Complaint Department discussion
POST COMPLAINTS HERE
Macky wrote: "I wish to complain that every time I press LL's link to CNN I keep getting a video about The Putins getting divorced so I don't know what I'm supposed to see and its doing my Wacky Macky head in! Please will someone clue me in? I wait in a bejuggered state of expectation."The Putins getting divorced ... how - thrilling...
Any rate, the real video features The Seattle Library which put together a dominoes-like situation using books in a sinuous line, including the word "Read" that ends with a girl catching the last book.
An alternate link for you.
Lucas wrote: "Though the Complaint Department is part of Goodreads the group only occasionally refers to a book and the closest thing we have to a thread on books is our What I hate about M/M Romance topi..."
I have to raise a stink because there wasn't a single person filming that superhuman effort with their iPhones. So according to this little piece of information reading people are not obsessed with their gadgets like all other human beings? How dare they?
That man filming with that archaic camera was just another way of the establishment to call us 'reading people' retrogrades. Not happy with that.
Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
Part of the problem is that our churches aren't headed up by one entity but split into many with different interpretations and views of the bible. Here's an article that sure to make many very (un)happy depending on the point of view.
Biblical Marriage Not Defined as One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed
@Goesta & Roger:And you are talking only about written English. It still is a cultural shock to me, who comes from a language were no matter if it's before in the middle or after a vowel always has the same sound.
Just poor little A has like 10 different sounds and I'm including not just the 3 according to the laws of phonetic but those attached thanks to the many accents according to people's place of living. I mean, I live in the South and just there from state to state you gonna have a lot of different ways to pronounce the same word.
Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
I'm discombobulated that the churches still think then can interfere with legal aspects of people's life. Just because people searching for equal rights use the word marriage it doesn't imply a religious ceremony.
Our mistake as LGBT community is insist on recreate something that doesn't have anything to do with legal situations. I don't need a priest or a minister to publicly marry me, because I'm already united to that person in my heart. I only need the damned papers so if something happens to any of us, the frigging government don't walk all over the other because we weren't legal spouses.
Stop the wedding drama and simply get the effing license. This is what has this people in arms against us, because we keep imitating them and they resent what they consider a mockery of their God-given right.
I don't want a wedding (as much as a look hot in white); I want my effing rights.
Gabbo wrote: "@Goesta & Roger:And you are talking only about written English. It still is a cultural shock to me, who comes from a language were no matter if it's before in the middle or after a vowel always ha..."
I am utterly unable to learn my hubby's tongue because I simply can't hear the seven or so variations per syllable in Chinese phonetics that are intended to make sure you don't call your mother a cow (unless you mean to).
I feel you. I have the same problem with my Hindi.
Gabbo wrote: "Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
I'm discombobulated that the..."
In the UK anyone or any group can voice their opinions about the way we are governed because it is part of the democratic process. The Church of England has a different role because it is 'established' so it is part of the state and participates in the Govt through the House of Lords. There are lots of other faiths and religions that don't have this role. It is all to do with history and the way church state and crown relate together to form the government processes.
I am not too sure other countries have these kinds of processes. It works both ways though and the Church of England has to be there for people at local levels. In many ways as clergy we are also officers of the state. We had to take an oath of allegiance to the sovereign when we were ordained. All very difficult to explain via Goodreads.
Anyway I am glad to see that the Bishops are not going to oppose the legislation. If we are going to be a truly national Church then we need to ensure we are there for everyone.
Ije the TweetAway Queen wrote: "Gabbo wrote: "Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
I'm discombobu..."
I think England is a very specific case. At least in United States and in my home country, Panama, church and state are two separated entities and should not interfere with one another. Church can recommend but in the same way any other group can voice their opinions, it's up to the government to listen or not.
I'm talking about the Pope or the Dalai Lama or any other religious leader forcing the rules of their faith into legal matters. The same way Ayatollahs force theirs into the legislations of Religion-control(l)ed countries.
Gabbo wrote: "Our mistake as LGBT community is insist on recreate something that doesn't have anything to do with legal situations. I don't need a priest or a minister to publicly marry me, because I'm already united to that person in my heart...."If gay Christians feel the need of the traditional religious blessing I would stand for their right under the reasonableness of equality. For me, I agree, Gabbo. I have no need of any church's blessing, which puts me somewhat outside the dialogue.
Language, spelling? Yes, the written word. If I tried to encompass all the dialects of Britain in phonetic spelling it would sound like Bedlam, no probably Babel. For instance, I believe Lucas has come across the delightful argot of the English north-western district of Wigan, just a small town, but one whose traditional speech is actually a foreign language, yet it's still unarguably English.
Gabbo wrote: "At least in United States and in my home country, Panama, church and state are two separated entities and should not interfere with one another."That statement, as it pertains to the US anyway, was meant in irony, yes?
