Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
cHriS wrote: "It maybe wrong that some gay men are not allowed to give blood but suggesting others should not give blood either, is not the way to go. "
Unless we want safe blood ... then, it would be the way to go.
And, really, truly, why don't we tell people to suck it up? If they're mature enough to take part in certain aspects of adult life, I think they should handle answering questions about it.
But, I'm wondering ...
You asked me to point something out to you this morning ... to show proof of where you did something ... or ... was it all about my passionate nature.
Still waiting ...
Unless we want safe blood ... then, it would be the way to go.
And, really, truly, why don't we tell people to suck it up? If they're mature enough to take part in certain aspects of adult life, I think they should handle answering questions about it.
But, I'm wondering ...
You asked me to point something out to you this morning ... to show proof of where you did something ... or ... was it all about my passionate nature.
Still waiting ...
I feel slightly dirty even needing to do this .....Set A : Driving Habits = Sexual Behaviour
Set B (a subset of A) : Speeding = Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C (a subset of B) : Caught Speeding = Disclosure of Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C includes all gay men--according to the questionnaires and policies of CBS regardless of whether they do or do not engage in that behaviour. Heterosexual persons are (dis)allowed based on whether they disclose risky behaviour (in those situations where they are asked).
Therefore, the policies discriminate against gay men based on a perception.
C-Cose wrote: "I feel slightly dirty even needing to do this .....
Set A : Driving Habits = Sexual Behaviour
Set B (a subset of A) : Speeding = Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C (a subset of B) : Caught Speeding = ..."
That was very clear.
Set A : Driving Habits = Sexual Behaviour
Set B (a subset of A) : Speeding = Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C (a subset of B) : Caught Speeding = ..."
That was very clear.
C-Cose wrote: "I feel slightly dirty even needing to do this .....
Set A : Driving Habits = Sexual Behaviour
Set B (a subset of A) : Speeding = Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C (a subset of B) : Caught Speeding = ..."
Was somewhat disappointed, though, regardless of clarity ...
Was hoping for a colorful chart or graph ...
;)
Set A : Driving Habits = Sexual Behaviour
Set B (a subset of A) : Speeding = Risky Sexual Behaviour
Set C (a subset of B) : Caught Speeding = ..."
Was somewhat disappointed, though, regardless of clarity ...
Was hoping for a colorful chart or graph ...
;)
cHriS wrote: "I also agree with you if thats how things are. And that's what I have being saying , the supply of blood must come first. If asking personal questions could put the majority off giving blood, I can see why they would go down that road. If there is a lack of blood everyone's losses "Yet earlier you were supporting the idea that the blood supply should be as safe as we can make it, but now you are arguing the ends justifies the means.
It is this inconsistency in policy that makes some people feel that the policy makers are succumbing to prejudice.
Shannon wrote: You wrote ..."Maybe one or both are Gay and they are only fighting their corner, so I give them the benefit of the doubt."
Are you going to say that's not questioning their sexuality?
Well, Shannon, take a look at that sentence. It's a statement. Not a question. I never asked them the question. Just made a statement. So, in reality, I didn't question their sexuality.
Is that what you're going to say?
I will start by putting you straight on a few things. I speak my mind, I don’t pander to anyone regardless of who they are, and in a debate I will discuss either what I believe in, what I think is right or just what my opinion is on a subject.
On this subject I am on the side of the health authorities and it just happens that the conversation was also about a section in society of gay men, which I do not support on this issue but am willing to be convinced otherwise. The authorities have their reasons for excluding gay men from giving blood, I suggested what that reason might be but Gary has given a better reason which I agreed with him was more likely. When the word ’bigot’ starts creeping into the debate, I take that personally, much the same when the race card is played.
On the subject of ‘fighting their corner’ if you had bothered to read down a bit further you would have seen that I clarified that. ‘Standing up for what one believes in’
If two people are having a debate about whatever subject, they are discussing it as third parties. When it comes to light that one of the people is not a third party but is talking from a first person point of view, the debate changes course. I did not know C Cose was gay and suggested that he may be ‘fighting their corner’. In other words from a first person view point. That can make a big difference to a debate for many reasons. The over use of the word bigot suggested to me that this could be the case.
