BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

Subject: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 28 Jul 13 - 11:11 PM

There was a great thread started by Gnu about how it was nice to see so many old friends posting again on the Forum, and suggesting that the disrespectful language being used in posts was one factor that has 'turned off' a lot of people who would be posting valuable and insightful information and opinions.

Unfortunately, the thread descended into name calling once again, and was closed.

There have been calls for tougher moderation....deleting such posts. However, I don't think it's fair for one or two people to have to do that.....and, as was pointed out, there then end up being accusations of unfairness.

I'd like to suggest something.

I know that often controversial posts can lead to some strong and passionate opinions, and sometimes we end up letting our negative emotions take us to a place where we might 'over-do' our zeal.

Rather than risking all the discussion becoming academic and flat, I'd like to suggest that we all agree on one 'boundary' statement, which is that we will not accept one person consistently calling another person a name that is meant to demean them.   

I can think of two instances where I witnessed this and was really turned off.   In Gnu's thread one person posting kept referring to Jack as Wacko (I think that was the name). And I witnessed a previous thread where another regular poster kept referring to a person who's opinions he didn't respect as 'goofball'.   

If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.

Who's in?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:59 AM

You mean the thread started by olddude that is now closed? I think you are expecting a lot if you don't think this thread will go the same way. You are against name calling and then go on to name two people who you believe are guilty of it. Well, OK, not name them exactly but post enough detail so everyone knows who you are referring to. There are dozens of people who call others names. Why those two specifically? Why give those two your 'special' treatment? Some may think you just want to have a go at certain people, in which case I am definitely not 'in'.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

How about an agreement also not to use what they used to call '4-letter words' [a usage started in the Lady Chatterley trial iirc] quite so readily, even with asterisks? One gets so tired of the constant reiteration of 'fuck' and 'cunt' and 'shit', or even 'f**k' &c. When I joined the Cat 4 years ago, I used to employ such, as everyone else did so. But then I realised the extent to which such knee-jerk obscenity, apart from the filthy-manneredness of it all, so counter-productively detracted from the effect of one one said, and resolved to stop such locutions ~~ a resolution which I have, I think, maintained about 98%, with just the very occasional lapse in moments of high stress or dudgeon; and have become something of a joke in some circles, I am told, for falling back on such unspeakable obloquies as 'scoundrel' or, in moments of real anger, 'swine'. I really do, seriously, think the Cat would be a much more agreeable environment without all of this tiresome, tedious, relentless fucking·&·blinding.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Will Fly
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:09 AM

There used to be a saying in the British Army's officers' messes that one never discussed "politics, religion and the memsahibs". You might laugh at that old-fashioned idea but, in a small society, it made sense to avoid topics that would create dissension, anger and bad feeling and disrupt the important cohesion of that small society.

I avoid most topics (BS) below the line except for one long-standing thread on old pocket watches. And I avoid them because, in many cases, the participants - and it tends to be the same participants - seem unable:

(a) to see any logic or reason in points of view other than their own
(b) to argue strongly without unnecessary swearing
(c) to argue strongly without unnecessary name calling
(d) to argue logically and in a reasoned way

Just my take on it. I can't think offhand of any argued thread I've read below the line where a participant has actually changed their point of view - and sometimes never conceded or recognised a single opposing point.

Above the lines may have had its ups and downs - but just look at it at the moment. Varied and reasonable threads asking for, and passing on information and ideas.

No contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:19 AM

I do think it hilarious that someone starts a thread wanting everybody to go in the garden and pick flowers holding hands, but then has a pop at "those bastards over there."

You mentioned Goofball and Wacko. Don't forget some of the others. Bridge for instance rather likes the soubriquet "Rumpole of the Volvo" and "M'Unlearned Friend" and I take "Mither" when coming from him. We also disagree on many points. But you know what? not a problem. Also, Jack the Sailor and I appear to have a loose ceasefire going. I haven't altered my stance and he cannot alter his, (sorry, couldn't help it..) but you are right when saying that name calling between two people is tedious to others.

But it isn't always aimed at others. I only hold one person in contempt. Sorry, let me qualify that. I only know of one person whose views I hold in contempt.

if there is a difference between culture here, and I doubt there really is, then both sides need to give slack, not just one. I don't expect our cousins to understand piss taking and disguised irony, and I can't aways take a post at full face value. This is an international forum, let's not forget. This isn't an American sit com where there has to be the moral at the end. It can also be British farce where someone ends up with egg on their face, and everybody else pointing and laughing.

Hey Michael! I hear what you are saying about bloody swearing, but you know what? Brevity is the soul of wit. You can either post paragraph after paragraph to get someone to see what you think of what they said, or you can sum it up with "fuck off."

Me? I find the latter cathartic at times, and lack of ambiguity is sometimes needed around here...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:25 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia, as well as numerous stupid comments on my own sexuality.

None of it bothers me too much, as these tactics always reflect badly on those who use them. We (most of us), dont come here for a shouting match, we come to put forward our thoughts for discussion. When I first came here, I was a strict atheist, but after listening to some here, especially Little Hawk, I have come to understand something about the benefits of allowing a little spirituality into our lives.

BUT...I do agree with Larry about the use of habitual derogatory name calling. When you address a message calling someone "stupid", you are not there for debate!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:27 AM

Oh Damn and Blast! I agree with Mither again (save in one respect, namely that I can think of a number of posters for whom I feel no respect, and a number of others about whom I respect nothing save for their ability effectively to use Google to support their prejudices).

I think there is much to be said in favour of a disrespectful nickname, and it is very different from the sort of abuse that used to be disseminated by Gargoyle and Martin Gibson and occasionally one other who I will not immediately name as I think he still posts here and was not quite so offensive. The beauty of a nickname lies in the accuracy with which it lampoons.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:42 AM

Ian ~~

"I disagree" ~~ only one typespace more than the rejoinder you recommend.

So be off with you, prithee!

Ah ~~ κάθαρσις !

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:46 AM

Akenaton. Serious question. If Littlehawk can move your position on spirituality, can the rest of Mudcat move you on your stance regarding gay people?

I enjoy having my perspective tweaked by reading some of the excellent varied comments on Mudcat. Others can alter too.... Bridge appears to be applying to be secretary of my fan club at this rate. (Don't tell him, but I occasionally, not always, nod appreciatively when he sums up a situation far more eloquently than I am willing to do. I prefer to shoot from the hip.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:05 AM

Yes, but if you say "I disagree" people feel that you are obliged to say why. If you say the other there is no explanation necessary :-)

I was wrong about this thread. It looks like it is not going to turn nasty. Hilarious, yes. Nasty, no.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:13 AM

Oh, I don't know, Dave. The other could equally provoke the question "Where to?", couldn't it?

So avaunt ye! Scram! Shoo! Skedaddle! Vamoose!

Or "I disagree"...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:32 AM

Wacko, huh (well, Hawk called me a "fucking asshole" last week... :-))? It's hardly a take on his real name, is it? He himself is much inclined to refer to me as "Shaw" or "Mr Shaw", both of which I assume are intended to provoke (they don't). For reference, everybody I know calls me Steve. Even the doctor, dentist and postman and the bloke at the fish shop. In real life anyone calling me by just my surname has received bloody short shrift, I can tell you. So what's so much worse about "Wacko"? So he doesn't like it. His best bet would be to regard it as a term of endearment and proceed from there. I might just suggest that the big fibs Wacko told about my posts in that now-closed thread could be regarded as far worse slurs that a gently-ribbing nickname, but hey, that's double standards for ye.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: gnu
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:45 AM

STOP!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:50 AM

Well due to my views on homosexuality and "gay marriage", I suppose I receive more verbal abuse than any other member, i've been called dozens of derogatory names, been sworn at, accused of bigotry homophobia,

Your views as stated are illiberal, prejudiced, ill-informed and out of touch, and if you choose to go public with them you need to be prepared for a backlash. I have some pretty solid views about religion and the actions of some of the people who practise it (such as forcing religious observance and instruction on their children, which is one of the nastiest things anyone can do to a child). I get plenty of backlash here for expressing these opinions loud and clear, but that's what I expect, and it includes name-calling, misrepresentation and insults, and I think I'm probably a bigger "victim" of all that than anyone else here (no, really!). Not that I do victimhood, so what the hell. If you think you're being insulted, look at it in one of two ways: either the person insulting you is a complete twat and will be seen as such by all readers, or he's frustrated because you persistently refuse to listen to reason (in which case insulting might not be such a great tactic I suppose, but hey). Like Musket, I quietly absorb lots of people's views expressed here, even coming from people I don't like. It helps to give a better perspective of the kaleidoscope of opinion and might even help me to adjust some of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:54 AM

Ian, there is simply no way of proving spirituality or faith, it is in the mind of the "spiritual" or the "faithful."
My stance on homosexuality is reinforced by studies,statistics and all of the official health agencies.

I dont think you are a bad or bigoted person for believing that male homosexuals can regulate their behaviour and fit into conventional society, but the evidence so far says that they are unwilling or unable to do so. Your stance may not be in the long term interests of homosexual health....but that is for you to come to terms with.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:05 AM

Your stance appears to be based on cherrypicking predicated on your pre-existing bias against homosexual people, whom you simply don't understand. It looks revolting to me. And to a lot of other people, I'd suggest. And that is for you to come to terms with. In this matter you are an aggressor, not a victim, no matter how much name-calling you think you attract to yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:08 AM

Steve...In the area in which I reside and in truth the country that I live in, my views appear to be mainstream.
Scotland has always been a socially conservative nation.

Its all a matter of perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:11 AM

I'm sorry, but claiming strength in numbers does not alter the argument one jot.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:29 AM

I don't believe Scotland is any different from the UK as a whole when it comes to attitudes towards homosexuals. Nowadays we are far more accepting of people than we were for instance in the 1970s when I was a teenager.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

Strange? I don't find Scotland any different to anywhere else. When I managed a place in Airdre, the pubs were full of the same bar room barristers as in Chesterfield. When I spend time in Edinburgh, it is as multicultural as London. My wife was in Inverurie at the weekend and enjoyed her time there. She wouldn't have bothered if the room was going to be full of bigots.

No. Other than the midges in summer and the depressing weather the rest of the time, Scotland is the same as the rest of our country. In every sense.

Scotland has always been socially conservative? Now we are talking! I can enjoy arguing that without having to have a wash afterwards, as I feel important to do when discussing gay issues with you.

In that case, Scotland is full of socialist pandas. It was, I believe, one of your heroes who first pointed out there are more pandas than conservative MPs in Scotland?

if you mean conservative in the other sense, then yes, there are some miserable presbyterian dour buggers, especially around Fife.

But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle}   Alex Salmond supports equality, gay marriage and inclusiveness. Now... would he say that if there weren't votes in it?

Wake up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:18 AM

.... watching.... hoping....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:36 AM

""If everybody made it clear that this will not be tolerated, posted a huge STOP!!!! after any post where that is happening, let the poster know that this insulting name is not acceptable, then refused to engage with this person in that post or any other post until they apologized and promised to cease and desist from such behaviour..........my guess is that this kind of behaviour would become rare.""

One of the joys of this forum is that it is not hedged about by the restrictive oppression of those whose aim in life is to make everybody conform to there own idea of what is right or wrong.

The best way to decimate the membership would seem to be curtailing the right of free speech.

The bottom line is that there are two sections. The most important being upstairs, the folk music section.

The BS section down below is a freewheeling snake pit of conflicting opinions, but I'd venture to state with conviction that regular contributors would, almost without exception, admit to having learned, from the discussions, things which they hadn't previously known.

And guess what?......Nobody is compelled ever to open any thread in that section.

And BTW, it seems that you have chosen strangely mild epithets to moan about.

Goofus? I've been called much worse than that and I'm still here. So is Goofu...er....GfS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 AM

I still like fugitive from sanity. He can't complain because a) I tend to be choosy who I allow my dog to make a fuss of and b) I write him poetry.

Tell you what, it isn't the ones like me people should be wary of, its those who insult without knowing they are doing it. Funnily enough, most of those seem to be wanting us all to agree with each other. Nothing more frustrating than those who can't understand why you won't fit in their perception box or if you don't share their outlook, there must be a reason for it. That alone has filled the BS swearbox coffers lately.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:59 AM

Hhhmmmmm....

The so-sad thread Obit thread for Katlaughing had a high content of "I don't come here very often anymore" openers from old friends. I wonder why...

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:03 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:12 AM

I still say it's the 'fucks' rather than the [imo rather anodyne] names! Too boring not to be able to read two lines without a fuck or a shit or a bollox or a cunt. Not witty. Not "cathartic". Just vulgar & childish.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:18 AM

If you had left the 'bollox' off there, Michael, that would have been hell of a confession. It certainly would have been taken out of context and come back to bite you on the bum :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: MartinRyan
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:20 AM

Errrrr, isn't that how this thread started, Martin?


Hadn't seen the original thread - sporadic Internet access over the past week or so.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

No probs - At least you know now.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Megan L
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:21 AM

The problem is when we all lived in villages we knew who had mental or emotional problems which resulted in them repeating themselves ad-nauseum. Unfortunately the internet has expanded the village but not the knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:54 AM

Oh! Scotland is socially conservative all right, I've lived here when it was a Conservative heartland.

Rural Scotland has always been socially and politically conservative I know because for many years I was.."the only Communist in the village".
Only the rise of the Scottish Nationalist Party, has weaned folks away from political conservatism.......but social conservatism is still very much the mainstream.
Many people still use the Church for BM&D, read "The Broons" and have their "purritch" in the mornin' :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:04 AM

"But to say Scotland supports your Gay stance?   {chortle"

My stance is to cut the horrific new infections of all STD's in male homosexuality.......Doesn't EVERYONE (who knows about them) support that stance Ian?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:14 AM

We're just going to have to disagree on that Ake. The Scotland you know seemingly differs from the Scotland I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:04 PM

I've found that most efforts to control negativity in an Internet forum, usually only make things worse. "Standing your ground" against Internet bullies, only eggs them on. Any sort of attention serves to feed the trolls who cause trouble to serve their craving for attention. And those who seek combat, also seek an audience - so any attention paid to them, gives them just what they're seeking. Then there are the troublemakers I hate most - the self-righteous prigs who feign innocence and start discussions in areas that are bound to end in chaos. They, also, are craving attention.

I have a theory that many or most of these people are driven by their sexual inadequacy. They can't have a normal sex life, so they go on the Internet and cause trouble. When they succeed, it's an orgasm for them, so they masturbate. I'd hate to put my fingers anywhere near their keyboards.

There are all sorts of things that people think will control these distasteful people, but none of them seem to work. The only sure-fire tactic against Internet troublemakers, is silence; and the discipline of a silent response is almost impossible to maintain in a forum like this.

I did my best to try to keep the peace here for well over ten years, and then retired to doing music editing and indexing and tech help and registration. I'm much happier doing that, and there's no end of work to do. I'd like to see a "DTStudy or "Origins" thread exploring every single song in the Digital Tradition Database - and verifying the sources and lyrics of each song in the DT. I'd like to see more answers for our Unanswered Requests database (in the QuickLinks dropdown menu). I'd welcome help posting and exploring all the songs in Carl Sandburg's American Songbag. And I'd like to see people volunteer to update untended PermaThreads.

As I said, all the efforts to control the nastiness, just don't woirk. There IS one thing that works, however, and that's the music content here at Mudcat. When there are healthy, interesting music discussions, everything else seems to fall into line. People forget about the bickering, and the bickerers get bored. So, if you care about this forum, contribute something worthwhile to its content. Ask an intelligent question or make an intelligent comment in a thread. Look for interesting, older threads with the Filter and resurrect them by adding new information or questions. Post the text (not just a link) of an interesting article you've come across, and then say what you think about it. Posts that contain links and no information, are more-or-less worthless - if you care enough to post a link, take one step further and summarize what's in the link and say what you think about it. Take the time to use the Filter to look for existing threads to resurrect and continue on a subject before starting a new thread on something that's been discussed forty times before. Use care when giving a title to a thread, so it tells the community what you want to discuss.

In short, it's the positive things we all do, that make a difference here. Negative energy, even when it's meant to make things better, just creates more negative energy. Control of the bad things really doesn't work, although our Moderation Team works hard to keep the worst of the nastiness under control. But if you contribute intelligent questions and information, especially about folk music, you'll be amazed how much better this forum will be.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:09 PM

*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:20 PM

Thanks Joe. I respect your wisdom.   I was going to ask if there is one thing re. what is and what isn't appropriate that virtually all mudcatters would agree on.......but I think you just posted it.

I'm now going to take a look at some of those unanswered requests and see if I can find any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: maeve
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:33 PM

Thank you, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:35 PM

Joe, I know this isn't the right thread for this......but in the unanswered requests one I submitted a while back is missing.   A song called "The Hope Princeton Highway".   Maybe I'll refresh it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:47 PM

I will no longer post anything below the line. I may remove myself altogether; I am tired of facing excremental sewage from 3-4 who are here only to make trouble.

"Moderation Team"- I see little evidence that one exists. If one does, it should have clearly stated rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:54 PM

One topic that has intrigued me, is The Songs of Percy French. And the Percy French question that has burned in my brain for decades, is: Did Percy
French really write Abdul Abulbul Amir? I mean, how could a man with a name like Percy, write a song like THAT???
Yes, we have a DTStudy thread on the song, but I'm still not satisfied that we have conclusive evidence that Percy was the songwriter.

Another burning question that has not been thoroughly explored: how is Francis James Child tied to the song titled One Meat Ball?


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 12:55 PM

Dedicated

To those unknown singers
Who made songs
Out of Love, Fun, Grief
And to those Many Other Singers
Who Kept Those Songs
As living things of the Heart and Mind
Out of Love, Fun, Grief


Thus the dedication written by Carl Sandburg long ago in his American Songbag.

Worth keeping in mind when the threads overheat. None of us would be here if not for some echo of this sentiment.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 01:55 PM

Hey Joe!

You are right in your ideal for the music side. Many of my posts are indeed about local folk clubs, finding old mates from the circuit many years ago and chipping in with information on particular songs, tues and instruments.

However, there is a BS section. It has little or no bearing on the music side and I fail to see comparisons. In fact, in someways they could be different websites. I certainly converse with different people.

With regard to what is respectful, I am sure someone with a well polished halo and sheltered upbringing has a different view of the boundary than where the likes me me enjoys rolling with the pigs. Before anybody starts crying to the moderators, they should differentiate between actual abusive behaviour and forcefully disagreeing with a stance.

I for one was bemused to see a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks. Fascinating...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 02:18 PM

Yeah, Musket, but it's something I've observed over the years, to the point that I really believe it's true: if the music discussion here is rich and healthy, that healthiness spills over to the BS side - all with very little control.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket agreeing but..
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:02 PM

Assuming friendly discourse teases out issues?

If you smell bullshit, you don't get anywhere complimenting their aftershave. If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?

In the final analysis, this isn't, as I noted elsewhere, a sitcom from your neck of the woods. We don't need to end it with a moral whilst all nodding in agreement. It's ok to disagree. It's not really a problem to pull someone up for being beyond decency by blunt methods. Anything less and you ain't getting anywhere....

Doesn't affect the music.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:07 PM

When everyone starts rolling with the pigs, they become pigs.

If summit meetings employed the level of insult in question, we'd be at World War XII by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 03:37 PM

"...a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks."

Loses something in the translation to MusketSpeak...☺

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 04:07 PM

"If the object of the exercise is to debate, influence and see different views, where in the name of all that is holy (Clapton generally speaking) is the need to end the debate with consensus?"


I agree, the object in these kind of discussions isn't consensus. But if it is to debate, influence, and see different views, let's do it in the way that is most effective.   And calling people names just shuts them down....or, in some cases (as Joe points out) gives them undeserved attention.

It's much easier to influence somebody if that somebody feels that in some areas you are one of 'them'....and that you have some understanding of---and yes, even compassion---where they are at.

I think it's a skill. And I guess not everybody on mudcat is interested in learning it. But.......I do think it's wise to know your own intention.   Is it verbal masturbation? Pissing people off? Letting the world know how amazing you are?   Convincing people that your right and decent take on things really is right and decent? To help others who are asking for help? Or to feel/demonstrate a 'connection' with others in the mudcat community?

And once you know what you want.....then you can learn to do it well.

Frankly, if the intention of most people who post ends up being totally different from mine (the last three), then I'll probably stop posting. And my guess is that others with that same intention will also end up with less energy to post.

Then who do we have left?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:02 PM

Facts is facts Ian.....if you dont like them,complain to HPA/CDC ...dont abuse the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket on the button
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:25 PM

Here is an example.

Akenaton? Fuck off.

See? It's easy.

Bill, the translation doesn't need a Rosetta Stone, nor indeed a babel fish. Akenaton demonstrates it clearly above. He is aware of those involved in UK healthcare on Mudcat and uses every opportunity to spread his wish to outlaw gay lifestyle, the HPA/CDC reference being his use of HIV figures to justify his disgusting stance. He follows me around because I am involved in trying to deal with health issues, planning and funding NHS care.

So... These boundaries that we wish people to respect? Is gay hatred more acceptable than telling him to fuck off?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:31 PM

Absolute rubbish, you had just accused me of spreading "odious opinions"......I do not, I give the official figures which say that there is a serious problem with male/male sex.....and that something radical needs to be done.

Do you want the same useless procedures to continue?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:33 PM

Just because someone calls someone else goofus or wacko or bearded bullshit (that's my personal favorite), doesn't mean they are that. Joe, I don't think there is any real cause for concern here. I reject your psychoanalysis, I think I'd use the term "existential crisis" and include myself in this group. As for the insults, it's largely shtick. The boys down below like to play rough. It's a good thing they are not in the same room. There could be injuries.

Liar bothers me a lot. That's YOU Jim! People have different experiences, they read different books, they have different ways of processing information. That doesn't make them liars. Keith is not a liar. I make up my mind about people and I am just as stubborn as you are. Liar is a bad word to use in any discussion. Once you use that word, the other person is not even listening. How can they? When someone calls me a liar in the course of pushing their own agenda, I know it's over.

Now Joe, if you and the other moderators want to make Mudcat a better place, here's one teeny thing you could do for me. If you see a thread that says, "To Edward Snowden, With Love" or ""Aye, It's a True Song", that means I am totally trashed and just casually conversing with my iphone. If you see anything like that, nip it in the bud.

Michael, you are right. There's no need for foul language. Something could fly out of someone's mouth, but writing is a very deliberate process. Every now and again, it might be appropriate, but used to excess, it shows no class.

gnu, great song. Love my Supremes!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 05:51 PM

Ian....I have much better things to do than follow you around.
I am at present engaged in working out my dogs grading for next week's race at Sittingbourne.....much more interesting than reading your foul ranting.

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.
If you wish to voice your opinions on important issues,make sure you have the facts clear in your mind, because you dont take well to being corrected.

Afew years ago, your accusations and sneering attitude would not have been tolerated.....I on the other hand have broken none of the rules of this forum, never having had a post deleted or a even warning from admin....in ten years.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:18 PM

We were involved in debate on another thread regarding MSM infection rates, when you were unable to answer the questions I posed to you, you resorted to abuse and it is being continued here in an attempt to get yourself off the hook with the moderators.

This is sheer misrepresentation. I also took you on over your campaign to smear gay people with your infection statistics and you ignored me. The conclusion can only be that you are on some kind of anti-gay crusade. If I call you a bigoted homophobe, some would see that as name-calling and an insult. Unfortunately for you, there is the severe danger that I would actually be stating a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:20 PM

That keeps happening with me. I promise that I only click the bloody thing once.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:41 PM

"I for one was bemused to see a sanctimonious prig reckon that an odious viewpoint put politely was better than reason applied with a round of fucks."

I'd have thought the point is that whether what is involved is an odious viewpoint or reason applied it is much better put politely than with a round of fucks. Swearing at someone in an argument is completely irrelevant and distracting. Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument.

As for a teem like "sanctimonious prig" - the point isn't whether someone is a sanctimoniousr prig, it's whether they are right or wrong. Unfortunately sanctimonious prigs can often be right, just as people with appalling view can often be modest and charming.

One problem that arises when we refer to someone by a nickname etc., whether offensive or friendly, is that it can make it hard to know who is being referred to, especially when a number of other people have posted in the intervening period.

Incidentally I couldn't see that the thread that got closed, which Larry the Radio Guy mentioned in the opening post, was in the least toxic by the time it got shut down. It's a hard call to make I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 06:45 PM

In response to the opening post:

Larry, I confess to referring to one of the posters here as "Goofball." This is a variation on the "handle" he uses (his preferring to stay anonymous for very understandable reasons!).

I readily admit that this is not the maturest course of action, but I didn't start doing this UNTIL he attacked me—not the arguments I was posting, but me personally—because I had the temerity to disagree with many of his statements. He didn't argue with my rebuttals, he just started calling me names and trying to run down my moral character.

And he took to playing with MY name, (which is my real name, by the way) by calling me things like "Dork Froth."

Furthermore, it was not long before I noticed that he was stalking me from thread to thread.

No, I do not respect him, because his arguments are silly and fatuous, and he obviously—and gratuitously—takes the opposite view on most discussions, apparently looking for a confrontation with a number of different people, including me. And most of what he posts flies in the face of reason and provable facts, which he blows off as being held by "so-called 'liberals.'"

Along with this, if I happen to post any personal information, he twists it into the worst possible light and attacks me in terms of my morals and ethics.

And if this weren't enough, he salts his posts with four-letter obscenities (his favorite adjective appears to be "fucking") and gratuitous insults of the sort that he would not DARE use to someone's face.

A foul mouthed, cowardly stalker with all the earmarks of a troll.

"Goofball" is mild compared to what he has called me, and granted, I should simply ignore him, but sometimes the lies he tells simply have to be set straight.

There have been such people before who did not know how to behave among normal human beings (such as the notorious "Martin Gibson") who have been blocked. I wish the Powers That Be here at Mudcat would banish this person in a like manner. He adds nothing to the forum.

And then, there is Songwronger. He has posted more misinformation on this website than anyone I know (with the possible exception of Beardedbruce and Akenaton). One of his threads was the claim that polio vaccine is contaminated with cancer cells. This is simply NOT TRUE, and referred to some contaminated vaccine some sixty years ago which was quickly taken off the market once discovered, and actually had no apparent effect on those who did receive the contaminated vaccine. Yet—there he was, trying to frighten people into NOT getting the vaccine when recommended by their doctors.

I pointed out that he bears a moral responsibility if he frightens someone into not getting the vaccine and then they subsequently contract polio. And in that post, I referred to him, not as "Songwronger," but "Scare Monger." Which is a highly accurate description of what he was doing.

Some people who insist on posting on the web are just damned irresponsible!! And those who know better are remiss if they do not speak out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

How can it be "anti gay" to draw attention to these horrific figures?
Surely it is much more "anti gay" to attempt to conceal them and continue with a policy which obviously,to every sane person IS NOT WORKING.

Look, in all honesty, it seems that you people dont care a damn about the epidemic which is affecting homosexuals all you really care about is some mad "equality" agenda
Where serious health issues are concerned the "rights" of the individual take second place to stopping the epidemic.

Is that REALLY hatred?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:06 PM

Don...where have I posted "misinformation"?

You may not like what I have posted, but it is taken directly from official health agency sites......so why do you traduce me as the biggest liar on Mudcat?
I expected better of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:11 PM

I've noted the despicable nonsense levelled at you by Guffo, Don (OK if I call him that? :-)) and I also note the frustration you express in your post about people posting misinformation. I'd add to that one of the cardinal sins of the internet, one which is much worse than direct insults: misrepresentation. Wacko did that twice with me in that shut-down thread, claiming things about my posts that were simply false and utterly unsupportable. What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing! To be honest, I'd rather be called a "fucking asshole" by Little Hawk than be misrepresented (though he manages both things at once). Then you have people like slippery pete who charms everyone with his deliberately-false self-deprecation before posting the most ignorant and insulting nonsense you've ever read. The icing on the cake there is the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty to this nastiest piece of work. Right, end of rant. These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are. I feel I may have to question my own sanity. Not you, Guffers. Go back to sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:19 PM

Steve...I didn't ignore you out of spite or because I am on an "anti gay crusade"...I did so because I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

I was proposing much better education for all in sexual matters whilst you were doing the triumphalist bit about your devastating figures in order to show how horrid gay people are. How dare you suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. Is it OK if I call you an intolerant and ignorant git with tunnel vision, because that's what I'm thinking right now?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:27 PM

"Guffo" "Wacko" "slippery pete"

I'm sure Steve Shaw knows whom he's referring to. Perhaps they do as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:32 PM

OK by me Steve...feel free, if I'm to be insulted I prefer it to be in impeccable English.   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:34 PM

Ake, I didn't call you the "biggest" liar on Mudcat, nor did I call you a "liar." I said that you, among others, post a great deal of misinformation.

Your CDC figures are highly selective, slanting your viewpoint. I have read the figures myself, and I come up with considerably different indications.

AND--you argue against the one thing that would do the most to mitigate the spread of HIV/AIDs: reducing promiscuity by encouraging stable relationships.

Which YOU say homosexuals don't want, but most homosexuals say they DO want.

Misinformation, based on your own prejudices.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

Guest from Sanity, Jack The Sailor and Guest pete from seven stars link. God yes. They know who they are all right.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:45 PM

I was answering others at the time, who seemed to actually know what they were "talking" about.

This peculiar fellow rails against others who he sees as insulting him yet can, apparently without irony, still come out with this. Amazing how self-described insult-victims can actually be among the worst dishers-out of insults, innit.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:49 PM

How about respecting the boundaries of this thread and moving the discussion regarding gay rights/homophobia to an existing thread where that is the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:53 PM

Nah. Thread drift is a wonderful thing. Nearly every thread I've ever started on the interwebby thingie has been hijacked. Roll with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 07:59 PM

The fact that you cannot recognise irony Steve, does not mean that it doesn't exist.

Mr McGrath...is our acknowledged expert....and most humerous exponent, PM him for assistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:03 PM

If hijacking rings one's chime, and what matters most to one is getting one's chime rung (ringed? rang? runged?) then I suppose one goes for it. Enjoy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:04 PM

I'm up to late..*humorous*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:05 PM

too.....zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:09 PM

"...the gullible souls who crowd round him to pat him on the head, indulge him and tell the rest of us not to be so nasty..."

I think I'll write a book about my adventures in cyber-land and call it "Gullible's Travails"

I think it may frustrate Steve more to see polite debate than to see the "stupidity" he frets over, when he is so sure those "gullible souls" are taken in by "deliberately-false self-deprecation".

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere. I take their word for it, and I see it myself, even as I try to counter most of what Pete claims. I am able to keep "respectful boundaries" about (most) people even when I have serious problems with their opinions & beliefs.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:10 PM

I think that so often we make assumptions about the intent or motives of another person based on a little bit of information......and instead of checking it out (which I find is best done by communicating our judgments then asking them if they agree, we resort to name calling.

It happened to me in one of my first posts to mudcat where I became involved in a discussion.   I don't even know where I'd look to find it, and I said something that proved to be incorrect.

And Don Firth, since, you don't seem to be afraid to put yourself forward, I'll take the risk and let you know that it was you.   I doubt if you'll remember....but I think it had something to do with me confusing the 7th chord with what is called the 'dominant 7th' chord, and, while I can't remember the words used, the impression was that somehow I was pretending to be a know-it-all who was spreading false information about topics I knew nothing about. In actual fact I was only trying to get some feedback on what appeared to me to be a point of confusion.....the different way that I believed chords were labelled in the pop music and the classical music tradition.

I wasn't looking for an argument, a fight, praise, or a personal putdown (I got the latter).   

It's true that I had been wrong, and I think it was important that I was corrected.....and I appreciated the correction.    But the 'tone' of the correction inhibited me from posting much more.....until fairly recently.

And I guess it affected me because I still remember it. And I'm glad to be able to have the opportunity, with the greatest respect for you, to put this forward.

While I think it's good to develop a strong backbone, I have to agree with McGrath from Harlow when he writes "Politeness is in fact a far better weapon in inflicting damage on a faulty argument."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

I posted before that pete is known PERSONALLY by two members here, both of whom took the time to assure us that Pete is an nice, honest guy who is totally sincere.

He is one of the most insincere people you could ever wish to meet. He spouts his nonsense and insults honest scientists at every opportunity and he does not listen to a word you say. Soft faces, hard cases.

"These navel-gazing meta-chats are lovely, aren't they, but what a bloody waste of time they are."

A waste of time? Oh...right.... like spending hours telling others they are stupid and others that they are spending too much time being gullible.

And they say there's no such thing as perpetual motion! :>)

I did tell you I was thinking of questioning my own sanity. But, with pete, you are extremely gullible. He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch. You indulge him and as a result he continues to clutter up the forum with his nasty rubbish. You have a fair bit to answer for on that score, which is presumably why you feel the need to get all defensive, but what the hell. You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:32 PM

Perhaps it is wisest to avoid referring to anyone else as "the nastiest piece of work". That is an epithet that is only too likely to be redirected at any person who confers it.
...............

The problem with threads that go toxic isn't that their presence, and the presence of the few people who make them toxic somehow corrupts the Mudcat, or that somehow it's got worse. It's that potentially interesting and enjoyable discussions, or exchanges of good natured comments (including good natured insults) get diverted. The threads either fade away nastily, or they get terminated, sometimes prematurely. It's a shame, but one the Mudcat has lived with always.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM

I admire the honesty and integrity of what you just posted, LtRG. I also think such a post does have the potential power, over time, to shift things.

You have courage, and are not yet weary.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 08:39 PM

Read his posts, a good many of which manage to diss perfectly good science in the cause of his young-earth creationism. The latter is fine by me as we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists, who have done all the work whilst he has done none, is vindictive, prejudiced and nasty, and deserves to be jumped on. You can fool some of the people some of the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:26 PM

Larry, I don't remember that at all, and would appreciate it if you could point it out to me so I can see what I actually said.

I have studied music formally (in University and in a conservatory) and I've taught music for years. I'm not about to make a mistake in that area. nor, as a teacher, am I about to blow someone off the way you describe.

So--please document your allegation.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:37 PM

[Sigh]
Sometimes, I think we need to have a playpen, where the more childish of us can be sent to

beat each other silly!!!!

Ahhhh. That felt better.


At one time, I devised a very clever Mudcat Certified Asshole Award. I thought it worked quite well, giving credit where credit was due; until one recipient went and tattled to Max. Max gave me a directed meditation on the Zen of Forum Moderation. Ooooooom.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:43 PM

"we're all entitled to our delusions, but serially insulting scientists,.."

**IF** it's a delusion, it's not necessarily an insult. An insult, to my way of thinking, is intentional. And if one is entitled to a delusion, he should also be free to defend it as best he can.

"He clearly relishes your exchanges yet he does not alter his position one inch." What a surprise! After all, he "has a delusion"! Maybe if I YELL AT HIM IN CAPITALS he will change!

Let me have MY delusion and just conduct a debate about evolution & such. I state the premises about it pretty strongly, hoping that any drop-ins will see the science prevailing over the religious circular reasoning.

"You and pete are nothing if not fun to behold."

Well.. glad to be of service.... now, 'shhhh' just watch and giggle. (If Pete returns to this next week)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:51 PM

I have no doubts whatsoever about your musical expertise, Don.

I have no idea how I would even find the post....I don't even remember the topic. I'll try look for it, though, because I'm kind of curious too, as it made quite the impression on me.

But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 09:53 PM

I was speaking with God just this morning and She told me to be nice at the Mudcat Cafe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:06 PM

I've looked at the titles of all the threads in which you have posted, Larry, and I've run a "Super Search" for "7th chords."

I can't find anything that seems likely.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 10:30 PM

I must admit that there are times, both in real life and on the Web, that I wish I could say, "Sir, my friends will call upon you", bow politely and leave stiffly -- and mean it. I often wonder how different manners would be if expressed opinions and subsequent insults had to be defended with the speaker's or writer's life.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 13 - 11:54 PM

" What he said were blatant untruths, so why shouldn't I call him a liar? He knew exactly what he was doing!"

That is a lie and I proved by quoting you.


I said that Mr. Shaw insults someone in most of his posts. Look at this thread. Is that point not proved here?



I don't call him Steve because he is not my friend. I call him Mr. Shaw, or Shaw because it is a polite way to ensure that other people know that I am talking to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:10 AM

Mr Shaw and Mr Sailor, get a room!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket being patriotic
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:31 AM

I've got a good feeling. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:18 AM

Don... I would answer the points you make in your 7:30 post, ut as Janie says perhaps this is not the thread to get into detail.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:26 AM

Ah! That's it.

The devil is in the detail.....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Allan Conn
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:28 AM

"But my point is that sometimes the tone of voice.....even if it isn't intended....can discourage many people who might have a lot to offer from putting themselves forward."

I think the real intention of posters doesn't always come across the way that it would for instance in a bar over a pint. You can't see the twinkle in someone's eye hence the reader doesn't always interpret the post as it is meant to be. They might think the post is condescending when it is not meant to be. Short of lacing every line with smiley faces (which I can't imagine anyone wants) then maybe the best idea is if you are unsure if a post is being negative to you or not then give the poster the benefit of the doubt. Initially at least!

On the wider issue of course some posts are insulting. However, and I am not meaning to be complacent here, compared to most elsewhere on the net the posters in here are actually really civil. I used to post in newsgroups. In particular soc.culture.scottish and in the end it just became a joke as the thing was over run by really nasty trolls which chased most of the proper posters away. Likewise just visit youtube and the behaviour on many threads is awful. On here though even the threads where people continually argue with another individual (for example the Keith and Jim threads) are for the most part people putting actual points to each other. Not just filled with insults etc. So I am not being complacent as of course things can deteriorate but we are a long way off that at the moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:14 AM

Scottish culture eh? At least you don't have to wait long for the page to refresh after posting...


How do you do a bloody smiley face?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM

I don't need a room. Suffice to say that that last post from Wacko completely misrepresents the exchange in the now-closed thread.

Sorry, Bill, but pete does a damn sight more than defend his delusion. He frequently takes the opportunity to bad-mouth "darwinists", Darwin, "evolutionists" and the like. Yet he abundantly demonstrates time and time again that he doesn't have even the faintest understanding of the stuff he criticises. By any measure this is extremely unpleasant behaviour. He demonstrates no respect for honest scientific endeavour. This, in case you haven't noticed it, is my big issue with him and his ilk. I don't give a stuff about his delusion but I'll keep on at him until he decides to refrain from his attacks on good science and honest scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:39 AM

Raparee. Interesting question, that if your life depended on it etc, would it change your perspective. Me? I'd still call a spade a spade on the internet and an earth inverting horticultural implement to someone's face.

I'd just have a bloody big dog at the side of me. (I do, but he is a greyhound so he doesn't count, unless you dress up in a rabbit costume and start running.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:20 AM

Be fair Steve, neither we nor the scientists have any more idea of how the universe began than the creationists.

Lets admit that on that issue we are all in ignorance?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 06:51 AM

I think Pete from the 7 Stars genuinely believes in his nonsense. Every song he sings is about God-bothering. But it is frustrating to see such irrationality.

Fugitive from Sanity and Ding-Dong and several others I believe to be malicious. But at least I can glean some idea of what they want.

Ake - I have no idea. I can see what he hates - gypsies, gays, every political party (some more than others), probably a load of other things too - but I am damned if I can see what he would like to see.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:01 AM

A world after Capitalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:30 AM

Richard....I don't know and have never met any "gypsies", I have no reason to hate them.
My neighbour, who moved here from Yorkshire, hates them with a passion, He says they would steal the sugar out your tea.....I have no way of verifying that so ...innocent till proved guilty in my eyes.

In this area, we have community of Scots/Irish tinkers, I have just this week been robbed by them to the value of over £500
When we last discussed this matter they were involved in drug dealing and money lending(to young drug addicts)....repayments were enforced at knife point.....subsequently, several have been jailed and the encampment closed "for maintenance".
Due to their protected special status their drug dealing activities went on uninterrupted for several years.

There are thieves and drug dealers in all sections of society, but "special status" makes this sort of activity easy ....it is the legislation that I am against, not the people.

Homosexuals? certainly not, I wish to see them defeat the horrific rates of infection which afflict them.

Political Parties?....Probably so, as they all work for their Capitalist master and he is the Great Satan......why do you and Ian not save a little of your bile for him? I'm sure he deserves it as much as I do?.....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:37 AM

Be fair Steve, neither we nor the scientists have any more idea of how the universe began than the creationists.

Lets admit that on that issue we are all in ignorance?

That's a nonsensical piece of false equivalence and, in any case, it is not the issue. Science tries to get to the truth by gathering evidence and applying all our intellectual prowess to it. Creationism is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever and flies in the face of all natural laws. We are entitled to challenge and ridicule notions that are constructed in this way, but creationists are not entitled to dish the dirt on good, honest science. Science requires hard work and application. Creationism requires no work at all, just whimsy, denial and delusion. It ill-behoves the latter to dish dirt on the former. Or, at any rate, they do so at their peril as far as I'm concerned. Creationists who possess that delusion but keep quiet about it are probably very nice chaps. Creationists who attack good science are nasty pieces of work. Just look at the effect they have in the US education system. Horrible people, persuading four yanks in ten that evolution is a lie. We should neither indulge them nor let them get away with attempts to propagate their malicious nonsense, not even here.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:47 AM

But surely the fact of the universe itself flies in the face of all natural laws?
I am not disagreeing with you...I cannot come to terms with the creationist belief, but many of the beliefs held by we "sane" people are just as incredible?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:56 AM

Of course it doesn't. As far as science goes in general, and the origin of the universe in particular, we don't have to "believe" anything. We come to conclusions after considering evidence. The conclusions may be conditional, but "beliefs" is a word best reserved for other areas of human endeavour that trump (in the minds of adherents) the need for evidence. That avoids confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM

Another aspect, what possible good could it do humanity to know the origin of the Universe? Are we not better to believe in creation and a benevolent deity....perhaps we could become better people by suspending cynicism?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:04 AM

Sorry Steve..cross posted, but I must take you up on your point.

The "cornerstons" of our society are not scientific facts, but beliefs.

"Freedom, Equality and Democracy"....dont REALLY exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:11 AM

I confess. I once called Steve Shaw a Muppet.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:42 AM

The "cornerstons" of our society are not scientific facts, but beliefs.

That's as maybe, but the cornerstone of scientific endeavour is evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:50 AM

Yes, but some "sane" people cleave to these beliefs as if they were real.

They have sandwich boards with "Equality is the Reality" written on them in big black letters!! :0o

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:53 AM

Anyone who believes equality is real ain't a full shilling!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:59 AM

Another aspect, what possible good could it do humanity to know the origin of the Universe?

The quest for that knowledge helps us to elucidate the nature and properties of matter, knowledge which is vital to our continuing technological advance. And we would like to know the truth (or at least get a bit nearer to it), some of us.

Are we not better to believe in creation and a benevolent deity

Absolutely not. We are better off seeking truth in honest fashion (in other words, by hard work, mental toil and endless investigation, not by fanciful guesswork and suspension of part of our intellects), even if we never get there. Real truth I mean, not "greater truths", before some religious fellow or other chimes in.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:19 AM

Eyup Dave... Equality is subjective. Doesn't mean you can't have it. It didn't take scientific discovery to say anybody in love can marry for instance, just a debate and Parliamentary vote. If you are in a car crash, the ambulance scoops you up on medical need, not race, gender or age.

True equality means we are all the same height, weight and political outlook. Diversity is good though. Even gnomes can buy me a drink if they so wish.




Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:31 AM

Fairy Nuff, Musky, but the examples you quote are not universal. Can anyone in love marry in some of the more oppressive regimes? Is health care the same for everyone the world over? I think not but, yes, if we restrict it to our own experience you are right. And I'll buy anyone a pint as long as they buy me three back. I'm trying my best to become a Yorkshireman...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:34 AM

I have seen no evidence of real equality in my lifetime Dave.

Unless you see the "marriage" of two men as equal to the marriage of a man and a woman?
There is one natural inequality there!

The rich and the poor are as far apart as ever...more so in fact.
Its still the rich wot gets the pleasure, and the poor wot pays for it


Judicial equality is a sick joke!
Two years in jail for stealing toilet rolls.....and a million pound bonus for buggering up the economy!

Need I go on, if you were any kind of socialist I wouldn't need to.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:41 AM

Steve...I know you're a decent guy, and I more or less agree with you MOST of the time, but, in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:44 AM

if you were any kind of socialist I wouldn't need to.

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that that my social conscience is anything other than fair? I think this is what we are talking about when it is said that some people overstep respectful boundaries. I will give you the benefit seeing as we seem to agree that equality is not there yet. Would it not have been better to find out something about me rather than impugning my character?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:52 AM

Of course I didn't mean that Dave, I'm sure you have an admirable social conscience. I cross posted and apologise if you feel impugned.
I was wrong to write that sentence.

We have squabbled pretty amicably over the years.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:11 AM

:-)

Glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thanks for the confirmation.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:27 AM

To akenaton,, Dave the Gnome, Steve Shaw, and Musket,

Your current discussion is very consistent with this thread, and it reinforces my own concept of reinforcing respectful boundaries.

I like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:47 AM

Well don't let me spoil it then...

Dave, equality globally cannot be achieved by me & thee. We members of the human race though accept that it doesn't mean you try to treat people equally where it is possible to do so. Judicial reasoning on each case on merit can throw out some howlers, but justice is overall blind, and those who compare cases for their own agenda have a rather warped view of justice.

The gay marriage bit is an excellent example. Nothing to stop people in love from getting married. I'm not gay and I haven't loved a bloke, fancied a bloke or shagged one, but as there is no reason why two lovers cannot commit to marriage, we now have chiselled a bit of equality. The fact that I cannot begin to see the attraction in that sense of a man is neither here nor there. it doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter. Each to their own.

There are some who still see gay people as second class citizens, but time always wins.

Some religious people want to see their restrictions imposed on others. Some non religious people want to see religious restrictions removed. Neither are supporting equality and neither can prevail. Democracy may not be the best system, after all it gives us the bloody government, but as nobody has come up with anything better, (and you would need, ironically, the democratic will of the people to remove it,) we are stuck with everybody having a bit of a say, however small. (We don't have full equality and never shall.)

Sorry for addressing this to you rather than to anyone else, but if I address this to the {person} above who states just there, at the top of your screen or scroll up a bit, yes - just there... that gay marriage isn't equal to something or other.. I'd have to disappoint Larry the Radio Guy, and by saying time always wins, I am sailing close to the wind as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 10:50 AM

I believe that most people on Mudcat do indeed show some respect where it is due and often when it is not! I always assume that respect is warranted until proved otherwise. As is sometimes the case :-(

The issue I have is where people insist that they are right and therefore everyone who disagrees with them is wrong, unfeeling, uncaring or just plain stupid. There are not many and I will not name them but I think you would find some surprising exponents of that philosophy if you were to dig a little through past threads.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:01 AM

No probs, Musket. I like the Bob Dylan line in To Ramona.

I've heard you say many times
That you're better 'n no one
And no one is better 'n you
If you really believe that
You know you got
Nothing to win and nothing to lose

I think a lot of people forget one side or another of that equation when they talk about equality. Particularly those, ahem, how can I put it? Of a certain ecumenical persuasion.

Rest of it is Mr D's usual combination of pretension and obscurity but a nice song all the same :-) (Now, there's a way to start a row!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:50 AM

Despite the word 'spleen' in my anagram, I tend to think venting it online is a bad move. I do ocassionally snap at people I think are talking bollocks, but more often than not don't bother engaging - especially as I am quite capable of talking bollocks myself. Unless it's when someone is grunting and moaning about the evil nature of cyclists, of course... then I might have something to say!

I do think that odious shite wrapped in pretty ribbons is still odious shite, though I totally accept that to someone out there it's going to be lovely, sweet-smelling shite. I also think that if in making your point you're directly abusive to another, no matter how much you disagree with them, it reflects more badly on you than the person you're having a pop at. The battle of ideas is surely where it should be at? Though admittedly it's sometimes tempting to throw the odd barb...

I also think that wading into arguments, discussions and conversations purely in order to slightly snottily look down on the participants as some sort of lesser species engaged in their petty mortal squabbles is deeply unseemly. As is the approach taken by some of the posters here which seems to be "why can't all nasty people whose views I disagree with stop posting so we can simulate a world of peace and harmony where everyone thinks like me (or if they don't think like me at least they should keep their dirty mouths shut)." Finally, I am always slightly bemused by the people who tell us it was all lovely in the old days. I avoided Mudcat for ages because it had a reputation as a haven of bad tempered old gits... when I started coming here I discovered that everything they'd warned me was true... ;-)

Finally, some of us don't actually have the time or inclination to spend hours and hours here and become an integral part of the "community", aren't that bothered about earning a niche as a well-loved character and maybe get embarassed about the idea of emotioning on line to the entire world. That's actually ok, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 11:52 AM

""Moderation Team"- I see little evidence that one exists. If one does, it should have clearly stated rules.""

The thing about that Q, is that most people came here to get away from fora such as Auntie Beeb's various offerings, in which you could barely say "NO!" without being slung out.

Mudcat is divided in two for a reason.

It allows the moderately good mannered discussion of folk music, but also supplies a place in which you can call a fool a bloody idiot, without being banished.

IMHO, a good thing on balance. YMMV!

The point is, as I said earlier, there is nobody outside the door seizing passers by and throwing them inside. You, and you alone make the decision whether or not to expose yourself to the responses you will certainly get, so railing against offence is, in a way, decrying your own bad decisions.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:03 PM

Bah, "emotioning" isn't a word. I meant "emoting"...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:25 PM

""I think it's a skill. And I guess not everybody on mudcat is interested in learning it. But.......I do think it's wise to know your own intention.   Is it verbal masturbation? Pissing people off? Letting the world know how amazing you are?   Convincing people that your right and decent take on things really is right and decent? To help others who are asking for help? Or to feel/demonstrate a 'connection' with others in the mudcat community?""

The simple answer to that Larry, is that it is all of the above.

Since one encounters a range of differing personas, with differing perspectives and intentions, your (entirely desireable) wish to interact with them all in the same cordial, helpful and well mannered, though rather bland way, is unlikely to elicit the responses you expect.

In a melting pot of mixed cultures, it is necessary to be aware of that variety, and treat each person as an individual, though that may mean steeling yourself to call somebody a fool, if that is what you honestly believe him to be.

Racist or xenophobic posts do indicate strongly the presence of a racist or xenophobe at that particular keyboard, and deserve strong condemnation

A learned, measured and well constructed argument needs to be answered in kind.

There is nobody on this forum who engenders in me, feelings of hatred.

There are many, some of whose attitudes I deplore, detest, or otherwise find unpleasant.

There are a few that I would never be likely to call friend, and many that might, in the real world be good singing and drinking buddies.

There are a few whom I already number among my friends, and some of those I disagree with on certain subjects.

How could I possibly treat all of the above in exactly the same way?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 12:30 PM

...in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?

Ah, the myth of the Golden Age... No I don't. And I also think that science gets us closer to truth, along with art. Though we do seem to have forgotten how to write a good symphony.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:03 PM

""I have no idea how I would even find the post....I don't even remember the topic. I'll try look for it, though, because I'm kind of curious too, as it made quite the impression on me. Larry""

I think you said it was early in your time on Mudcat Larry.

OK.

Top of the page, click on personal page, and then activate the link "click for list of your personal thread messages".

This gives you everything you have ever posted in batches. At the bottom of the page there is box which says "posts starting with oldest"

Click on that, then run down the resulting list till you see a music thread and check it. It shouldn't take forever to find the one you want.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:22 PM

I'd like to see a lot less cut 'n pastes... They rarely add to an discussion... Some folks just string half a dozen of them together... Most are blogs that cannot be readily fact checked without having extra hours every day to do so... I think that limiting them to either links or using a single paragraph of them would be a vast improvement...

CAPS is a no, no... Every knows it yet some folks continue to SCREAM at others...

Also, when people make up stuff that they claim other people have said and then argue with the made up stuff it gets pretty old fast... Plus, it is dishonest...

Also, if I present an position and you challenge me on it, fine... If in my response I ask direct questions to someone who has challenged me and they refuse to answer them then that is also dishonest...

Also, there are people here who aren't even musicians who come here just to rile people up and they are very good at it...

Lastly, if you challenge me, fine... Allow me the time to respond before adding another half a dozen challenges... Some people have real lives other than sitting in front of a computer all day... I know I do... I work outside at least 7 hours a day... Sometimes more... Lots of us work and don't have hours and hours to plow thru those stacked up challenges...

Oh, and lastly, part 2... If you have OCD and locked in on another poster, get help for your addiction... I've had several stalkers here... One stalked me from another web site... I complained to Joe Offer... I still have at least one OCD-er here that I am ignoring because he is not rational... Hey, stalkers... Get help...

That's about it... Now back to work...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:29 PM

Bobert, I disagree. Not respectfully. Your opinions are my own, and now your claiming them as yours.

Sir, my friends would call upon you but I don't have any.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 01:32 PM

Thanks Larry :0).....Its easy if "ye jist keep the heid"... as we say in Scotland!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:05 PM

Also, when people make up stuff that they claim other people have said and then argue with the made up stuff it gets pretty old fast... Plus, it is dishonest...

This is the biggest crime here in my opinion. It's annoying to spend time correcting misrepresentation and it happens a lot. I'd rather be called names than misrepresented. If you ever get that feeling that you need to type "just read my post, will you..." you'll know what I mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 02:41 PM

Re:   Bobert's post of 30 Jul 13 - 01:22 PM, just above.

I agree totally!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:15 PM

There are plenty of people I feel no need to respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:30 PM

Richard....you make statements about people here which are patently untrue, when they call you on them, you vanish into the ether then turn up again saying there are "lots of people here that you dont respect"

Well i suspect few here respect someone who uses these tactics.
Try being a man, not a mouse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:52 PM

"It's annoying to spend time correcting misrepresentation and it happens a lot. I'd rather be called names than misrepresented"

Yes, I find it annoying too.....and it's a fact of life. Because nobody can totally read my mind, and all forms of communication are 'imperfect' means of portraying our reality, misrepresentation is inevitable.

And I find that so much frustration is the result of trying to correct this.   I've found the more I try to correct it, the more fodder I leave for even more misinterpretation and misrepresentation.

So I ask myself......"is this the mountain I want to die on"? Or "in 5 years time is this really going to matter"?

My challenge....and I feel I have some success in meeting this.....is to just keep representing myself the best way I can. And, hopefully, more people will also start representing me that way I'd like them to.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 03:56 PM

You would do us all a favour, Richard, if you would nevertheless go through the motions of respect, especially when you don't feel the need.

The prime function of courtesy is to make one's passage through life easier for other people to endure.

When two or more contributors to a thread drop their gloves on the ice and start whaling away at each other, I bail out and never return to that thread. (Is that a fine mixture of metaphors or what?) Reading an exchange of insults, accusations and spiteful rejoinders among Mudcat members distresses me almost as much as witnessing a family fight at the dinner table -- and I'm sure I'm not alone, or even unusual. I just can't stand it.

Some people claim that a permanently polite approach to dispute is insincere, that whatever point they are taking issue with has made them angry and it is only honest to express that anger. I believe that this position is disingenuous, mere cover for a childish delight in savaging a despised opponent.

Whatever the reason for it, an on-line brawl clears the notional room just as surely as a bar fight in real life.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:15 PM

Yes, I find it annoying too.....and it's a fact of life. Because nobody can totally read my mind, and all forms of communication are 'imperfect' means of portraying our reality, misrepresentation is inevitable.

Very true, Larry. But I put a lot of effort into expressing myself simply and clearly. Much of the misrepresentation here is quite deliberate, for the reasons Bobert gave. I can and do put up with facts of life. In fact, I don't think I'm too bad at keeping my cool here.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket putting line in sand
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:20 PM

Charmion. The problem with going through the motions of respect is that people are led to think you respect views that are patently not worthy of it. And that would never do.

Akenaton for instance has views regarding gay people that is despicable and quite frankly tantamount to personality disorder. Add his awful spewing out about Eastern Europeans in his area and you have to ask yourself, "do I feel dirty by conversing with such a specimen?"

No consensus on behaviour on Mudcat is going to convince me to do anything other than challenging hatred. I refuse to meet it halfway and I refuse to offer it anything that would be construed as respectability.

Views that are different to mine? Sure! Lets debate. Views that have no place in 21st century society? Kick them back into their pit and let them fester.

Just because we try to debate nicely where we can, it doesn't mean you have to smile when confronted with bigotry and hatred of people based on their labels.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:22 PM

Don Z: Thanks for those tips about finding my old posts. I didn't know about that method about finding one's posts.   

Unfortunately I still can't find the post.....and I even did a search under my 'guest' name.   So it must've been in a thread that 'drifted', or possibly, when my cookies were down, I didn't sign my name.

Sorry about that Don Firth.

But I'll keep searching.

-Larry.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:25 PM

Musket, who decides whether views are 'different to yours' or, alternatively, 'have no place in 21st century society'? Surely it's a matter of opinion, and that's where the problem lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:34 PM

Musket, you should ask yourself whether your approach is doing any good. From what I can see, not much: those you castigate entrench themselves further to save face and fling bombs of their own, while the rest of us run and hide. Further, I gather that you are engaged in a struggle against hate; I would suggest that the campaign you are waging here is as likely to succeed as the original crusades: i.e., not.

There is no point in "debating" points of faith or ideology with its adherents; logic has little if anything to do with belief. Every single protracted wrangle on Mudcat, from gun-control to the nature and quality of folk music, arises at least in part from this error.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:42 PM

Well, several viewpoints are expressed here that I would cheerfully include as unworthy of respect. That gay people should be hounded into "changing their behaviour". That evolution is a lie. That the attitude towards people who insist on propagating religious faith to children should be "live and let live". That it's OK to go round everywhere with a lethal weapon in your pocket. That we should deny women the right to abortion. These are antediluvian standpoints that are worthy only of being shot down. Every one of them involves complete lack of respect for anyone on the receiving end. Yet we're supposed to respect the people who put these views forward, are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:46 PM

The people who misrepresent what you say understand perfectly well what you said... The problem is that it doesn't fir their narrative so they take your words and twist them into a pretzel and then debate the pretzel... But make no mistake about it, it's 99% on them 99% of the time...

Poster A says, "I think slavery was wrong"...

Pretzel Twister Poster B responds, "Poster A doesn't seem to mind that so many people only earn the minimum wage... Poster A thinks as long as they are getting paid it's not slavery? What is wrong with you, Poster A?"...

And on and on and on it goes...

The one member here who I am ignoring has pulled this on me at least 100 times over the years...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:54 PM

I don't need lessons in debate. I don't need lessons in diversity.

If anyone thinks that it is good for society for such views put on the same level as choice of musical taste, I start to agree with the law we have in The UK regarding hate crime.

I just cannot believe that someone who wishes to criminalise lifestyle, compulsory testing and restricting their right to happiness can be seen as "having a view." Having spent years interviewing prisoners and people sectioned under The Mental Health Act, including the forensic end of the market, there are plenty of "views" around. Society has ways of protecting people from many of them. Fascism isn't fought with respecting views,it is fought by giving no quarter. If that seems ironic, then welcome to reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:55 PM

Quite an important question might be, 'Is it possible for someone to change their viewpoint gradually over time by considering a different angle expressed by another person?' One might think not, but personally I've changed many of my opinions quite a bit over the decades after listening to other ideas and mulling them over. You may think a poster is 'dyed in the wood', but actually, they may be thinking about what's been said and modifying their standpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 04:58 PM

Yep. Very tiresome. I hope you're not ignoring me. I've just agreed with you at least three times.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:03 PM

Two quick comments.

