; and especially that it is affecting your young heart
beyond what is common in such cases. In this sad world of ours,
sorrow comes to all, and, to the young, it comes with the bitterest
agony, because it takes them unwawares. The older have learned to
expect it. I am anxious to afford some alleviation of your present
distress. Perfect relief is not possible, except with time. You can
not now realize that you will feel better: Is it not so? And yet it
is a mistake. You are sure to be happy again. To know this, which is
certainly true, will make you feel less miserable now. I have had
enough experience to know what I say; and you need only to believe it,
to feel better at once.

*The memory of your dear father, instead of an agony, will yet be a
sad, sweet feeling in your heart, of a purer and holier sort than you
have known before"*

A sad, sweet feeling. That's exactly the way it is. And by the way,
it makes me feel close to my husband (who is away now) to quote
Abraham Lincoln, who is his personal hero.

I guess maybe I've been selfish to go on about myself. I do have a
problem with brevity. But family relationships are a universal issue,
and I hope reading my story will help someone.

Best to you all and especially to you, Hughie.

Leah

"callalily" <lfcjjk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173147965.211681.260330@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...

> Well, maybe you need to behave yourself and stop being disrespectful
> to your son when you say things like, he's "Queer and muscly" or
> anything else for that matter.

There's a new concept. Honor thy son and thy daughter. Hmmmm... something
doesn't sound right there.

I don't know much about Hugh, obviously. He hasn't shared a lot. And, with
recriminations like that, is not likely to share much more. I see congitive
dissonance. If anything, he has gone above and beyond "respect",
considering his apparent religious background, in even inviting his son, let
alone his son's boyfriend. And, if his son had any respect, he would have
not brought the source of the aggravation to a party celebrating his
father's life.

> My husband and I got a laugh the other
> day because he reminded me that my mother used to call me the
> "atheist" and I don't know what else. She didn't know how to keep
> anything to herself.

Some people, Leah, believe in God. Many of these believe that God is
paramount in relation to everything else. I still remember a Catechism
question, "Why are we here?" The automatic response is still, "We are here
to know, love and serve the Lord." The first of Ten Commandments given us
by God is "I am the Lord thy God and though shalt have no other gods before
me." Throughout the book that your MIL probably believes is divinely
inspired has numerous passages dealing with poking out one's eye, chopping
off one's finger, stoning, putting to death, and other serious things
regardless of their relationship with the person so directed. Then comes
along an athiest (if that is what you are) and sidles up to her son, surely
taking him along with you to Hell. If it were your son, to what extent
would you go to save your son?

> However, I can't imagine why all these people are reading your posts.
> Tell them to mind their own business*.

Whew! I knew we could agree on something.




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"callalily" <lfcjjk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173211727.156500.325100@30g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

Dear Jerry and All,

Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic human
right.

Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
even more generous.

------- I'm sure you are correct, but I just can't seem to find it in the
Constitution, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or even the
Magna Carta.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45ede95e$0$27096$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "callalily" <lfcjjk@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1173211727.156500.325100@30g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Dear Jerry and All,
>
> Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic human
> right.
>
> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
> Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
> even more generous.
>
> ------- I'm sure you are correct, but I just can't seem to find it in
> the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or
> even the Magna Carta.
We don't need any of the above.......we are born with innate privacy and
good taste and freedom of speech, etc. None of that has to be
legislated. (G)

Figgs

But there ain't no such thing as privacy on Usenet and Leah better learn
that one fast!!

"Heather" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:esl0m3$m6f$1@registered.motzarella.org...

> We don't need any of the above.......we are born with innate privacy and
> good taste and freedom of speech, etc. None of that has to be legislated.
> (G)

I pretty much hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness -
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying
its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as
to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

On March 6, Steve Kramer wrote:

Quoting Leah:

> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
> Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
> even more generous.

Steve replied:

> ------- I'm sure you are correct, but I just can't seem to find it in the
> Constitution, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or even the
> Magna Carta.