Goesta wrote: "Gabbo wrote: "At least in United States and in my home country, Panama, church and state are two separated entities and should not interfere with one another."That statement, as it pertains to th..."
The way things are going here in the US, you'd think that the religious right has a hard grip on the government (which in parts it does) but I think (this my opinion, mind, nothing more) that these people are fighting a losing war and as such are trying to tighten their grip and stranglehold as a result.
Gabbo wrote: "@Goesta & Roger:And you are talking only about written English. It still is a cultural shock to me, who comes from a language were no matter if it's before in the middle or after a vowel always ha..."
I never learned the difference between the 'i' sound and the 'e' sound, which I am teased about by my SO. I pronounce, and many people do, my name as 'Windy,' not 'Whendy,' (not so much the 'h' sound, but the sound the 'e' makes). So pin and pen sound the same, on and on. I don't know why I didn't learn this, if it was moving around a lot as a child or what. My dad makes the distinction, my mom doesn't. Therefore, I can't pronounce, officially, my own name correctly.
I copied this out of wiki because it's one of the examples I remember about English phonetic pronunciation but couldn't remember exactly how it went: "The word "ghoti" is a phonetic spelling of "fish", commonly attributed to George Bernard Shaw as an example of the irregularities of English spelling. Pronunciation: the "GH" as in the word "rouGH", "O" as in "wOmen" and "TI" as in naTIon..." I think English must be one of the most ridiculous and difficult languages to learn.
And I would like to addend to that the complaint that my parents named my middle sister Misty, so when we attended school together (she's a year and a half younger than I am) we were inevitably referred to as "The Weather Sisters." Also, everyone thought we were twins, which we both thought was ridiculous. So, when my baby sister was born 23 years later, I said we were triplets, just far apart, and Misty had middle child syndrome.
Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
Did I mention/complain/protest/ that I saw a headline (I should have read the article--I was looking at something else about the new DSM-5) that religious fundamentalism could possibly be considered a mental illness?
I'm just reporting the headline, this has nothing to do with my personal views on organized religion as the opiate for the masses. Ah-hem.
Roger wrote: "Gabbo wrote: "Our mistake as LGBT community is insist on recreate something that doesn't have anything to do with legal situations. I don't need a priest or a minister to publicly marry me, because..."But the current legislation isn't about the Church providing a blessing it is about recognising same sex relationships as marriages should the couple desire that. The fuss some religious communities are making is that for some of them it redefines marriage.
We are quite fortunate in the UK to have Civil Partnerships for same sex couples which protects those relationships under the law. I think the most important thing is to be able to have your relationship recognised by law should you want it. During the aids epidemic some gay men were excluded from their partner's funerals because the family didn't recognise or acknowledge the relationship. I have a friend who was living with a partner who died. My friend was then booted out of the house he had shared with his boyfriend and to this day he doesn't know what killed his partner. It is so important to have same sex relationships recognised by law whether by marriage or by civil partnership. The Church of England can then decide how to respond. No doubt arguing for years as it has done with the question of women bishops.
Goesta wrote: "Gabbo wrote: "At least in United States and in my home country, Panama, church and state are two separated entities and should not interfere with one another."That statement, as it pertains to th..."
Ije the TweetAway Queen wrote: "Roger wrote: "Gabbo wrote: "Our mistake as LGBT community is insist on recreate something that doesn't have anything to do with legal situations. I don't need a priest or a minister to publicly mar..."
I'll borrow from myself, a piece written over a year ago: "There is the very fundamental point that seems to get lost in all the blarney spouted with regard to same-sex marriage. The point is short, simple: the essential difference between marriages blest by a religious entity, and a marriage performed by the "state," or a civil marriage, is the crux. There is no valid argument to support any notion that same-sex partners should expect, by governmental fiat (legislative, judicial), that they have a right to a religiously sanctioned marriage.
"Although "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, the principle is long-standing and originated, I believe, with a notion articulated by Thomas Jefferson. I embrace this principle. Therefore, I have no expectation that any church, synagogue, mosque will, by governmental edict, be expected or required to perform same-sex marriages. There's the separation. Let the theocratic priapists (sic) do or not do what they will. It is their right (yes, it's in the Constitution, Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"The argument, then, where focus must be directed, is in the case of civil marriages. Civil marriage is a right of citizens of the United States. Therein lies the argument. Therein lies the petri dish upon which all eyes should be focused. Therein lies the battle. Either the promise of the Constitution envelops all citizens or it doesn't."
