Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

There is one good aspect to this thumb up/down thing, Spendi. On the post's page, you can thumb down a post. All that means there, I believe, it that it disappears from your view. It's kind like emptying your inbox of old emails.

Is it? When I started studying physics in 1989, the World Wide Web hadn't even been invented yet, and the online community of choice was Usenet, which ran as its own application on top of raw TCP/IP. In the Usenet posts of this time, the distributions of both trolling and quality were about the same as they are today on A2K, Facebook, and other allegedly "evolved" social networking sides. Another similarity was the heated discussions about moderation policy. On this issue, then, the internet hasn't evolved at all. Don't let marketing blurbs from glitzy startups tell you otherwise.

Whoa, you're a young bucko, Thomas!

He is very young JTT I learn programming by either punch cards or by moving wires around on an analog computer.

Possibly, since I don't immediately see people in racial boxes, and thus, am more likely to refer to a guy by his name if I know it, shirt color or other identifying information, it may be months til I say, "...the Latino guy." I do know in some conversations, a term describing people by race is necessary. I expect if I find myself in the position and err, the worst thing that will happen is a bit of the red-face if I am redirected: (eyebrow raised at me) "He's from Mexico"...leaving me to wonder if this makes my assumption of Latino just stupid, lazy or merely unfortunate. It's sort of like the Asian designation; unpopular among the multi-ethnic people from a huge area of the globe....although, not incorrect...

I guess if I do get some minor social smackdown over it, I can privately comfort myself in the awareness that I would never think of him - much less refer to him - as a colored. For me, legitimately caring about people's dignity absolves me of feeling too bad about accidental gaffes...although it is good to take away meaning from these exchanges...whether or not we choose to amend our vocabulary based on them.

Toward that cause, referring to someone as a colored, HS, is very insulting. I hope you'll reflect on this - whether or not you choose to amend your vocab rests on who you are.

Being, as I am told, a pedant, I see people by definition. Every human being on this planet has the same definiton--thus the same purpose and same function, defined biologically. It is only by thinking in terms of definition that one can think in terms of equality. Man = man.

Um, what about us chicks? But, nice sentiment, Phil.

An aside: This thread is partially serious conversation, and part sarcastic nut-squeezing. Don't take everything here seriously. Wouldn't want an earnest newby to take away bad feelings from an unusual thread.

Belated welcome.

I did not say male. I said man.

If you want to really get technical, I could lead you to something that both biology and scripture agree on, A man is comprised of one male and one female, however, I don't think people are ready for that right now.

But, I am not a man. You might say that I am vilified and intentionally diminished by patriarchal civilization - and the moniker man (mankind) that is used to encompass me and the sisters is oppressive and dismissive...and by accepting the anti-Chick status quo, you are waging war against Womankind...

Anyway, another lens.

If you want to tease this tiger, perhaps you should open a thread where the subject is appropriate.

Resolving issues by the use of definitions is appropriate to every discussion. I grant that in your psyche books, there are a very few of us that think by definition, and most of us are never heard of once we leave school, however, some of us pop up from time to time to put a stick in the ant hill.

A woman is the life of man. That is as far as my war goes.

This means woman is defined by her usefulness to a man... (Break out the bazookas) *snicker*

You are absolutely correct, metaphor relies on definition, that is why a woman is used in scripture to mean the seven environmental acquisition systems of a human being--a giver of life.

okey dokey - untoward opinion noted !

hahaha!!! I know. Flag on the play!

WHAT??????[/color[/size]]

Imagine for a moment, no longer is advisable, that woman is no use to man. Surely we are defined by our usefulness to each other. Let's see "the sisters" get together and be of no use to man. Or are the other sisters, who offer themselves as useful to man, stupid, hypnotised and conditioned?

Hello, Spendi. Defining a person or a sex based on their usefulness to another group is quite different than just being useful...

Get a grip, bro, this a US female you trying to communicate with? When she says bazooka she means bubble gum. When she says snicker she means candy bar.

As I said, man has one and only one definition, a person's sex is not included in that definition.
I just thought it was a fair intro to what judgment, definition, dark sentences, simille in multis, and metaphor all had in common, and why a prophet is trained through the use of metaphor,
Now I think I will just go play with myself. pout.

<UK chuckle>!