#239927 - 03/11/2004 16:07
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
That's fair. But I, at least, don't really care to hear that he's not reading. Maybe if he'd ever made a reasoned political post before in the Off Topic section I might.
What Bitt said. If we can have titles like "Grammar Police", it should be feasible to add one like "Seagull".
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239928 - 03/11/2004 16:17
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
But there is a subtle distinction between civil debate and flamethrowing
Not subtle at all. If it's directed at the topic of conversation, it's civil debate. If it's directed at the individual taking the other side, it's flamethrowing. No qualifiers needed.
I look at it like this. Most people here get involved in these discussions not to change others' opinions, but as a joint venture towards finding a common ground and understanding of the issues at hand, and to get an idea what the "other side" is thinking. Especially in the religious and political discussions, I see everyone who comes from the left looking at those on the right with genuine curiosity, not suspicious contempt. None of us wants to be enlightened or proselytized, but we do want to try to see what it is we're not getting, and see if there's any way for us to "get it" or at least be able to understand it as it becomes more evident in the world around us. It's all about the pursuit of truth and understanding, which is never a bad thing.
Recently, I've been dismayed at some of the recent events on the board, like where Brad came out and said he felt like he was being attacked and persecuted. Other conservatives have chipped in with less specific but still palpable feelings that they were tired of the discussions, didn't have time for them, weren't really seeing the point of them, etc. I'm sure it's hard to be one of the five or six major dissenting voices with a cast of a thousand liberals ready to question your position, so I understand the dismay. But any time any of these discussions have approached the hatred and vitrol level, I've always seen both sides here throttle back the rhetoric and let the issue drop (until it becomes newsworthy again.)
Apparently, CommOri feels (felt, whatever) that all we're doing is attacking the other side personally. That statement undermines the good intentions of these debates, and the good will of this community in general. And when some peripheral BBS lurker comes in and drops a grenade like this on his way out the door, directed squarely at people that I enjoy conversing with on a daily basis, I'm quite happy to never see the fucker on the BBS again. Not that I saw him in the first place.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239929 - 03/11/2004 16:19
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's fair. But I, at least, don't really care to hear that he's not reading. Maybe if he'd ever made a reasoned political post before in the Off Topic section I might.
What Bitt said. If we can have titles like "Grammar Police", it should be feasible to add one like "Seagull".
Panda would be a good one.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239930 - 03/11/2004 16:29
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: rob]
|
addict
Registered: 04/09/2004
Posts: 525
Loc: Oklahoma
|
Uh oh...'Bloddy Americians'? I guess I should just run away...sniff...no wait! I AM an Americian...not a Frenchman! Eh?
_________________________
The only easy day...was yesterday!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239931 - 03/11/2004 17:15
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Daria]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
This would be more impressive if the people actually did the work.
Now, the flipside is I won't tell you the government is the answer either. But look around a city and see how many homeless people you see. There's not a chance they all "want" to be homeless. We have shelters, but when the weather is extreme, they fill, and people are turned away. It's not the same as a home, either.
Now, you could get me to believe that many of them have mental problems. I've seen precious little from the non-government sectors to help there. But even the government wasn't really able to do anything; With advances in rights for the mentally ill, asylums were closed.
After a long(not-quite-completed) career in the mental health trenchs, I can tell you that the mentally ill landed in the streets as a RESULT of the government, much as schools are now failing to an even greater degree because of the No Child Left Behind Act: it instituted something that sounded good, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which was to set up adequate community-based facilities, and never since has adequately funded them, though they used the concept as the rationale for emptying the psychiatric hospitals, just as they will now use the NCLB Act to further eviscerate public schooling, especially in the poorest, most vulnerable areas. Special education law is yet a third example; currently, the Feds fund approximatley 12% of the costs of THEIR mandates, leaving states and districts to pick up the other 88% according to their varying resources. I happen to be one of those reviled liberals who think our social ills are too great to be adequately addressed by any entity but a federal government, as indeed most of the civilized countries do. Our government, however, in keeping with our general hypocrisy, (just witness all the concern about the sanctity of marriage in a country whose failure rate is nearly 50%) promulgates generous-sounding proposals and then doesn't fund them. the US Government has specialized for years in *saying* but not *doing* the right thing (various treaties and the Alaska Statehood Act come to mind). Under our "compassionate conservatives", the above is unlikley to improve. I guess it's evident that I'm feeling a bit disgruntled this morning...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239932 - 03/11/2004 17:19
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
After a long(not-quite-completed) career in the mental health trenchs, I can tell you that the mentally ill landed in the streets as a RESULT of the government, much as schools are now failing to an even greater degree because of the No Child Left Behind Act: it instituted something that sounded good, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, which was to set up adequate community-based facilities, and never since has adequately funded them, though they used the concept as the rationale for emptying the psychiatric hospitals, just as they will now use the NCLB Act to further eviscerate public schooling, especially in the poorest, most vulnerable areas. Special education law is yet a third example; currently, the Feds fund approximatley 12% of the costs of THEIR mandates, leaving states and districts to pick up the other 88% according to their varying resources. I happen to be one of those reviled liberals who think our social ills are too great to be adequately addressed by any entity but a federal government, as indeed most of the civilized countries do. Our government, however, in keeping with our general hypocrisy, (just witness all the concern about the sanctity of marriage in a country whose failure rate is nearly 50%) promulgates generous-sounding proposals and then doesn't fund them. the US Government has specialized for years in *saying* but not *doing* the right thing (various treaties and the Alaska Statehood Act come to mind). Under our "compassionate conservatives", the above is unlikley to improve. I guess it's evident that I'm feeling a bit disgruntled this morning...
