Homosexual Books for First Graders

[The Muffin Man]

GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?
~Whart exactly does this matter?

I live in an area of extreme political correctness, and am probably a lot more effected by reverse racism then many because I'm a conservative activist.
~So you're more effected by people loving you for merely your skin color?

I've been told I owe blacks reparations despite the fact that not a one of my ancestors ever owned a black slave.
~OOOOH! You mean RACISM. See, because REVERSE RACISM IS NOT REAL. Carry on.

The only slaves my ancestors ever owned were the Vikings enslaving other whites. In my area, straight white Christians are all but demonized by the schools. I was in the honors program, and maybe that's why, but the accomplishments of whites were glossed over, and we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects, but when they reduce Isaac Newton's discoveries to a paragraph, and devote a chapter to the religious practices of Aztecs, that strikes me as a tad imbalanced.

In my former high school they had orginizations for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, and none at all for whites.
~Because Black Pride is pride. White pride is racist White supremacy. Apparently.

If you had suggested such a thing as a white student group you'd have been stoned. The golden rule was don't offend the minorities, even if it offends the majority. They were even going to paint over a mural of WWII because it contained a swastika. What next? Banning textbooks because they have swastikas? Not that that would make much difference, since WWII was only in one chapter. Maybe the area you live in uses different text books than mine did, but you couldn't get much more discriminatory.

Sounds like your school is filled with morons. See, THIS is how Political correctness gets out of control. When idiots decide that defending the minority is more important than defending EVERYONE.

[Toxicity]

Sadly...my mother was probably never taught about tolerance. She thinks gays did in the Roman Empire and they should burn in hell, and when she says that, I start to cry a bit and tell her to not say that, for she is bad-mouthing her deceased younger brother(and oldest of her siblings, my mom's oldest)...=/

Personally, I think homosexual-bashing isn't right at all. It's not that I am, it's that I wish to defend them, because defending them is also defending the spirit of my uncle(wherever he went...). Not all gays show pride, well...at least my uncle didn't; he continued his life like a normal man until he broke down in illness of AIDs and died. Books as in "King and King", as shown, were only made to show tolerance for them so they won't grow up to be people like those in the Middle Ages who were miserable trying to commit themselves to God.

Myself? I have no idea what I am...so I will not bash supporters or revolters: I will only show what I think personally. Now and days, everything is about Christianity, Gays, and the possible fall of America because of pure disagreement. And, in my honors program it is also the case. Me and a selected other few girls(three who seems just like me, one of Middle Eastern descent, and one of Armenian descent) are trying to settle each other to agree with one another, and it fails because of a Christian who spouts off things a lot, but goes right back and makes fun of those trying to get everybody to get along...and what is he really? A prejudice Hypocrite.

Before I veer off subject officially, I shall say this: Tolerance should be taught in schools, before chaos erupts and we, like the Roman Empire actually did, be invaded, have Presidents ousted/killed, and then when a young adolescent takes over for eleven months or so and then gets force-abdicated, we fall for good...

[Green_Pikachu]

by comparing the rate of occurence of homosexuality to leap years,you are in a way saying that the world has 1.5 billion gays as of right now.

Keep the book, this is a new age... Maybe it will stop kids from getting the nasty habit of saying things are gay , that would be :k-rad:

uh, you're pretty retarded. I was referring to the whole leap year in terms of "normalcy". i was not saying anything about there being 1.5 billion gays, plus I have no idea where you came up with that stat anyway, lol. i was simply refuting some other kid's point, because he said being gay is not normal, because it doesn't occur a whole lot. So i used the point of a leap year only occuring every other 4 years, but we consider that normal, don't we? i admit, it was a weak analogy, but I don't know how you didn't understand it.

[Rambunctious Jamirus]

And besides, I hate the word 'gay' being used as an insult, especially if used as in a derogatory manner.

Finally someone who agrees with me. It's so stupid saying someone is gay because it just insults other homosexuals around. It's like, 'Yo Mama' and 'Fag' (which used to mean cigarette so you're calling someone a cigarette?).