1. I agree with Eliza's last post. I've had very similar experiences.

2. Sorry to Don T by 'misrepresenting him' by calling him Don Z.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 05:21 PM

I also agree with Eliza.

Thus, we learn.

However, it's a lot more likely that I'll consider someone else's view of things if they can express them without calling me a stupid ass for holding the views I hold.

That's rather poor salesmanship.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Lighter
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 07:09 PM

> it's a lot more likely that I'll consider someone else's view of things if they can express them without calling me a stupid ass for holding the views I hold.

Exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:49 PM

History teaches that civility to the right wing only encourages them to steal more from the poor. Remember it took a lawsuit that financially crippled the KKK to go some way to taming it and racism still stinks up this and other places. Did civility to Colonel Gadaffy or Saddam Hussein help to convince him to play nice? Letting scum know that they are scum and are anathema may go some way to making them at least hide their loathsome views. It may not change the views but it may disempower the holders. Tolerance gives them a platform they should not have. Tolerance of idiocy leads to harmful false equivalence - for example the teaching of creationism as if it were equivalent to science, in schools - and indeed the child abuse (there was a thread about it here) where children were taught idiotic creationist myth as fact.

Ake - you STILL have told us nothing of what you actually want. Your platitudes in that area are meaningless. And as for your hate for gypsies travellers tinkers and I think maybe you also called them pikeys - remember the thread - even while purporting to justify yourself you spouted off again.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 08:55 PM

What Richard says... Being civil to the uncivilized is taken by the uncivilized as weakness...

We see just how uncivil the right wing can be... They will kill you in a New York minute and grin in your face while doing it...

The left ain't like that... At least, not in the US...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:06 PM

Bobert, do you paint all right wingers with the same brush? Or do you think there are some who, because there parents were right-wingers, they were educated with a right wing mentality, and they've never been exposed (or allowed themselves to be exposed) to anything that has motivated them to explore other possibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:21 PM

People ain't born hating...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:50 AM

No Richard you are wrong, i have never used the word "pikey" in my life....dont even know the derivation.
Dont know much about "gypsies" either...they seem to have an interesting culture and a long tradition....i think I would rather like them as many families are now legends of the greyhound racing scene.
How can I tell you all that I want.....nobody knows what they want..or where their wants have to stop.

My greatest hope is that people wake up to the way the money system is warping every facet of human life...all cultures and traditions are being slowly swallowed up as the monster expands.

Although I am a radical socialist at heart, I'm sorry to say that most of the "hate" on this forum is from so called liberals towards anyone with socially conservative views......I think they are afraid of these people, they know that they are ruled by common sense and they fear for their "liberal" agenda.
They are mostly ex socialists who want to be on the winning side for a change, so have invested the last years of their lives in fooling themselves.....Best Wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket defining conservative
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:56 AM

David Cameron said, during the debate, that he doesn't support gay equality despite being a conservative but because he is a conservative.

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 02:58 AM

Fogot to add...there is a need in most of us for the "spiritual side"...at certain times.....it is a need which cannot be explained away by science or technology.....so it is feared and attacked by people like those above.

Just some of my thoughts, are they not more reasonable than screaming "equality" over and over again.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:04 AM

Perhaps you haven't noticed Ian, but David Cameron is a politician.
I was referring to real people.

As I have said a million times all politicians are focused on short term advantage, and as such are wedded to the media, especially the entertainment media which screws up more minds than the whole of Whitehall combined.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:07 AM

BTW...this is a thought provoking thread perhaps we should make sure it doesn't become another "you versus me" one?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 03:17 AM

Sorry to post again Ian, but why do you insinuate that I wish to "criminalise" homosexuality,(post 4.54) when I have always said that I was against that course of action?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 04:47 AM

Because your stigmatising solution, forced screening and tracing, is criminalisation. No other way of putting it. Unless you force everybody who has sex, not just gays, to screen for HIV, chlamydia and herpes, you are criminalising one section of society. You cannot force medication or invasive clinical procedures, including screening swabs on anybody unless you either section them or a law is passed. As being gay isn't a mental illness in the civilised world, you need criminal law to back up enforced screening and tracing. To touch a person for clinical reasons without consent is assault, unless you make the person being assaulted the criminal. (I think I have that about right. I just about quote from The Health and Social Care Act 2008, preface to The Regulated Activities Regulations 2010. I am aware Scotland has a similar act, mirroring its predecessor, The Care Standards Act 2000, although that one didn't cover The NHS, just all other healthcare interventions.)

hence you are in favour of criminalising lifestyle, as you insist that enforced testing is the only option, when away from all of that, the health, substance misuse and social care professionals are seeing demonstrable success, set back only by idiots seeing a cluster and relating it nationally. Complacence is bad, but so is judging success by the size of the task ahead.

I don't hold you in contempt, after all I have no idea who you are. But I really do hold your views on gay people in contempt. Your pessimistic take on society in general is something I could debate, but knowing that somewhere, this irrational fear will pop out to play.

It isn't you versus me. I have yet to find someone who shares your "solution" for gay lifestyle. It is you versus respectability.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:40 AM

From Bobert's post further up: Also, there are people here who aren't even musicians who come here just to rile people up and they are very good at it...

Whilst I'm sure this is true, it does raise a question for me. Is there an assumption that to be part of Mudcat you have to be a musician? I thought it was about being interested in folk and/or blues, not being able to play...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:55 AM

Well said, Richard. There is plenty of evidence on this board which substantiates your point. At least one person on this board expresses religious views that, one could argue, are so ridiculous that we could just laugh them off. Unfortunately, his views, though probably harmlessly risible in our own context here, chime with a very significant anti-science movement which has harassed thousands of science teachers in the US and persuaded many millions of people that evolution is a lie. By any measure, this is sheer wickedness. I don't think the perpetrator in question is necessarily being intentionally wicked himself (he hasn't revealed anything like the intellectual prowess for that), but he does not deserve to be patiently indulged and humoured and thereby legitimised. His views are insulting trash and they need to be trashed. Mercilessly, I'd say. He gets free speech and so should we.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:00 AM

Most people would see "criminalisation" as making homosexual practice illegal.

You think my views are "contemptuous" and "indecent", I think your views are coloured more by your "equality" agenda than in any genuine desire to assist in the ending of the epidemic of sexual disease amonst MSM. As such they are cowardly and hypocritical.

But I'm sure at some time in my life, some folks have thought my views on other subjects cowardly and hypocritical,just as they must have viewed some of yours as contemptuous?

We look at things differently, calm down and perhaps the real issue, which is the epidemic, may be better addressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:03 AM

I repeat, It think it better that this subject should be dropped on this excellent thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:55 AM

The thread goes where the thread goes. You don't get last words that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:41 AM

Yo Spleen Cringe,

Then why don't these so-called music lovers post above the line in the music discussions if they are so interested in music???

Just wondering???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:47 AM

Write a song about UK politics, religion versus indifference to religion, gay marriage or multinational corporates, and I am sure the debates can easily go above the line...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 AM

OK, Bobert. I do post above the line every now and again but nowhere near as much as below it. But I do play traditional music (traditional Irish, Scottish, Northumbrian sort of thing) and people who hear me play don't generally think I'm too bad at it. My kind of music doesn't get that much attention above the line on the whole and neither does the instrument I'm doomed to play (the harmonica). I'm not especially interested in folk song (except sometimes), being far more of a tunes bloke. But I read threads there every day. My engagement above the line may be relatively quiet, but I am engaged.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:40 AM

I think everyone knows where I stand on folk song.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 AM

Bobert - Stick and wrong end spring to mind. I am sure Mr Cringe can speak for himself but his question was simply whether you need to be a musician to post on Mudcat. Not sure what yours was about as it does not seem to address any of this threads issues. Can you explain?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:53 AM

It's simple for me: if you make mindless, unthinking, remarks I will walk away. I won't fight someone who's unarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:58 AM

Again...

If these people are here because of an interest in music then you'd expect them to post above the line now and then...

This isn't aimed at musicians... It's aimed at folks who have no interest in music but come here to rile other folks up...

I'm all for freedom of speech but, geeze Louise, don't musicians have a right to make the observation that non-musician with no apparent interest in music are using Mudcat as their personal litter box???

I mean, this thread is about "respect", isn't it??? Where is the respect being shown to Mudcat by these people???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:34 AM

Bobert, I know I may be stupid but I really don't understand what you are on about. SC made an observation that you said "there are people who aren't even musicians" etc. etc. He went on to comment that this could be true but it opened the question of whether you, or the Mudcat in general, assumed that this was a forum for musicians. I can see how his logic worked there as mine did the same.

What I cannot see is how you turned that round to a rant, seemingly aimed at Mr C. Yes, there are people who are possibly 'not even musicians' who cause problems. There are, more than likely, very good musicians who do the same. This is a completely open forum, or should be, why use 'people who are not even musicians' to classify some as, presumably, second class citizens?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 AM

I do wish people wouldn't assume that everyone who might visit this thread has been fulltime studying and corelating everything they have posted in a variety of threads, and is fully up to date with the various names they bestow on the people at whom they are enraged or scornful...

...................................


The suggestion that retaining forms of courtesy towards opponents somehow diminishes the effectiveness of an attempt to overcome them does not convince me. Whether it's a matter of words or bullets, losing your rag is likely to mess up your ability to aim correctly and effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:27 AM

I actually think it's OK to challenge people who rarely or never post "up there" as to whether they actually have any interest in traditional music. It isn't right though, to insist that we're all musicians, and I imagine that could have been something that the poster of that remark might have wanted to correct. This is one website, not two. As I said, you can be interested in a lot of the activity there without necessarily posting much. I feel guilty at times that I can't find more to post about above the line but at least I've stated honestly where I am with all this.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:51 AM

After 173 posts I think it is about time someone told y'all to go fuck yourselves.


Go fuck yourselves........



Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 12:14 PM

I tried, spaw, but I couldn't get round to it...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 12:50 PM

I think spaw's suggestion had already been put into practice even before he made it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Musket
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, Spaw, I have the same bending limitations as most others. Good job I'm hung like a donkey.

Anyway, I did basically tell a few to go fuck themselves. Do keep up, there's a good chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 05:52 PM

"Musket, who decides whether views are 'different to yours' or, alternatively, 'have no place in 21st century society'? Surely it's a matter of opinion, and that's where the problem lies."

Surely though it is a matter of opinion up to a point only. There are lines that can be crossed where an opinion becomes offensive and people may feel the need to speak out or disassociate themselves form the other person. For instance we were visiitng my wife's friend, and her husband, when he came out with the following.

When speaking about me having platonic female friends he said "I can see no reason to be friends with a woman unless I was getting to f*** her" Now this wasn't said as a joke it was deadly serious and said in the company of both our wives.

Then he went on "You know there are three things I hate, "Pakis, single-mothers" then he looked round pointedly at his wife and continued "and fat people".

So he was expressing opinions, and I can live with people who differ in opinion from me, but I didn't really want to socialise further with someone who in my mind held pretty horrible viewpoints.

It is the same on-line. There is a line where one's opinions become unacceptable. The vast bulk of people have an idea of where the line should be and it may differ from person to person but it is still there.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:17 PM

I appreciate your point Allan. Quite a few 'opinions' are indeed so offensive that almost anyone would be disgusted. But there are many which present a 'grey area' and one cannot assume they're self-evident truths. For example, the issues of abortion, carrying guns, marital infidelity, religious practices are all open to widely opposing views. If someone who holds a strong position expects that everyone else should agree, and insults and abuses those who don't, we end up with unedifying slanging matches. But nevertheless, I still think people might reflect afterwards and gradually modify their views. It may take years but it can happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 06:27 PM

That bloke would have been an ill-mannered toe rag, Allan, whatever century he was living in. I hope you told him so, and walked out of the house.

But it's not a question of chronology. Or for that matter, to use a phrase Richard Beidge I think used way back in this thread, of "not being in touch", because all that means, I take it, is not agreeing with a perceived consensus, and frequently a perceived consensus can be plain wrong on important matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:00 PM

But there are many which present a 'grey area' and one cannot assume they're self-evident truths. For example, the issues of abortion, carrying guns, marital infidelity, religious practices are all open to widely opposing views.

The fact that some matters are "open to widely-opposing views" doesn't mean that all of those views are legitimate. If you oppose abortion, well done you. You are misguided but I can see your point of view. If you propose that women should be prevented or restricted from having abortions, you are disgusting. Why? Because, by your own argument, there are opposing views. But a view is a view, not a cast-in-stone truth. So you have no right to insist that women should all have to adhere to a policy dictated by what is simply your view. That is what the anti-abortion movement wishes to achieve and that is why it is a baleful and wicked movement. It does not acknowledge in the slightest that any other view could be valid. You do have the right the make the case against abortion, weak though it is, but that's where it ends. You have the right to practise whatever religious delusion you like, and I'll defend that right to the hilt. But your religious belief is one point of view, not a truth cast in stone. So you have no right to foist that view on anyone else, or tell people that you are the possessor of the one and only truth. Unfortunately, the sine qua non of organised religions is to foist their beliefs on to as many people as they can, including babies. Such people are not executing their point of view as a point of view, are they? They don't recognise, by so doing, that other views are legitimate. If you want to argue that people should be allowed to carry guns willy-nilly, you are arguing that people should be allowed to go around always prepared to kill other people summarily. I can't think why else a gun should be carried in the pocket. That flies in the face of everything we're supposed to espouse about justice. Yes there are lines that can be crossed, etc., but I will never accept that those lines are infinitely elastic so as to allow disgusting opinions to be expressed without firm rebuttal and ridicule.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:10 PM

Rebuttal is a supposedly reasoned opposition to someone's assertion. Ridicule is not acceptable in argument any more than insult is.

If I state flatly that I think everyone should be required to carry a handgun, that is my opinion. If I present a reasoned argument to support this opinion you are welcome to dissent and express your opinion. You are not free to insult or ridicule me. Nor are you free to state that I believe that everyone should be required to carry a handgun, as an "If" statement in this context is exemplary. (I believe everyone should carry a sawed-off shotgun.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 07:41 PM

I see that there ere are some errors in logic in Steve's last post, that are likely evident to many. But, I see little purpose in pointing them out, or getting into a "pissing match" over such.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:00 PM

I see every reason for you to do so. Do apprise us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:18 PM

Actually, Rapparee, I said nothing about being required to carry. But I'll let that pass. Here's the point about why an opinion that everyone should be allowed to carry a gun is misguided. Many people who would have a gun in their pockets would not be responsible people. You are allowing psychopaths, many undiagnosed, and would-be criminals to carry a gun. Even responsible people would, in a panic situation, quite likely shoot to kill. You wouldn't exactly have time to consider which part of your target to aim for. A person attacking you may well have criminal intent. Most criminals, if caught, are subject to the judicial process of your country. Very few would be killed by the state (none, hopefully) at the end of that process, yet you are giving unqualified people who won't be making a measured decision the means to circumvent that process in summary fashion. Only an extremely irrational person would think this is right. Our countries are supposed to be civilised, remember? Unfortunately, because the challenge in the US to this misguided position is so weak, and the gun lobby so strong, the number of gun deaths is enormous. If you think you have a legitimate opinion as to why I'm wrong in any of this, do address it point by point. Perhaps not in this thread, and bearing in mind that we have been down that tiresome road too many times already.

Subject: Lyr Add: Whenever Kindness Fails ~ REK, Kr.
From: pdq
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 08:34 PM

"Whenever Kindness Fails"

                            Bobert Earl Keen, Jr.

I crossed the desert on a dining car.
In the spring of ninety-one.
I met some people drinking at the bar.
They were laughing, having fun.

I told 'em that I hadn't heard the joke.
That was so hilarious.
They said that I was just a dumb cowpoke.
I didn't want to make a fuss.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

The moon was in the sign of Scorpio.
The sun was at my back.
I didn't know how far the train would go.
Until the law would find my track.

I saw the brakeman and the engineer.
Drinking wine and eating Brie.
I asked 'em who would brake and who would steer.
They started pointing back at me.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

I only have a moment to explain.
Just a chance to let you know.
When it's time for you to board the train.
There are two ways you can go.

You can ride the wheels into the sun.
Feel the wind upon your face.
Or you can laugh into a loaded gun.
And you'll likely lose your place.

So I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails.
I use my gun Whenever kindness fails.

Yeah I shot 'em down,
one by one.
Then I left 'em 'long the rails
When I use my gun,
that lonesome whistle wails.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:00 PM

The first essential in any kind of argument that's got a hope of getting anywhere useful ought to be to identify precisely where the differences are, and equally precisely where the agreements are.

It's an essential that gets neglected only too often, which is the main reason most arguments, here or in most places, I fear, tend not to get anywhere. All too often the real argument is put on hold while there is are two battles with straw men.

There's a valuable mediation technique in which the ground rule is that both parties have to succeed in summarising the other party's position in a way that is seen as accurate by the other party. Only then can a real exploration of the differences start - and those differences may be much less irreconcilable than originally appeared to be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:08 PM

There's a valuable mediation technique in which the ground rule is that both parties have to succeed in summarising the other party's position in a way that is seen as accurate by the other party.

That's why so many arguments arise here. But we don't have mediators, so anyone who maliciously misrepresents another's position not only wastes everyone's time but also causes a massive amount of frustration in forcing people of good intent to have to continually clarify their position.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:12 PM

See how I couldn't respond to Rapparee until I'd first clarified a position that was already crystal clear? A minor example of what I was saying, but the sort of annoying thing that happens all the time here.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Lord of Misrule
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:19 PM

Anarchy! I love it!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM

I think all of us might do well to focus our attention on whether we do that consistently ourselves, Steve, rather than on the times when the people we are engaged in arguing with fall into the trap of misunderstanding or mis-stating our views.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:50 PM

Steve, this is strictly in the fwiw department.

Moral judgments are not about science or evidence. They are about values, beliefs, paradigms shaped by life experience, social learning, culture, and emotion. Human beings make moral judgments.

You are human. You are making many, many moral judgments. That is fine. We humans all do that. I simply invite you to recognize that moral judgment is not based on objective science, and the fact that you are a scientist does not exempt you from being human.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:56 PM

Good solid points Janie.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:13 PM

"Why?"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:37 PM

Rebellious subjects, enemies to peace,
Profaners of this neighbour-stained steel,--
Will they not hear? What, ho! you men, you beasts,
That quench the fire of your pernicious rage
With purple fountains issuing from your veins,
On pain of torture, from those bloody hands
Throw your mistemper'd weapons to the ground,
And hear the sentence of your moved prince.
Three civil brawls, bred of an airy word,
By thee, old Capulet, and Montague,
Have thrice disturb'd the quiet of our streets,
And made Verona's ancient citizens
Cast by their grave beseeming ornaments,
To wield old partisans, in hands as old,
Canker'd with peace, to part your canker'd hate:
If ever you disturb our streets again,
Your lives shall pay the forfeit of the peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:51 PM

"I see that there ere are some errors in logic in Steve's last post, that are likely evident to many. But, I see little purpose in pointing them out, or getting into a "pissing match" over such. "

Good point. If one points out the flaws in his logic, he accuse one of hating all atheists. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:20 AM

The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:43 AM

Any chance of signing up for a longer voyage? We've missed your agenda led pop at anybody who doesn't cuddle the little baby Jesus.

Bridge. Fully agree, except the right to express a view is equal, and the reaction is the test of the validity.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:09 AM

Hence I react!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:10 AM

And 200

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 04:47 AM

I agree with Rapparee....No opinion is "contemptuous" if it can be backed by a logical argument.
Shouting, Racism, homophobia or any other words of contempt is not a rebuttal.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:18 AM

We are very fortunate that this little forum is full of intelligent people....probably brought here by a common love of traditional music.

We should use this area of the forum to intelligently explore different ideas unconstrained by "political" influences

If not we end up like facebook or twitter with everyone screaming their political stances at one another.....its too boring!
Equality,Freedom, Democracy as we know them, are patently not above debate.
At one time we had a rule about personal attacks on other members..why has it been abandoned?

Cursing directly at other members should be discouraged by everyone, not only the mods, I dont like it and its obvious a huge number of other members dont like it either.
Trying to suppress the opinions of other members presented in a logical manner, by personal abuse or intimidation, should also be ruled out of order.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:07 AM

All views, as Richard said, are not equally valid. I should like to make the distinction between holding a view that is just wacky and holding that wacky view and wanting the whole world to adhere to it. Personally, I regard any view that involves the existence of a deity as irrational. Wacky if you like. Whether or not you are ever able to be persuaded away from that view is up to you. That's entirely respectable. What is not respectable is telling people that you hold the truth, making your children go to mass or religious instruction or telling scientists that they are wrong about the origins of everything without any evidence of your own. The trouble is, these things are so deeply ingrained due to religion successfully making itself the world's default setting that it looks intemperate when some little voice pipes up to oppose them. Look at the example of herding children to Sunday Mass. What more benign family occasion could there be? You get nicely dressed and you meet other members of your community in a friendly and sociable setting, away from the daily grind. Very nice! But, inside that church, every prayer said, every hymn sung and every piece of the liturgy is replete with certainty about a God for whom there is not a scrap of evidence. That is at the heart of what you are really exposing your children to. As a responsible and loving parent you try to get the best school for your kids where the education is second to none. You want your children to come away with the the vital life skills of questioning what they are told, wanting knowledge and knowing how to get it. Yet you allow this big hole to appear in all that in which you expect them to accept the bogus certainties of your faith without question (try interrupting the priest to ask how he knows what he's asserting!). It doesn't matter how nice a fellow you are, that simply can't be right. It might look valid and respectable but that's because religion has had thousands of years to apply this benign patina to cover the nefarious activities such as homophobia, misogyny, fear of science and religious bigotry which lie just beneath the surface in most major religions. The respectable position would be to privately practise your faith, tell your children what you're up to and why, and let them decide what to do about it for themselves when they are adults. But, for some reason, this decent and reasonable path is viewed with horror. Janie, I have no quibble as to what values, beliefs or paradigms shape the thinking of individuals and I'm not making any moral judgements about them. Holding beliefs, even delusions, is the inalienable right of everyone. If how you act on those beliefs, treating them as certainties when they are not, impinges on other people, then that's a different matter altogether, and that's where respectability ends, no matter how benign the external appearance.

Ed, do tell me where my logic failed in that post.

McGrath, if I misrepresent someone in a post I expect to be pulled up for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 AM

That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too. But a line is stepped over when an element of compulsion creeps in - on the part of the individual or institutions - "I believe this so as a result you will do that". But for some reason when you point out this simple notion the sky falls in.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:41 AM

Having said that I think on one level all views are equally valid - insofar as everyone tends to think their own views are essentially correct. Whether there is hard evidence that a particular view is objectively wrong is usually neither here nor there to the holder of that view.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:48 AM

Some fundamental facts about threads in public forums (as opposed to online chats) are often not sufficiently taken into account:

• they can be read by everybody for decades;
• they will normally be read from the top to the bottom;
• readers will thus be more attentive at the top;
• many will lose interest midway.
• Therefore, there is no point in repeating one's statements in reply to malicious misrepresentation - attentive readers will have detected the discrepancy themselves, the others will be further bored;
• and it is largely irrelevant who has the last word and declares himself "winner" at the end.
• Even if a poster deserves an attack, the attackers must be very careful to avoid damaging their own reputation. Make sure that all readers know the reason for your moral judgment.

The best idea is to state one's opinion concisely and comprehensively in one's first post, and let the readers judge if other opinions follow. Only respond if new aspects arise, or if you fear serious misunderstandings. If you feel bad-tempered or otherwise impaired, just wait with your post for a couple of hours. Before posting anything, read it with the eyes of a stranger. Impossible? No, quite easy in 95% of all cases. Don't content yourself with 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM

"The idea that all views are of equal validity is idiotic."

I suspect that this is something where there is general agreement. There might of course be differences about the implications to be drawn from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:19 AM

Sometimes these things are not matters for moral judgement. The question of abortion is an entirely practical one as far as I'm concerned, for example. The only reason we have an anti-abortion movement is that abortion has always existed. The so-called pro-lifers have turned, nefariously in my view, a medical and practical issue into a bogus moral matter, and they employ all the dishonest tactics to make it appear so, particularly with regard to their use of emotional language and the hectoring of vulnerable women. Do I have evidence for this? Why, yes: nothing the anti-abortion lobby does ever actually reduces abortion. In fact, quite often the anti-abortionists also rail against the very measures that would cut the numbers. Think of Mother Teresa, queen of all anti-abortionists, preaching that ignorance is a virtue and her Church teaching that contraception is wrong. The way to cut the numbers is glaringly obvious: education. I won't blather on again about my views on that. The same applies to Akenaton's disingenuous pleadings over his homophobic ranting about disease among gay people. It is a purely practical issue. The answer lies in education. It always does. But he ignored me when I made that case and he now tells me it was because I didn't know what I was talking about! Nothing as suspect as someone with an agenda...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:26 AM

That's my view too - that a privately held faith is totally up to the individual - and I think that sharing stuff about your faith with others on a level playing field with no power dynamics coming into play is fine too.

That's well put, with an economy of words I can only aspire to! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:03 AM

It's fine until you are doorstepped by a Mormon or Xtian "Scientist" and politeness inhibits your slamming the door on their nonsense. It's fine until you go to a "folk club" and find every song one bloke does expects you to be joining in yelling "Halleluja". It's fine until (etc, etc, etc). In short - No it's not fine. You wave your cock about, you mostly get arrested. You wave your religion about, you mostly don't. Level playing field, what level playing field?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

If you control the door you have the power. The inhibiting factors are manageable and overcomeable for many people via evidence-based approaches such as CBT. If you're too polite to close the door on Mormons, I'd suggest the problem is going to be debilitating in other areas of life. Meanwhile, if the hallelujah bloke is offensive to thine ears, cut them off. Or short of that, go to the bar when he plays or at least refrain from joining in. None of these things will destroy us.

There is a level playing field in some circumstances, not in others. Sometimes you have to use whatever tools are available to you to make sure it is as level as you can make it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM

By the way, to pick up on an earlier part of the conversation. Bobert, I wasn't suggesting it's ok for non-musicians (or musicians for that matter) to come to Mudcat to cause trouble. I was just suggesting that not all of us who love folk music of various types are musicians. I probably post upstairs more than downstairs, but I'd hate to have to stop posting just because I can't bash out more than a few basic chords...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 12:48 PM

If you wave your cock about and get arrested you are doing it wrong Bridge. Most of us get begging letters....

People wave their religion around when they feel we all have to be as them. The ones who do so have no concept of how annoying they are, as they have a mission to save heathen bastards like me and embarrass people who are comfortable with their faith and see no need to try and convince anybody.

And don't get me started about banjo players...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM

Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter.

The creation of life should always be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans moral dimensions
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM

So should the preservation

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 01:50 PM

(a side point about definitions... "valid" is a word that has been so often used in widely varying ways that most don't even realize that it really ought to be used in fairly technical ways ...in legal documents ..."a valid title" ...or in logic to mean a conclusion which follows from certain premises. Thus, it is possible to have a 'valid' argument which is totally false.)

Valid shouldn't be used to just mean 'okay' or 'acceptable'.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM

Of course Ian, IF there are two lives at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not wanting to bog down
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM

The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life.

The medical profession debate the word tenable and those with a moral aspect to offer debate the word life.

Having been involved in the nationwide unannounced inspection week of all England's registered termination facilities a couple of years ago, I am at one with the report published from our work that said regardless of other debates, The Abortion Act 1968 requires serious review with regard to consent and second medical opinion. The quality patients receive was similar to any other service, but the ambiguity the act gives can be construed too widely.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 03:26 PM

Perhaps the figures for abortion where the mothers life is at risk, could be compared to abortion for other reasons.

I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

" I won't blather on again about my views on that."

No?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM

I don't believe that women should be subservient to anyone - certainly not to an accumulation of cells.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM

We are all an accumulation of cells Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

I can if you want me to, McGrath. If you have nothing to say, don't say it, old chap.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:12 PM

Steve, I dont think many would agree that the issue of abortion is simply a medical and practical matter.

The creation of life should always be taken seriously.

There is no creation of life any more than there is creation of anything else. Life is a continuum and has been for 3.5 billion years. You see, what you're trying to do here is use fine words to legitimise some notion you espouse. Life on earth may be wonderful but it is also a mundane and commonplace thing. There is nothing about life that is more sacred than anything else that's wonderful about the universe. The biggest of all wasters of life is God. 99.9999% of "created" organisms bite the dust before they see the light of day, and 99.999% of those who do make it struggle with competition, disease, famine and ruthless predation. It's quite clear that God takes life far less seriously than even the worst human being. Stalin and Hitler had nothing on God when it comes to wasting life.

As for abortion, well it's always been with us. The world we live in is still basically one in which men tend to have their wicked way with women. Therefore women, as ever, have needed to shed their unwanted foetuses. There is an anti-abortion movement, led by religion, that is a reaction to this. But the anti-abortion movement (including the Catholic Church) does not want to see a reduction in abortions. If they did, they would espouse the need for free contraception, contraception advice and good education for relationships in schools. But they don't want any of this. A reduction in abortion numbers would emasculate the anti-abortion movement and loosen the grip of the Catholic Church on women. That would never do (if you don't believe me, research the teachings of Mother Teresa, who preached ignorance as a virtue and who will, undoubtedly, soon be sainted). Good education for personal relationships that helps both boys and girls to respect themselves and each other, along with free supply of and free advice on contraception, would reduce the abortion numbers drastically. It's a question of training and funding. That's a practical matter. Leave your bloody "morals" at the door before you come in. They just get in the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM

"Surely the "scientific" answer as to when life begins, is the moment the sperm penetrates the egg?"

Perhaps...but that is not really the issue that most who oppose abortion are concerned with. There is the usually unspoken assumption that some sort of 'soul' enters that Morula. This is a religious assumption which not everyone agrees with. There is a secondary issue about when that collection of cells becomes a 'human' and can survive outside the womb. Even then, there are VERY complex issues which depend on medical facts and culture.

You want one? Read about triploid. I have firsthand experience with that one.

You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM

The moral debate, which I leave to others and genuinely don't feel I have a position on is when a multiplication of cells becomes a tenable life.

It's a typical and lamentable example of how we've allowed moralisers to define the argument. We can, and do, argue 'til we're blue in the face about "when life actually begins" (ake's at it again on this thread, I see). But it is a pointless argument without end. For years now I've refused to engage with it. Even if we could get a definition that we could all agree with (you'll see winged piggies overhead the same day), it would not alter the abortion debate one jot. Big religion loves to ride on the wave of a two thousand-year-old default. Well abortion has been around for much longer than that. Women having abortions has been the default for centuries. It's a very bad thing and we, as civilised human beings, women and men alike, need to address it. But if we fail to address it purely as a practical matter we will inevitably lapse into misogyny. I'll talk about this with people of good will who leave their morals at the door. All the rest are misogynistic scoundrels, and I don't mind telling 'em so. "Pro-life"? Don't make me laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:38 PM

You cannot reduce the answer to the 'morality' of these things in any simple way!

And worse, if you try, you lose the debate, which never belonged on their side anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM

I'm given to snort at the expression "Pro-Life."

I've known too blasted many "Pro-Lifers" who are rabidly opposed to abortion, and often birth control as well, who don't give a don't give a bloody damn what happens to mother and baby after the baby is born.

"Pro-Lifers" that I've met have mostly been very Right-Wing and often into fundamentalist religions as well, and while adamantly opposed to abortion and birth control, are also opposed to any social programs such as welfare or social security.

"Get 'em born, then let 'em starve," seems to be their modus operandi.

PTUI!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: kendall
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:22 PM

I miss the old mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM

Pro-Lifers want to strip Food Stamps which are used to feed babies born to poor people...

Pro-Lifers want to end public education so that baby will grow up without the skills to get a job, end up on the wrong side of the law and then incarcerated...

Pro-Lifers are for the death penalty...

Exactly where is the "pro" in their pro-life world views???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:24 PM

Most of the aNTI CHOICE typesI've seen are:
1. Men
2. Women past child bearing age
3. Women too ugly to get laid.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM

I could well have plenty to say, on all kinds of topics, but I don't think this thread is the right place for it. And if that was an implication of the words of Steve which I quoted, I wholly concur.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:54 PM

I agree, McG...

My bad for getting sucked into a sidebar...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 07:59 PM

Thanks Bill D. for your remarks about the usage of the term validity. I couldn't figure out how to say it in less than 3 paragraphs.

If I invalidate a person because of their ideas, I am making what amounts to a moral judgment about that person. I am conveying that person has less intrinsic value than do I or do others whose ideas and views I find less objectionable. I am implicitly communicating that people who don't think like me are worth less than people who do think like me. I am implying they have less right to exist and be than do I.

Whether I believe that or not, that is the message I am conveying.

There are people I deeply dislike and don't have much respect for. That doesn't make me better than them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:14 PM

I don't invalidate people but I know when it's time to shake the dust off my robe when people stalk me and are obsessed with me...

Yeah, I am very passionate about my views/values and I attract a lot of people who see me as some kind of dogmatic person who they need to obsess over...

I have tried to live with them and be respectful but there is a point when you become a center of someone else's obsession that you just have to cut them loose... It's not good for them and not too much fun for me, either...

Most people here know the people who have obsessed on me over the years... It's not a secret... I even started a thread about being stalked...

This discussion is about "boundaries"... Stalking and obsessing steps way over that line...

Yeah, I get torqued at these people... I mean, I see no reason for anyone to go 100 posts in a row that attacks "Bobert"...

I apologize to the Mudcat community, in general, for the times when I have had enough of these people and "go off"...

Believe me, I'd rather just have a discussion without these people's issues...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM

Well, Bobert and McGrath, I could apologise for raising controversial issues in this thread that might appear not to belong. But I was simply trying to show where the bounds of respectability are in discussions. I used abortion and religious faith as examples where there should be clear demarcation between your views and the enforcement of your views. Having views that we can fearleesly espouse is one of the greatest achievements of the free world. What we're talking about here, though, is the manner in which you force those views on other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM

I'm okay with it, Steve... I forget sometimes what the thread is about and just respond to the last few posts...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Aug 13 - 09:29 PM

I agree with what Bobert said. I have been (and am still) in a similar position, and have a distinct aversion to being followed from thread to thread and insulted and lied about.

After so much, it's pretty hard not to lash back.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:37 AM

Steve. I hear you but I don't think it lamentable to not have a view on the point a life begins. It would be subjective to say the least. Enough of those views in the system already.

No. The moral argument I would and have had to discuss is vulnerability of young women, the popularity of termination as a contraception in the social sense and issue of having a service that can be readily accessed but not easily abused.

Ireland has recently woke up to a high profile example of what happens when polarised views become the society norm. On the other end of the scale, in rural parts of China, WHO found babies being aborted at the point of birth by injecting formaldehyde into the skull of a crowning baby.

If ever a subject needed a middle ground to remain the norm, this is it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 04:36 AM

The reason I mentioned science in the context of "beginning of life" is that Steve seems to be rather inconsistent in his use of science as a benchmark.

If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart"

There are no more simple issues than there are good songs these days, hense we should be prepared to debate all views whether we find them "obnoxious" or "hypocritical"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:05 AM

I won't debate the issue of the point at which human life begins because it is not a debate that will ever, in a million years, get us anything like close to consensus and I've banged my head against a brick wall too many times on that one. I also won't let myself get sucked into a debate about abortion time limits. Inevitably, that one gets my goat because of the sheer dishonesty of the anti-abortion lobby in campaigning to have it shortened, when they really ought to be taking the position of having it banned altogether if that's what they really think. Playing tactics of that sort with abortion is disgraceful. Of course, there is a discussion to be had about time limits, but I'm not joining in with it if those evangelical scumbags start sticking their oar in. Yes there are revolting practices surrounding abortion and I'll face up to that. But let's not forget that many of those revolting practices involve ignorance and poverty and knitting needles and you can make up as many laws as you like and preach morals at women until the bloody cows come home and you will always have those. More so if the laws are toughened, a dilemma never confronted by the anti-abortion brigade. The answer lies in education, especially of boys and men, free contraception and driving out discrimination against girls and women wherever it arises. Easy to say, I know, but read my lips: unless we address that, abortion will continue to be rife. Moralising popes and nuns, preachers of abstinence and dealers in ignorance are the champions of abortion.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM

""Steve...I know you're a decent guy, and I more or less agree with you MOST of the time, but, in your heart do you not think that as a species, we have forgotten much more of real value than we will ever learn through science and technology?""

Is it OK to call someone a luddite?

It may not have occurred to you Ake, but pretty soon we are going to need to spread out to other worlds, as we have used up most of the resources of this one.

Any such migration will require technology a quantum leap ahead of anything we have now, and our research into the origins of the universe just might supply the answers.

I don't believe that standing still and waiting for God to provide is going to help in the slightest, and neither do you.

Or does your interest in the human race not extend to those you leave behind?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM

Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it.

GUEST, I didn't find your remark particularly relevant, misogynist more like.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:46 AM

If we carry on down the road of viewing life as merely dispensable, either through war or abortion, we really are heading for "hell in a handcart"

There ya go. Exactement the kind of misrepresentation I rail against. That is not my view of life, and I've posted enough times of the wonderful diversity, beauty and complexity of life on earth for you to know that. Life on Earth is that way exactly because of the struggle for existence, including competition for eggs by billions of sperms, predation, starvation and disease. That is a fact and is regardless of my personal take or my cynical (and tongue-in cheek) take on God's attitude to life. I also note, in the sentence above, the sneaky inclusion of a bit of false (or at least very debatable) equivalence. A nice tactic of the kind prevalent among anti-abortionists and not one to further the discussion in any constructive way.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:54 AM

Why don't you guys start a thread on the abortion issue? It seems like you all have a lot to say. I have a lot to say about it myself. I'd start one but I'm not going to start any more threads. I don't seem to have the knack for it.

Yeah, my fault I suppose. It was supposed to be a shining example of how people can step over the line of respectability and respectfulness and now it's taken on a life of its own. But I'll tell you what. We're discussing it within a context of trying to behave ourselves. Not too uncivilised so far. Start yet another thread on abortion and the sound of yawns will be rapidly superseded by the sound of shit hitting fans. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:04 AM

""Is there an assumption that to be part of Mudcat you have to be a musician? I thought it was about being interested in folk and/or blues, not being able to play...""

No such assumption S C!

I think Bobert just found the wrong word in a moment's inattention.

I'm certain he meant ALL Folkies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

I dont mind you calling me a Luddite Don....its a bit of a compliment the way I see things.

Regarding life on Earth, I am absolutely CERTAIN in mind that we will never colonise the galaxy,that would be a long term project and humans hate long term projects....they cant even think forward a couple of decades, they prefer to let things happen TO them.

No I'm quite sure that when we have poisoned this planet, divised ever more horrific Frankenstein science and constructed enough obscene viruses and bacteria, humanity will accomplish the finest of its achievements....self destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

Ah, thanks Don! That's what I was hoping...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:00 AM

""I have no knowledge of such figures, but personally I dont think abortion for the sake of convenience should be legal.""

So what about abortion when the pregnancy is the result either of rape, or the refusal of the man to either use contraceptives or abstain?

It strikes me that the number of women who decide to terminate for convenience is a tiny proportion of the whole, given the physical amd emotional stress of the procedure.

I don't believe that women take the denial of their most natural function as lightly as some men would like to believe.

Like you, I have no figures, but I believe that women have the right to decide for themselves.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

I agree with that, Don. I'd also add that another tactic of the anti-abortion brigade is to look for extreme examples of bad practice at the periphery and go large with them. The more horror the better. Convenience-abortions and late abortions are grist to their mill, despite their representing a tiny proportion of the overall abortion numbers. They are bad things all right and there is a debate to be had, but minority rogue practices at the margins should not be used as a big stick to beat all women who need abortions.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:45 AM

Damn and blast! There I go agreeing with Don again!

And an example of the sort of stuff that merits no respect at all is Ding-Dong's thread about Democrats wanting to disarm Blacks. Stupid and malicious.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: kendall
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:48 AM

Don, not to mention the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 01:58 PM

I see I was right to be a bit sceptical about the words I quoted from you, Steve...

But your point that the original topic for this thread might be a way of keeping discussions relatively courteous (given the occasional "scumbag" and stuff like that) does have some merit. Which would suggest it then might drift on to other issues where tempers flare, such as gun control, Israel/Palestine, Irish history, and quite a host more. Turning into a version of the "Mother of All Threads", but with a focus on controversy. And going round in perpetual circles.

I don't really think so. But perhaps there'd be something to be said for it being possible to set up a thread about a controversial subject with predetermined different moderating ground rules from the rest of the Mudcat.

No swearing, no spitting, no gouging of eyes... Threads that would be guaranteed to stay respectful, without interfering with the hurly burly in the threads generally which would continue to be more relaxed about that. (In fact you could have another set of threads which would be predetermined to go to the other extreme, and only the sickos would go there...)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Well it's working so far. And scumbags did not refer to people posting here. Incidentally, I haven't got time to do all the processing required to comprehend your point about your quote from my post, etc. You do have this somewhat enigmatic man-o'-few-words way of putting things at times that defeats me unless I do about ten minutes' hard labour. Just thought I'd mention it. I have tunes to play on Fridays, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Of course I suppose there is a possible, or at least an arguable, ambiguity in the precise meaning of word "blather" in this context...

But playing tunes is more sensible than arguing about stuff like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

And I thought the promise (in this thread) made a lot of sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM

""The more horror the better.""

Well Steve, if it's horror they want, they'll be hard put to beat the recent incident in Ireland, in which a fully equipped and qualified surgical team, stood and watched a woman die, because they would not terminate the non viable foetus which was poisoning and killing her.

That, IMNSHO, is a greater obscenity than any they have yet produced.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM

Well here's my main thought on abortion. Men don't get a vote. But I can't pretend to have come up with that stroke of genius on my own. Several years ago, I asked my Renn Faire friend Ed, a pagan, what his opinion on the issue was. He told me that he didn't have an opinion and that women's reproductive health as a whole is an area that should be decided by women only, collectively, and men should be excluded. I shared Ed's opinion with my mother and she agreed completely. And every time I state this to another woman, most times she is up to it, like, when do we get started?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM

The gist of the OP statement (imo.)   

I know that often controversial posts can lead to some strong and passionate opinions, and sometimes we end up letting our negative emotions take us to a place where we might 'over-do' our zeal.

Rather than risking all the discussion becoming academic and flat, I'd like to suggest that we all agree on one 'boundary' statement, which is that we will not accept one person consistently calling another person a name that is meant to demean them.

Personalities. Everybody's got one. I am heartened in many ways by the evolution in the way several of the frequent posters to this thread, many of whom are frequent posters to threads that rapidly devolve, appear to be modifying how they communicate, apparently "listening" and becoming more mindful and less demeaning of the personhood of the people with whom they disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:03 PM

Ye need "smeddum" tae be richt coorse....or richt kind......LGG.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:10 PM

I suspect that the suggestion that laws about abortion should be decided exclusively by women would be welcomed by a lot of critics of current legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

My point was that I was sceptical about you being able to keep to the promise "I won't blather on again about my views on that."

Gosh no, You'll never get anyone on the interwebby thingie to stick to "promises" made in threads! One only has to observe the people who say they're so disgusted, etc., that they're outta here. Invariably, they're back within hours (know what I mean, Wacko? :-) ) When I said that, I didn't realise I'd have to enlarge on it. One goeth with the floweth, innit!

Good tunes tonight, by the way - and lotsa free beer!


Just don't say it...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM

Well I don't think the laws on abortion should be decided just by women - because I don't think we need that many laws on abortion in the first place. We need education, not laws. I look forward to the day when education for relationships has been so good that abortion clinics, freely available to all women, will be having to make people redundant due to lack of demand. In the interim, laws on abortion should be formulated by people of good will of both genders and none. I would be struggling to see how anyone from a religion of any kind could possibly qualify as one of those law-makers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 02 Aug 13 - 09:43 PM

See? That's the problem. You'd have to get the men to agree first.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 04:38 AM

I'm afraid Janie, some people just cant help themselves.
Steve's just done it in the form of a joke, others will do it in anger, to make themselves feel better .....but most often, to cover gaping holes in their stance on particular issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM

Done what in the form of a joke?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 07:56 AM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Charmion
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

akenaton, please tell me what you mean by "MSM".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 09:54 AM

I suppose there's a place for insulting or belittling nicknames when it's a question of cutting someone down to size, as a kind of verbal cartoon. But it doesn't belong in a genuine discussion, online any more than face-to-face.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Claire M
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Hiya,

I doubt people who are so rude on the Internet would be the same face-to-face. If I should get a nasty comment, (which I have, many a time) I simply leave the website it's on – I've got enough problems w/o adding to them; that's why all my networking is interest-based or not done.

Words like "scoundrel" need to be brought back; they'd be a lot better than the modern equivalent. I prefer "go forth & multiply" – sounds nicer & essentially means the same thing. There are a few people here (housemates, not on Mudcat) I'd like to tell that to!
If someone said to me, "be off w/ you, prithee" I'd just melt.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

I remember when I took my young son to a football match. Some incident happened, and the insults started flying. My son stood there and bellowed "Buffoons!"

I felt rather proud of him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket spelling it out
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:34 AM

Akenaton. You do not have a view. The Nuremberg trials set the precedent that some ideas are beyond human decency. Your enforced testing, profiling and partner testing of gay people as a solution to one particular sexual transmitted disease, partnered with your refusal to even acknowledge that straight people spread them, coupled with your insistence that gay marriage is wrong...

Your views are beneath contempt, and make respectable people wish to wash themselves having been made to read them.

Hopefully, that makes my position clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 11:07 AM

Akenaton, I have an aunt who is gay. It might interest you to know that she is very old school. Doesn't believe in gay marriage. She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else. She feels it is a false sense of equality and just plain weird. What she wanted from her life- the unconditional love and acceptance from her family first of all, her friends, society's blessing to be herself- she feels she got. She's not in favor of restructuring society, feels it is unnecessary and probably not a good thing. She believes sexual orientation should be handled by society with discretion until adolescence, meaning no gay marriage and no exposure to homosexuality until it matters.

My aunt is my favorite aunt. She was always the kindest and most sensitive of my aunts. My aunts took turns babysitting us and when it was her turn it was like, "Yay! Gonna be an easy night!" one of my aunts was kinda mean. Not her. She is one out of five girls. My poor grandpa was overrun.

But to make a long story short, Akenaton, I don't automatically categorize you as a hater. Politically incorrect yes, but hater no. Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat, society is not served by making the real homophobes worst nightmares come true. Divisiveness is not where it's at.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM

I'd say there is a moral imperative on everyone to know that they aren't carrying HIV before they embark on any behaviour that might entail passng it on, and a moral right of everyone to know that's true of the other person.

Whether that should be backed up in some legal way is another thing, and probably not - but it is reasonable that anyone who infects someone else with HIV because they hadn't ensured that that wouldn't happen should be liable.

Everyone. In our society it may be predominently gay men who are at risk, but of course that isn't the case in many other places where patterns of behaviour are different.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket saying don't misquote me
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 12:49 PM

He is a hater. Your Aunty has no valid view to not believe in Gay marriage either. Just by being gay doesn't mean your failure to see equality as a right. Views that restrict the legitimate rights of others are not views, they are personality disorder. Full stop.

Views that limit the rights of others when the subject doesn't concern you are very damaging views. I think I am right in saying all Mudcat members are in countries that claim to be democracies, even if we have dim views of how seriously governments see that fact. Democracy means equal stakeholder. If one couple are allowed to marry and not another, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

If you wish to force people to be medically assessed without consent, or assault as the police call it, you are oppressing people.

Full stop.

Akenaton wishes to have the respect of people when he decries the work done by health and social care in the field of sexual health. He does it by rubbishing the work by stating the size of the task means it is failing. That is a considered opinion, therefore an outrageous lie. He has form on these threads of promoting compulsory testing and sexual partner tracing of a minority of people with sexual transmitted diseases based on their sexual orientation. In the same sentences he calls the recent gay marriage act, that promotes monogamy when you think about it, as a distraction.

A distraction to his solution.

I find his quiet, reasoned approach rather chilling. As someone who has interviewed many patients in forensic care, I find his approach familiar too. No other way of putting it.

If someone wishes to debate the merit of his odious views with him, fine. But me? I shall risk censure if necessary, but can never allow pathetic hatred like that to be normalised, so. Where I see it, I challenge it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 01:41 PM

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:04 PM

It is perfectly possible to object to the linguistic innovation which is involved in redefining marriage to cover a wider range of relationships, without this implying any hostility towards people in single-sex unions. And there are in fact some people in such unions who see the development as a message that they need to assimilate in order to be accepted - which would appear to be the view of SJL's aunt - "She said she is not different to be the same as everyone else."

The world is complicated.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 03:18 PM

Mc Grath, you've got it. May level heads prevail.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM

OK, we'll leave it at that. Muskrat, everything's cool. .

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM

No Steve, I think you were doing it as a joke, but addressing Jack as you continually do, does not open the door to constructive debate.

You and I disagree about several things, but we dont address our post to one another in a manner which suggests mental deficiency?

Jack and I always argue about something or other, but I have always found him intelligent and civil. Why the need to demean him before even starting into the debate, if not as an undermining tactic?

Ian does the same to me all the time, when I point out that his procedures are not working and that MSM infection rates are still rising rapidly, he does not address the issue, but resorts to personal attacks, accusing me of homophobia, holding my "odious views in contempt", saying I should be ignored by other members and what I say should be regarded as "hate speech"
All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.

Well, you see, ake, I asked you to justify your assertion that I was leaving a gaping hole in my argument just because I called Wacko Wacko. Thus:

Ah, you mean I covered up some big gaping hole somewhere because I called Wacko Wacko? How's that work, then, ake?

I note with dismay that you choose to post aimless verbiage instead of addressing this point. So, I repeat (sort of). You are not keen on my calling Wacko Wacko. But what exactly is it about that that means I have covered up some big gaping hole somewhere? I note that you have not addressed this point, instead posting a bunch of obscurantist waffle (see above).

Found Wacko intelligent and civil, huh? What a lovely fellow you quite possibly are, but one does have to doubt your judgement on this one. Doubt? Nah, bollocks. It's rubbish!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM

"Can't we all just get along" (Rodney King)...

But seriously... This thread wasn't supposed to turn into yet another pissing contest...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

Guest SJL.....Your aunt sounds a lovely and very very sensible person.
She conveys my feelings on homosexuality almost exactly.
My stance against homosexual "marriage" has always been, as Ian rightly says, about health statistics and how the "marriage" issue has been used as a distraction by activists....many of whom are not homosexual themselves.
There are several valid arguments against same sex marriage, but I have heard nothing from the pro "gay marriage" activist except the myth of "equality".....An etherial concept which does not and will never exist under our present socio/economic system.
Your aunt makes excellent points on "false equality" and "unnecessary reconstruction of society"....please give her my best wishes.


You are correct and Ian is wrong, I am no hater, I cannot even bring myself to hate someone who describes me to my fellow members in such terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:28 PM

I'd think the point being made was that belittling nicknames in a discussion divert from the real issues. And that kind of thing is very often used as a way of skating round points that deserve to be addressed - and that happens often in both directions, with the other person responding to the irrelevancies instead of the issues.

I'm pleased to see that, perhaps with a few exceptions this thread hasn't spun into a shouting match. That's not really what the Mudcat is about. (For a reminder of what is central to this place I suggest opening up the current threads about a member who recently died, katlaughing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Sorry Charmion, I missed your post, MSM is a term coined by the sexual health agencies ("men who have sex with men") basically male homosexuals and bi-sexual males.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 08:39 PM

Mr McGrath....agree 100%....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 03 Aug 13 - 10:24 PM

Oh, gee, I had some friends who started a company and named it "MSM, Inc." That was in 1980, so I guess it didn't affect them.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

I have read the sage and reasonable discussion but on reflection, I still see no reason to change my stance. As it is a stance, I suppose it is better posting it as me not the silly moniker Musket.

Gay people make up a very small percentage of the population of The UK so the efforts made in trying to stigmatise them and deny them the same rights as other voting tax paying contributors to society isn't a reflection on Gay issues, it is a reflection on the task still ahead in creating a just and decent society.

So addressing this thread. Reinforcing boundaries, assuming that is a good idea in principle, should perhaps focus on perpetrators of boundary breakers, however softly spoken as well as those like me who react.

Back when I used to investigate lapses in the quality and safety of health and social care, my favourite retort to complacent management of poor care was "to permit is to promote. " I see parallels here, hence not letting go, not wishing to assume condoning through not challenging.

Sorry if it sounds boorish but not sorry for making a stance. It isn't enough to like the music of Tom Paxton, Si Khan, Vin Garbutt etc etc. Sometimes you have to ask if you like the words.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Wannabee Pharoah has form on hating minorities. Not just homosexual ones. It is quite alarming to see the usually perceptive McGrath prepared to extend civility to such an one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 04:55 AM

""All this as an alternative to discussing WHY the procedures he supports are not working and what alternatives are available.""

Could it be because those procedures have worked an are working, to the extent that HIV, while not YET curable is, according to the medical profession, reduced to the level of a manageable condition which should cause no significant decrease in life expectancy?

You have made much of your concern for those Gay men who are at risk.

Yet, when asked whether your objections would cease if HIV were eradicated, youresponded that there are other reasons.

Why should anybody believe your protestations when you don't believe them yourself?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 05:20 AM

I'm Sorry Richard, but I rarely see you debate anything on this forum, so I doubt that you are the one to give Mr McGrath advice on "perception"

You make accusations, which you are never willing to explain, then vanish from our screens...Just saying that I "have form on hating minorities" is not good enough and amounts to a repition of Ians claim that I "hate" everything and everybody.

Actually I am a cheerful and outgoing guy in real life, I enjoy my sport, my music and frequent discussion on any subject....I love this group of people and think myself fortunate to have stumbled on Mudcat so many years ago.
I look on you all as friends, even those who disagree with me most vehemently.....tho' I am especially fond of the Americans and Canadians, who appear to be without the artifice and cynicism of we from the UK.

Larry, thank you for starting this thread, I think you may have initiated a sea change for the better in this forum.....AKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM

It is always right to extend civility to others. That applies whatever you think of their opinions or behaviour.

There's a French family comedy series that was on a couple of months ago on a French channel. (Fais pas çi , fais pas ça - if you get a chance to see it that sometime I recommend it). At one point one of the families were entertaining someone, and in the curse of the visit she started coming out with the kind of racist views you often find among "nice" people, who assume you feel the same as they do.

There's a dilemma in such situations - do you flare up and denounce the views, or stay silent and effectively collude. But what the host does is neither. He politely says to the viisitor something on the lines of "You should be aware madam that you are on enemy territory", and indicates that she should leave without delay.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 09:34 AM

I agree Mc G. It's like quitting any bad habit. At first you think, "What will I do without this or that familiar vice?" As it turns out, you do fine.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:14 AM

On the subject of hated minorities, I might logically claim to be a minority of one, whom Akenaton has decided to hate, and therefore to treat as though he doesn't exist, IMO, as rude and pig ignorant as name calling, if not more so.

Or it might be that he has nothing to offer in the way of an answer, in the face of evidence from those who might be supposed to know more than he, namely the medical profession.

Who knows?......If he doesn't answer, he is safe from the ignominy of having to admit being wrong!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:34 AM

Kevin, I too have had the occasional accursed visit. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:51 AM

Oh, congratulations, Wannabee Pharaoh, you've just proved you don't won't or can't read.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 12:31 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?
I'm always happy to debate, as long as the debate is honest and civil.
As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:25 PM

I suppose everyone is in one sense a minority of one, potentially subject to hate and rejection by others.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:31 PM

300 :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:36 PM

...oh, and in keeping with the spirit of the thread.

Fuck you

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket on train from test match
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

Nobody agreed to save you your embarrassment. In fact Steve Shaw said as much and I totally ignored your request as it is not in the gift of those posting hitherto to say what comes next.

Are you going to answer the points raised by others, not, you will notice just me? Will you ignore difficult questions or take this opportunity to see reason and like many of us, allow your outlook to be influenced by others on the forum?

Your move.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM

So we have this thread, which seems to be completely unobjectionable. People would be stumbling all over themselves to vie with each other in agreeing with the premise.

I figure they could take care of that in , say, 50 postings.

But all of a sudden, it's over 300 postings.

What? I say.   There must be an argument somewhere.

Bingo.

Situation normal.

The best things in life don't change.    Dewar's whiskey (I think it was) and Mudcat arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM

"There must be an argument somewhere"

I get a feeling that that is rather what is wanted by some...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Larry the Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 03:09 PM

What I'm enjoying about this thread is that as we 'drift', we keep coming back to thinking about boundaries. I don't have a huge problem w. the violation of boundaries---it's a normal part of the human condition, particularly since 'boundaries' by definition are flexible and easily penetrated.

All we can do is state our own boundaries and call people on it when you feel they are violating them (whether it's through polite and seemingly reasonable conversation that expresses opinions that we feel disrespect certain people (violating their boundaries) or whether it's a violation of 'style'..i.e. swearing, calling people names, adults acting like 6 year olds, etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 06:25 PM

Mc Grath, thank you for your exceptional wisdom. A discussion does not have to revolve around polemics. In fact, it's better if it doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

Don, I wasn't ignoring you, but I thought we had all agreed to leave specific issues out of this thread from now on?

How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 07:25 PM

We've had lots of threads about the issues that have flared up in this thread, and generally they have spun down into shouting matches between a couple of people, while other contributors have slipped away.

The fact that the focus of this thread is on "respectful boundaries" has seemed to (largely) prevent that. I think there are still some aspects of that which could be usefully explored, and perhaps throw up some ideas for dealing with the discussion of those specific issues of controversy and similar hot potatoes, when they come up in other threads.

The thing that seems to cause difficulty for some is a sense that when faced with views they find intolerable, it is necessary to express this in language that conveys contempt and a wish to offend, and that it impossible to reconcile that with maintaining the forms of courtesy. I'd argue that that is is not true.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

That is far too simplisitic. "Intolerable" (according to my point of view) and "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are entirely different matters. Entirely. The distinction is well worth learning.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 08:21 PM

I'd disagree. The fact that we see someone's position as "uninformed, obnoxious, insulting, prejudiced and misrepresenting" are reasons we are likely to regard the views as intolerable. Clearly we do not respect the views, but that does not require that we treat the person holding them without respect. We may at the same time despise them for holding them, but that is another matter.

It occurs to me that some people may feel that to treat someone with respect while despising them is somehow dishonest or inauthentic. That is not a view I hold, but perhaps it might be worth considering.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 04 Aug 13 - 11:33 PM

I'm with McGrath (for what it's worth).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 01:08 AM

Respect is a two way street. Just because you are not the subject of disrespectful views does not mean you need to respect them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:05 AM

I think what Ian a Steve need to understand, is there are hundreds of people in this forum, many do not take part in the discussions, but are happy to read and feel part of the on line community.
It is not all about THEM and what they can tolerate.

Folk should be able to come on here and express reasonable views without being immediately attacked in an aggressive and personal manner.