You're right about the fact that I can get pretty passionate about things, cHriS. I'm fully aware of that and actually am the first to admit it. Given that, I tend to question myself when I get fiery. Is it my nature, or ....
I don't believe, in this instance, it's me. My passion. My nature. I don't think my judgement is clouded.
After all, ....
After writing the above yesterday, you had Gary writing back that he's heterosexual.
Right? Right.
After seeing that, cHriS, you didn't write back and say, "Whoa, man! I think you misread my post. I wasn't questioning your sexuality. That doesn't have anything to do with the price of tea in China."
No.
When I first brought it up yesterday ... that people's sexuality had nothing to do with the discussion ... you said something along the lines of ... then what are we talking about. Right? Right. You didn't say, "Whoa.... Shannon! What are you talking about? I didn't bring up anyone's sexuality!"
Right? Right.
I did. And somehow you seem to be offended on behalf of Gary, who can give quite as good as he gets. Except that I did not say anything that was in any way offensive. You suggested that the conversation had nothing to do with sexuality and I think it has. If you feel that a conversation about the authorities preventing gay man from giving blood, is nothing to do with the sexuality of a person, or that a person debating the subject who is gay, would have an issue with others knowing he was gay, then why not say why you think this rather then pre-empting what you think I might say?
And, if memory serves, didn't you mention going into C's profile and seeing something that led you to believe that he is homosexual?
Yeah. You did.
"Well, Shannon, I didn't phrase that in the form of a question. It was a statement." Is that what you're going to say? In order to show that you never brought up or questioned anyone's sexuality. It's all about me getting passionate and fuzzy-headed.
Again, you have failed to read on……………. C hinted to me that I should have known he was gay be the discussions he had with Gary. But I did not read all those discussions and so I doubled checked by reading his profile…….which I assume he wants others to read or it would not be there.
If you're going to bring Gary's sexuality into this discussion, cHriS ... If you're going to bring C's sexuality into this discussion ...
Please own up to it if you're called on it ... instead of accusing the one woman who is crying foul of being ... hmmm ... overly emotional.
own up ?????
If you want to know something ask me, don’t be so cryptic, I don’t know what you want me own up to.
And in a previous post you suggested that I was married with children. Is this not along the same lines as ‘sexuality’. Is this Ok for you to say but not others?
Now I'm turning green..........
cHriS ...
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough ... given that you think I'm being cryptic.
You said something along the lines of ... Hey, maybe Gary and C are gay and that's why ....
When I asked what sexual orientation had to do with the discussion, I was referring to that. I should have been more clear. Not gay men who want to donate blood, in general. No. The sexual orientation of the people posting to this thread. I don't believe that's relevant. Further, as I mentioned, if individuals want to share certain parts of their lives, that's their business. It's not for us to say, "Hey, guys. Maybe Gary and C are gay and that's why they're arguing this point." I'm pretty sure a lot of heterosexual and homosexual men would argue the same point.
Regarding my post "suggesting you are married with children" and your thoughts on whether or not I was questioning your sexuality ....
First, you've said you're just a man who types with two fingers. Therefore, I assumed you're a man.
Second, you've said you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Further, you've said homosexual acts are "unnatural" and you've said you don't support homosexuality. Therefore, it didn't occur to me that you might be homosexual.
Third, I should have said ... imagine if you had a wife and child. I don't know if you do or not. However, based on your posts, it seems you value marriage and children. Very much. It seems like you're a man. It seems you're very against homosexuality. So .... It seemed to me that you're the type of guy who would like to marry one day. Or, it seemed like you might be married. If those were erroneous assumptions on my part, you'll have to excuse me. If I added 2 and 2 and came up with 4 instead of 6, you'll have to excuse me. Or not.
Why did I ask you to imagine your wife and child (current or future) to begin with?
You sometimes fixate, in my opinion, on certain things ... race, equality, homosexuality ... the use of the word "bigot" ... the wrongs of a society attempting to be PC.
Fine.
But, you'd also been going on about women and children and how important children were .... You brought up the Titanic and the need to protect women and children. You said the policy against gay men donating wasn't about bigotry, it was about safety. The safety of the blood supply.
Okay.
