BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

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: 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: Ed T
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 10:13 PM

"Why?"

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: 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: 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: GUEST,Lord of Misrule
Date: 31 Jul 13 - 09:19 PM

Anarchy! I love it!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:04 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 - 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: 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 - 02:50 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: Bobert
Date: 30 Jul 13 - 09:21 PM

People ain't born hating...

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 - 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: 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: 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.