Although my partner and I have wills, powers of attorney, joint bank accounts, and all the other protections that we believe may protect either of us should something happen to the other, we will sometime this year establish a civil union via a Colorado statute passed at the beginning of this year. It provides all the protections of marriage, with the exception of federal benefits, i.e. Social Security survivor benefits, joint federal tax status, and a plethora of other benefits different-sex married couples enjoy in the U.S. The true and complete equality gay/lesbian couples seek in the U.S. is now before the Supreme Court in a case dealing with the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed by the U.S. Congress in, I believe, 1966.
BTW I am aggrieved that literal storm clouds are puffing themselves up in Denver, rain is imminent, and thus my house painting has ceased for the day. I am 40% through Mister Kean's "A Life Apart," and may dig into that wonderful story (Dervishes even!) while the rains come. Or, I'll piddle about here and see what you've all been up to in my absence.
As always--and as apparently required of members in good standing--hugs, kisses!
Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...
Why can't American churches do the same?"
The only thing the Church of England should be proud of is ordaining Ijeoma as a priest but it should be ashamed that they forbid her or any other female priest to become bishops.
The Church of England does not even now fully endorse the gay marriage law in England as it is proposed, rather they intend to water it down and make some people "exempt" in some impossible to perceive way.
Their position is now "The bill will now go into committee where bishops — who hold 26 seats in the upper chamber — will attempt to insert amendments to add protections for teachers or other workers who object on religious grounds.
Also it is not a case of "Why can't American churches do the same?" because as a faithful Episcopalian you know all too well that the American branch of the Anglican communion, is far more LGBT friendly than that the C of E. which does not represent not represent all English churches any more than the Episcopal Church of America represent American churches.
If you were to compare the two you would no doubt say why can't the Church of England be more like Protestant Episcopal Church of America? The Episcopal Church allows women priest to become bishops (in fact I'm so happy you got to meet one of our two women bishops, one straight and one a lesbian.) As mentioned with regard to our dear member the The Reverend Ije the Tweetaway Queen, the Church of England does not allow women priests to become bishops
The Episcopal Church of America voted in its convention 37 years ago in 1976, that homosexuals are "children of God" and "entitled to full civil rights".
The Episcopal church is officially in favor of Gay marriage and allows married gays to have an official wedding ceremony in the church and has church services blessing same sex couples who choose not to marry or cannot travel to a state where gays may marry. This applies to priests and bishops too (but is forbidden by the Church of England.) The Episcopal Church has taken the stand that no state or the federal government should restrict gay marriage and thus opposes DOMA. As seen by the wavering and watering down planned by the Bishops in the House of Lords in regard to gay marriage in England the same is not true for the Church of England.
The Episcopal church welcomes gays who are not monogamous. As it does for straight people, the Episcopalians encourage fidelity but does not make that a requirement for any straight or gay parishioners in relationships.
Why can't the Church of England be more like its US Anglican counterpart The Episcopal Church of the United States of America?
Why can't American churches do the same?"
The only thing the Church of England should be proud of is ordaining Ijeoma as a priest but it should be ashamed that they forbid her or any other female priest to become bishops.
The Church of England does not even now fully endorse the gay marriage law in England as it is proposed, rather they intend to water it down and make some people "exempt" in some impossible to perceive way.
Their position is now "The bill will now go into committee where bishops — who hold 26 seats in the upper chamber — will attempt to insert amendments to add protections for teachers or other workers who object on religious grounds.
Also it is not a case of "Why can't American churches do the same?" because as a faithful Episcopalian you know all too well that the American branch of the Anglican communion, is far more LGBT friendly than that the C of E. which does not represent not represent all English churches any more than the Episcopal Church of America represent American churches.
If you were to compare the two you would no doubt say why can't the Church of England be more like Protestant Episcopal Church of America? The Episcopal Church allows women priest to become bishops (in fact I'm so happy you got to meet one of our two women bishops, one straight and one a lesbian.) As mentioned with regard to our dear member the The Reverend Ije the Tweetaway Queen, the Church of England does not allow women priests to become bishops
The Episcopal Church of America voted in its convention 37 years ago in 1976, that homosexuals are "children of God" and "entitled to full civil rights".
The Episcopal church is officially in favor of Gay marriage and allows married gays to have an official wedding ceremony in the church and has church services blessing same sex couples who choose not to marry or cannot travel to a state where gays may marry. This applies to priests and bishops too (but is forbidden by the Church of England.) The Episcopal Church has taken the stand that no state or the federal government should restrict gay marriage and thus opposes DOMA. As seen by the wavering and watering down planned by the Bishops in the House of Lords in regard to gay marriage in England the same is not true for the Church of England.
The Episcopal church welcomes gays who are not monogamous. As it does for straight people, the Episcopalians encourage fidelity but does not make that a requirement for any straight or gay parishioners in relationships.
Why can't the Church of England be more like its US Anglican counterpart The Episcopal Church of the United States of America?
