BS: Reinforcing respectful 'boundaries'

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 08:18 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:34 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 - 06:27 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: 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 - 06:03 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:18 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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?