Did Bahraini activists closet anti-gay bus baron?

re: whole new industry

Not so new; its been popular pretty much since SEO was invented and helped greatly in recent years by problems in the way Google handles 301 redirects. Plenty of sites have headed several light years 'below the fold' as a result.

Not far off

Already happening as far as I can tell.

Google recently "adjusted" their Al Gore Rhythms to push content-scraping sites to the bottom, after the duplicate content had started ranking higher than the original source.

Black Hat SEO is full of posting dodgy links with your competitor's site referenced alongside to put them in a bad light.

Quite.

If you choose to use Google as your Search Engine, then the results you get are those returned by Google's search/index process, not The Universal Truth About The Internet.

You don't like, you choose a different search provider. Were the UK govt. to run a search engine, that would have to be impartial, but Google are a private company, and I don't think that there's any legislation that binds them into returning any sort of approved results.

Still, look at all this free publicity for Brian Souter (who, by virtue of pursuing this, seems determined to let everyone know what a homophobe he is).

Indeed. And to make sure that doesn't happen, it's important to mention www.briansouter.com.14feb-youth.com on a regular basis. Can't be too careful, as the bus operator said to the actress.

Negativity?

I assume you meant to say that there would be a (minor?) controversy if There's Only Us Bus announced that the only public transport service serving Little Blighty On the Down would NOT sell a ticket to The Only Gay In The Village.

So that he has to get on his bike and look for... look forward to making new friends.

The thing is, we all know, but how does Brian Souter know?

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,1078,lucas-enlists-celebrity-divorce-lawyers-in-split-with-mcgee,31961

Fellah on the left - seen in happier times. The other chap has killed himself, I've been told, which is very regrettable.

tl; dr

Presumably written by a self-loathing closet homosexual?

Certainly you equated homosexuality with paedophilia. If you cannot see there are numerous important differences between the two (even outside any particular cultural mores), then perhaps you have deeper issues.

To Matt, on paedophilia and bestiality

Matt, you seem to be rather confused. Let me try to simplify it.

1) You seem to accept the nature vs nurture argument, i.e that homosexuality is innate and religion is learned

2) Some people have random nasty innate traits (amazing how paedophilia is always used as an example!)

3) Nasty innate traits when expressed cause harm to other beings, so people should not have the right to express them

4) Homosexuality causes no more harm to other beings than does heterosexuality (in fact one could argue that it's a lot less due to pregnancy not being a consequence of it)

5) Therefore, there is no reason to deny homosexual rights on the basis of paedophilia, bestiality or any other phobia of the week plucked from the Daily Mail. There's absolutely no reason to mention those things at all.

There we go - "calm and rational" thoughts explaining why there was no reason for you to bring these things up. The trivial way in which your argument is dismissed in turn that points to you being far from rational, and your general tone ("PC", "frothing", dismissing the prevailing view as being based on a knee-jerk reaction when you have no idea how many people have known about this character for a long time) leads me to suspect that you are far from calm as well.

To Matt, on "thought crimes"

"if you don't bash Section 28 loudly and at every opportunity then you must be a fascist, homophobic, queer-bashing, religeous nutcase."

Erm, Brian Souter was not failing to bash Section 28. Brian Souter spent half a million pounds bankrolling the subvertion of the democratic process by leafletting every house in Scotland with a sham postal ballot dismissed by the Electoral Reform Society because it "would not be a legitimate democratic exercise to ask people to give an opinion on the repeal of Section 28 without knowing the detail of what would replace it."

Now, presented with those two contrasting positions, who do you think is the nutcase?

Really, there is so much wrong with your posting that it's just not worth analysing it any further - it stands up to no critical analysis whatsoever.

First mistake: this is about politics, not rational argument!

There's no point arguing rationally with the politically anti-normal brigade, they define themselves as an oppressed minority, despite the fact that any real oppression was outlawed decades ago. As long as they pose no threat to anyone it's best just to ignore then. If kids have to endure 5 minutes out of their entire school education when the teacher announces that some people are gay and that's OK it probably wont psychologically damage them for life. I expect most of the "my daddy and daddy" type books are printed just to meet some education authority check list of requirements, but will gather dust on the bookshelf as most kids wont be remotely interested. Similarly if a bit of paper with the words "marriage certificate" on it makes them happy, why not placate them?

No doubt in a thousand years time there will still be Gay Pride parades where they announce how proud they are, despite straight people never declaring how proud they are of their sexuality, even though they claim all they ever wanted was equality.

You're right though, if normal people give up any more ground, next kids will be taught that bestiality and paedophilia are perfectly "normal" lifestyles, after all if 1 in 10 to 100 is 'normal' why not 1 in 1000 to 10000?

Most people are born with a genetic trait which puts them in some kind of minority, but it's no big deal. If that gene affects their way of life and a doctor can offer a cure, most people would graciously and eagerly accept the cure. But if ever there was a cure for the psychological disorder of attempting to mate unsuccessfully with persons of the same gender, a minority of that minority would protest to the extreme that anyone should be allowed to take the cure.

Block/fake referrer? I would.