First off, I kinda like the idea of the book as long as teachers don't force it on the kids without consulting the parents first. Since the girl brought it home on choice, there's nothing the parents can do about that. They can scold the girl but that brings upon the idea that two men being together is wrong.

Second, I do believe that it should be taught in schools when the kids get to the age of 'Healthy Choices' that gay relationships and what they are about to prevent the wrong idea. Since kids have to get a letter signed in the first place to participate in 'Healthy Choices,' the only way they can complain is if they didn't read the letter to begin with since it will be mentioned hopefully in it.

Third, I don't care about homosexuals since quite a few of the kids in my school are homosexual or bi. As long as they don't hit on me continuously (unless it's a joke like me and friends do), it's all right. There's nothing seemingly wrong with the way a person wants to live their life unless it involves physically or emotionally hurting someone without their consent.

And yes, for some people, I was in a private Christian school for about five years, the first five years, of my schooling. I really was oblivious to the world then. It all changes though when I moved to the school I'm at now where almost my entire History class is against Bush (now, no one comment please, I'm just giving out what is fact). One person I know of is gay in this class of thirty and he's one of the funniest guys I know. He can make our teachers laugh (which can be hard).

I'd like to read the book if I can. It can't be worse than Snow White (really, it was confusing at the end. Why in the heck would you kiss a dead girl? You've known her for only two minutes and you kiss her when she's dead? And you know all those dwarves were hitting on her!)

No offense to anyone who liked the movie but yeah, that ending makes no sense when you actually think it through.

[DarkTemplarZ]

This is hilarious. "Not in our beliefs"? Man, your beliefs are screwed up lol. Typical traditionalist Christian. I actually think it's a brilliant idea, better the kids learn about being homosexual from an educational book written for children than through insults or TV, because they will learn sooner or later. At least the book will teach them that it is acceptable rather than learning it from some outside source which probably will teach them that being gay is a crime punishable by a lifetime of persecution.

[Damian Silverblade]

Let's compare apples with apples M2D2.

"we spent twice as much time studying the cultures of non-whites. I think they should give equal time to both subjects,"

Except of course you are the one being reductive here - culture is not divided in "White" and "Non-White", and to suggest that the white culture should be given equal time to all other cultures put together is the questionable idea if one want equality between the cultures (now if you want to defend that the european culture was more important to the history of america and that it should be studied in greater depths than others, that's something else and not necessarily something I'd disagree with you. But don't go on about equal times when you are comparing inequal groups to begin with - White (that is to say, European) culture hardly represent half the cultures that there were in the history of the world, or of the American continent for that matter.

Even reducing it to very, very, very broad groups, you have Asian cultures (not really relevant if studying only things in america), African culture (and African-American is rather important), Meso-American culture, etc.

As for Newtwon vs religious practices of the Aztecs? No, I don't think they should be given equal time. You're comparing the discoveries of one man with the religious culture - the very core of their identity - of an entire people. The theory of gravity doesn't belong in history classes either - that's physics, not history.

[Green_Pikachu]

1). gay has developed a third meaning. It is used as an insult. We aren't actually calling the person homosexual, but it is used in a derogatory manner, probably stemming off the fact that the majority of the US are still scared to death of gays (like bush is).

2). being gay is not a choice, not matter how much you think it is. it isn't completely proven, but it's commonly believed to be genetics. Much like Darwin's theory of evolution tends to be the most commonly applied theory, genetic-based sexuality is a more popular theory, because there is quite a bit of evidence suggesting this. So homosexuality isn't "a way someone lives their life". It IS their life. It is who they are, not some action they do.

[Ash_300]

uh, you're pretty retarded. I was referring to the whole leap year in terms of "normalcy". i was not saying anything about there being 1.5 billion gays, plus I have no idea where you came up with that stat anyway, lol. i was simply refuting some other kid's point, because he said being gay is not normal, because it doesn't occur a whole lot. So i used the point of a leap year only occuring every other 4 years, but we consider that normal, don't we? i admit, it was a weak analogy, but I don't know how you didn't understand it.

