posted on June 17, 2004 09:53:37 PM new
And the reality is that things keep changing as the world keeps spinning. What was signed "yesterday" as law may be changed "tomorrow". It keeps life interesting.
Quit being so paranoid. At least I was being honest. You'd be surprised at who is probably reading this board. I have read nasty comments you've made about others on this board particularly Helen and Kiara and KD. So, don't act so innocent. And to make things clear, I really don't care how you see me as a person. We are total opposites in our thinking and I, for one, am very glad of that. When disaster strikes, I don't grab my own and run, I grab my own and others as well. I don't think what is okay for one group is not okay for another. There is no love lost between me and the neo-cons posting here or walking around in my neighborhood. At any given time, there may be a gay person in my home. There may be a black man, a middle easterner or an unwed teenage mother. All are welcomed into my home. I doubt highly they'd be welcomed into yours. We are different and I'm glad. I can tell you that I'm probably a much happier person than you.
If you don't like what I have to say, I invite you to put me on ignore. That is, if hearing the truth is that painful.
posted on June 18, 2004 07:22:17 AM new
That was a sad attempt, twelve. You're losing your touch.
I'm still interested in Linda's first response to this.
Might some have held back also had they known cheryl had set them up for some unknown purpose.
"Also"? That remark means that she would have held back had she known Dr. Simmons was reading this.
Is it so easy to get caught up in a little group here and act like a bigot or be a bigot around the rest of us that she forgets that there are others reading this board. If there is someone else like Dr. Simmons around she'd prefer to cover it up and act differently?
I'm wondering if Linda talks behind her screen showing disdain like she does for other lifestyles, countries, religions and viewpoints but goes out in public and pretends that she is accepting of all. Is this why she's so upset now? Just my observations when I view her heated reaction.
posted on June 18, 2004 09:32:42 AM new
If nothing else, this is a reminder to us all (and I include myself as I'm not always the best behaved) that the face we put on here is the face that part of the world does see in one way or another, even if we aren't always aware of it.
Many are- a place to start a dialogue on a given topic.
Here's my contribution:
I don't care who, of legal age, you have consensual sex with, nor do I care about HOW you have sex, whether it involves toys, machinery,foodstuffs, or an audience. I don't care to hear either about how often or how long it's been since you had sex nor about how skillful/inept you and/or your partner or partners were.
I'm not a prude, I enjoy a ribald story as much as the nexy guy, I enjoy ogling my young and curvaceous neighbor,I on occasion visit a free porn site. I enjoy sex myself.
But I don't care about YOUR sexual preference or practices, not a little bit, not at all. Why should I?
posted on June 18, 2004 12:47:38 PM new
Judging by the first post Linda made in this thread that she made the "set up" reference in, the "set up" was not telling everyone in the first post that the author of the article had been told about the posting & would be reading the thread.
From her words & tone, one would think that Linda might not have posted saying what she did if she'd known the person who wrote the article would be reading her responses...but wouldn't that be hypocritical?
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 18, 2004 12:53:11 PM new
Again, I simply told Harry I posted the article he gave me. He was interested in reading the responses so I gave him the URL. He could have easily found it on his own since he does read these boards anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if some government official reads these types of boards. I didn't set anyone up. He's not doing a study, he's not out to verbally attack anyone, he's simply a man interested in the opinions of others who probably doesn't know the ins and outs of posting in public forums and doesn't have the time to. I think the fact that he's not only an MD, but a PhD as well, speaks for the fact that he's a dignified individual who is always fact searching. He doesn't work for any major hospital or study group. He works where I do and for as little money as I do. (Hey, I'm making what an MD is making - and that ain't much, LOL) The idea that this was a set-up is ludicrous, to say the least.
Cheryl
[ edited by cblev65252 on Jun 18, 2004 12:53 PM ]
posted on June 18, 2004 01:22:51 PM new
Bob, I think the idea is that if you don't care what your neighbour does, before you know it, they will be doing immoral things that will make the neighbourhood, city, country go down hill. Without the Right's checks and balances, most people would choose to be immoral, so they're doing us all a favour.
It was not the author of the article reading the thread, it was the person who showed me the article - a friend and co-worker of mine. I would be flattered if Dick Feagler was reading this thread. Great observation, though.
posted on June 18, 2004 02:11:32 PM new
If nothing else, this is a reminder to us all (and I include myself as I'm not always the best behaved) that the face we put on here is the face that part of the world does see in one way or another, even if we aren't always aware of it.