We were making a pretty logical argument ... or arguments ... about the blood supply and the need for safety and what it would look like. You wouldn't hear it. In my opinion. You kept going on about bigotry and the word and how wrong we were to be PC and that we were putting the safety of the blood supply and society at risk for gay rights and all things PC.
In my opinion, you refused to see the logic ... even consider for a moment the logic ... behind our argument.
You ...
You, who were arguing about safety ...
You, who had been arguing about protecting women and children ...
You, who had been arguing about the need for women to stay home with their babies in order to protect them and have a safe and healthy society ....
You couldn't, in my estimation, see past the word "bigot" in order to see the issue we were discussing ... safety.
That boggled my mind.
I said what I said in an attempt to get you to think about something you, I thought, cared about even more than an anti-PC world ... safety, women and children.
You can see, from your words and your arguments, why I'd assume you care deeply for safety and for women and for children? Right? I mean, that makes sense given your words here, does it not?
I thought ... if I could get you, for two seconds, to stop being focused on the word "bigot" ... if I could get you to think about what you supposedly believed the blood donation policy was about ... safety ... if I could get you to think about something you, I thought, stood for ... women and children and their safety and well-being ...
I thought if I could do that, you'd take a moment and think about our argument. If you did that ... instead of focusing on the fact we thought bigotry was at play ... if you looked at the other words in our argument ....
I thought you'd realize we were actually hoping for the same thing.
Safety.... If safety was the issue ....
Now, ....
If you're a woman, who said you were a man who types with two fingers for some unknown reason, I apologize to you for assuming you're a man. I suppose that would be me questioning your sexuality.
If you're a homosexual man, who talks about the fact that homosexual acts are unnatural, and I assumed you're a heterosexual man, I apologize. My asking you to imagine your wife and children, if you're a homosexual man, would be questioning your lifestyle. Not my intention.
I guess should have said ... imagine if you had a wife and child ... though you might have taken offense if I said that and you have a wife and child ... as that would make it seem as if you didn't. You see, I thought ... imagine your wife and child would encompass a wife and child, present tense or future tense.
Or, perhaps, I should feel I'm in the wrong for attempting have a discussion with you, to get past your fixation on all things PC, to try and break through to you so you could see what we were getting at. Not for the reason of your agreeing. But, truly, it seemed to me that you weren't even able to register our actual words. My opinion. Perhaps I was wrong.
That was my reasoning for saying ... imagine your wife and child ....
I'm still, sadly, unclear as to how that was similar to your saying ... maybe Gary and C are gay.
Yeah, Gary gives as good as he gets. I've been on the receiving end of that more than once. Gary knows how I feel about that.
However ....
That has nothing to do with anything, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't give a flip what Gary has said or not said to me in the past. I don't care what Gary has said or not said to anyone in the past. Gary could be the biggest prick ever to walk the face of this planet, not, and it wouldn't matter to me.
What matters to me? Things like respect, responsibility, honor, honesty.
Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people say things and lines are crossed. I tend to see it when I do it and own it. Some of the people here do likewise. A lot pretend it never happened or don't see it or refuse to admit it when they do it. Again, that doesn't matter. Not to me and not to the line that was crossed.
What matters to me in this instance ...?
While I have issues when it comes to my knee-jerk reactions when I see people being treated in a way that I consider disrespectful, I also think it's wrong to stay silent when certain things are being said and are happening around me.
So, I said what I said. I own it.
What matters to me is the fact that Gary's sexuality and C's sexuality had nothing to do with the arguments they were making ... risk is risk and safety is safety. It's not for anyone, save themselves, to bring their sexuality into the discussion/debate.
Regarding the words "own up" ....
Despite saying what you said, you tried to say ... this morning ... that you never called their sexuality in question. Do you not remember that? You said what you said and, when called on it, you said you didn't and asked me to point out where you did it. Next, you went on in this most recent post about why it was okay for your to mention that they might be gay ... (hence questioning their sexuality) .... Finally, after all of that, you pretend not to know what I meant when I said ... if you're going to say it, own up to it.
To be clear ... that means ...
If you say something like,
Yo, Gary and C might be gay. And, I looked on C's page and saw something that leads me to believe he is ....