You say that you were refuting the kid's point about homosexual relationships and/or behaviour being abnormal due to it not occurring frequently. When the word normal is used in the context of something not occuring often, the normal that is being referred to is numerical. Your point about people not considering leap years to be abnormal is based on us acknowledging that leap years are there. However, it is a "retarded" example since numerically, leap years do not occur frequently. In short, you attempted to equate two things in different contexts so your rebuttal is quite senseless. You really do not know how to argue a point without using pointless insults.

As for the topic, I think that whether or not kids are taught that kind of thing in the first grade depends on where you live. The social structures of a community will determine whether or not it should be taught at a certain year level. For instance, where I live, I was never taught anything on relationships until year 9. Personally, I think it is a pretty stupid idea to dedicate an entire subject to relationships in general when you could be teaching useful stuff like english, mathematics or science.

[pokemaniacbill]

Coulda sworn this was just one book in the library... maybe I'm getting the wrong information. Huh.

[GirlRepellant]

Mewtwo-D2: GirlRepellant, were you not aware that the Holocaust was carried out by majority neo-pagans?

WARNING: MILD SARCASM AHEAD!

Um... I believe that the Holocaust was carried out by this little group, skipped over in the text books, called the Nazi party. You may have heard of their leader, who gets a small role in the footnotes of history -- his name is Hitler. Now, Hitler, as you obviously don't know, since textbooks don't cover this topic, believed that he was cleansing the human race, because that was what God wanted him to do. Oh, I should probably elaborate, since history books skip over these minor details in history in favor of 4 chapters on Incan gods. The Holocaust was a period in history spanning from 1933-1945, starting in Germany when Hitler came into power. (Germany is a country in Europe, a fact which may have been overlooked in favor of Asian, African and Middle Eastern geography... doesn't it just suck not getting to learn about our white heritage?) The goal of the Holocaust was to cleanse the human race through eugenics of the "undesirable" races, such as Jews, Poles, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc. Now, Hitler believed that he was doing God's work while killing millions of people in some of the most inhumane ways possible. However, he never claimed to be doing Zeus's work, nor did he claim that Mars commanded him to invade Poland. Thus concludes your history lesson from someone who is not a complete idiot. Thank you. Reading assignments include any history text spanning the years 1933-1945 written by a competant author... hell, even by a middle schooler who took US history. Now here's your quiz. It's multiple choice.
1)Hitler was:
a) Pagan
b) Christian
2) Most Nazis were:
a) Pagan
b) Christian
3) Who was right?
a) You.
b) Me.

Answer Key (no cheating now!): b,b,b.

[pokemaniacbill]

You are wrong. Hitler disliked religion on the premise that it took away from nationalism being first. And even still, there are basic rules of Christianity that I'm told require following, lest you're simply following a dogmatic principle that relies more on the letter of the rules the spirit. I'm not quite sure what the Neo-Paganism is about in her post, but... yeah. Just had to add that in.

Remind me to post the list 'Ten reasons Jesus was a Pagan'. If anyone here can take a joke, it's pretty funny.

[GirlRepellant]

HITLER QUOTES:

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
"We want honestly to earn the resurrection of our people through our industry, our perseverance, our will. We ask not of the Almighty 'Lord, make us free'!-- we want to be active, to work, to agree together as brothers, to strive in rivalry with one another to bring about the hour when we can come before Him and when we may ask of Him: 'Lord, Thou seest that we have transformed ourselves, the German people is not longer the people of dishonour, of shame, of war within itself, of faintheartedness and little faith: no, Lord, the German people has become strong again in spirit, strong in will, strong in endurance, strong to bear all sacrifices.' 'Lord, we will not let Thee go: bless now our fight for our freedom; the fight we wage for our German people and Fatherland.'"
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."

And just to sweeten the victory, photographic evidence:

Hitler wth Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin

Bam.

[pokemaniacbill]

You are, in fact, one of the most foolish imbeciles I have had the displeasure to meet.

You ignored my post completely. Please stop talking if you're going to ignore what other people are saying.

[GirlRepellant]

You are, in fact, one of the most foolish imbeciles I have had the displeasure to meet.