The government making the situation with regards to the mentally ill worse doesn't negate my point about the lack of help forthcoming from the private sector; I'm basically on the same side as you are though, so we're not really going to solve anything here.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239933 - 03/11/2004 17:46
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Daria]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
The government making the situation with regards to the mentally ill worse doesn't negate my point about the lack of help forthcoming from the private sector; I'm basically on the same side as you are though, so we're not really going to solve anything here.
Don't get me started on the *private sector*; I have the greatest respect for friends whose opinions I diametrically oppose because they put their time, energy and money where their mouths are, and are genrally the kind of Christians who believe "judge not that ye be not judged". Now if every pro-lifer were to offer adoption or a stable foster home to a "crack baby" or under-adopted minority (rather than cutting, or voting for those who cut, maternal & child health programs) , or if everyone who critcizes the public schools went and volunteered their time improving one, I'd offer them equal respect...it's the rhetoric and the judgement without the righteous action, that I find completley untenable.
Edited by wfaulk (03/11/2004 23:24)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239934 - 03/11/2004 17:57
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Ok, so to get hypothetical with you guys (because this certainly isn’t my viewpoint), if there are people who absolutely believe that they hold no responsibility toward their fellow man and don’t want the money they make to fund social programs (see Ayn Rand), is it right for the government to take money from them and use it for social programs? Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239935 - 03/11/2004 18:25
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: bonzi]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, Civil Union <> Marriage.
How would you define the difference (apart from religious or ritual elements, which I dont' think, as I said, should be in the domain of government regulation, unless the state in question is a theocracy) ?
Many consider a "Marriage" to be a bond between a man and a woman usually with religious connotations. Two persons of the same sex do not fit that definition. IMO it would be much easier for many to accept a new definition of Civil Union (whatever the definition ends up to be) rather than mess with their existing definition of Marriage. Using “Civil Union” many gays (or others) could get the entitlements many believe they should have.
It also helps to yes, separate the two as well. Separate does not always mean worse or better just different. For example – “I am in a Civil Union bond with Pat” If Civil Union is defined as a bond between the same sex then you know what sex Pat is.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239936 - 03/11/2004 18:38
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
What are you talking about?
Real busy with work today so I am a little short in my responses.
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of the opposite sex that want to have no religious connotations attached. “Civil Union” would get these people what they are entailed to (IMO) and probably not upset as many.
Using these different definitions Marriage <> Civil Union. That does not make one better or worse just by definition different.
The political correct stuff was just an added rant. To be political correct to me in many cases ignores the facts or truth in order to keep from possibly hurting someone’s feelings. People need to face facts and the truth no matter how unpleasant.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239937 - 03/11/2004 18:58
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 24/01/2002
Posts: 3937
Loc: Providence, RI
|
Quote:
Ok, so to get hypothetical with you guys (because this certainly isn’t my viewpoint), if there are people who absolutely believe that they hold no responsibility toward their fellow man and don’t want the money they make to fund social programs (see Ayn Rand), is it right for the government to take money from them and use it for social programs? Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?
Probably not. What will never happen: a way where you can choose what programs get your tax money, because some would get short-changed and then we'd be screwed when no one realized we needed them.
I'm unsure whether defense would end up being under or over-funded in such a system; Currently, maybe over, but I bet just a few years ago it would have been under, and we'd not be having the debate about Iraq; there wouldn't have been a force to have been mobilized so quickly.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239938 - 03/11/2004 19:40
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?
I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239939 - 03/11/2004 19:50
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Redrum]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
To be political correct to me in many cases ignores the facts or truth in order to keep from possibly hurting someone’s feelings.
The flip side of that coin is avoiding the truth to avoid hurting your own feelings. Case in point:
Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of the opposite sex that want to have no religious connotations attached.
Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace. I understand that you might wish for the term "marriage" to be given to religious institutions and left alone by the government, but that's ship's already sailed. I'm sure that this is the argument you use when defending the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance and the references to God in other US papers, including monies. (And let's not point out the other definitions of "marry" that have nothing to do with the union of people.)
Quote:
That does not make one better or worse just by definition different.
I'm sorry, but segregation is always worse.
I understand that you'd like to keep the term "marriage" for religious institutions, and if you could magically change things so that the term "marriage" was not referenced in any legal documentation, I'd support you, especially if you'd also remove clerics' legal rights to sanctify civil unions, too. But that's simply not going to happen.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239940 - 03/11/2004 19:53
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
Quote:
Isn’t that forcing your morality on someone else?
I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.
I'll go for that--'enlighted self-interest"---we have to pay the taxes, but have *some* choice whether it'll be for schools or jails, and there's no question which is more effective or has more utility...
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239941 - 03/11/2004 20:07
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
In my head Civil Union should be defined as a bond between two of the same sex or even expanded to cover two of them.
Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace.
In many countries, especially in Europe, it is quite common for people to have two weddings, the civil one and a religious one, and individuals may choose either or both. Maybe that would help resolve our national debate on this subject. Otherwise, "marriage" like "sex" or "friendship" really (aside from legality) has only the meaning ascribed to it by the individuals involved, and it is really ridiculous to be trying to legislate a one-size-fits-all meaning for such a diverse country.
Edited by wfaulk (03/11/2004 23:24)
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239942 - 03/11/2004 20:14
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
I think it's important for the infrastructure of a nation to make sure that all of its citizens are as well kept as possible. I don't think it's morality at all, any more than punishing someone for committing murder.
I'd say both are forcing someone to adhere to an external moral code with which they may not agree, be it the miser or the murderer, (though admittedly the latter has more direct consequences on others).
There are those who argue that mercy is not the responsibility of the rich at all and feel it is very much an infringement to force them to do so. Once again, Ayn Rand was pretty clear on this point. Of course, her logic was flawed in so many ways I don’t know where to begin, but it makes the point (in my mind) that we are talking about an issue of morality- she felt other’s morals were being placed upon her, as do those who still follow in her footsteps.
I do agree that the health of a nation is important, which means keeping its citizens as well as possible. That is the reason the above was only a hypothetical. However, there are those who would argue that drinking (or at least drunkenness) is unhealthy, and therefore should be outlawed. At some point you have to draw the line between personal liberty and the health of the nation's people. I agree with that, and I'd say you do too. But I think in each case it's an example of the morals of the majority being placed on some minority (murderers, misers, drinkers). Which begs the greater question (and what I’m driving at): how does a society determine what morals to enforce upon its people?
I know this seems to be straying from the topic at hand, but it’s something I think about when I think of the role of government (in social programs and beyond). At what point is the government ensuring the health of the nation’s population and at what point is it overreaching into the lives of citizens and enforcing morality that it shouldn’t?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239943 - 03/11/2004 20:15
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
Quote:
Marriage already exists as a solely legal definition. No religious connotations need be made in order to go to the Justice of the Peace. I understand that you might wish for the term "marriage" to be given to religious institutions and left alone by the government, but that's ship's already sailed. I'm sure that this is the argument you use when defending the "under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance and the references to God in other US papers, including monies. (And let's not point out the other definitions of "marry" that have nothing to do with the union of people.)
Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth and reading my mind. You better get you psychic abilities checked.
You can legally define whatever you want. I just think (My Opinion) that states wouldn’t be passing these laws if gays would have backed off the “Marriage” tag. Going with Civil Union would have gotten them what they want.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239944 - 03/11/2004 20:17
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
if you'd also remove clerics' legal rights to sanctify civil unions, too.
What do you mean by this? I thought, here in Texas at least, pretty much anyone could "sanctify" a marriage. Is that not true, or am I missing your point?
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239945 - 03/11/2004 20:26
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Redrum]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
Wow, talk about putting words in my mouth and reading my mind. You better get you psychic abilities checked.
I made an assumption in order to short-circuit the back-and-forth. I know that it would fit many people who make the same argument you're making.
Quote:
states wouldn’t be passing these laws if gays would have backed off the “Marriage” tag.
Since several of the states adopted laws/amendments/whatever to prohibit anything that simulates marriage, I think that you're wrong.
Regardless of that, I still think your standpoint is wrong. I don't think black people would be happy with having separate water fountains, do you? (Of course, now I'm forcing the point of whether homosexuality is a choice. I think you know where I stand.)
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239946 - 03/11/2004 20:35
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
I struggled to find the right word, and "sanctify" was as close as I could come.
