Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

LifeSiteNews doesn’t like me

Timothy Kincaid

October 5th, 2012

Sigh. The Catholic “news” site LifeSiteNews has blocked me from commenting. I can’t imagine why. I simply agreed with everything they said.

For example, when Mollysday said

It’s not that Obama’s gay. He isn’t. But he’s easily the most evil man ever to inhabit the White House.

I agreed:

Yes, very evil. We know that the homosexuals are Nazis and he supports the homosexuals. So Obama is a Nazi supporter.

and when Timmehh didn’t know of any of the “several indications” that Barack Obama “is a homosexual”, I merely provided one:

Well, for one thing, he’s a liberal. And all liberals deny God. And the Bible says in Romans that if you deny God he’ll turn you into a homosexual.

I didn’t say a word that they don’t believe. I can’t imagine why they blocked me.



October 5th, 2012 | LINK

Tim, I indulge in the provocation or flamewar from time to time myself, and that’s fine. But to post on here just kind of has the feel of being a little too self-congratulatory.

I applaud being a thorn in their side. But this posting? Maybe more for your facebook page?

Timothy Kincaid
October 5th, 2012 | LINK


This is a blog site. We are not a newspaper. We write about what interests the authors.

Usually that is gay-related news and commentary.

But sometimes it’s just what we are amused by, or our recollections, or where we travel, or New Mexico red chile. This commentary amused me. Maybe it amuses a reader or two, maybe not.

Sometimes some readers believe that we have an obligation to write only what they want to read. Sometimes they try to get one or another of us “removed” (ok, really only me). Sometimes we get the “how dare you call yourself a journalist” comments (which is amusing, as none of us are journalists).

But one of the things about being a blogger (other than that you don’t get paid and you have to work it around your full time job) is that you can write about what you are thinking about.

We’ve been fortunate. Some of what we were thinking about played a role in changing foreign policy. Some was impactful in challenging the practices and positions of some ex-gay ministries. Some of what we are thinking about has become a resource to our community.

And that has led to a feeling of ownership by some who value what we do and want us to do it even better. Which is a wonderful compliment.

But this is not a project of some center. It is not funded by a philanthropist or by reader subscriptions. We don’t answer to anyone and we don’t write for anyone.

We write because we believe it does good. We believe that our opinions should be heard (doesn’t everyone?). We enjoy it.

Sometimes you (or someone else) won’t like what I (or another author) writes. But we do this as our contribution. It takes A LOT of time. And I don’t think any of us would write if we were constrained to limit what we write to some reader’s or group of readers’ approval.

So that’s the trade off.

October 6th, 2012 | LINK

Andrew, ya know sometimes ppl just want to share what is on their mind. Jeremy Hooper will often times write about getting banned. I’ll go with Tim on this one.

Priya Lynn
October 6th, 2012 | LINK

Andrew said “But to post on here just kind of has the feel of being a little too self-congratulatory.”.

I couldn’t disagree more. I think this was hilarious and I’m glad Tim posted it.

Michael C
October 6th, 2012 | LINK

…but how are you able to comment on the NOMBlog? I haven’t been able to for the better part of a year now.

Timothy Kincaid
October 6th, 2012 | LINK

On NOMBlog I try to limit my comments to a matter of fact and leave most opinion off the page. I never ever accuse them of hating or lying or anything like that. Or maybe I’ve just been lucky, I dunno.

Michael C
October 6th, 2012 | LINK

I’ve found that polite, rational and informed comments devoid of snark, malice or vitriol are in violation of their terms of use.

maybe I’m just doing it wrong.

October 6th, 2012 | LINK

Somebody once wrote that if you want to post on NOMS blog you have to do it from your cell phone that way they can’t block your IP address. Dunno if that works.

You know maybe we should develop a secret code to use on NOM’s blog, I dunno something like end it with, “have a g’day.” You know like the secret gay handshake…

October 6th, 2012 | LINK

LOL @ StraightGrandmother – LOVE it!!! “Secret Gay Handshake!” ROTF!

October 7th, 2012 | LINK

Well, for one thing, he’s a liberal. And all liberals deny God. And the Bible says in Romans that if you deny God he’ll turn you into a homosexual.

“Jesus made me a homosexual.”

“If I buy the yarn, can he make me one, too?”

Badump Bump Chhhh!

October 7th, 2012 | LINK

They banned me after they ran one of their hysterical anti-trans bathroom articles and I pointed out to a commenter that if she got her way she’d have to put up with fully transitioned FtMs, who generally look and act like any other men, in the women’s room.

Priya Lynn
October 7th, 2012 | LINK

Boo, your story just further shows the incredible dishonesty of these people.

Regan DuCasse
October 7th, 2012 | LINK

Oh yay! I’m in the I’m Banned From NOM’s Site Club!

And AFTAH’S and Ruth Blog (now no one can comment) and BOND’s site. That site is run by Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen. Oh, and DL Foster is none to fond of me either.
Sarcasm, facetiousness, irony…COMPLETELY lost on the usual suspects.
They take hyperbole, lying, misinformation, myth and defamation VERY seriously because THAT is the manure THEY like to spread. And of course, that type of manure has to trump anything else.

Any of our typical comment threads are FAR more informed, congenial, intelligent and well articulated than their’s are.
As I said, after a while, they sound clinically paranoid, or brain damaged by it.
Either way, they are dangerous and fully believe they have a right to be.
Which is weird too.

Regan DuCasse
October 7th, 2012 | LINK

Hee! Good one boo!
You and Priya got me thinking. In my travels in any given place, like a Starbuck’s. They usually have ONE room bathrooms.
Larger places, like malls have ‘family’ bathrooms. There was a time when op sex PARENTS couldn’t accompany their young children to the toilet. That solution works for just about anyone, including the handicapped.
My gym has a unisex bathroom. That’s been true for nightclubs and so many other venues now, that I don’t see how the issue of transgender folks and bathrooms IS an issue at ALL.

