Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Defining Civil Unions (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Defining Civil Unions
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Funean feels like publishing the measures that she has taken to ensure the welfare of her children, that will have to be her choice.
Funean has already done so at length here. I'm wondering what attributes *you* specifically think make her an outlier compared to the average gay individual who wants to marry and raise children? Or, perhaps more abstractly, what attributes do typical gays lack which, if present, would mute your objection to their raising children?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's why Donald repeatedly plays stupid whenever I point out the incorrect terminology.
Were you actually confused, given the context, about what I was saying? I don't mind nit picking over genuine ambiguity, but if context + ambiguous language = clear meaning, then I don't see why you'd bother making the correction.
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It should be indicative of her character that a hard nosed conservative, like me, holds her in high regard, and considers her a personal friend.

[Cool]

Of course, it's actually the other way around, and indicative of noel's character that he's able to appreciate me. [Wink]

(I'm too tired and cheerful to bicker tonight. Tomorrow's another day, though!)

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In this case, pointing out your stupidity doesn't even require us to touch on my stupidity, Pete. [Smile]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt,

I really have no idea of what Funean has said on this forum about her personal life, so I will choose to error on the side of silence. What she posesses that most people lack, irrespective of sexual orientation, is a selfless farsightedness that serves her children well. Her life is about them, not herself.

I do not find that in the general population, and it is the public at large that policy is geared to.

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:
That's why Donald repeatedly plays stupid whenever I point out the incorrect terminology.
Were you actually confused, given the context, about what I was saying?
Not at all. You were using ambigous terminology that allows you to assert contradictory premises.

Were you actually confused about what I was saying with my nitpick? Because DonalD isn't; I've never accused him of being as dumb as he pretends to be.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Were you actually confused about what I was saying with my nitpick?
I wasn't confused about what you were saying but by why you were saying it.

Noel had asserted the superiority of a male+female parental structure for producing the best outcome for their children. I was questioning the extent and consistency of this alleged benefit compared to male+male and female+female parental structures. I used "straight" and "gay" as shortcuts for the most familiar arrangements of M+F vs M+M or F+F. Whether the people in the M+M or F+F structure are actually gay isn't really relevant to my question.

Perhaps you can point out where my contradictory premises lie.

[ September 28, 2010, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can tell when Pete is annoyed, because he starts 'accidentally' misspelling people's names. It's really quite endearing, in a passive aggressive kind of way. [Wink]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
You can tell when Pete is annoyed, because he starts 'accidentally' misspelling people's names.

You can tell when DonaldD's viagra supply runs out, because he starts attributing malice to the most innocent details. I don't think I ever did realize there was a third "d" in his name. And I doubt that I'm the first person here to leave it out. I do indeed sometimes misspell folks names on purpose, but I don't pretend that it's an "accident" and what I come up with is considerably more creative and insulting than referring to "DonaldD" as "DonalD." [DOH]

[ September 28, 2010, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Difference between DonaldD and me is that I like to have conversations with folks with more knowledge or skill in an area than myself, whereas when DonaldD gets out-performed, he starts sulking like a man that just walked in on his wife in bed with Inspector Gadget.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kinda figured this thread might get sidetracked into same-sex issues. I gotta say that Inspector Gadget imagery made me smile, separate from the target. I don't have all the answers for the same-sex issues and haven't been part of the debates much though I do try + follow them best as I can. I think removing the government from marriage and religion issues would make things a bit closer to equal as civil unions would be the same for everyone, and the government-marriage takeover of religion or whatever related hot button would be less of a factor in future debates, at least nationally, I don't recall too many arguments involving that here.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ben:
I think removing the government from marriage and religion issues would make things a bit closer to equal as civil unions would be the same for everyone, and the government-marriage takeover of religion or whatever related hot button would be less of a factor in future debates, at least nationally, I don't recall too many arguments involving that here.

I agree that what you describe would be a likely outcome, and that the specific result that you describe would be generally beneficial. However, I see some negative outcomes as well, since your proposal creates a nightmare scenario where 1. religion exclusively owns the word "marriage;" 2. the idea of kids needing a mom and a dad to get classified as a religious idea. 3. The distinct roles of mom and dad get assigned 100% as a matter of religious dogma rather than evolving to fit the current needs of society. 4. dwindling common ground and ever fewer common assumptions between religious subcultures as to the meaning of marriage, fatherhood, and motherhood.