You ignored my post completely. Please stop talking if you're going to ignore what other people are saying.

1) You've never met me.
2) I did not ignore your post. You said that Hitler disliked religion. Obviously he didn't.
3) I don't know where you're going with the basic rules of Christianity vs. dogmatism, but Hitler believed he WAS following the rules, and going above and beyond. Kind of a spiritual extra credit.
4) I happen to be a fairly intelligent individual who you'd probably like. You can't base my foolishness or lack-there-of based upon two posts on a message board. If we're going there, I haven't been terribly impressed by your arguments (but I didn't resort to name calling, stupid-face!).

[Mewtwo-D2]

Since WWII-era history has been my hobby for the past six years, I'd say I have a better understanding of it than you do.

First, Damian, the thing that surprised me about not hardly studying white history was that that particular class was supposed to be focussed on the Americas. Now I realize that the majority of people in the Americas are not white, but to hardly mention white contributions in what was supposed to be a balanced text book? Europeans were shown as earth-raping, blood-thirsty maniacs, while a culture that poured molten gold down people's throats was shown as unfailingly honorable and noble. It wasn't taking into account that non-whites have done some pretty rotten things in their histories as well, only they have less of a tendency to get the whole world involved. As for when I was studying world history, I think the Scientific Revolution deserved as much attention as Aztec religious practices.


Now, GirlRepellant, why did Hitler send Catholics to concentration camps if he was so Christian friendly? (Reference: I Survived Hitler's Ovens by Olga Lengyel) Why did Nazi curriculum teach children that Jesus was a naughty Jewish boy who disobeyed his mother? (Reference: The Story of the Vonn Trapp Family Singers by Maria Vonn Trapp) Hitler started out pretending to be religious to get the majority Lutheran German population on his side. However, he pushed neo-paganism in the ancient German gods, hoping it would cause an upswell in patriotism for Father Germany. Hitler was not a Christian, and neither were Himmler, Goebels, or Mengele. Although I sincerely doubt you know who those people are.

And by the way, if you're above name calling, why call me an idiot? You'll notice I refrained from calling you an artless fly-bitten hugger-mugger or a surly, beef-witted flap-dragon. Why not show the rest of us the same courtesy?

[pokemaniacbill]

If I were as charismatic as Hitler, I'd use a prevelant political tool like religion to the fullest. He disliked religion as it was BECAUSE IT TOOK AWAY FROM NATIONALISM. You notice how the only time he mentioned it was to further his own goals?

Yes, I have met you. If you're posting a half-assed arguement like this, I'm going to call you an idiot.

And if you've actually read the New Testament, you'd know that those who believe that death, violence, hatred, and all those things will further the goals of God, then you're not a bloody Christian! Hitler was not a Christian. Please cease to exist, you hurt my head.

[GirlRepellant]

Alright, I'm going to end the Holocaust argument right now, since we're WAY off topic. A few points: while Hitler may have been neo-Pagan (a fact I was not aware of, but if you are as well read in WWII as you claim, I'm sure you know more than me about the subject), most Nazis were Christian. That is a fact you must admit, and that was what I was going for in my original post. Another point, I never called you an idiot, I merely claimed I was not a complete idiot, which was an attempt to referance the supposedly horrible texts you are assigned in your school, not a jab at you.
And I have read the NT. In fact, I've read the whole of the Bible. And many Christians choose to focus on the OT, which happens to promote many forms of "death, violence, hatred", etc. It promotes public stoning of people who use the Lord's name in vain. It promotes slavery of certain peoples, and many other amoral practices. Christianity is not base only on the NT, which is why the OT and NT are a package set.
I apologize if I offended, but I still believe I brought up many valid points, all of which had evidence to back it up, even if it wasn't the same evidence you had for your points. There. Done. Sorry. Bye.

[pokemaniacbill]

Whereas I believe you cause me a headache. You assume I think more then ten percent of those who claim to be Christian are Christians as intended by the Bible... of course, I think perhaps every last person on the planet (And I go on the top of that list) Is a blithering idiot. While I may refer to myself as double stupid, I was pointing out a source I got my arguement from. I'm tired, sick, and you insulted someone more important to me then my own life. Yeah, I got pissed. Probably, if I didn't think you weren't very used to the world, I would be apologize. But you aren't used to the world as it is, I continue to be an ass no matter what, so I won't. G'bye.