None of the issues we have been discussing are simple, but some people will condone nothing but their view of the world to be expressed. It is disingenuous to promote the idea that these issues can be solved by adhering to simplistic ideology.
Open and frank discussion of the subjects is what is needed....not an "odium barrier".....that does deserve to remain in the armoury of the facsists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:14 AM

We would all do well to go back and re-read the obviously heartfelt post by GUEST SJL, concerning her relationship with her aunt and the wisdom contained within.
It would solve many problems for those who find themselves in an ideological straitjacket.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Still disagree. First, it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right". Secondly posters of loathsome views must expect to be called on them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket being obvious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:36 AM

Try expressing some reasonable views then, and see what happens.

You may be surprised.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:54 AM

There is the crux of the matter, ake

express reasonable views

Who decides what is reasonable. I, for one, am quite happy to accept what society tells me is reasonable. It is reasonable to enjoy some types of music over other. It is reasonable to express your disgust about how people in power act. It is reasonable to be against the policies of oppressive regimes. It is NOT reasonable to force minorities to undergo intrusive medical procedures. It is not reasonable to differentiate people by colour, creed or sexuality. It is not reasonable to try to force your views on others.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:57 AM

No-one perceives their post to be unreasonable.
If I find a post unreasonable, I will argue against it.
I will say how and why I disagree.

I think that is more conducive to some mutual understanding than slapping on a derogatory label and walking away.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM

There's an ambiguity in the word respect. How I'd put it is that while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them.

Feeling respect towards someone is not the same thing as treating them, including addressing them with respect.

The term "reasonable views" is unfortunate here. Whether views are reasonable or not is a separate matter. We may not respect views which. Are unreasonable, but we houkd still treat the person expressing them with respect, even if we do not feel respect towards them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

I agree McG.

Another problem is assumptions.
"If you hold this view, you must also hold these loathsome views too."

I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:49 AM

The Earth is around 6000 years old, all so-called fossil evidence is fake, radio-isotope dating methods are all a big con, Darwin was deluded (even though I've never read his book), all evolutionary biologists are dishonest and in denial of the real truth which is that God created the world and everything in it in one big go, and the Bible is the literal truth. I'm so certain of all this that I support organisations that aggressively promote it, try to abolish the teaching of evolution in schools and diss honest scientists at every turn. In fact, we've been so successful so far that four yanks in ten don't believe in evolution. Adelante! And don't expect me to listen to counter-arguments - my ears are sealed!

Chaps and chapesses, we've all seen this attitude displayed here. So do tell me. What respect do I owe this fellow? What respect has he shown to scientists and educators, and to the unfortunate intended recipients of his nonsense? If his ilk get their way, and millions of children are persuaded of this stuff, is that not abuse? A pack of lies sold as truth? So I'm supposed to be nice to him, to reason with him? We have a chap here who does just that and he's made precisely nil progress with him, and never will. Next suggestion, please!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:55 AM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justiafied it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM

"it is a tired but still true saw that respect must be earned and is not an automatic "right"." ((Richard Bridge).

"while it may be true that someone has to earn respect in order for us to feel respect, in all circumstances we have a duty to act with respect towards them."(McGrath).


Where is it written down in any kind of 'law' that respect must be earned?

Personally, I'd take McGrath's point a step further and say that while feeling respect may not be a 'duty', it's an excellent goal to be able to feel respect for everybody without them having to earn it.   Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.

Think how the world situation would change if all of us decided to focus on the respect we had for each other.   (which doesn't mean, of course, that we have to agree with them or let them get away with doing things that are harmful).


Here's how I think of it in terms of self-respect. There are things about myself I don't like and want to change. But how can I change them if I don't 'know' what they are.   And how can you really know these things unless I fully understand and embrace it.   

It's this kind of deep understanding and acceptance about myself that allows me to make those important shifts.

And why shouldn't this apply to others as well? If I can turn my abhorence of something or someone into a 'curiosity', I'll come to a much deeper understanding......and I think that's an important step toward facilitating a shift.

So I don't just want to behave with respect (although I think that's a good start). But I want to eventually be able to feel that respect as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of metal cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:02 PM

Corrected typo..this one is correct..

The thing that gets heated discussions really going, is when some 'wannabe relevant activists' starts ennobling, some fringe disability, and/or character flaw in which to hide their guilt about a troubled past..and launder it out in the latest 'political cause d'jour'.
Frankly, "We can forgive those that bore us..we can never forgive those that WE bore." ..and until those 'activists' get their 'absolution', they just get nastier, and nastier...even making stuff up, to get nasty about!..but the fact is, they are both in error, and boring.
I've warned a couple of them, that if you shove me, I'll shove back...and the reason is, a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!

Respectfully,

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,The good professor
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 12:55 PM

Woof! Grrrrr. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:08 PM

' The good professor, Constructive discussion, I see....
..and then you 'blame me'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:12 PM

Guest from Sanity makes a very good point and Ian demonstrates why this thread is necessary.
Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

Who makes the decision on what is "reasonable" or not?
Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?
Despite what Ian waffles about, the rates of disease are rising steadily and quickly in that one demographic....Ian and Steve both say that homosexuals need more education, less discrimination and stigma.....well that is what they have been getting for the last decade, with NO positive results. Additionally almost all of the aids budget has been directed towards homosexuals, with absolutely no improvement in their infection rates. To me THIS position is totally unreasonable.
They say I am contemptible for suggesting compulsory testing and contact tracing, yet the health agencies are asking for routine testing of all NHS patients within designated areas.....even people from groups which are hardly affected at all by HIV/AIDS.
They know prfectly well the demographic in which the epidemic is centred, yet political correctness demands that all should be tested in designated areas.......Is that "reasonable"?
I write here with the best of intentions regarding health..this is a very serious problem, ignored by many here, and willfully distorted by a few......Dont lecture me about my views, I want to see disease beaten, not turn my back and pretend progress is being made....it isn't.....just read between the lines of the CDC and HPA conclusions for proof.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:41 PM

While in our country HIV is more prevalent amoung gay males there are no grounds for seeing that as fixed. It certainly isn't the case in some parts of the world. The only sections of society that can feel really secure are lesbians, celibates and uninfected people in rigorously faithful relationshipa. Some kind of routine testing of everyone else makes a lot of sense. (And all those three exceptions are in fact potentiably permeable categories.)

I'm not at all clear what Guest from Sanity's point actually is. However the use of 'cripples' as an insult makes me doubtful whether that signing off '"Repectfully' can be given too much credence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 02:49 PM

The point I was referring to Mr McGrath, was about people who's agenda determines what is contemptible, odious or unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:12 PM

I think these 'fringe disabilities' go through a cycle.   First they're ignored (judged by those who don't understand as being a character flaw), then they're noticed and considered a disability and drug companies come up with strategies to make themselves money and supposedly 'able' those who are judged as 'disabled'.

Then, eventually, we start to recognize that some of those with those seeming disabilities have more abilities then the rest of us.   People with ADHD, Aspergers, other forms of Autism, etc. find ways of accepting and embracing their uniqueness.

And I see much of that same process within mudcat.   How many mudcatters are out there for whom we shift back and forth between contempt and admiration (I know I do)?

Putting people in a category is something we do for ourselves.....to simplify our lives a bit.   But who in their right mind takes these categories or labels seriously?   

There are even times when I am able to transcend my own 'self-righteous prig' category.   

Not too often, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:19 PM

Wishing to restrict people for no other reason than the gender of their partner is a political view. A view with chilling precedent but a political view.

I doubt my pointing it out is itself a political view. After all, it isn't on the same level. I don't wish to restrict free speech but I sure will point out when it ironically limits the free choice of others. When it is backed up by misrepresentation of the facts it needs challenging regardless of how odious it is.




Goofus. The good professor made a relevant point. He replied at the same level as your observations. Your inability to understand his point is the point. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

"...a lot of mental cripples hide behind a 'political' cause, dragging people with them.....and, as a 'sweet loving guy', I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!"

Oh, yeah. Lots of respect there. (I believe it is called 'flailing'.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

I admit I laughed when i read the good professor's post. I understood it.....it reflected my own thoughts about the previous post.

But then......what if he had done that to one of my posts?   hmmmm........    I probably wouldn't have understood it at all, until I took a 'step back'.   But stepping back is scary when you fear you are on the edge of a cliff.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:45 PM

Yeah but Goofus snd the good professor have form. They converse a lot on Mudcat.

The good professor (real name Rio the greyhound) latches onto Goofus because he talks the bollocks the good professor misses since the vet took them away.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 03:53 PM

The only point I can see in Guest from Sanity's post is that there are some people who he doesn't agree with, and this colours how he reacts to them. I think.

I assume that for all of us our "agenda" will determine what we see as "contemptible, odious or unreasonable".   How we behave towards people who we see as holding such views is quite another matter.

Goofus? That's a kind of saxophone isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:05 PM

I've noticed a regular pattern with many posters on Mudcat where they first insult their opponent and then follow up with two or three very articulate paragraphs stating their viewpoint very intelligently. It's something where you could just clip the preliminary insult right off the top without blunting the actual rebuttal. But I have also found humor in some of this insulting language, usually it wouldn't be something like "stupid idiot" or "liar" or what have you, but in the mocking of another poster's screen name. For example Musket is easily transformed into Muskrat. Because of the way he makes variations on his own handle regularly, what a treasure trove that could be - "Muskrat sans Clue" etc. And when Spaw told us we should all go fuck ourselves, I couldn't help myself, I just howled. At the beginning of this thread, when all the offenders burst forth to accuse one another at once, very comical. Joe's response to that, even more comical. Then you have people like Lighter who can land a zinger that comes across more as uncanny wit than any sort of nastiness. So the idea of setting boundaries comes with a certain amount of ambivalence. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy some of it. Also, I think for some it is a like a breather from polite society where you must constantly mince words so I suppose that if someone must out with it, I'd rather have that than have them disappear.

And thank you Akenaton for your kind remarks about my aunt.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:08 PM

""How odd. I don't recall being asked... "All agreed"?""

Me too neither! As a cop out from answering the question, it has a certain weak efficacy.

""As I said earlier there are quite a few valid arguments against the redefinition of marriage.""

There are certainly a few arguments which are valid in your opinion Ake, but that isn't quite in sync with the rest of your staunch declarations that you only object to the establishment of long term stable relationships because of the health risks which they would undoubtedly reduce.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:14 PM

""I advocate debating the disagreement and lay of the name-calling and labelling.""

After you Keith!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Bob Ryszkiewicz
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:19 PM

PISTOLS AT DAWN!...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Q8AqYLKro

Meeting on the field of honor...the final solution. ;0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:25 PM

""Just because there is a part of everybody that is common to ourselves....and learning to respect that part can then enhance our own self-respect.""

Very pretty sentiment Larry, but how far do you carry it.

Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM

""I'd just hate to see that happen, unanswered! I, in not calling them out on it, would be guilty of condoning their lying bullshit, misinformation, and laundering of their crap, onto unsuspecting, naive, political leaning, nincompoops..just waiting to latch onto 'something', to make their lives more relevant, than just being the 'center of nothing'!""

And there is the level of both logic and intellect which we are being asked to respect and which has recently closed a thread.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM

Don. Surely by the art of posting, we are all getting our crayons out and drawing the line? I keep alluding to the line for what good it does. There is an assumption in some threads that everybody may be similar to yourself on the basis of enjoying a type of music, the type of which causes the largest arguments here when defining it. Anyone who feels the threads above the line are less combative should search on "what is" or "1954." You haven't experienced ego issues till you wade in on that one. ..

SJL seems to enjoy parody. I think? I wonder what fun I could have with his or her initials? Might just keep my powder dry.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 04:50 PM

Once again, SJL makes a great point, that others seem to miss. A LOT of it IS done in humor, AND at the same time, is meant to make some people THINK outside the box...and yes, there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'...and then they expound on the 'talking points' as if they were issued as a revered science of fact!..when in all actuality, they are only propaganda, meant to distract from the main issues, and misinform, those who refuse to THINK!....and what is so wrong about calling that to attention, especially to those who believe they are so 'hip'? You'd THINK that somebody would research an opposing position, BEFORE spouting off the next preassigned 'tactic', by whatever political persuasion, they happen to shortsightedly subscribe to! You can pretty much bet on that if a political party is pushing and supporting it, they were paid by a corrupt lobbyist to do so!!..for their 'special interests' to profit from it!...but if they wrap it in a 'so-called liberal' or 'Conservative' banner, and wrapping paper, the idiots at large won't look any further as to the source or why.
There was a time when folk music and 'protest' seem to point the way..but those times have been long gone, since the 'protest movement' has been co-opted by the Democratic Party!..who at the time, was just another part of 'The Establishment' to whom we were all protesting!! As the way it is now, folk and protests is song are just assumed to be a part of the Democratic Party, even when the party is in bed with the very people who we were protesting!!!
The Democratic and Republican Parties, are no better than the 'Establishment' that were so block-headed in the mid 60's...but now that they issue neatly wrapped deceptive 'talking points', protest of their corruption is out the window!...and it really IS time for some group, whoever it may be, to foment a new dialogue, other than the pure horse-crap, being feed to eagerly hungry ears!..and that's what 'talking points' do, replace common sense, with off the track pandering, to those who THOUGHT themselves to be genuinely concerned about the status of what's really going on!..They, (with your gullibility), are making you totally irrelevant!...and then you bitch and whine because nobody is listening to you!..What did you expect?? Someone to marvel at your repeating a talking point, or expounding on it..when the whole premise is false from the beginning???
Some of you people are NOT inspiring people to THINK, but to fall into lone, and 'repeat', as if to re-confirm some sort allegiance to some cause, that has long ago been washed clean of anything of value!
Like I said, when I first came on here, about five years ago, or so, about turning people onto HOW to think, instead of WHAT to think. The latter, renders the 'believer' totally stupid and ignorant of what they are even talking about, and blind, as to any for-sight!..But that's OK..as long as we all belong to 'the club'.
You've GOT to be kidding me!
Sometimes it's refreshing to see an attempt at an 'original thought'...even some humor....but the antics of some of the diehard wannabe 'political activists', are as pathetic as going to a glorious funeral for a bad idea!

So, if you happen to THINK, beyond the 'talking point' mentality, congratulations!...it might just be a breath of fresh air!
..Besides, to all those who actually still write their own lyrics, a little THINKING, from a different angle, and a new twist of a phrase, might just be nourishment to your souls!
Meanwhile, the 'brain-locked' just can't get it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

"Respect Hitler,........Pol Pot,........Dr Mengele,.........Pinochet? It isn't just their actions and ideals I despise, it is very definitely the men themselves (using the word men very loosely).

Where is the line drawn, and who gets to draw it?"

Don T.....As a group facilitator/therapist, I found that to be a question that so frequently came up, and a great question!   The ability to feel some respect for people like that....people who's actions are so abhorrent that it seems almost impossible to find any humanity in them.

I spent much of my life as a therapist working with men in prisons who had committed some of the most sickening offences one could imagine.   I was able to do this work only as long as I was able to find some shred of humanity in each one of them.    For most of them this wasn't difficult at all, surprisingly.   For others?   

Well, let's just say that feeling respect for everybody isn't something for wusses. (And my inner 'wuss' comes out frequently).

But......I wonder if Hitler, Pol Pot, Mengele, and Pinochet would have turned out that way if they had been shown respect at an earlier time in their life?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:20 PM

""there are some genuine idiots on here, who's intellectual prowess falls considerably short of making it very beyond preassigned 'talking points'."

Well thinking man, while you are at it give a bit of thought to the difference between "Who's (who is) and "Whose" (belonging to whom), then add some consideration for correct use of punctuation and your rubbish might become moderately comprehensible rubbish.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

I take your point Larry, but as a therapist it's part of your job.

It isn't mine, and only the requirements of employment would persuade me to show (I could never fell) such respect.

As to your take on the treatment they received early in life, I rather think that is a grasp at a very far away straw.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

There are no Hitlers or Pol Pots in our membership Don.
We should be able to exchange differing views without abuse.
(or making things up Don)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM

Mr McGrath....I see some posts here as unreasonable, but never "odious" or "contemptible", so long as they are stated opinions and not direct orders.
I see no racism or other hatred here just opinions on immigration, health, legislation, religion and other issues.
Exactly who are these "haters" that we keep hearing about? Who spills the bile here? Who are those who wish to suspend debate?

BTW. could you please post the names of the countries where male homosexuals by demographic, are not over represented in the hiv/aids infection statistics...I can't seem to be able to find them.

SJL.....You are very lucky to have such a person in your life, I also did....long ago.
As I am nearing the end of my life, my advice would be to listen and learn carefully, you will encounter few like her on your journey.

Slainte mhath.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

From Don.

""Muskrat, don't assume you are defending everyone within a given category. People are individuals. Muskrat,""

Don't you think that your own credibility might be enhanced by learning the difference between an obsolete smoothbore firearm, and a rather smelly small rodent?"


Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

There are estimated to be more than 24 million people in 19 countries in Africa with HIV/Aids. The vast majority are heterosexual. I don't know whether the proportion is higher among male homosexuals, but that doesn't really seem particularly significant either way. It wouldn't make any significant difference to those figures if every male homosexual was infected, or if none of them were.
.........................................

People keep on confusing feeling respect for people and treating them in a way that is respectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:15 PM

You don't respect the views, fine. You look down on anyone who can hold such views, reasonable. But regardless of that, in my view, there is a duty to behave towards the person, as reflected in any communication with them, respectfully, which overides such feelings. Feelings just don't come into it.

I recognise that this is not how we are likely to behave, but I believe it is the standard towards which we should aim.

The trouble is, online abuse, however justified it can sometimes feel, is something which can easily build into something pretty damaging. I think there are rare occasions when it can indeed have a place, but they are as rare as the situations when a blow to the face is the right response.

But the views expressed by the man I was referring to are extremely abusive in themselves. He gets away with it, ironically, because his abuse is aimed at the millions of people he would, presumably, like to see following his delusion (why else does he declare such derision of science and, especially, scientists, in such evangelical terms?) rather than at named individuals. If his ilk ever fulfilled all their goals we would be back in the dark ages of magic, superstition and fear. They have already had some success in that regard. He may be a gentle and soft-spoken fellow down the pub or when he's patting his dog but his views are a threat to the advance of civilisation. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! He demonstrates his disrespect for people here by churning out the same nonsense again and again in spite of all the reasoned arguments ever put to him. We might as well have said nothing at all. Peddling dangerous and regressive nonsense to a lot of people is far more damaging than his being called a well-deserved name or two!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM

Ian and Steve have political positions and anything which runs contrary to these positions is deemed "unreasonable", "odious" or "contemptible"

This a double misrepresentation and is pretty childish as well.


Regarding the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, is it not "reasonable" to want that epidemic curtailed or stopped?

You are homophobic because you have made it some kind of mission of yours to single out homosexual men for your severe wannabe policies. You want to curtail epidemics, huh? Well where's your campaign to close down every McDonald's and pizza shop? To ban all processed convenience foods? To outlaw confectionery and sugary drinks? To force everyone to wash their hands after blowing their noses? To screen people for faecal bacteria on their hands as they emerge from public toilets? To ban alcoholic drinks? To make possession of tobacco illegal? To force everyone to take exercise? To punish obesity by law? Any one of those measures would have at least as great a benefit on public health as what you're proposing for gay men. The fact that you are obsessed by that one issue, which you claim to be your target for improving public health, can really only lead to one conclusion. It isn't really public health you're worried about at all. You just don't like gay people, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

So Steve, could you explain why you bombard me with infantile abuse when all I have ever done is to try and present modern scientific orthodoxy against your "Evolution is True" stance?

Because you're a bit of a stalker, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:45 PM

Well--

Excuse me for saying so, but this thread seems to have degenerated into a graphic illustration of the very problem stated in the initial post.

Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

So you don't feel a sense of respect towards the person. So is it that you feel that it is more effective in such a case for that to be reflected in the tone of the language used to challenge his views, or is it that you would,see it as a matter of it being dishonest if you didn't?

I would see being effective as the priority in such cases, and restrained language as an important element in being effective. In any online argument the most relevant parties are the bystanders, not the adversary.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM

I am trying to make the point that not even the most respectful, careful, restrained and considered approach has made one scrap of difference to the man in question. It's all been tried. So you have a choice. Let him keep on with it (and he will, as all evangelical types do), or slap him down. As far as I'm concerned, if he disrespects scientists without grounds or evidence he deserves every bit of flak chucked at him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:22 PM

Thanks Steve, ad hominem attack and complete failure to answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:24 PM

Firth: "Sorry, but I think that should be pointed out."

Not only did you point it out, your first few posts demonstrated it perfectly! You DO have a 'tendency' to accuse others of your own tactics!...and then try to pass off as 'oh so sweet, innocent, and well read'!..Which really isn't quite the case.
..and that IS the truth...and more than myself has pointed it out to you. Why not pay attention, and present a solid side to what you think you have to say, without your usual attacks?

You might find an honest exchange, is better than bickering.....
But then you also might learn something....something 'know-all-ogists' hate to do...learn something!...especially, if it as fact that goes contrary to your favorite political whim of the moment!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:34 PM

There are various characteristics of an internet troll, but three of those characteristics that appear in forums where people are trying to have a serious discussion about important issues are:

1. All of your carefully researched arguments, and the evidence that supports them, will simply be ignored.

2. Whatever you say will be reworded into something else.

3. Anything you say, especially if it happens to be of a personal nature, will be twisted and used against you, often to try to denigrate you or call your character into question.

Anonymity, or an easily discarded "internet name," makes the troll feel safe to say things that he would not dare say to someone face to face.

The internet troll is basically a coward who uses trolling as a means of inflating his own shaky ego.

The usual advice is "don't feed the troll," which is to say, don't respond to him and he'll go away. But more often than not, somebody will respond to him, and he manages to disrupt and divert discussions that otherwise might be fairly productive. But the troll is not interested in the discussion itself. He only wishes to disrupt it, or divert it to focus on himself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

Ad hominem? Hmm. Undiplomatic, true, but factual as well. Care to count the number of times you've popped up out of the blue to have a pot at me when I've mentioned evolution? Now compare that with the number of times you've ever engaged me on other topics. Looks embarrassingly obsessive, eh? My position is clear and has been for ages. I've wasted a lot of time on you, frankly. Perhaps the rebuke will shake you off once and for all. I have far better things to do than indulge your gripe. So do you. It really isn't anywhere near interesting enough to keep on resurrecting.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 08:56 PM

Lots of wisdom in that last post, McGrath of Harlow.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:00 PM

Steve, evolution does not explain everything. The Theory of Intelligent Design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. This is not the same as Creationism. What's more, as it was the intellectual trend in Darwin's day to transfer the model for the study of the natural sciences to social science, Darwinism led to Social Darwinism. Social policies reflecting the "survival of the fittest," applied to social affairs have been a complete disaster except for those in the privileged classes and defy anthropological evidence that man survived his early trials through cooperation rather than competition within the group. How ironic is it that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic social policy while they reject science in favor of religion?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Does anyone expect to change the views of anyone through argument? What can happen is that there is a greater understanding of where the differences are, and in some cases a recognition of areas of agreement. At the same time we can get a better appreciation of what we believe ourself, and perhaps modify that. And we can hope that other people who are undecided may find our views convincing.

But you have just described exactly how views can be changed by argument!

None of that is helped by throwing flak around, or slapping people around. And what relevance is that they might deserve it, when "it" does not in any way damage them?

Who said anything about aiming to damage them? I don't care what pete or anyone else believes in. The aim is not to "damage them" but to discredit their unpleasant, insulting and unsupportable views, as publicly expressed, especially if there is an evangelical element involved. There is no point in indulging idiots. An idiot is an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM

The social policy you refer to has nothing to do with Darwin. The usurping and warping of a man's honourable ideas after he's dead for nefarious causes should not be used to besmirch his name. And there is no "Theory of Intelligent Design". There is the delusion of intelligent design. Find other ways of expressing wacky notions other than in dishonestly-scientific language. Evolution has had almost four billion years to accumulate the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. That's more than enough time to create the illusion of design. Unfortunately, accommodating intelligent design goes hand-in-hand with a complete (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. I can recommend a good book if you like, published in 1859.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:19 PM

Incidentally, evolution by means of natural selection does indeed explain all of life on Earth. It might even go a long way towards explaining the origin of life. It's a good bet that it would explain life anywhere in the universe, come to think of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:24 PM

Well it sure seems that Firth understands what he is talking about on his last post!!!
Now if he would only not deflect it, as if it was applying to someone else, besides himself...truth to tell..

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 09:49 PM

"Intelligent design" is a sort of reverse engineering.

I recall seeing a supposed "science" program on television a few years ago. Very well produced, much like a "Nova" presentation, called "Our Privileged Planet." With "Nova"-like graphics, it talked about the place of the earth in the universe, and how conditions were perfect for the existence of humans, as opposed to many other planets with no water, atmosphere, or other necessities of life. After most of an hour, it zeroed in on its main thesis: all of these wonderful, life-sustaining conditions HAD to be evidence that there was an "Intelligence" behind it all!

It wasn't until that close to the end of the show that I realized that it was a bloody elaborate commercial for "Intelligent Design!"

Damned sneaky!

The simple fact is that if the earth didn't have an oxygen-rich atmosphere, have water, and wasn't far enough from the sun for water to be in liquid form, and for the temperature to be in the "Goldilocks zone"—not too cold, not too hot, but just right, and a whole host of other conditions conducive to the emergence of life—we wouldn't be here to speculate on how we came about.

"Intelligent Design" is merely Creationism in a lab coat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 10:13 PM

I created this thread. Look what it's evolved into. How much of this is evolution and how much is intelligent design?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Aug 13 - 11:54 PM

It started out with a good premise, Larry, but I think after evolving for awhile, it shows little signs of intelligent design.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:19 AM

Then maybe you should read, instead of posting....see what happens. Maybe it will evolve into a new creation!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:28 AM

Good idea, GFS.   Sort of like if the creator would just sit there and mind his/her own business. (And assuming there is a creator, that's probably what he/she is doing).   

Unless the creator is like Randy Newman's creator in God's Song.



http://youtu.be/vEKuGcmW70I

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM

Well, you never know....in the beginning God created man in his own image, and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:57 AM

Steve, so how do you explain irreducible complexity? If a given irreducibly complex biological entity is absolutely nonfunctional without the full sum of its parts, how could it have evolved through natural selection? Any irreducibly complex entity, in order to be what it is, had to have manifested whole and functional.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:15 AM

SJL, I just brought that up less than a week ago, that natural selection, and 'evolution' as Darwinian devotees put forth, are not compatible. Thank you, for broaching the subject, again, in your way.

GfS

P.S. Then on the other hand, there is another 'evolution' aspect that makes them choke as well....We'll see if it goes there.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:04 AM

Devotees? them?

Even your shorter contributions make the good professor sigh wistfully for the return of what you speak.

Keep banging the rocks together Goofus. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:43 AM

I do not have to explain irreducible complexity to you, because, in the world of living things, there is no such phenomenon. Again, you betray a complete (and possibly deliberate) misunderstanding of evolution. The bogus notion of irreducible complexity is no more than a facile attempt to run evolution backwards. Well you can't do that because evolution has no forwards. No goals, no acme of perfection to seek. Any example of irreducible complexity you wish to claim can be refuted by recourse to many examples of "simpler" structures representing a whole range of evolutionary steps. They all work perfectly well for the organism in question and in no way represent faltering steps along the way to some kind of finished article. What you're utterly failing, possibly disingenuously, to get your head round is the vast length of time natural selection has had to accumulate changes. Not only that, there is plenty of evidence that components which have one function can not only be adapted for other functions but can also be combined with other components to provide an improved or a novel function (the oft-quoted example of the flagellum, for example, a famous bogus example of irreducible complexity). Once again, I can suggest a good book, published in 1859. I especially refer you to Chapter 6, in which Darwin deals, frankly and elegantly, with the alleged irreducible complexity of the eye. He ends with a diplomatic little dig at irreducible complexity merchants' rather presumptious attitude toward their own alleged Creator. Nice one, Charles. But being nice didn't work. There are still clods around, even in 2013, who are so obsessed with religion and the idea that it's impossible for God not have created absolutely everything that they just won't listen to evidence. And they wonder why some of us get so annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:52 AM

And, if you want a true example of irreducible complexity, there's always God! He must have had the biggest and most complex brain ever in order to create absolutely everything just like that, sort out all the laws of nature, and, on top of it, be all-seeing and all-knowing and have time to listen to billions of prayers a day and judge millions of souls a day.

He must have had - wait for it - one hell of an intelligent designer!

(Steve, expecting to be told how many different kinds of God there are...)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:10 AM

SJL, you might find this Wikipedia article useful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

One particular sentence stands out -

Some critics, such as Jerry Coyne (professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago) and Eugenie Scott (a physical anthropologist and executive director of the National Center for Science Education) have argued that the concept of irreducible complexity, and more generally, intelligent design is not falsifiable, and therefore, not scientific.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM

Unfortunately, falsifiable does not mean false. Putting that argument is simply leaving the issue open to creationists to claim some credibility. They're experts when it comes to that: God is always placed deliberately beyond science so that his existence cannot be refuted by evidence and reason. The case against intelligent design is that, in the 21st century, it is an argument from a position of deliberate, eyes-shut ignorance. Classic God of the Gaps stuff (though its supporters never actually see the gaps closing fast). In 1859 Darwin anticipated intelligent design (a move that was sine qua non for his theory) and refuted it beautifully in Chapter 6. We have far more evidence today, much of it in the fields of genetics and biochemistry, than Darwin couldn't even dream of having, and there is no excuse for putting an argument that ignores it, let alone ignoring all the excellent work done which comprehensively debunks the notion of a designer. What a shame that supporters of intelligent design deliberately display a lack of the main attribute of their proposed designer: intelligence. You can't argue with idiots. Well, it can be fun to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:34 AM

""(or making things up Don)""

Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions, especially when slagging of the ethnic minorities you despise (and Irish Republicans).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:47 AM

""Well personally, I dont see how anyone could confuse Ian with an obsolete smoothbore firearm?.... :0)""

Well, my half asleep friend, you may be the only person on Mudcat too inattentive to have noticed Ian posting as Musket!

And what is a musket?.......An obsolete smoothbore......need I go on?

Mind you, inattention would seem to explain much of your input.

e.g. your overlooking the latest position on HIV according to specialists who have spent years researching and devising treatments, eventually reducing it to ""a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy"", which puts it within the realms of incurables like diabetes, cirrhosis and COPD.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:10 AM

All these posters saying "you" to a range of different unnamed people must make this thread extremely confusing to readers who aren't obsessive thread and post analysers... more especially where a number of other posts from different people have intervened.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not smooth nor a bore
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM

Dream on suckers...

Be buggered if I know where the nickname came from, except I've had it since I was at junior school and am now old enough to be a bore, hence trying desperately not to be so.

Except when questioning absurd and hateful positions. I'll happily be boring then cos I won't give up. Not for a minute.

Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:11 AM

Steve Shaw

That post would read much better without the first sentence. :-(

Indeed it would and it's to your credit to acknowledge the fact. The second sentence is a bit strange as well but you'll have to take that up with Professor Coyne. Do you still reject the concept of falsifiability?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on. As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue. By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level. I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:44 AM

Don...I was having a little ironical joke, but if you have to explain these things, they dont work.

Read it over a few times and it will come to you.
(clue, its not really about the musket)
Dont know why you are so upset, we dont argue very much these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:49 AM

Additionally Don, you cannot infect anyone else if you suffer from diabetes.
I think it may be in another realm Don?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:04 PM

Steve Shaw: "If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it?"

Well, if it was a 'little brain fart' that would be one thing..but you keep running for shelter every time your 'little brain farts' are discovered to be more like a series of overwhelming flatulence.

You ought not dismiss such a long 'run' of 'inconsistencies', that prove to be poking holes in your main premise....but then, if you decided to move on, what's next?...dysentery??

Perhaps your 'concept' of 'God', is nothing more than a rejection of how or what it was portrayed to you, in your youth, by a bogus 'religion'. You may consider that within 'God' are all the properties of physics, both seen and unseen by the naked eye...a whole new realm of existence might open up to you as well...because your rejection, of what you term as 'God', might be the first step in the right direction!.....
..and that is meant, respectfully.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 01:42 PM

Heheh. If that post was respectful then I'm the bloody Queen of Sheba. Congratulations, Guffers, on being the first to remould God to your own predilection since I predicted it. It's a slow start but I hope there'll be more to come. A force blowing through everything, perhaps, or the invisible intelligent energy driving the universe. Maybe even an old bloke with a beard with Jesus sitting on his right hand! Sounds like fun...

Oh well, that's me consigned... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:06 PM

There is in fact a real distinction between "falsifiable" and "false". All kinds of things are not realistically falsifiable but at the same time reasonably considered false. For example it is not possible to prove that Elvis Presley is not well and living in the Andromeda Galaxy.

Again it would be pretty hard to prove false the claim that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

But aren't all 'proofs' really based on probabilities that increase as we get more and more evidence?   So that we can prove that something is false, but we can only keep obtaining more evidence to support a 'truth'. (sorry if I'm off base, but my scientific methods courses are way in the past).

Can we potentially prove that it's false that Steve Shaw and Guest from Sanity are the same person?

And evidence for it's truth? Well, we all know about the 'dark side'........and the surprising ways that that side of ourselves comes out.   So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?) wrestling with those two parts of him/her self.   

Let's watch all their further posts to see if we can gather some further evidence to support this hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 02:33 PM

Addendum: I guess it would involve all of us noticing the similar characteristics of these two identities.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:02 PM

"And I think you think the same as me "...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 03:32 PM

Of course we can prove Steve Shaw and Goofus aren't the same person.

1. My dog only gets interested in those who talk bollocks in remembrance of his own.

2. Steve is my co Messiah (see atheist thread that at long last has evolved into something good. A new religion without any of that embarrassing God stuff.) I woul definitely know if I had entered into a trinity with Goofus. I choose my harmonica players and gnomes seriously. )

We can also prove that this thread just goes to show that bigotry and creationism will raise their silly little heads regardless of the given debate.

Maybe a good idea not to have a pop at reactions but find the cause?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM

Larry the Radio Guy: "So here we have Guest from Shaw (or is it Steve from Sanity?)"

Steve from Sanity?..You have reached a disconnected number, try again, later.

GfS!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:31 PM

It's perfectly simple. I'm literate. I'm not homophobic and I don't brag about someone dying in my arms. Etcetera! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM

Incidentally, I think that as soon as the word "prove" comes into any discussion of science or religion we should be able to invoke a law at least as powerful as Godwin's. I've got a bit of ego in me, so I'll formulate it here and now:

SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter at the poster's self-inflicted descent into twatdom."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:48 PM

Don T.
Acording to you who have been known to be terminologically inexact on numerous occasions,

I have never knowingly posted anything untrue.
You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 04:58 PM

I have never knowingly posted anything untrue.

Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:01 PM

I didn't say natural selection was bunk. I said it doesn't explain all. To me, natural selection is incorporated in design. Living things adapt. i don't think anyone would dispute that. But scientific method is limited. Did you ever hear of this guy?

http://erraticwisdom.com/files/exp_s1_n1.pdf

Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:26 PM

"SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...."

Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!...

...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder!

Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest!

Enjoy your hike.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM

Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off...

Just food for thought...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:09 PM

Steve, I do not understand your comment.
Is it an accusation?
Please be specific because I repeat, I do not lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Well guffo, I do like think I have comedic qualities. Bobert, that is the appliance of science. I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 06:21 PM

Steve, I do not understand your comment.

I tend to speak plainly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:07 PM

People seem to have overlooked that mathematical proofs are absolute.

And that the experience of general revulsion may tend to encourage those with loathsome views to hide them. Why, only tonight a man dared to call himself a Thatcherite in the pub. But then he went to the bar to avoid my condemnation.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

Or perhaps he wanted a drink, Richard?

My impression is that often are quite pleased to be scorned by people they scorn. Consider the case of readers of the Sub or Daily Mail. Criticism from the left confirms their attudes. In the same way, if the Sun declared support for something I supported I would worry that I'd perhaps got it wrong.

The same applies I imagine in relation to some people posting here, for most of us. Of course we wouldn't all be thinking of the same people.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

Well, Richard, God is beyond not only science but mathematics too. His adherents have formulated him so. There may well be proofs in mathematics, but applying those proofs to the real world and to the universe is a whole nother issue. We don't usually know enough. It's a delicious problem though, much relished by honest scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Janie
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM

Egos. Everybody has one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:26 PM

Some a lot bigger than others...

I don't give a rat's ass about mine... Hey, I'd rather be on the correct side of issues, truth and reality than the wrong side...

No brag, just fact...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM

Actually, natural selection does explain it all.

"Intelligent Design" is another way of saying, "God did it." And if that's true, that raises a serious question about whether or not God is really perfect (the assumption being that God IS perfect because, after all, He's God). As environmental conditions changed over the eons, there were dead ends with a number of species, species that died out because they couldn't adapt, or their adaptation to new circumstances didn't work.

If "designed," then not really all that "intelligent." More in the nature of experimentation to see if some adaptation works or not. And—POOF!!—there goes "omniscience!"

But be of good cheer. This does not necessarily imply that God does not exist. It could mean that God knew that evolution was the way to do it. He started the process, then let it work without having to mess with it.

Let me be clear:   I am not asserting here that God either does or does not exist, I am just showing that, considering the number of species that died out because they could not adapt to new environmental conditions, "Intelligent Design" isn't really all that Intelligent, and it has the further flaw of calling God's omniscience into question.

Have a care, lest you shoot yourself in the foot.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

Actually some varieties of "intelligent design" not involving God crop up quite frequently in Science Fiction narratives. For example, 2001 - A Space Odyssey.

The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question. It's not got much to do with notions of a "Young Earth" or "Creationism".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:18 PM

"The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches".

That's the Christian chuch's attempt to find a 'respectful boundary' between some Christian beliefs and evolution.

(wasn't that a clever segue back to the thread topic?)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM

chuch
        
"To have God in everything you do" -- Snoop
I'm gonna holla at one of these fine hunnies. chuch.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 09:41 PM

Religion and science don't have to be enemies...

Believe me...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:00 PM

They aren't really. Except in some peoples' minds.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 10:43 PM

Steve Pshaw: "I'm talking about science as a process for explaining the universe. SJL, there can be no such thread. There is no intelligent design. You can't seem to get your head round the fact that billions of years of evolution are more than long enough for evolution by natural selection to accumulate all the attributes of living things that make the world so wonderfully diverse. Open your eyes. Every aspect of evolution by natural selection can be explained by the laws of nature that we know. There is no need, no space for an "explanation" that is anything but, something that will take infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposedly here to explain."


"SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...."

Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!...

...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder!

Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest!

Enjoy your hike

GfS

P.S. The irony of it all!...Then he wonders why people can't take him seriously!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:12 AM

Also sprach the right-wing master of denial and revisionism.

That is not plain speaking Steve.
Is it aimed at me and is it an accusation of lying and of being right-wing?

I think it a good example of the behavior in question.
Unfounded personal attack in lieu of debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:25 AM

Steve Shaw

If I'm wrong I'm wrong. That was a brain fart. But, I mean, what made me think you'd pounce on it? Do try to move on.

Good Grief! I give you credit for acknowledging you own mistake and you complain. There's no satisfying some people.

As for falsifiability, very interesting. Not relevant to this chit-chat, but do continue.

As I said, take it up with Professor Coyne but in every court case I have looked at where they have tried to keep creationism and intelligent design out of US schools, the fact that intelligent design was not subject to falsification has been a significant part of the evidence given by the scientific expert witnesses.

By constantly raising heady philosophical points in front of creationist idiots you're simply encouraging them. They'll end up thinking they're on your level.

So you want me to come down to their level and throw away the core of what makes science different?

I much prefer to tell 'em what I really think. And I think you think the same as me really, don't you? :-)

As far as I can make out, you think that the sheer weight of evidence makes Evolution and Darwin's Theory of Evolution TRUE. According to this article -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design, intelligent design is presented by its advocates as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins". Spot the difference. If the best you can do is bang your little fist on the table and scream "Evolution is true. Evolution is true. It's true. It's true. It's true." I don't think you're going to achieve very much.

No Steve, I don't think the same as you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM

Bobert

Enough science has been proved to allow the Mars Rover to have traveled millions of miles and landed on a rock way the heck a long way off...

Actually, Bobert, the Mars Rover got there using Newton's theories which have been disproved, superseded by Einstein's relativity.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:05 AM

GUEST,SJL

Hey Steve, if you want to start a thread about evolution vs. intelligent design, I'll join you. Snail can come along too. It might take him a while to get there...

No thanks. SJL. Intelligent design is a massive piece of intellectual dishonesty. Even its proponents don't really believe in it. It was a cynical ploy to try and smuggle creationism into the US education system where it is illegal to teach religion in public schools.

Did you read that article I linked to?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket on his subject
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:35 AM

Newtonian science was not superseded by Einstein. The workings of The Principia can be shown to calculate the trajectory, escape velocity required and every other force calculation required for the Mars landings. You could put in the numbers straight to my copy in my study, in the original Latin, unedited.

What relativity did was to remove the "absolute" state that Newton put forward to give a baseline, an anchor to what he saw but couldn't totally comprehend, later defined under relativity. It was the rationale not the laws that changed. Don't confuse it with quantum mechanics, which have no bearing on physical force calculations as the quantum world has its own set of physics, which we are beginning to map out. Quantum mechanics have no place for thermodynamics as we comprehend for the world we can observe. Newton explained relativity without realising it when he showed every body to have mass and a gravitational pull on all other mass centres. He just thought there was absolute time and position, which Einstein showed to be unnecessary.

Out of interest, my PhD thesis on mechanical vibration took the Newtonian f= ma and introduced the relativity aspect of vibration of an otherwise inert body. As in vibrating relative to what?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved is pretty well the standard teaching in mainstream Christian churches. Whether that counts as "intelligent design" is an interesting question.

It simply doesn't work. You can't attach God in any way whatsoever to evolution. Evolution and design are mutually totally exclusive. The biggest intellectual copout is to say God started it all off. A couple of things. There is no need for a God. The laws of nature look after everything to do with evolution. Even right at the beginning of life (possibly even before). There isn't a single aspect of natural selection that can't be explained by the laws of nature. God, in terms of kick-starting or running evolution, is totally redundant. And the other thing is that evolution has no goals. No end-products. It is not striving for perfection or ever-increasing complexity. "The idea that evolution involving natural selection is the way divine purposes are achieved..." But evolution has no purposes, divine or otherwise. There is nothing to achieve. If you think otherwise, you simply don't understand evolution at all. This woeful attempt at accommodation with science by religion is valiant (an effort to keep its more science-minded adherents on board, that's all), but ultimately misguided.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 10:07 AM

Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover???

So much for "rocket science"...

Get real, dude (or dude-ess)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:10 AM

""Smooth bore? No. Well honed with a decent helix. Like peering up James Bond's arse.""

If true, you are not a musket and I shall henceforth refer to you as "RIFLE".

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 11:21 AM

""You were caught out inventing an incident that never happened, just to help you make your case in the cycling thread.""

And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK?

And you also know the ins and outs of the CPS, including the changes they may make to a particular charge prior to trial?

Of course you don't!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

Bobert

Oh geeze, Snail... Not once ounce of science in the Mars Rover???

Not what I said. You spoke of the journey, not the contents of the Rover and the critical word is proved. Newtonian mechanics is good enough to get to Mars; "disproved" doesn't mean "doesn't work".

Sorry Dr Mather but it might not work quite so well for Mercury and if your sat nav didn't take relativity into consideration you might find yourself getting quite lost.

I have no inetention of confusing it with quantum mechanics.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

And you have access to the records of every magistrates court in the UK?
They are all searchable, as is local reporting.

You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding.
Are you changing that?
Furious Riding only applies when a pedestrian is injured.
You did not mention an injury.

The whole ludicrous story is made up.
Your claim to personally know five people whose cars have been damaged in collisions caused by but not involving cyclists is also unconvincing.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 03:24 PM

"The laws of nature look after everything..."

Very god of them. That was a typo, but perhaps I'll leave it.

.........

I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM

Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean? Do you mean the social progress that imagine would occur if people gave up thoughts of God and religion and confined their thoughts of reality to the material world? It seems so.

Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant.

Bobert, while science informs technology, they are not the same thing. Technology is DESIGN. Things that miraculous as you described just don't assemble themselves and start working. Man himself becomes the analogy. This is why machines came first. At the time, man's conception of himself according to science was mechanistic a la Descartes. After DNA, you get computers. It's not that the mechanistic aspect is not still there, it's just that it's likely to be a combination of both and much lighter on the hardware. They started out clunky and they got smaller and smaller and smaller. I'm typing on an iphone. It's a phone, a texting device, a calculator, a camera, a music player, a notebook, a datebook, an address book, a time piece, an alarm clock, a compass, an internet browser, an NSA tracking device...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM

The term "progress" involves a metaphor. It envisages change as forward movement, getting somewhere, having a direction. It doesn't really fit too well with recognising evolution as change which does not include any notion of "progress".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:27 PM

I have been on holiday and while away all his has blown up.
so this is my FIRST post here,...so thankyou steve for raising the question of creation again!
has anyone else noticed how he just cant leave it alone?
he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!
Then there are his repeated charges that I diss honest,hardworking scientists, yet it never seems to occur to him that it is he that disses hardworking,honest scientists that hold opposing views to his.
of course , he will claim that those views are unscientific .....but I believe that is known as begging the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM

Kevin, it was the bicycle thread.thread.cfm?threadid=151274&messages=401

05 Jul 13 - 03:00 AM

01 Jul 13 - 11:05 AM

04 Jul 13 - 07:58 AM

04 Jul 13 - 08:06 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket missing something
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Dozy sod. Setting a trajectory that is parabolic due to gravity takes time and distance into account. The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional. Complicated yes, but can be demonstrated without moving outside of The Principia.

Einstein's special theory isn't in the frame. Relativity tells us time would be a variable with regard to velocity. Whilst a spaceship is fast, it would not need correction as the increase in mass (not within measurable bounds) would retard the velocity to correct the time dilation. But none of this is measurable beyond theoretical models. Other than beagles, such things don't get lost.....

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

GUEST,Musket missing something

Dozy sod.

You lookin' at me?"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!"

I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution.
That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too!
Go figure.

BTW, anyone come to mind?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Steve, you keep saying that challenges to the Theory of Evolution are holding back progress. What progress do you mean?

"Keep saying it"? I don't recall having said this at all! I love challenges to the theory of evolution as it happens. But those challenges need to be based on evidence before I'll listen. Not based on the insertion of a fellow for whom there is no evidence and who needs infinitely more explaining than the stuff he's supposed to explain. Simple!

Earlier we seemed to be in agreement that Darwinism should not be misapplied to social affairs. Why not? If it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man? Methodological naturalism as social "science," why not? What's the ethical quandary there? Is there one? Whether Darwin intended it is irrelevant.

Darwin was a scientist who confined the conclusions of his research to the natural world. You have no right to extrapolate beyond his expressed intentions. That's what the Nazis did, remember? Do you for a single second think that Darwin would have shackled himself to the Nazi cause? By saying "if it's good for nature, why isn't it good for man?" you are displaying, I'm sorry to say, pig ignorance of what evolution by natural selection is. Go thou and read Darwin's fabulous book. Take your time.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:22 PM

pete from seven stars link: "he will deny it but I suspect he's struggling with something, or maybe SOMEONE!"

I've pointed that out to him on several occasions, something in his youth and his hangover from being Catholic. It screams out louder than his obsession about creation vs evolution.
That being said, he'd be the first to deny, that if/when humans 'evolve' higher, that the first to make it through to the next evolutionary stage was false, too!
Go figure.

BTW, anyone come to mind?

GfS

What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about? Guffers, sober up (or go cold turkey) and try again tomorrow! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM

Twat. Machines don't breed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 13 - 06:41 PM

Machines don't breed? Yes we do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:32 AM

Steve: "What's this incoherent mess supposed to be about?"

Look, you don't have to play 'stupid'..........just be yourself, that will do!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM

Steve, earlier in this thread you complained of another poster, "his views are a threat to the advance of civilization. Four in ten Americans not believing in evolution, so please don't tell me I'm overstating the case! "

Ok, so you wrote it once, but you stressed it so emphatically that I thought I read it more than once. "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise. You certainly gave the impression that you believe that the four in ten Americans who don't believe in evolution are threatening this advance. I don't think I took your words out of context and I think it's a valid question.

Exactly how is non-belief in evolution "a threat to the advance of civilization"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

Hi, SJL...As an addendum to your post, you wrote, "Advance of civilization" I interpret to mean progress, social progress to be precise."
I just wanted to underline, that 'social progress' without the spiritual aspect, is an impossibility....

OK, now back to your question posed to Steve.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:23 AM

""You stated that the fine was for Furious Riding.
Are you changing that?""

The initial charge was furious riding, the conviction was for lesser offences including riding on a footpath and failure to show due consideration.

You have accused me of making things up on several occasions, including some for which I have been able to supply proof.

In every case your accusation was a lie.

Of all the posters on this site you are the most biased, the most bigotted, the most xenophobic and the most dishonest.

You have no business being present at a discussion of respect, a concept of which you have no knowledge.

In future, no post from you will receive a response from me.

To me, you do not exist.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM

""I'm mildly curious what Keith and Don are on about, with all this Furious Posting.""

Kevin,

On threads where I dare to disagree with know-it-all Keith, if I post about any personal experience, he accuses me of making it up.

The clown doesn't know anything about me, so he makes it up as he goes along, then claims that I am the liar.

There are numerous examples in threads about Muslims, cyclists and many others.

He doesn't want his pet likes to be shown up in a bad light, so no true examples will be accepted.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:45 AM

Don's story.
"Where I live, there is a maze of footpaths offering shortcuts through the estate, which frankly are a death trap for pedestrians, especially the elderly, disabled or blind, since the local cycling fraternity don't seem to know what the word "footpath" means

I have to use one of those to get to my GP's surgery and about two years ago stepped into the end of it to be confronted by a cyclist doing about 20mph.

This halfwit yelled "Get out of the way, you fucking useless old cripple". I flattened myself against the fence in this 3 foot wide alley, and my walking stick unfortunately hooked his handlebar. It was a complete accident, but I have neither sympathy nor regret for his trip to the hospital in an ambulance, nor for the £80 fine he got for "furious riding"."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:50 AM

"His views" go well beyond denying evolution. He takes a literal view of the Bible and would probably like to see us all living by it. He has demonstrated illiberal views on abortion. His eyes are shut to solid scientific evidence and wide open to quackery of the worst kind. On his own he is just a silly and deluded man. But he isn't on his own. His spirit is shared by a fair number of charismatic fundamentalists (not only Christians, either) whose certainties have convinced them that it's right to foist their views forcibly on others and to deny good science. Witness attempts to get equal billing for creationism with evolution in schools, or, worse still, to prevent the teaching of evolution altogether. Now if you think that a world significantly influenced by people like that wouldn't be less civilised even than the one we have now, well I'm not with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:24 AM

well maybe the world we live in has got worse.
it certainly aint got no better.
and why should purveyers of violence and crime worry if we are only re=arranged pond scum and they think the law wont expose them , and there is no final judgment either.
and of what practical use is Darwinism, other than dispelling suppossed ignorance - but then we are back to begging the question are we not?!
I can tell you again where it has hindered practical science.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 06:33 AM

Dispelling ignorance, in which I include persuading people to accept evidence instead of magic and superstition, has made a massive contribution to civilisation. Maintaining ignorance, as executed by the saintly Mother Teresa and every pope for centuries, simply works the other way. Your personal brand of ignorance, which you are only too happy to convey to us, is simply at one extreme on the spectrum.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:10 AM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:37 AM

Musket missing something

Right. I've worked out that it is me you're calling a "Dozy sod". You've been spending too much time with Steve Shaw.

The relative position between three objects and allowance for movement through time is pure three dimensional.

Not under General Relativity it isn't. It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

In applied science, Newtonian mechanics is fine for all ordinary, everyday purposes like playing billiards, jumping off tall buildings or sending a spaceship to Mars. It might give you problems with Mercury because, being so close to the Sun, its orbit does not follow Newton's predictions but it does follow Einstein's.

The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:39 AM

""I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.""

I don't know McG, I see that as mixing two arguments.

Evolution has little to do with the development within a species in the period during which it exists, other than having led to that species and determined its longevity or otherwise.

What that species achieves during its lifespan is a matter of ability, not evolution.

The concept that evolution has an agenda, or concern for an end game is false.

It is not a reasoning entity and lacks any capability to care about the end results of its operation. The first species to develop true self awareness happened perchance to be mankind, and self awareness permits the existence of an agenda.

IMHO, of course! YMMV.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:45 AM

""The clock in your sat nav is deeper in the Earth's gravitational well than the clock in the satellite so runs slower. If the programme didn't allow for this there would be an error of something like ten miles. Newton's theories are very, very good but there are real life situations where they give the wrong answer.

As a theory of pure science, General Relativity gives an entirely different description of how the Universe works. It supersedes Newton.""

I never knew that.

One of the joys of Mudcat is learning most unexpected things from people of whose knowledge and skills one was unaware.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization because most of the people who reject evolution are, well, fanatically religious. So then, is it really the science you are concerned with here or is it the politics of the religious right that is correlated with non-belief in evolution? If it's the latter then I can see your point.

I believe in the separation of church and state and I think it is well supported by scripture. I do not believe that the religious right respects this separation. They obsess on "social issues," which they narrowly define as issues relating to sexual (and reproductive) morality in a very Victorian way, even though Christ had very little to say about such matters because they were simply not his priority. Love, charity, not judging others were his priority. The religious right shows very little evidence of following Christ's teachings in their political maneuverings. So happy to spend on "defense" while unconcerned with whether people go sick or hungry.

Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM

SJL: "Instead, it is the political left who seem more inclined to hold values that reflect Christ's teachings. That is why I commented that it is ironic that so many conservatives still ascribe to Darwinistic policy while overtly rejecting science in favor of religion. You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to."

I don't think either the 'right or left' adhere to Christ's teachings as a fundamental platform for their religious views. The 'right' while using 'religion' to further their agenda, seems more inclined to adhere to 'survival of the fittest'....ask any corporate/banking/political head!..While the 'left' seems to favor state control, over self control, and yet they run for cover, and fear the very thing the press on toward!

Truth of the matter is, the propaganda by both, 'right and left', is meant to confuse the subscribers of both, to mask their intentions, motives, means and agendas. 'Religion' is to 'spirituality' as 'politics' are to the 'truth'. BOTH are exclusive of each other. People confuse the terms 'religion' as having ANYTHING to do with the Spirit, and 'politics' with Freedom and Liberty. Both politics and religion are the biggest frauds perpetrated on the human race to control masses of people....whereas being tuned into the Spirituality, defies control of either.

This from the 'Thinkerator' thread...Little Hawk NAILS IT!

Subject: RE: BS: Defective Thinkerator Syndrome (DTS)...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 AM

"God made me to know him, love him and serve him"

You hear that from some people....but it seems to propose a separate God. That is, there's God...."over there"...wanting to be known, loved, and served by this person, that person, etc...

But God is supposed to be infinite.

And what is infinite is not just "over there", it's everywhere.

And it doesn't need to be loved or appreciated by anyone because it is already complete, therefore it needs nothing.

What if we are God (but not all of God) just like a drop of water is a part of the ocean, but isn't all of the ocean? And what if a drop of water thought it had to worship the ocean? And feared that the ocean would judge it and find it wanting? But didn't realize that it IS the ocean? In microcosm. Just as each one of us is life itself...individualized...the entirety of life being what some people refer to as "God"?"

Now if God is love, and all of it's properties of physics, both seen and unseen, what a vain attempt, by both 'religion' and 'politics'(either side), it is to try and control 'It', make its dictates, or deny the existence, and offer 'solutions' that are mere excuses to hold onto a temporal 'power' and 'control' over people's lives!

BTW, the end result of ALL politics is tyranny!
Then end result of all religions is conformity for control!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM

Ah yes, and then there's the truth. Politics is a strategy of divide and conquer. Religion punishes heretics. One thing is certain, the elite of either side of a political or religious divide will not be subject to the rules they lay down for you.

Anthropologically speaking, the first class apart from the community was the "priesthood." (more on this when I locate my notes). The state is nothing more or less than a secular priesthood.

GfS and Little Hawk, both of you are really in the zone! Don't know why anyone would call GfS Goofus. It really doesn't fit.

Muskrat, I need a new name. You really can't do much with SJL. Someone mentioned Suzy Sock Puppet but I don't know. I'll have to get back to you :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

Steve, I sensed that you perceive religion as this threat to the advance of civilization...

Well you can just stop right there. I have not said anything like that. I was referring to those with extreme views who deny evolution, which is good science, and who try to replace it with creationism, which is a pack of lies based on superstition and no evidence. Religious people have been in the forefront of civilisation in many fields. Carrying one delusion doesn't stop people from doing good stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:10 PM

What a delightful series of posts! I think that all the mudcat posters have a brilliant ability to look at the 'big picture', analyze, it, and challenge each other's analysis.   

What gets in the way? It's almost like something internal becomes triggered, and both the big picture and our own self-insight becomes (at least temporarily) obliterated.   Then all semblance of respect goes out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM

You'd think they would reject Social Darwinism along with Evolution wouldn't you? It's rather disingenuous of them not to.

No I wouldn't. The two things have got absolutely nothing to do with each other.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM

I'm not too sure how a belief that Society advances, unless prevented by people who don't see natural selection as the only game in town, is consistent with the principle that evolution has no room for the concept of advance or progress.

Society does not advance by evolution via natural selection. Some of you guys really need to find out what evolution actually means. This bloke I've heard of published a great book about it in 1859. Get thee off to Amazon.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket again
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:02 PM

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

General relativity was profound and upset a key tenet of the Principia, that of absolute space, absolute time,absolute position. The conundrum is explained with Newton's bucket. But in the observable realistic achievement stakes, f=ma can help plot your trajectory with gravitational slingshot to such a local target quite easily. Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

It is disingenuous to suggest removal of the need for fixed state supersedes the gravity, force and mass concepts. The concepts are there, the mathematical relationships are there, the ratios between them represent his clarification.

Relativity did remove other sacred cows such as the ether, but we need to look at the work of Planck, through to Heisenberg onwards to begin to dismantle the Principia, as we look at the quantum world. Space probes are in the physical word though...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 01:30 PM

The speculation around the notion of 'dark energy" has a lot in common with that around the notion of "ether".
............................
While Social Darwinism was a misapplication of a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory, it definitely drew its inspiration from Darwinism, and also gained a lot of the respect paid to it, and its ability to be effective, from that connection. It seemed scientific. And it hasn't ever really gone away.

The idea that that "progress" is a meaningful metaphor for human society, rather than, say, growth, or simply change, is one that bears examination.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:06 PM

It doesn't mean it doesn't stink. Darwin would turn in his grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 03:38 PM

Steve, I'm stopped! Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing. We'll probably never agree on that. And I'm well aware that religious people do good stuff, for example, the Quakers have probably done more than any other religious group to bring about social justice. But I stand by my assessment of the religious right. This is how I see them.

Like it or not, there is a connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. The timeline looks like this:



In 1848, August Comte published "A General View of Positivism." In he argued that the same methodology used in the natural sciences should be applied to "social science." He is considered the father of sociology.
In 1859, Darwin published the "Origin of Species." In 1862, Herbert Spencer published "The Social Organism" which began a new philosophical trend that came to be known as Social Darwinism. It was he who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."

Of course the ethical quandary inherent in Social Darwinism is that it releases one from any obligation whatsoever, social, economic or otherwise, toward one's fellow man.