Don't say ...
When did I question their sexuality?
I think we should own our words. That's what I mean.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough ... given that you think I'm being cryptic.
You said something along the lines of ... Hey, maybe Gary and C are gay and that's why ....
When I asked what sexual orientation had to do with the discussion, I was referring to that. I should have been more clear. Not gay men who want to donate blood, in general. No. The sexual orientation of the people posting to this thread. I don't believe that's relevant. Further, as I mentioned, if individuals want to share certain parts of their lives, that's their business. It's not for us to say, "Hey, guys. Maybe Gary and C are gay and that's why they're arguing this point." I'm pretty sure a lot of heterosexual and homosexual men would argue the same point.
Regarding my post "suggesting you are married with children" and your thoughts on whether or not I was questioning your sexuality ....
First, you've said you're just a man who types with two fingers. Therefore, I assumed you're a man.
Second, you've said you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Further, you've said homosexual acts are "unnatural" and you've said you don't support homosexuality. Therefore, it didn't occur to me that you might be homosexual.
Third, I should have said ... imagine if you had a wife and child. I don't know if you do or not. However, based on your posts, it seems you value marriage and children. Very much. It seems like you're a man. It seems you're very against homosexuality. So .... It seemed to me that you're the type of guy who would like to marry one day. Or, it seemed like you might be married. If those were erroneous assumptions on my part, you'll have to excuse me. If I added 2 and 2 and came up with 4 instead of 6, you'll have to excuse me. Or not.
Why did I ask you to imagine your wife and child (current or future) to begin with?
You sometimes fixate, in my opinion, on certain things ... race, equality, homosexuality ... the use of the word "bigot" ... the wrongs of a society attempting to be PC.
Fine.
But, you'd also been going on about women and children and how important children were .... You brought up the Titanic and the need to protect women and children. You said the policy against gay men donating wasn't about bigotry, it was about safety. The safety of the blood supply.
Okay.
We were making a pretty logical argument ... or arguments ... about the blood supply and the need for safety and what it would look like. You wouldn't hear it. In my opinion. You kept going on about bigotry and the word and how wrong we were to be PC and that we were putting the safety of the blood supply and society at risk for gay rights and all things PC.
In my opinion, you refused to see the logic ... even consider for a moment the logic ... behind our argument.
You ...
You, who were arguing about safety ...
You, who had been arguing about protecting women and children ...
You, who had been arguing about the need for women to stay home with their babies in order to protect them and have a safe and healthy society ....
You couldn't, in my estimation, see past the word "bigot" in order to see the issue we were discussing ... safety.
That boggled my mind.
I said what I said in an attempt to get you to think about something you, I thought, cared about even more than an anti-PC world ... safety, women and children.
You can see, from your words and your arguments, why I'd assume you care deeply for safety and for women and for children? Right? I mean, that makes sense given your words here, does it not?
I thought ... if I could get you, for two seconds, to stop being focused on the word "bigot" ... if I could get you to think about what you supposedly believed the blood donation policy was about ... safety ... if I could get you to think about something you, I thought, stood for ... women and children and their safety and well-being ...
I thought if I could do that, you'd take a moment and think about our argument. If you did that ... instead of focusing on the fact we thought bigotry was at play ... if you looked at the other words in our argument ....
I thought you'd realize we were actually hoping for the same thing.
Safety.... If safety was the issue ....
Now, ....
If you're a woman, who said you were a man who types with two fingers for some unknown reason, I apologize to you for assuming you're a man. I suppose that would be me questioning your sexuality.
If you're a homosexual man, who talks about the fact that homosexual acts are unnatural, and I assumed you're a heterosexual man, I apologize. My asking you to imagine your wife and children, if you're a homosexual man, would be questioning your lifestyle. Not my intention.
I guess should have said ... imagine if you had a wife and child ... though you might have taken offense if I said that and you have a wife and child ... as that would make it seem as if you didn't. You see, I thought ... imagine your wife and child would encompass a wife and child, present tense or future tense.
Or, perhaps, I should feel I'm in the wrong for attempting have a discussion with you, to get past your fixation on all things PC, to try and break through to you so you could see what we were getting at. Not for the reason of your agreeing. But, truly, it seemed to me that you weren't even able to register our actual words. My opinion. Perhaps I was wrong.