The end result looks something like Brave New World -- an excessively secularized and sterile society, surrounded by a ghetto fringe of religious primitives.

In other words, that shiny dime you're getting is nice, but not worth the $10 that you're paying for it.

[ September 30, 2010, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you substitute the word "cultural" for the word "religious," Pete, do you feel better about it?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If you substitute the word "cultural" for the word "religious," Pete, do you feel better about it?

Considerably better. It's still bad for almost all the same reasons, but as a matter of degree, it's much less catastrophic.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The reason I ask is that, of course, it would be "cultural." You're using the word "religious" throughout, but really what you're describing is the idea that various cultures will cling to their ways of doing things for whatever reasons they have, whether those reasons be religious or something else.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete@Home, I don't see it getting that bad, and don't think marriage would become a fringe thing as you envision since there is a lot of culture tied up with it, it just is being removed from the sphere of government control and interference while shifting government to dealing with less baggage regarding civil unions. Marriage isn't going to be exclusive to religion, just like baptism isn't exclusive: I've heard of some atheists having a rite of baptism to renounce belief in God and such, and baptism is used in language such as "baptism of fire," etc. A lot of culture is similarly tied up in marriage and some churches are already doing ceremonies for same-sex couples, so keeping religion and government together or separate isn't going to shift marriage suddenly on a different track from what has already been going on. As to the rest, human nature overall isn't going to change so that mom or dad and their roles become fixed or nonessential. What I see as more likely to happen is that people will get together and stay together in the same ways as before, but with a clearer awareness of what is part of religion and culture and what was governmental involvement is related to civil unions, and most people will continue to use both services of their minister and city hall, the minister for the wedding ceremony and city hall to legalize the coupling.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you familiar with the term "prestige groups" with regard to language evolution and development?

In law school I actually witnessed discussions of now-attorneys drooling over the orgy of litigation that would ensue once ssm went national. I am convinced that the word marriage would, over a period of years, become forbidden in the business sphere for fear of litigation. Same thing in public education, obviously.

Law, business, education -- those are potent prestige groups. The term would be wiped out of polite society.

So would concepts associated with marriage.

Remember how in Brave New world, the word "father" was a dirty joke, and the word "mother" was an obscenity?

There have already been protests against the idea of a separate fathers' day and mothers' day. I don't know about you, but since ssm came on the political stage, I've observed some political encouragement in the academy to use the term "parent" rather than "father or mother." Economy of words is fine, but the context is that we're told to use "parent" in order to be more "inclusive."

How is saying "father or mother" not "inclusive?" What other sort of "parent" is there? This is a movement to stomp out the idea that motherhood and fatherhood are not co-terminous.

The idea of distinct benefits derived from a mother and father does NOT originate in religion and should not be forced to reside in religion! Were Freud, Piaget, and Erickson religious leaders? Each of these, and countless other secular writers, have described, documented, and theorized (often imperfectly) the distinct effect that a mother has on a son, versus a mother's effect on a daughter, vs. a father's effect on a son, vs. a father's effect on a daughter.

Along comes the ssm movement and shuts down that entire line of discussion. The social science academy is so busy trying to justify ssm that no one is even addressing the aforementioned work. Now it's all about whether same sex couples are "as good as" "heterosexual couples."

My proposed solution for years here has been this: a federal amendment to the constitution which defines marriage as union of man and woman, and recognizing that the purpose is to maximize, without state coercion, the number of children raised in stable homes with a father and a mother. Since family stability probably even more important than diversity of parent gender, the amendment should also require the states to recognize same-sex unions, with all rights and obligations appertaining to marriage, including to the raising of children, but not those rights and obligations appertaining to reproduction. Most importantly, no judge or attorney in any state or federal case, shall contemplate any caselaw relating to a same-sex union, as precedent for adjudicating a contoversy involving marriage.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"... human nature is'nt going to change so that mom and dad or their roles become fixed or nonessential."... If you read the written arguments of the Proposition 8 decision, this is precisely what is being challenged, and implementation does have an effect upon child rearing practices, and outcomes, as a matter of social policy.
Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You can tell when Pete is annoyed, because he starts 'accidentally' misspelling people's names. It's really quite endearing, in a passive aggressive kind of way.
don't get so salty, Dolly.
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ben
Member
Member # 1153