I'm sorry you can't see ID as anything but a stepping stone to Creationism. Evolution is not some worthless theory. ID doesn't say that either. It just isn't the whole ball of wax.

Steve, are you a science teacher? This seems to be a topic that you're passionate about.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM

Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to perish.

The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

The number of people who have embraced social Darwinism is quite revealing. One of the most prominent was no less than Adolf Hitler.

Social Darwinism tries to justify the oppression and suppression of the weak by the strong and the powerful, claiming that it improves the human race in general if the strong succeed and the weak just die off. Thus, the human race leapfrogs ahead and becomes the "übermensche," or Superman, envisioned by Friedrich Nietzsche.

Although she would never have admitted it, this was the very philosophy that was espoused by Ayn Rand.

And she proudly proclaimed herself to be an atheist.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:00 PM

Thank you, Don. You see? Absolutely nothing at all to do with Charles Darwin, the gentle naturalist whose great idea concerned only the non-random survival of heritable attributes within species. Not a bandwagon ever to be jumped on to be abused in other spheres of human endeavour, unless you're a charlatan. Darwin himself was at pains to point out the dangers of the misuse of natural selection outside the context of his work.

Read the book. You can't beat it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:08 PM

Please understand that I'm not promoting Creationism. Nor do I believe that Intelligent Design is the same thing.

You've been misled. They are two cheeks of the same ugly, unwashed arse.

Evolution is not some worthless theory.

It is if you believe in intelligent design/creationism. The two are entirely incompatible. If you don't see it, you don't understand evolution. Not only does evolution not need a God/creator/designer, there is no room in evolution for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Musket again

Not too sure of your point regarding sat nav. The corrections are built in.

Corrections? What corrections? The programmes in your sat nav use General Relativity to calculate your position because it gives a far more accurate result than if they had used Newton's Theorys.

The extraterrestrial trajectory to Mercury has such a low velocity in terms of c,, time dilation is irrelevant. Earth control time delay is a factor but Newtonian calculations will land you where you need to be. You have to reach 0.8c before time and mass start getting interesting.

Yes, I know. From my previous post - It isn't about time dilation due to high velocity, it's about the curvature of space in the presence of massive bodies.

But in the observable realistic achievement stakes

Yes of course. In the observable realistic achievement stakes Newtonian mechanics works just fine (most of the time). It is a very useful tool for calculating how long it will take you to hit the pavement and how fast you will be going if you jump off a tall building or for working out how to navigate a spaceship to Mars. (It might have a bit more trouble with a game of billiards but, in principle, it can be done.) That isn't enough for a scientific theory. If a theory makes a prediction and it doesn't match the experimental results. it ain't a theory no more. Mercury doesn't go where it should and clocks in orbit don't run on time.

Interstellar distances with high acceleration, I grant you, we need to take time and mass as variables that would alter the target had we stuck with Newtonian calculations, but even then we would be introducing variables, not superseding.

What are you saying? That General Relativity is just Newtonian Mechanics with fudge factors? I think there may be more to it than that.

Why do you keep on about Quantum Theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 05:47 PM

Dark energy is more than a notion.
The expansion is speeding up, and that requires energy.
There is a little doubt that it really is speeding up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 07:48 PM

Dark energy is a term used by scientists who are trying to make sense of evidence that things are even more complicated than they thought. Basically it's a marker saying, "watch this space." The word "notion" doesn't imply casting doubt on the observations, but recognising the degree of uncertainty which scientists feel tabout how to make sense of them.

.............
"Creationism" and "intelligent design" both share a belief in "God" as the shaper of the world. But formally they start from different places. "Creationism" starts from a belief in God, and from a literal belief in an interpretation of ancient writings, whereas "intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".

So far as issues around life is concerned the counter explanation is that with sufficient time, random association of molecules is adequate to explain the development of pre-life to life, and natural selection sufficient to account for everything else. So far as issues around the "fine-tuning" of the universe one suggested explanation is the existence of an enormous number of universes, so that the unlikely things that allow a life-bearing universe have the chance to occur. And others argue that the "fine-tuning" is a misunderstanding. There is no consensus.

The point is, this is about interpretation of evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:05 PM

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence

You legitimise it too easily. Intelligent design pretends to "consider" scientific evidence, but it doesn't really. It plucks examples of what it views as irreducible complexity (which are never true examples) and invests them with completely unscientific notions. Darwin anticipated this and dealt with it beautifully and comprehensively (with a gently fatal blow), but, of course, that isn't the kind of evidence that intelligent design merchants want to hear about. Intelligent design is the pseudo-intellectual wing of creationism, no more, no less. Two cheeks of one rather smelly arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:27 PM

Arguing like that Steve you are never going to engage with anyone who is undecided about those things, and in fact you are only too likely to push them into accepting the questionable arguments of advocates of "intelligent design".

They are "questionable", and that implies being ready to question and challenge them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:33 PM

Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit. I can imagine differential survival of compounds, or associations of compounds in droplets, in a process not far removed in nature from natural selection (which I prefer to reserve for non-random survival of heritable traits so as not to gainsay Darwin). There might have been millions of potential sites, but one got lucky. A bit like your millions of universes, or planets in Goldilocks zones. A million times, the right compounds were around but it just didn't happen. Then one day, in one puddle of warm soup...? I do love to speculate. But at least I'm speculating about the highly-improbable, not the damned impossible. After that, we have nucleic acids and alleles and mutation as givens - no need for speculation there. Natural selection is such a brilliant explanation for all of life because we need to make next to no assumptions. We have the materials and the mechanisms and we can see how it works. Bang for bucks a-plenty. Creationism makes massive assumptions before it can run at all, and burdens itself with having to do far more explaining that it explains. Useless!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

Well they wouldn't have much about 'em if they went that way. Beyond saving, I should think. And there's nothing "questionable" about creationism, etc. It's arrant nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 08:55 PM

If you start from a definite assumption, that's where you end up. That applies if your assumption is that God exists or that the very idea of God is meaningless rubbish.

Basically it comes down to what Sherlock Holmes said "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:04 PM

Unless you're looking in the wrong place.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 13 - 09:51 PM

Sorting out what is impossible from what is extremely improbable is of course not an easy thing to do. And nor is deciding which is which.

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.






.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM

I'm not going on about quantum theory, I merely state that if anything questions the fundamentals of the principia that is it, not general relativity. The beauty of general relativity is that it can apply in the quantum place as well as the observable universe to a degree, mass calculations can't.

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge. They relate, not differ. The absolutism was removed by Einstein but not the fundamental relationship, which was relativity anyway. ...

Regarding ether and dark matter. Good point but ether was just a convenient way of wondering how anything can propagate in a vacuum. Dark matter raises the question sgain, but not as a convenient hypothesis for vacuum propagation as I see it. Although it isn't and never was my field. My earlier professional interest in force and mass no longer exist since selling up 10 years ago for that matter. I remain fascinated but leave the advances to others.   Enough on with beer, pickled eggs and The NHS...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

And what about dark matter?

It is known that the matter we learned about in school, and still teach in schools, forms only about 10% of the Universe.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

...so as not to gainsay Darwin does sound rather like treating the book as The Book... Holy Writ.

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:22 AM

I,ve been here long enough to gauge that steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.
one difference is my book teaches me not to be foulmouthed ! - bless him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM

So the bible teaches you not to swear? It also says do not kill or steal but some religions seem to ignore those things provided they are done to members of other sects or non-believers. Why is that?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:53 AM

His bible teaches him to keep slaves, subjugate women and kill people for being gay. Luckily, every single Christian is a hypocrit with a pick and mix attitude to the conviction they spout in the face of the rest of us.

Nobody asks or is asked to"believe" in Darwin as his observations are not a belief system. Shallow idiots call it thus as it interferes with their historic place in society, having power over others.

There's more than just evolution to question the factual basis of superstition. There's common sense and educated people too. Are they faulty constructs too pete?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:27 AM

God bless us, everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 08:36 AM

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'. That is hardly surprising, we know a great deal more about some things than he possibly could - and there is still a great deal to learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:07 AM

He made no assumptions about natural selection that are wrong in any substantive way. In fact, the beauty of natural selection is that we have all the facts to hand. Very few assumptions are needed, unlike any "explanations" involving God. You see what you've done here. You've got poodle pete jumping on your bandwagon - even after I'd explained why your remark was so silly. Beware of unintended consequences. Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:24 AM

steve treats Darwin with the same authority as I treat the bible.

Well, you see, I don't accept "authority" of any kind unless I've checked its authenticity. In order to do that, I need evidence. The only evidence I have about the Bible (and gosh, I have read it, you know, good Catholic boy that am) is that it is incomplete, often of dubious authorship, cherrypicked (gospels of Mary Magdalen and Thomas, anyone?), occasionally rather suspiciously interpreted or translated and, in parts, somewhat replete with strange forms of magic. Along, of course, with healthy doses of misogyny and chosen people. I'm afraid it falls a little short of my "validated authority" test. On the other hand, as a biologist I have also read On The Origin Of Species (unlike you). Over a hundred years after it was published, a time of huge advances in genetics and biochemistry and evidence accumulation, I studied evolution at university. I know all about the evidence, a huge body it is too, and the disputes and corrections and new discoveries made since Darwin. I've done field studies involving natural selection. Taught the stuff in schools for 25 years, keeping myself updated. I know the difference, unlike you, between solid facts supported by evidence and pure speculation. So the reason I treat Darwin with such respect is that I've read him, studied him and watched the follow-up. Done a fair bit of thinking. Unlike you, the lazy master of predigested, prejudiced, received "wisdom" that is actually nothing of the kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

It is evident that in some areas assumptions he made do need modifying, notably his ideas about 'the tree of life'.

Incidentally, saying that this was an assumption is a complete misrepresentation. He was speculating. He wrote "I think" next to his famous tree diagram. He was assuming nothing. He was always exceptionally honest and diffident about notions that occurred to him that he couldn't sufficiently support with evidence. Read the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

Anyone around here read Tolkien's 'Silmarilion'? I read it a long time back but my lasting impression was that if we picked someone who know nothing of religion or literature he would be very hard pushed to tell which was the book that millions of people treated as the basis for their faith. They should probably both be in the same section of the library :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:25 AM

First off, it's hilarious to watch people try to shove a thread about respect into their own personal scripts on their pet hates.

Second, as long as we're here, Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The really interesting thing that's happening here is that "God" has been translated from the world "Elohim" which is a PLURAL noun. God is apparently talking to some other beings which he includes with the use of "our".

The Other People is interesting.

Lastly (probably): while I can respect a person as a human being, and I can respect their non-provable beliefs to a certain extent, anyone who thinks science and religion are equivalent are stupid. I don't blame them. I blame an education system that doesn't adequately explain the difference.

Yes, I "believe" in evolution. I believe in physics and chemistry. I believe in astronomy and that there is a universe that the Earth is not the center of. I believe in things that have been scientifically proven, right up until they are not. Science draws conclusions from the available proof. If the proof changes, so may the conclusions, and science is continuously challenging itself.

Religion, not so much. It doesn't change, EVER for the literal-minded, brittly rigid, and anything that doesn't fit is dismissed. I know very few religious people who fit that description, because they've found how everything can fit together.

Those of rigid beliefs aren't really worth arguing with, IMO. You can't argue with a person who won't accept reality and makes up rules as they go. You're never going to prove anything to them, and onlookers either don't give a shit or think you're as dense as the person you're arguing with: "Oh, let me try this again today, because it wasn't effective the last 352 times."

Sometimes, the only "respectful boundary" involves not engaging...as if.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 AM

I suppose I should have said "ideas", which covers both speculations and assumptions. My point was that what Darwin wrote over 160 years ago is subject to revision. That is not som ekind of attack n him, and I would be pretty sure that Steve actually accepts that to be true,

An interesting light on Darwin's attitude towards the ideas underlying Social Darwinism is shone by a letter by him carried in    this article on a California University website.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:53 AM

"Sometimes, the only "respectful boundary" involves not engaging..."

That's right, Jeri, and in real 3-D life that is usually not much problem to deal with. You pick up really negative signals or suspect having nothing in common with someone? You don't engage with them. On the Internet, however, you have no idea who is listening in on a conversation and who is going to react negatively to what you have just said...and therein lies the problem.

It's as if you were having a pleasant conversation over a cup of coffee with a couple of other people about something you're mutually interested in...not realizing that the conversation is being broadcast by a hidden microphone to everyone in the entire shopping mall...and there are bound to be some people in that shopping mall who disagree totally with you and all your values, and what if they came bristling up to your table and starting immediately fighting with you about your "stupid beliefs" (whatever those might be) and insulting you in every way they can think of?

Would that be conducive to continuing a good conversation? Uh-uh.

That's what the Internet is like. That's what happens here. It's creepy. It's unnecessary. It's unproductive. It's anti-social behaviour. It helps no one. I deal with it after a bit by just going off and doing something else instead. That means less time on Mudcat, which is probably just fine, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 12:20 PM

Agreed, Little Hawk. And that of course is a powerful reason why we all owe it to ourselves by not raising the temperature by getting hot and bothered and throwing out in the course of our very public conversations.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 12:22 PM

Agreed, Little Hawk. And that of course is a powerful reason why we all owe it to ourselves not to raise the temperature by getting hot and bothered and throwing out in the course of our very public conversations.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM

We might as well all piss off then.

Ignorance thrives without challenge. Good job I'm thick as pigshit eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:34 PM

Musket musing

I don't wish to start a tedious argument about this but your remark that general relativity supercedes the principia requires challenge.

You're probably right since our ideas of what relativity is and is not seem so fundamentally different.

As a parting shot, you might find this article interesting - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Time,_Space,_and_Gravitation

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

Shouting abuse is not challenging an argument Ian. I've been here ten years and have argued with loads of people, sometimes we agree, most times we agree to disagree.
I have never felt the need to call other members odious contemptible or wish them dead, because of their views.

No personal abuse was the only hard and fast rule of this forum, I think we should respect that rule....if nothing else.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

McGrath of Harlow

"intelligent design" starts at least formally from consideration of scientific evidence, and draws from
this the conclusion that the explanation for this is an intelligent designer, in other words "God".

I'm afraid not, McGrath. The fact that it's called Intelligent Design is a bit of a giveaway.

From this website - http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php

What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.

In other words, they start from the assumption of intelligent design (and, therefore, an intelligent designer) and then go and look for evidence to support that idea.

Similar things from the Dicovery Institute here - http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php#questionsAboutIntelligentDesign

No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that.

It does rather, doesn't it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 01:59 PM

So in order to challenge the suggestion that challenging something requires being discourteous, I'd need to call Michael something insulting, which would defeat my challenge..

So instead I'll just say I think it is completely wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM

Formally what is described there, Snail, is a process in which a hypothesis "that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" is tested by looking for evidence that are consistent with it. In principle that's the same procedure as was involved in the search for the Higgs Boson.

My point isn't that this "research" stands up to critical analysis, but that critical analysis is the correct way to challenge it.
...............
It occurs to me that if the idea were accepted that the way to explain the apparent improbability of the "fine-tuning" of the universe (and other apparent improbabilities) is to propose that this arises because there is a large or indeed infinite number of universes, and we inhabit one which allows us to exist, this in fact does imply a kind of programmed selection or design, with the designer being us, acting retrospectively.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

Sorry McGrath but I've got gigs to practice for so I can't spend much time on this. The Higgs Boson was predicted by existing theories. Searching for it was a test of those theories. The existence of an intelligent designer is wishful thinking. In terms of analysis, ID falls at the first fence. It is nor testable; it is not falsifiable.

Have a read of this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

and this -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

I particularly like "argument from incredulity". I can't explain this so it must be God what did it.

It is pseudoscience and should not be given credibility by critical analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).   However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis. The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:37 PM

Holy Cow McGrath! That Darwin is certainly a find! What until Steve sees that. Of course,the real issue is the positivist model for social science research. That is what gave the idea that we could apply the methodology of natural science to human affairs. The reason the positivists won out over idealists like Max Weber was that there was a desire for social control. They wanted power over "the masses." Statistics were originally called "political arithmetic." Always the economy. God awful stuff.

Little Hawk, very nice.

Steve, you have read all the Gnostic Gospels? How exciting! Listen, the one you should read is this one:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesus_the_Wicked_Priest.html?id=uwFdIAAACAAJ

McGrath, you should read "In Search of the Primitive" by anthropologist Stanley Diamond. Mr. Diamond discusses the western notion of progress in great detail and does not shy away from ethics.   

From Wikipedia:

In memoriam in the journal which he founded, his legacy was recognized thus: "Diamond was one of the first anthropologists to insist that researchers both acknowledge and confront power relations, often colonial and neocolonial, that form the context of their work. His sympathetic portrayal of the Arab mountain villages, and analysis of psychodynamics on the Israeli kibbutz — as stemming from an incomplete critique of stetl life — was as much against the grain of contemporary research then as it is today. His concern for countering racism found its way into a number of trenchant popular and scholarly writings and, always, in his teaching" (Dialectical Anthropology, vol. 16, p. 105, 1991).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 10:41 PM

"No one may be asked to treat Darwin as a belief system not open to revision, but sometimes there is a tendency to do so, as with other 19th century giants, such as Marx. "So as not to gainsay Darwin" sounded as if Steve might be in danger of falling into that."

It does rather, doesn't it.

No it doesn't, and I've comprehensively explained why. This tiresome comment betrays the fact that you're a feckin' eejit. Nighty night!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 09 Aug 13 - 11:11 PM

Excuse my typos. Tiny phone with autocorrect.

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended. Everybody here respects you. You're a wicked intelligent dude.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:01 AM

I couldn't make this kind of idiocy up!...Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses)...and then says this, Steve Shaw: "Well we don't know enough about the origin of life. "Random" worries me a bit....."

But ONE THING FOR SURE, any concept of God beyond his early days as a Catholic Altar Boy, had NOTHING to do with it!!!!!!!!!

Coupled with this: "Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers."

Coming from you, and your 'idiot-logic', I'll take that as a compliment!

You really need to take a rest, and try to think it through. Don't hurt yourself.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:29 AM

This thread is about respect.

And yet.

Akenaton. Don't lecture me on abuse when your comments abuse every gay person.

Goofus. Somebody has a message for you, don't you boy?

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM

Woof! Woof! Grrrr. Woof!

C'mon boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans Newton
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 04:33 AM

Here Goofus! SJL is taking the piss out of you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM

Steve Shaw is ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that there is no God (in whatever definition he chooses).

Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 06:57 AM

Steve, I'm disappointed that you feel offended.

Never assume that, because I bite, it's because I'm offended. I don't really do offended.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

"No fighting, no biting!"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 AM

Muskie, I was "talking" to you. Ah-roooo!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 11:19 AM

Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not."

OK..then if there is a God, and He's supposed to be about 'Love', ask Him to reveal Himself to you...don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it... and just pay attention. If there is a God, who is about love, then He would show you something, wouldn't He?..if your request was sincere. If you get nothing at all, then blow it off.
The is NO way that could insult you, harm you, restrict you, or any other bummer, you might imagine.
Try it...be patient, do not make up answers, nor disregard input that follows.

Respectfully (this time),

GfS

P.S. For the sake of brevity, I used the words, 'Him' and 'HE'...not to be confused with any religious gender or figurehead.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 12:47 PM

My grandson loves this one:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U6UWNA-WQgI

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 02:32 PM

SJL, thank your grandson for showing us that rare video of mudcatters actually agreeing on something-----as they reinforce and respect each others boundaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

No worries, guffers, I've asked God to reveal himself on many occasions. No joy. Perhaps if I had a sex change, lost 40 years and turned meself into a thick French peasant somewhere near Lourdes...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:16 PM

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer. If you were in my home and said that I am afraid I'd feel bound to respond in the same kind of terms as the character I quoted in an earlier post who found he had a racist at his table. "I am afraid you are on hostile territory here." And I'd ask you to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM

Well, dear McGrath, I do believe I was talking about a long-dead French peasant girl, not someone here. I note that you don't level the same strictures at pete, who, whilst not directly insulting people on the board, insults Darwin and every scientist connected with evolutionary biology. You don't exactly rush to defend them, yet you rush to defend a deluded and manipulated peasant. What a strange fellow you appear to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:20 PM

I strongly object to the use of the term "thick" as a sneer. Whether it's me, someone ls on the cat, or anybody else, living or dead.

(Incidentally, glancing back at the posts in this thread I couldn't see any from "pete" which were noticeably insulting to Darwin or anybody. Not that that's particularly relevant.)

I doubt if you intended to write in a offensive way. It's easily done.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 10 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM

Not strange Steve. Just trying to promote respect online. Because it's just too easy for people to behave in a way that they probably would not face to face. You can go anywhere online and find that sort of negativity. If Mudcat were a site where that didn't go on then it would different, special.

Sure, you could probably clean it up by simply eliminating the BS threads and I might have thought that would be a good idea if I hadn't had this wonderful professor. He taught us that the political elites want us to disengage from politics and one of the ways they do this is promote the idea that art, music are separate from politics whereas in reality they are related. Folk music in particular has a strong tradition of political engagement. My old prof is a big time folk music lover himself.

It's a good to be engaged, it's good for free speech, good for democracy, but all this hacking away back and forth with no attempt to find common ground? We can do better than that. Maybe you're a tough one and nothing offends you, even so I think it's better if we treat others as we would want to be treated. That's the secret Steve. That's how people end up liking one another. On that silly kid's video I posted, there were comments below and the first one said:

"But remember kids, you can always bite your enemies."

Yup, there's always that.

You're aces McGrath, keep up the good work.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:22 AM

But- but what happened to 'You only hurt the one you love'?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 12:35 AM

But that's the one you shouldn't hurt at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:23 AM

(It's from a song, Larrytrg)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 02:48 AM

Some people need to have a good long think about the word respect before typing out sanctimonious tripe.

A reaction to a post that is considered disrespectful often fails to take into account why the post is there.

I find it hilarious that I have been berated by people (who take themselves seriously) for shouting down bigotry, for reacting to lies and for taking the piss out of absurdity.

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps.. shouting may be boorish but it does bring attention to weasels and opinions that are in themselves not exactly respectful of others, regardless of whether the others read Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:50 AM

don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it...

So, in a nutshell, if you don't believe in god you just have to ask it to show you a sign and then wait indefinitely for the answer? Until you have done so, you have not really tried? As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is.

As this thread is supposed to be about respect for others I must say that I find that one of the most the most disrespectful comments on it! It assumes that everyone reading it is stupid enough to believe it. As others have said before, a little name calling and bad language is nothing compared to the disrespect that the god-botherers are showing to others!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:29 AM

Musket curious

Do try going up a post or two before becoming judgemental, there's good chaps..

So why did you call me a "Dozy sod"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

McGrath of Harlow

'Thick' Now that is a term where I strongly object when it's used as a sneer.

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:43 AM

McGrath of Harlow

A range of theories that are properly counted as scientific cannot be falsified at present and quite possibly never (eg Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation).

Although it seems to get loosely refered to as such, Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation and its many offshoots and rivals don't fit any criteria for being called theories. Hypotheses at best, conjectiure maybe but speculation would be nearer the mark. A quick peruse of the internet suggests that nobody has much idea what he was on about.

However what can be done is to seek alternative explanations which deal with the anomalies involved more satisfactorily.

WOOZLES!

If this can be done the credibility of the theories involved are reduced, if it cannot be done, the credibility is strengthened. That involves critical analysis.

All the necessary critical analysis has been done. Did you look at those links I gave you? It's tosh and fraudulent tosh at that.

The suggestion that critical analysis which reduces the credibility of a fallacious theory at the same time gives it greater credibility is hard to sustain.

As long as they are being talked about, they are still in the game and are happy. Don't feed the troll.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:44 AM

Well, Snail, McGrath was using that time-honoured and disrespectful tactic of trying to tar someone promoting scientific notions (and one of the greatest scientific notions of all time to boot) with the religiosity brush. You decided to chime in on the slur, camp-following behind pete even, well after I'd put him right. If you are so willing to demonstrate such doubt to the world as to whether you have any original thoughts of your own, preferring instead to cash in on others' ill-considered remarks, then you can expect a bit of flak, I reckon. If you don't like the abrasion, don't do that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM

Perish the thought that anyone should ever show you any disrespect Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:23 PM

You didn't object to him calling me a "feckin' eejit" for ageeing with something you said.

Maybe because he agreed that you are a "feckin' eejit"?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 01:52 PM

Tarring Steve with the religiosity brush would appear to say that when I suggested that his regard for Darwin's writing was veering towards the over reverant I was accusing him of religiosity. I think that would be over-egging the pudding, to vary the metaphor.

And it's got nothing to do with my objection to what he now recognises as "an ill-considered remark".   (At last I think that's what he says.) Quite where the "disrespectful" comes in I'm not sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 03:35 PM

I don't have a working hypothesis on human snails. If I called you a dozy sod it would be deduction from observation.

Dozy sod.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 05:35 PM

What was the title of this thread again?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM

Cheers for that, Dave. I was (heh bloody heh!) far too respectful to post that meself, sorely tempted though I was!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:19 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.
- a somewhat subjective definition?!.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM

Chongo, you might better send Cheetah over for the rest of the bottle.

Muskrat, i've had about enough of you twisting everything around to suit your dogma. And Steve, what's this about you saying "died in my arms etc." I only wish. I wish I had been there more for my friend Pat during the ten years he suffered with Aids.

I won't bore you with details about Pat. On the other hand, maybe I will. First off, he was 1000 % Irish. Not by anything he said but his entire being. Flaming red hair and freckles all over. Had a voice as soft and sweet as a whisper, eternally non-judgemental, the type of person you could open up your heart to without being afraid. Should have been a priest.

We became friends in high school when we were in the same musical and hung out after that and went off to the same Ivy League School 25 miles from home so we could back. We watched comedies. We shared everything- especially dinner. As soft and sweet as his voice was, when he laughed, it was so loud and raucous, I think it reverberated off the walls. It did.

So now, I must tell you that I also agree with Akenaton on this second point. There is no campaign too extreme to get rid of this thing. McGrath, you mentioned the situation in Africa. That just goes to show you how bad it can get without the appropriate intervention. Look at how we treat TB. Same thing without the stigma. I'll take the stigma if that's what it takes. Pat was a baby. He never even reached the age of 30. He left me behind.

What can I say? Some of us prioritize life and death over propriety. As my grandma would say, "Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:33 PM

what some call disrespectful really amounts to having a different opinion , despite no insulting or foul words being employed by the posters.

I mean, how pathetically wrong can you be? Hitler had a different opinion about Jews, so are you saying he wasn't disrespectful? In most of your posts you show the ultimate disrespect to all scientists. You yourself are pig-ignorant about every aspect of science, as you have abundantly shown, and you are bone idle in that you won't even read scientific works before pontificating on how shite the author is. You are an ignorant and insulting charlatan, and it's a bloody good job that you're so laughably insignificant that you can have very little influence in promoting your stupid ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 06:56 PM

Godwin's Law. Had to happen...

"Godwin's Law states that as an online argument grows longer and more heated, it becomes increasingly likely that somebody will bring up Adolf Hitler or the Nazis. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted the argument."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 07:46 PM

Absolute bollocks, McGrath. I'm surprised at you. Apart from the fact that Godwin himself was eventually severely embarrassed by his "law", there is no problem with the mention of Hitler and the Nazis if it fits into the context of the thread. You're a very fine fellow in many regards, McGrath, but you're edging nearer and nearer to that naughty corner.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:25 PM

McGrath, you are light years ahead of me.

I have it on good authority, that of a high school teacher who specializes in teaching about the Holocaust, who also taught a course at university which I took called "Democracy in Education," that Hitler never had one original idea. He'd have been little more than a joke if he hadn't come to power.

On Democracy in Education: First day she said, "Well, there's very little of it. But we're going to talk about it anyway."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 08:54 PM

When in doubt on Mudcat thread topics and drift, I refer to the Urban dictionary for an answer. Here is an entry, (to be used as an example of a disruptspectful mudcat thread act:


Masturbathe -
To pleasure oneself sexually whilst washing or immersing one's body in water.
Friend 1: Andi hasn't left her room in days.
Friend 2: Yeah she's been really upset since she and Rodney broke up.
Friend 1: What she needs is to brew some herbal tea, run a warm bath, and masturbathe in it.
Friend 2: True. It'll improve her miserable mood as well as her poor hygiene.


Disruptspectful -
one who caries on in such a way as to be both a disruption and disrespectful all at once.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Aug 13 - 09:03 PM

Disrespect? you old fuddy- mudcaters are doing a poor job at it, at best.

Whatever happened to real insults like "Do your keepers a huge favour: do a triple summersault through the air, and disappear up your own asshole"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 12:14 AM

Dave the Gnome: "As that means that no-one could ever say there was not a god because you may wait until you die before the sign it would be very clever. If you were dealing with those who could not spot the flaw in the logic that is."

I guess you could do that, while waiting for someone to show up with the 'missing link'!..Except when you get the answer, you prayed for, you'll KNOW!!!

Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket vindicated
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 01:14 AM

My turn to be smug.

Rather than read my comment, just reread SJL's post above again.



Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution.

Oh and the posts around it on the Godwin stuff.

Especially those using Godwin to close down uncomfortable comparisons.

I love a good flush out now and then. Don't you?





Oh, forgot Goofus.   On reflection that seems a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:21 AM

Don't really understand that post Ian, could you explain it for those of us who are "off message"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 02:38 AM

Vindicated? "shurely shome mishtake"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 03:12 AM

GfS Now, what about that faulty logic, with accompanying insult???


The faulty logic is that it suggests you wait for an answer indefinitely. The insult is expect other people to accept this. But I suspect you will never get that will you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 04:29 AM

Surely as a wannabe architect of the solution, you'd be on song?

Mind you, if it were genuine ignorance, it says something of the mindset that presses the keys on your computer.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:01 AM

"Especially the bit about agreeing that gay people existing means we need a solution."

Curiouser and curiouser. That statement barely makes sense but I'm pretty sure you're trying to tell us all where I'm coming from. But you don't have to do that because I am fully capable of doing that myself.

Ian is it? Love that name. I always feel better after a good cry, don't you Ian?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Ian Mather
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:29 AM

"There is no campaign too extreme to rid us of this thing. "

Seems like a solution to me.   Good cry? Yeah, that people can say such things would make any bugger want to have a good sob about the cruel heartless hatred masquerading as concern.

You know, my parent's generation fought to try and rid Western society of fascism. At least real fascists don't hide under stones eith compassion written on them.   If you say you agree with Akenaton, either read what he puts or come off the fence yourself and polish your jackboots ready to educate sub humans.

Fuck me, you'd think Mudcat would be mainly burnt out hippies, weird beards in fair Isle sweaters and sandals and Guardian readers in ethnic skirts. We certainly are a broad church eh? The odd heavily starched shirt in black and close cropped hair to boot. Who'd have thought it.?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:31 AM

Oi! I don't wear skirts!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM

What do you mean? I was talking about the disease that took my friend. If I felt the way you say I feel, I wouldn't care. I'd say something like, "Let them contract it, let them die." Believe, I've heard that kind of thing from less than human individuals along the way. Those are the people you need to worry about. Do you really think that mandatory testing is persecution? I don't. Everyone at risk should be tested. Haven't you said you work in a health profession?

I grew up in the first generation where it was halfway acceptable to be openly gay. If I was gay myself, I wouldn't have any problem being myself. I'd probably be like my aunt if I were. Ah, forget it Ian, this is an impasse. My bad for bringing it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

Good idea.

Just be careful when agreeing with Akenaton. He advocates enforced screening, history tracing and steps to prevent gay people being sexually active. By agreeing with him, I doubt your true thoughts were what we read. ..

The first generation were whenever homo sapiens first walked. The last generation would be yours if some people had their way. Your report of your Aunt makes it clear. Views over others don't make themselves any stronger just because of an affinity.

Screening exists wherever people people present for elective or acute care in The UK. Voluntary screening with no other reason is encouraged and easily accessible if someone feels at risk through sex, substance misuse or other risk factors. The rubicon some would cross is forced screening based on choice of partner. You could apply it to heterosexual sex too. Where would it end? Where would it even start? Making gay lifestyle illegal? Hanging them a la Iran? Turning a blind eye to beatings murder and rape if they are gay as per the deputy in St Petersburg who said that to a UK reporter on camera the other week?

Less than 5% of the country are gay. The Akenatons of this world should find a larger target for their blame for all societies ills campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 03:56 PM

In an earlier post I mentioned the method of discussing in which people undertake the discipline of stating the position of their adversary in a way that is recognised by both as accurate.

It strikes me that that would be an excellent exercise here.
...............................

It needs to be appreciated that the only people who can be pretty certain of being safe from getting HIV are celibates, people in exclusively monogamous relationships (straght or gay) with partners who were HIV free at the time this commenced , and lesbians.

Testing, screening, and, in the case of anyone with HIV, history tracing, makes sense for anyone not falling into one of those categories. Does anyone actually disagree with that?
........................
And please everyone, the basis for this thread is respectful boundaries, and that seems to have been generally accepted as ground rules for the drifted discussions. It's very easy to start up another thread where involving a lot less self control.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 04:12 PM

McGrath, I would quite like to know whether, as has been suggested by others, that you consider me to be a "feckin' eejit" for agreeing with something you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:06 PM

I'd be inclineed to think it'd mean you are a man of rare insight and wisdom. Of course you might be a feckin eejit on the side as well. There are a lot of us about...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:15 PM

Masterful!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM

You are most kind, McGrath but it takes little wisdom om my part to recognise your perspicacity in this matter. The point is (in the context of this thread) that certain persons who are usually highly vociferous in their demands for respect and who rile against misrepresentation have attributed an opinion to you which you had not expressed for the purpose of taking a cheap crack at me.

This shows little respect for either of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 05:48 PM

Whether or not I am actually a feckin' eejit is not the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:14 PM

Testing, screening, and, in the case of anyone with HIV, history tracing, makes sense for anyone not falling into one of those categories. Does anyone actually disagree with that?

Fine. But not if compulsory. That would make you a fascist. And you're wrong about lesbians unqualified.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:17 PM

Whether or not I am actually a feckin' eejit is not the issue.

Gosh, you do go on. Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:18 PM

Prime examples of what is and is not respect on this thread. No matter how you dress it up talking bollocks is still talking bollocks and shows no respect to anyone. Give me someone who uses simple, if rather colourful, language to say what they mean over someone who uses pretty words to mask the contempt they have for other people any day.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

I don't think that's a definition of "fascist" that actually stands up. I think "authoritarian" might be the word you're looking for. It doesn't apply to my views anyway.

I'd see the situation as different for screening, testing and history tracing. I can't see how compulsory general screening would be possible, or compulsory testing. However where someone is identified as having contracted HIV I think it would be reasonable to have an obligation to cooperate in history tracing for the purpose of alerting partners to the necessity of getting tested.

Where people infect others knowingly or negligently, I cannot see how this can be seen as acceptable behaviour. Civil or criminal sanctions would seem reasonable, as in the case of damage inflicted say in driving a motor vehicle.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

I didn't define fascist.

Yes, infecting people knowingly (by which I assume you mean maliciously) or negligently (the distinction is yours) is bad. But there have been very few authenticated cases of deliberately infecting people with HIV, so there's a bit of that good ol' demonisation going on there. As for negligently, I have a much better idea than laws and court cases. Let's have some really good education for relationships in schools and let's make contraceptive advice and barrier contraception free. If you sneer at that, as moralisers such as Ake, popes, Mother Teresa-types and bishops do, you are actually saying that you would rather like to see HIV continue to be a bit of a scourge, as it gives you yet another instrument of moral control over the flock. Ignorance is the friend of that virus and of moralisers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:34 PM

Fascist.

If people don't like it, don't propose rounding up less than 5% of the population to endure forced physical assault on their bodies on the basis of their choice of lover.

Respectful boundaries? No such thing. Where people are suggesting disgraceful actions I will call them disgusting bastards. Not sure how that fits in with their theory?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:47 PM

what the comparison is between questioning evolutionism is , and hitler who drastically followed Darwinist ideas to the extent of exterminating millions, I fail to see.
I don't have any murderous intention to anyone.

it is true that I have not read through origins, though I did read enough to see that he admitted that what he promoted could be otherwise interpreted.i don't know that I could find it now ,though I have quoted it and page number in the past.
so I did,nt read it through. so what!.i am sure that the scientists that used to be evolutionists have but now see that it is far from sufficient to support the bugs to biologist pathway.
what I did read was only natural selection, and as I often say, no quarrel with creation there.
if steve would like me to read the bit where the pathway goes beyond the boundaries and possibilities of natural selection, I am quite happy to go back to Darwin on line and read up on it.
just give me which edition and page number please.
somehow I doubt it!
probably just more badmouthing and unsupported assertions.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

I'm not at all clear that anyone has actually proposed that,Musket.

Respectful boundaries are always relevant. In the Nuremberg Trials the judges and prosectors always addressed the defendants politely. That didn't prevent them from condemning them to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM

Condemning people to die isn't all that "respectful"...

We either believe in the sanctity of life or we don't... Killing folks, regardless of their sins, doesn't promote the idea of sanctity of life...

Now...

...carry on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:48 PM

You prattle on about badmouthing then you come out with this:

hitler who drastically followed Darwinist ideas to the extent of exterminating millions

Hitler did no such thing. Ideas concerning deliberate mass extermination of human beings were not propagated by Darwin and have nothing to do with natural selection.

so I did,nt read it through. so what!

I'll tell you "so what". It means that you haven't a bloody clue what you're talking about even though it appears to be your favourite subject. But your ignorance doesn't stop you from gaily piling insult after insult on honest-to-goodness people who actually do research and a lot of thinking, unlike you (folks, just look at all the didn't-get-round-to-this, forgot-that, tell-me-where-to-find-it etc. bollocks in his post). You're bone idle, that's what, and your brain would fetch a bloody fortune on the second-hand brain market as it's never been used. That's so what. I bet you haven't a bloody clue about the Bible, either. Maybe I'll test you on it some time, and I reckon I wouldn't have to do too much revision in order to knock you into a bloody cocked hat on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Aug 13 - 08:52 PM

Point well made, Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 12:08 AM

The friend I wrote about in an earlier post who died from HIV, Pat, had a circle of friends who were involved in theatre in high school. Most of them are dead now. I can remember attending parties where they were all present.

Pat himself became disfigured by the end of his life. He was all twisted up, walking with a cane. At one point, he developed an infection in one of his eyes and it messed the eye up permanently to where he looked like he had been maimed in a war or something.

Despite all that, Pat stayed very positive and independent until the end. He never changed on the inside. The last time I saw him, I brought him home from the store with his groceries and he showed me the little veggie garden he was tending in his backyard.

Mandatory testing is "forced physical assault" Ian? Aren't you being just a bit over-dramatic? And how can anyone be prevented from being sexually active? I certainly wouldn't back that plan. It sounds impossible for one thing. Akenaton says that? In what context? Maybe he will speak for himself.

I mentioned TB in an earlier post. For most jobs, at least over here, you must be screened periodically. If you contract it, there's tracing to find out who you've been in contact with. You are quarantined for your entire treatment which can take a long while depending how well you respond to the antibiotics. Very difficult to get rid of and spreads like wildfire. So the protocol in dealing with it is very strict. Now obviously you're not going to quarantine people who test positive for HIV because it's sexually transmitted. Still, testing and tracing is extremely important for anyone associated with a high risk group.

When I was in college, I dated a guy who had had a male lover in his past. Whenever I have mentioned this, there have been people who responded with disgust (homophobe litmus test), however, Paul was not someone you could just toss into a bin labeled "bisexual." He was brilliant, funny and sang and played the guitar. I mean, Paul was really cool. So now you know. I'm really just a groupie :-)

I didn't think much about Paul's former lover at the time but I worried about it later on when I saw people I knew who were gay from high school getting sick and dying at an alarming rate. So, I went for testing eventually and it was negative thank God. I didn't have any problem with getting tested and I don't think it would have been any different if it had been mandatory. Once I was exposed to hepatitis and had to be tested for that. What's the difference? What's the big deal? If it saves a life or lives, I'm all for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:30 AM

If it saves a life or lives, I'm all for it.

Banning smoking will save more. So will banning alcohol. So will banning all private transport. Are you all for those too? If so, fine, you are all for government intervention to save lives. If not, why not? Who draws the line at where intervention stops?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:37 AM

Ok. So you round up the gay people and presumably only the male ones and you test them, ask them for a list of former sexual partners, round them up too and the circus continues till you run out of people to test. Two laws are needed, that's all. One curtailing human rights and one forcing doctors and nurses to commit what is at present criminal assault. It goes without saying that their human rights will be witheld too.

With you so far, on the basis that there are some people who will enjoy a full life span where they wouldn't before being tested.

So you put all the HIV + ones on antiretrovirals.

Those who didn't test positive are still at risk from those who did. Nothing has changed except some people who came forward involuntarily might not have done so otherwise. A bit farfetched but I'm trying to stay with you.

In the meantime, the issue of HIV propagation carries on through heterosexual intercourse, substance misuse and, as you have made non judgemental healthcare all of a sudden judgemental, people not engaging with healthcare facility in general.

Well done. The genuine concerns you express become huge concerns for society.   My time involved in health care has taught me a huge amount over cause and effect, using frustration as a driver not a motive and trusting public health advice regarding scale, effect and prognosis of intervention.

The sad part being that rounding up people and forcing testing on them wouldn't make any difference. The range of interventions ongoing have however had huge successes. Don't fall into the trap of equating the size of the problem with the results so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 07:42 AM

""Steve Shaw: "Steve Shaw, as Steve Shaw has asserted God knows how many times, hasn't a clue whether there's a God or not."

OK..then if there is a God, and He's supposed to be about 'Love', ask Him to reveal Himself to you...don't make up what you think the answer should be, nor put a time limitation to it... and just pay attention. If there is a God, who is about love, then He would show you something, wouldn't He?..if your request was sincere. If you get nothing at all, then blow it off.
The is NO way that could insult you, harm you, restrict you, or any other bummer, you might imagine.
Try it...be patient, do not make up answers, nor disregard input that follows.""

Based upon the available scientific evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a god is about the same as the chance of GfS managing three consecutive coherent sentences.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 07:52 AM

Steve Shaw

Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM

Dave, in the interest of public health, smoking is banned from public places. In the interest of public safety, crimes involving alcohol are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (prohibition didn't work). While not banned completely, there are significant restrictions on their use and these relate to public health and safety.

So, is HIV more a public or a private health issue?

I'm not sure that vices can be compared with disease, keep in mind, some people think gay sex is a vice. In their minds, since the disease stems from vice, it is not viewed as something like TB.

Ian, I have to read yours again. There's a lot there.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM

SJL - Yes there are significant restrictions on nicotine and alcohol. None of which hold a candle to what is being suggested here. Yes, vices cannot be compared to a disease but addiction to those vices IS a disease. Are you suggesting compulsory testing to see anyone that is likely to suffer that condition?


You have not addressed the issue of private transport either. Which is neither a vice nor a disease but claims thousand of lives a year. Go back to the original question. If you only believe in testing gay people to save lives, where do you draw the line?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:58 AM

Well, SJL, there are not-dissimilar restrictions on shagging in the public gaze too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 09:02 AM

Steve Shaw

Has it occurred to you that you might be turning into (and I'm being careful here only to suggest it to you, not call you it) a feckin' whingeing eejit?

"No."

Quel dommage. Hence the impending tragedy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

A person who tests positive for TB has been exposed, but it doesn't mean they have the disease. If they don't, there's no quarantine. If sputum tests are positive for TB, they have pulmonary TB and are usually put in some modified form of quarantine (staying home, not working) until the tests are negative. Maybe a few weeks.
TB is difficult to catch, compared to many diseases. Ultraviolet light, as in out-door sunlight kills the bacteria.

If you ever once test positive for TB, you're likely to always test positive. If you've ever been immunized (questionable effectiveness), you will likely always test positive. If you've EVER tested positive for TB, you should never, ever, EVER receive the test for screening purposes again.

Controlling Tuberculosis in the United States
Recommendations from the American Thoracic Society, CDC, and the Infectious Diseases Society of America

And yeah, HIV is a public health issue because it's communicable. However, are we comparing smoking in the work place to having unprotected anal sex in the workplace, or what?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:18 AM

Not comparing smoking to sex at all, Jeri. It's just an example. HIV is a public health issue. So is smoking. So is vehicular pollution. HIV costs lives. So does smoking. So does vehicular pollution. Why single out gay men for compulsory testing?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:27 AM

I don't believe universal compulsory testing would be beneficial.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 10:41 AM

There are ways to protect individual rights of privacy while also protecting the society on the whole from infectious diseases...

I mean, wouldn't you want to know if a kid your kids are playing with is infected with something like TB??? I would...

I remember getting the Salk vaccine in the 50s with every other kid in my school... I'm sure that the Michele Bachmann's of the world would think that was wrong... But it stopped polio in its tracks... Was that right thing to do??? Yeah, it was...

Here's where the libertarians change their minds about mandatory testing: When half the people they know have died from an infectious disease... Then they are saying, "Someone should have done something about this"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:26 AM

Steve Shaw

Hence the impending tragedy.

Ooer. You're not going to get this thread closed down like you did the other one Larry mentioned are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:55 AM

*Yawn*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

Based upon the available scientific evidence, the likelihood of the existence of a god is about the same as the chance of GfS managing three consecutive coherent sentences.

Impossible (and you know me, full of uncertainties). Barking. Mad as a box o' frogs. Crazy as Joe C*nt's cat...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 01:22 PM

So at the same time, Steve, you appear to be saying you haven't a clue whether there's a God, and holding that the likelihood of there being a God should be summed up as "impossible".

Never mind. As Walt Whitman put it "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." Or in Emersn's words "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 01:57 PM

I don't know if there is even the remotest likelihood of there being fairies at the bottom of steves garden[other than being a ridiculous analogy] ,but if there were then they would need to have a creator too!.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:29 PM

So at the same time, Steve, you appear to be saying you haven't a clue whether there's a God, and holding that the likelihood of there being a God should be summed up as "impossible".

Why don't you look for something to say instead of joining the Snailist nit-picker corps? I was having a bloody laugh with Don there, you bloody po-faced so-and-so!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

Ian, what is this criminal assault you keep talking about? Are you talking about a needle to draw blood for HIV testing?

Exactly how do you "round up" gay males? How could you accurately identify who is who? One obvious way would be to track same sex marriages. Btw, wherever did you get the idea that marriage promotes stabile relationships and monogamy? Not in 2013.

Contrary to what some think, keeping your private life to yourself is not always about hiding in shame. It is often about wisely protecting yourself, especially if you belong to a minority. Something to think about.

One of the reasons my gay aunt would never marry is to protect her privacy, to keep her private life out of the public domain. That is, incidentally, one of the reasons why I wouldn't do it either even though I'm heterosexual.

The 5% want to redefine marriage so they can feel "equal" to everyone else? Have at it! Fool's gold as far as I'm concerned.

In this day and age, it's iffy IMO to tie yourself to another person, legally and publicly through marriage. When you strip away the romance, marriage is a three party contract between you, your partner and THE STATE. The state can change the terms of the contract whenever they please, you and your partner cannot.

If you want to get out of it, lawyers and judges must get involved in your private life. Then there is a public record of your divorce. Meanwhile, it is perfectly acceptable to cohabitate with someone. If it doesn't work out, your names are not linked together for all eternity.

Just sayin'

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

It might have escaped the attention of your tiny mind, pete, but your creator needs a bloody sight better creator than my fairies do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:30 PM

The health agencies group male homosexuals and bi-sexual men, as MSM(men who have sex with men) this is now a recognised demographic.
This demographic contains an epidemic of hiv/aids and most other sexually transmitted diseases and the rates are available from all National Health Agencies.

It is in the interests of all of us, especially male homosexuals, to have this epidemic stopped or the rates of new infection decreased.

The agencies themselves, have up until now, relied on Education, Inclusion, and Outreach(self regulation), to try to make some impession on infection and transmission rates in this demographic, with absolutely no success, in fact, the new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever.

Over the past year the health agencies have been hinting that if infection rates continue to rise "other methods" of control may need to be investigated. They suggest that all members of "at risk" groups should have an hiv test annually and sexually active MSM should present themselves for testing every three months.
Of course, they have no way of compelling people to take the test and as most young MSM have no apparent symptoms, it is unlikely that their advice will be acted upon.


I think is a certainty that compulsion will be brought over the next couple of years, but by then, many thousands of new infections will have taken place.

"Rounding up" will not be required Ian(very quaint), but there should be some sort of registration with penalties for failure to test or infecting others knowingly or through negligence.
This is a serious epidemic and demands serious measures to address it.

At the moment there are no safeguards and male to male sex is simply agame of Russian Roulette.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM

Hey, professor, remember this one??...or is it just one of your 'indelible impromptu laws'....
..or just more blowhard, sans harmonica?!?!

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Aug 13 - 05:26 PM

"SHAW'S LAW:

The first time anyone in a thread asks for or claims proof or disproof of the existence of God, or who says they can prove or disprove any scientific theory, the thread will immediately dissolve into raucous belly-laughter...."

Well...come to think of it some of your posts have been rather hilarious!...

...but then 'beauty', as well as 'ugly', is in the eye of the beholder!

Some people see all those trees, and think they are just lost in the forest!

Enjoy your hike.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM

Under UK law it is a criminal offence to knowingly pass on communicable diseases. Has been for a long time. Having unprotected sex when you know you are HIV + is already a criminal offence. Many people have been convicted over the years. So that part of your argument is as badly researched as it is respectable.

Registering yourself as being gay is a good idea. If you happen to be angry at war reparations and a ridiculous Austrian has found a way of ridding society of its ills.

So.... This hate of gay people. Bad experience? People are born innocent apparently and dubious parts of their makeup can normally be attributed to trauma.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

Being straight isn't a bad idea, either.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever.

This is an absolute lie. You don't get to just say what you bloody well like in order to make your bogus case, charlatan.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket c/w hard on
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

The only thing Goofus has said I could agree with, albeit for a very different reason. He says it as an anti gay stance, I say it because I am straight,which has absolute fuck all to do with discussing being gay.

It isn't either / or, you sick fuck, as they say your side of the pond, pond life.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 06:00 PM

Being straight isn't a bad idea, either.

Being yourself is even better. The best idea ever, I'd say. The Third Reich would have loved you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 06:01 PM

Aww Muskrat, you could find something about another guy you'd feel attracted to!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM

"Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'"

Well, respecting the boundary of truth, Steve, go fuck yourself, and your Third Reich!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM

Heheh. As coherent as ever, I see!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 06:26 PM

I think I am correct in saying that new infection rates amongst MSM are the highest on record 21% in London?

I dont think you are a charlaton Steve, just poorly informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM

I think I am correct in saying that new infection rates amongst MSM are the highest on record 21% in London?

Saying that something is "21%" unqualified is useless. Do apprise us as to what you're on about. If you really have to.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

I once found my6self working for a drug rehab facility, Rubicon, in Richmond...

It had a very interesting clinical psychologist who I got to know really well...

He had an interesting take on homosexuality... His definition revolved around which sex that one wanted to spend most of his or her time... You know, socialize with...

Hmmmmmm???

He pointed out the high number of males who rather than go home at night to their wives choose to go to the local watering hole and knock down a few chilly ones with other...

...males...

Room for thought here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:13 PM

steve: "Heheh. As coherent as ever, I see!"

Good!..I knew you were faking it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 08:41 PM

I see nothing hateful about akenaton's post up above. It's pretty straightforward, matter of fact, informational etc. Not hateful.

GfS, lol. Have you ever seen that t-shirt that says, "Don't Assume I'm Straight"? We'll I always wanted to make one in response that says, "Don't Assume I Care." I mean, why would an assumption of heterosexuality, an assumption that would be correct 95% or more of the time, be such an insult?

This is an interesting link regarding our perceptions of what % of the population is homosexual:

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-adults-overestimate-homosexual-population-m

Now, why do you think we overestimate like that?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:41 AM

Great question!...Because the wannabe political jerks, are using them, and over-hyping the significance, and building their case on bad science.
That's the short answer..but the truthful one.
It's not genetic, but behavioral...but the wannabes will argue till they're blue in the face otherwise.
It is a breakdown of the nuclear fabric of society, which they promote, and frankly, a tempest in a teapot, which they exaggerate to no end. Maybe it's a way of showing off how 'liberally minded' and 'hip' they are..but really, who cares?
If we get too far into it, another thread will be screwed up with our local defender of homosexuality, to excuse his irresponsible behavior, in his younger and reckless days.....and I'm hoping we don't go there, AGAIN!!..(so I won't name names) being as this thread is about 'Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'.
BTW, Akenaton, for a long time has posted stats, and many from the CDC, only to be shouted down, and called exaggerated names, blasting his character...none of which has been true...and it's from the usual moronic ideologues, who promote sexual permissiveness, wishing to resurrect racial baiting, want higher taxes, limited freedoms, on a crusade to eradicate any mention of anything resembling 'God' OR Spiritual, and favor a massive big brother/nanny-state government, hate anything to do with Israel, (which ironically is more tolerant of homosexuals than their counterparts in the Mid-East), and more than often, are so contradictory, it's staggering to the imagination that they can even wake up and dress themselves.
What I think it really is, is that a lot of the present political movements originated in the backlash to the industrial revolution, so that is their point of reference...and they are trying to belatedly apply it to today, is in a backlash to the technological revolution...and they're absolutely lost!...so they scream, piss and moan about anything traditional, and do more screaming, pissing and moaning, accusing anyone who doesn't go along with their semi-literate diatribes, as being some sort of hater, bigot, homophobic, misogynists...or whatever their frustrations can't wrap their brains around!....

Oh well, I'll stop now, trying to keep in mind that this thread is about, 'Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'.

Now watch, all the frothing, foaming, blatherers, will fill up cyberspace with their histrionics!
Go for it!!

GfS

P.S. SJL, did that answer your question?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 03:39 AM

Steve the latest figures for London are printed on the HPA website.

If you can't be arsed doing a bit of simple research on the subject under discussion, why on earth are you involved?
I see you are more interested in stamping out religion than disease, but try to keep up........The figure was printed in most of the UK papers a couple of weeks ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 04:54 AM

The figure may have been published. The figures in the plural are also published together with the success through intervention figures that GU services should be proud of. Clamydia remains a national issue amongst younger people and HIV still has a hot spot in certain wards of some inner cities that are a concern but as HPA states, stigmatisation leads to cluster communities.

Interesting that a hateful disgusting lowlife can look on a website but not read what it says.   I have no issue with that. My issue is his insistence on perpetuating the problem by continually stigmatising a section of society on the basis he either doesn't like the idea of being fucked in his arse or didn't enjoy it at the time. Difficult to see which but the result is the same. A dangerous viewpoint that would if shared by others drive a section of the community further away from integration and increase the health issues which can if not practiced safely transmit one of many STDs.

Pink News the other week reported, according to HSJ that a poll of readers showed over 50% were celibate and of the rest, safe sex was practiced by all those responding. Not a universal study granted, but just that alone makes sweeping statements over all gay people for health reasons disingenuous.

In the meantime, unprotected sex by teenagers causing Clamydia is on the rise.   Luckily I suppose, anybody with an interest in public health knows the target. Those with an agenda pick their targets and therefore do not influence those responsible for tackling the issues.   

I have tried to point out issues to Akenaton. He is a lying disgusting piece of filth and is incapable of debate. What price respectful boundaries now?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 05:38 AM

GfS - I am pretty sure you got the wrong idea about the question from SJL. Let me backtrack.

Story - US Adults, in the main, vastly over estimate the gay population.

Question was - Now, why do you think we overestimate like that?

You then go off on one about 'them' promoting the breakdown of society and wanting to be seen as liberal.

I am pretty sure that your rant does NOT answer SJL's question although I am sure she will comment for herself (Sorry if I got the gender wrong, SJL) The overestimation of this portion of society is, more than likely, brought on by politicians and media wanting to demonise gays. The exact opposite of what you say. If they wanted to promote the gay lifestyle and show that it was acceptable then, surely, they would present the REAL figures which show that the percentage of gay people is so small that it could never be a threat to the 'nuclear family' or 'fabric of society'.

Now, I don't know if you misread the question, misread the article or just wanted to have a go at someone on here. I suspect the latter but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now, do you really believe that alternate sexualities are such a threat or are you just making noise?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:20 AM

Steve Shaw

instead of joining the Snailist nit-picker corps?

What!? Attention to detail in science? We can't be having that. Whatever next? You'll be asking for consistency and logical arguments instead of personal abuse which we all know is the right and proper way of conducting a debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:11 AM

Musket

I have tried to point out issues to Akenaton. He is a lying disgusting piece of filth and is incapable of debate.

So why debate with him?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM

Snail:

""Musket: "I have tried to point out issues to Akenaton. He is a lying disgusting piece of filth and is incapable of debate.""

"So why debate with him?"

Because the thought that his (Muskrat's) whole premise is biased on a political ideology, rather than FACTS, and his alter-ego is attached to it, he needs to project onto others, his brain-lock.
Akenaton's figures are not his own...he didn't make them up, so rather than admit that Ake might have a salient point, he is instead painted by the political ideologues as being a bigot or hater. It's a hat trick from the 'so-called liberal's' playbook.
It's rubbish.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 11:08 AM

...and why on Earth does anyone ever take any notice of anything GfS says?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 11:13 AM

To say 'why' implies that there are people who do so. That's a pretty wild speculation on your part, Snail...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 11:15 AM

The Snail: "...and why on Earth does anyone ever take any notice of anything GfS says?"

They do..but they dismiss it, because it intrudes on their fantasy.

BTW, I happened to be agreeing with you....or did you notice?..or were you being facetious?

GfS

P.S. What did the Snail say as it sat on the turtle?





































Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 11:39 AM

Not sure which of my last two posts you are referring to, McGrath, but if you look back through this thread you will see that several people regularly respomd to both Akenaton and GfS.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 11:47 AM

In respect of Bobert's friend' "He had an interesting take on homosexuality... His definition revolved around which sex that one wanted to spend most of his or her time... You know, socialize with..."

That would probably throw up a figure of 95% of both sexes homosexual, which I feel would be a rather unreliable indication of sexual activity.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 12:36 PM

In respect to reality, homosexuality depends not solely on whom a person wants 'to spend more time with', but rather, if a person is having sex with the same gender person, and that includes pedophilia, with the same sex, as well.

(Almost)Sorry to pop your new attempt at a delusion.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket err. Forget it
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:10 PM

Snail.
I am not debating with it. I am trying to make sure that impressionable people are made aware of the lies in his hate mail and the awfulness of his fascism.

Goofus.
Please think about two things you said above re Akenaton and his so called point.

1. I have no ideology. None at all. Floating voter politically and charged with helping find solutions to healthcare issues professionally.

2. Akenaton is lying and his figures are from his head. He grabs a figure from statistics and twists it to suit his agenda. And his agenda is not for decent society.

Your post above by the way is as bad. Homosexuality describes choice. Your post above precludes you from being taken seriously. The problem with free speech, as much as I defend it is that people with evil intent like you can try o influence gullible people. Luckily you are not clever enough to be taken seriously by anyone. Do you still talk about "curing" gay people?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:16 PM

Ian....I can't make any sense of your last post?
How does it relate to the issue in question?

Do you really think that "integration" will stop male homosexuals acting like male homosexuals?

Dont you understand anything about male homosexuality?