That was my reasoning for saying ... imagine your wife and child ....
I'm still, sadly, unclear as to how that was similar to your saying ... maybe Gary and C are gay.
Yeah, Gary gives as good as he gets. I've been on the receiving end of that more than once. Gary knows how I feel about that.
However ....
That has nothing to do with anything, as far as I'm concerned.
I don't give a flip what Gary has said or not said to me in the past. I don't care what Gary has said or not said to anyone in the past. Gary could be the biggest prick ever to walk the face of this planet, not, and it wouldn't matter to me.
What matters to me? Things like respect, responsibility, honor, honesty.
Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, people say things and lines are crossed. I tend to see it when I do it and own it. Some of the people here do likewise. A lot pretend it never happened or don't see it or refuse to admit it when they do it. Again, that doesn't matter. Not to me and not to the line that was crossed.
What matters to me in this instance ...?
While I have issues when it comes to my knee-jerk reactions when I see people being treated in a way that I consider disrespectful, I also think it's wrong to stay silent when certain things are being said and are happening around me.
So, I said what I said. I own it.
What matters to me is the fact that Gary's sexuality and C's sexuality had nothing to do with the arguments they were making ... risk is risk and safety is safety. It's not for anyone, save themselves, to bring their sexuality into the discussion/debate.
Regarding the words "own up" ....
Despite saying what you said, you tried to say ... this morning ... that you never called their sexuality in question. Do you not remember that? You said what you said and, when called on it, you said you didn't and asked me to point out where you did it. Next, you went on in this most recent post about why it was okay for your to mention that they might be gay ... (hence questioning their sexuality) .... Finally, after all of that, you pretend not to know what I meant when I said ... if you're going to say it, own up to it.
To be clear ... that means ...
If you say something like,
Yo, Gary and C might be gay. And, I looked on C's page and saw something that leads me to believe he is ....
Don't say ...
When did I question their sexuality?
I think we should own our words. That's what I mean.
cHriS wrote: "Again, you have failed to read on……………. C hinted to me that I should have known he was gay be the discussions he had with Gary. But I did not read all those discussions and so I doubled checked by reading his profile…….which I assume he wants others to read or it would not be there."cHriS,
Once again you have managed to make an assumption based on your perception of what I wrote.
When I suggested that my exchanges with Gary would reflect that he and I agree on little, I had hoped that you would see the the content, context and tone of them. To my knowledge, my--or Gary's--sexuality has not entered into this discussion before this thread.
You may, or may not, have perceived that I was gay based on the fact that I introduced gay men donating blood into the conversation. I suggest that this "knowledge" has coloured your perceptions of my arguments.
This discussion, for me, has never been about the sexuality of blood donors; I could as easily have said "purple people", "those with only one leg" or something else had that been the case. The issue, again for me, has always been about a policy that at it's root discriminates against a segment of the population based on incorrect interpretation and application of scientific fact.
I almost considered providing a different example of prejudice that has nothing to do with gay men, blood donorship or those inequalities, but I fear that you would either ignore those parts that your don't like or apply flawed logical arguments.
C-cose - it doesn't take much surmising to assume you are gay. Your profile pic shows you kissing another man with both if you in wedding attire - hello ? I am not judging you - I actually like the pic. But you can't seriously ask why someone would assume you are gay!
Maria wrote: "C-cose - it doesn't take much surmising to assume you are gay. Your profile pic shows you kissing another man with both if you in wedding attire - hello ? I am not judging you - I actually like ..."
Greetings Maria,
I haven't asked whether that assumption is made. I've been referring to statements that cHriS made in support of his argument that Gary and I are "in the same corner" because one or both of us might be gay. cHris himself said that my sexuality was only confirmed for him after he visited my profile, yet those assumptions were made before he did.
I ask you .... if you seriously thought my sexuality was an issue for me do you think that I'd have that profile picture?
No, and I applaud you for being who you are! I thought you were asking cs (Chris) how he happened to assume you were gay. I was insulted by him about a thousand posts ago when he was the troll cs - that's why I'm trying to ignore him. Since I'm skimming his posts I may have missed something. Best wishes to you and your partner - you have brought a fresh new perspective to this thread and are very polite even to those who challenge you.