I don't think that's true kiara, at least for me. I don't say anything here, I wouldn't say 'out there'. I even end everything I say in person with 'I'm XXXXXXX and I approve of what I just said!'
posted on June 18, 2004 02:56:58 PM new
Perhaps I didn't word it right but that's what I meant, NTS. I also say what I want to say because those are my beliefs and this is my real face. I meant that some may not always be aware that there are others viewing our words and actions, besides the posters involved in the actual thread and they can see who we are by the way we act. If anyone posts long enough I think their personality does show through, the good and the bad.
Going back to my first response here, if some feel that they have to hold back or respond differently because of someone watching them on a certain thread, then they aren't speaking from their heart.
For example, say that Cheryl announced first that Dr. Simmons was going to be reading this. If we are expressing certain views all the time from one thread to the next for several years, isn't it kind of silly to "hold back" on this thread just because Dr. Simmons is watching? He could be reading all the threads we'd posted to previously about this topic or any other and perhaps have an opinion of each of us anyways.
That's why I can't understand why anyone views this as a setup if they believe in what they are saying.
posted on June 18, 2004 03:24:09 PM new
OOOHHHH It's the dreaded SET UP!!!!
Not fair! Somebody I didn't know about read my post oh dear oh dear! Don't they know this is my private forum! Oh dear! OTHER people are allowed to read this!!??????
He He Ha ha
And THEY think we see a conspiracy in everything!!!
Maybe some one was worried that the doctor was a shrink.
I don't understand the "holding back" concept, ( Linda's term). What did you say, Linda, that you would have refrained from saying if you had known that Cheryl's friend would be reading your comment?
Hey! I have a wonderful solution. Hold back EVERYTHING -- and then, guess what? Nobody can "set you up"!!! Hahaha!
posted on June 18, 2004 03:58:28 PM new
Now now, Helen and Dave, take it easy....afterall, we were told , ".....there's really no point in discussing it any further. "
posted on June 18, 2004 04:17:33 PM new
First: sorry about my mix-up, Cheryl regarding the identity of the person you invited towatch this thread.
Now, what I find really curious here is Linda's immediate defensiveness. After all, she was not the only one who replied to the original post. There was nothing in Cheryl's post regarding her friend about hatefullness nor did she name names, but Linda exclaims: "I didn't state anything hateful here. I posted a news article on the subject of gay's not being allowed to file as married couples. A news article ISN'T hateful....it's factual."
Edited to say: Oops--Cheryl's post said the THREAD had become hateful. But she did not say that Linda was.
As for "holding back", Linda, Cheryl didn't hold back anything--she merely posted an op ed piece and let it stand on its own with no editorializing from her. After all, we all know her views on the subject.
And why should you or any of us hold back at all? You are aware that this forum and 99.9% of all other Net sites are open for anybody and their brother to see. What does it matter if this Dr. Simmons reads this thread or not?
OK, this will sound naive, because of course many people do use the Net as a way to be free of social retrictions, but....are you different in person then you are here on this board? Do you espouse views in "real life" that you don't believe in because of who might be watching or listening to you? I am curious and really want to know--this isn't a dig.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
[ edited by bunnicula on Jun 18, 2004 04:40 PM ]
posted on June 18, 2004 04:23:17 PM new
You all are incorrect in your assessment of why I reacted the way I have to what cheryl did here.
Again - I have already stated that I have NEVER posted anything here that I am ashamed of or wish I hadn't said. And that includes my contributions to this thread. I hope that clears that up.
If any of you think there is something in this thread that I said that you believe was hateful...then I'd sure as hell like to hear what it was. I don't see anything I posted as being hateful. To be totally against gay marriage is NOT a hateful act.
The thing that bothered me MOST was I did not like that cheryl lied and called me hateful. Helen's called me a lot of things and I really don't care because I have never respected her opinion....it's just I thought better of cheryl and her character...until this.
What cheryl did, imo, was sneaky, under-handed, rude and meant to embarass posters here.
Even she admits to holding herself back from 'saying what she was really wanted to say, at one point'. Why would SHE be holding anything back? Why would SHE want to act differently than she normally would if you want to approach it was that standpoint. Imo, because she had the advantage of knowing her 'friend' was going to be viewing this thread. That sure is changing HER own behavior because of the circumstances. And that's no different than those here [read: INCLUDING ME] who might have posted differently IF they too, knew someone had been invited here to 'see the reactions' of others. Or they might not have responded at all IF they'd known they were going to have an outsider discussing their reactions with her.