[Damian Silverblade]

Oh, if you say that the *scientific revolution* and the aztec religion should be given the same importance, then I'd tend to agree. But Newton's discoveries alone doesn't make up the whole revolution, and the general point when studying movement like that in history is to study the causes and effects of important movement, not the specific "incidents" (ie, particular dates and events).

Even if you look in university history classes, you won't be talking about "And Newton discovered the gravity this way, doing this and this..." - you'll be talking about what brought about the scientifical revolution and how it impacted the rest of the world. That's just the way history goes these days - more concerned with causes and effects of events, and the societies underlying those events, than with the events themselves.

[Drago]

Arguments are fun! I'm waiting for someone to pick up a steel chair. ^_^ People have opinions. When they clash, it turns into a comparison of points in one way or the other. When disagreements stem from the specific points as opposed to the original opinion, it becomes an argument. Then we see Hitler chatting with an Archbishop.

Anyway, and veering clear of that, I'm for the book. At first, I was a tad torn in my decision, and after reading through other's posts (well, the first two pages. After a while, I got sleepy), I can see valid points in both directions. However, I took a good read through the article, and it all came down to this. The kid took the book out of the library herself. What does this tell you? That she is suddenly filled with questions about homosexuality? No, not really. For me, it just shows that she thinks it's a good read. In fact maybe, just maybe, she won't even notice the fact that it's different from what she's used to reading. Indeed, it shows a new view from the other books, but if she reads it by her own will, then maybe she just doesn't care?
In fact, a very good point was proven in Iveechan's post.
Looking at King & King, it indeed looks like a merry little tale. The princesses Prince Bertie rejects would likely be a laugh, and it all has a bright and cheery premise. It just shows that not everybody has the same views as you do. However, the book Iveechan described sounds like the sort of book that'd negatively affect a kid at that age. Not two men kissing, but a turtle dying. Well, that's how I see it, but I feel there would be a likelihood that a harsh reminder of one's mortality, especially in the form of a turtle, would be a worse experience.

And finally, in that situation, the parents could merely state that they are against her reading the book. She isn't allowed to read it, and that's that. They can explain the rest from there.
However, banning the book entirely is like banning the children's show, Mulligrubs. It starred an inquisitive mouth and eyes who would talk the day away. However, a child was scared by the face. So naturally, the parent managed to ban it for all. Is this fair? That due to some people disagreeing with it, it therefore cannot be shared with the rest of the world? I don't think so, though because I was one of the people who watched and loved Mulligrubs, only to have it taken away, perhaps I see it differently. Nonetheless, I think it's a fair comparison.

[Heald]

Let's get the facts right.

Hitler was an atheist. He disbanded every organised religion in Germany except the Catholic church as he would have lost the support of many Germans. He allowed the Catholic church to retain control of Catholic schools as long as the Catholic church stayed out of politics.

The Nazis started a nationwide religion called the German Faith Movement, which was based on worshipping the sun. Why would a Christian make such a religion.

[Ali]

I would add something to the Holocaust argument, except that I don't really know WWII history. Plus some of the wordy posts gave me a headache.

And all I have to say is that I'm going to try to get that book for my cousins, who are three and five years old, for Christmas.

[Jay]

TRO should split the thread again and take the Holocaust argument out of here.

I personally think that this is a good idea. Children are going to learn about different types of people in the future, so why not learn about them early so they don't have that bad view on homosexuals in the future?

There are enough haters out there as it is.

[The Muffin Man]

I dunno about other dictionaries, but the one I'VE got says "Gay - Happy*Whatever* SLANG - HOMOSEXUAL"...There CAN be slang for gay meaning unacceptable y'know. Not just gay = homosexual.

[Sorovis]

Well, obviously you know where I stand, being against homosexuality. Once again, homosexuality is wrong and should not encouraged, and once again, I am not a homophobe, so please spare yourselves the time at calling me one.