But, we are talking about people who just have to make something out of literally nothing to smear the gender variant and teh gay.
I mean, just the aforementioned changes alone regarding public facilities that have gotten by these people truly DOES make them look like hysterical idiots!

Timothy Kincaid
October 8th, 2012 | LINK

I think the first sign to me that they had lost their battle to keep the sexes strictly in boxes and sharply different was when I first noticed mens’ bathrooms with baby-changing stations. The second sign was when bathrooms began to have stalls – and separate urinal sections – but have shared sink areas.

Oddly enough, I think it’s good ol’ capitalism that will finally kill that “ooooh, a man in the women’s bathroom” bugaboo. It is cheaper and more convenient to have centralized washing and stalls that are available based on need, not on sex.

And with the change in need (men who take their kids potty or change them) along with the economic costs of duplication of services, companies will have an epiphany and save themselves cost while simultaneously being “sensitive”. It’s a win-win.

But I do have one question. It is my impression (though I might be mistaken) that a significant purpose of having separate bathrooms back in the 50’s was for women to have a lounge area to go get away from the men for a while. (Okay, that’s based on movies and books and may be totally fictional). But I have observed that at a restaurant or club, women often will go to the bathroom together and sort of got the sense that it is an escape to talk together.

Women, am I way off base on that? Will that change in any way as bathrooms return to being more unisex?

October 9th, 2012 | LINK

I guess it was my reaction to starting something for personal satisfaction and then gloating about it to a receptive crowd.

But hey, I stood up to one of the moronic board members on my HOA last night, I just didn’t post the interchange online and solicit comments.

From the “about us” page: “This website is not about me, it’s about you.” This was definitely about you.

Not condemning you, but thinking that it seemed a little “hey, look what I did” for my tastes. It felt a little juvenile to me. Generally, we all do better than tweak our opponents’ noses and run back and brag to our friends about it. Think of it as someone who reads you regularly, thinks well of you, and thinks this didn’t reflect what I’m used to seeing of you.

That’s my reaction, since you include a comments section which implies a request for comment the way an open door implies an invitation to enter. I come by it honestly.

October 9th, 2012 | LINK

So I’m tying to imagine a world with uni-sex bathrooms… would a uni-sex bathroom have a women’s section? Or a “First stall is ladies stall” rule? Or are we hoping that chivalry will outweigh the propensity of many men to just whiz all over the dag-gum seat. Also how will the desire to sit without looking impact male decisions to micturate on the seat or not; put another way: Will the rule become seats up everyone? Or remain seat down when you’re done? How does that work now in ladies rooms, for that matter?

Also, can we keep women in separate bathrooms at large crowded events? I’m not too keen on giving away our quicker relief lines at concerts & sporting events.

In the meantime I just hope they start putting sofas in the men’s rooms too.

Timothy Kincaid
October 9th, 2012 | LINK

No problem, Andrew. I do appreciate the feedback.

I can understand how this sort of smirky jab at LifeSite isn’t your cup of tea. But it isn’t exactly an pointless commentary. I don’t want the silencing tactics of those who oppose us to go unnoted. It says a great deal about the way of thinking that is endemic at anti-gay sites.

I could have written a very serious and angry commentary denouncing their methods and exposing their hypocrisy. But, frankly, I get bored with a constant diet of indignation. I get bored reading it and I get bored writing it. Maybe I’m just not a serious enough guy.

So, from time to time, I go to humor – or, at least, my brand of humor. The result can be my Wackadoodle series or my Box of Rocks candidacy. Or it could be more snarky, like this one.

But, as I said, it’s the trade off. In addition to the occasional commentary that is too self-congratulatory, I do also write about some subjects from a perspective that I don’t think gets much voice.

I’m glad you enjoy some of what I write; I’m sorry you don’t enjoy other parts. And, as I said above, I do appreciate feedback – it gives me perspective in those times in which I go off the rails (and, yes, I know that I do go off the rails from time to time).

But I’m definitely going to disappoint from time to time. I’m not exactly conventional in my thinking so I am almost certain to annoy everyone at some point. And there will be times when I don’t come across as I intended (and when what I intended isn’t all that great).

And while the site isn’t about Jim or Me or Rob or Daniel or Gabe, and while I’m probably not going to share my recipe for rustic chicken lasagna or my views on the differences in California and Federal tax treatment of real estate professionals, I do intend on incorporating my personal history a bit more into some of the commentaries I write. I’ve been involved in CA gay politics for a long time, have some extremely unique experiences, and would hate for it all to disappear with me.

October 10th, 2012 | LINK

You absolutely write things from a point of view that I, among others, value.

I think, as someone who has engaged in poking people with a stick because I derived pleasure from it (and because, of course, they needed to know how very wrong they were), I recognized behavior I had come to find, in myself, not entirely productive or as mature as I wanted for myself. I’m not talking about honest feedback, I’m talking full-blown snark with a side of extra clever – there’s a difference. Ultimately, that felt like navel gazing. Except when I showed my work off to others. Then it felt self-congratulatory. It’s having inhabited that space that resulted in my very specific reaction to your piece. It felt very familiar.

Feedback is precisely that – something to take under consideration. My typical hope is to avoid functioning as a censor, or someone who causes someone to unnecessarily self-censor. Self-edit? Well, that’s a fine distinction, isn’t it. Eyes of the beholder and all that.

As ever, keep doing what you do, and keep keeping your ears open. When I have a gut reaction, I’ll poke my head in. Integrate that to the extent that you see fit. Thanks!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.