Unless I'm mistaken, clerics are currently given power to make marriages legal. Maybe it's just that they act as a witness or something and I'm wrong. But my understanding is that they work as an extension of the government. ("By the power vested in me by the state of Texas" and so forth.) And that they get that power simply by being a cleric in a recognized church. (Maybe there's some simple paperwork or something, but a layperson couldn't just go down and do it the same way.)
If you require that a direct governmental representative be the person to authorize the marriage and not allow clerics to be such a person (unless they also happen to be employed by the government for that purpose), then that would help ameliorate my concerns. Of course, that's all contingent on the term "marriage" being stricken from the law books, too, which, again, isn't going to happen.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239947 - 03/11/2004 20:42
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
And that they get that power simply by being a cleric in a recognized church. (Maybe there's some simple paperwork or something,.....
Off Topic, probably: My friend, essentially an atheist (I need to ask him "Hey, do you now think of yourself as an atheist?") signed up as a minister under some flag of convenience (Universal Life Church?) and has performed 5-6 marriages.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239948 - 03/11/2004 20:42
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
old hand
Registered: 17/01/2003
Posts: 998
|
I’m white, calling me black isn’t worse is it? It is just a fact that I am white. You can use that to discriminate against me but calling me white is just a fact. Civil Unions could be used to get gay couples what they want and yes it could be used to discriminate. However it is a fact that a gay union is not the same as a male-female union. I know guys wish it was the same but it is physically not.
I hope gays can have the same rights as other couples. I just have my own views on how that could be accomplished. Apparently the “Marriage” angle is not working. Maybe it will someday when everyone can handle changing the definition in their head (not the legal definition) of marriage. Just like any “elephant” of a problem – one bite at a time. First Civil Union then push “Marriage.”
Probably wrong but this is my opinion.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239949 - 03/11/2004 20:54
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Redrum]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I’m white, calling me black isn’t worse is it?
In that it's incorrect, yeah, but no. It's not. But what if you decided that white people could have marriages but black people only civil unions. They're physically different, too.
If it's your argument simply that you need to take the problems in small steps, I find it hard to disagree. It's true that sugar helps the medicine go down. It'd be nice if it could be all or nothing, but that is probably impractical.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239950 - 03/11/2004 20:58
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
He still has to register with a non-governmental organization (bogus tho it may be) in order to get the government to allow him to officiate a wedding. If that organization was intended to establish standards for that job (like, for example, the ABA), I could go with it. But it's not.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239951 - 03/11/2004 21:02
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Ah, ok I was wrong. I see that to have an "official" marriage (which appears to be different from a "common-law" marriage only in ceremony) you must have either a government official or an ordained minister. However, it seems that it's just as easy to go down and sign a marriage certificate with out any official being present at all.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239953 - 03/11/2004 21:50
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: CommOri]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
CommOri, I'm sorry that some people here are being very rude to you. You are basically asking "can't we all just get along?" and some people are throwing it back in your face. It's quite sad. In the good ol' days, owning an empeg was good enough to make you "part of the community" but now, some people would rather you leave than voice an opinion they disagree with. And I share your frustration. People are now saying, "if you don't like politics, don't go into Off Topic." Pretty sad huh? That means no reading about the latest Tivo gadget or whatever. My only advice would be to steer clear of the political threads. While they can be fun excercises for debate, they are indeed full of hate (though never towards a member of this board). There are plenty of great things about this community that make it worth being a part of. Yes, Off Topic was thrown to the wolves, but that leaves plenty of other places to chat it up.  It's too bad that it's not like it used to be when a new member asking for help was met with a dozen people all fighting over who got to help him first (they're more likely to fight over who gets to correct your spelling or posting technique now), but it's still a good bunch of people. I'm even beginning to admire how Bitt and I can have exact opposite views on politics. It's like clockwork!  And even though I get out numbered in debates, the threads have been great excercises that allow me to research my replies and put my views to the test. Yet even I have to take a few weeks off from Off Topic once in a while. But, just to prove your point, I'll be this topic turns to "Bush Lied" by day's end.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239954 - 03/11/2004 22:15
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I think that anybody who posts in Off-Topic is a dick. Thats why I don't read it very much. Its all a bunch of dicks, don't you agree?
If you agree that anybody who posts in OffTopic is a bunch of dicks, please post here and agree. If you don't post, well, you are just a bunch of chickens. Probably french chickens, too!
I am curious to see how this turns out. But not that curious. I won't be back. Anybody who posts here is a dick.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239955 - 03/11/2004 22:35
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: ]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
Quote:
Anybody who posts here is a dick
Can I be a dick too even if I don't have one
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#239956 - 03/11/2004 22:40
Re: Can we stop the bashing now?
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
Hahahahahah!!! Well answered! It is true, though. I too think the board has been a bit more tense and polarized lately. Hopefully, with the election behind everyone, things will mellow out a bit.
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index