Lori wrote: "Biblical Marriage Not Defined as One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed "
The link you posted on this subject in your message 3948 is an excellent find. Thank you~!
see Lori's link at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...
The link you posted on this subject in your message 3948 is an excellent find. Thank you~!
see Lori's link at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...
Wendy wrote: "Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
Did I mention/complain/prote..."
Oh, for Pete's sake, I just lost everything I wrote. I would like to say that I'm really, really ticked off about that, and I wish these damn things had an autosave so that when people who are clumsy and hit another button accidentally, everything they're been laboring over isn't immediately lost! *(&^&$%@*#^@%!&!!!!!
And while I'm already angry I'll just add that I hate, hate, hate trying to format things in Word because I never learned how and usually I can figure things out but WHY am I so clueless about this? Computers are supposed to like me, why is mine rebelling now? Damn thing. Boot to the head. Not a reboot, either. I understand styles make things easier. When I started writing I used a manual typewriter. A MANUAL typewriter. I had to explain what that was to my SOs' 14-year-old daughter, who has never seen one. I love computers, I do, but they're quickly getting smarter than me, much like my smartphone. &^@%#&^%$*&^@
Ije, I had a nice response for you. I'll try to sum it up because I need to go wrestle this document (it's an editing test, which I am quickly screwing up) like the late Steve Irwin and a giant crocodile. He was a little crazy, but he had such enthusiasm for creatures he was trying to save.
I wasn't really thinking about those aspects when I responded, but yes, you're right. Also in terms of if a partner goes into the hospital, it's important. Especially if your partner's parents don't agree with the relationship. If they do, that's another thing.
This country was supposed to have been founded on escaping the exact principles that have taken it over now. Freedom. I will say there is a great more freedom here than many other places (say, places we couldn't even be having this discussion in the fist place).
The intention was for church and state to remain separate, but man, did that ever get screwed up. Two big things that shouldn't be involved in the political arena at ALL are what we're talking about here and women's rights to their own bodies. They shouldn't be a religious issue either, but religion and politics have become so thornily entwined it's incredibly dangerous. So much for separation of church and state.
Christianity preaches love, but in practice what their actions show are anything but. Religious fundamentalism is a frightening thing. That it would condone a heterosexual marriage where domestic violence regularly occurs as all right, yet say a same-sex marriage is an abomination is beyond me. (I know domestic violence occurs in both, but given that there are more hetero marriages than same-sex marriages...) I won't even go into other issues I'm thinking about because they're too much of a downer and don't apply to same-sex marriage, but more the mindset of the religious right.
My grandfather, later a deacon in the Southern Baptist church, told my sister and I when I was about ten that we were going to go to hell because we hadn't been baptized. That's feeling the love for sure.
So yes, I do agree that some sort of legal acknowledgment is good in that respect. Although my SO and I don't have a domestic partnership agreement (a registered one), so we have the same problem. Maybe we should talk about that.
Lucas wrote: "Lori wrote: "Biblical Marriage Not Defined as One Man, One Woman: Iowa Religious Scholars' Op-Ed "The link you posted on this subject in your message 3948 is an excellent find. Thank you~!
see L..."
You're welcome. A friend of mine posted in on FB last night and I thought you folks would find it relevant given the current discussion.
Wendy: great assessment on the current situation.
George wrote: "I am 40% through Mister Kean's "A Life Apart," and may dig into that wonderful story (Dervishes even!) while the rains come"
Not just dervishes but Fuzzy Wuzzies too!
BTW looking at your profile I poked around and found a picture of you looking very handsome with your horse Shy who looked rather handsome too. But where is the photo of your dog?
I was so glad to read what you wrote about gay unions. You are certainly right and expressed well why marriage as a legal status has no relationship to a church ceremony called marriage or holy matrimony. And thanks for reminding people about DOMA which should be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Failing that the majority of Americans who favor gay marriage should write to their senators and representatives saying they will vote against them in an election if they do not fight to repeal DOMA so ironically named the Defense of Marriage Act.
I thought this statement you wrote was brilliant, "Let the theocratic priapists (sic) do or not do what they will. It is their right…"
"Theocratic priapists (priapismists?) is exactly what the nuts and dickheads on the political religious right should be called.
GOESTA I'm surpriszed (compromisze English/American word) you did not jump up and tell all you were adding 'theocratic priapists' to your notebook of great inspired language!
Enjoy the rainy downtime and I send similarly required hugs and kisses xxx ooo to you author George Seaton who is the author of the book Roger so highly recommends: Big Diehl: The Road Home
(on my to read list.)
Not just dervishes but Fuzzy Wuzzies too!
BTW looking at your profile I poked around and found a picture of you looking very handsome with your horse Shy who looked rather handsome too. But where is the photo of your dog?