Steve is being kind.

There is *NO* "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution. None.

That "right" is a construction of the Supreme Court, which tends
sometimes to "find" Constitutional rights were the Constitution is
itself silent on the point. IOW, the Court sometimes tends to legislate
according to the prejudices of the judges rather than to interpret the
laws as enacted by the legislature.

The Court created the "right to privacy" when finding in favor of a
woman who wanted to kill her fetus. See: ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

This could veer a prostate cancer site into irrelevant territory, much
as I'd like to debate the issue.

Regards,

Steve J

"I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it
is not an entitlement..."
-- Lionel Shriver

On Mar 6, 5:21�pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173211727.156500.325100@30g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Dear Jerry and All,
>
> Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. *It's a basic human
> right.
>
> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
> Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
> even more generous.
>
> ------- *I'm sure you are correct, but I just can't seem to find it in the
> Constitution, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or even the
> Magna Carta.

Dear Steve,

On Mar 6, 5:21 pm, "Steve Kramer" <skra...@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
Dear Steve,
>
> Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic human
> right.
>
> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
> Hughie doesn't live here, my guess is that the laws of his country are
> even more generous.

> ------- I'm sure you are correct, but I just can't seem to find it in the
> Constitution, Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or even the
> Magna Carta.

=================
Well, I'd like to make a wager on this. But I have to think about
what you'll have to get me. I don't like beer, so how about a case of
Frappucino iced coffee?
___________

Now to the point. I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I do know a
little about this subject. The Constitution is not a static document.
That's why we have lawyers and judges who are constantly "reviewing"
the law. There are many items that have become law even though they
are not explicitly stated in the Constution or its Amendments, or in
any federal or state statute or regulation. We do not have a system
of "civil law" whereby judges follow a code of written laws, the way
they do in France, (and Louisiana, which inherited it from the
French), and most European countries.

** So, the Right to Privacy is "derived" from the Constitution and the
amendments to it, even if it is not explicitly stated in these
documents.
================================================== ====

Right of Privacy: An Overview

[a] broader right of privacy has been inferred in the Constitution.
Although not explicity stated in the text of the Constitution, in 1890
then-to-be Justice Louis Brandeis extolled 'a right to be left
alone.' This right has developed into a liberty of personal autonomy
protected by the 14th amendment.

Amendments also provide some protection of privacy, although in all
cases the right is narrowly defined. The Constitutional right of
privacy has developed alongside a statutory right of privacy which
limits access to personal information. The Federal Trade Commission
overwhelmingly enforces this statutory right of privacy, and the rise
of privacy policies and privacy statements are evidence of its
work. . . . These distinct rights of privacy are examined separately
on the following pages:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...stitution.html)

Anyway, the following is for those who want a short lesson on how are
legal system developed and how it works.

In the U.S., we have adopted English Common Law, which uses a system
of precedents. That means that a judge is required to decide cases
according to what other judges have set down before him, even if he
doesn't like it. This is what we call following the "case law".

Anyway, this doctrine has a fancy name, "Stare Decisis", which in
Latin means, "Let the decision stay". So, practically speaking, we
don't like to mess with what's already been decided. So if a judge
wants to rule on a matter in a certain way, he has no choice but to
follow precedent, i.e., the law that was laid down before. Laws must
be overturned "for good cause" only. However, Steve, you do know some
Constitutional Law, because the use of this doctrine is used sparingly
in the field of constitutional law. In other words, if you want to
change something, you'd better have a damn good reason. (That's what
they mean by judges who interpret the law "narrowly" vs. "actively".
So now you know what Rush Limbaugh is talking about.)

Now, where's my snack??