 - posted      Profile for Ben   Email Ben   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete@Home, so you're saying it's the lawyers that will mess up things? [Razz] We need tort reform and lawyer reform then... I'll take a bit of time to ponder your proposed solution to the same sex issue, though I don't have any answer to that. I just envisioned the government stepping out of the marriage issue as it relates to freedom of religion and association. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it's nice to see a relatively concise statement like that.
Posts: 523 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gotta post and run, but this is something I've been thinking of for a day or two:

For those who have arguments against gay marriage, how would you feel about the following scenarios in potential adoptive parents and how would you handle it:

1. A legally married M-F pair that lives in the same house with another man and another woman, and it's obviously 2 same-sex partner sets, and the married couple wants to adopt.

2. A single parent, sexual orientation undetermined, that wants to adopt.

3. A single parent, homosexual orientation, that wants to adopt.

4. A legally married M-F pair with an open marriage, but heterosexual, that wants to adopt.

5. A brother-sister pair that wants to adopt.

(In full disclosure I do not support gay marriage but I'm not sure my reasons are non-religious.)

Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
noel
Member
Member # 6560

 - posted      Profile for noel   Email noel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scenario #

1) Too complicated for kids if normal option exits.

2) Too limited in role modeling potential.

3) Suffers from #2, and adds role confusion to the mix.

4) Bad models of proper roles.

5) Brother, and sister need to get their own lives first. [Smile]

Posts: 1935 | Registered: Feb 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How is saying "father or mother" not "inclusive?" What other sort of "parent" is there? This is a movement to stomp out the idea that motherhood and fatherhood are not co-terminous.
The entire point is to stop trying to force people into roles because of their sex rather than letting them individually pick what elements suit them best. We introduce a huge amount of dysfunction in relationships by forcing the assumption that men must perform this cultural set of roles and women must perform that set without regard to the fact that each person has their own set of strengths and weaknesses that almost certainly don't line up to the mythical 50's model of a perfect marriage.

Daruma posted an interesting link to the results of Sweden pushing back against such cultural brain washing which showed pretty well that, if you actively make an effort to step away from it, you get a much wider spectrum of adopted roles from both sexes.

Unless there is a need for better identifying a specific person, "parent" and "partner" are much better overall, because they don't come loaded with cultural assumptions and allow more freedom for a more natural distribution of roles.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
How is saying "father or mother" not "inclusive?" What other sort of "parent" is there? This is a movement to stomp out the idea that motherhood and fatherhood are not co-terminous.
The entire point is to stop trying to force people into roles because of their sex rather than letting them individually pick what elements suit them best.
Love the leftspeak. To stop "forcing" people into gender roles, we must threaten them with litigation to require them to stop talking about them.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Daruma posted an interesting link to the results of Sweden pushing back against such cultural brain washing which showed pretty well that, if you actively make an effort to step away from it, you get a much wider spectrum of adopted roles from both sexes."

This isn't relevant unless you can show me that Sweden specifically prevented the use of the terms "father" and "mother"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The reason I ask is that, of course, it would be "cultural." You're using the word "religious" throughout, but really what you're describing is the idea that various cultures will cling to their ways of doing things for whatever reasons they have, whether those reasons be religious or something else.

Damn, Tom. When did you grow up and realize that the only reasonable secular description of religion would be as an aspect of culture? I never thought you were dumb, but I didn't think you were capable of that particular mental leap.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've always known it, you idiot, but you like to make stupid assumptions about people.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Assumptions? You've dedicated tens of hours on this board to booing and hissing down the idea that religion was an aspect of culture.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some threads it was ridiculous ... you were practically ranting on, "na na na, I'm not listening, na na na ..." it was clear that you really didn't want to hear it, or to let anyone else hear it. It was as if I were your proctologist giving you another lecture about the dangers of unsafe phone sex. [Big Grin]

[ October 01, 2010, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You've dedicated tens of hours on this board to booing and hissing down the idea that religion was an aspect of culture.
No, I haven't. When have you ever asked, sugarbuns? It's not like it affects any of the issues we've argued about.