I was so glad to read what you wrote about gay unions. You are certainly right and expressed well why marriage as a legal status has no relationship to a church ceremony called marriage or holy matrimony. And thanks for reminding people about DOMA which should be overturned by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Failing that the majority of Americans who favor gay marriage should write to their senators and representatives saying they will vote against them in an election if they do not fight to repeal DOMA so ironically named the Defense of Marriage Act.
I thought this statement you wrote was brilliant, "Let the theocratic priapists (sic) do or not do what they will. It is their right…"
"Theocratic priapists (priapismists?) is exactly what the nuts and dickheads on the political religious right should be called.
GOESTA I'm surpriszed (compromisze English/American word) you did not jump up and tell all you were adding 'theocratic priapists' to your notebook of great inspired language!
Enjoy the rainy downtime and I send similarly required hugs and kisses xxx ooo to you author George Seaton who is the author of the book Roger so highly recommends: Big Diehl: The Road Home
(on my to read list.)
Lucas wrote: "George wrote: "I am 40% through Mister Kean's "A Life Apart," and may dig into that wonderful story (Dervishes even!) while the rains come"Not just dervishes but Fuzzy Wuzzies too!
BTW looking ..."
Yes, Fuzzy Wuzzies too. And please know that I coined the phrase, "theocratic priapism" several years ago, as an apt description that has served me well when writing, most specifically, about Roman Catholicism, the church within which I was raised, and the church I've grown to despise. I would post a pic of Sweet Sarah, but, alas, I know not how to do it here. Always, hugs, kisses.
Lucas wrote: "Their position is now "The bill will now go into committee where bishops — who hold 26 seats in the upper chamber — will attempt to insert amendments to add protections for teachers or other workers who object on religious grounds. "Now I realise that this whole discussion is probably a bit of a downer but I just wanted to comment on this particular point. There has been discussion here (in the UK that is, not the Complaints Department) about whether or not gay marriage will mean that teachers who hold certain religious views are being discriminated against because they will be forced to teach about marriage which goes against their views of what marriage is.
Now, as someone who works in education this one particularly gets my goat. Teachers are not there to teach children their point of view on these matters. I have taught classes on various religions despite not being religious myself. I have no problem teaching a class on Sikhism even though I am not a Sikh because I am explaining the beliefs and ways of life of that religion, not telling the children that that is what they should believe. My views don't come into it.
It worries me that there are teachers out there who think that their job is to teach their point of view, and it really makes me wonder if they are in the right profession.
Goesta wrote: "I wish to complain at the trauma I am currently experiencing, during the final stages of the editing nightmare that is my LHNB submission, as a Canadian. It has been driven home (and deep) that I a..."um {whispers, hand sideways, in back of class} it was me. I noticed "focussed" and "focused." Rest assured some Canadian is punishing me by using both 'vice-grip' and 'neighbor' making my Canadian English spellchecking go bonkers.
I was away, watching an indifferent movie, and missed theocratic priapists, though I would have left it alone, being too integral to George's argument and, as he then pointed out, too easily provable that he had it first.I agree that they can stuff it where they wish but:
Any country where the religious lobby is strong enough to affect government and law-making is not one that separates church and state, no matter how much they expound on that principle.
The church(es) does/do not own God, they don't even have a copyright on the bible, but they act as if they do and have the power to go on doing so. Therefore, they must be held accountable, just like any other organization within a country, for abiding by the fundamental rules governing human rights in that country. If they do not wish to do so, they can form a private club with membership requirements and propound whatever idiotic ideals they so wish.
They claim to serve God and to serve the people, as such, they govern part of people's lives and are beholden both to the will of God (whatever that may be) and to the will of the people.
One may argue about what the will of the people is in a democratic (or any) country. I certainly am not a populist and believe any country that thinks it can be effectively run by a true majority rule is off its rocker. The majority of people are stupid, foolish, brutal, and selfish (as a group mentality, I mean).
Therefore, a country that values human rights must be run to protect people from other people, particularly other people with more power than is good for them. And that includes propagandistic power over people's minds, not just monetary and political.
None of this little rant is of any practical consequence, and I'm not advocating one thing or another. That's the beauty of being allowed to complain.
There's just something in some of the things that were expressed (and every right to express them) that rubs me wrong. I guess because organized religion shouldn't be allowed to screw up and around with people who are looking for spiritual guidance and acceptance. "Freedom of religion" does not mean freedom to spout hatred. It means freedom to commune with your God, whoever you are. Therefore, the church too ought to be made to abide by that law.
Otherwise, put a copyright on your god and sell it in the dime stores like any other worthless mass-product designed to fool the buyer into believing it has some intrinsic value.