Maria wrote: "Best wishes to you and your partner - you have brought a fresh new perspective to this thread and are very polite even to those who challenge you. "Thank you for that Maria :) I try .... oh how I try .... lol.
Maria wrote: "But you can't seriously ask why someone would assume you are gay! "
Did C ask why someone would assume he is gay? (Exclamation point.)
We'll see what he says, but ....
My reading of his post led me to believe the assumption he thought cHriS made wasn't about his sexuality but about the basis of his agreement with Gary ... which wasn't, I don't think, about C's sexuality.
Or, perhaps you're referring to the part where he mentioned the idea that cHriS might have perceived him to be gay based upon his introducing a topic of discussion involving gay men ....
Interestingly, I couldn't tell what his picture was of, which leads me to believe I should visit the eye doctor, since you could tell. After clicking on said picture to see and it came to his page and was larger, I was able to see that the picture is of two men kissing.
But, weirdly, in my opinion, some people post pictures of babies as "their" picture. I don't assume they're babies. I assume they've, for some odd reason, posted pictures of their babies for the world to see. And, let's face it, I'm not a tree ... or the moon. Maybe the men were family members. A brother and his partner. You know? cHriS alluded to the fact that C's profile states that he's gay. I've not read his profile. The picture alone .... If I was only going on a picture, I'd not necessarily presume he's gay.
Ultimately, though ....
If people are arguing, logically, that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, who pose a risk to the blood supply should be turned away, why would who they have sex with or if they have sex or ... have anything to do with the conversation? If the argument wasn't logical, I could see one sitting back and wondering .... Does the person have a firm grip on reality? Am I not understanding for some reason? Could it have to do with the person's sexuality and the fact that the person has likely been treated like a piece of crap on the sidewalk 5,000 times and, therefore, might have a trigger regarding the treatment of gay men? But, given the fact that the argument seemed pretty logical, I'm a bit confused as to why it should have entered the conversation.
Did C ask why someone would assume he is gay? (Exclamation point.)
We'll see what he says, but ....
My reading of his post led me to believe the assumption he thought cHriS made wasn't about his sexuality but about the basis of his agreement with Gary ... which wasn't, I don't think, about C's sexuality.
Or, perhaps you're referring to the part where he mentioned the idea that cHriS might have perceived him to be gay based upon his introducing a topic of discussion involving gay men ....
Interestingly, I couldn't tell what his picture was of, which leads me to believe I should visit the eye doctor, since you could tell. After clicking on said picture to see and it came to his page and was larger, I was able to see that the picture is of two men kissing.
But, weirdly, in my opinion, some people post pictures of babies as "their" picture. I don't assume they're babies. I assume they've, for some odd reason, posted pictures of their babies for the world to see. And, let's face it, I'm not a tree ... or the moon. Maybe the men were family members. A brother and his partner. You know? cHriS alluded to the fact that C's profile states that he's gay. I've not read his profile. The picture alone .... If I was only going on a picture, I'd not necessarily presume he's gay.
Ultimately, though ....
If people are arguing, logically, that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, who pose a risk to the blood supply should be turned away, why would who they have sex with or if they have sex or ... have anything to do with the conversation? If the argument wasn't logical, I could see one sitting back and wondering .... Does the person have a firm grip on reality? Am I not understanding for some reason? Could it have to do with the person's sexuality and the fact that the person has likely been treated like a piece of crap on the sidewalk 5,000 times and, therefore, might have a trigger regarding the treatment of gay men? But, given the fact that the argument seemed pretty logical, I'm a bit confused as to why it should have entered the conversation.
Shannon wrote: "And, let's face it, I'm not a tree ... or the moon."LMAO!!!! I'm a tad upset now .... I've always wanted to talk to the moon *pout* ;)
It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation - but that is no reason not to discuss it! Shannon you are so intense!
C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "And, let's face it, I'm not a tree ... or the moon."
LMAO!!!! I'm a tad upset now .... I've always wanted to talk to the moon *pout* ;)"
Hmmmm....
Well, I'm definitely not the moon.