Leah

IMO, parents, etc. sometimes have trouble with their kid(s) not
because their kids are bad (or "gay") but because their kid(s) are so
different from them. People naturally want kids they can relate to and
that think like them. Unfortunately, this is just not how nature
works. We should all make an effort to appreciate people who are
different from us. Everyone seems to have something unique and worthy
to offer in this life. The worst thing to happen to a kid is to be
brought up by parents, etc. who don't appreciate/understand his/her
unique talents. Nurturing and supportive parenting is so crucial to
one's development and success (later) in life. Kids that don't get
this often have trouble as adults.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:45ee0e99$0$28083$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Heather" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:esl0m3$m6f$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> We don't need any of the above.......we are born with innate privacy
>> and good taste and freedom of speech, etc. None of that has to be
>> legislated. (G)
>
> I pretty much hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit
> of Happiness - <<<<

Are we actually agreeing on something?? Must have been that lunar
eclipse on Saturday night.....it mellowed you, lol.

Cheers.....Heather

Tdub wrote:
> Nurturing and supportive parenting is so crucial to
> one's development and success (later) in life. Kids that don't get
> this often have trouble as adults.

Naaaaah. My parents ignored me, and look what a nice, well-adjusted guy
I am.

Oops . . . that's anecdotal. Never mind. ;-)

I.P.

I'm reading a pretty good book right now called "A Long Way Down" by
Nick Hornsby. It's about 4 strangers of differing backgrounds deciding
on the same evening (New Years Eve) to jump off a tall building in
London. The narrative changes from the mind and words of one character
to another with differing view points about the same moments.
Naturally, they conflict and console one another. Exactly like we do
here with these threads. And just like the book our words are tearful
and funny. Informative and a load of crap. And absolutely wonderful.
Who are all of you that I now know on a first name basis, even if its
not your real name? I was lulled into this group with the invaluable
information I've gleened. Now I'm hooked by your personalities.

WSF

>> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, and although
> There is *NO* "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution. None.
> That "right" is a construction of the Supreme Court, which tends sometimes
> to "find" Constitutional rights were the Constitution is itself silent on
> the point. IOW, the Court sometimes tends to legislate according to the
> prejudices of the judges rather than to interpret the laws as enacted by
> the legislature.
> The Court created the "right to privacy" when finding in favor of a woman
> who wanted to kill her fetus. See: ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

That's incorrect. The Supreme Court found in 1965, 8 years before Roe v.
Wade, that Americans have a Constitutional right of privacy. The case was
Griswold v. Connecticut, which invalidated that state's law against the sale
or use of contraceptives, on the grounds that it violated the "right to
marital privacy". The 7-2 opinion said the privacy right, while not
specified in the language of the Constitution, emerges from the Ninth
Amendment, which says the people retain all rights not specifically
enumerated in the Constitution, and from the 14th Amendment's "due process"
clause.

The 7-2 Roe v. Wade decision followed the Griswold logic, and said most laws
against abortion violated Americans' constitutional right to privacy under
the due process clause.

So overturning Roe would open the way to the return of once-common laws
barring contraception and prohibiting oral sex between married couples.
There are serious advocates of both of these. The Federal courts just UPHELD
an Alabama law barring the sale (not possession) of vibrators, dildoes and
other marital aids. So those who want to put cops into pregnancy clinics
could also wind up inviting them into our bedrooms.

Alex

Leah wrote:

> Dear Jerry and All,
>
> Well, because there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic
> human right.
> Even the Constitution guarantees us a right to privacy,

In the privacy of your home, ONLY!


> Just because a person converses on Usenet doesn't mean
> that they're wanting to go public with everything they say.

Any newsgroup is PUBLIC. Anyone who doesn't want their
posts read can take them to private chat groups.
http://rheumorweb.com/ is a good example. There are
thousand more......all private.


> In fact, I think it's just the opposite.

Nope. I'll argue that point with you.


> *And this is most emphatically true when you're dicussing a
> subject as personal as prostate cancer*. So I think outsiders
> should knowo instinctively to "Keep Out", even if there's no
> sign on the door.

Sorry,but the wide, wide, wide web doesn't work that way.