Wendy wrote: "Oh, for Pete's sake, I just lost everything I wrote. I would like to say that I'm really, really ticked off about that, and I wish these damn things had an autosave so that when people who are clumsy and hit another button accidentally, everything they're been laboring over isn't immediately lost..."
If you have typed more than you want to retype highlight the text you have written then copy it. That way if you get messed up you can just paste what you wrote back into the message.
If you have typed more than you want to retype highlight the text you have written then copy it. That way if you get messed up you can just paste what you wrote back into the message.
Gabbo wrote: "Jerry wrote: "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06...Why can't American churches do the same?"
I'm discombobulated that the..."
Last year, I took a lower div Poli Sci class where our final assignment was to research a current topic and apply the public policy model to it. So I used same gender marriage. And was dumbfounded at how many lesbians and gays oppose it. In particular, Manuel A. Lopez who, if he isn't already, ought to be Molly Gallagher's bff.
Goesta wrote: "Then there are those theorists who propose that some American English (don't remember which, surely not Texan?) is actually closer in pronunciation to Shakespearean times, and that the Brits rather..."No,no, it cant be Texas, I live in Texas and it doesn't sound like ANY other relatively older dialect. There are dialects in Texas that other Texans can't understand and some that don't sound even American or human. It might be in the Applachian Mts. or some such. If you ever saw the movie "Tammy Tell Me True", one of the professors of the river/backwoods girl told her how Elizabethan and wonderful she sounded (it was John Gavin or somebody) and Sandra Dee said very wisely "Ah don't leeave in the Eliziabeethan tahmes." She sounded much more authentic than my wretched attempt to write out what I think she sounded like.
Averin wrote: "Rest assured some Canadian is punishing me by using both 'vice-grip' and 'neighbor' making my Canadian English spellchecking go bonkers. "As the kids nowadays would say, lol. Wouldn't be me, the word "neighbor" does not appear in my text, but this morning, on the final go-through, I found "behavior." Dreadful! Did I commit that? (Turns out I didn't, my submitted text reads "behaviour" as it bloody well should. I guess the quiet retrofit to my original spelling, after I'd called them on conforming me to, well you know, that other place where they sort of write English, didn't quite come off.)
Lucas wrote: "Wendy wrote: "Oh, for Pete's sake, I just lost everything I wrote. I would like to say that I'm really, really ticked off about that, and I wish these damn things had an autosave so that when peopl..."Ah, very smart...
ouch That happened to me and I went into a coma for a week. I too looked for an auto save off site or simultaneously but I don't think there is any way to help me. I have e-m problems and not even high class geeks-defo no insult intended, I am the original techno-tard, could figure out how it happened. So naturally I approach any and all computing devices with suspicion and wariness.
George wrote: "Lucas wrote: "I would post a pic of Sweet Sarah, but, alas, I know not how to do it here. Always, hugs, kisses."
Hello again George,
In order to post an image here it must be first uploaded to a website (you can find free ones by searching google for 'free image hosting' but I like www.pichut.eu) and the using the URL for the photo like this:
img src="url of your photo"
but inclose the above in angle brackets like this < at the beginning before img and > at the end after photo"
so it would look like this < img src="www.example.com" > but I put a space after the < and > so it would show here. If you are doing it for real there is no space between the angle brackets and the stuff inside of the brackets.
Or, it might be easier just to add a pic of Sarah on your website :-)
Of course there is much to enjoy with photos of shy. I was greatly entertained watching Youtube playing Shy—A Horse Story which is an illustrated 12 minute Audiobook by George telling the story of his "problem horse" Shy and how Shy's life was changed through their connection.
This short story audiobook with creative illustrations as read by our brilliant author/member George Seaton can be found on Youtube at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WunGhT...
Here is a photo of George and shy:
Hearty Hugs and a smooch, Lucas
Hello again George,
In order to post an image here it must be first uploaded to a website (you can find free ones by searching google for 'free image hosting' but I like www.pichut.eu) and the using the URL for the photo like this:
img src="url of your photo"
but inclose the above in angle brackets like this < at the beginning before img and > at the end after photo"
so it would look like this < img src="www.example.com" > but I put a space after the < and > so it would show here. If you are doing it for real there is no space between the angle brackets and the stuff inside of the brackets.
Or, it might be easier just to add a pic of Sarah on your website :-)
Of course there is much to enjoy with photos of shy. I was greatly entertained watching Youtube playing Shy—A Horse Story which is an illustrated 12 minute Audiobook by George telling the story of his "problem horse" Shy and how Shy's life was changed through their connection.
This short story audiobook with creative illustrations as read by our brilliant author/member George Seaton can be found on Youtube at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WunGhT...
