1
   

Indifference/ The Most Effective Response to Irrationality

 
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 07:16 am
snood wrote:
dlowan wrote:
snood wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Oh my! I swear that Snood posted before I saw his post.



For what it's worth, Snood, beware quick sand.


Not to worry, dlowan - I have my mudflaps on.


Do they work on quicksand?


Aw, darn. I was all touched by your concern, but now I'm thinking you're being snarky. Tell me it ain't so - the bushy-tailed optimist in me so needs to hear it.


You know, I often scratch my head in wonder about how you manage to read malign intent into comments...but this time I am finding it especially incomprehensible.

I suppose I shall have to mutter "internet" or something.


Anyhoo, suffice to say, no, I was not being snarky, and I am utterly unable to guess how you read snarkiness into that comment.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 07:21 am
You sound a bit snarky this morning, dlowan. Hungover?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 07:42 am
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
You sound a bit snarky this morning, dlowan. Hungover?


Wotchit, or that pitchfork gets turned upwards and inserted into your most private crevice.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 05:45 pm
Lash wrote:
edgar--

Re Romney: Do you still think the public response was too shrill, for a person who didn't know of the racial connotation? And, his apology when he was informed was appropriate?


I think a person who knows the speach will get national play has to be careful with their choice of words. Whether intentional or not, a politician is held accountable for any mistakes, except when the public or media gives them a pass. In Milt's case, he hasn't sufficient teflon to afford it.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 02:59 am
Yours is an exponentially more reasonable view of the issue edgar, IMO. Why root around looking for ways to use words with potential hurt attached, when there are dozens of synonyms without those kinds of misunderstandings attached?

To try to mount a case that one is being denied their use by some oppressive and whiny mind police seems schizo to me.

Is that civil enough for ya, Lashie?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 03:02 am
Rationally: Yes.


Determined bear trap wise: Who are you kidding?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 03:11 am
dlowan wrote:
Rationally: Yes.


Determined bear trap wise: Who are you kidding?


If you were replying to me dlowan, could you please 'splain some more?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 03:16 am
snood wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Rationally: Yes.


Determined bear trap wise: Who are you kidding?


If you were replying to me dlowan, could you please 'splain some more?


Certainly.


Given my weariness with the crappier aspects of the net, I would be less weary re PM.


OK with you?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 03:28 am
dlowan wrote:
snood wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Rationally: Yes.


Determined bear trap wise: Who are you kidding?


If you were replying to me dlowan, could you please 'splain some more?


Certainly.


Given my weariness with the crappier aspects of the net, I would be less weary re PM.


OK with you?


Sure
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 06:15 am
snood wrote:
Yours is an exponentially more reasonable view of the issue edgar, IMO. Why root around looking for ways to use words with potential hurt attached, when there are dozens of synonyms without those kinds of misunderstandings attached?
No one here advocates your ridiculous scenario. Did Romney or dlo "root around" for an offensive word? There are some people, and you have proven to be one, who hold such a monstrous chip on their shoulder--and have all manner of words they hold up as a gauntlet, daring some unsuspecting person to use--makes it hard for normal people to speak without the Chips finding some offense. Your own instances of this are all over the place. You seek offense. It is ingrained in your personality. People, such as dlowan and Romney, use a word innocently, and then are attacked as if they've committed some crime. The Chips set upon them like a wounded animal in a trap, because for some reason, they need to. I think that's as bad as using a "potentially hurtful" word. Those people need to start treating people decently and stop trying to pay innocent people back for something they aren't responsible for. Ultimately, it's not going to help them. It makes things worse, but it seems to give them a bit of personal satisfaction to exert some seeming social power over what people can and can't say. There are unfortunately enough legitimate racial slurs. Why waste your indignation on one you know isn't related to you, or any other person, in any way?
To try to mount a case that one is being denied their use by some oppressive and whiny mind police seems schizo to me.
Your analogy is incorrect and inappropriate.
Is that civil enough for ya, Lashie?
Yes. It was intended to offend, but for you, a great improvement.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:52 am
Oh, HELL no. I'm not getting into the endless re-quotes and coloring replies. You are a weird and angry lady, Lashie. But you go on and use that "tarbaby' word all you like, okay? Just don't hurt yourself.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 08:19 am
snood wrote:
Oh, HELL no. I'm not getting into the endless re-quotes and coloring replies. You are a weird and angry lady, Lashie. But you go on and use that "tarbaby' word all you like, okay? Just don't hurt yourself.


I understand. You realize you can't respond to the following post, without being tangled in your errors re this issue.

"No one here advocates your ridiculous scenario. Did Romney or dlo "root around" for an offensive word? There are some people, and you have proven to be one, who hold such a monstrous chip on their shoulder--and have all manner of words they hold up as a gauntlet, daring some unsuspecting person to use--makes it hard for normal people to speak without the Chips finding some offense.

Your own instances of this are all over the place. You seek offense. It is ingrained in your personality. People, such as dlowan and Romney, use a word innocently, and then are attacked as if they've committed some crime. The Chips set upon them like a wounded animal in a trap, because for some reason, they need to. I think that's as bad as using a "potentially hurtful" word. Those people need to start treating people decently and stop trying to pay innocent people back for something they aren't responsible for.

Ultimately, it's not going to help them. It makes things worse, but it seems to give them a bit of personal satisfaction to exert some seeming social power over what people can and can't say. There are unfortunately enough legitimate racial slurs. Why waste your indignation on one you know isn't related to you, or any other person, in any way?"

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 09:27 am
Right on, Lash. whatever floats your boat, you sexy intellectual you.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 10:40 am
I take offense to your injection of sex into comments when speaking to me, about me. Coming from you, sexual innuendo is gross and disgusting and threatening. You have no need or welcome speaking to me in a sexually provocative manner. Consider yourself clearly informed.

I ask that you not repeat it. Were you to disregard my direct request, that would constitute sexual harassment.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 11:31 am
Lash wrote:
I take offense to your injection of sex into comments when speaking to me, about me. Coming from you, sexual innuendo is gross and disgusting and threatening. You have no need or welcome speaking to me in a sexually provocative manner. Consider yourself clearly informed.

I ask that you not repeat it. Were you to disregard my direct request, that would constitute sexual harassment.


does this mean no big bear hug?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 03:28 pm
I see not much has changed while I was away? Laughing
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 06:14 pm
Now we are officially in la la land.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:33 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
I see not much has changed while I was away? Laughing

Go away again for a lot longer and see if things change.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:56 pm
Au contraire, Arella - Lash has become much gentler and sweeter since you left. Stick around - I'm sure she'll shower you with some warmth any minute....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Aug, 2006 07:58 pm
I'll drink some more beer and fill my bladder.
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:33:23