Why are they affected by such huge rates of sexual disease?
Is it because they are extremely promiscuous? If so have you ever wondered why they are so much more promiscuous than hetero's?

Do you think that there is something intrinsic to male homosexuality, that makes their behaviour so much more risky and unhealthy?

Do you think they should be given help with their problem.....or left to rot in a La La land of inclusion and outreach?

Call yourself a health professional.....thats a SICK joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:33 PM

Muskrat, you are so full of it!
I never claimed to be able to 'cure' homosexuality(that was an 'assertion' by another wannabe)...however, there are services that do provide that service...but only IF the person wants that treatment. Your post is relatively misleading to the simple minded, as many of your posts are.

Go back to sleep and get some much needed rest!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:55 PM

"Now, why do you think we overestimate like that?"

Well SJL, the answer to your question seems to be how homosexuality is presented by the media.....all these non threatening "comedians". and celebrity guests.
Homosexuals and the "homosexual lifestyle" are hugely over-represented in the entertainment media.....Like political correctness, it masks the severe problems which are associated with male to male sex.
The problems are never mentioned, even the word is never mentioned.

All is well in La La Land!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 01:56 PM

" Homosexuality describes choice"

That is rather unclear. I take it it's not a definition.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 02:15 PM

Ian writes
"1. I have no ideology. None at all. Floating voter politically and charged with helping find solutions to healthcare issues professionally."

Your voting intentions will have no effect on your ideology Ian, as all the mainstream parties are wedded to "political correctness"
We can all see it in every post that you compose, the meaningless jargon, the faux indignation, the appeals for support in your battle against "hatred".....and THE EVIL ONE!! :0)

Ever considered a career in theatre?   At least that would give the sick a fair chance of recovery! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 02:54 PM

Good gracious. These are some of the people who say it disrespectful to use bad language. As I said earlier, in simple language this time in case anyone missed it, I would rather converse with a swearing decent human being than a polite bigoted dimwit any day...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 03:11 PM

"Homosexuals and the "homosexual lifestyle" are hugely over-represented in the entertainment media....." ake

I have a theory (in support of which I have neither fact nor research. lol) that may account for that phenomenon.

As it happens, I am straight. However I have a number of gay friends, of both sexes. In my experience, gay people tend to be introspective and bright and talented far beyond the general population, imo. My gay friends are articulate and aware and insightful; as I said, they tend to be introspective and pretty much know what is going on inside and around them.

Have I mentioned talented? Just about every gay person I know - and everyone of my gay friends is talented in more than one field. They paint, they play music, they write.

See where I'm going with this? I don't find it surprising that the gay population is heavily represented in the arts, and that includes the movies.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 03:42 PM

I suppose us "gullible people" not to mention the "feckin' eejits" and "dozy sods" should be grateful that we have such mighty intellects to protect us from the likes of Akenaton, Guest from Sanity and pete who could so easily lead us astray and bring down civilization as we know it.

A bit like Akenaton with his sincere concern for the well being of gay men.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 03:51 PM

Thank fuck for that Dave.

Good job I'm not a health professional. If I were I'd have to be non judgemental but I am judging our wannabe little Nazi. Not by opinion you understand but by asking people to read what he puts.

Nothing more nothing less.

Goofus. Curing isn't your most outrageous contribution anyway Your post of 12.36 is beyond respectability.

Presumably many have given up on this thread. That's a pity because challenging those who wish tiers of society need to know they don't go down well with respectable people. We seriously have a proposal here to force gay people to register and be forced to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases. The other 92% of such infections and sources appear to be of no concern to bigots. Probably to do with ideology and agenda.

I assume it would be better to be a Christian to say the following but no matter I'll say it anyway.

Jesus wept.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 03:54 PM

'Nuff said.

The Lone Haranguer

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 04:45 PM

Now you have set off a train of thought, Musket. How about compulsory testing for religious people? There is a survey, I think it was in the same publication that others have quoted, that stated that those with blind faith were more likely to have life threatening mental illnesses than anyone else. What is more, they are contagious and they try, purposely, to contaminate everyone else! If we force them to be tested, say once a week, maybe on a Friday, Saturday or a Sunday, to see if they still have that blind faith we can make sure that they are kept away from respectable folk!

Sorted!

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 05:16 PM

You lack the light touch, Gnome.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM

Aye but you can't say the gay bashing is light. About as subtle as a bucket of lard.

Anyway, if some had their way, religious types would be herded together at least once a week for a bit of brain washing. The pilot scheme apparently has encouraging results but it is a bit early to say. Only been going in its present sense since medieval times.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 05:59 PM

Interesting how "the usual suspects" can't seem to leave this topic alone. Obsession, perhaps?

Attitudes serving a defensive function, helping the [homophobic] individual to reduce painful emotions and feelings (e.g., anxiety) that are triggered by gay people or homosexuality. These feelings may occur for a variety of reasons, possibly including the person's own psychological conflicts related to sexuality or gender. The defensive process occurs largely outside of the individual's awareness.
—from Hate Crimes:   Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men, by Edited by Gregory M. Herek, Ph.D. & Kevin T. Berrill (Sage Publications, 1992).

Just a thought. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM

I think you are probably right in your theory Ebbie, and there is no doubt that they are over -represented....some are very talented, but some play on the stereotype.
A large percentage of our young folk take a lead from what they see on TV and that includes the pantomime homosexual.
All is a distraction from the serious matter at the core of male to male sex.....some of the most talented performers ....like Freddy Mercury,Elton John, for example, led the most hedonistic lifestyles.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:16 PM

Dave...You were quite annoyed when I misread your post and assumed that I thought you to be without a social conscience.

How do you expect me to say nothing in reply to the disgraceful insults dealt out by Ian, when his threadbare argument developes holes
I just borrow Ebbies "stiletto" occasionally. Or a little of Mr McGraths wit?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket getting it across
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

Only disgraceful insults?

I must try a little harder. I am only trying hard to vilify one twisted old bigot. You manage to pour scorn over 5% of the population and upset the sensibility of all decent people.

Not in your league.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:44 PM

Ebbie: " "Homosexuals and the "homosexual lifestyle" are hugely over-represented in the entertainment media....." "ake

I have a theory (in support of which I have neither fact nor research. lol) that may account for that phenomenon"

Here Ebbie and others...who seem to gloss over a link posted by 'SJL'.

Just in case you gloosed over it...or IGNORED it, for IGNORANCE sake!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:55 PM

Ah, lies, damn lies and statistics. HIV infection rates have been steady for over ten years. But that bald figure doesn't tell the story. There has been a far greater uptake of voluntary screening in that time, coupled with major advances in testing. So the apparent steadying of the infection rate could actually mean that true infection rates have declined. *Sigh.*

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 06:58 PM

GfS- 14 Aug 13 - 01:41 AM- A brilliant analysis- I would also factor in the role of the media and entertainment industry, along with the politicians, to explain this phenomenon of perception.
(Dave, your logic is skewed. They ARE hyping it and that is what accounts for our inflated perception of their numbers).

Don't forget that the 5% is overrepresented in the entertainment industry compared with the general population and that plays into the hype as well, making what is a fairly unorthodox lifestyle seem ubiquitous and mainstream. It is being actively promoted to the population at large.

And when you see such a small percentage of the population exerting such a powerful sociopolitical influence, you realize that far from being a downtrodden minority, they are a special interest group with connections to the elite ($$$). Even when a majority votes down same sex marriage as in Proposition 8, it gets reversed by the courts. Somehow, it gets done.

GfS made another astute observation:

"a lot of the present political movements originated in the backlash to the industrial revolution, so that is their point of reference...and they are trying to belatedly apply it to today, is in a backlash to the technological revolution."

Modern feminism is a case in point. It is clearly a backlash of Victorianism which was the zenith of oppression for women. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:01 PM

Nobody gloosed over it moron. Why should anyone believe Brent Bozell?
Were you aware that's who CNS News is?
If you weren't you are sloppy.
If you were, you have just disproven your own constant protest that you are not a right wing tea potty shill.
Which is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:09 PM

Jeez, SJL, I could bloody weep.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:14 PM

Brent Bozell, head of CNS (Conservative News Service), very Right Wing, chronic gay-basher, and frequent quest on Fox News.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM

SJL: "GfS- 14 Aug 13 - 01:41 AM- A brilliant analysis- I would also factor in the role of the media and entertainment industry, along with the politicians, to explain this phenomenon of perception."

Of Course there are nine major news media sources, (teetering on eight), and they are ALL owned by major corporations in bed with our 'so-called Representatives'...well, Representatives representing the corporations in bed with the Representatives representing the corporations...pretending to represent you!

The biggest problem of brain-lock that to 'so-called liberals' have, is they can't see or grasp beyond 'acceptable political correctness'!!..and of course that limits their ability to see beyond Obama, and who he's working for. They just see 'black', and think we've come, oh such a long way. A vote for Obama was a vote for the Rockefeller crowd....but you're too infatuated with color, and too politically correct to see it!
It's a shame.. because they neutered your earliest zeal in protests, to make things right..but that movement got co-opted by the Democrats in the 60's, and you've assumed they were your 'buddies' all along. Nope..they're just the other whore.

GfS

P.S. As I've said before, 'Right wing and left wing are on the same bird'....but your political correctness, that you've signed in for, has you trapped. True Story!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

""Oh well, I'll stop now, trying to keep in mind that this thread is about, 'Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'.""

And it fondly imagines that the preceding incoherent, factually challenged, rant had anything of respect contained within.

All the gear, NO IDEA!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

"Right wing and left wing are on the same bird," is an ignorant cliché that indicates that the person making this statement has no understanding of where the terms "Right Wing" and "Left Wing" came from, and what they have to do with the world of politics.

These "wings" have nothing to do with birds.

Nor does GfS have a clue as to what a Liberal is. Or, for that matter, a Conservative.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM

Steve....New infection rates are falling in almost all demographics.
New infection rates amongst male homosexuals are rising steadily...approx 10% per year.
As homosexuals make up only 2/3% of the population, this means that in the population at large infection rates are relatively static......BUT in the homosexual demographic, new infection rates have reached epidemic proportions.
In London last year, new infection rates amongst male homosexuals rose by 21%.......in one year!

Please make some attempt to read the HPA or CDC reports before commenting.....It would save a lot of time and energy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

""Luckily you are not clever enough to be taken seriously by anyone. Do you still talk about "curing" gay people?""

Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too.

And he talks about our delusions.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:53 PM

Oh, less I leave these guys out...a vote for Romney or CCain was a vote for the same crowd.
..and you thought 'protest songs' had nothing to write about???

and in reference to the previous post, I started out addressing 'SJL', then switched to 'YOU'...that 'YOU' is meant generically. I didn't put 'US' because I have to exclude myself from those who have mistakenly thought otherwise!

GfS


P.S.Steve Shaw: "Jeez, SJL, I could bloody weep."

Why?? Not everyone is closed off to being able to recognize the truth!...OR.....Rejoice! Not everyone is as dumb as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:55 PM

"The other 92% of such infections and sources appear to be of no concern to bigots. Probably to do with ideology and agenda."

There is no hiv epidemic amonst heterosexuals Ian..... You know very well the infection rate is miniscule.
You know the difference between percentage rates and real numbers...dont you?    yes I thought you might.

Ten in a hundred thousand is a minor medical problem.
Ten in a hundred is an epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM

Typo in last post..delete in..and an (addendum)


Oh, less I leave these guys out...a vote for Romney or McCain was a vote for the same crowd.
..and you thought 'protest songs' had nothing to write about???

and in reference to the previous post, I started out addressing 'SJL', then switched to 'YOU'...that 'YOU' is meant generically. I didn't put 'US' because I have to exclude myself from those who have mistakenly thought otherwise!

Addendum: Don T: "Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too"

False!...find the post, or can it!

GfS


P.S.Steve Shaw: "Jeez, SJL, I could bloody weep."

Why?? Not everyone is closed off to being able to recognize the truth!...OR.....Rejoice! Not everyone is as dumb as you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

""Or a little of Mr McGraths wit?""

Very little, if any at all.

McGrath knows the difference between wit and bullshit, how to use the former effectively and detect and debunk the latter.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:13 PM

""Ah, lies, damn lies and statistics. HIV infection rates have been steady for over ten years. But that bald figure doesn't tell the story. There has been a far greater uptake of voluntary screening in that time, coupled with major advances in testing. So the apparent steadying of the infection rate could actually mean that true infection rates have declined. *Sigh.*""

In addition to which, the treatments available work well enough that the medical profession is now describing HIV as "a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy."

But don't tell Ake! He is studiously avoiding that statistic and determinedly living in the past in which 50% developed AIDS and AIDS was 100% fatal.

He also insists that those at risk be denied the one thing that would undoubtedly save lives, on the grounds that he believes that gays don't want it, in spite of the fact that it is gays who asked for it in the first place.

Much easier, of course, to ignore that and attack those non gays who support it.

As for GfS, I'd have more respect for his views if he kept his mouth shut on the four days a week when his brain cell is at the laundry being sanitised.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM

""Addendum: Don T: "Not only talks about it Ian, claims to have done it too"

False!...find the post, or can it!""

Way back you made a big song and dance about how happy they were to be normal after sessions with you.

That would be somewhere about the time that you started telling lies about Don F.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

I would imagine that the percentage of homosexual people WITHIN the entertainment is much higher than it is in the general population, for the reasons I mentioned above- and that leaves far fewer in 'normal' society. (So GfS and ake can rest easier in their lonely beds, knowing that no fiend will come creeping upon them. Isn't that nice?)

But I must take issue with the implication that Guest/SJL made, when she spoke of our youth thinking of homosexuality being 'main stream' and who therefore are at risk of becoming homosexual. Using only myself as an example, I must say that although I have shared many a hotel room with a friend, often female - in fact, when I was growing up, on more than one occasion I shared a bed with a female , beginning with a sister - and not once did the urge for copulation come upon me, and I have every reason to believe the same was true for my companion.

Homosexuality is not easily come by- I think it must be born with you. Ain't that a novel thought? Wherever did anyone get the idea that it is a cloak one dons and doffs at will? Ake? GfS?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 08:46 PM

That would be in the Prop 8 thread, awhile back.

GoofuS claimed to be a family counselor (OY!) and that he had cured many "cases" of homosexuality.

Along in that section is a post of mine where I quoted an independent follow-up study of one so-called therapist who claimed a batch of "cures," that said his former patients had a nearly 80% recidivism rate, and a substantial portion of them avoided the issue by staying celibate. The follow-up further showed a high rate of depression in those he claimed to have cured, and six ex-patients committed suicide.

Not exactly a sterling result!!

So much for "curing homosexuality!!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Aug 13 - 09:13 PM

Same experience here, Ebbie.

In 1959, a friend and I—my singing partner at the time—went to try our luck in San Francisco. We lived together in a small apartment, sleeping in the same room, but one on a broken down mattress and the other on the couch.

Nary once did it occur to either of us to be intimate. With each other.

Before we left Seattle for the Bay Area, he had met a young woman he was pining for, and shortly after our return to Seattle after two months of barnstorming, he married her.

I was moping over a girl I had met in Seattle when she was home from Bryn Mawr (a Philosophy Major and aspiring writer), who had returned to school at the end of the summer, then broke my heart when she decided to move to Europe. I never saw her again. (Lord!! I haven't thought of her for ages!).

My friend and I loved each other—like brothers. Still do after all these years. But the idea of physical intimacy between us is a little creepy!!

No, sexual orientation is NOT a matter merely of proximity. It has something to do with inborn inclinations—and is not a matter of "choice!"

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:04 AM

I agree, Don.

I spent the last couple of surreal hours reading the WHOLE Prop 8 thread- all 2,000+ posts of it. In doing so, I have formulated several opinions.
#1: I think that the man is sincere in his beliefs.
#2: He is also somewhat suspect in some of the credentials he claims.
#3: I think he is a more than somewhat misogynistic in his views of women; his protestations reflect a mainstream view of those societies that oppress women in the guise of protecting and venerating them.
#4: The view I had from way back that he had volunteered information about his homosexual father, I believe is incorrect. What he actually said- but did NOT post the link that supposedly would have clarified of whom he was speaking:

May 6 2009
"Again, from the 'For what its worth Department': (If you want the link, I'll post it.
By the way, all of those who think that I have no experience with this, and that I'm just spouting from no experience with this issue, you should know that my father CHOSE a homosexual lifestyle after he had 6 children with my mother.

Not to get to personal, but to squash any type of statement about my father already being gay, I'll explain this. He was molested when he was a child by his father and uncle. He learned how to deal with the shame and pain of this act by storing it inside and never talking about it. This, undoubtedly, led to prolonged psychological effects that plagued him and eventually chose him to choose his lifestyle."

That is it, ver batim. Poorly written, it is no wonder that some of us thought he was recounting a personal history.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:17 AM

Yeah, we've been around that bush before...that post was NOT authored by me, and even Joe Offer, acknowledged that it indeed came from my IP, it didn't sound like me, nor did he believe that I wrote it..which I didn't..and THAT is the truth!

As for Don T's assertion that I could 'cure' homosexuality, that was another false assertion he is parroting from Firth, who exclaimed that, after I posted a post referring to Dr. Cohen.

I think Firth is e-mailing his 'little helpers' to try to discredit me, as he always tries to with the same old song and dance...it ain't going to work this time, either. It's false.....Oh, Don, as long as you are posting links and recruiting surrogates, look up this phenomenal description of yourself....
HPD . Read it carefully, and see if the shoe fits!

You guys must be REALLY desperate now!...GOOD!!! Because your phony 'so called liberal' agenda is crashing down on you!

Oh Ebbie, in the course of reading all those posts, did you find the one that Don T is referring to?

I d-o-o-o-on't think so.

Have a nice night.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:43 AM

O O O O O H, yes, I did. You didn't go so far as to say that YOU cured them (multiple ones) but you skirted all around it. If you wish I will post them.

I saved them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:53 AM

Hey Goofus! Whilst you are busy disowning comments, would you care to take the opportunity to disown some of the outrageous homophobic bilge you have been spouting out this week?

Must be nice to reveal your cold twisted self and know you can muddy the waters afterwards if the only person who likes your views is a discredited old bigot who cannot find agreement with a single sane person on these threads.

Or there again, your waffle about sessions with people with psychological issues is quite good. Snag is, you don't make it clear whether you were sat in the chair or the couch?

What's that boy?

Woof!

Yeah, I reckon couch too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:56 AM

You lack the light touch, Gnome.

Do I need it, Kevin? I thought when talking bollocks anything is allowed?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 AM

Dave, your logic is skewed.

It may be, in your opinion, SJL. I don't think so and least it is logic rather than blind prejudice.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:21 AM

First let's clear this up:

Joe Offer         BS: Death penalty for homosexuality? (2125* d)         RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban         24 Feb 10

    OK, so I gather the message in question was on this page posted at 12:38 AM on 6 May 2009. There are 74 messages from that group of IP numbers, and all (except a few no-name ones) were signed by Guest from Sanity. That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer. At least part of the message appears to have been copy-pasted from another source, but I could not find the source and could not determine whether the statement about the father may have come from that source. Are you people really arguing about a message that was posted nine months ago?
    -Joe Offer-

       I got confused and posted this message in the "Californians" thread, and GfS responded to me there. I moved my message and the one from GfS over here. Sorry for the mistake.
       Despite evidence to the contrary, I'd tend to believe whatever GfS says about the message in question. GfS has been here for quite some time, and I have seen no evidence of deception or manipulation in posts from GfS. You people know GfS better than I do - make your decision based on your own experience.
       -Joe-

NEXT: Ebbie post the ones that I said that I could cure them...I'll post one that I said I couldn't, and deferred to someone who could!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:05 AM

That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer.

and

You people know GfS better than I do - make your decision based on your own experience.

You use this as proof that you did not make the post in question??? If that was not enough to demonstrate your level of delusion you then come out with

Ebbie post the ones that I said that I could cure them...I'll post one that I said I couldn't, and deferred to someone who could!

So, even if you could prove did not say you could cure homosexuality, you believe it can be cured? Like an illness?

You are one sick bunny.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM

Getting back to the thread title, since when has this type of comment been condoned?

"I have tried to point out issues to Akenaton. He is a lying disgusting piece of filth and is incapable of debate."

Or, "He (Mr McGrath, is a Po-faced old sod"

I cant help but notice the word "old" being used as a term of abuse, Ian regularly terms me a "disgusting old bigot"!
This conduct seems far removed from his expressed wish to spread equality and outreach?
Will we soon need to think up a new acceptable word to describe folks over 60?

There are several people still posting on this thread, who's output consists of nothing but personal abuse, with no attempt made to debate the issues which have come up.

I would be very interested in the views of Larry the Radio Guy, who instigated this thread, as it has become obvious who the "abusers" on this forum really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 04:50 AM

So I'm scrolling back, looking for a particular post and found this familiar bit of Don acting up, so I addressed it back then:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Dec 09 - 06:07 PM

Don, stop 'recruiting'. We were on a good roll, exchanging good information, and every time you're caught, accusing, and usurping the thread, you resort to the same, worn out tactics, instead of moving forward, and thereby hijacking the thread to focus on only your point of view....which has been proven, either inconclusive, or divisive, just to steer the attention to you. May we go on??...with your imperial permission..or do we have to endure more of your off topic meanderings?

You've stated your political stance...ok..You've posted links, that come to no conclusion, as said in those links....you've gathered 'support' of those who think that non bigoted, dissenters, are bigots and haters...and brought nothing new to understanding the CAUSE, of what you so ignorantly champion. Just take a rest, and let's see what may come out, that may INFORM you...instead of spouting your non-supported opinions....and this time let them, or us speak, without jumping down our throats. YOU MIGHT LEARN SOMETHING....God forbid! ....not to mention, there may be something of interest to OTHERS.....unless, of course, keeping people uninformed is your method of control. You have offered NOTHING,except your link, which was not authored by you. Why don't you ALLOW a discussion on that link, which is what was being done. Perhaps, you did not even read the entire link, yourself, or understood the ramifications of what they were saying. Forget character assassinate Ake, or myself, or anyone else disagreeing with you. You're wasting time and space, in doing so. Now, I'll get around to your question, when I'm finished with Amos', though I think in answering Amos' questions, yours would be answered as well!!

Look at this quote from you..."GfS has posted only four times on music threads. The vast majority of posts have been dedicated to the trying to quell the same-sex marriage issue.

Ake's history is pretty similar. His posts tend to deplore homosexual practices, implying they actually create the AIDs virus, and seem to dwell on the lurid details of anal intercourse."

What's the word? Obsession? Fixation? Fetish?"

You actually went through the forum COUNTING OUR POSTS...THEN ACCUSE US OF BEING OBSESSED???????? Look who is calling the kettle black!
(and BTW, your count is wrong).
Chill out. When I get back, and have the time, I'll post, what I did before, and lost.......jeez!

GfS


AND THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jan 10 - 06:44 PM

Don, What a friggin' cop out. You just can't admit that you might have learned something, that corrected your faulty assertions. Even 'Smedley', an admitted homosexual, has the balls to admit that homosexuals CAN terminate their inclinations. You just can't admit that you have been wrong...well good luck. It's a good thing that you are not in charge of who would be allowed to be treated, or get medical support, for anything that they might want to get treated for, if it disagreed with your political stance!..We'd all be in a world of hurt!
GfS

AND THIS:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Feb 10 - 10:24 AM

Don; "Well, Jeez, GfS! why didn't you say so in the first place, instead of saying (for what seems like a couple thousand posts now) "they need to be cured."

Why did you repeatedly misquote, re-interpret, change them meaning of what I was saying, to get the other 'catters pissed off at me?? Often you steered the thread into a politically based bias, which got everyone fighting and sounding more hostile than we were. Little Hawk, Joe Offer, and myself had remarked to you, about that."

It goes on, but for brevity............

AND THIS, which caused me to ask Joe Offer to check the post in question:

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM

Don Facade: "You have said repeatedly that, instead of being allowed to marry, they should be compelled to seek counseling."

Again you're lying intentionally, to mislead others into a hostility,..to hide the FACT that you, argued for two threads, quite a few posts, that homosexuals could not opt out. That is a blatant lie..being as later you admitted to knowing of two. Sounds like you have a 'hidden agenda'...hmm...wonder what that can be....


P. S. Now, GfS, I can understand that since your father sired a batch of kids, including you, then "decided" he was gay and left your mother and you kids to go off with a male lover, ..blah blah blah, more lies!

My Father died at 60, due to a stroke. He was married once, to my mother, who is still alive, and she never re-married.
You just make shit up..as you have all through these threads. You've twisted quotes, and responded to the twists that you make up....now just what is it, that you are trying to hide???"

I just found pretty good proof that I knew NOTHING about the post in question. I'm going to post them in another post, because this one is too long already...and I want to devote the entire post, without any 'diversions' in continuity, the way the posts ran. It is SO obvious that I didn't even know what you were talking about, when you first started hassling me about it!!!

Till next post, tomorrow.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:21 AM

To Mudcat moderators(whoever they may be)

Are there some subjects which not up for debate on this forum...like homosexual infection rates, abortion, creationism, rape, etc?

If this is the case then why is there not a list of prohibited subjects?
If it not the case and we are free to discuss any subject, why are some posters subjected to a torrent of personal abuse from a handful of other members?
You know who they are, it is cowardly to bury your heads in the sand while these people reduce civilised debate to a hatefest.

Either make clear which subjects are off the menu, or get rid of the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:46 AM

From Ian.

"I am not debating with it. I am trying to make sure that impressionable people are made aware of the lies in his hate mail and the awfulness of his fascism."

That one sentence contains four examples of serious verbal abuse.
He refers to me as IT....a nonperson(discriminatory), a Liar (untrue, I have never knowingly lied on this forum in ten years)
A Hater( I hate no person, my one hate is the Capitalist system)
A Fascist( If I had to define myself politically, probably Radical socialist.....personally, social conservative.)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:49 AM

""Oh, Don, as long as you are posting links and recruiting surrogates, look up this phenomenal description of yourself....
HPD . Read it carefully, and see if the shoe fits!""

You know what? I agree with you!

It fits absolutely perfectly with the persona you project in all your attention seeking nonsense posts.

Well done GfS! You have finally found yourself.

Oh, by the way, that door between you and reality could well be a closet door. Be careful about coming out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM

I can honestly and quite proudly say that I did not understand a quarter of GfS' last few posts.

Ake, the mods are all volunteers. If you are so against personal abuse, why call them cowardly? There is only one subject which will, and should, be jumped on from a great height - Having a go at the moderators or moderation policy. It is the Mudcat's game. Don't like it? Then piss off.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:55 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3lUIxNSZ5Q

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:02 AM

Actually finding out whether someone has ever posted on the music threads doesn't involve tortuously going through all the threads. Just click on the name of the person at the top of a post and up comes a list of the posts they've made, which shows which are BS and which music.

Of course it doesn't show the threads they've read, so itd be quite possible for someone to come here because of an interest in the music, but hasn't posted up there but has down in BS.

I think it's quite important that we came here because of the music, because that means that beneath the disagreements here in the BS there's a communality. Though of course that can't be enforced - and the music threads can get pretty heated at times too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 AM

He (Mr McGrath, is a Po-faced old sod"

Who said this? Not me, that's for sure! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,SJL
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Ebbie, here's the statement I made in my post:

"Don't forget that the 5% is overrepresented in the entertainment industry compared with the general population and that plays into the hype as well, making what is a fairly unorthodox lifestyle seem ubiquitous and mainstream. It is being actively promoted to the population at large."

How does that mirror your statement below?

"But I must take issue with the implication that Guest/SJL made, when she spoke of our youth thinking of homosexuality being 'main stream' and who therefore are at risk of becoming homosexual."

Those are strictly your inferences, not my thoughts. When I say "promote," I mean PR. I said population, not youth. I said overrepresentation leading to a perception that the numbers are higher as in , "Hey look at us, we're everywhere! Aren't we the bomb? We're just exactly like straight people, only different. Give us everything you have, we demand or you're a homophobe etc." As a political entity, they have gone beyond pride. They have become arrogant bullies.

Why same sex marriage? Even in ancient Greece where homoeroticism was commonplace and an accepted part of the culture, there was no such thing as same sex marriage. Were the Greeks oppressed because they didn't have it? Is this about the monogamy associated with marriage? If we go outside of traditional marriage, why not polygamy? I mean, what's the big morality surrounding monogamy? Why should a man ditch his first wife and remarry when he can keep both of them?

GfS, "It's not genetic but behavioral."

As you know, this has been a longtime debate, but for most of us, sexual attraction and desire are something of a mystery, meaning we don't necessarily make conscious choices about these things. We experience them as things that happen to us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 AM

I wasn't referring to you Dave, everyone says or thinks   "bollox" from time to time.
Perhaps you are correct and I withdraw the word "cowardly", but at some stage, someone will have to make a decision on moderation, or the forum will become simply a smaller version of facebook

There is a world of difference between that reaction and the stuff Ian produces. It is designed to intimidate, just as insinuations on a persons sexuality or mental capacity are.
These insults are designed to silence debate, and are used when the abusers have no rational response to add.

There is without doubt an epidemic of sexual disease in the MSM demographic, why is it "bigotted" to debate the reasons for this epidemic and possible ways of stopping it

Perhaps you are correct and I withdraw the word "cowardly", but at some stage, someone will have to make a decision on moderation, or the forum will become simply a smaller version of facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:28 AM

I cross posted with Guest SJL, I think we have an extremely perceptive contributer in our midst.

Perhaps as SJL is new here and obviously a woman, she can be listened to without the usual derogatory abuse.
From the "Infamous Five".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:31 AM

Ahhhh - OK, SJL, your earlier conclusion makes more sense to me now and I can see why you would think that the overestimation is a result of over publication as in PR. I don't necessarily agree but can quite happily agree to differ with you on that. What I do take exception to is -

As a political entity, they have gone beyond pride. They have become arrogant bullies.

That is a gross generalisation. Yes, there are arrogant bullies in the gay community. They are everywhere. But it is because they are arrogant bullies that they make the news, not because they are gay. To follow such generalisations results in the demonisation of a particular section of society.

Gays are arrogant bullies
Moslems are terrorists
Irish are stupid

I am of the firm belief that the proportion of good and bad people is the same across ALL sections of society. There are no more arrogant bullying gays than there are arrogant bullying heterosexuals. There is just one section of society that, in my opinion, is an exception. Politicians. By nature they must be megalomaniacs and sociopaths. I would hate to get caught up in their machinations!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM

From GFS

"Yeah, we've been around that bush before...that post was NOT authored by me, and even Joe Offer, acknowledged that it indeed came from my IP, it didn't sound like me, nor did he believe that I wrote it..which I didn't..and THAT is the truth!"

You need to put a password on your computer. Remember all the posts from Cecil and lansing that came from your computer but you say were not authored by you? Your "friends" are abusing you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:56 AM

Have to get the stereotypes right, Dave. Irish are "stupid terrorists".

Actually in all these matters the arrogant bullies tend not to be members of the group themselves so much as non-members taking advantage to push an agenda of their own. Objections about stuff like Christmas Cribs as offending Muslims tend not to come from Muslims. Opposition to mosques being built as being anti-Christian typically isn't from Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 09:23 AM

Too true, Kevin - It is usually the politicians :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 09:46 AM

Sorry Steve, your words were "Bloody po-faced so and so".
I should have checked.

However.
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 13 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

"new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever."

This is an absolute lie. You don't get to just say what you bloody well like in order to make your bogus case, charlatan.

My Actual words were.
" The agencies themselves, have up until now, relied on Education, Inclusion, and Outreach(self regulation), to try to make some impession on infection and transmission rates in this demographic, with absolutely no success, in fact, the new infection rates are rising more quickly than ever."

CLUE....."In this demographic"

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Interesting news item. Health care professionals with HIV are going to be allowed to conduct the full range of procedures following the lifting of an outdated ban. From the article -

It is more likely that somebody will be struck by lightning than be infected with HIV by their doctor or dentist, said chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies as she announced the change of policy.

HIV levels in the blood of those on modern combination drug therapy are too low for the virus to be transmissible. There are only four known examples of a healthcare worker infecting a patient, none of them in the UK, and in every case, the doctor or dentist was not on drug treatment.

So, even our chief medical officer is more relaxed about the HIV 'epidemic' than some of our posters. I somehow doubt that she condones compulsory testing.

Full story here.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:30 AM

Of course I post abuse at Akenaton. You can't debate with a book that is written and published, you can only review it.

It ain't worth reading.

Oh, the reference to old. It was on purpose. It signifies that wisdom and experience should be there by now but obviously isn't.

Whilst we are at it. I don't technically post abuse, I return it in language which isn't veiled in false reasoning. You know when I react to filth. Filth reckons that being clean means you are vulnerable to filth, hence false concern rather than just saying he doesn't like gay people and would advocate stigmatising them for no reason.

Mind you, he has come out with it to be fair. Once you either provoke him or somebody tries to understand him, he lets it slip that the liberal society needs stopping and tolerating gays is a sickness of liberals. Nice.   When you are lonely in your views you grasp at any straw.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM

I find your posts almost incomprehnsible Ian, I really think you should see a doctor, as far as debate or exploring the causes of, or the solution to the epidemic is concerned, you are a complete waste of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM

Nice people are nice and mean people ain't... Ain't about being gay, or Presbyterian, or left handed or any of that stuff...

But even nice people can be pushed too far by the mean people and then they don't sound so nice... Myself included...

But, hey, everyday when I wake up I think to myself, "What are you going to do today to be nice?"... Doesn't mean I won't disagree with you... It does, however, mean that I try to do it nicely...

If everyone made just a little effort we'd all be better off...

In the words of the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 11:23 AM

"Oh, the reference to old. It was on purpose. It signifies that wisdom and experience should be there by now but obviously isn't. "

That's clever, but somehow rings a bit questionable.

I suppose that when we use say "fat" or "black" in the same way we could say something similar. I don't think it would convnce too many.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:16 PM

GUEST,Musket evolving slowly

Whilst we are at it. I don't technically post abuse, I return it in language which isn't veiled in false reasoning.

So when you called me a "Dozy sod" what that I had said were you "returning"?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:28 PM

I woulldn't class "dozy sod" or "fescking eejit"really as abuse. Nor for that matter really "bloody po-faced so and so". They don't really add too much to the discussion, but I suppose they satisfy some need. "Ventilating" is how Social Workers term it. Better than being clobbered, though of course that option isn't available here.

So long as they don't say "I know where you live"... With a picture of your house from Google.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM

Well I did live in Loughton, with rellies in Harlow, so it wouldn't be too hard... ;-)

The need satisfied in me by my calling you a po-faced so-and-so, and calling Snail lotsa things, relates to the frustration I feel when youse misrepresent what I'm saying or what you think I'm thinking. People do it in order to make their own argument instead of being straight, and it happens all the time. Tell me if I'm wrong, but, on the whole, I think I express myself clearly enough for me to be able to expect it not to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket penny dropping on snails
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:13 PM

That isn't abuse. Believe me. A ventilation methinks but not abuse.

In the meantime, don't mind me I'm a waste of time apparently. By wonderful coincidence I wasted said time today discussing the commissioning of sexual health services, the slightly different needs of our local population, a third rural and two thirds in the city. I tried to see if anybody was going to suggest registration and enforced screening of people but nobody seemed to be lever enough to suggest it.

Possibly because we made the mistake of only inviting members of the human race to the meeting. Sadly, public health doctors, gynaecologists, substance misuse social workers, finance people, estates management types and those of us trying to hold the fort together seem to fit in that category.

So it looks like we are all going to die horribly and float off to Hell in a handcart. If only humans were able to factor in hatred, lying about figures and views held by 0.00001% of the population eh?   

They may be 0.00001% but they are clearly the bottom 0.00001%.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 01:18 PM

I wasn't complaining, and as I said I don't see the words as anything to worry about, but it makes more sense to spell out the disagreement. If I have misrepresented your meaning that was a mistake, and I apologise.

I think it can be fair to identify what we see as implications of what someone says which they might not like, or which we see as involving self-contradictions, but we should never present those as things they have actually asserted, which I think is what you mean there. That does happen quite a lot - it's a very common debating trick.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:19 PM

....or you can go back and read the whole thread.....it's rather revealing, as to the cast of characters, and the tactics....mostly frothing and foaming, name calling, but little facts, by the 'usual suspects!

GfS

---

BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban - the whole huge thread. I'm going to delete GfS's 759-line post quoting much of this grudge match.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:44 PM

I think it can be fair to identify what we see as implications of what someone says which they might not like, or which we see as involving self-contradictions, but we should never present those as things they have actually asserted, which I think is what you mean there. That does happen quite a lot - it's a very common debating trick.

Fine. But you omitted to say that you were also being provocative and mischievous. You suggested that my not wishing to gainsay Charles Darwin somehow had religious overtones. It was a stupid remark which had no connection with my real feelings on the matter, which you know only too well. You were misrepresenting me in that, by saying what I did, I was simply trying to remain accurate in the scientific sense, but, for my sins, I attracted a stupid comment from you and a hefty dose of brainless camp-following from pete and Snail. And you wonder why people get narked when they're misrepresented. Cheers!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM

A link to the thread would have been sufficient, and, I dare say, attracted more readers than taking up the board with masses of copy and paste, which merely irritates everybody. We already know you're a waste of space. There's no need to try to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:00 PM

I just returned to this thread after spending a little time in the REAL world.

MY GAWD!!!

First of all, Ebbie, I have to admire your stamina in reading the whole bloody thread! You must really have a strong stomach!

And as to YOU, Goofball, "I think Firth is e-mailing his 'little helpers' to try to discredit me, as he always tries to with the same old song and dance...it ain't going to work this time, either,"

You certainly have a hyper-inflated idea of your own importance as far as I'm concerned. I don't have (or need) "little helpers," and as far as trying to "discredit" you, I don't need to. You do a fine job of that yourself, every time you post something.

Crawl back into your Petri dish.

(I'm going back to the real world. It smells better.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 03:08 PM

That last post by "Sanity" should perhaps have been shown in green ink.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:04 PM

McGrath of Harlow

I woulldn't class "dozy sod" or "fescking eejit"really as abuse. Nor for that matter really "bloody po-faced so and so". They don't really add too much to the discussion, but I suppose they satisfy some need.

Not in the same league as some of the stuff that's being thrown at Akenaton, GfS and pete but it's the principle of the thing. You seemed to get a bit agitated about Steve's reference to a "thick French peasant" (presumably a reference to Saint Bernadette Soubirous). The need that is satisfied is the put down. Putting the insolent little oik in his place. The psychology of the school yard.

You quite rightly said that Steve can sound in danger of falling into treating Darwin as a belief system not open to revision. Strangely he didn't pick you up on that, only called me a "feckin' eejit" when I agreed with you. In his reply to your post, he did say "Carry on like that and you'll end up in the naughty corner with Wacko, Ron, pete, Hawk and Guffers.". (Not me I notice. Not sure if that's good or bad.) I wonder what gives him the right to talk to you like that. I have never knowingly misrepresented Steve but I may, from time to time, have misunderstood what he was saying as he is frequently self-contradictory and inconsistent.

GUEST,Musket penny dropping on snails

Sounds like a day well spent but I'm not sure what any of it has to do with me. In what way has the penny dropped? Do you think I'm part of the " bottom 0.00001%"? Do you think I'm a homophobic, racist bigot? Have I accused you of being "a waste of time"? You picked me up on what, to anyone who doesn't have a scientific background, might seem a fairly abstruse point but does in fact relate to my "disagreement" with Steve, that is, the status of a scientific theory. What was the purpose in starting off "Dozy sod""? Later "I don't have a working hypothesis on human snails. If I called you a dozy sod it would be deduction from observation.". Is this really the language of someone with a PhD in mechanical vibration and a senior management position in the NHS?

I can understand the reaction to the likes of Akenaton, GfS and pete (even if I can't quite see the point) but when you extend it to your responses to anyone who doesn't quite see things your way, I think you need to stop and take a look at yourself.

Steve and Ian (and their trusty henchgnome Dave) are coming over like a bunch of playground bullies demanding respect on pain of a good beating.

P.S. Ian, I still think you're wrong about Newton v Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

Since then -

I attracted a stupid comment from you and a hefty dose of brainless camp-following from pete and Snail.

Reee-spect!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:13 PM

No-ones henchgnome, Bryan. I follow my own feelings and no-one else. How are things in Lewes? Still running the perfect folk club with no bad acts ever daring to enter the hallowed doors?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM

Well that was a tremendous amount of work..going through six months of Joe Offer's posts, to find those posts, NOT from the 'Prop8' thread. but rather the Subject: RE: BS: Death penalty for homosexuality?

From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Feb 10 - 02:42 AM ...and on down. You will plainly see that when From: KB in Iowa Was I even aware of the post in question!!!
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 16 Feb 10 - 12:49 PM


.......As for your father, being molested, having six kids, then turning homosexual....maybe he should have tried the counseling, that you seem to deny the rights of homosexuals to be able to get?...even heterosexual rape victims get counseling.

Your 'rap' still falls down!

GfS

Don was quoting you there GfS, not talking abut his own experience.

..Then This: From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Feb 10 - 08:33 PM

Gosh, I can't find that post...refresh my memory....my father was NOT ever a homosexual....let me see if that post is even there...or show me.
(or someone used my name)..... "

To this: "From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Feb 10 - 03:14 AM

OK, Ok, calm down. If you need me to verify authorship of a post, give me the date, time, thread name, and the posted user name.
-Joe-
[e-mail]

TO THIS: Subject: RE: BS: Californians Oppose 'Prop 8' Gay Marriage Ban
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 01:24 AM

OK, so I gather the message in question was on this page posted at 12:38 AM on 6 May 2009. There are 74 messages from that group of IP numbers, and all (except a few no-name ones) were signed by Guest from Sanity. That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer. At least part of the message appears to have been copy-pasted from another source, but I could not find the source and could not determine whether the statement about the father may have come from that source. Are you people really arguing about a message that was posted nine months ago?
-Joe Offer-

    I got confused and posted this message in the "Californians" thread, and GfS responded to me there. I moved my message and the one from GfS over here. Sorry for the mistake.
    Despite evidence to the contrary, I'd tend to believe whatever GfS says about the message in question. GfS has been here for quite some time, and I have seen no evidence of deception or manipulation in posts from GfS. You people know GfS better than I do - make your decision based on your own experience.
    -Joe-

To THIS: "From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 04:07 PM

GfS, whether you actually wrote that or not is still up in the air.

From Joe:

    That's not absolute proof that the post came from GfS, but it's a good indication that it came from him or from somebody using his computer [emphasis mine – DF].

So--Joe's research did solidly establish that it did not come from me! And that's what you've been trying to claim—that I posted the comment about your father, using your handle.

TO THIS: "From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 10 - 06:47 PM

You are quite wrong Ebbie, What Joe actually said was that he did NOT believe Sanity had written the piece in question."

SO from 9 Feb 10, to 25 Feb 10 Should cover it.!!

Dollars to doughnuts it wasn't Joe who erased my post!

If anyone one wants a real clue what this is about!

REPEAT, not the 'Prop.8' thread......the discovery was made in the "Death penalty for homosexuality?" Thread!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:25 PM

Anyone else losing the will to live?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges. Anyway, getting a bit paranoid aren't we? Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage. Goofus doesn't count on account of his physical location and mental condition.

Oh. You raise the Principia again. Don't blame me for saying it this time. Your fault.

Dozy sod.



We must have met. I played a few gigs in Lewes when I was a director of a company near you, all based on thermodynamics.   There was a time when they understood physics in Sussex by the sea. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:34 PM

Once again, you make absolutely no sense!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 05:41 PM

No, it wouldn't GfS. We are not speaking in tongues.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:05 PM

The mental processes of the Musket -

"Well, here's a chap who has some sort of education in science but clearly not up to my PhD in mechanical vibration. How should I respond to him? I could present a coherent logical argument to make him realise the error of his ways or I could listen to what he has to say to see whether or not he has a valid point to make.

Sod it! This is Mudcat.

DOZY SOD!

P.S. DId you follow that link in my "parting shot"? Probably not. It included the lines -

Thus the new theory of gravitation diverges widely from that of Newton with respect to its basal principle. But in practical application the two agree so closely that it has been difficult to find cases in which the actual differences could be subjected to observation.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

You quite rightly said that Steve can sound in danger of falling into treating Darwin as a belief system not open to revision. Strangely he didn't pick you up on that

Strangely, yes I did pick him up on it. Here's what I said, just a couple of posts down the thread from where he said that:

That's a pretty silly remark. Darwin demarcated natural selection, for the purpose of his theory, as the non-random survival of heritable factors within species. You draw up one of the greatest of all scientific theories not by being sloppy but by defining your frames of reference carefully. I'll leave it to the "social Darwinists" or eugenicists, far lesser men than Darwin, to tendentiously redefine his terms, thank you.

You see, Snail? Not only did I pick him up on it, I explained comprehensively to him why he was wrong. It was a misrepresentation of the idea I'd expressed, and now here you are misrepresenting me on top. As you don't like being called names, I'll leave the rest of the readership here to decide for themselves whether you're a liar. Or we could just be really kind to you and simply call you sloppy and careless.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:23 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges.

Hang on a minute. I assumed you were pleading guilty on "both charges" although I wasn't sure which. Are you actually saying that I am guilty both charges? Do you actually think I'm part of the " bottom 0.00001%"? Do you actually think I'm a homophobic, racist bigot? You'd better have a good lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:29 PM

Dearie me, no he doesn't include you in his bottom 0.00001%. Quoth he:

Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage.

You are having difficulties tonight, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:35 PM

So what did he mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:40 PM

Read his lips, fer chrissake. "Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of my arbitrary percentage", generally speaking, means "Only that thick twat in Scotland is part of his arbitrary percentage". I hereby wish to apprise you of a significant little fact. That thick twat in Scotland is not you. You are not "it". Hope this helps, at least before I start to question my own bloody sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:46 PM

If it quacks etc. Yeah, guilty on both charges.

So what did he mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:51 PM

He'll tell you if he can be arsed. Just be thankful that you're not that thick twat in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 06:54 PM

Only in a thread about respect could the usual bunch of shits stand out so glaringly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM

I think there might have been a misunderstanding, Steve. My point about "not to gainsay Darwin" wasn't that I was saying anything about Darwin, or disputing anything he wrote. I was remarking that to me the phrase seemed to suggest an attitude that the fact Darwin had said something was in itself a reason to accept it.

In other words you could be in danger of falling into the fallacy of appealing to authority. It's very easily done when we greatly respect the authority.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM

But that is not what I was doing. Darwin was extremely careful to define natural selection. The term, along with its bedfellow "survival of the fittest", has been widely abused by charlatans who have applied it inappropriately to other fields of human discourse, all the way along to Adolf Hitler. Even during his life, Darwin counselled against the loose use of the term. Once you loosen its application, you degrade its meaning. I was being careful not to apply the term to pre-life chemistry, though for all I know it may have occurred in some form. I can hardly attack its widespread misuse, as I often do, if I misuse the term myself. My approach was careful, considered, measured, and not in any sense devotional or religious or appealing to authority. A moment's thought would have revealed that to you, but instead you decided you just couldn't resist the silly dig.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

"Even during his life..." - ah, the absurdities go on... :-(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:01 PM

""These insults are designed to silence debate, and are used when the abusers have no rational response to add.""

There simply isn't any rational response to incoherent, ignorant, biased rants.

If GfS put more thought into constructing rational, coherent prose instead of self praising burblings, there might be.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:06 PM

Ian, why would you insult my friend akenaton?

Anyone who wants to be "fucked in the arse" is a masochist.

That's no reflection whatsoever on my friend Pat.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM

""In the words of the late Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" ""

Unfortunately we can't Bobert unless we are prepared to condone the narrow blinkered outlook of people like Ake and GfS, who are too mean spirited to keep their noses out of other people's sexual orientation.

It used to be Black People, then Communists, now it's Muslims, Travellers and Gays, with a smattering of anti liberalism from people who wouldn't recognise liberalism if it bit 'em on the arse.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

Because when Akenaton produces FACT, that are not 'politically correct' to the 'so-called liberal' agenda, and shows their main concerns are not anything based in reality, they call him/us names, and go out of their ways to draw attention AWAY from the human factor, and onto the plastic political pipe dream....which, of course was sold to them by the corporate/governmental conglomerate!

...and they don't even see it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:19 PM

Are you saying that you disapprove of what consenting adults do in private or what? I've always regarded it as none of my business. And calling persons who practise things you're not keen on "masochists" says a lot more about you that it does about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:29 PM

There simply isn't any rational response to incoherent, ignorant, biased rants.

If GfS put more thought into constructing rational, coherent prose instead of self praising burblings, there might be.

Yebbut that's as likely as a duff bottle of Hirondelle, Don. I find myself hardly ever reading his posts nowadays. I ignore him, more or less. It doesn't matter even if he says very nasty things, because everybody here knows he's as daft as a brush. Barking, I'd say. Let the poor chap get on with it!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Aug 13 - 08:44 PM

Yeah, Steve, I've heard that ignorance is bliss..you must be one happy person!
How come you don't sound like one?

Hmmm .......could 'delusion' have anything to do with it??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket gettin.. can't be arsed
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 02:01 AM

Bloody hell snail. . You quoted my qualification and present role. Yes. I am guilty of both. Stop thinking the world revolves around you for once. I was referring to me, and two observations you made about me.

Dozy sod.

I don't insult Akenaton. I go out of my way to find stronger and stronger insults to hurl at those who insult common decency. That the person behind Akenaton, your post confirms what I was told recently by the way, seeks to stigmatise a whole section of society with no reason makes him not fit for debating with. I return to my earlier point. You cannot debate with a book that is written, you can only review it. He was given the facts about his hobby horse a long time ago. He looked at official figures and deliberately misrepresented them. He didn't alter his view in the light of evidence and went on to confirm his real agenda.

Nothing respectful in what he writes. Nothing decent in what he portrays.


Hi Goofus! How's the medication going?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 03:38 AM

Only in a thread about respect could the usual bunch of shits stand out so glaringly.

I'm not even going to ask who you refer to, Jeri. I just find it so funny to have a go at people about respect by calling them a bunch of shits! Best laugh on the thread so far :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: TheSnail
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM

Thank you for that clarification, Musket. Given your track record, you can hardly be surprised that I thought you might be habding out more insults.

I wonder what you're like in business meetings.

Off to Whitby. Be nice.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:16 AM

The usual suspects trashing each other about trashing each other.........Jeri, you said it well!


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:34 AM

Off to Whitby? You mean he's not here? Groovy! Ahem:



EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:37 AM

From Steven

"The need satisfied in me by my calling you a po-faced so-and-so, and calling Snail lotsa things, relates to the frustration I feel when youse misrepresent what I'm saying or what you think I'm thinking."


:0)....But don't you realise Steve that Ian and yourself do exactly that...all the time.

Your response to my opinions, are that you think I hate homosexuals, despite me having denied that countless times.
I do infact care about infection rates in this epidemic, I feel they are being ignored or concealed for political reasons and people are dying needlessly or living out a life sentence of ill health.
Who know what the long term effects of anti- viral therapy will be?


Same with people of faith, you think they have a desire to convert people, or are "tea party conservatives", or wish to denigrate science.
Most people of faith that I know, just want to feel a little more secure in a world which seems to be falling apart socially.
They are all good people, I admire them and sometimes wish that I could have a faith.....a social and moral roadmap some sense in it all,especially our own short lifespan.

Your abuse is directed at what you imagine other people to think, the
very thing which causes YOU to become frustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:51 AM

sometimes wish that I could have a faith.....a social and moral roadmap some sense in it all,especially our own short lifespan

You don't need a faith for that. If you want to see sense in it all, a faith will simply block your view (you might still be happy, however). There are millions both with and without faith who have superb moral and social roadmaps, as well as millions in both camps who don't. A faith is a crutch that you can easily do without. Healthy minds don't need crutches any more than healthy bodies do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:47 AM

""Because when Akenaton produces FACT, that are not 'politically correct' to the 'so-called liberal' agenda,""

But when we quote FACTS which conflict with his/your homophobic agenda, and give the lie to the claims of an epidemic of hellish proportions, such as the fact that the medical profession have reduced HIV to ""a manageable condition which should not significantly reduce life expectancy"", they are simply ignored.

You gay haters are entitled to your own opinions, but NOT your own facts, and in any choice between your bias and qualified medical opinion, all facts have to be acknowledged, not just those you twist to make your mean spirited points.

And Ake should really make the effort to catch up and drop the "only interested in the health risks" nonsense, which has been thoroughly busted many times over.

His agenda is very obviously NOT anti HIV, but consistently anti gay.

"Live and let live" is not on his radar, and not just when it comes to gays, but travellers, voters for the "wrong" party, liberals (whatever he means by that) and anyone else who disagrees with the great Pharaoh.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:55 AM

Many people need crutches Steve......there are many minds out there....isn't "equality" a "crutch" of sorts?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 07:11 AM

Don, could you please explain how anyone with a brain could be anti-homosexual?
My stance has always been against the promotion of male homosexuality as a safe and healthy alternative lifestyle and legislation to bring that lifestyle into the social mainstream.
Such legislation is a distraction and an impediment to the treatment of the huge rates of sexual infection within that group.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:08 AM

This is rather like playground squabbles. "You are a sneak/fat/rubbish" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" ad infinitum, or till the bell goes for playtime's over.

The search facility makes it easy to pull up a link to a set of anyone's previous posts if anyone wants to clarify where the truth lies in these exchanges. But surely life's too short for that kind of thng?...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Life's too short, apparently, for a few people round here who think they know what you said and think they know what you think but can't be arsed to go back and check before spouting off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

Life's too short, apparently, for a few people round here who think they know what you said and think they know what you think but can't be arsed to go back and check before spouting off.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:23 AM

...against the promotion of male homosexuality...

Ah yes, the old "promotion" chestnut. So who's "promoting" male homosexuality (which presumably means recommending it as better than heterosexuality)? I see no evangelical crusade to encourage people to be male homosexuals. Certainly, no-one here is "promoting" it. Defending it against bigotry is not promoting it, just in case you're confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 09:47 AM

I don't think he's confused. I have given him plenty of opportunities to wriggle out of hissstance and he hasn't.

I think he is fucking evil for what it is worth.

My evidence being that he speaks of promoting something to bring it in to mainstream lifestyle.

It is mainstream lifestyle for whomever wishes it to be so. No promotion. Just fact. Demonising people purely for existing is fucking evil.

Pardon my French.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM

Steve Shaw: "EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE! EVOLUTION IS TRUE!"

Not saying that it isn't, but, What happened in your case?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 10:52 AM

When people talk about 'mainstream' in terms of music it's about identifying what is most widespread, not about denigrating music that only has a minority appeal.

It would be absurd in this society to talk about folk music as 'mainstream' though perhaps I would wish it to be so. I might object to someone saying that my taste in music is abnormal (though I couldn't care less if they did, so long as they didn't interfere with my freedom to play it and hear it) but 'not mainstream', that's a different thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM

Best post on this entire thread:


Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: catspaw49 - PM
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 11:51 AM

After 173 posts I think it is about time someone told y'all to go fuck yourselves.


Go fuck yourselves........



Spaw


I laughed so hard! I cannot even tell you how funny that was. Still is...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 02:22 PM

Suzy Sock Puppet?????

Sounds like a new birth control device....who 'gets' to wear it??'..or do you insert it into your mouth??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 02:40 PM

La la la la la. I can't hear you! La la la la la...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 03:48 PM

You mean it goes in your ear????????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:10 PM

Well I'm sure everyone would agree that the "mainstream" in sexual matters is between a man and a woman....as there are 97 heteros to every three homos, that would seem to be obvious?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:20 PM

Well, maybe..but judging from the folks on here, I think there are more people having sex with their own hands, than with another person of either sex!...and then they get in a huff, and have a hussy-fit, if you suggest to them that they should go fuck themselves!
That's what hangin' out with political morons will do to ya'!!!

Hi, Ake!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM

More like 94.5% to 5.5% worldwide.

Depends a lot on what country you're in, and which locality in that country. In San Francisco, U.S.A., it's 85% to 15%.

Before you bitch at me, look it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 04:46 PM

Hi Sanity.How's the music goin'?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:24 PM

Akenaton, To be honest with ya', six days after my heart surgery, the cardiologist told me that my recovery has been 'nothing short of miraculous', AND he had heard my music. He told me that he thought there was an 'amazing amount of healing' in it. So after my release, my daughter and son-in-law, swung by our place, picked up my truck and loaded a LOT of my musical equipment into it, and took it to their house, where I also stayed during the 31/2 months of healing....in which, without a bill to pay, a decision to make, a form to fill out, a meal to cook, nor an explanation to make, or a post to type, I focused on what he had said, dialed in to the finest line I could zero in on, and composed several pieces. Upon my five week follow-up appointment with the same doctor, at the hospital, I brought him a stack of CDs, and GAVE (free)them to him, and other medical staff there to use, and to give away, for free to any other medical facility, who they felt could make use of them. As of 9 months ago, it was being used in 5 major hospitals in 4 states, and numerous therapy centers.
The stuff I composed, while staying at my daughter's, I've been arranging, and doing some stuff on them, in which my 'chops', have soared through the roof!..and I ain't a-shittin' ya'!
I'm hoping to do some new recording within the next couple of weeks..then we'll take a 'look-see', and figure out where to go from there. Several of my older pieces, with lyrics have been getting air play..(though I'm not the vocalist)..I used primarily a certain male vocalist, and a certain female vocalist back then. Nobody online has heard the stuff from the movie soundtrack that I did with the female vocalist, as of yet which, BTW, kicks ASS!
Nice of you to inquire.
Hey, (another BTW), while going over tons of posts from the two threads that you and I were doing battle with some VERY hostile jerk offs, I have to commend you, for sticking it out, taking all the hateful abuse that you did, while presenting your facts and figures to a room full of hostile morons, who had the collective intelligence of a half a box of rocks! I fared pretty well myself, but I did get in a 'few' more 'barbs' than you, who chose to just take their abuse, and forged ahead. If you went back over those threads, which I did, you'd be astonished of what brain-locked assholes they are!! Hats off to you!! Mudcat, is honored to have you even posting...even if a lot of them are so politically blocked to the point of being absolutely 'stupid'!!!!!!!..So if nobody else acknowledges you, I will.

Hey Man,
Warmest Regards To You!!!

Guest from Sanity

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 05:37 PM

Well..Gee thanks Sanity.....As we say ower here....Ye've got "smeddum". :0).....Aw the best!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:16 PM

Smeddum?? What's that?..Sounds like trying to smell your feet when you have a cold...Never heard that expression before...but I take it, that it's a good thing.

I'm a'thinkin' that if one gives from the overflow of one's abundance, that after the 'so-called liberal' loonies (the 'usual suspects' version) have gotten tired of 'self abusing' themselves, that they turn it towards other people!!!!...but then 'other people' see them as what they are in reality...just another jerk off...with a big mouth, and too short of a dick to reach it!

..but that's another story.......

Regards, Bud!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 06:39 PM

Why don't you two get a room together?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 07:01 PM

Why??..You wanna' watch?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM

Oh dear. When those two have a falling out, it's going to be a BIG one. Hang on, ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 08:08 PM

""Don, could you please explain how anyone with a brain could be anti-homosexual?""

You would know the answer to that better than I, so are you claiming that

1. There are no anti gays?

or

2. That you have no brain?

Because I find both propositions incredible and I am sure that your attitudes stem from revulsion, not stupidity.

Which, for me, makes them more, not less, reprehensible.