On March 7, Alex wrote:

Quoting me, in pertinent part:

>> There is *NO* "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution. None.
>> That "right" is a construction of the Supreme Court, which tends sometimes
>> to "find" Constitutional rights were the Constitution is itself silent on
>> the point.

(ka-snip)

He replied:

> That's incorrect. The Supreme Court found in 1965, 8 years before Roe v.
> Wade, that Americans have a Constitutional right of privacy. The case was
> Griswold v. Connecticut,

(su-nip)

Please note that I wrote that there is no right to privacy *enumerated*
in the Constitution. And there isn't. I wrote that the Court "found"
that right in Roe but Alex is correct; I had forgotten Griswold.

Douglas, J, wrote in pertinent part the following not-so-brilliant legal
reasoning: "..specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras,
formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and
substance."

So that's where the right to privacy originated, a penumbra formed by an
emanation. Not law. That's what is meant when people refer to the Court
usurping the function of the Legislature.

This is not to say that I don't value my privacy and that of others,
only that it is not explicitly protected by the Constitution.

And I decline to wander with Alex into the thickets of legislating morality.

This is utterly off topic.

Regards,

Steve J

"It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never
shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of
our federal government is in the constitution of the federal
Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a
little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless
step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all
shall be usurped."
--Thomas Jefferson

callalily wrote:
> there's such a thing as privacy. It's a basic human
>> right.

A federal court ruled just the last week or so that we no longer have a
legal expectation of privacy in most public scenarios, due in part to
today's many
means of what was once snooping -- things like cell phone cameras,
eavesdropping hardware, and, I'm sure, the internet. A computer-savvy
kid would have no problem digging up your 10 internet identities,
and has every legal right to reprint anything you posted online. It's
public domain if not explicitly patented. Recent example: some movie
star removed her top in the ocean, observers photographed and published
it, she sued, the courts said she had no legal expectation of privacy at
a public beach.

> The Constitution is not a static document.
> That's why we have lawyers and judges who are constantly "reviewing"
> the law.

No, they review it to a) interpret it as written or b) to propose
changes to it. That's what our Judicial branch of the government is for.
It is neither their job or their *right* to *change* the law as you're
stating; the ones who do so exceeding their authority, to the system's
detriment. If
any old judge -- from the dork who fined me $10 for chasing jackrabbits
to the Supreme Court which OK'd stealing private real property by force
so more powerful people could profit from it -- is allowed to *change*
laws, the system falls apart. Only the Legislative branch, not the
courts, has any business making or changing laws.

I.P.

"Steve Jordan" <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:OiGHh.13576$Xk.4466@newsfe17.phx...
> On March 7, Alex wrote:
>
> Quoting me, in pertinent part:
>
>>> There is *NO* "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution. None.
>>> That "right" is a construction of the Supreme Court, which tends
>>> sometimes to "find" Constitutional rights were the Constitution is
>>> itself silent on the point.
>
> (ka-snip)
>
> He replied:
>
>> That's incorrect. The Supreme Court found in 1965, 8 years before Roe v.
>> Wade, that Americans have a Constitutional right of privacy. The case was
>> Griswold v. Connecticut,
>
> (su-nip)
>
> Please note that I wrote that there is no right to privacy *enumerated* in
> the Constitution. And there isn't. I wrote that the Court "found" that
> right in Roe but Alex is correct; I had forgotten Griswold.
>
> Douglas, J, wrote in pertinent part the following not-so-brilliant legal
> reasoning: "..specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras,
> formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and
> substance."
>
> So that's where the right to privacy originated, a penumbra formed by an
> emanation. Not law. That's what is meant when people refer to the Court
> usurping the function of the Legislature.
>
> This is not to say that I don't value my privacy and that of others, only
> that it is not explicitly protected by the Constitution.
>
> And I decline to wander with Alex into the thickets of legislating
> morality.
>
> This is utterly off topic.


I should have been more precise and said I was only correcting Steve's
reference to Roe as the first Supreme Court ruling on privacy.
As for whether mentioning legislation aimed at prohibiting less-conventional
forms of sexual activity is off-topic in a newsgroup for those dealing with
prostate cancer and the after-affects of treatment -- I guess that's up to
each participant to judge.