[The Muffin Man]

Well, obviously you know where I stand, being against homosexuality. Once again, homosexuality is wrong and should not encouraged, and once again, I am not a homophobe, so please spare yourselves the time at calling me one.

"I'm not Homophobic. I just think Gays are evil and shouldn't be encouraged ever."

Gee I dunno, chief, sounds pretty homophobic to me...


Homosexuality is natural. You can't ENCOURAGE it. Only accept it.

[Sorovis]

Wow, Muffin Man, that's the most intelligent thing you've done all day. Keep going and you might be able to go into first grade.

[The Muffin Man]

Your post would be worth my time if it wasn't absolutely random and only attacking me for pointing out you ARE a homophobe.

Here's a ball. Go entertain yourself.


EDIT - I can't be arsed to spam up the thread any further. So I'll just post this edit to all of your inevitably time-wasting posts that call me an idiot for pointing out you are INDEED a homophobe.

*shoos you off*

[Sorovis]

I don't know where to begin. Here, how about I call you an idiot. By your logic, you must be an idiot.

[Mewtwo-D2]

Okay, the whole homophobe thing hits on one of my pet peeves. Disliking and disagreeing with homosexuality is not a fear of it. For myself and for every other person who has to deal with a real phobia, that's plain insulting.

Yes, there are people who are afraid of homosexuals, the kind of people who believe you can 'catch gay', and who panic at the very thought of same-sex couples. Phobias are an unfortunate mental condition that affect a wide swath of the population. They are, for the majority, irrational, but dominating, fears. Personally, I am acrophobic. I'm not just scared of being up on anything higher than a medium-pile carpet, even thinking about it makes me feel afraid. When I actually have to be up high or on a steep slope, it's all I can do not to run screaming in the other direction. I normally take the shaking and whimpering route. That is a phobia. Disagreeing is not. To call dislike of homosexuality a phobia cheapens the trauma that real phobias induce. It would be like a person who has different moods occasionally being called schizophrenic or schizoid.

Phobias are just as natural as you say homosexuality is, and people who have phobias tend to be aware of that fact. Usually, if someone doesn't have a phobia, they are also aware of that fact.

[The Muffin Man]

Actually homophobia is described as the dislike of gays. Phobia is just tacked on to make it look like they've got some sort of problem, usually...

[Sorovis]

I'd like to see where you're getting this from. The dictionary online says 'the fear of lesbians and gay men.' Simply put.

[Green_Pikachu]

Well, obviously you know where I stand, being against homosexuality. Once again, homosexuality is wrong and should not encouraged, and once again, I am not a homophobe, so please spare yourselves the time at calling me one.

look up homophobe, and you'll basically find what you just said.

and homosexuality is not wrong. just so you know. you might THINK it's wrong. that doesn't mean it is wrong. ;(

[The Muffin Man]

And we all know Dictionary.com is the only source in the world.

[Sorovis]

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.

[Heald]

"I'm not a homophobe, I just don't like gay people."

[Green_Pikachu]

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.

i think the better question is why isn't it ok. I've never known anyone as ignorant as you. How can you call this natural thing wrong? Are you the almighty truth? It's natural, therefore it can't be wrong. So, get used to it, because it's not like you can outlaw homosexuality, lol.

[The Muffin Man]

We also know that you still haven't given your source.

Pariah, please give a detailed paragraph informing me of why homosexuality is okay.

Dictionary a few feet behind me actually.

And I'm in agreeance with Heald.

[Sorovis]

Pariah, any explanation I give for homosexuality being wrong will be picked apart and scrutinized by you and others, as I've it tried before. I'm not going through the trouble of putting up my opinion as it will be scoffed at and dismissed as ignorant rubbish. So let's turn the tables, go on and enlighten me.

Muffin Man, if the dictionary is right behind you, why don't you quote it for me? While you're at it, tell me what dictionary it is so I can see for myself.

[Green_Pikachu]

no, see i hold the opinion of the majority. you are in the minority. so you propose your wrong opinion first.