The point that you keep avoiding a response to, is the medical profession's advances in treatment.

Nobody dies from being HIV positive! Only if and when that develops into full blown AIDS is death a factor, and such cases are still not killed by HIV or AIDS, but by ordinary infections, to which AIDS removes their resistance.

""HIV in the United Kingdom: 2012 Report
Report cover

Authors:

Health Protection Agency

Publication date: November 2012

Synopsis

HIV infection has been transformed from a fatal to chronic life-long infection due to the introduction of effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the mid-1990s. Consequently, the number of people living with diagnosed HIV has risen year on year, with an increase in number of new diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) and people born in high prevalence countries.""

What it doesn't say is that both new infections and deaths are falling steadily as HIV is prevented from developing into AIDS.

Take a look at the real figures on the Avert website, which shows total deaths of AIDS sufferers at 400 - 600 in 2011, down from 2000 deaths in '93 and '94.

Bear in mind that this figure is the total deaths, not all AIDS related and not confined to one gender.

An interesting point is that infection among heteros has risen sharply, while MSM infection has declined slightly over the last five years, so that hetero diagnoses are slightly above MSM.

Yes, I know that there are more heteros in the population and MSMs are still proportionally higher, but that doesn't alter the fact that hetero infections rose much more rapidly than MSM between 1999 and 2005, and only began to fall at that point, having reached parity around 2010.

Both are still falling as are deaths, contrary to what you keep trying to assert.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 09:55 PM

GfS, how exciting. Why not send one of your discs to my grandson? Here's his address:

Carter Lepak
14 Ross St.
Auburn, NY
13021

He's 4 years old and LOVES music. I work at exposing him to good music because his parents listen to that rap crap. I'll bet it's something we could listen to while we're doing our puzzles and stuff. He tends to love everything I recommend because I'm the one who really pays attention to him and takes him outside for hours- riding his bike, park, playground, nature trail. He sees me and starts putting his shoes on.

Let me know if you'll send one so I can tell him something is coming for him.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 10:47 PM

Sock Puppet, does he have access to a computer with a GOOD sound system??

...And I still think your name is FUN!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 16 Aug 13 - 11:52 PM

He's got his own karaoke machine. Loves that thing. He has two microphones and we both sing. He says, "Bubbe, you sing weely weely good." He sings well himself and he's got the ear and he's very outgoing :-) And he has his Samsung player with little headphones. My daughter-in-law works at Radio Shack.

Adorable little curly headed thing. So smart. When he does something a bit naughty, like spraying the bathroom with water by putting his little hand directly under the faucet, and he thinks that he might be in trouble for it, first words out if his mouth? "I love you Bubbe." Smart kid.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 12:48 AM

Respectfully, after reading your last post, I can see why you chose 'Suzy Sock Puppet' as your 'handle'.(wink).

But the question was, "Does HE have a computer, or access to one, with a good sound system?"..I can send you a link to a couple of pieces of some music I did...and in turn, you can send it to him.
jeez!..I almost asked if you had a computer..(that's what I get for trying to talk 'politics' with some of these guys!)..BUT, as long as we're here, do YOU have a good sound system hooked up to your computer, or do you use headphones?

BTW, from your last post, you sound like a sweetheart of a Grandmother!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 01:28 AM

I listen to music on my iphone with ear buds. I also have a Bose. My son and daughter-in-law have a sound system. I couldn't tell you if it's high quality or not because I never play it. There are multiple remotes. I'll bet you're good with multiple remotes- not me. And now Apple tv. What next?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 01:28 AM

This just in. Hot off the press and all that.

Simon Cowell says that as folk music isn't mainstream and only 5% of the population enjoy the lifestyle surrounding this obnoxious parody of music, active folk music adherents must register, be tested for the traditium virus and explain to the authorities who else they have jammed with, been to sing a rounds with or shared a banjo.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM

:-))))))))))))))

Night Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 11:12 AM

Speaking of which, Ian, I used to have a bumper sticker that read, "Use an accordion..go to jail!"

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 06:02 PM

Ian, what did he just say? You've known him longer :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 17 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

Suzy Sock Puppet: "I listen to music on my iphone with ear buds"
..and the three other ones...you'll see 'em...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 12:55 AM

I'm back! Was at Swing Camp (no, not "swingers camp") playing and learning jazz bass, vocals, and french horn.   And this thread has grown so monstrous that my laptop couldn't download it anymore.

Great to see that there's some 'fun' happening.

I've only perused the comments of the last week. But I want to respond to a question:

"I would be very interested in the views of Larry the Radio Guy, who instigated this thread, as it has become obvious who the "abusers" on this forum really are".

I think that if I were going to put myself into a position of identifying who is and who isn't an 'abuser', then I'd see that as being abusive.

What I've notice that perplexes me is the amount of time that gets spent by some of you in trying to 'prove' that another poster is somehow defective.........instead of spending time in first understanding their point, then deconstructing it (in terms of what it means in the 'big picture'), then putting forth your own point.

Does it really matter if a certain person said or didn't say something several months (or years) back?

Personally, I'm much more interested in what they are saying now....and wanting to make sure that any debate is addressing the point they are wanting to make (rather than the point I'm interpreting).   

With this in mind, I have a question for Guest From Sanity. (Please, no liberal bashing.....yes I'm a liberal and I'm totally willing to explain what 'liberal' means to me and why it's consistent with my values).

Do you really believe that homosexuality ......even knowing that only a very small portion of the population define themselves as homosexual.......is a serious threat to the sanctity of the 'family'?   (Sorry if I'm mis-representing what I thought you said during an earlier rant....but feel free to correct me).

And another related question........is there a distinction between a sexual orientation and a lifestyle?   I've made many gay people who are monogamous.....and have been most of their lives, and many straight people who are extremely promiscuous.   

And a question to everybody who wants to respond.   Is it possible to have respect for somebody who espouses ideas that appear totally bizarre, and, if applied, would be harmful?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:50 AM

GfS, yes I did! Bittersuite:Joy. Very pretty. I can see how that would be healing. I have a youtube computer. I can put it on disc myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 10:04 AM

I meant youtube converter :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 01:48 PM

re - last question larry-
what some consider totally bizarre, are considered quite logical by others, as is the notion that some things considered bizarre by some, would lead to detrimental effects if widely accepted. the only detrimental effect might be the overturning of their own cherished ideas ,and might rather improve a former condition.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 02:38 PM

Agreed, pete from seven stars link.   I think that's an essential tenet of liberalism is acknowledging the slight possibility---however slight---that having our cherished ideas overturned might actually improve things.

So we keep our ears open........even as we argue strongly in favour of our cherished ideas and against some of those 'bizarre' challenges.

So maybe that's all that is meant by respect......that willingness to keep our ears (and, to go deeper, our hearts) open.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket smiling
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 03:16 PM

Is reality a bizarre concept?

Reminds me of The Pilgrim Fathers. Some of them came from my neck of the woods so we have museums etc, pubs named after them, the usual thing.

Interestingly, one tour you can do near Scrooby, where William Brewster came from, points out that the Pilgrim Fathers didn't jump on a boat to escape repression but in order to repress people without the authorities getting all upset.

I'll tell you one thing of interest though Larrry. Don't think pete is interested in overturning cherished ideas. He makes it quite plain that facts take second place when in contradiction to his cherished bible. The contradictions in his post make you think, "Hope for the bugger yet?" Then you think, "Nice thought, but his world would possibly come tumbling down if he lost his delusion. No, better that he advocates children being told metaphysical fairy stories tell us that reality is not always right and that dinosaurs handed their passports to Noah.

Sweet dreams all.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 03:27 PM

Larry the Radio Guy: "Do you really believe that homosexuality ......even knowing that only a very small portion of the population define themselves as homosexual.......is a serious threat to the sanctity of the 'family'?"

No, not as much as the exploiters of them, in blowing it out of proportion, and creating a hostility. That is what people find disturbing. What people do, in their private moments is THEIR business... to advertize it, and throw it in everyone's face, is quite another thing. To politicize it for ulterior motives, is also damaging to ALL parties concerned. To NOT admit that it does post health issues, just to 'justify or normalize' it is also stupid. As I posted in another thread, a while back, is that the AIDS virus was developed at Fort Kendrick, and 'tested' and targeted both in Africa AND the Homosexual communities. To say that those figures aren't higher, just to gain 'political' points is nothing short of sheer stupidity, would you also say?
The rampant hate posts that Akenaton has received for the past few YEARS now, pointing that out, is unwarranted, and if anything, he should be thanked, and appreciated for pointing the figures out. To deny that proportionately, AIDS is higher in the homosexual communities, OR in Africa, is nothing but falsified political lunacy!..and what's more is now that it has spread, beyond those two groups, does not nullify the FACTS.
Insofar as what it is (homosexuality), I described it in another thread, as being 'Reproductively impaired'. How can you, or anyone not agree with that? It is also NOT genetic, as falsely claimed, and politicized. Also, of the very few, I believe at the time it came out, it was .02% who felt they had it from birth, EVERYBODY jumped on that bandwagon. In reality, in has more to do with receptors and hormonal influences, during pregnancy, that causes that 'syndrome' (for lack of a longer explanation). Others, it was by choice or default...but to 'lift it up' as some 'ennoble calling' is again ridiculous. As I've said before, and borne out by ALL science, the two attributes of ALL living creatures on this planet, whether an amoeba, plant, vegetable, fish, amphibian, vertebrate, animal, or primate (did I leave out anything?), is the 'Will to survive, and Reproduce'!..Even Darwinism would agree to that!! ..and being as homosexuality isn't about the latter, 'Reproducing', it is looked upon by the greater of societies, as being a form of 'decadence' OR a form of 'Decay' from the 'Will to survive, and Reproduce'..which all living beings have in common...it IS about sex, it is a choice or a choice made by 'resignation', (and any educated psychologist can enumerate the factors that go into that 'resignation'! The alternative would be to say that homosexuals don't see themselves as being worth propagating to another generation, and raising their natural offspring...and I've never said that. That is their own CHOICE....not by edict, politicization, religion or societal norms. To believe that you can't reproduce, with the opposite sex(as if there was another sex), is in itself a disability...is it not?

Larry the Radio Guy: "Does it really matter if a certain person said or didn't say something several months (or years) back?"

Certain truths are unmovable. Political posturing and trends are subject to change...and they do. What I've said before, still holds, and time will tell. what is 'popular' today, may be as practical as a Hula-Hoop tomorrow.

Larry the Radio Guy: "With this in mind, I have a question for Guest From Sanity. (Please, no liberal bashing.....yes I'm a liberal and I'm totally willing to explain what 'liberal' means to me and why it's consistent with my values)."

I think what I've said about 'so-called liberals' should not be confused with a genuine liberal point of view. 'So-called liberals' are phony wannabes, as opposed to someone who can hold forth a decent exchange of ideas, not resorting to the 'so-called liberal' handbook of dumb 'tactics'. Those same 'so-called liberals', are nothing but manipulated pawns, who haven't taken the longer view of what the hell they're talking about, and exhibit very childish hypocrisy, when pressed to explain subjects beyond their political programming. Phil Ochs NAILED IT years ago....Wannabe 'so-called liberals' have done more damage to Liberalism and the 'left' than all the Conservatives, Tea Party, Fox News combined!..(even those three are working for the same people as the 'so-called liberals'!!

Larry the Radio Guy: "And another related question........is there a distinction between a sexual orientation and a lifestyle?   I've made many gay people who are monogamous.....and have been most of their lives, and many straight people who are extremely promiscuous."   

First of all, your question, as asked, doesn't make complete sense. People who decidedly marry because they love their mate, and have children with that mate, and remain committed with that mate fall under the category of 'surviving and reproducing'.
Promiscuity is a result of selfish immaturity, and an inability to commit..for the same reasons of selfish immaturity, and an inability to commit. Self absorbed people really don't make great mates, do they?
Man has the nature to 'pair bond'..otherwise 'breaking up' would be a fun pastime, rather than a heartache for one, both, or the family, wouldn't it? The fact is, a 'break up' most likely causes trauma to one of the above......and the entertainment industry has made a fortune from it, as well.

I hope that answers your questions, as objectively as I can. The nasty remarks may come from the Wannabe 'so-called liberals'!! They hate it when their bullshit is exposed!
......................................................................

Suzy Sock Puppet: "GfS, yes I did! Bittersuite:Joy. Very pretty. I can see how that would be healing."

Thank you. Feel free to cut and paste the web address on it, and forward it out to as many people as you think may benefit. It is not monetized, so I make nothing from it...just trying to give the planet some beauty. Check out the other ones as well. the ones with the lyrics are heavily double meaninged.
The new stuff, is also nothing short of phenomenal, so they tell me...but it's not up yet. Also there is some other stuff from the movie soundtrack, with vocals that blow people away. I may post them on YouTube, but to hear those it will be limited by permission only. if you'd like, when I put them up, you'd be more than welcome to check them out!
Until then.......................................
Thank you thank you thank you very much......thank you .............................................................. >>>





















Elvis has left the building.......

Wink!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM

"In reality, in has more to do with receptors and hormonal influences, during pregnancy, that causes that 'syndrome' (for lack of a longer explanation). " GfS

You may be correct in that assessment, G, but wouldn't you agree that the person was then born with it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 04:27 PM

Frankly, I couldn't wade through all of Goofball's verbiage just above, but it sounds like he said that the AIDs virus was developed at Fort Kendrick--and was deliberately spread in Africa and then in the homosexual communities.

And here I always thought it was promulgated by the Illuminati, the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, was specified in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and was first suggested by aliens from Arturus 12 who want to kill off all humans through biological warfare and take over the earth. Since they are a race of hermaphrodites, they made the mistaken assumption that it would kill off all humans.

And here it was one of Barack Obama's evil plots all along!

Silly me!

=======

Among other things, Liberals generally react rather strongly when any one faction tries to limit the civil rights of any minority group. There is nothing "so-called" about that. It's what real Liberals do.

Liberal. Derived from the Latin "liberalis," from which we also get the word "Liberty."

Think for a moment of what the opposite of that might be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM

I suspect that GfS means Fort Detrick, not Kendrick. Is it possible for him to (gasp)
err?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 05:04 PM

Ebbie: "You may be correct in that assessment, G, but wouldn't you agree that the person was then born with it?"

Yes, they would be, but there is a difference between being 'born with it, and it being 'genetic'. Receptors, crave a 'satisfaction', and create a 'demand' in ALL of us. They also set up habits, both 'good and bad'. Receptors can cause one to feel a need to smoke, drink, do good works, or anything. once they are 'satisfied' they tell the brain to release 'dopamine', which gives the person a feeling of satisfaction.
Some babies are born with addictions, in which the receptors have a need to have that substance. That is entirely different than a genetic alteration of DNA.
there is a wonderful explanation of receptors in the film 'What the Bleep Do We Know', and how they work. I've posted it several times, but maybe for reasons of resenting my position, some may not have checked it out. If you'd like I could re-post it for you. There is a whole segment devoted to the subject. In the film, it goes so far as to show how receptors can control the moods, of how people perceive themselves...Let's say a person needs to 'feel sorry for themselves' for one of several reasons...once it pulls you down, and you feed that emotion, the receptor is 'fed'...and though it is unpleasant, it is satisfied, though YOU might not 'feel good' about it. It is in the nervous system, and can alter ones reality. Along with that, there is a thing called synapses. It is like a fluid between the nerve ending and the receptor. In studies, people after psychedelics, while they are subjected to the effects, has shown that it alters the synapses, so as the impulse signal travels though it, it changes the reading. For instance, a sound, may be detected as a temperature, or flavor. A color may be detected as an emotion, etc etc.
Mothers who, while pregnant, share the same system, being as they are attached to each other. The mother is indeed programming the nervous system of the fetus. If that mother, for instance, has a peaceful pregnancy, chances are the fetus' receptors are programmed for that. If on the other hand, she is in turmoil, and having a resentful time, while pregnant, the child may be inclined to find resentments, to 'satisfy' the receptors, that were programmed in the womb...and affect the child's disposition.
While those things are often difficult to detect, outwardly, a mother can come off as one way, but internally be in conflict, which, of course, is being 'read' in the programming of the nervous system of the fetus.
In EVERY study looking for the 'genetic link', the hormonal changes have been noted...but often ignored by the politically motivated, because they want to raise the level of 'equality' to that of 'Race Creed or Color'. Race and color are genetic, therefore they want to pass off homosexuality as a 'politically viable status', when in fact, it is NOT genetic, and therefore does not fall into that category. However, they could have made another political argument, that would favor their cause far more persuasively and a more salient argument, that COULD prove their case, but instead they incorrectly chose the genetic argument, and based it on 'bad science'.
Because one side of the argument, based a lot of their premise on the 'religious' point of view, they fell down. Because the other side based it on the political point of view, it fell down..even in the last Supreme Court case regarding it. They only ruled on the recognition of what the government was willing to concede, and not on the merits of homosexuality, either way. Had either side argued it differently, basing it on another part of the Constitution, then it would have been ruled more favorable to homosexuals..but they screwed that up, and it is still ambiguous. Had the 'religious' side argued it, basing it on an accurate scientific premise, it would have gone the other way. They screwed up as well!
So, I guess it will remain a point of contention, as long as the two sides continue to 'play to their audiences'...moral vs political vs scientific vs legal....and nothing has been accomplished, as far as understanding what it is, and what it is not, and the biases will remain alive in the murky areas of grey......

....unless you know what it is, and what it is not, and how it should be regarded.

Fair enough?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 05:14 PM

The important bit Don.....are the inverted commas "....."
"liberals", only act in a liberal manner to those who agree with them completely, as can be seen from this and many other threads.

In many ways they are more closed minded than conservatives, look at the way people like Ian behave......calling other members "pieces of filth"......"he is fucking evil", do you call that liberal behaviour?

What I would say, is that US contributors to this forum have in general a much better sense of what is acceptable in debate.

As I have said, if there are subjects which are "off limits", they should be made known to the membership......if this is an open forum for debate, crass, abusive, personal insults, should be stamped on.

Most of the membership has been here for a decade, we have come to know one another, self indulgent childish behaviour will make discussion impossible.

Larry it is really easy to see who the abusers are and recognising them does not make anyone an "abuser themselves"
The abusers are those who use personal insults, death wishes and insinuations to shut down discussion on issues that THEY do not wish to discuss. I call them the "silencers" the antithesis of real liberalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 05:16 PM

Don, I prefer to respond strongly rather than react strongly.....and I see a big difference. My 'response' has to take in the possibility that I could be wrong. And yes, the strong response is very much needed when any one faction tries to limit the civil rights of any minority group.   But I want to respond in a way that's most likely to be effective......and I don't always know what that is.   And........I have to recognize that sometimes my own proposed initiatives may not have the outcome that I hope for and could make things worse. Is it not important for any 'liberal' to be open to that possibility?


And, gfs........I take issue with your 'reproductively impaired' label for homosexuals, as well as your certainty that it's not genetic. I still think the 'jury is out' on that one, but there is little doubt that this orientation is either genetic, developed in the womb, or as a result of extremely early experiences.   In my many years work as a therapist I heard many people talking about how they recognized this orientation at such an early age, and then spent the rest of their life fighting it. It was very sad, and if they had lived in a more accepting society, they would have been spared a lot of pain they inflicted on themselves and on others.   But I never met anybody who ever 'chose' that orientation.   Is it possible?   Maybe. But I doubt it.

As for your 'reproductively impaired' category, many homosexuals can reproduce with the opposite sex. Some use technology. Others use fantasy.....a very powerful tool.

And I'm wondering if you would also classify older couples who continue to have sex as being 'reproductively impaired'. Or people who recognize they wouldn't be good parents.   How do you feel about 'those kind of people' having protected sex?

I also have some issues with talking about the 'opposite sex'. There are many who have talked about gender as a continuum.   The whole issue of transsexuals suggests that it's not always so clear cut as to whether a person is 'male' or 'female'.   

As soon as we start focusing on 'normal' vs 'abnormal', we end up getting into value judgments.   After all no two bodies are the same.   Which 'different' variations do we want to use to judge a person as being normal or un-normal?   Really, it can be anybody's call, and it's totally affected by what we most 'value'.

Because I value diversity, I choose to avoid that distinction whenever I can.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 05:28 PM

Akenaton: You say "The abusers are those who use personal insults, death wishes and insinuations to shut down discussion on issues that THEY do not wish to discuss".

I think we're close to agreeing. But I would not want to label people who do that as 'abusers' because we all do it at times. It's part of being human.

It's a topic near and dear to my heart because of the many years I've gone through making such harsh judgments of anybody who disagreed with my position.   And much of this arrogance is still with me.....but I feel much better when I'm able to step back from it and watch myself doing that and then laughingly say, "Larry, there you go again".

And I follow that thought with something that avoids those personal insults, and is open to 'checking out' any insinuations I might make.

From my reading these posts I really don't see anybody who is an 'abuser', even though there are a lot of comments that I judge as insulting, rigid, avoidant, etc.

I myself have to work really hard to be 'good'.   

Just wait'll you see my dark side.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 05:50 PM

Larry, as a one time therapist you should have been able to recognize that if a person 'Feels' an inability, that causes that person to be unable to perform a function, then indeed that person is 'impaired'..not physically, but either mentally or emotionally.

As far as the genetic aspect, the jury will always be out until they keep looking for something that doesn't exist. There IS a factor of genetic markers, that the pro 'homosexual caused by genes' jump up and point to...but completely out of proportion. Those markers may be a factor in which cause the receptors to have traits, of homosexuality, but they are not the gene itself.

And the ironic thing about it all, is the pro 'homosexual caused by genes' crowd, because of their militant erroneous stance, deny the right to homosexuals who may desire any counseling, because they write it off as 'just genetic'.....That's equality??????? I beg to differ. The pro 'homosexual caused by genes' crowd is a political position, not a scientific nor compassionate one...and there are known cases where a person who once identified themselves as homosexual, have walked away from it. The political folks would like to paint those people as miserable for doing it, while the actual persons involved would rather not talk about it at all, and move forward, and never look back. You should have known that.

As far as impairment goes, wouldn't you agree that any condition that keeps one from functioning, as their normal systems were designed for, is an impairment?....Of course it is! We are talking about the reproductive system being impaired from functioning as a normal system, under normal circumstances...are we not? If your food didn't digest normally, wouldn't you say that was an impaired system?
You need to think this through a little further than the politicized version. A person who can't see correctly, and has blurred vision, wouldn't you say his vision is impaired?...The same with the reproduction system..if a person has a mental or emotional condition, that inhibits the ability to reproduce, isn't that an impairment?
BTW way, your older persons example is different...because as you know, if you were a therapist, that there are human cycles in which those drives are more prevalent...and some less.

Your post sounds like you are good intentioned, but somebody is putting you up to championing a position that is not viable...and you should know that it isn't going to work...there are too many FACTS supporting common sense!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 06:15 PM

Well Larry, whether you think homosexuality is normal or abnormal, there is no doubt that sex between males results in very abnormally high rates of sexual infection and this fact is never addressed by "liberals".
Leaving aside hiv/aids, the latest figures state that 70 % of new infections are amongst male homosexuals.
Other STD's are represented amongst MSM's at similarly high rates.

You say that this should not effect the "rights" of homosexuals, yet close family relatives are banned from marriage or the fostering of children and are criminalised for this behaviour, even if they have offered to be sterilised.
The banning of this behaviour has more to do with undermining the structure of society than public health and many would argue that homosexuality comes into the same category.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM

My understanding of any 'risk factor' is that it is one of many. I think that promiscuity is a major risk factor. So is a low sense of self-worth.   And my guess is that the acceptance of the reality of a person's sexual orientation and helping them do what they need to do to increase their own self-acceptance---whether that be through pride parades, legalization of gay marriage, etc. is going to significantly reduce that risk factor.

And the reality is, GFS, that the attempt to change a person's orientation has only reinforced that one's sexual orientation 'should' be changed.   There are no 'shoulds'. Any more than I think that your opinion 'should' be changed.   Personally I'd like it to be changed. But that's my thing.    It is what it is.

As well, I think that most people have accepted that trying to change an orientation that a person has had since birth (or even before) is an exercise in futility......for most.

Sorry if this has already beeen posted, but you may want to take a look at it.

Michael Busse (co-founder of Exodus), Darlene Bogle (a former Exodus ministries leader), and Jeremy Marks (former Exodus International and head of Courage UK) issue a public and formal apology for their work as ex-gay leaders and the harm they caused to those they tried to help.

http://youtu.be/aDiYeJ_bsQo

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:19 PM

Larry, I have NEVER called anyone, no matter how greatly provoked and insulted myself, a "piece of filth" or "fucking evil"—even when I have been called such things. And have had certain people try to undercut my credibility by telling vicious lies about me by putting together the few things they think they know about me, along with lavish use of their own vividly sleazy imaginations.

In fact, compared to some here, I think I have been a paragon of restraint.

It's too bad that one cannot seem to have a reasonable debate about issues of importance without some people immediately abandoning reason in favor of trying to "kill the messenger" by lapsing into profanity and verbal abuse, and/or throwing some meaningless label, such as "so-called 'liberal.'"

But then, the reason some people can't stick to the point is that their OWN understanding of the issue is either vague at best, or based on what they want to be the case.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:21 PM

This discussion....plus others, particularly on the BS thread has me thinking about how ingrained our values are. No information in the world is going to change our opinions about homosexuality, God, or most of these other topics.   Nor is anybody telling us how rotten we are for having them.   

Values change, it's true....but they tend to either change because of some huge experience that affects our inner core, or, more often, they just evolve.

(OK.....now this thread is going to go back to discussing evolution, right?)

But I had this fantasy.   

I die.   And I discover there really is a heaven.   I'm sent up to it (temporarily) and am told that I can't stay because my 'liberal' views on homosexuality, evolution, social democracy, consensus, are wrong.

And not only that, my radio program sucks.

So I'm sent to hell to join the likes of Don Firth, Ebbie, Bobert, Musket, and even Little Hawk. As I watch Guest From Sanity, Akenaton, and even Songwronger joining the Tea Party in heaven.   

Would I change my values?   No, I wouldn't. I'd just assume that God isn't so infallible after all. (I guess he/she's just human too).

So I'm wondering, Akenaton, GFS, and other God fearing souls, if you had a stopover in heaven and were told by God that you were wrong......would you change your values?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM

Good point, Larry!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 07:39 PM

Bruce Springsteen wrote in his song "Big Muddy" the following, "Sooner or later it all comes down to money"...

I suspect that if we stripped off the layers we'd find that the folks who are most anti-Obama and right winged (GfinS included tho he denies it) are people with lots of $$$ who just support any right wing policy, regardless of it wacko level...

That's one thing that 99% of liberals don't have to worry about as liberals just don't have a lot of money...

LH is an exception here... He just loves to play "politician" and walk both sides of the fence while keeping his good bud, GfinS, happy with his "both sides boogie"...

As for homosexuality??? Live and let live... I really don't give a rat's ass who the heck you love... That's your business... Not mine... BTW, seems that my gay friends seem to be a lot more caring and trustworthy than my straight friends but that is perhaps and over generalization... Just an observation...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:03 PM

Larry, I know this transexual. He is a she, I guess, but I have never thought of this person as anyone but a she. She is actually well liked and respected among anyone of quality in this town, she does really have a lot of friends. She's a brilliant local historian, (wrote for the paper) and clever and personable and a joy to run into. The way she sees herself as opposed to how others see her, or the way other transexuals might see themselves in our society, is due to her background. She's Native American.

One of the striking differences between primitive societies and civilization lies in the level of inclusiveness. Primitive societies tend to include, therefore a person like her would be thought of as a shaman and would have a place in the community. She would be thought of as different for a reason known to the Great Spirit. The configuration of primitive society is a circle. In hierarchal civilization, it's a pyramid and there are many extraneous individuals, if you catch my drift. The question becomes what do WE do with this or that person or "those" people. It's assumed that we just can't allow people to be who they are. Control, control, control. Dominance.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:22 PM

I hope that you're all done with your over reactions, and once again, stuffing words in my mouth that I never said.

Nobody said anything about 'changing ones sexual orientation', what ever the hell that is. What I DID say, is IF a person WANTS counseling, that he shouldn't be denied, because of a political stance, by those who would deny it, based on the 'genetic myth'. That is quite a bit different than launching a crusade, to 'cure' the world of its ills, now isn't it? ....Isn't it???
Rather than 'banning a topic' I think enough has already been said about this over 4 years to fill volumes. Just go back, check the old threads, and research both sides of the discussion. Note who distorts what..while you're at it!
What really is pathetic, is that Akenaton and I have been ruthlessly accused of all sorts of nonsense, just because we have different takes on it, and we're both accurate...and are not letting a political notion and agenda interfere with simple truths. You may not agree, and that's your(generically) prerogative.
What is another telling product of brain-lock, is that you (generically)are so hell-bent politically, locked into a bad argument, you failed to even ask me, what Constitutional provision WOULD have justified your position, and won in the Supreme Court....But..ya' fucked up....and I ain't a tellin'!...and the reason is, is that you've, Don at the lead, has mishandled the little bit of knowledge that he had, and was willing to cause a lot of damage to shove through his point of view. Had this 'debate' taken a different tone much earlier, he would have been a national political star for his 'cause' armed with what I could have shared with him.....but not now..too late!..WAY too late. Knowledge in the hands of a mean, unscrupulous scoundrel is not such a good thing, and it would be unethical of me to allow, or inform such a person with the intent to alter a system, for his self aggrandizement with those tools. It's better left to yet be figured out...without MY help!
So, once again, the posse returns to town empty handed, convincing no one that their political notions can be turned into fact.

Rest well..tomorrow you may ride again.

GfS

P.S. Ironic that I mentioned someone putting Larry up to this...and guess who shows up instantly to make sure I didn't mean him!!!
OH!!!.. SURE....I believe you.......(rolls eyes)...whatever you say...

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Aug 13 - 11:36 PM

Suzy, the Wonderful Sock Puppet: "The question becomes what do WE do with this or that person or "those" people. It's assumed that we just can't allow people to be who they are. Control, control, control. Dominance."

You left out 'Exploit'.

Warmest Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM

"What I DID say, is IF a person WANTS counseling, that he shouldn't be denied, because of a political stance, by those who would deny it, based on the 'genetic myth'."


Absolutely. Totally agree. And it's up to the person seeking counselling to decide what it is they most want to accomplish within the counselling (I always focus on short-term objectives that will lead them closer to a longer term goal), and to explore with them the best ways to achieve it. And to also explore how working on some of those objectives might change the goal. Our goals in live do change as we evolve. (Sorry....I'm using that word again).

But I guess I haven't read the posts closely enough, as I never realized that anybody was saying that gay people should be denied counselling.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:21 AM

In actuality, Larry, no one has said that anyone who wants counseling should be denied it.

What has been said is that those of same-sex orientation who do not want counseling should not be forced or intimidated into undergoing treatment.

I am personally acquainted with a middle-aged woman, who was (IS) a lesbian who, when she was younger, was forced by her family, and their church, to undergo "therapy," namely, aversion therapy, to "cure" her lesbianism. This woman became a psychological basket case.

But she IS celibate, and that's all her family apparently cares about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:33 AM

"Knowledge in the hands of a mean, unscrupulous scoundrel is not such a good thing, and it would be unethical of me to allow, or inform such a person with the intent to alter a system, for his self aggrandizement with those tools."

If the shoe... and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:18 AM

I'm the one who said Akenaton is fucking evil, for what it is worth.

Unlike him, I stick to the views he types under that name whilst he takes every opportunity to remind everybody of the name of the person behind the Musket monicker. One clever thing about people who spout evil views is that generally they don't have courage of their own conviction whilst trying to spread their shit as liberally as they can.

Which of course brings us to the word "liberal." As we have people both sides of the pond, it may be interesting to notice the different interpretations of the word.

To Goofus. I am a liberal.
To Akenaton. I am not a liberal.

To everybody else.   The two statements above are not contradictory.

My main point regarding respectable boundaries in reply to the op on this thread is that respectability goes further than strong reaction, it starts with boundaries of obscene views, however wrapped up in polite terms and requests for reasonable reaction to unreasonable stance.

I have no idea about The USA in general and presumably state law differs, but Akenaton and I are bound by hate laws and whilst I see the criminal laws as overkill, his propagation of hate, suggestions of registering gay people, forcing testing and contact tracing, all for no reason at all, contravene the law. If I am such a liberal as he says, I would despise such laws but they do have the advantage of allowing people to go about their business without being stigmatised, without people being urged to see them as different.

Sadly, those of us working in one way or another in health care see such odious views being spilled into our world to try unsuccessfully to justify hate.   It doesn't wash.

Although I am about to.   I feel better washing after explaining my utter contempt for bigotry.

Morning all.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 02:58 AM

Musket: "To Goofus. I am a liberal"

Not particularly.....more like a guy who likes to fuck with people for the fun of it.

hey....you brought it up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:25 AM

"his propagation of hate, suggestions of registering gay people, forcing testing and contact tracing, all for no reason at all, contravene the law."

Leaving aside the "hate" Ian.....you just can't help yourself I suppose,..... do you really think that the rates of STD infection in male homosexuals are "no reason at all?"

Your "liberal" answer to the problem has failed miserably. If the epidemic is to be curtailed something more radical needs to be attempted, even if that upsets your "sensibilities". You are unimportant in this context.
Although death rates are falling in association with aids cases, this is purely due to increased testing and contact tracing allowing the disease to be caught early.
Contraction of the disease still means a shortened lifetime of ill health and the unknown effects of huge doses of antivirals; plus the chance of infecting others if un-diagnosed

Don says,


"What has been said is that those of same-sex orientation who do not want counseling should not be forced or intimidated into undergoing treatment."

What has also been said, not by Don,.... is that anyone who says that homosexuality can be "cured" by therapy, is a vile bigoted monster, who should not be allowed a voice in civilised society.(guess who).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:44 AM

Guest, I was able to download three of your songs. Unfortunately, I could not get Joy because it's over 20 minutes.

Exploit, yes, absolutely.

Let's look at a different minority for a change- the group referred to as "mentally ill" although I prefer the old term "mad" as it is more descriptive than evaluative or judgmental. There once was a time, before the "Age of Reason" that such persons were integrated in society and only those prone to violent acts were confined. After the sea change in attitude toward these individuals, for 400 years, a lifetime of confinement and mistreatment was a given and deemed appropriate. When society changed its mind again more recently, the cultural provisions (such as the Feast of Fools) had been long abandoned and forgotten. Pity. Can you imagine a celebration in honor of madness? Now of course we view madness entirely in the negative. No humor, just grave expressions, an assumption that they have nothing to offer us and what will WE do with "those" people, eh?

In the beginning, psychiatrists were called "alienists"- think about that! Hierarchal societies are full of "others."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket giggling
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 11:56 AM

My dear Goofus..

Fuck with you? I'm not even on the same planet as you. Anyway, if I were to, it might fuck some sense into you.

There again, you don't seem to be the only one seeing gay as an illness. You just don't stand out any more, and that must have an awful effect your ego. After all, we seem to have people openly comparing being gay with having mental health issues. I used to like fat chicks, as the young me referred to them as, so whether that is illness or preference? Buggered if I know..

Congratulations Goofus and Cleopatra's pet rodent. There used to be be one in every village, but you seem to be heading up a growing commune of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:12 PM

""As I posted in another thread, a while back, is that the AIDS virus was developed at Fort Kendrick, and 'tested' and targeted both in Africa AND the Homosexual communities. To say that those figures aren't higher, just to gain 'political' points is nothing short of sheer stupidity, would you also say?""

The usual incoherent blether from the Walter Mitty clone who is so far up his own arse as to actually expect the world at large to believe that cardiologists endorse the healing powers of his specific "musical"(?) output.

And he talks about others' delusions?

""'Will to survive, and Reproduce'!..Even Darwinism would agree to that!! ..and being as homosexuality isn't about the latter, 'Reproducing', it is looked upon by the greater of societies, as being a form of 'decadence' OR a form of 'Decay' from the 'Will to survive, and Reproduce'..which all living beings have in common...it IS about sex, it is a choice or a choice made by 'resignation', (and any educated psychologist can enumerate the factors that go into that 'resignation'!""

There is homosexual activity throughout the animal kingdom, but only human beings target and abuse homosexuals.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 12:24 PM

""calling other members "pieces of filth"......"he is fucking evil", do you call that liberal behaviour?""

Neither liberal nor illiberal, simply observation based comment upon the outpourings of those whose minds are closed to any concept of "live and let live".

And since you don't sleep with other men, why does the subject arouse such fervour. You don't have the same concern for those who contract Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia or any other STD, which are rife among heterosexuals.

The difference is obvious. Straight as opposed to Gay!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 01:26 PM

You are wrong Don.

70% of all new cases of Syphilis in the UK were amongst male homosexuals.....HPA latest statistics.
This converts to a huge over representation of male homosexuals affected.
Infection rates in other STD's and Hepatitis are also very many times higher for male homosexuals.

The reason I care?.......Shouldn't everyone care?

I maintain that there is something intrinsic to male homosexual behaviour which causes these over-representations, no one in all the threads on the subject has ever come up with an alternative reason which holds water......most people, even those involved with Health services want any discussion of the problem.....SILENCED.

ON these pages you can see that tactic in action

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 03:41 PM

Suzy....I was vey interested in your remarks regarding primitive societies and how inclusive they seemed to be.
In my very young days here in rural Scotland most of the farms had a "daftie".....a person who today would be institutionalised or medicated into vegetation.
The "dafties" became part of the "ferm touns", ran errands, helped at simple tasks, entertained the children(some were very musical), a lived a useful and quite fulfilling lives....they had a purpose.
We has an inclusive society because life was hard...everyone had to contribute according to their means.
Even we children were taught the value of self-sufficiency.

Looking a mental health today, I wonder if we have really progressed at all

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:22 PM

Don T: "There is homosexual activity throughout the animal kingdom, but only human beings target and abuse homosexuals."

...and the animals formed an aggressively 'liberal' political stance behind it as well???...Oh BTW, homosexual activity in the animal kingdom...is that the same thing we humans define as 'sexual orientation'???....or is 'sexual orientation' synonymous with 'political persuasion'?

The problem with you guys, is that you must 'think'(?) that everyone's mind is as weak and feeble as yours...and other people DON'T have the ability to change their minds, their 'lifestyles', political beliefs, or preferences in their favorite color! You must think that people are not capable of re-directing their lives, so you want to set policies based on the weakest points of view.
Maybe other people should be 'allowed' to think for themselves, and not limited by a political agenda, which frankly may be set into law by people dumber than a brain-dead ideologue, with a need to feel important!!!!...and seek help, if they so feel that they need help, to make that change. The other Don, is changing his tune again, depending on how he fears that others, who identify themselves as being 'liberal' perceive him!...SURE!!!! he isn't against people getting counseling to get out of homosexuality...NOW that is....but that's a different tune that he is whistling now! Remember his rants about it being 'genetic' and therefore couldn't and shouldn't be changed because of counseling????????...Besides, counseling isn't the changing factor..what is, is the person who has decided to seek counseling, because HE/SHE WANTS help in making the change!! To say that it is 'genetic' and therefore counseling is a farce by charlatans(as previously argued, by you two), is in effect, denying that homosexuals CAN change their 'orientation' (read: persuasion by habit)...and therefore denying them care!!!!!!!!!..and don't go trying to double-talk yourselves out of this one. Let me give you two(and others) a subtle hint....You're consummately wrong!...and replaced a ''political notion' over compassion and common sense!..So, in light of that, fuck your political notions and the horse it rode in on!!!!!....Speaking of which, remember how Californians voted for the Prop 8 marriage ban?..and how critics said back then, myself included, saying what next?..polygamy? or age discrimination?..or animals?...and the 'so-called liberal' nitwits thought that was so silly and stupid?..Remember that?...Well speaking of fucking the horse you rode in on, and the 'animal kingdom'...check this out..
..or this ..and if you think that was stupid, so did most Californians, when they voted against two people of the same sex marrying.
For What It's Worth...

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket swearing again so sorry about that
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:38 PM

Akenaton 03.41PM


Fuck me gently.....

Did anyone in your hard times village contribute by making decent soufflés or advising on soft furnishings?

I don't know about your fantasy issue, but I know what I would like to see silenced. It would be wonderful if people could go about their business without feeling judged or hated by people they have never had the displeasure to meet yet.

Hey Goofus! Do your cures cost lots of money or have they gone on the generic list yet? My mate says he needs curing because his lifestyle makes his eyes water.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 04:54 PM

You would have made a great "daftie" Ian.....if you ever learned a little sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 05:46 PM

I just want to comment on the disrespect I'm picking up from the comments directed at GFS re his needing to be on medication.

It's not so much that I'm concerned about the banter that is being directed at each other. That's all part of the process.

But I know how singled out many people with mental health concerns feel.....and many of them refuse needed medication because of the stigmatization that goes with it.

I don't know whether any of you have a mental health diagnosis or are on medication. But I do know that if you are, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

So please stop the medication jokes.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:45 PM

Animals don't take that much interest in who mates with whom. Some humans, for some reasons, do, and then want to force their moral code and behavior patterns on others.

One group of people trying to arbitrarily force their moral code on another group of people is what gets Liberals acting.

I'm afraid GfS has the cart before the horse, here.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 09:55 PM

Get back on your meds, Larry...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 19 Aug 13 - 10:52 PM

Haven't heard from you for awhile, Bobert. Nice to know you're still with us.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:43 AM

Don Firth: "Some humans, for some reasons, do, and then want to force their moral code and behavior patterns on others."

Coming from you, I can see where you may think that...but mistakenly, AGAIN.

As in most creatures in the animal world, there is a mechanism called 'pair bonding' for the rearing of the offspring. The higher the intelligence level of the animal, the longer the 'pair bonding'. In some animals the offspring spend more time with their mothers, till the offspring can fend for its own. As for man, the length of the cycle that a child spends, before maturity, is the longest in proportion, than any other creature in the 'animal' world. This is because, in humans, the longest part of development, is the brain, emotions, mental, conceptual etc etc. for the tools of survival..not just against the elements, but in society.but because man is very societal, and that development is part of the survival skills needed, to survive in a community of other like beings. Basically, with that, you can say is the longer the 'pair bonding' for the rearing of the offspring, the higher development of that particular specie.
'Morals' on the other hand, are generally 'rules' that through observation through decades, even centuries, are 'guides' for the maintenance of, either practical or healthy living, often coupled the premise of not causing harm, to the basic structure, of you, or the community, at large, and avoiding unpleasant, or damaging consequences...either Spiritual, mental, physical, emotional or in societal living, damaging your survival in those areas.

With that in mind, Don, and with your 'history', it is easy to understand how you make up your 'moral code' as you go along in life, and use rationalizations to avoid dealing with the consequences. It also explains your need to see yourself as a 'political activist', because your ability to rationalize, has convinced yourself that you are a bit more persuasive than you are, other than within yourself.. and in persuasion, you gather people around you, that you can share a consensus with, and that consensus becomes your relative reality....and it bugs the fuck out of you, and you get nasty, when someone comes along, pops your bubble, especially, if that bubble includes the group around you, and the created consensus.

..and that was very objectively, and respectfully said. If you have a therapist, he/she, would agree.....
........though you still might not like it.
.....then again, you might.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:32 AM

Interesting analysis, guest from sanity. Therapists do often formulate hypotheses about their clients, and then they give the client the 'space' to discover for themselves what might be going on. Sometimes they share their hypothesis with the client, sometimes they don't.

But to think we know something about someone for certain is a key to frustration......because we human beings are so much more complex.

So if you were expressing yourself 'objectively and respectfully', you'd explore with the person whether or not they agree with your hypothesis.

Our assessments of others always tell more about us then they do about the client. Even I, as a trained therapist, know that my assessments are never accurate....they only provide a base for further exploration (with the client). And they say a lot more about me then they do about the other person.

So looking back on what you just wrote, GFS, do you really think that its' objective and respectful?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 01:40 AM

Yep. There are no 'value judgements' in it...no name calling, no ill intent. Just an analysis from 'exchanging' with him for about 41/2 years or so, and clocking the patterns of behavior.
..and to show that it was done in good faith...it was even 'pro bono'!!!

What else could a guy want???

Regards Larry,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:35 AM

Pro Bono is a little expensive for Goofus's analysis........

It makes wonderful subject matter in its own right though.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:42 AM

Homosexuality amongst "animals" is too ridiculous to even discuss in this context.
Anyone who has ever had anything to do with rearing livestock will understand why. Animals mate by instinct, they are also given natural signals at the appropriate times by the appropriate gender.


Very occasionally when under extreme stress, as in being herded or sent to market some animals may go through the action of "mounting" one another, getting into the position for mating, but I have never known penetrative mating to take place.
This behaviour seems to be triggered by anxiety.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket shaking his head
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:55 AM

Somebody buy him a David Attenborough set of BBC DVDs, I can't be arsed to even begin to help him with his embarrassment with that latest gem.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:58 AM

""Maybe other people should be 'allowed' to think for themselves, and not limited by a political agenda, which frankly may be set into law by people dumber than a brain-dead ideologue, with a need to feel important!!!!""

Except of course for those whom you despise!

You would have been a sensation in 1936 - 1945 Germany.

It is gays themselves who asked for the right to marry in the first place, and received support because they deserved it, but that doesn't fit with your preferred distortion, so you try in your feeble stupid way to blacken the supporters, which doesn't alter the facts one bit.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:17 AM

""I don't know whether any of you have a mental health diagnosis or are on medication. But I do know that if you are, it's nothing to be ashamed of.

So please stop the medication jokes.""

Don't you think that anybody posting the following is either too in love with himself for rational thought, or too delusional to have the slightest credibility?

""To be honest with ya', six days after my heart surgery, the cardiologist told me that my recovery has been 'nothing short of miraculous', AND he had heard my music. He told me that he thought there was an 'amazing amount of healing' in it. So after my release, my daughter and son-in-law, swung by our place, picked up my truck and loaded a LOT of my musical equipment into it, and took it to their house, where I also stayed during the 31/2 months of healing....in which, without a bill to pay, a decision to make, a form to fill out, a meal to cook, nor an explanation to make, or a post to type, I focused on what he had said, dialed in to the finest line I could zero in on, and composed several pieces. Upon my five week follow-up appointment with the same doctor, at the hospital, I brought him a stack of CDs, and GAVE (free)them to him, and other medical staff there to use, and to give away, for free to any other medical facility, who they felt could make use of them. As of 9 months ago, it was being used in 5 major hospitals in 4 states, and numerous therapy centers.""

I ask you Larry, has this guy got a God complex or what?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:22 AM

""'Morals' on the other hand, are generally 'rules' that through observation through decades, even centuries, are 'guides' for the maintenance of, either practical or healthy living, often coupled the premise of not causing harm, to the basic structure, of you, or the community, at large, and avoiding unpleasant, or damaging consequences...either Spiritual, mental, physical, emotional or in societal living, damaging your survival in those areas.""

Why not improve your featherweight grasp of human interaction and do some research.

Start with the history of the Ancient Greeks, particularly Sparta.

You might just improve the miniscule possibility that you know what you are talking about.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:27 AM

""and it bugs the fuck out of you, and you get nasty, when someone comes along, pops your bubble, especially, if that bubble includes the group around you, and the created consensus.""

Especially when that somebody bases his whole attack on a lie he has constructed to support his viciousness, then goes on to claim knowledge of THERAPY?.

God help anybody who receives therapy from this Walter Mitty clown!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:31 AM

""Very occasionally when under extreme stress, as in being herded or sent to market some animals may go through the action of "mounting" one another, getting into the position for mating, but I have never known penetrative mating to take place.
This behaviour seems to be triggered by anxiety.""

I hadn't realised that your obsession with the sexual activities of others included a 24/7 watch on herds of cattle.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:24 AM

Okay, if we are going down psycho-babble lane, here's the real deal on GfinS...

Lotta smoke and no fire... In other words, "Talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk"...

Reminds me of the folks that John Lennon was singing about in "Working class hero"... "Classless and free but all fucking peasants as far as I can see"...

Ya' see... Don and I - as well as others - who have been and continue to "activists" don't do this for ego or self... We do it out of love for our fellow man... That's a foreign concept to GfinS that he can't wrap his head around and therefore just talks and talks and talks about folks who are out there fighting for justice and fairness for all of us...

This ain't about something wrong with Don or me... This is about something very wrong with GfinS... Hey, I'm no psychiatrist but 15 years as a social worker dealing with people with mental health issues I think has left me with some perspective of various disorders...

Hey, I really don't give a rat's ass about GfinS's problems until it becomes an attack on me or Don or any of the other folks who are fighting the good fight for social justice out here in the real world...

I'll just leave it at that... For now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket par for the course
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:33 AM

How to win friends and influence people eh?

Rock on Goofus!

Any more groups of people you wish to pontificate on? Any more members of Mudcat you wish to quack analyse? Have a go at getting into the mind of Akenaton if you want to challenge your abilities. Don't forget to take a torch. Afterwards you might think twice before siding with him. ..

Or maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket four hours later
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:46 PM

Thought not

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:52 PM

OK, Don T. and Bobert. Let's assume that all your evidence provides strong support for GFS's insanity.   So he has a serious mental health issue.   

Bobert, now assume that GFS is either a patient of yours, a family member, or even just an acquaintance.   In your role as a mental health professional, would you not try to show such people respect.....and even if they attacked you or spat out words antithetical to social justice......would you attack him back?

My guess is probably not.

So why are you so focussed on disputing the words of this crazy guy?   And what makes it so hard to empathize with him.....and how difficult it must be for him?   

When a crazy person feels like a 'threat', it's usually because we perceive it as a threat to our own sanity.   But if we know for sure that the ideas that a mentally disturbed person puts out are truly delusions..........there really isn't a great deal of charge.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM

And......can you still feel some respect for somebody whose mental health leads him/her into delusions?   Can we find the 'boundary' between the delusion and the other aspects of that person's true essence?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 12:59 PM

......so what part of my post do or did you wish to take exception to??
..a lot of 'ire' but 'where's the beef'????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:05 PM

". . . no 'value judgements' in it...no name calling, no ill intent. . . ."

You say that, GfinS, after making up an entirely fictional background for me, then judging my "moral code" on the basis of that?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:17 PM

GFS. There is somebody with a youtube name of GuestfromSanity who has posted some rather nice videos of his music. Is that you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:18 PM

Seems to me, good guy Larry is being a trifle disingenuous Sanity.

"Damning with faint praise" comes to mind."


Don.... I was brought up with livestock, my family reared large flocks of hens, geese, ducks, and a few sheep. Round where I live are many small farms, where cattle were bred for beef and milk. Clydesdale horses were used and bred before tractors were widely used.

As children we knew all about animal procreation.
Perhaps if you would stop trying to score points, your questions would be answered more often, and perhaps we could get on a it better?

Seems to me you're not a bad sort of fella....you've just got into bad company.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:23 PM

Sorry about that last comment about Larry, the jury is still out.

Ian....you don't have the wit or humour to score points, just pack it in......go do something constructive as opposed to destructive.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:34 PM

And as far as I'm concerned, the jury can stay out. I have no problems, Akenaton, with you making (and even sharing on this thread) any judgments about me. We all have judgments.

And yes, as I read various posts my head gets filled with judgments.   I try not to take them too seriously, and instead, try to turn them into 'curiosities'. Sometimes I'm successful....sometimes not.

But most importantly......I have to tell myself that they are just 'judgments' that probably reveal a little bit about the person I'm judging.......and a lot about myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:48 PM

Oh. for fucks sake, give it a rest. I have been away for the weekend and the same old crap is pouring out. There are some complete wankers on this thread who would not know respectful boundaries if they hit them in their stupid collective nadgers. Yes. ake and GfS I am talking about you. If I did not say so specifically I suspect you are stupid enough to think I was on your side.

Just go and fuck yourselves. Take your idiotic stupid religions and views on homosexuality with you and then go and disappear up your own arseholes.

Sorry everyone else, There are some things I just cannot put up with. Stupidity, prejudice and Mudcat wankers are just three of them. Trouble is , they will think that I am in the wrong. All I can say about that is, I couldn't give a shit what they think. If I ever met them in real life they are amongst the people I would be quite happy to poke in the eye.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 02:55 PM

Larry....what you seem to be saying that its OK to think of GfS as "crazy", but not to say it.....to humour him, to tolerate his crazy ideas.......to be respectful to someone who has mental problems.

By putting forward this line you reinforce the idea that there is something wrong with Sanity's reasoning.

Sanity is far from crazy, he is an original thinker, enthusiastic and insightful....his posts contain many original and interesting ideas.
He is not led by ideology nor constrained by political correctness.
I think he deserves better from you.

This debate was about "respectful boundaries in debate"...there are numerous examples in this thread of people breeching these boundaries, by being personally abusive to me and to Sanity, because they do not like the subject under discussion.

You were the OP yet refuse to mention the abuse, or the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:11 PM

This debate was about "respectful boundaries in debate"...

Yes it is ake, and you seem to be too stupid to realise that you cross those "respectful boundaries" just by stating your view that homosexuals should undergo compulsory testing.

How can we get that into your thick skull other than by kicking you in the virtual knackers?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:16 PM

Dave....see how many posts are in this thread?

You want to close it? Why don't you just open something else, where you can be amongst your own kind.....folks who are never stupid, prejudiced...and who have never masturbated.

There must be a thread somewhere for you.

And thanks for giving me the "benefit of the doubt" earlier, I suppose that didn't apply to my "prejudice".

I have never thought of you as being on my side Dave....I don't care about sides and your assistance is not required. If I wanted popularity I would not be posting on this site, but there are a lot of people here who advance views on homosexual health which are misleading or simply wrong.
These threads sometimes run to 4 or 5 thousand posts so somebody must be interested?

Never been poked in the eye Dave, but a few have tried.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:28 PM

I am not stupid Dave.

If homosexual health is not to be debated...fair enough I will stick to the Mudcat rules. However. if we are debating how to stop the epidemic of sexually transmitted disease amongst male homosexuals, then all ideas should be put forward.

How would YOU like to see this problem tackled?.....or are you another who just doesn't want to know?

You say I am prejudiced, yet YOU have advanced NO views on cutting infection rates!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:50 PM

As for GfinS, Larry...

He ain't really insane... He ain't even psychotic...

Personality disorder??? Yeah...

And he ain't my client... He's just a a guy who talks and talks and talks about just how open minded he is but...

...is filled with hatred for Obama, filled with hatred of "liberals" (whatever they are), busts on Don, who BTW is transparent and has a long resume' of being one of the good guys, busts on me (who cares) and advocates Tea Party positions while saying he supports Dennis Kucinich???

In the words of Ralph Crampton, "A real pip"...

***grin***

Like I said, I don't give a rat's ass about GfinS's problems... I'm just glad that I ain't got carry them around...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM

Akenaton, I really appreciate your feedback, and I realize that there is a degree of truth to your judgments of what I'm saying (and I do think it's very respectful that you are keeping to the 'content' of my message rather than attacking me personally)

I do have some judgments about many of GFS's (as well as others) posts -----and if I felt he were open to hearing them I'd be quite willing to share them. At the same time I know nothing else about him. He might or might not have mental health issues. And I might or might not have mental health issues.   Anybody here on mudcat could be on medication, and may have periods where they get into places or irrationality and have no control over this.   

And because I've had close relationships (professionally and personally) with people who struggle with such issues, I'm very sensitive to people using such issues as weapons for 'put-downs' of any sort.   To me it's the equivalent of calling a gay person a 'faggot'. Or assigning negative racial stereotypes.

Many people with mental health issues are brilliant, loving, and creative.

That's why I'm so bristly about the medication and the 'see your psychiatrist' comments. They're not done with any spirit of concern, but as a way to enhance winning their argument. I judge those comments as 'abusive'.

At the same time I don't believe that we should 'humour' comments from people who may have mental challenges just because we judge them as incapable of anything else. I agree....that would be disrespectful.   My choice would be to ignore the comments if I believed that.......and at this point I have no reason to believe that with any of the mudcat posters.

For me to put a label on a person as being 'abusive' wouldn't be possible, because I don't know their intent, what they have control over.

But certainly would I would like to do (I don't know if I will because it takes an incredible amount of time) would be to go over all the posts (over 800) and point out the comments that meet my standards (mine....not anybody else's) of being clearly abusive.

And so it doesn't become totally negative I'd also like to point out comments that I view as being respectful......even as they challenge what the other person as saying.

I don't agree with people's comments that the expression of certain opinions are necessarily abusive. Even though I think many of those opinions, if put into practice, would be clearly dangerous.

But I could be wrong.

I hope this clarifies what I was trying to say in my earlier post(s).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:02 PM

Bobert, one of the things I most dislike about psychological diagnoses---including 'personality disorder' is that once we create a diagnosis, we will always find evidence to support it.

It's why I have more appreciation for the (ideal) scientific method that creates the 'null hypothesis'......and the goal is to disprove that hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:07 PM

My Gawd, Ake! Crediting GfinS with being an "original thinker"?

Highly imaginative, but "original?" Standard clichés right off Fox News, and if imaginative at all, groping for ways to deny the information put forth in "Scientific American," "Psychology Today," and bulletins from the American Psychiatric Journal.

When it comes to creative and imaginative manipulation of statistics, you're not so bad in the "original thinker" department yourself, Ake!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:15 PM

Hmmmm Sort of Larry, but we cant all go through life musing on whether we are right or wrong, there are decisions to be made, dragons to be slain, epidemics to be irradicated.

Even into the the wonderful world of therapy, reality intrudes?

Would compulsory testing and contact tracing still be "evil" if it cut infection rates by half or even stopped the spread of hiv/aids?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:37 PM

Wonderful, Ake!

Round up all the gays, put them in concentration camps, then gas the buggers!

That'll get rid of the problem (maybe).

But it's not really an original idea. I think there was some guy about sixty-some-odd years ago who had the same idea. He didn't like Jews much. He called his approach to what he considered to be the Jewish Problem "The Final Solution."

Might have worked, too, if all those damned Liberals hadn't interfered.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:47 PM

Akenaton: Re. the compulsory testing and contact tracing? I don't know. It's not my field of expertise. If it did cut infection rates by half? I guess that depends on what other outcomes would result. There are a lot of things that would eradicate certain diseases (eg. the horrendous killing of birds to eradicate bird flu) that have such other horrendous consequences that I'd regard them as 'wrong'.

But one thing I see as 'right'....and probably effective, would be to put policies into effect that help to enhance the acceptance and self-acceptance of people, regardless of their sexual orientation. I believe that legalization of gay marriage, pride parades, therapy that helps a person accept their orientation (and, if they truly want to try changing it, to help them explore ways to do that which won't reinforce shaming and create frustration through encouraging unrealistic expectations.

So those decisions that I see as "right" i will campaign for. Those I'm not so sure of.....I'll just observe.

But many mudcatters are much more informed about the 'science' of how to cut infection rates than I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 04:51 PM

Addendum to my last post so it makes more sense: The reason for policies that enhance one's acceptance of a sexual orientation would be that I believe it would reduce a lot of irresponsible sexual behaviour that comes from 'not caring'. And I think that would significantly reduce infection rates amongst the heterosexual and homosexual population.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

Yo, Larry,

All the evidence to support a diagnosis of "personality disorder" is right here in the Mudpit... Click on GfinS handle and see for yourself... I mean, hey... Ain't like I dislike GfinS 'cause I don't... I like him okay... I ain't making no judgement here just calling balls and strikes... No big deal...