Alex

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
newsuHHh.55$9B1.36@newsfe03.lga...
[snip]
> If any old judge -- from the dork who fined me $10 for chasing jackrabbits
> to the Supreme Court which OK'd stealing private real property by force
> so more powerful people could profit from it -- is allowed to *change*
> laws, the system falls apart. Only the Legislative branch, not the
> courts, has any business making or changing laws.
>
> I.P.

Was the Supreme Court wrong in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954? After
all, legislatures of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware had
decided that black and white children must be educated in separate schools.
Should African-American kids have had to wait for each legislature to have a
change of heart?

And did the Justices over-step in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, when they
overturned laws that allowed deeds to ban the sale of real estate to blacks,
Jews, Asians and others? Not only had legislatures passed these laws, but
the Supreme Courts of Michigan and Missouri had OK'd them.

Alex

"callalily" <lfcjjk@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1173234828.364721.169640@q40g2000cwq.googlegr oups.com...


Now to the point. I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I do know a
little about this subject. The Constitution is not a static document.

--- Well, you got that one wrong.

That's why we have lawyers and judges who are constantly "reviewing"
the law.

--- Strike Two.

There are many items that have become law even though they
are not explicitly stated in the Constution or its Amendments, or in
any federal or state statute or regulation.

--- Ball one! You are correct. About 2/3rds of all the federal laws are
unconstitutional.

We do not have a system
of "civil law" whereby judges follow a code of written laws, the way
they do in France, (and Louisiana, which inherited it from the
French), and most European countries.

** So, the Right to Privacy is "derived" from the Constitution and the
amendments to it, even if it is not explicitly stated in these
documents.

--- Strick Three! You're out!


You may quote all the liberal text and rulings that you want on this
subject, but what you will find out, assuming you ever actually choose to
read the document, is that the Constitution, as in every country, is not
intended to be a "living" document, subject to change at a lawyer's or
judge's whim. There is only one way to change the Constitution and that is
by amendment which has a specific process that involves no lawyer (unless a
lawyer is elected to Congress) and no judge.

There is no right to privacy stipulated in the Constitution, though I will
grant you a close miss in the 4th Amendment. There is no right to
expression there either. The KKK is not a religion. The right to speech
was as in a political speech, not to swear at people. There is no right to
pornographic art. Actually, there is no freedom of media other than the
press. There is no right to remain silent. There is no right to an
attorney. There is no right to have an attorney appointed to you, whether
or not you can afford one. There are so many more, it makes me sick
thinking of the lies we, as a country, have been told.

Lawyers and judges call these emanations of pernumdrums. What they really
are is a concerted coup against the government of the People, by the People
and for the People.

Steve Kramer wrote:

> There is no right to privacy stipulated in the Constitution, though I will
> grant you a close miss in the 4th Amendment. There is no right to
> expression there either. The KKK is not a religion. The right to speech
> was as in a political speech, not to swear at people. There is no right to
> pornographic art. Actually, there is no freedom of media other than the
> press. There is no right to remain silent. There is no right to an
> attorney. There is no right to have an attorney appointed to you, whether
> or not you can afford one. There are so many more, it makes me sick
> thinking of the lies we, as a country, have been told.

What about our right to vote?
Oh, yeah, also not there.

The primary purpose of the Constitution, I've heard it argued, is that
it guarantees the government can *take away* no rights natural to human
beings. That's a pretty basic list.

I.P.

Alex wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> newsuHHh.55$9B1.36@newsfe03.lga...
> [snip]
>> If any old judge -- from the dork who fined me $10 for chasing jackrabbits
>> to the Supreme Court which OK'd stealing private real property by force
>> so more powerful people could profit from it -- is allowed to *change*
>> laws, the system falls apart. Only the Legislative branch, not the
>> courts, has any business making or changing laws.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> Was the Supreme Court wrong in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954? After
> all, legislatures of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware had
> decided that black and white children must be educated in separate schools.
> Should African-American kids have had to wait for each legislature to have a
> change of heart?