I would have liked to have had the opportunity to state why I opposed gay marriages....vs gay civil unions. That would have given a more balanced view of Linda's opinions. As it was...I wasn't given that opportunity because SHE didn't want to play the game that way.
For me personally I would have liked for her friend not to have judged me as hateful against gays....AS SHE WAS SAID I WAS. Of course, I'd expect him to believe her 'take' on me personally, since he's her friend. Well that wasn't a true 'take on Linda' nor an honest discription of how I feel about any person....gay or not. She was being dishonest making statements like that about me. She wants to make dishonest statements to her friend about me....that's fine....but don't do it in MY FACE.
She easily could have been upfront - above board - and said she had invited a friend to review our opinions on the article she posted. Instead she took a deceptive way around things...she wasn't honest up-front about it. And then she posts 'See, what I mean Dr.'
as if to point out we're some sort of case study here for not seeing this issue the same way she does.
Underhanded, rude and there was no reason for it imo. And I don't care if anyone here doesn't agree with my 'take' on this. It's how I see it, how it made me feel and coming from someone who supposedly has so much compassion for minority groups....imo, she doesn't hold that same compassion for those with opposing opinions on the issues.
Had she invited her friend to view this thread and not made mention of their previous discussion about our responses here....or not mentioned at all her friends viewing this thread...it wouldn't have bothered me. It was her not being upfront about it and then 'throwing' it in my face that I resent....and her lying about me.
How you all feel about what happened here, your take on it or how much YOU respect, admire, etc Cheryl....isn't of importance to me. It's how I felt I was treated by someone I used to have respect for. It was a tremendous disappointment for me, I felt set-up and I've said so. It's over for me...off my chest now. And as cheryl has already stated she could care less what I think or how I feel. That's clearly understood.
posted on June 18, 2004 04:37:28 PM new
No, Cheryl didn't call you hateful, Linda. She said that it had turned into a hateful thread.
And she didn't "set us up." All she did was post an op ed piece. That's all. However, she knew that you and the other neocons would be unable to resist bringing in gay marriage, 7 wives, marrying dogs, etc. etc. etc. And you did--so did Twelve and Ebayauctionguy.
Now, why would knowing that her friend would be watching to see reactions to the OP make you respond any differently than you did? True, perhaps you wouldn't have posted at all--just to show Cheryl that you don't have to jump and respond when someone pushes your "gay button." But just as likely you would have posted anyway just as you did to try to show Cheryl and Dr. Simmons the error of their ways with dazzling facts or "well, so does Kerry (or Clinton)", etc. as you usually do.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 18, 2004 04:39:51 PM newNot surprisingly, it didn't take any of you from the right very long to turn it into a hateful thread starting with Linda.
I think Cheryl said that because you started the negative spin on the thread, Linda. She didn't say YOU were hateful. In fact she comes back and apologizes to you and explains.
I never expected the negative it's gotten. I will, however, apologize for pointing you out. That was wrong. However, you are the one who jumped right in with the IRS and gay marriage issue which wasn't even part of the commentary.
It was you that accused Cheryl of having a hateful side and you spun out on the "hate" thing and got all defensive.
posted on June 18, 2004 04:42:57 PM new
Maybe it's the heat. A lot of people on Vendio seem pretty cranky these days.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 18, 2004 04:47:20 PM new
However, she knew that you and the other neocons would be unable to resist bringing in gay marriage, 7 wives, marrying dogs, etc. etc. etc. And you did--so did Twelve and Ebayauctionguy.
One question, what makes a NEO CON?
One comment: From your above statement, then yes I can see now that Cheryl wanted to 'show' her friend how 'hateful' and whatever the so called Neo cons would respond, so in a way, yes, I can see how Linda thinks it was set up.
posted on June 18, 2004 04:49:56 PM new
For your review -
cheryl said:
Not surprisingly, it didn't take any of you from the right very long to turn it into a hateful thread starting with Linda. You just reinforced what I believed all along and that I'll keep to myself.
Kiara - posting an article about an IRS ruling IS NOT HATEFUL nor a hateful act. No matter what YOU think this is about ME and how *I feel about what was said to me*. You couldn't possibily just butt out could you?