Back when I was in social work I was kinda a Hawkeye Piece of my unit... Unit, heck... Okay, I was the Hawkeye Pierce of the entire "adult services" department... I like to get in and mess with stuff... No big deal... It's always worked for me... GfinS ain't mad at me... He calls me from time to time... We're okay...

BTW, I don't find "normal" people all that interesting... I had dozens and dozens of clients who I really liked and enjoyed working with no matter what the diagnosis... Of course, I tried to find ways to keep the ones that needed med on their meds... But for the most part I enjoyed 90% of my clients... The ones who threatened to kill other people being the 10%... And, sadly, some did... Some killed themselves... But no matter, I wasn't into judging 'um...

BTW, Part 2, my basic approach was Rogerian (after Carl Rogers) who pushed "un conditional positive regard, client centered" therapy but with, as I have stated, a Hawkeye Pierce overlay... I donno??? It worked... I always had good performance evaluations even tho I was, admittedly, a couple bubbles shy of plumb myself...

I mean, yeah, I get torqued up now and then here but, hey, who doesn't??? But I ain't no grudge holder and based on the number and content of PM's I've received over the years from folks here, other than a couple folks, people seem okay with they way I am...

Now here is something you should (hate that word) do... PM Don Firth... I think you need to do that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 05:09 PM

What seems to make Liberals such an anathema to certain people is that they (we Liberals) favor maintaining options rather than enforcing rigid, Draconian solutions onto what some people see as problems.

Often when what they see as a "problem" does not impinge on anyone else. Other than, maybe, their "fine sensibilities."

How, for example, does the (now legal in this state) marriage of Paul and Philip interfere with Barbara's and my marriage? No way that we can perceive.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 05:33 PM

Don F...Calm down, how on earth can you call a limited amount of testing and contact tracing in the interests of defeating an epidemic, as equivalent to the holocaust?
You are not being reasonable.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there was anything very liberal about the armed forces of the Soviet Union, but without them, Hitler might well have been victorious.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

Larry you seem to be a supporter of "homosexual rights" as opposed to "human rights", as you seem to wish to promote the lifestyle as valid.
How do you come to terms with the associated rates of sexual disease?
Surely the most important thing in validating a lifestyle, is whether or not it is safe and healthy?

The actions you mention, same sex marriage, Pride marches, Promotion of acceptance of orientation, etc are simply attempts to validate behaviour which according to all studies is highly dangerous and unhealthy.

There will always be a tiny minority who will wish to practice this sort of sexual intercourse...I doubt if they can be "cured" any more than addiction can be cured, and of course they should not be stigmatised, but the facts associated with the behaviour should not be hidden and the behaviour promoted as "just another alternative lifestyle"

The present infection rates are becoming so high, that something radical has to be done to reduce them.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

OK, Bobert....the next BS threat.(typo..I meant thread). Guess each mudcatter's personality disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:04 PM

Yay, Bullseye!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:07 PM

Different homosexuals have many different 'lifestyles'. So do heterosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM

Would compulsory testing and contact tracing still be "evil" if it cut infection rates by half or even stopped the spread of hiv/aids?

Yep, and hanging people for shoplifting would reduce shoplifting by even more than half. Do have a little think before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:36 PM

Who said anything about hanging homosexuals Steve?


"Hanging homosexuals", Compulsory testing "like the holocaust"!

The mind boggles!

Compulsory testing would not be a punishment, it would be an aid to the defeat of an epidemic, it could quite possibly save the life of the person to be tested and any that he might infect, should he be hiv positive.

Why do you and Don post such nonsense?
Why don't you both just shout "facist" in unison.....Godwins Law and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 06:45 PM

Larry.... Homosexuals and heterosexuals are defined by their sexual preference.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM

I said hanging people for shoplifting, in case you didn't notice. Your facile attempts to daft-man your way put of that corner are singularly unimpressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM

Out of that corner. I hope no-one felt put out by that mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 07:23 PM

Speaking of not giving a rat's ass??? I grew up next to a couple of gay guys... Never thought nothin' about it... Loved 'um both (not that way)...

Gene was a fashion designer and made lots of costumes for plays up in Washington, D.C.... He was very well know for his designs...

So Gene gave me several yards of this material that he loved... Hey, what's a hippie to do with several yards of material??? Make curtains for my VW bus... He didn't much like that use... I donno??? OI figured the highest compliment was to make curtains for the bus...

He got over it...

BTW, Ake is too old to go out and wrestle gay folks to the ground, tie them up, cart them off and then hang them... Maybe he'd like to do that but if your gay??? Don't worry too much about Ake... I heard he does a ten minute 100 yard dash... You can out shuffle him...

Bob;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 07:31 PM

Neither Paul nor Philip have HIV/AIDs. And theirs is a stable, monogamous relationship, so they will neither spread nor contract HIV/AIDs.

Why, Ake, can't you just leave them the hell alone??

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:00 AM

Ake isn't doing anything to them. You're the one wrestling with it.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:36 AM

Get real, Goofus!

If he had his way, he would dictate the minute details of how they must live.

And so, for that matter, would YOU.

Since I have a pretty strong stomach, I DO read the stuff you and Ake write (when I can decipher it), so I know what you would do, given the chance.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:41 AM

And I'm not "wrestling" with it. Paul and Philip are friends of Barbara and me, and if they're happy (which they are when people like Ake and you leave them alone), then that's fine with us.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket musing
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 01:30 AM

Ok Musket, scroll up a bit.   Yeah, that's it..

Ok. The bit where he said some can't be cured any more than drug addiction can be cured. . Add the bit where homosexual and heterosexual can be defined by sexual preference. . Presumably because the letters s, e and x are contained in them. Must make celibate people wonder if they can have a third word just for them!

The outpourings of Akenaton reveal his agenda more than ever.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fucking evil and pardon my French.

Such views and the stigma associated with them just serve to drive people away from contact with health services, hence the effect his ideas have are the opposite of what he says he wants. Either he is thick or he knows that. Either way, his ability to be heard is unfortunate.

He asks me to stop trying to be funny. Funny but outing homophobic hate isn't the most hilarious thing I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 01:53 AM

Don Firth: "And I'm not "wrestling" with it."

I beg to differ. You say 'now', that you agree that counseling should be open for them, IF they want it. Is that not true, or not?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:19 AM

Akenaton. Of course homosexual and heterosexual are defined by their sexual preference. But not by their lifestyle.

Perhaps we have a different definition of lifestyle. But I don't think there is any such thing as a gay lifestyle. There is a 'partying' lifestyle, many different types of 'family' lifestyles, a promiscuous lifestyle, a mopnogamous lifestyle, and even a celibate lifestyle.

Is there a heterosexual lifestyle, Akenaton? My guess is you'll probably say not.

Then how can you say there is anything resembling a gay lifestyle?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

"I said hanging people for shoplifting, in case you didn't notice. Your facile attempts to daft-man your way put of that corner are singularly unimpressive."

Steve.... I answered that point directly above what you posted, go back up and check.
Compulsory testing is not equivalent to hanging, it is NOT a punishment. It would save many lives.

Why do you continually post such nonsense?
I notice that the usual suspects who deny the existence of a health problem within male homosexuality are all now reduced to personal abuse in place of a reasoned argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 05:16 AM

Thanks for the smile Bob, but I can still climb a 50ft ladder...and appreciate a woman! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:50 AM

""Seems to me you're not a bad sort of fella....you've just got into bad company.""

Patronising nonsense, not to mention pompous!

I choose my company very, very carefully, and tend to avoid people with fixed ideas about different groups, where their point of view is restrictive, pejorative, disrespectful or downright hateful.

You tick all those boxes, plus putting those views forward on a public forum, so no matter how you try to twist or ignore the evidence against you, you are going to find me right in your face on issues of equality and diversity.

I am active in the real world, trying to achieve some measure of fairness and humanity across the board.

The biggest stumbling block in that path is people like you who have to have inferiors in order to feel smugly superior.

Ditto GfS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:59 AM

""but there are a lot of people here who advance views on homosexual health which are misleading or simply wrong.""

Absolutely true Ake, and you are one of them.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:24 AM

""You say I am prejudiced, yet YOU have advanced NO views on cutting infection rates!""

Every infectious disease which has been conquered since the invention of medical treatment on the grand scale, has been conquered with the same sequence of events.

First find a way to control the disease, reduce and eventually prevent deaths.

Second, with more time to spare, find a cure.

In the case of HIV, the first has been achieved and research into the second is proceeding apace.

There isn't a single instance in the history of science of any disease being wiped out by humans avoiding the sources of infection, and HIV will not be eradicated by stopping homosexuals from indulging in sexual activity.

HIV will be beaten as was polio. A vaccine will be found and HIV will disappear.

Since that search is well under way and annual deaths from AIDS related causes are lower than the death toll related to alcohol abuse or smoking, restrictive measures only make sense to those whose ratinale is based on revulsion, not concern.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:34 AM

""If I ever met them in real life they are amongst the people I would be quite happy to poke in the eye.""

If I met Ake in a bar and listened to him talking for half an hour, I am fairly certain that I would know enough about his views (he doesn't shy away from sharing them) to find drinking elsewhere very attractive.

I drink and socialise. I do not debate while drinking.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:46 AM

""once we create a diagnosis, we will always find evidence to support it.""

Some of us have somewhat greater critical faculties than that Larry.

Sometimes the person himself supplies the evidence from which we draw conclusions.

You may judge those conclusions to be right or wrong, but you cannot claim that the horse is pushing the cart.

I recently posted you one such.

Any comments

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:54 AM

""Would compulsory testing and contact tracing still be "evil" if it cut infection rates by half or even stopped the spread of hiv/aids?""

Yes, if you continue to advocate it for homosexual males alone!

Heterosexuals may have proportionately lower infection, as do lesbians, but they do have infections and they do make up some (admittedly small)part of the death toll IN THE UK!

Yet you show zero concern for any but male homosexuals and your concern manifests as a fixed desire to impose restrictions and edicts upon them alone.

I'd say that qualifes as pretty close to "evil", and when you factor in the heterosexual figures outside the UK and US, it makes the grade completely.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 08:43 AM

""Surely the most important thing in validating a lifestyle, is whether or not it is safe and healthy?""

So we should ban scuba diving, potholing, mountain climbing, free fall parachuting, parasailing, waterskiing, motorcycle racing, motor racing and especially space flight which has killed 21 astronauts and some 200 civilians in rocket launch accidents, in the process of sending a total of 560 persons into space.

There are plenty of genuine "lifestyle" choices which are decidedly unhealthy, but nobody suggests putting restrictions on them.

And before you make the usual comment about them not infecting others, tell it to the 89 others who died in 1955 when Pierre Levegh crashed his Mercedes, of the 200 non astronauts killed by space flights.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 08:48 AM

""Larry.... Homosexuals and heterosexuals are defined by their sexual preference.""

There's that weasel word again.

Exchange the word orientation for preference and you make it sound like something they do rather than the truth that is is something that they ARE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 09:03 AM

Steve.... I answered that point directly above what you posted, go back up and check.
Compulsory testing is not equivalent to hanging, it is NOT a punishment. It would save many lives.

Why do you continually post such nonsense?

It only becomes nonsense when you garble my ideas according to what you think I've typed. You do this all the time. Now you go back and check.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 09:39 AM

I don't agree with the constant demonization of GfS and akenaton for having a different opinion on the topic under discussion, however, I respect that those who demonize them feel they are on the side of truth and justice.

My attention to what anthropologist Stanley Diamond called "meaningful particulars" keeps me from arguing too much in the abstract where various assumptions about entire groups of people often leads one to false conclusions about what "they" want or need and what is good for them. In this case the meaningful particulars would be my aunt, my friend Pat, my friend Lydia and others. Nobody fits some profile. Nobody wants to. It's an insult to a person's humanity to be profiled like that. But when it comes to public health, real medicine, science, that's a different story.

And that's all I'm going to say on the matter except that I view akenaton's concern for public health in a different light than all of these political and philosophical arguments regarding sexual orientation. If we can prevent illness and death, that's what we do. The same people who have no problem giving up their rights and freedoms to be safe from terrorism (theoretically) should not have any problem with this. The HIV virus is not natural. It is manmade and was aimed at certain groups. There's your hatred right there!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 10:01 AM

Suzy. Any chance I can stick a swab up your vagina?

Got to eradicate chlamydia and testing of all women is a good start in questioning them for their sexual activity.

It would have to be me rather than a medical doctor or nurse. You see it is illegal here to carry out invasive or non invasive clinical intervention without consent if you are a healthcare professional. It is criminal assault if I do it, but I take your comments above as consent.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket getting slightly pissed off now
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 10:59 AM

Sorry Suzy, but just noticed you compounded your ignorance by stating, rather than giving an opinion, that AIDS is man made and aimed at certain groups.

I see now why you are defending the indefensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:30 AM

"Exchange the word orientation for preference and you make it sound like something they do rather than the truth that is is something that they ARE!"


Good point, Don. "Orientation" is the better term. I appreciate the correction.

But a person's sexual orientation is only one small part of a person's 'essence'. So let's not shout out the "are".

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:32 AM

Don....I'm at my wits end with you.

Scuba diving is NOT a lifestyle, it's a sport.

Ian....If I had anything to do with this board, you would be kicked off for that personal attack on Susy, for one so concerned with the "rights" of others, you come across as a desperate bully.

Personal intimidation of women has no place on these pages.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:38 AM

"If we can prevent illness and death, that's what we do. The same people who have no problem giving up their rights and freedoms to be safe from terrorism (theoretically) should not have any problem with this."

I think that Ake's question and Suzy's response to it brings up a bigger issue relating to whether an end can justify the means. Personally I do have a big problem with giving up our rights and freedoms to supposedly prevent terrorism.

It always leads to the creation of bigger problems.....the totalitarian state that disempowers their citizens 'for their own good'. And that disempowerment leads to further inequality.   I don't believe in the 'benevolent dictator'.

So I agree with Suzy that Ake's question is a good one and worthy of disussion.   But my answer is very different from his.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:48 AM

Cant agree with your response to Don, Larry. However you look at it, homosexuality IS something they do.
They ARE human beings, but in sexual terms they are defined by their behaviour?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:56 AM

Larry, I had rather a large response composed, contrasting homo and hetero "lifestyles", but it vanished when I tried to post it earlier.

I'll see if I can put it together again after work.

Refreshing to discuss issues with a "non-combatant"   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 11:58 AM

Akenaton. What woman? Surely eradication of chlamydia is more important than some liberal nonsense about rights?

Anyway, you can be cured of being a woman. Gender re assignment means being a woman is choice.

And as for sex. Apparently its something they do.

Personal intimidation of not just Gay people but anyone who accepts the rights of others to be able to go about their business isn't acceptable either you hypocritical twat.


I wish you were thrown off this forum. Gay Mudcatters must feel shit when you come on to stigmatise them with your homophobic hate. You don't have to share a lifestyle to empathise with what people have to put up with thanks to mindless disgusting little shits like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:05 PM

Don't be insensitive, Ian. I thought you were in health care. Therefore, you should know that what men go through in regard to sexual health, is NOTHING compared to what women go through (including obstetrical care). Talk about invasive!

However, I am willing to go through a few minutes loss of comfort and dignity to make sure I'm in good health. Breast exams and mammograms are lots of fun too. But that's the price you pay for catching breast cancer early. It could save your life.
I have gone regularly for pelvic exams with all relevant testing since I was fifteen years old. That's 36 years.

If I didn't have the sense of social responsibility to make sure that I'm in good health and not transmitting anything to anyone else, then maybe I should be "criminally assaulted" as you put it. You might not be promiscuous yourself, you don't always know what your partner has done or is doing. I have a girlfriend who caught chlamydia from her own husband. Nice way to find out he was unfaithful huh?

About the other, don't be naive. Power corrupts and biological warfare is real. Don't you understand the notion of extraneous groups of people, people you can throwaway? At least I'm not one of those religious lunatics who believe HIV is God's retribution for being gay.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM

I don't agree with the constant demonization of GfS and akenaton for having a different opinion on the topic under discussion

You are playing it down just a tad, aren't you? The attacks on those two that you read here happen because they demonise gay people.

The HIV virus is not natural. It is manmade and was aimed at certain groups.

You do realise that these statements make you sound barking mad, do you? Do get serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:30 PM

Ian.. if you really work in healthcare, you should know that there is no epidemic of Chlamydia amongst women.
There is a medical problem, but the infection rates are nothing like the 70% of new infections of Syphilis amongst male homosexuals.

There have always been Sexually transmitted diseases but male to male sex seems to be associated with huge transmission rates.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM

Steve...how do you make the jump from discussing ways of cutting homosexual infection rates, to "demonising homosexuals"

You do realise that this statement makes you sound barking mad....Don't you?.....Get serious.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 12:53 PM

But we don't discuss. We listen to you ranting on about your totalitarian regime-style forcible methods and you ignore any alternative. You won't discuss the need for better education, remember? You really have got it in for gay men and there isn't even the thinnest veneer of respectability over your obsession. You're a sad case, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 01:05 PM

BTW, Chris Christie just signed a bill that the New Jersey statehouse passed that outlaws the "conversion therapy"...

Now back to your usually scheduled shit fight...

Oh, and I still don't give a rat's ass what your sexual orientations are (gay, straight, bisexual, asexual) is all fine with me as long as you are not a pervert or a sex peddler...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket angry
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:14 PM

Mudelves.

You allow discussion of forcing testing of gay people for sexually transmitted diseases but when I ask a member if she would be happy to be forcefully tested for one on the same profiling basis you cut my post out.

Shame on you.

Please consider accepting an invite when Akenaton throws a fascist theme party?

Hate is still hate when not directed at members of a forum. Here in The UK, wrongly to be fair, he is breaking the law publishing homophobic rants. Your censure levels could do with some guidance.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:27 PM

Yeah, what I find sickening is that the folks who preach the evils of government seem to have no problem with allowing the government to test and probe you...

The anti-government state legislators in Virginia tried to make state mandated vaginal ultrasound mandatory for a woman wanting to get an abortion???

I just don't get it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:30 PM

Obviously, a ban penalizes any teen who actually wants conversion therapy. I think it would have been enough to say that no minor will be forced against his or her will to undergo such therapy, not to impose a ban. Very political on Christie's part. We're hearing a lot from him. 2016? Hmmm maybe.

I find interesting that the APA had homosexuality listed in their manual of mental disorders not very long ago. Now they say it does extreme harm to try to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals. I agree that it is harmful to try to convert people, however, I can't help but notice that the APA changed their minds and it goes to show that our view of "mental illness" is socially constructed and not based on science. It is therefore infinitely malleable.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

""Scuba diving is NOT a lifestyle, it's a sport.""

There you go again specious nit picking.

When people choose extreme sports they become risk takers and that IS a lifestyle which they choose to follow.

Homosexuals DO NOT choose to be so, any more than you or I chose to be Hetero. We just are, and they just ARE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 03:36 PM

Goofball, what I said was that counseling should be open to anyone who feels they can benefit by it for whatever reason. NOT that they should be FORCED into counseling by people like YOU.

You do love to twist things!

(But then, that's all you've got.)

=======

Suzy, a point of science here:

HIV is not a man-made disease. It was initially a disease of African monkeys. The virus was transmitted to humans in Africa, possibly by someone being bitten by a monkey, probably a poacher looking to supply monkeys for the illegal so-called "bush meat" trade (some people apparently like eating monkey meat).

It is not a specifically "homosexual" disease. It is transmitted by any exchange of bodily fluids between people of any sexual orientation, such as a blood transfusion, or sexual relations of any kind, including heterosexual. Or, for that matter, deep kissing. The virus, in itself, does not kill. It shuts down a person's immune system, making it more likely that they will catch just about any infectious disease that comes along.

Sort of like lowering the drawbridge and allowing any enemy that wanders along to enter the castle.

Ake seems to adhere to the medieval belief that homosexual activity causes HIV/AIDs. Before Louis Pasteur proved that it was not true, many people thought you could create rats, mice, and other vermin by leaving garbage laying around, not even thinking that the garbage didn't "spontaneously create" the vermin, the vermin were already there and were attracted to the garbage.

Homosexual relations does not create the HIV virus. It can transmit the virus IF one of the party carries it, but it cannot create it!

Yet, Ake keeps insisting.

And GfS has been insisting that same-sex orientation is a choice, preferring to ignore the mounting evidence that people are born that way and, although all the evidence is not in yet, there are very strong indications that, at the very least, there are genetic components to sexual orientation. And that people do not have a choice about it. One does not "decide" at puberty whether one wishes to be gay or straight. Often quite young children, still ignorant of sex, show indications of behavior that is more characteristic of the other sex. One is what on is. Not a matter of making a choice.

Yet, if Ake and GfS had their way, Ake would force gay men to undergo constant testing. And GfS would force them into therapy—which has proven to be an abject failure, sometimes leading to suicide.

Both of them oppose same-sex marriage, which would encouragement stable, non-promiscuous behavior--the very thing that would cut down the spread of HIV infections, Ake offers no reason other than claiming that gays don't want same-sex marriage, they want to be promiscuous, when both gays and lesbians themselves say that they DO want same-sex marriage, and work very hard politically to bring it about. And in those states in which same sex marriage is legalized, great hordes of same sex couples are rushing to the altar!

Neither Ake nor GfS is scientifically correct in their viewpoints, yet both of them are in favor coercing whole groups of other people to do their bidding.

That is what I (a "loony Liberal" according to GfS) object to—strenuously!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 03:48 PM

And Suzy, science is not "infinitely malleable."

It is not rigidly dogmatic, it is responsive to newly discovered evidence.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 05:51 PM

Don...please show me where I have ever said that homosexuality causes aids....that is completely untrue, what I do say is that transmission rates of the virus are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic.
Please explain why this is the case....and while you're at it please explain why transmission rates of Syphilis and most other STD's are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic.

Is it possible that the sexual behaviour of male homosexuals causes these inflated rates of infection, or is it more likely that it is caused by the reduced rates of stigma and discrimination over the last ten years?

Ian deserved to have his post removed it was a cowardly attack, made in terms designed to embarrass and intimidate a woman. He knew exactly what he was about.
Well done the mods!!

As far as I am aware an hiv test can now be taken from saliva.
Thank god it is not a criminal offense YET to discuss issues like this, tho' the march of Orwellian ideology still goes on.
Stand up for straight and plain speaking.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 06:50 PM

Ake, I said that you "seem" to adhere to the medieval belief in spontaneous creation because when the subject came up several times before, you didn't deny it, you went right on with your apparent belief that HIV/AIDs manifests itself simply when two gay men get together.

The transmission of venereal diseases of all kinds is higher in people of any sexual orientation who are promiscuous. NOT just because the are gay.

Legalizing same-sex marriage, allowing same-sex partners to form monogamous relationships—and recognizing them socially—will do more than anything else (short of rounding gay men up and putting them in prison—separate cells, of course!) to curtail the spread of HIV/AIDs.

Yet, you argue against same-sex marriage, claiming gays don't really want it, when I know for a fact that they do. When the law was passed here in Washington State, legalizing same-sex marriage recently, there were a large number of such marriages, and it's still going on.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Now, if you WANT an Orwellian world, then how about forcing all gay men to register, then rounding them up periodically and testing them for the virus?

And once you start that sort of thing, where is it going to end?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 21 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

""Don...please show me where I have ever said that homosexuality causes aids....that is completely untrue, what I do say is that transmission rates of the virus are hugely higher in male homosexuals than in any other demographic.""

Only in the US and the UK, where the index cases happened to be homosexual.

In African HIV hotspots 40% of the hetero population is HIV positive, and that is where the whole thing started.

Regardless of that, you are entirely unconcerned with the health of hetero sufferers, wherever they be.

You only care about MSMs and hold them responsible for their condition because you DON'T LIKE THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION!

C'mon man, you don't care about their illness, you simply want to control who they are allowed to fuck!

Don T. (who is heartily sick of the Pharaoh's prevarication)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:49 AM

Actually Akenhateon, it is illegal to promote homophobia by publication and posting on these sites is just that. Of course, I think such laws can be counter productive but reporting Mudcat.org to the police is, believe it or not, an option and just because the servers are in The USA, agreements exist for the local police to obtain your details and forward them to the police in Scotland.

Good job I'm a liberal eh?

Here's an example of a progressive council's reporting access portal.

how to deal with hate crime

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:07 AM

Tell you what, knobheads, there is a trick you have overlooked.

African Americans are the racial/ethnic group most affected by HIV in the United States.

People cannot help being black any more than they can help being homosexual. Or can be being black be cured by one of your buddies as well? Anyway, how about we round up all black people and make them have tests for the HIV virus as well?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:14 AM

Don, when I said infinitely malleable, I was referring to the socially constructed nature of mental illness, not science.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket again, sorry all.
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:06 AM

Ok Akenhateon. Let's get this straight.

Suggesting rounding up all gay people due to prevalence of HIV is a good idea.

Rounding up all women due to prevalence of chlamydia is a cowardly attack and I should be removed from Mudcat.org.

Notwithstanding my comment was designed to point out the absurdity of your position, your double standards reveal your homophobia. What's up? Don't cowardly attacks on gay people count?

Don't think for one minute that ignorance by a Mudelve justifies your criminal stance.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:14 AM

So, you guys like to take things to the EXTREME, and then 'argue the 'points', as if the 'extreme view' was even brought up by other people? You do realize, don't you, that this practice is absolute nonsense, and serves no one, nor does any good at all??..just a vehicle to promote yourselves, as being is some sort of 'inner circle of hipness'??...when in fact, it is the center of the inner circle of nothingness.


Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sans arrows
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:43 AM

Of course I wouldn't object to a mudelf editing my plural typo above.....



Well Goofus, that certainly is a point. Or at least it would be if I had any idea what the hell you are saying?   Seems like Don bashing again, but even then it still doesn't come over as a coherent collection of key strokes.

Presumably I could do that too if I were faced with defending the indefensible.

What's that boy?   

Woof!

No, sorry. You can't play with Goofus any more. I wouldn't want him corrupting you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:00 AM

""Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia??""

If you are addressing this to Don F, he will answer for himself.

If to me, would you kindly tell me to what post of mine you are attaching the claim of exaggeration?

In either case would it be too much effort to add the single letter required to distinguish between us, or is that beyond your capacity?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:37 AM

Here's an idea... Rather than target gay people why not test everyone for the AIDS virus???

(But wouldn't that be like Big Brother, Boberdz???)

Well yeah, it would but I'd rather see Big Brother than homophobia...

I also can accept no testing at all unless people choose to be tested, as many are... I have heard of folks who are using various internet dating sites asking potential partners to provide test results for AIDS... I don't think that is asking too much...

(Oh, you're going to get the blast now, Boberdz...)

Hey, I've gotten the blast before and I'm still here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:17 AM

Don T, You're NOT the Don, I was referring to, sorry about that... Firth is the one who has the well known reputation for making up stuff, and then arguing the stuff he made up, as if another poster, who he takes issue with, had said it....which is ridiculous and divisive. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. You're the 'other' Don, who starts to back up the first Don with equally nonsensical reactions..working off his already preposterous premises, that he made up!

Gosh, Bobert, would you object to 'Big Brother' giving out polio shots, too???...Food stamps: YEA!! Health issues: NO!!
Well, after all...you were a social worker, weren't you?

That being said, and after the reactions to my post caused a flurry of 'ire' , and maybe got some people thinking, you posted something, which may have been the most intelligent thing you've ever posted.......wanna know what it was???............>>>>>>>>






From: Bobert
Date: 20 Aug 13 - 08:24 AM -->>>>>>>>>>>































"We do it out of love for our fellow man..."



Then you fucked up by saying......

"That's a foreign concept to GfinS that he can't wrap his head around and therefore just talks and talks and talks about folks who are out there fighting for justice and fairness for all of us..."


You don't need a federal program to show love for your fellow man, or to give from your heart....neither should you IMPOSE that others be FORCED to do so either.........and then attack Akenaton for his proposal on the health issue...but you COULD talk decently about it, couldn't you????.......maybe just, '.........out of love for our fellow man..."
...And quit accusing everybody that you disagree with of 'hating somebody' will ya'? You're sounding like a lunatic when you do.

Wishing for Your Personal 'Hope and Change',

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:31 AM

would you object to 'Big Brother' giving out polio shots, too???

As far as I am aware polio vaccine has never been compulsory in this country. Even if it was it was not compulsory only for those of a certain sexual orientation, creed, colour or ethnicity.

There is one thing you are proving, GfS. Compulsory screening of idiots should receive more support...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:36 AM

Dave the Gnome: "As far as I am aware polio vaccine has never been compulsory in this country."

Think back.....school.....maybe kindergarten....mandatory polio shots...come on..think...think....but then you may be dealing with a handicap that you mentioned......'As far as I am aware'

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:47 AM

I never went to 'kindergarten' GfS. I went to Nursery School and Primary School. Is it too much to ask that you consider whether or not people are in the same state, country, continent or era?

Polio vaccine in England in the 1950s was not compulsory but, as the risk of the disease was greater than the risk of the vaccine, I do believe there was a high take up of immunisation.

I did not know about elsewhere but a simple click gave me this from Wikipedia

In the United States, certain immunizations are mandated by state policies for school entry requirements. In a push to eradicate Pertussis, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, and Hepatitis B from the population, schools across the United States require an updated immunization record for all incoming and returning students. This is a social problem because there are ethical debates and objections to the required immunizations because of different religious or philosophical beliefs and the infringement on individual liberties

There is information on the same for most countries. Again, is it to much to ask that a brief investigation of facts be undertaken?

Finally, you have still not answered whether these 'compulsory' immunisations were given only to certain groups on the grounds of their sexual orientation etc.

Not even an E for effort...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 10:50 AM

Sigh. Can we talk about "dafties" now?

akenaton, daftie is a cute word. I like it. I might be a bit daftie myself. Larry, since you are a therapist, I wonder if you have ever read "Madness and Civilization" by Michel Foucault. IMO, it should be required reading for anyone working in the mental health field. A critical look at the history of madness/"mental illness" would do any therapist good, give them a firmer grasp on the context of their own profession.

Anthropology as opposed to modern psychology and psychiatry is a better discipline in which to interpret any outlier. I would say also that people are better off with friends who care about them than with therapists who are taught to keep "professional distance" and to view their patients, clients and now "consumers" (ugh!) as proper OBJECTS of research and intervention. The positivist paradigm is absolutely inappropriate for the "human sciences" (an iffy notion to begin with).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:24 AM

As a polio survivor I am very much in favor of Big Brother vaccinating people... Some people have been so brainwashed to think that the vaccines are either bad for you or have thought control germs in them that its sad because they are not doing everything to protect themselves or their kids...

But oit goes beyond just protecting peop;le from their own ignorance... There are highly contagious diseases out there that when contracted can be spread to others... If we have a means to stop those diseases then we have a collective right to do so...

You don't want the vaccine, fine... We'll quarantine you along with your tin-foil brethren at some closed down army base and ya' can live your lives out there all getting sick and dieing together but...

...you don't have a right to carry your disease around me just because Michele Bauchmann thinks that vaccines make you sick...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:28 AM

Hi Suzy,

In my university years I was never much of an embracer of what was called at the time "logical positivism". (The belief that just as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so also does human behaviour and society). It could be true....but the laws would be so complex that we'd never be able to determine them.....and trying to determine them becomes more of an academic exercise than something practical when working with real people.

I haven't read Focault's book---although I've read many a quote and paraphrase---but I was very influenced by the Thomas Szasz book: The Myth of Mental Illness, as well as R.D. Laing (Politics of Experience; The Sane Society).

As for your contention that people are better off with friends who care for them than with therapists........absolutely. I always view my work as short term, the purpose being to help people get the confidence and the energy to access their own strengths.....one of which is their support system.

And more and more I'm coming to accept and love my 'inner daftiness'. And by doing so I can enjoy those daft comments being made by other mudcatters as well.

Hey what a great thread title.......revealing our own inner daftie.   We could even make it a music thread (Songs where the narrator is obviously a 'daftie'.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 11:43 AM

I come with a different history, Larry...

Most of my clients when I was in social work came directly from Central State Hospital in Petersburg, Va., and suffered from various mental illnesses...

Schizophrenia is very real and no matter how caring one's circle of friends are they cannot fill in for folks who have a better understanding of the disease than those friends... Therapists also work with psychiatrists, social workers, adult day care centers, etc. as part of a complete treatment package...

This line of discussion is starting to look like the AIDS/homosexuality one with people thinking that folks make choices and can just flick a switch and turn stuff off and on...

As a former social worker I flatly disagree with that premise... People who suffer from mental illness are ill and need more than a "circle of friends"...

I've watched two Christian Science women did because they also thought that faith and a good circle of friends was all they needed... It was very sad... And painful deaths...

I'm seeing the common thread here is science denial... Too many people with this "shake it off" mentality...

I donno??? Think a few folks here need to put their tin foil hats...

...back on...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:04 PM

I agree for the most part, Bobert. The only possible bone of contention might relate to that belief that we're treating the disease versus treating the person. Certainly schizophrenia is real. But it's only one small part of a person's 'essence'.......and by helping them access their own strengths as well as their support circle (which can include other medical practitioners as well as friends and family), they can begin to move towards health (some of which involves accepting the reality of the psychotic symptoms.)

There is some great work being done recently in looking a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and MIndfulness in the treatment of psychosis. A lot of that involves helping people access their ability to 'step back' from those distressing voices and bizarre thoughts and to examine their truth and their functionality.   And to help them to 'cope' within a society that judges them.

For example......some patients who become isolated because they are responding to the voices in their head, scaring off people around them.   One solution?   Give them a dead cellphone, and suddenly their imagined conversations begin to look 'normal'.   And they begin to feel more like they can 'fit in'.

I think it relates to this thread because it is a way of respecting the reality of a person who may be suffering from a mental illness.

So when we witness a posting here that seems rather 'bizarre'.....how can we respond to it in a way that is respectful to the person posting it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:15 PM

I agree absolutely, Bobert. Vaccines ARE good, especially when the risk from the disease is far greater than any damage the vaccine can do. That is not the point and no-one is saying do not vaccinate. What we are all in agreement on, apart from a couple, is that forced anything based on sexual inclination is just plain wrong.

OK?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM

One thing that happens as people grow sicker, be it mental illness or bodily illness, is that, in the real world, a lot of friends pull back...

In a perfect world, yes, we would treat all disease more holistically than we do today... Unfortunately, we don't live in that perfect world...

I had a good friend, Joe Yancy, who died of lung cancer about 10 years ago... Jos knew a lot of people in his community and was liked by most folks who ever knew him... I had moved to the West Virginia mountains and it was a 3 hour drive to see Joe... I was talking with his widow a couple years ago and she told me something very disturbing... She said that as Joe got worst and it was apparent that he didn't have much time left on this Earth that I was about the only person who consistently came to visit him...

I'm afraid that was my experience with my clients... I read their case files which sometimes covered 2 or 3 decades and many of these people had families and friends along the way but when they got sicker these folks dropped out...

Very sad... That's what I mean by the real world...

Janie, bless her heart, is still grinding away in social work and it would be interesting to get her take on this subject...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 12:43 PM

It's not based on sexual inclination, its bases on horrific infection rates.

If these rates were appearing amongst red headed men or Scottish men, or Gnomes, I would still be in favour of compulsory testing.

OK??...............AKE.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 01:10 PM

SO.....according to Ian we are to be criminalised for telling it like it is?

Look back through all the threads, if you can find one post from me which contains "hatred towards homosexuals", I will be very surprised indeed.
I never knowingly lie on this forum. Any figures which I quote can be easily verified.
I don't scare easily, if we are to have an "Orwellian" society, bring it on.......I will fight to my last breath for freedom of speech.

Interesting though, that Ian has dipped below his usual bottom feeding median, with threats of criminalisation to silence his opponents.. :0)

And this is suppose to represent our health professionals?
He doesn't have a case.....He's a joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:00 PM

If that's all you have..

I am not aware of any healthcare professionals on this thread.

If there were any UK based ones, their professional registration would require them to report health based hate crime.

I'm threatening nothing. Those capable of reading will note my reluctance to use counter productive laws. I can't answer for others though...

You try to repress freedom to exist equally and then cry about freedom to express a view.

You are one sick puppy. Not that I would let a puppy or any other dog near you. They deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:21 PM

It's not based on sexual inclination, its bases on horrific infection rates.

So Ake, did you read the article I linked to? The one that said the group which had the highest incidence of AIDS in the US were African Americans? Would your compulsory testing cover all Black Americans as well then?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM

Bobert: "As a polio survivor I am very much in favor of Big Brother vaccinating people..."

Bobert: "I also can accept no testing at all unless people choose to be tested, as many are..."

Bobert: "You don't want the vaccine, fine... We'll quarantine you along with your tin-foil brethren at some closed down army base and ya' can live your lives out there all getting sick and dieing together but..."

Bobert: "Yeah, what I find sickening is that the folks who preach the evils of government seem to have no problem with allowing the government to test and probe you..."

Bobert: "We do it out of love for our fellow man..."


'So called liberals'!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:18 PM

Here's a puzzle that has confounded even the brightest among us.



You are on a horse, galloping at a constant speed.

On your right side is a sharp drop off.

And on your left side is an Elephant traveling at the same speed as you.

Directly in front of you is a galloping Kangaroo and your horse is unable to overtake it.

Behind you is a Lion running at the same speed as you and the Kangaroo.

What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?






Don't look yet...figure it out.........



































Get your drunk ass off the merry-go-round.


GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:19 PM

GfS: I

GfS: am

GfS: criminally

GfS: insane

Hey! I like this game - Take words completely out of context and you can make him say anything :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:55 PM

For gawds sake Dave get a grip.

We are talking about infection RATES, which are higher amongst male homosexuals than in any other demographic anywhere!

This is the problem with this forum, I've had to repeat the point about percentages, over and over again.....I don't know if some people are just being obstructive, or that they just don't understand statistics.

Why get involved if you don't understand the rudiments of the debate?

It wouldn't matter if there were more heteros than homos with hiv
the population numbers are so different....what counts is the percentage rates of infection.

If say, 1 in 10 heteros became infected the numbers would be in many millions, the actual number is under 3000.
In some cities it is estimated that 1 in 5 homos are infected....EPIDEMIC!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 05:57 PM

GFS. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I would think the answer is just to keep going. Why would we need to overtake the galloping kangaroo anyway? And the lion is running at the same speed.

Where's the danger?

Why not stay on the merry go round and enjoy it?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM

Ian..... you are threatening nothing, as you know very well I am committing no crime.

You are full of wind and bluster.
Could you not manage one small fact to bolster what you call a stance?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:06 PM

"Equality is the reality" doesn't cut the mustard....even with Dave :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket with facts
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 06:37 PM

Here's a fact.

You are lying and inventing statistics in order to persuade people to be as homophobic as you.

You slur anybody working in the field and say they make matters worse and that only your register of people based on their private lives can affect the statistics you give.

You have no statistics, you take reality out of proportion and say your rounding up is for their own good.

It has been tried.

A dozen years later at Nuremburg they hung the bastards for trying it.

I don't know that you are not committing a crime as you are promoting homophobia which does make you an alleged criminal. My views on that are mixed but if preventing publication of hate can allow people to go about their business in peace and without fear of loss of liberty,then it may not be a bad idea.

Tell you what, lets try it out? I shall send a link to this thread to the Stonewall reporting website.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:02 PM

Respectful boundaries? Mudcat?

Not if I can help it. I suspect the whole idea only came up because I ribbed Mr Metrogoldwyn Meyer about his CPSnowian incomprehension of the simple scientific ideas. Of course he invoked Leavis to exculpate himself (being much better at writing than scientists, the arty bunch always win the arguments in the Telegraph), but of the original bone of contention (quantum shenanigins) his woeful ignorance (of the problem) stood unchecked. He simply couldn't see that there was a problem "common sense" can't solve.

And unleashed all the demons of Mudcat. Of course we'll respect you, provided you agree with us in all measureable deatails.

MGM is pretty good at grammar though.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:03 PM

opps that were me

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:28 PM

Funny thing...

GfinS talks about being a Kucinich supporter yet continues bashing "liberals"...

What am I missing here???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:40 PM

Goofballupagus:   "Don, your exaggerations, are absolute silliness...just another example of you re-stating falsely what somebody says, and then arguing that point, as if it was even brought up by anyone else but you. How many times, by various posters, do you have to called on that tactic of dementia??"

Taking the argument presented by someone and carrying it to it's logical conclusion often displays the fallacy therein. In formal logic, this is called reduction ad absurdum, and exposes the fallacy in all its glory.

And frequently affords us the interesting spectacle of being able to watch you run around in circles with your ass on fire.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 07:44 PM

Yeah, Don...

Or in the words of my daddy, "The biggest fool in the room isn't known until he opens his mouth"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Jack Sprocket
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 08:00 PM

reduction ad absurdum

Still better is the reductio ad excrementum

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Aug 13 - 09:48 PM

whatever you guys say........(rolls eyes)......far be it from you that you'd ever contradict yourselves in the same post, huh?

...and to Dave the Gnome, Those quotes I posted from Bobert, were from two posts, (scroll down), on the same subject!

Larry, Maybe the guy had to get off, rather than sleep there...or take a pee.....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:55 AM

Ake - You still haven't answered my question on whether you think all African Americans should be tested as well. You keep going on about statistics but ignore the fact that the highest percentage of AIDS in the US is amongst that demographic group. Why is that?

GfS. With great respect and in the spirit of the thread, you are just an idiot.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:57 AM

Dave, you seem to be confusing real numbers with percentages and confusing demographics.

MSM have by far the highest rates of new hiv infections in the US.
Within that demographic (MSM), black African men are most affected.

In US society at large, taking all demographics into account new hiv infection rates are relatively small, but within MSM (of all colours and ethnicity), infection rates are extremely high, so high, that I believe that testing and contact tracing will soon become inevitable.

Of course, were these rates apparent in any other demographic, I would want to see testing and contact tracing begin immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 04:03 AM

Ian....you are going to send a copy of this thread to "Stonewall"?

Now I know you have lost the plot.

Better ask Max first, or you may get your arse booted   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 04:31 AM

I'm not confusing anything Ake. It's quite simple. You say that gay men should undergo compulsory testing because the incidents of HIV infection is higher in that group than others. I have pointed out that the incidents of the same infection is also higher in African Americans than in other groups. You are skirting round that issue which implies that you do not believe in compulsory testing for all groups that have a higher rate of infection than others. Just gay men.

In your favour, it does seem that you do not wish African Americans to undergo compulsory testing. But far outweighing that plus is the disregard you have for gay men. Suggesting that they should be forced to undergo medical procedures and referring to them as 'homos' are only two examples of the contempt in which you hold them.

I am not gay, BTW, although I do have friends who are. I have the same issue with anyone who suggests that minority groups should be treated differently or have different laws applied to them.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 05:17 AM

Done it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket waiting
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 06:31 AM

This is where you get the guidance to clamp down on hate and do more than just shout at criminals.

Bye Bye! Don't bend over in the shower!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM

Compulsion doesn't really work too well. Anybody with a life style that exposes them to the risk of infection from HIV is crazy if they don't do everything than can to reduce the risk, and inexcusably irresponsible if they don't ensure they aren't liable to pass it, including periodical testing.   Of course some people are pretty crazy and irresponsible, but that can't be helped.

Not that different from driving really - we have laws requiring driving tests, and insurance, and barring people with some medical conditions or a history of bad driving, and it still happens.
...................

The assumption people seem to have that sexual orientation is fixed and exclusive, and doesn't involve any possible element of personal choice doesn't seem to fit with the results of surveys. It appears that in the States at least there are rather more people who would describe themselves as bisexual as exclusively gay or lesbian, and that most people who have had some kind of sexual activity with members of their own gender wouldn't see themselves as either.

The implication of that isn't that people should be harassed into being straight, but also that it's wrong to go the other way and tell them that they necessarily haven't that option if they choose, just because they've tried it the other way..

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 10:12 AM

Dave the Gnome: "GfS. With great respect and in the spirit of the thread, you are just an idiot."

Then maybe Bobert can explain his 'less than idiotic' rants about the Zimmerman trial, yet fail to comment on this tidbit of racism.
Maybe because 'racism' didn't really matter to him, OR he was just championing the exploitation of racism, but only when it's against blacks......which is racism itself!

Well, Dave, I DO have a little 'rep' on here for pointing out political hypocrisy....

...whats the matter?..cat got your tongue??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 10:20 AM

There were no idiotic rants from me on Zimmerman, GfinS...

We just have different values...

You think it's okay for a white guy to murder and unarmed black teenager for having the audacity to wear a hoodie and...

...I don't...

That's the entire story here...

Well, almost... You also have been an Obama hater going way back...

To any casual observer you come off as a racist...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 10:31 AM

...whats the matter?..cat got your tongue??

No. I think you will find that this phrase is to be used when someone does not respond. I have responded and the only difference this time is that it may have taken a few minutes. Some people do have real lives as well.

Why I believe you to be an idiot, GfS, is that you do not seem to live in the real world. In times gone you would have wandered around the village grinning inanely and frightening the horses. I do realise that this may not be your fault; it could be a result of substance abuse or medication; it could be an illness. In which case I should probably not mock the afflicted, but when those afflicted start to inflict their idiocy on someone else it is time to put a stop to it.

Now, once more in the spirit of thread, fuck off and take your delusions with you.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 10:42 AM

Bobert, with all due respects, they three teens shooting the Australian WAS racism, even with one of them posting racists tweets.....and if you were REALLY so much against 'racism' how come there was not even a peep from you? What happened to, "We do it out of love for our fellow man..."

Take a hard look at it, the 'politics' of this whole thing has made contradicting idiots, of what was once good decent people!..and have exploited the emotions of BOTH sides, to achieve their goals. What can't you see this???? OR do you just ignore it?
Do I need to pull up all your posts of 'poor little black guy on his way home with Skittles innocently shot by racist Zimmerman' and ask how does that differ from an Australian, jogging, being shot in the back, by guys posting racists tweets?????
..or do you have selective racism compassion??
Racism is racism..murder is murder....and hypocrisy is hypocrisy!
Take a stand...and FUCK the politics!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 11:12 AM

See, GfinS... You don't even get the story right... The racial makeup of the three people arrested in the shooting are as follows: 1 white, 1 half white/half black and the third black...

I'm sticking with my last post...

You are coming off as a racist...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 11:13 AM

Apples and oranges.

Three thugs of whatever color targeting a random person of whatever color are THUGS; racism is secondary.

A vigilante of whatever color targeting a stranger because "they always get away" clearly implying people of a certain color is racism.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 12:13 PM

The link between the racism in Goofus and his stance and the homophobia in Akenhateon and his stance is that of profiling before judging.

That makes the difference between acceptable and disgraceful.

Still. You can't educate pork.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM

Bobert:

"James Edwards, 15, Chancey Luna, 16, and Michael Jones, 17, have all been charged as adults in Lane's death. Edwards and Luna, both black Americans, have been charged with first degree murder, and will be tried as adults per Oklahoma law. Jones, who is white, was charged with using a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and with accessory to first-degree murder after the fact. He will also be tried in adult court, but is still considered a youthful offender. If convicted, Edwards and Luna face life in prison without parole. Jones, who wept in court as he tried to talk about the crime before being cut off by the judge, faces anywhere from two years to life in prison. Edwards and Luna are being held without bond. Jones's bond is set at $1 million."

"Tweets on Edwards' Twitter account suggest he is racist. On April 29, he tweeted "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM." On July 15, shortly after George Zimmerman was acquitted, Edwards tweeted "Ayeee I knocced out 5 woods since Zimmerman court!:) lol shit ima keep sleepin shit! #ayeeee." "Woods" is a term used to denigrate white people. Yet Chief Ford, who has yet to see Edwards' social media, told the Daily Caller a hate crime charge is not likely. "I'm not discounting the stuff that's on there, but they do that for shock and effect," he contended.

The real shock and effect evidenced by this case so far is the deafening silence of the racial grievance industry along with their media and celebrity enablers who apparently see no way to exploit this tragedy. Jesse Jackson is the lone exception, if one considers a single tweet much of an effort. "Praying for the family of Chris Lane," Jackson said Wednesday on Twitter. "This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail." Not a word, however from people like Al Sharpton, Attorney General Eric Holder, or President Obama, all of whom were willing to weigh in on the Trayvon Martin case on numerous occasions."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 01:38 PM

I work between 8 and 6, That's why I haven't responded Dave.

I'm finding it hard to follow what you are getting at, although rates in Afro Americans are slightly higher than whites, the rates are miniscule in both demographics.

I believe that any demographic in which infection rates are reaching epidemic proportions should be tested and contact traced. At the moment the only demographic which is so affected is MSM,
MSM means all men who have sex with men whether they be bi-sexual, homosexual,Afro-American, white yellow or green.

I sometimes use "homo" in place of homosexual and "hetero" instead of heterosexual, to save time in the morning....not as a derogatory term.


Ian.... how you waste your time is of no concern to me, you do as you please, I suppose I must wait for the midnight knock on the door :0)
You really do have a funny view of liberalism......

All these figures are in the public domain.....should I write to CDC and HPA warning them that the thought police are coming :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:28 PM

Bobert: "You are coming off as a racist..."

You better get the whole story....

...and I stand by MY last post..: "..or do you have selective racism compassion??
Racism is racism..murder is murder....and hypocrisy is hypocrisy!
Take a stand...and FUCK the politics!"

What's the matter, you can't live up to your double-standards?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

Bobert: "The racial makeup of the three people arrested in the shooting are as follows: 1 white, 1 half white/half black and the third black..."

..and Zimmerman was 1/2 Hispanic and 1/2 White....are you saying that race had something to do with it?????????????????????
Which ones???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:31 PM

Ebbie, absolutely agree. People of bad character looking for an excuse to do what they choose to do. They are write offs in the quest for a better world. No need to politicize it. It does harm in fact, takes the focus off the evil of such acts, how they have no place in the world of good people.

Larry, wonderful, brilliant summation. Bobert, its serious and gets worse? What of it? Ever hear of "validation therapy"? It works with Alzheimer's. We accept that because we don't expect them to be cured. Likewise, we should stop trying to "cure" madness. It is a false promise and a lost cause. Give it to God.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM

Racism is racism, and it is independent from politics per se, but racists take political positions in order to push their racis ideas. Hence the moves in Southern politics to limit who can vote.

Racism is an attitude, not a political stance as such.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:03 PM

Firth: "but racists take political positions in order to push their racis ideas. Hence the moves in Southern politics to limit who can vote."

This wasn't about 'voting'..it's about murder...or didn't you read the story?
..and politics is politics....if your side of the politics is for all the people's benefit, and well being, why then has the Zimmerman backers, drawn a line??...and NOT about voting, but racism, and the murder of an Australian, SHOT IN THE BACK?..and the racists texts being sent??
Far more than the grey area in the Zimmerman case!!
This is out front...but the same promoters of hate in one case, just can't seem to make the correlation between the two....or do you HAVE to be partisan, and therefore hypocritical or stupid??...or can you find it within yourselves to call it like it is................WITHOUT THE SPIN????!!!!???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:30 PM

Goofball, wake up!

The ATTITUDE is the same..

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:52 PM

So this recent murder is justified because of it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 03:55 PM

No. I didn't say that.

You're making things up, as usual.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 04:40 PM

GUEST 2:31PM

Hey, if a gay person wants to try to "shake it" there is no evidence that he or she can... But I'd be the last one to stand in their way... Live and let live...

It's you bag
Do what you want to do
I ain't gonna tell ya'
Who to sock it to...

BB,

Sorry, but I am still ignoring your posts so if you are spending the time writing them for me to read save your time for some thing else...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 04:42 PM

I work between 8 and 6, That's why I haven't responded Dave.


I was on about GfS, Ake, but I guess you are just so into slagging off gay men that you did not notice that.

As I sad to GfS earlier.

Fuck off.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 05:23 PM

Is that "it" Dave
You pose a question, when I have the civility to answer you, you tell me to "fuck off"

What happened to the respectful boundaries?
Don't ask questions if you don't want to here the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM

I didn't make up anything..I just asked a question for you to clarify yourself. By you asserting that, You are the one still making things up. Get it right!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 06:46 PM

Don't be an idiot, Goofball!

(Sorry! I shouldn't be asking the impossible of people.)

Racism never justifies murder. In this case. Or in the Martin/Zimmerman case. Never!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Aug 13 - 07:36 PM

So the right wing noise machine has cranked up this GfinS story as it is making its way around the right wing talkers...

Guess this explains why GfinS was the first to put it out here...

Oh, isn't it funny/strange that GfinS says on one hand the he supports Dennis Kucinich but it is apparent that his only source of news is FOX???

Bad enough to sound like a racist but now we have the goods on where GfinS gets his news...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 12:23 AM

I said I like Kucinich because he seemed to have integrity....that's probably why Obama got the nomination...but Kucinich did cave into pressure on Obamacare..which he says he since regretted.

By the way, guys, here's some more of those 'voting rights' guys that you seem to excuse....and Bobert seems to think are entitled, because of past discriminations.. and Don regards as the 'foot soldiers' for 'activism'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 01:39 AM

You must really be desperate, Goofball.

What does the story in your link have to do with voting rights?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 02:27 AM

Best joke so far on this thread.

Akenhateon wondering what happened to respectful boundaries.

It also says that The Health Protection Agency states the same as he does. Just in case anyone wondered if lying bigotry has a point. ...

Hate isn't a political stance. Tackling hate isn't either. It will be interesting to see if those charged with monitoring on line hate get around to seeing this post. I am aware that their workload is unfortunately high, but promotion of profiling groups of society in a derogatory fashion fits right up their street, if you'll pardon the freudism...

Oh by the way. Akenhateon. You called me a liberal. I didn't. Although I have no idea what upholding laws of decency and respect has to do with it. Do only "liberals" uphold the law then? When I worked as a regulator, I worked alongside The Health Protection Agency and can't recall helping them promote bigotry. Quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, how could I be Akenhateon's idea of a liberal then? After all, I held a warrant, investigated and prosecuted working under PACE. Not sure if that describes his view of liberal.

Tell you what. I'll combine my response and Dave's response, if he doesn't mind. After all he put it quite succinctly.

Fuck off you sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 02:34 AM

Firth,(thinking he has a point): "You must really be desperate, Goofball."

(Actually not at all 'desperate'... like for what??)

Firth(continuing): "What does the story in your link have to do with voting rights?"

Firth: "Racism is racism, and it is independent from politics per se, but racists take political positions in order to push their racis ideas. Hence the moves in Southern politics to limit who can vote.

Racism is an attitude, not a political stance as such."

and that was YOUR response to my post: "Take a hard look at it, the 'politics' of this whole thing has made contradicting idiots, of what was once good decent people!..and have exploited the emotions of BOTH sides, to achieve their goals. What can't you see this???? OR do you just ignore it?
Do I need to pull up all your posts of 'poor little black guy on his way home with Skittles innocently shot by racist Zimmerman' and ask how does that differ from an Australian, jogging, being shot in the back, by guys posting racists tweets?????
..or do you have selective racism compassion??
Racism is racism..murder is murder....and hypocrisy is hypocrisy!
Take a stand...and FUCK the politics!"


Now the interesting thing is you guys went ape-shit over Zimmerman for what you perceived as a racist killing......and not a peep about these, until I threw it up in your faces. What's the matter?..they weren't racist 'enough'??...or were you just exploiting the Zimmerman/Martin crap because it could be used to promote more divisions, and therefore advantageous to your political 'side'???

As for me, I thought Zimmerman/Martin was a chain of bad decisions and misreading the moments...but this one is probably left over racism, from immature idiots with little of no good family upbringing, and doubtful if there was a loving father in the home. Whadya' think?

....or do you care? (It's not politically exploitable enough??)

GfS

P.S. Oh, and Bobert....my position is NOT right wing, at all..don't you remember?...You described yourself as a 'radical' left winger...and I pointed out to you that ANYTHING toward the 'center' looked far right to you...Remember???

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 03:40 AM

Ian ...If you are an example of what directs or influences the health services, heaven help us.
It seems that your ideology has made you quite deranged.

Apply again as a customer.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 04:21 AM

Looking at the scars my poor greyhound had when he came to us, and his nervousness that still isn't fully away after 3 years, coupled with the email I get from the sanctuary each month outlining cruelty and a list of which trainers have been chastised by their own governing council, I'd be quiet about professional lives if I were you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 08:39 AM

Here's the deal, GfinS...

You were right on top of the most recent right winged blog-o-poo on the murder of the Australian as if this, like the Trayvon Martin murder, was fueled by race... I thought when first reading yoiur post that only you could twist a murder that had nothing to do with race into this justification of Trayon Martin's murder...

The over the next few hours it was apparent that this twisting was coming straight out of the right wing noise machine as I was reading other right wingers who I have to deal with at the WaPo with the exact same nonsense...

Then you claim to not be right wing... Well, You are repeating right wing blog-o-poo... You are what you eat and you are consuming way too much right wing blog-o-poo with no regard to logic, facts or basic reasoning... That's on you... Not me... Not Don... Not on liberals... Not on Trayvon Martin...

Here's an idea, GfinS... Next time you are inclined to reprot the very latest twisted bullshit from the right wing blog-o-poo'ers just take a moment to think, "Hmmmmmm, maybe I should hit the submit button after all until I figure out if this makes any sense"...

The problem you have, GfinS, is once you hit the submit button you gotta live with it... Slow down, man, and...

...think before posting...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 10:22 AM

Is that "it" Dave

Oh, no, I can do far better than that, Ake. How about "Stop fucking whinging you greasy lump of bat shit" or "Take your stupid ideas and stick them up your putrid arse". For a start that is.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 11:35 AM

Blah blah about all your right wing blog poo poo!
All I'm pointing out to you, and the other exploiter of exaggerations, is that both these recent murders, since the Zimmerman/Martin case, is that there is CLEAR evidence, that it had a racial element, from the murderers. Now that's a fact. The Martin case, went to trial and, the Martin family, their attorneys, Zimmerman, the prosecution AND the defense, AND the jury, ALL said that it was NOT racially motivated....but you guys insisted that it was. Now these murders come up, the texts of the tweets, are quite 'out front', and you guys don't seem so interested now, in the racial element, AT ALL!
You should ask yourselves, "Why not?"..I mean if your political views incorporate the best for ALL EQUALLY!..Shouldn't it?
..and if I didn't bring it up, you guys would have never even uttered a peep. "Why is that?"

But one thing that, in the overall rush to judgement, that was completely overlooked, and well, you know me, I think it had WAY more to do with ALL of these happening....and I doubt you'll find it much on ANY of the politically biased 'news' sources.
What ONE thing did the three murderers on the Australian man(Lane), The murderers of Delbert "Shorty" Belton, in Spokane, beaten to death, Zimmerman AND Martin have in common??

Come on now.....give it a whirl!! WHAT common denominator do they ALL have in common???

I'll give you a hint, political hacks will all downplay it!!

Come on, Don, jump in, give it a go, you're the guy with the 'smart' delusion....GUESS!

GfS

P.S. ..and I did 'think' before I pressed the 'Submit Button'....your turn!

Oh, and I haven't hit it yet........>>>>>>V

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 01:53 PM

I think Bobert pretty well nailed it.

Let's face it, Goofball, you're a politically ignorant bigoted Right Wing racist loony with bad grammar and no knowledge of punctuation or spelling and don't seem to be even aware of it.

But what else can you expect from someone who is so confused that he thinks "Moby Dick" is a novel about a guy with a venereal disease. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 02:22 PM

Firth: "I think Bobert pretty well nailed it."