> And did the Justices over-step in Shelley v. Kraemer in 1948, when they
> overturned laws that allowed deeds to ban the sale of real estate to blacks,
> Jews, Asians and others? Not only had legislatures passed these laws, but
> the Supreme Courts of Michigan and Missouri had OK'd them.

Sounds to me like the Supreme Court simply overruled those states'
illegal attempts to legislate from the bench, i.e., to breathe life into
the Constitution, so to speak, without authority.

This nation is strongly threatened by what Leah favors, i.e., actually
*allowing* courts to legislate from the hip. The only solution I can
think of is re-populating the federal courts with strict
Constitutionalists who understand that threat, rather than some of the
ones there now who place themselves above the Constitution.

I.P.

Dear Steve,

First of all, I am OUTRAGED by the things you said -- and inferred --
about me, about my mother, about Hughie, about Hughie's son, etc.,
etc. In fact, I think I am more outraged than the God of the Old
Testament ever got. I wouldn't mind emitting smoke from my nostrils
and burning up some of the irresponsible information that is put forth
here. And I *resent*, am disgusted, that I have no choice but to
violate my own privacy, which I have closely guarded here, and have to
write this altogether. But what you did was a provocation.

> > Well, maybe you need to behave yourself and stop being disrespectful
> > to your son when you say things like, he's "Queer and muscly" or
> > anything else for that matter.

> >There's a new concept. Honor thy son and thy daughter. Hmmmm.
... >> something doesn't sound right there.


Maybe it's new for you. There's nothing new about it at all. To
"honor" means to respect and, in the religion I was raised in,
Judaism, we are instructed to respect all creatures because they were
created in the image of God. Even homosexuals were "created" in God's
image, and I emphasize the word *created*. What I mean is that I
believe "sexual orientation" is something a person is born with.

And parents are most certainly required to respect their children and
to treat them well. Since you have really way overstepped your bounds
in bringing up my purported religious beliefs as well as *my
mother's,* I have no choice but to set the record straight. Your msg
is full of "inferences" and you say things for which you have no
evidence.

So, since you asked me, I will answer you with specifics from Jewish
teachings, not from Dr. Spock. So, I will inform you that religious
Jews believe the Hebrew Bible, or the Torah, to be the word of God,
**as informed and interpreted, by subsequent rabbis and scholars**.
So, one of the first things a child is taught, is that the written
scripture and the "oral law", i.e, the explications, teachings and
laws that have come after it, are *equally sacred*. Jewish law, like
secular, law, is not static. The written Torah is but a tiny fraction
of "Jewish Law". There is, for example, the Talmud, a huge
compilation of laws written almost 2 thousand years ago, the Mishnah,
which explicates the above, and countless other works. This is what
informs Jewish religious practice today, not the literal word of the
Bible. So I am going to quote you some text from the "Code of Jewish
Law, about how to honor one's own children. It was written in the
16th century by a Spanish rabbi.

Volume 4, Chapter 143

*Honoring Mother and Father*

17. "A MAN IS FORBIDDEN TO PLACE A BURDENSOME YOKE UPON HIS CHILDREN;
HE MUST NOT BE TOO EXACTING IN DEMANDING HONOR FROM THEM. . . HE
SHOULD RATHER OVERLOOK THEIR SHORTCOMINGS AND FORGIVE THEM . . .

18. ONE IS FORBIDDEN TO BEAT HIS GROWNUP SON. IN THIS REGARD "GROWN-
UP REFERS TO MATURITY, NOT AGE. IF THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT
THE SON WILL REBEL, AND EXPRESS THAT RESENTMENT BY WORD OR DEED, IT IS
FORBIDDEN TO BEAT HIM. INSTEAD, HE SHOULD REASON WITH HIM. ANYONE
WHO BEATS HIS GROWNUP SON IS TO EXCOMMUNICATED

Volume 4, Chapter 165

*The Training of Children*

1. "IF WORDS ARE OF NO AVAIL, [A PARENT] MAY CHASTISE HIM WITH A ROD.
BUT HE SHOULD NOT STRIKE HIM MERCILESSLY, AS SOME FOOLS DO."