Heck, I know for a fact that I have said before that, as someone who does not believe in God, I believe the only thing religion can be is an aspect of culture. It's not like it can actually be anything else. You think it's something born out of an external source; I think it's a product, symptom, and carrier of human culture.

[ October 01, 2010, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I guess I was wrong. He wasn't asking Pete to stop. Apparently, he just wanted to argue.

Really Tom? Sugarbuns?

(Maybe I should have posted this in the -why Ornery has gone downhill- thread.)

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was asking Pete to stop. I was here attempting to demonstrate why. [Smile]

Seriously, if Pete has been insulting me for nearly a decade and hasn't bothered to pay enough attention to what I've said in between his insults to understand that I think religion is an element of culture, I don't think I can heap quite enough scorn on him.

[ October 01, 2010, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vegimo:
I guess I was wrong. He wasn't asking Pete to stop. Apparently, he just wanted to argue.

Really Tom? Sugarbuns?

I haven't called Tom "sugar plum" or anything like it since more than two months ago. And at the time, no, Tom didn't ask me to stop. in fact, he actually commented about it and specifically said that he wasn't asking me to stop.

Why Tom's suddenly playing martyr about it now, two months after he stopped, is your guess as well as mine. But given the fact that he whined about "cultural nihilism" for three years after I stopped using that term, I suspect you haven't heard the last about Tom's victimization at being called "sugar plum."

[ October 01, 2010, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
You think it's something born out of an external source;

No, Tom, I don't.

And ten years of insults is less insulting than ten years of your pretending that I said what you think that I think.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom,

I don't think that asking someone to stop doing something then demonstrating that same behavior is effective.

Pete,

At the time, he stated that he was tired of it (well, he actually said it was tiresome, but I'm not quibbling about his idiosyncrasies right now). After the inevitable flurry of accusations and denials between you two, he said that he was not responsible for your actions. He did not say that he was not going to ask you to stop. There is a difference, and I still thought that his intent was to prevent the sobriquets in the future. Now that he has broken the "truce", I will refrain from trying to interpret again.

I will repeat the plea though,

addressed to both Tom and Pete:

Please stop.

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vegimo:
Tom,

I don't think that asking someone to stop doing something then demonstrating that same behavior is effective.

Pete,

At the time, he stated that he was tired of it (well, he actually said it was tiresome, but I'm not quibbling about his idiosyncrasies right now). After the inevitable flurry of accusations and denials between you two, he said that he was not responsible for your actions. He did not say that he was not going to ask you to stop.

Not this week. Tom said that he wasn't asking me to stop 2-3 MONTHS AGO, WHICH WAS THE LAST TIME I ACTUALLY CALLED HIM ANY PET NAME.

STOP WHAT?

I have not been calling Tom any pet names on this thread, or at all for the last 2-3 months.

Stop telling me to stop doing something I stopped three focking months ago.

This is inane.

[ October 01, 2010, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I asked you to stop calling people (not just Tom) pet names.

So did Hobsen.

So did Tom - in his own way.

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vegimo:
I asked you to stop calling people (not just Tom) pet names.

So did Hobsen.

So did Tom - in his own way.

You seem to be lecturing Pete, who hasn't called anybody any names in this entire thread. That's unfair, particularly after Tom just called Pete an "idiot" and "sugarbuns" and Pete did not reply in kind.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Vegimo, you owe me an apology. I am not responsible for Tom calling me pet names, and it's wrong of you repeatedly to tell me to "stop" when I'm not the one doing it. I stopped a long time before you started asking me to stop. Find a post where I called anyone a pet name, and then look at the focking date.

[ October 01, 2010, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jwatts,

You are correct, Pete has not called anyone any names on this thread.

Pete,

I was writing a response, had to take off, and came back to find that you are demanding an apology. OK, I agree. Based on JWatts take, I do. I am sorry that I lectured you on this thread.


Now I will clarify my plea.

Everybody,

Please stop calling people pet names on various threads in this forum. Your intent seems to be to provoke the other person, and this does not help discussion.

Second, please stop insulting people. This includes back-handed compliments and other such hidden insults. They appear to have the same intent (and the same result) as the pet names.

Third, please leave the long-standing battles out of things. It is really disconcerting when nearly every thread descends into bickering. This goes right past ornery, through cantankerous, and on into venomous.

Posts: 255 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1