Here is a photo of George and shy:
Hearty Hugs and a smooch, Lucas
Lucas wrote: "George wrote: "Lucas wrote: "I would post a pic of Sweet Sarah, but, alas, I know not how to do it here. Always, hugs, kisses."Hello again George,
In order to post an image here it must be first..."
Cool story. It's so easy to drive past animals and hope they're taken care of when seen in dicey surrounds. We commuted for years from the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, passing dairy farms that'd put you off milk, Quonset huts of chickens where lights never go off, corrals of horses, donkeys, alpaca, emu. How valiant of you to rescue this horse.
Not to stir up additional controversy and mayhem, but when I mentioned "why can't American churches do the same, I was actually referring to those other than the Episcopal Church (in Amercia).I grew up at a time where being gay and out was best lived in a gay ghetto like SF or NY or WeHo. My husband attended BIOLA university and now they have a virtual gay group that the administratiin is doing everything to anolish, but yet, even in the deepest evangelical place of learning, LGBT people are atempting to be visable, When the push for gay marriage started I thought why do that with all the vitriol and hatred and negativity from the religious groups. But it actually seems like a good strategy. It helped LGBT people come out and the more we America out the more acceptance there was. I am legally married in CA but have no federal rights. I was married by a Methodist deacon, sing at a Presbyterian church and keep my membership with the Episcopal church. Quite a mixed bag I am.
Sorry, I've had a few glasses of rosé and this may have rambled some?
Jerry wrote: "Not to stir up additional controversy and mayhem, but when I mentioned "why can't American churches do the same, I was actually referring to those other than the Episcopal Church (in Amercia).I gr..."
At least in the U.S., marriage equality is about health insurance and other legal benefits. It's all very well to be married in one state but if something catastrophic happens to one partner in another state where not only their marriage isn't recognized, but the hospital can prevent the partner from making decisions, getting information, visitation, all the rights that wouldn't be questioned in a het relationship. It's ridiculous to be a civilized nation and yet a convicted murderer can marry a crack whore and no one will question it because they are the "right genders." You cannot have people be treated as if they were lesser people from one state to another.
One last complaint for tonight: Wendy has not promoted her LHNB story, now up at M/M. Since this kind of thing is really Dr. LL's or Mistress Macky's milieu, I'll leave to one of them to fix.
I am so angry today, because I am in so much pain today than even if I sit still I hurt and want to cry :-( I can not do many things, but to have some days without pain then I am lucky.
Both my hips and legs feel different and hurt, most of my body hurt now and 11 days feel long before the meeting when your hurt and lost your appetite.
Then it is difficult to read a book when your are in pain.
I wish to be painfree and happy all the time, to cooking fine food and to enjoy my life everyday.
Both my hips and legs feel different and hurt, most of my body hurt now and 11 days feel long before the meeting when your hurt and lost your appetite.
Then it is difficult to read a book when your are in pain.
I wish to be painfree and happy all the time, to cooking fine food and to enjoy my life everyday.
Danni wrote:…It worries me that there are teachers out there who think that their job is to teach their point of view, and it really makes me wonder if they are in the right profession…Hear, hear, Danni. My biggest concern too, especially as I get the impression it's what the teaching unions want, and it amounts to brainwashing.
Lucas wrote: "George wrote: "Lucas wrote: "I would post a pic of Sweet Sarah, but, alas, I know not how to do it here. Always, hugs, kisses."
Hello again George,
In order to post an image here it must be first..."
That's a good horse story, George Seaton, and a fine looking boy.
Hello again George,
In order to post an image here it must be first..."
That's a good horse story, George Seaton, and a fine looking boy.
Roger wrote: "Danni wrote:…It worries me that there are teachers out there who think that their job is to teach their point of view, and it really makes me wonder if they are in the right profession…Hear, hear..."
Since I'm on a roll (but promise I shall gather moss after this). Remembering my own high school education (definitely talking pre-college here), and also the word that used to be used to describe the process, distasteful as it is, the moulding of my moral and social persona was as least as important a part of the process as the moulding of my mind. So for better or worse, school is not just about learning facts, which is why teachers have the most important, delicate job in the universe (other than perhaps parents, but I would posit that both are equally necessary in the growing-up of an individual). Whether a young person agrees with or rejects a teacher's "opinions" (and by that I mean their entire make-up as a mentoring adult) or a mix of both, they serve as a beacon.
I totally agree that a teacher's ideology ought to have no place in the communication of subject matter; in the case of teaching something like religion (which in our school was a faint presence in the morning chapel assembly but none in the classroom; I'm not sure how I would have felt about having to take it if I had been), it ought to be done comparatively or not at all.