7." A PARENT SHOULD NOT THREATEN A CHILD WITH FUTURE PUNISHMENT. IF
HE SEES HIM MISBEHAVE, HE SHOULD EITHER PUNISH HIM AT ONCE, OR IGNORE
IT. SAID THE RABBIS, OF BLESSED MEMORY: 'IN DEALING WITH A CHILD, THE
LEFT HAND SHOULD REPEL AND THE RIGHT HAND SHOULD CARESS."

15. IT IS FORBIDDEN TO TAKE AWAY FROM A MINOR ANYTHING HE HAD FOUND,
ESPECIALLY SOMETHING THAT WAS GIVEN AS A GIFT.

And there is plenty more. As to my own "atheism", I often consult
this wonderful book because I cherish the wisdom of my forefathers.
Many times have I read the chapter on honoring one's parents. You
see, I don't like my mother-in-law, for example, and I was wondering
whether I was obliged to "honor" her. The answer was, "Yes, while her
husband is alive. And a pious person will continue to respect her
afterwards". I also have looked at the chapters on: Vol. 1, Chapter
4: Rules of Decency, Chapter 29: Moral Laws, Vol. 4, 193: Visiting
the sick, etc. It makes for extremely interesting reading, aside from
everything else.

Many people don't understand that the Jewish religion is liberal in
many ways. It does not consider a fetus to be a person legally. It
permits contraception. It allows decisions to be made about "end of
life" issues -- i.e, it does not require a person to accept any
treatment. There would be no Terry Schiavo case.

Now, about you presuming to tell me what the Torah said. I think I
know my religion better than you do. I don't presume to instruct
*you* on religion.

As far as the information you quoted: When was the last time you
heard of any Jewish authority ordering that anybody's "eyes be gouged
out, stoned, or even anybody put to death for any reason." How
ridiculous. To quote that, without understanding how Jews have chosen
to practice their own religion, and have interpreted their own faith
since the very beginning, is really improper. The most stringent
orthodox Jews do not take the written Torah literally; it is
inseparable from the interpretation and explication of it by later
generations of scholars. In the schools that I went to, the Torah was
*never* studied even by young children, without commentary, from the
moment they were capable of understanding it. At least in my case,
after the 3rd grade.

People have also said Jewish law approves of the death penalty. So
here's the truth: When the Jews had a sovereign state with theological
law prevailing, it was said, famously, in the Talmud, that "Any court
which inflicted the death penalty more than once in 70 years was
considered "cruel". The death penalty, in fact, existed only on
Paper.

PART 2

If Hughie has left this group, and I sincerely hope his absence is
temporary, it has nothing to do with me. There's no reason to
believe it is. Plus, I seem to recall that "Maui Mike" once said he
would be leaving the group because he felt criticized (or something
like that.). And your response was something like "don't leave
because of one asshole", and I believe you were referring to
yourself.

>> I see congitive dissonance. If anything, he has gone above and >>beyond "respect", considering his apparent religious background,

You know nothing about H's religious beliefs. I'm sure his beliefs
are nuanced, like those of most people. Many religious people are
able to see things other than in Black or White. And H. never once
mentioned religion in the context of discussing his son. NEVER. And
many Protestant denominations have liberal views of homosexuality.

>>in even inviting his son, let alone his son's boyfriend. And, if his son had >>any respect, he would have not brought the source of the aggravation to a >>party celebrating his father's life.

How utterly cruel you are. Hughie is nothing like that. He's a
loving father with a conflict, or a "cognitive dissonance" as you put
it. And H. never referred to his son's