Well he didn't.
Come on, what do they ALL have in common??..more influential than the racial issue.....(Jeez, how many hints do you need?)...being as they were all different races, or 'hybrids'...Come on..you can do it!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 03:30 PM

So—

In Spokane, Washington, two black youths robbed and beat to death an 88 year-old-man.

And you, Goofball, are trying to make something racist out of this!?

Two thugs—juvenile delinquents, who just happen to be black—commit a heinous crime, and that is ipso facto racist?

It is a crime, a brutal murder, and the element of race has nothing to do with it.

And—

The same for the three black teens in Oklahoma who shot the Australian jogger for "sport." They may have been racially motivated, but that certainly doesn't absolve them from committing a brutal and senseless murder.

Now—

In what manner does this excuse George Zimmerman for murdering a black teenager who is guilty of nothing more than going to a nearby convenience store, buying a package of candy and a cup of iced tea, and walking back home, and is murdered by a trigger-happy vigilante for nothing more than being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt?

(And the jury's absolving Zimmerman has nothing to do with the FACTS. The JURY was prejudiced.)

In none of these cases should the murderers have been absolved, no matter WHAT their race.

And neither Bobert nor I have said otherwise.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket laughing
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 03:31 PM

I'll give you this much Goofus. You don't give up.

Snag is, you are not in therapy now and Don isn't your case worker, so you tend to get questioned more than when your rambling is listened to in order to assess you.

I looked at a hybrid myself last week. A Lexus. I ended up ordering a BMW though. It'll be landing in Blighty by the end of September. Hopefully, it has been anglicised. SatNav not much good in these Bavarian cars, they seem to want you to drive to Poland for some reason....

I thank you!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 07:35 PM

Well I don't give up while letting these two excuse makers just make up bullshit spin....and refuse to answer a simple question...and this was downright hilarious...(if not pathetic!):

Firth: "In Spokane, Washington, two black youths robbed and beat to death an 88 year-old-man.
And you, Goofball, are trying to make something racist out of this!?
Two thugs—juvenile delinquents, who just happen to be black—commit a heinous crime, and that is ipso facto racist?
It is a crime, a brutal murder, and the element of race has nothing to do with it.
And—
The same for the three black teens in Oklahoma who shot the Australian jogger for "sport." They may have been racially motivated, but that certainly doesn't absolve them from committing a brutal and senseless murder.
Now—
In what manner does this excuse George Zimmerman for murdering a black teenager who is guilty of nothing more than going to a nearby convenience store...."

What a fucking spin!!!!
..and I'm NOT excusing Zimmerman..you said that, not me!...but you are excusing the other black on white crimes!! and disregarding the racist tweets that were sent, WHILE IT WAS GOING ON!!!

But all that, and you still didn't want to answer, the question of what did they ALL have in common?

Want to take a stab at it, instead of diverting answering, and spinning instead?

Take a shot, and stop looking like idiots who do everything, but answer.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 07:57 PM

Totally racist post...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 08:12 PM

Oh bullshit.... most of the post was quoting Firth...and YOU accuse ME of posting a racist post?????...get serious!...Oh, and what did they all have in common?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 08:23 PM

Nothing, other than the murder...

You were the one to take the right wing "eye-for-an-eye" right wing blog-o-poo crap and run with it before you had the facts...

Sorry, but you were wrong on the Trayvon Martin murder and now you are even wronger...

What next from you???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 10:06 PM

It's been a long time since anything intelligent has been placed on this thread. Lots of 'you said this' 'no I didn't', all punctuated with various insults.

I find it really boring.

Gnu had previously suggested that the disrespectful language being used in posts was one factor that has 'turned off' a lot of people who would be posting valuable and insightful information and opinions.

I'm wondering if that's what's happening to this thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 10:58 PM

Yeah...while all the one sided,guys calling everyone a 'racist' who don't go along with their double standard take on racism, and spinning facts so much that even they can't make sense of what their spouting...we could get deeper..but Nooooo, we have to read this trite, politically based hypocrisy...THAT'S what makes it boring. Decent subjects are always hijacked into their, quasi-pseudo spin babble, and they do it intentionally, to avoid getting to the heart of anything, that they can't make a 'political statement' about.
I've been called a number of things on this thread, by the same people, who can't answer a simple question, or will NOT address something I post...and then resort to their lame tactic of calling names, as they fear getting out of their 'depth'. FACT!

Where's the beef?' was one...
What did they all have in common? was another....

Don posts that three black guys shoot a white guy in the back, for fun, (also because he was white), and it has nothing whatsoever to do with racism...a couple of blacks beat to death an elderly white guy, 88, and it has nothing to do with race..Zimmerman shoots Martin in self defense, as per the ruling, and they go bonkers! How about some equality, here...at least something lest than their worn out hypocritical spinning.
Sure, race has an element in all of them, but something bigger, that is out of the reach of politics, that they won't even broach...unless they can find somehow to exploit it politically...and they fall off the deep end, with tantrums....
We can do better than that..............................I think.
But for them, maybe not.....

Answers anyone, intelligent enough to get past the failing political rhetoric????

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Aug 13 - 11:42 PM

Goofball, you are DELIBERATELY misinterpreting what I wrote.

I don't think other people who are reading this thread are misconstruing what I wrote the way you are. Which, once again, exposes either your stupidity or your hostility--or both.

Dork!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 01:05 AM

Racism plays a large part in all three of these cases, but the overriding issue is murder.

The case in which racism played the major part, both in the commission and in the court's decision exonerating the murderer, was the Martin/Zimmerman case, in which the murderer (a white man who "profiled" a black teenager) was set free.

Clear enough, even for you, Goofball?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:49 AM

"Gnu had previously suggested that the disrespectful language being used in posts was one factor that has 'turned off' a lot of people who would be posting valuable and insightful information and opinions."

I'm wondering if that's what's happening to this thread?


That is what always happens Larry, when the conventional "wisdom", or the majority view on this site is put under pressure.

Your opening post described the "language being used and the way it was being used" rather than the subjects under discussion.
You appeared to welcome controversial opinions, as you did not want the forum to become "flat"

It is clear that some folks here do not want certain subjects discussed and will use any foul language, name calling, and even threaten criminalisation to have discussion stopped?

What say you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 05:10 AM

One example, Dave asks me to clarify my position on Afro-Americans, when I do so, explaining that it is the rates of infection, not the demographic, which determine when I would favour compulsory testing, he tells me to......" "Stop fucking whinging you greasy lump of bat shit take your stupid ideas and stick them up your putrid arse".


Now is that an example of what you were referring to in you opening post?....If so I would appreciate you giving it a mention, or the whole thread becomes a complete waste of time.

I realise that in the application of "therapy" you find it counter productive to be on one side or the other, but that begs the question, why start the thread to begin with?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 05:30 AM

You know very well that the bat shit comment was in response to the 'is that it?' question. Yet you still chose to attribute it to something entirely different. Not only morally bankrupt but also intellectually corrupt. You don't really have a lot going for you, do you ake? At least everyone can now see you for what you really are.

I have changed my mind about the greasy lump of bat shit. At least that can be useful for fertiliser. You have no use whatsoever.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:22 AM

1000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whew. What a rush.

Keep it respectful, folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:15 AM

Let's see, reinforcing respectful boundaries, greasy pile of bat shit. Hmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:25 AM

Personally, I like bats. They have not been around the cabin for a few years due to white nose syndrome. I miss them. I miss the "bat show." They would always assemble at dusk before going their separate ways, then reassemble at dawn before going inside for the day. During the day, you could hear them chattering now and again. I always imagined somebody was crowding somebody else and somebody else was complaining about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 11:41 AM

I love bats... And I love bat shit... I have two bat houses and those little darlings use gravity to leave it real easy to collect... You then take a couple cups of it while it's still somewhat fresh and mix into a gallon of water and put it on your garden veggies, step back and watch 'um grow with a big smile on their little veggie faces...

As for "boundaries"...

Where are the "boundaries" when people use irrational, illogical and racist thinking in excusing the Martin murder because three kids kill a white college student... They all get arrested and will be punished... Zimmerman got off Scott free... Yet, we have to listen to people here say that "the score is even now" so "get over it"... Civil people don't get over injustice... It's not crossing any boundaries to point out racism... Or wacko conspiracy theories... Or just plain illogical thinking as some rebuttal to something that another person said... If you don't have a civil and logical thought then, for cripes sake, don't post...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 12:43 PM

Thanks.... to all bat lovers :0)

Dave you are wrong.

I clarified my position as requested, you then told me to "fuck off", to which ,I responded "is that it Dave"

I take it that as my clarification made it plain that I favoured compulsory testing in any demographic which exhibited epidemic rates of infection, it did not meet with your approval?

Check above for the posts in question...thank you....Batman.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 02:11 PM

Of the three murder incidents involving race:

The black youths robbing and beating the 88 year-old man in Spokane, Washington—the motive here was robbery. Racism was secondary, and the perpetrators are going to pay for their crime. Justice is being done.

In Oklahoma, the black youths' shooting of the Australian jogger was racially motivated, judging from their internet activity, and apparently they shot him "for the fun of it!"??? And there, too, the perpetrators will pay for their crime.

In Florida, a white wannabe policeman (rejected twice by the police department) arms himself with a 9 mm. automatic, turns vigilante, and patrols the neighborhood, looking for trouble. He phones the police and reports a black youth in a hoodie who "looks like he's up to no good," (the black teenager is walking home from making a couple of purchases at a nearby convenience store). Then after being told by police to stay in his car and just watch until they get there, the vigilante gets out of his car, approaches the youth, and challenges him ("What are you doing here?"). There is a scuffle, and the vigilante shoots the teenager—who is "armed" with a package of candy and a paper cup containing iced tea.

And the white vigilante is exonerated, his gun is returned to him, and he is set free—possibly to do it again.

Yes, racism is the motivation for two of these murders:   the murder of the Australian jogger—and the murder of Trayvon Martin. But the prime motivation for the murder of the 88 year-old-man seems to be robbery rather than racism.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 02:19 PM

By the way:

So I'm visiting my sister Pat and her husband John who have a cabin (some "cabin!") on the shores of Flathead Lake in Montana, and we're sitting out in the yard on a warm, summer evening. And being eaten alive by mosquitoes!

Then, suddenly, the bats arrive. They flittered and darted all around the area, and although it didn't stop the little varmints entirely, the bats greatly diminished the population of mosquitoes, and quite quickly.

Symbiotic relationship. They made our enjoyment of the warm summer evening much more pleasant by reducing the cloud of skeeters, and they presumably got a good meal out of it.

I like bats.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket not giving an inch
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 02:34 PM

Respectful boundaries are nothing to do with yah boo retorts. 99.9% of people in Western democracies if asked, agree that equality is equality. So when scum start waffling on about forcing health screening on the basis of profiling choice of partner, it is they, not the decent normal people on these threads who break the unnecessary respectful boundaries.

It is not respectful to be homophobic,to be racist or any other twisted demented diseased condition. Those of us who call them disgusting bastards are not being disrespectful because respect has to be earned. I have, as I said before, reported this thread to the appropriate UK authorities and whilst I don't expect results, I hope it just might strike small blow for freedom to be a member of society. Gay people do not deserve stigma, do not require to report to authorities and do not by being gay pose a risk to anybody else. The health issues that exist are being tended to, but are exacerbated by promotion of hate such as the person hiding behind his measly minded Akenaton moniker.

There is a small chance that the police with the jurisdiction where The Mudcat Cafe Music Foundation Inc is incorporated may require it to pass on his details to the police force in Scotland. Big brother is subjective, many gay Mudcatters have pm'd me urging me to help get hatred and fascism off this site. As the Mudelves appear incapable, the task has to be passed to the competent authorities.

You cannot promote hate. Look at news stories of how it is being systematically prevented from upsetting or influencing vulnerable people. I genuinely feel good about cleaning up Mudcat, (the object of this thread if anyone remembers..)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM

Well, it is just as well I changed my mind about the bat bit then isn't it. Or do you chose to ignore that too? Far from my being wrong about the turn of events you have just proven that your understanding of the flow of this thread is about as good as your grip on reality. But carry on digging if you like. If get any further down that hole you will never get out again :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 02:56 PM

Don't you just 'love' Don's lopsided analogy???

Hey, look at your description of Zimmerman 'arming himself with a 9mm, and then how you portray the three kids who shot Lane, "for the fun of it!"???...and just happened to have their gun, what?..by coincidence???

..and another slippery slight of hand...What I was asking, was what did all those guys have in common?...not the outcome of what they all did.. What was a contributing factor?...and don't play stupid, and pretend you don't know what I mean, and then in place of an answer, go off on some semi-literate diatribe on how about 'racism', played more in one and wasn't even in the minds of the others. ALL the victims were picked for one reason or another....What I'm pointing to, is that murder didn't seem to be much of a moral(there's that word again) question, or boundary to breech. Zimmerman's was the only one that had a self defense element to it. If the old guy was armed he might have used his as well.....but there is still one common denominator that they all had....that contributed to all of them being in a place, that senseless murder didn't seem to be much of a problem to commit.
Folks, this isn't a 'political' question. Nobody gave a shit about 'voting rights'....nobody was 'righting a wrong'..nobody gave a shit about 'social justice', or who might have belonged to the KKK, or Tea Party....in fact, I doubt if any of them gave a damn about politics. THAT'S YOUR RAP.
But they did all have something in common, and they were all dealing with 'their world' as a result of it....not how WE see thing..but how and why they see things.....just like how kids saw long hair, in the 60's, and their parents didn't particularly dig it at all....but the 'long haired freaks' had a complete different outlook, that seemingly did not reflect their parent's views....so is this crowd. They are in a different world of priorities, than the ones you grew up with, and/or rebelled at...
Give it a shot...THINK!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 03:39 PM

It is not necessarily a political question. And a great deal of thinking has already been done on this matter.

Goofball, I would tell YOU to think, but it has become obvious over may threads and reading your posts, that you simply appear to lack the capacity. You don't even recognize thinking when it has already been done, clearly and logically.

You just bitch, bitch, bitch.

Hardly worth the effort of trying to decipher whatever it is you're trying to say.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 03:47 PM

I take it then, your little puerile rant is just another way of saying, "I have no idea"? ...You can't think that far...or deep?....or if it isn't in your issued, 'talking points', that it's out of your league?
....when after all, it SHOULD be as close to you as the nose on your face.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:01 PM

The ferocity that GfinS uses in defending Zimmerman at every turn is telling... Rational people don't think like that... Lawyers representing a client should but for someone to be as extreme in their de3fense of a murderer ain't rational, civilized or the slight bit caring for the victim and his family...

Very telling, indeed...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:18 PM

Knock it off Bobert..I'm NOT defending Zimmerman! Don't you have any other point of reference than your usual old, tired, worn out rap, that everything gets down to 'racism'??
Jeez!..What a limited mind!..No wonder why Firth has conscripted you!!

GfS

P.S. Still no one broaching the answer....Wonder thinkers!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:20 PM

No, Goofball, I know what's going on, and I stated it quite clearly and succinctly. Which YOU apparently can't understand.

Trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain something to my neighbor's Yorkshire terrier. He just keeps right on yapping and yapping, without a clue as to what he's yapping on about. Despite the fact that he's not much bigger than a hairy rat, he seems to think he's the Hound of the Baskervilles.

Go check your food dish, someone may have replenished your supply of Kibbles and Bits.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:30 PM

Trying to explain something to me requires common sense...not political talking points, with some unknown agenda, except 'Hope it works out for a change!..but unless it requires personal commitment and sacrifice, be a political activist!..then we can all wallow around in mud of 'arms distance'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:52 PM

Dave could you please explain the connection of bat shit, to "is that it" the meaning is rather unclear?

Ian our community is all agog....when can we expect the arrival of the flying squad?...and how will you manage to persuade them that any of my posts contain "hatred of homosexuals"?

I think the arrival of a padded wagon to cart you of to the psychiatric ward is much more likely :0)
You really want to clean up Dodge City pardner? Get on yer hoss an' mosey on outa town.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:53 PM

Not "political talking points," dipstick. FACTS.

Which anyone with half a brain can see plainly.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM

Well then, I guess you should have a head start, huh?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 05:12 PM

QUOTE: .." "Stop fucking whinging you greasy lump of bat shit take your stupid ideas and stick them up your putrid arse".
Now is that an example of what you were referring to in you opening post?....If so I would appreciate you giving it a mention, or the whole thread becomes a complete waste of time.
I realise that in the application of "therapy" you find it counter productive to be on one side or the other, but that begs the question, why start the thread to begin with? "

Whew!   When I started this thread I had no idea it was going to take off like that. In fact, for the longest time nobody responded. Then Dave pointed out how mentioning two specific instances (and ignoring others) was singling people out....and he made a good point.

As I go through this thread I'm realizing that there are many types of disrespect.....some of it which is on a continuum.

I guess the most 'normal' is the refusal to really listen to what another person is saying and to explore it. It's having no curiosity whatsoever because not only do we *know* the right answer, but we *know* what his motivating those other 'idiots' to say those things they're saying.......and we closer ourselves off.

And this provokes more blatant disrespectful comments, which are all over this thread.

At the same time........everyone who has posted disrespectful comments has also debated in a way that is much more respectful.   If we took out all the examples of disrespect....just got rid of them.....we'd actually have some pretty interesting discussions.

And some of you are consistently respectful even as you address very controversial issues. I think that we would get good examples of 'respect' by reading the posts by M the GM, SJL, McGrath of Harlow, Janie, Bill D, Rapparee, Jow Offer, Spleen Cringe, Ebbie, Clarie M, and Susie Sock puppet.

And (I know this is controversial) I think Akenaton is trying....but there is a lot of that first kind of disrespect.....which comes from a lack of curiosity and too much focus on self-defense.

And......I'm not in a role of 'therapist' here. Sorry if sometimes I come across that way. My intent is to explore what is meant by respect and disrespect.......and I haven't really come up with an answer.

I respect the comment made earlier by Spleen Cringe, when he wrote "I do think that odious shite wrapped in pretty ribbons is still odious shite".   And I do think it's important to point out it's odour for those who may be unaware of it. (And if some like the smell of shit....well so be it).   

As for myself.....I'm actually fascinated by the discussion about racism. I do have some opinions about it....ones that I've gone back and forth in exploring.    And interspersed within the right wing influence that some of you have pointed out, I think GFS has made some points that are worth considering.   I think that 'racism' truly is a very complex issue......as in some respects the fear of 'differences' is an issue for most of us.

As soon as I think that people are truly open to exploring it, then I'll put some of my own comments.

I welcome my comments being (1) debated....and even hearing strong responses.   (2) But I also want them to be respected.

And I realize that for some of us, those two concepts are mutually exclusive.   Which is too bad.

And yes, Akenaton, the quote about the 'greasy lump of bat shit'. is exactly the type of thing I was referring to at the beginning. But I'm also coming to realize that there are other forms of disrespect as well.

(And I'm glad that it was able to evolve into a brief discussion about bats......a great and humorous example of rolling with resistance).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:03 PM

Correct me if I am wrong Larry, but your opening post indicated that you wanted to see respectful boundaries in the language used and the name calling used by some posters here....you said nothing about the subjects under discussion.
I take it that you infer that discussion of some subjects(like homosexual health) is in some way "disrespectful", as I have been very respectful to some of the most unpleasant people I've ever encountered on these threads


It is for the Mudcat owner and the moderators to decide what is up for debate and what is not.
As far as I know, the moderators have two rules which the owner wishes them to apply.
1.....No discussion of Mudcat internal policy
2 No personal attacks.

The first is still very much in operation...I have seen people thrown out for this, but the second seems to be almost impossible to implement, due to the number of abusive posts being made.

As I have said already these people make themselves obvious by their conduct but very few of the ordinary membership seem to want to be involved in the cleaning up operation, either because they feel intimidated, or because they quite like to see someone who holds alternative views being verbally abused.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:24 PM

Larry, I know I am coming down pretty hard on a couple of people here, but let me explain where I'm coming from:

A few years ago, a young openly gay man in Wyoming was picked up by a couple of guys in a bar, who took him out to a country road, tied him to a fence, then beat him and pistol-whipped him into unconsciousness. They left him tied to the fence, where he was discovered some 18 hours later by a passer-by who, at first, thought he was a scarecrow.

The good Samaritan took him to a nearby hospital, where it was determined that the bones in Matthew Shepard's face had been broken and that as a result of the beating, he had suffered severe brain damage. He died five days later.

There are people on these threads who claim that sexual orientation is a matter of choice, and people simply choose a "perverted life style," when scientific findings indicate that there are strong genetic components in matters of sexual orientation, and that being "gay" is not a matter of choice.

Hawking this kind of belief feeds the hatred and bigotry of people such as those who beat Matthew Shepard to death.

Claiming (as Akenaton does) that gay men are responsible for spreading the "plague of AIDS" around the world with his often spurious statistics also feeds this kind of bigotry and hatred. I've checked up on him, and he interprets statistics rather "creatively."   And GfS's insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of simple choice and that he, as a family counselor (!!) can "cure" "gayness" is rank quackery. I have also researched the nature of these so-called "cures" and have learned that they have not only been unsuccessful, they have often resulted in things high rates of depression in the subjects, and occasional suicide.

Misinformation of this kind feeds and encourages the hatred and bigotry of people like Matthew Shepard's murderers.

And condoning the actions of people like George Zimmerman, the self-appointed vigilante, who disobeyed police and accosted a black teenager who was merely walking home from running an errand at a nearby store, profiling him on the basis of his race and his hooded sweatshirt, and then murdering him—and then cheering his acquittal in an obviously spurious trial—in a community that has a long history of extreme racial prejudice once again condones bigotry and hatred.

Frankly, reading the posts of people who foster bigotry and hatred in this manner leaves me morally outraged, and it's pretty hard to show any respect for those given to this.

In fact, to show respect when what I really feel is disgust and contempt would be hypocritical.

And to say nothing at all would amount to tacit agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:27 PM

For Dave and Ian (The odd couple)

Plato on anger.

Plato also reveals a complex interconnection between the spirited part, the emotional response of anger, and conceptions (right or wrong) of justice and injustice. Anger arises from a perception not only that some harm has been done, some inconvenience has been imposed, some wish, desire, or intention has been frustrated -- but all the more from a sense that some wrong has been committed, that someone or something is unjust. This depends then very much upon what a person thinks or feels to be unjust -- and likewise by contrast what they feel to be just. If a person is mistaken about these matters, or even has a rather confused, emotionally-driven conception of justice and injustice, they are much more likely to become angry in the first place -- and will also get angry over things they ought not to get angry about. In general:

. . . "when he thinks that he is the sufferer of the wrong, then he boils and chafes, and is on the side of what he believes to be justice; and because he suffers hunger or cold or other pain he is only the more determined to persevere and conquer. His noble spirit will not be quelled until he either slays or is slain; or until he hears the voice of the shepherd, that is, reason, bidding his dog bark no more."

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:34 PM

Yes, Akenaton, I would like to see respectful language used. But I'm not a mudcat moderator and am not prepared to be a 'disrespectful language' police person.   I queried as to whether getting rid of name calling was something mudcatters wanted to work on......and didn't get anything even approaching a consensus. Which is fine!

So my way of reinforcing the respectful boundaries would be to first of all look at my own posts....and my own reactions, and decide how I can ensure they are respectul.

Secondly, I want to reinforce individuals and statements that I feel are respectful. I've done that a few times in this thread.

I don't think that discussion of 'homosexual health' is necessarily disrespectful. But I can respect the feedback that some people are giving about the implications of what you are saying. And I stated what I believed would be better ways of promoting such health.... which you (respectfully) disagreed with.

I think, though, it's hard to be respectful when your goal is to argue a position and show that you are 'right'. And I think that's a common problem. Amidst the over-reaction by some have been some excellent points about why your thesis would not be a desirable thing within society.   And I think that truly listening to those points of view, asking questions (to understand them better rather than to convince them that they are wrong) would probably do a lot to enhance respect.

And yes......I would say the same thing to those on the other side of the debate, some of whom are reacting to the frustration of not being 'heard', and others who probably just like to spew out insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:44 PM

Don the figures I quote are directly from reputable sources, with no "creative interpretation"

Please show me where you think this has occurred.
Attempting to paint Sanity as a racist and me as homophobic is simply an emotional response (see post above)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 06:49 PM

I hear you, Don. Well spoken! Sometimes it's really hard to 'step away' from things that are such emotional triggers. I get a similar reaction. And I've come close to punching people who've made racist and bigoted comments.

What I've found, though, is how many of those same people surprise me by being fully present and ready to do anything for somebody in distress.   The human mind is so complex!

My belief is that attitudes about homosexuality are a microcosm for other destructive attitudes.   There is nothing more harmless than a person's sexual orientation.   So long as you have consenting adults who are capable of giving consent, then anything critical of their behaviour is, to my way of thinking, bizarre.

But I certainly have my own prejudices.

I have to admit that it's really only in the past 10 years or so that I've been able to truly see people who vote "Conservative" (in Canada) as being fully human. And I've even thought the same about wealthy people.   And sometimes it's still a struggle---because I see what our Prime Minister is doing to the country, and I so much abhor the attitudes.

Knowing where those attitudes come from help me to make a closer connection.......and probably help me to get through to some of them.

And it goes two ways......occasionally I find that some belief I held sacrosanct is a lot more complex than I originally thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

Ake, there's a difference between saying that "47% of gay men have HIV/AIDs" and "Of those who have contracted HIV/AIDs, 47% are gay."

That's sort of like saying "100% of men have prostate cancer" when it should be, "Of those who have prostate cancer, 100% are men."

And GfS is not just a racist, he is also a homophobe. Just read what he posts.

Larry, I am open to new ideas and new viewpoints and I do consider them seriously. One learns a great deal that way. But when I keep hearing the same things that I have long ago examined and cast aside as spurious being repeated and repeated like a mantra by some people here as the Gospel Truth—and when I question them, I'm accuse of "not thinking" (often by one of the most blatant non-thinkers frequenting this website), it's a bit hard not to get pretty exasperated.

Far be it from me to fall back on academics, but in my university career, in addition to my studies in English Literature and Music, I spent a great deal of my time taking courses in Philosophy, including Ethics and Logic. I tend to examine ideas that are new to me, or differing viewpoints, and often re-evaluate ideas that are not new to me, especially in the light of any possible new evidence, just in case.

So my reactions and responses are not just "knee-jerk."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

Ahhhhh, just wondering, Larry...

Who appointed you the Mudburg protocol judge and jury???

Jus' wondering...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:56 PM

Nobody, Bobert. Didn't I just say that in a recent post?

Well, maybe that's not true. It does seem like Akenation has appointed me at least as judge. But I refused the appointment.

Don't tell me you're appointing me too.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:18 PM

I'm curious why there is to be no discussion of mudcat internal policy. (Although I guess if that's true, as soon as anybody answers this, it would be deleted).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:23 PM

Not to worry, Larry...

I just find it interesting that you ride into the Catbox, set up a thread where you get to critique everyone's style of contributing... The real world isn't that cookie-cutter and folks here have histories and styles...

Seems that your 5:12 post was like "final cut" day for a sports team with those who had earned your "respect" for their posting styles...

Kinda reminds me of the "slam books" of the 50s and 60s...

No offense, but when you appoint yourself the picker of "winners and losers" you end up losing...

Food for thought...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 08:43 PM

I guess it would have been better to have just pointed out where, in my opinion, respectful boundaries were and weren't being followed.......which would have been more in line with the thread.


But I didn't want to go through over 1000 posts. Too much work. (That was my boundary).

I was kind of hoping somebody else would do that.   My sense is that it's a pretty obvious distinction (respectful vs. not respectful) in most areas.....and those particular posters in this particular thread never went beyond the 'line'.

And in other areas......I guess the 'line' isn't so clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 09:09 PM

Okay, Larry...

Here's the deal... If you have a beef with X or Y then deal with X or Y... Don't put out a barrel of bait fish and then wait until it's time for you to decide who has made "Larry's All-Star Team"...

Like you said, you didn't want to read a 1000 posts... I've read tens of thousands of them here and have histories with fellow Catfolk...

I would suggest that you stick with philosophies and not groups of Mudville personalities... Especially in a thread where you have set yourself up as the judge, as in judgmental...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 10:22 PM

Don, and when the odd bat gets into the house, always very memorable. Bat Stories. But all you have to do is open doors and windows, turn out the lights and they fly out.

I hope you don't think I'm a "homophobe" because I agree with akenaton's main points. In fact, my grandson's Mon-Fri daytime childcare provider is Jeffrey who is openly gay and a close friend of the other grandmother. No one in my family has a problem with it and we all love Jeffrey. Carter has done extremely well in Jeffrey's care for the past 3 years. Now, other grandma pays for Jeffrey, having noticed that the young parents liked to stay up too late at night and then regularly argue about who's going to tend to Carter in the AM. We responsible adults work together on our objectives.

Listen, Jeffrey has turned out to be a tremendous help with our efforts to teach Carter how to treat other people and use his language wisely. You can communicate with Jeffrey, trust him. That's why he's getting the new baby too. I'm sure he'll be sad to lose Carter to preschool. Who is going to lead the dancing? And Jeffrey took the kids out to wave at President Obama's motorcade! They do activities, make crafts, have a routine. Jeffrey took on this role because that's what he really wanted to do. The asshole even takes vacations, in which case, Bubbe gets double time.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 10:42 PM

Fair enough, Bobert. I shall take your advice. (for now, anyway).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:25 AM

Firth: "And GfS's insistence that sexual orientation is a matter of simple choice and that he, as a family counselor (!!) can "cure" "gayness" is rank quackery."

Once again, Don has asserted something that he says was said, but it wasn't, (which I have pointed out), and then proceeds to demonize that person(in this case moi), based on something that he made up, that the other person said. ...and ALL to fit his political' agenda'(?)

Firth: "And condoning the actions of people like George Zimmerman, the self-appointed vigilante,..(blah blah blah)..I never said that I condoned Zimmerman's behavior, YOU SAID THAT!...I've always maintained that it was a series of bad judgements and misreading the moments, by both of them...which it was..So, knock it off Don!..or go seek professional help!!

Akenaton: "Don the figures I quote are directly from reputable sources, with no "creative interpretation"

Please show me where you think this has occurred.
Attempting to paint Sanity as a racist and me as homophobic is simply an emotional response"...

"creative interpretation"????....Don thinks and says that about you, me and others, because the weak accuse others of their own motives...

Aketaon, when you said, "Attempting to paint Sanity as a racist and me as homophobic is simply an emotional response"...

...You were being more than polite, and respectful.....me, I'll stick to brute honesty..those are downright lies!!..from a habitual liar!

Firth: "And GfS is not just a racist, he is also a homophobe. Just read what he posts."

Another one of Firth's personal propaganda lies!!...

AND this post:
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:33 PM

Is just rationalistic spin! Pure garbage! Barely a truthful word in it!..much like...This exchange:

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:56 PM

Nobody, Bobert. Didn't I just say that in a recent post?

Well, maybe that's not true. It does seem like Akenation has appointed me at least as judge. But I refused the appointment.

Don't tell me you're appointing me too.

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM

Ahhhhh, just wondering, Larry...

Who appointed you the Mudburg protocol judge and jury???"

..and then they keep hammering that point, trying to make it a truth...when it never was!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM

Oh, and one more tidbit from the false rumor mill....

I am not a 'right winger'...or KKK, or Tea Party guy, or even a 'left winger'...That's for YOU GUYS! I'm not even 'into' politics, like you guys are, to point of being nuts!


At best, I'm Just sane.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:42 AM

Actully, gfs, after a bit of dialogue I understood more about what Bobert was getting at.....as in a sense I did imply that, at least in terms of consistently respectful comments, certain mudcatters were in what was looking like an 'all star team'.

And because I'm a 'newbie' to mudcat, compared to most of you, he's probably right that it's a bit premature for me to make those kind of judgments.   

It probably would have been better if I'd stuck to the content, and just wrote some specific statements that conformed to my 'judgment' as being 'respectful', and those that were clearly 'disrespectful', without making judgments of specific individuals.

It might be an interesting task for somebody with lots of time on their hands to do....preferably somebody who feels some semblance of objectivity and has no axe to grind with any particular mudcatters.

Then we put together a continuum of what is truly respectful to what is truly disrespectful, and everything in between.

Just a wild thought....a way to pull this thread together.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:39 AM

If anyone can suppress their gag reflex long enough, read through the material that GfS posted on the Prop 8 thread. There, he claimed to be a family counselor.

There he goes again, trying to run from what he has previously posted.

I'm not making this up. I don't NEED to.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,musket with reading glasses on
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:49 AM

Larry. Your list of people who debate with respect.

One of them agrees with rounding up people on the basis of being gay.

Just saying. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 02:14 AM

Firth: "... that GfS posted on the Prop 8 thread. There, he claimed to be a family counselor."

That part is true...but you mix stuff up, with your 'inserts'(read: Lies). If you remember, even if you don't admit it, I said that that particular bit of counseling, was NOT my expertise...You went ape-shit, and once again, you over re-acted with your nonsensical addendums that you just add in, to create biases...and I'm NOT the first, and probably NOT the last to tell you about it...so, as I said before, Knock it off..can't you have a decent discussion without these mind boggling antics???...and even right now, as of the present, I'm having to deal with it AGAIN!...Do you have a learning disability???..or are you just a sociopath..who can't control making up stuff about people, in order to 'win'(?) an argument, that has no merits, as presented by you?
You need not reply, just think it over.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 02:47 AM

GfS: "....but you mix stuff up, with your 'inserts'(read: Lies). If you remember, even if you don't admit it, I said that that particular bit of counseling, was NOT my expertise..."

I was referring to what Don blathers about me being the guy who 'cures' homosexuals. Don's assertion is patently untrue, and originated from him.
That being said, I did say that there were others who were more into that, but it was NOT my expertise.
i also said it was NOT genetic, but behavioral, and the small fraction that 'were that way from birth', were the result of receptors, the emotional and nervous condition of the mother, affecting their 'set up' during the time of pregnancy. Don goes frothing, because, if it was 'genetic' then it would be on the same level of equality as based on 'race, creed or color'...and in that respect, he is very misinformed on both levels!
Larry, if you were/are a therapist, you may know EXACTLY what I'm saying!
That being said, whatever they do in their bedrooms is THEIR business. It does not really need to be thrown in everyone's face for shock value, until they feel 'accepted'. Neither does polygamy, bestiality, SM, or any fetish. Do it in private...then shut up about it...it's NOBODY'S business...but once you make it everybody's business, don't be surprised and shocked and have your 'widdle feewings hurt, if certain traditional family members answer you back, and tell you that it isn't their 'cup of tea', and tell you why! YOU GUYS brought it up.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 03:00 AM

Goofus? In your post above, you compare gay love with bestiality, polygamy, SM.. Yet you don't appear to compare it to heterosexual one on one loving relationship.

Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 04:00 AM

Dave could you please explain the connection of bat shit, to "is that it" the meaning is rather unclear?

Sigh... I shouldn't need to, ake, but for your sake i will go over it.

I believe it all starts with GfS asking me "What's the matter, cat got your tongue?" To which, for some strange reason YOU reply "I work between 8 and 6, That's why I haven't responded Dave.". So far so good? I have no idea why you chose to answer that question so I say "I was on about GfS, Ake, but I guess you are just so into slagging off gay men that you did not notice that. As I sad to GfS earlier. Fuck off." OK?

The Fuck off comment was to you replying to a question asked by GfS to me. As it is a thread about respect I felt it was an appropriate reply:-) I still have no idea why you felt the need to point out that you work 8-6 or whatever. I has not asked you anything about that. Next...

You say "Is that "it" Dave. You pose a question, when I have the civility to answer you, you tell me to "fuck off" " I had posed no question of that kind to you at all. It was all in your mind. So I respond, to the question "Is that it?", as I quoted in my post, with "Oh, no, I can do far better than that, Ake. How about "Stop fucking whinging you greasy lump of bat shit" or "Take your stupid ideas and stick them up your putrid arse"."

So, you are mixing two entirely different threads within this one. The question I posed to you was about African Americans. You did answer that. I disagree with your take and answer but I am happy to agree to differ on that. The argument as detailed above has nothing to do whatsoever with that yet you chose, purposely I suspect, to mix the two for reasons that I cannot begin to imagine. It is either intellectual dishonesty or a lack of comprehension skills. Either way, you are showing yourself up.

Please continue.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 08:17 AM

DonF,

"is murdered by a trigger-happy vigilante for nothing more than being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt?"


NOT why he was shot.


OK, then beating your head against a sidewalk is acceptable to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 09:11 AM

Suze,

When we moved from our farm in Virginia to this smaller property (6 acres) in North Carolina the first thing we discovered is the little darlings, i.e. bats, were living on all the screens in the gable vents which meant that half of their bat poo and pee was coming into the house... That's not a good thing...

So I studied up on the problem and discovered that is a common problem with the little darlings and the fix is to build big triangles frames and mount hardware cloth (heavy screens) in these frames and mount them over the vents... There were seven in total (5 on the house and two on the garage attic) and that's how I spent my first winter here... Two I had to build scaffolding with ladder jacks to install...

I also purchased two bat houses which are rated to hold about 200 of the little darlings each and from the looks of their poo contributions below I'd say they both boxes seem to be fully occupied...

B:~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 09:40 AM

The lads and I were opening a farmhouse roof one fine summers morning, we had stripped off sarking and slates from the apex, when out flew about three or four hundred of them and set off across the glen in a cloud towards another three storey house belonging to the local Laird.

Unfortunately the maid had opened all the front windows to air the place, so the bats took full advantage and declared "squatters rights"...... The Lady of the house nearly peed herself when she walked into the drawing room and saw the bats clinging to curtains lampshades and anything soft they could get a grip of.

She later got to hear of the "Great Escape" and gave me "bats shit" about it. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 09:59 AM

Thanks for that Suzy, you're a brave lady to support me here.
I hope you understand my views and that I have no "hatred" towards homosexuals.

I feel that there will always be a problem with sex between males, due to natural sex drive within most males. With heteros there is also a social "braking system" in the form of natural offspring and extended family structure, which is not available to homos.
I, nor anyone else here can put forward any other explanation for the rates of sexual infection associated with the behaviour.


Don, I have never ever ever said that 47% of homosexuals have hiv!...Where did you come up with that from?

What I did say is that in all new infections of hiv, 47%(now 60%) are
amongst male homosexuals.......that is completely different, but just as worrying, especially if one happens to be homosexual.

I think you are becoming confused Don, I'm sure you do not intentionally lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket happy now
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:19 PM

I would just like to echo everything my best friend Akenhateon just said.

No, I really would! He says he doesn't hate gay people, or homosexuals as he so quaintly calls them. I love hearing people say they don't hate other people based on their social profiles rather than their individual actions.

He then goes on to say why he hates them. Sorted! I don't have to keep reminding people as the stupid, thick as pig shit moron tells us that "they " have problems having sex so will always be inferior.

Homophobia is fascinating if only in that it is practiced entirely by those not educated or clever enough to realise the hurt and distress they cause others.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:23 PM

From the Canadian Archives.
It's understandable that there is so much confusion about this, as his 'hot media' vs 'cool media' concept wasn't very well developed. Cool media (tv, seminars, cartoons) requires little involvement----so we have to work harder in order to perceive it.


McLuhan
Hot and Cool

When McLuhan discussed visual space, he usually associated it with "hot media." Hot media are high in definition, and thus demand little participation on the part of the user. Generally speaking, they are associated with the eye, rather than the ear. Some hot media (such as print), are like visual space in that they are sequential, linear and logical.

Acoustic space, on the other hand, is usually associated with "cool media," and generally with the ear. Cool media are low in definition, and demand high participation from the user. In contrast to hot media, which favour analytical precision, quantitative analysis and sequential ordering, cool media demand perception of abstract patterning and simultaneous comprehension of all parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:24 PM

beardedbruce: "DonF,
"is murdered by a trigger-happy vigilante for nothing more than being black and wearing a hooded sweatshirt?"

NOT why he was shot.

OK, then beating your head against a sidewalk is acceptable to you?"

Excellent call on his twisting!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:26 PM

Ake, you made that statement along about the Prop 8 thread, and to support your point, you also posted a link to a pie chart published by the CDC. BUT--the pie chart did not say what you said it did.

Perhaps you misread it. But I not only looked at the pie chart but read the text that went with it, which you, apparently, did not.

========

I am astounded at the people who made wild statements on the Prop 8 thread, then later deny that they said it! But there it is, for anyone who has the endurance to pull up the Prop 8 thread and plow through it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:32 PM

The altercation would never have happened it Zimmerman had obeyed the police and not approached Martin, who, for good reason, felt threatened.

We only have Zimmerman's claim that Martin was beating his head on the sidewalk. Martin was no longer alive to make a counter-claim.

In effect, Zimmerman attacked Martin, not the other way around.

Go take an aspirin.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:35 PM

Sorry about that last post. It was supposed to be on the one about television and movies. But what the heck....any topic seems acceptable on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:39 PM

Don...I have never said such a thing....it just does not make sense, that would mean that 1 in 2 male homosexuals have hiv?
(Possibly a typo?) See if you can find it, or are you working from memory?

The highest ratio in some cities is at the moment 1 in 4 or 5.

However if infection rates continue to rise at the present rates, the ratios will rise correspondingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:51 PM

Ian my friend, you didn't echo anything, you twisted everything.....See you in court!!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 12:56 PM

Ake, I've already waded trough the Prop 8 thread several times to verify that people actually said what they later denied--particularly GfS.

I'm not going to do it every damned time someone has a hissy-fit when something they posted comes back to bite them in the behind. If you're so certain you didn't say what I said you said, YOU look it up.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 01:20 PM

Armed white guy stalks and murders unarmed black teenager in Florida and gets away with it...

The End

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket sad now
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 02:54 PM

Read your post above my last one, or get a friend to read it to you.

If you have one.

If they are a friend, perhaps they will point out nicely to you that generalising in a derogatory way about a section of society isn't nice, isn't clever and now, isn't legal.

You won't see me in court, you thick twat. I have better things to do than turn up to stare at dead horses. Homophobia is at long last becoming an embarrassing aspect of the past. Criminalising it is a bit strong, I admit, but if it helps save lives eh?

I suggest you look at some websites that may be new to you? The Health Protection Agency for instance. Ok, they are changing their name, same as every other quango these days, but they have some fascinating data. The bit I commend to you is where they note how gay people tend to cluster, especially in cities so they can go about their business with less stigma from ignorant people who see them as different in some way. A similar trait exists in many other minority groups, hence health statistics are skewed.

We end up with asking why late onset diabetes is prevalent in some Northern towns. Oh, that'll be Indian Sub Continent clusters. HIV? Gay people end to drift to areas of large cities where they are either ignored or accepted. Either being better than disapproving looks from peasants.

Health statistics.. Fascinating when understood, dangerous when pounced upon to justify odious views about people who are different to you.

Akenhateon still hasn't explained to those still wishing to give him the benefit of the doubt why forcing gay people to come forward for testing of HIV is a good idea but forcing women to come forward to explain their sex lives and be tested for clamydia, which is a far more dangerous issue for society is a bad idea and I need to be struck from Mudcat for suggesting women could be as dirty as "homosexuals."

Hang on, I'm about to puke.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 03:22 PM

Firth: "I've already waded trough the Prop 8 thread several times to verify that people actually said what they later denied--particularly GfS."

So did I..Your hostile and dishonest behavior in that thread is atrocious, only outdone by your spinning to call attention to yourself!

Not only did I go through that thread, get a load of your nonsense in the 'Death penalty for Homosexuals' thread. You have an AMAZING capacity, to overlook some of my posts, in which others have agreed with me, and spin what has been said in it, playing to your like minded politicos, and painting things in, that were NEVER said, or even intimated!
..and you're still trying to do it now!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 03:43 PM

If I "overlooked" any of your posts, Goofball, it's because they were bloody incomprehensible, which seems to be your usual writing style.

Your previous posts are clinging to your ass like angry pit-bulls. You should think about that possibility before you post some of your balderdash.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 04:28 PM

Brevity, GfinS, brevity...

Your post are like reading some whacked out wacko who is going thru a free association trip...

If you have a point then just make it without all the clutter...

Don is right... Your writing style makes trying to find your points all but impossible to decipher...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 05:44 PM

Ian old pal, I have been quoting HPA figures for years, get up to speed mate :0)
For all your twisting on the hook, the telling statistics are.

2/3% of the population(MSM), account for 60% of all new cases of HIV and 70% of all new cases of Syphilis. Other STDs have slightly lower rates, but still many times higher that heterosexuals.

It is impossible to distort these figures, they are set down in the HPA and CDC websites, there is no way to make them look better or worse than they are.

Both the HIV and Syphilis figures indicate epidemic rates amongst MSM, this is why I favour compulsory testing and contact tracing.
If these rates of infection were duplicated in hetero men or even IDU's I would favour compulsory testing and contact tracing for them also, but to test the whole population of the UK or the US just to validate a politically correct agenda, would be crass foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 05:54 PM

Bobert: "Don is right... Your writing style makes trying to find your points all but impossible to decipher.."

You ought to see my doctors handwriting....almost as bad as my dentist's!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 06:54 PM

My favorite high school English teacher used to say, "Clear and readable writing indicates clear and well-organized thinking."

I must have been doing something right, because I got A's in her Creative Writing classes, and she sent one of my short stories into the Atlantic Monthly High School Short Story Contest and I came up with an honorable mention.

Also, I have worked as an editor in a couple of jobs, one of which involved trying to make sense out of government documents.

I don't think I misinterpret other peoples' writing anywhere near as much as they try to claim I do. Maybe they need to think a bit before they hunker over the keyboard and start pecking away.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:20 PM

Language is such an imperfect way of communicating, even at the best of times, Don.   I agree that we all have an onus to be as clear as possible with verbal (incl. written) communication.

But I think that we also have an onus to 'check out' with others about what they mean (if we're interested) rather than assuming.

I know that from the feedback I've had from my posts, I've had a few surprises (is that really what he/she thought I was saying?).   And I thought I was clear. But.......again, we all have our own ways of presenting and receiving information.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:32 PM

At least you are trying, Larry...

GfinS's history here is one on long winded treatises/manifesto/rants that say absolutely nothing...

Don is a real journalist... I mean, trained... Has a resume' to go along with his credentials...

Me??? I try to put it out so there is no ambiguity and think I pretty much hit the mark... People may not like what I say but I rarely am accused of not being clear in what I am trying to communicate...

GfinS??? Much different story... Subterfuge, verbiage, circular reasoning??? Yeah...

Here's the interesting thing about GfinS... He loves to say that he doesn't get his info from FOX and right wing blogs but seems to post no other opinions???

Go figure???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:43 PM

Nonsense!
Larry, if you want to see what foments this, and it has been going on for quite a while with Don, (Bobert is a recent addition to his parrot collection), go look at the thread: 'BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'....take a look at the last few, and feel free to browse any or all of it....they don't EXCHANGE ideas...they have one already stuck in their brick lined heads, and have accused several others of even being part of the KKK!!!

Take a look...and as far as Don being a 'journalist'..he read the news that was already prepared for him, once upon a time...

Check out the other thread....see for yourself!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 07:50 PM

LOL...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 08:15 PM

Sorry GFS. I'm really not interested in finding any evidence as to what a horrible person Don, Bobert, your, Akenaton, or anybody else is.

All we can do is take responsibility for our own part in this 'formenting'. And my part is to not give it any more air (or whatever it is that causes something to 'forment' something.

But thanks for the new word.


Forment: –verb (used with object) 1. to instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of: to foment trouble; to foment discontent.
2. to apply warm water or medicated liquid, ointments, etc., to (the surface of the body).

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM

Danged...

I thought "forment" was part of making moonshine, another of my favorite vices...

Guess not...

My bad...

B;~(

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 08:36 PM

True, when working as a radio announcer, in the newscasts, I read what came in on the teletype--as I was instructed to do. But when I worked at another station as a news director, I was responsible for interviewing people, charged with getting the story right, then writing it up, and was held responsible if I blew it. Which I never did.

I also worked as an editor and report writer for a firm under contract to the Department of Energy, in a residential weatherization program.

I also have had--I forget now how many--around thirty articles published in various magazines, including an article in Sing Our! some years ago.

I'm fairly skilled at reading the work of others and figuring out what they are trying to say, and in writing my own material clearly and concisely. Skilled enough so that I was paid to do it.

My bookshelves contain several style manuals, including The Chicago Style Manual, the New York Times Style Manual, and a copy of The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White (an excellent guide for writers; highly recommended). Not to mention another half-dozen books on writing technique (I was a one-time member of the "Writer's Digest Book Club")

Does Goofballupagus even own a dictionary?

Go take a walk, Goofy, and breathe some fresh air.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Aug 13 - 08:51 PM

GfinS's doctor says he should be walking so he doesn't have another heart attack...

Doc also wants GfinS to not smoke...

Yo GfinS??? You walkin'??? You smokin'??? I'd guess no to the walk and yes to the smoke...

I mean, I like GfinS... Sure, he's a whacked out closet Republican but, hey, nobody is perfect... Well, my wife, the P-Vine, is pretty close but she, ahhhhhh...

Never mind that...

Bottom line here??? Don writes well and GfinS just rambles on and on and on and on...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 12:48 AM

Well chasing you guys around trying to get you to stop sniping and just tell the truth..and ACCEPT the truth..I guess one has to go round and round!...while dodging some pretty WILD accusations!

oh, and I'm not a Republican, either...'I'm not with the party..I'm with the band'

....and Larry, the word is foment...not forment....(used a lot in legal briefings and 'Friend of the Court' letters.

...and sometimes I write in the forum quickly..When I did the screenplay, I hand wrote it, and had it typed out...and then, i learned, it's best NOT to proofread it yourself...you go right over stuff, and don't see it....

....maybe that's why Don comes back the way he does...he doesn't read it right.....Nawwww.. NOT!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 01:48 AM

It's those damn 'r's. Whoever invented them anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 01:50 AM

It was probably President Obarma.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 09:16 AM

Didn't answer the questions, GfinS...

Normal...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 12:09 PM

Personally I think it's disingenious to promote your strongly-worded political views whilst simultaneously claiming to be above, beyond or "not interested" in politics. I'm not talking here about party politics, or even necessarily ideology, but expressions of beliefs held about society and the groups and individuals within it. Such expressions are by their very nature political, whether the person making them accepts and owns this or not. So when GfS, for example, talks of "common sense" rather than politics, I'm disinclined to accept this at face value, especially when notions such as "common sense" tend to be ideological constructs in themselves.

Larry... thank you for including me in your list. I must try harder to be obnoxious in future!

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 02:36 PM

Spleen Cringe, I can see why you you may think that...but often, it is 'politics' in general, that by their very nature, tend to herd people into two major parties, both of which, dictate to their members, what they should think, according to their party's agenda...and more often then not, they are built on misinformation, that goes contrary to common sense..but they wrap it in plausible, and seemingly altruistic causes and programs....Here, better than me explaining it try
this and keep in mind that he is speaking from his country, which is currently occupied by a government, that is occupied by a two party system, both of which have displayed massive corruption.
Now, as for me, I am a musician, composer, recording artist...none of which have anything to do with the political system, other than witnessing those two parties, destroying the peace and creativity, of a lot of my fellow musicians, and causing divisions among the people who they claim to 'represent'...when in reality, they TELL people what to believe, and make issues that corral people to their side, for the sake of their side..and not, for the side of the people they pretend to be representing! it's more like they conscript people to represent THEM, and not the other way around!!
I could go on with specifics, but this will do for now.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 02:42 PM

BS, GfinS...

Once again you deny being a TeaPub or supporter of the Republican Party yet you have always been the first one here with the very latest TeaPub talking point...

Tell the truth...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 03:50 PM

Bobert.....with the greatest respect, the hypocrisy of actions being contemplated by the current administration with regard to Syria should be apparent to all of us, not just Tea Party supporters.

This could very easily turn Mr Obama into Mr Bush part2 and endanger world peace.
I agree with Sanity and LH that the Dems and Pubs are two cheeks of the same arse.   We are in a worse situation in the UK...our arse has THREE cheeks.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 04:24 PM

Spleen Cringe, GfS seems to accept it as an article of faith (or an easy way of avoiding having to read and learn) that people always hue to the party line, whichever party it happens to be. It is true that many people do. But definitely not all.

But as is his wont, he assumes that everyone who expresses an opinion about something is conforming to one political party or another. By simply pigeon-holing someone into a "party line," GfS apparently feels this makes it unnecessary to bother examining what the person is saying and dismiss a well thought out opinion merely by calling that person something like "a loony Liberal."

And his glib, but highly inaccurate remark (with which he has blown off people's opinions many times) that "Right Wing and Left Wing are both on the same bird!" demonstrates that he has no idea of where the terms "Right" and "Left" as indicating political positions originally came from, and still mean, basically, what they did originally. Right Wing and Left Wing have nothing at all to do with birds.

He (and another contributor, who usually drops into a discussion merely to kibbitz and go "tsk tsk!" if someone has a strong opinion) is an advocate of the aphorism, "You can't fight City Hall!" Failing to realize that, of course you can fight City Hall—and change things—and that the aphorism was started by City Hall in hopes of discouraging anyone who wants to try it.

When it comes to politics (or much of anything else), GfS is not a deep thinker. He has his wants and prejudices, but he has obviously failed to heed the admonition of Socrates that "the unexamined life is not worth living," or the oft quoted inscription in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi, "Know thyself."

For clarity of thought, one needs to have a well-thought out personal philosophy, which must include an ethical code whereby one judges (among other things) the behavior of the political actions of the various parties and individuals. If one merely accepts "the party line," one is not thinking.

GfS does not seem to have a concept of this, and his knee-jerk reaction to anyone with whom he does not agree or who does not agree with him is to accuse them of thoughtlessly accepting the "party line," when it is he who is not bothering to try to think. Apparently, too much trouble.

And as to the political opinions he has expressed, Bobert is absolutely right. GfS follows the Tea Party / KKK line. Although he denies that he is following any political line.

He just hasn't bothered to think about it.

========

And Ake, I do not want to see the United States get embroiled with Syria, but I have the strange feeling that if the U. S. does nothing in the face of the illegal use of chemical weapons against its citizens, you will be on board faulting the U. S. for that!

This should be the purview of the United Nations. But if the U. N. just sits on its hands and the U. S. does the same, strange how the U. S. is always the bad guy, no matter what it does!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:03 PM

Firth's comments are total rubbish.

and Bobert's not much better.

I am an independent, like it or lump it.

Akenaton: "This could very easily turn Mr Obama into Mr Bush part2 and endanger world peace."

Are you trying to say he wasn't already???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Suzy Sock Puppet
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 05:40 PM

Akenaton, I like your bat story :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM

I am an independent, like it or lump it.

I suppose that's because no-one else will have anything to do with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 07:37 PM

Yo, Ake...

GfinS is waiting for the Syria talking points from the Tea Party...

Me???

I'd rather not see any military action against Syria... I don't see where it helps the US in any manner... I think it is stupid... Now, if it were possible to just cleanly take out the chemical weapons then I might go for that but I doubt if that can be done...

BTW, if we could cleanly take out chemical weapons anywhere, the US included, I'd be all for that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 09:28 PM

I've got a lot of good information in my post above. But Goofball simply dismisses it with one word. "Rubbish!"

Congratulations again, Goofup, you once again dodge the necessity of thinking.

Typical.

By the way, here's a question for you.

Where, historically, do the terms "Right" and "Left" come from? That is, when and where were they first used, and by whom?

And what did they originally refer to?

(There's a question he'll dodge for sure! Requires a bit of reading and thinking. Ain't gonna happen!!)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Aug 13 - 11:28 PM

I agree with Bobert on this one. It's Bush all over again..(but that I've been saying for a long time anyway....

Firth, your 'information' isn't even information, it's only your opinion, not only that, it is an uninformed opinion..like most of what you call 'logic'..with NO back up.

Bobert is getting ahead of you, ya' better watch out!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:06 AM

What, Goofball? More silly invective, but no answer to my questions?

Quelle surprise!!

Congenital ignoramus!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 06:35 AM

""Think back.....school.....maybe kindergarten....mandatory polio shots...come on..think...think....but then you may be dealing with a handicap that you mentioned......'As far as I am aware'""

Wrong I'm afraid GfS, at least in the UK!

Parents were told the advantages and it was assumed that they would all agree, but the children of any who objected were not vaccinated.

In this country it is illegal and constitutes assault to medicate a child without parental consent. Schools can't even administer a child's dose aspirin without parental consent.

This is why measles has become a problem again. Some stupid ar****le claimed that MMR vaccine was linked to autism. His research was utterly debunked, being absolute nonsense, but it scared a generation of parents into saying "NO!"

It takes a court order to override parents wishes.

I don't know what the situation is in the US, but I imagine it is the same. Have there not been court cases over Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses refusing treatment for dying children?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: GUEST,Musket getting his tuppence worth
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 07:40 AM

The MMR issue was appalling and quite rightly Dr Wakefield was struck off.

He is carrying on his flawed research though. As he cannot practice here, I note he now works in Texas. God bless America.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Larry The Radio Guy
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 02:09 PM

Hello fellow mudcatters,

It does look like this thread is moving toward closure.

Just to bring it back to the topic of reinforcing respectful boundaries, I'd like to focus on what I've learned about myself....including what I want and what I do that reinforces respect or contributes to the disrespect......through reading this thread.

1. When somebody posts absolute nonsense where the purpose seems obvious that it is to simply 'incite' people.........I will chose to ignore it.   And, if everybody ignores it, it goes away (I notice that the most recent obama is evil thread seems to have disappeared).

2. I don't really know much at all about the complexity of the interrelationships amongst mudcatters.   My intention is to simply enjoy watching them unfold.

3. I want to avoid any attempts at 'triangulation' where somebody wants to convince me to take their side against another mudcatter (no problem with somebody wanting me to take their side regarding in *issue*).

4. Very few mudcatters want any kind of specific 'policy' about what to do about disrespectful language. Some feel that more important is that 'bigger picture' where a person's opinions could lead to an oppressed (or even not so oppressed) group being harmed.   

5. It's ok to call people names provided it's done 'lovingly'....or it's a play on their mudcat name.   (although, at this point, I personally don't want to do that......maybe when I become a more 'established' mudcatter).

6. Whatever our view is on evolution, it's often quite unpredictable as to how a thread will 'evolve'.   

7. It's a real challenge when giving personal feedback on mudcat (just as it is in real life) to avoid accusing or judging the other person, and instead, to focus on how a particular statement affects *me*.   But it's something I want to practice.

8. Only one person posted a STOP after they witnessed another mudcatter being put down. It didn't seem to have a huge effect...and nobody even commented on it. This suggests that most mudcatters aren't really interested in doing that.


Thanks folks. I've enjoyed being a part of this thread.

-Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:45 PM

Hi Suzy...Its all true.

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 04:59 PM

Well, Larry, that was pretty weak, dude... I mean, I gotta ol' Wheaties box with Arnold Palmer on it that could probably do better than that... No, no... My sister could do better than that... No, no... Yo mama could do better than that...

Just funnin', dude...

No, that was pretty thoughtful and I'm sure that someone will come along and trash it so I figured I'd get it out of the way so you wouldn't have to wait...

"The waiting is the hardest part"...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:06 PM

Larry.....sorry mate, but you're "full of it"....Best Wishes... Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:43 PM

See???

No good deed goes unpunished here...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Aug 13 - 05:53 PM

LOL   :0)