Problem is, even that is an ethical choice. Should those be left entirely up to the bureaucracy? Should teachers abandon moral positions entirely? Obviously not. One of my teachers was furious when the authorities banned a book of short stories from the curriculum because it contained 'unsuitable' material. The writing itself was excellent (compared to the book it was replaced with) and, I assume my teacher argued, how would you address those themes unless you were confronted with them. Of course it would be up to individual teachers to discuss them in class, and I guess the educational ministry was worried about that. So they replaced it with pablum.
Or what, heaven forbid, a government went off its rocker (not happening anywhere in the world nowadays, nooo) and started forcing teachers to promulgate the history IT saw as preferable. Should teachers not be the first line of defense against that?
So in an inverted way, I can see the point of those educators who have issues with teaching about a form of marriage they don't believe in. Saying teachers should not take a moral position ignores the real issue. That teachers have to be some of the most moral people around. Only, that they ought to have the sense of right and wrong WE want them to have. And unfortunately there are other, more benighted factions, that feel the same.
So it all just comes back to each of us, and a difficult, ongoing campaign of hearts and minds.
In all honesty Goesta, I work with primary age children so for a lot of them the question of how many pencils they can fit up one nostril is probably a more interesting topic than the question of morality in our society ;)On a philosophical level we could argue the rights and wrongs of morality forever and never get anywhere (I know - I did a Sociology degree and still didn't manage to figure much out!) but in reality we have to teach children to get along with each other and to respect other people - and that can be a battle in itself! The argument that some people use that they are being discriminated against because they will be forced to teach things they don't believe in is completely ludicrous. They want to deny people equal rights because they will be then be forced to teach that people have equal rights. Huh????
I must interrupt and complain that all these
I must complain that I have spent my whole morning (actually I'm lying, probably 30 seconds) searching online for a penis shaped butter bean in order to make Macky laugh, and to sway her opinion, but alas they do not seem to exist. So, boooo to butter beans cos they are rank and they don't seem to come in genitalia shapes either which makes them a totally useless food as far as I'm concerned.
I'm bejiggered (there, that sounds more befitting already) that I had to look up "butter beans." Hum. Lima Bean. Does chili con carne count? I like chili. Otherwise, yeah, not so much.Totally agree with you Danni (how dreadful! I note). Being you, you make my point about the qualities necessary to be a teacher. And addressing who has the most pencils up their nose and how that reflects on their social standing is very important and character-forming indeed. I'm sure Donald Trump always had to be the kid with the most pencils up as many orifices as possible.
Goesta wrote: "I'm sure Donald Trump always had to be the kid with the most pencils up as many orifices as possible. " Literally LOL - thanks Goesta!
Bill Gates was the one who narrowed down the various pencil options to find the easiest way for everyone who was not an expert to insert pencils into their nostrils. And Steve Jobs no doubt chucked away his pencil and stuck a big old pen up there just to be different.
I hate butter beans as well and have ever since a child at infant school in the years of food rationing, when there seemed to be no end to the streams of tasteless, grunchy, grainy horrible things. And they never ever had butter on them anyway (it was also rationed). Ughh.I understand non-Engerland misunderstanding. The butter bean is nothing like the red kidney bean used for chill con carne, nor—I'm going to argue—the reasonably tasty young lima bean Phaseolus lunatus, although they are one and the same. But Americans seem to eat them more like the French fine bean or young "green bean", whereas the Brit butter bean is a giant lima gone to seed, if that's possible, dried, rehydrated and boiled to a crumbly horribleness. The BBC describes them as: "large, creamy-coloured beans that have a soft, floury texture when cooked." yup FLOWERY.
Roger wrote: "I hate butter beans as well and have ever since a child at infant school in the years of food rationing, when there seemed to be no end to the streams of tasteless, grunchy, grainy horrible things...."I'm be gruntled and strangely touched at Rogers support of my butter bean hating complaint, because of this I will actually buy his
Complaint Department
Books mentioned in this topic
The Pompeiian Horse (other topics)Gutter Sludge: Poems from Your Scary Ex (other topics)
The Fantasy Art of Oliver Frey (other topics)
Ethan, Who Loved Carter (other topics)
Zippadacious (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
John Byrne (other topics)Stephen Hawking (other topics)
Stephen Hawking (other topics)
Ursula K. Le Guin (other topics)
A.R. Noble (other topics)
More...
As far as use of "z" instead of "s" I have proof in the form of an original, that the first proper English dictionary, that of Dr. Johnson, spelled "apologize", "recognize" and so on with the "z", which indicates the Americans took the old spellings with them and we in Britain modernize(s)ed. Then there are those who state the Dr. Johnson only picked on one (fairly) consistent form of spelling from a language that had no such prior convention –he was a kind of 18th-century Bauhaus of his day.
And I suspect the Founding Fathers of the colonial states of America preferred the Saxon (or by the time they left, Low English) usage for the season die Felle which became the American "fall" rather than the poncier French l'autonme for autumn.