But, now you have me wondering about talking to the moon and what folk tales might exist regarding the moon and ideas about talking to the moon .... Then, after wondering that, my brain whizzed to that movie ... ummm ... The Right Stuff! One of the astronauts was in orbit. Glenn. And, the guy who played ... Gordo Cooper ... (cute) was in Australia and an Australian said he knew a man, like a medicine man, who could help ... because Cooper "said" he was there to watch over his friend. Did the Australian man say the medicine man could talk to the moon and/or the stars? And, ... there was this clip of the guy and a bonfire and the music ... and Glenn saw the "fireflies" around his capsule. Next, I started wondering about Greek/Roman myth around the twins and what could I remember. STONEHENGE! Yeah, that popped into my brain next. Did the ancients think they could "talk" to the moon? Or ... only listen. And, ....
Dang! Crazy how one little sentence, which was meant to make me chuckle, I presume, sent my brain into all of those places .... Unless my assumption was wrong. Perhaps you meant to send my brain this way and that ... in order to see what I came up with .... Squinting in your direction ....
Ultimately, I'll end with ... I'm definitely not the moon.
LMAO!!!! I'm a tad upset now .... I've always wanted to talk to the moon *pout* ;)"
Hmmmm....
Well, I'm definitely not the moon.
But, now you have me wondering about talking to the moon and what folk tales might exist regarding the moon and ideas about talking to the moon .... Then, after wondering that, my brain whizzed to that movie ... ummm ... The Right Stuff! One of the astronauts was in orbit. Glenn. And, the guy who played ... Gordo Cooper ... (cute) was in Australia and an Australian said he knew a man, like a medicine man, who could help ... because Cooper "said" he was there to watch over his friend. Did the Australian man say the medicine man could talk to the moon and/or the stars? And, ... there was this clip of the guy and a bonfire and the music ... and Glenn saw the "fireflies" around his capsule. Next, I started wondering about Greek/Roman myth around the twins and what could I remember. STONEHENGE! Yeah, that popped into my brain next. Did the ancients think they could "talk" to the moon? Or ... only listen. And, ....
Dang! Crazy how one little sentence, which was meant to make me chuckle, I presume, sent my brain into all of those places .... Unless my assumption was wrong. Perhaps you meant to send my brain this way and that ... in order to see what I came up with .... Squinting in your direction ....
Ultimately, I'll end with ... I'm definitely not the moon.
Maria wrote: "It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation - but that is no reason not to discuss it! Shannon you are so intense!"
Ahahahaha....
Yes, Maria, I can be intense.
There's something to be said for people who can be intense. They're honest, more often than not. No games. No hidden agendas. No wondering what they're thinking. No trying to figure out where you stand them. Right?
It just is ... it's just there.
Period or exclamation point.
Thank you for the compliment. ;)
Ahahahaha....
Yes, Maria, I can be intense.
There's something to be said for people who can be intense. They're honest, more often than not. No games. No hidden agendas. No wondering what they're thinking. No trying to figure out where you stand them. Right?
It just is ... it's just there.
Period or exclamation point.
Thank you for the compliment. ;)
Shannon wrote: "Ultimately, I'll end with ... I'm definitely not the moon."Sweet Heavenly Peaches!!!! I haven't laughed that hard or long in weeks!!!!
I've said it before ... I love the way your mind works :)
Maria wrote: "It has absolutely no bearing on the conversation - but that is no reason not to discuss it! Shannon you are so intense!"
Whoops! One other thing. I know you said it has no bearing on the conversation but that's no reason not to discuss it.
Does that mean you think we should discuss all of our sexual orientations? Like, do you want to discuss yours or do you want to ask me about mine, etc...? Or ... is there only no reason not to discuss C's? (Or Gary's?)
Just wondering ....
Whoops! One other thing. I know you said it has no bearing on the conversation but that's no reason not to discuss it.
Does that mean you think we should discuss all of our sexual orientations? Like, do you want to discuss yours or do you want to ask me about mine, etc...? Or ... is there only no reason not to discuss C's? (Or Gary's?)
Just wondering ....
C-Cose wrote: "I've said it before ... I love the way your mind works :) "
Aaahhhhhhh.....
Would you believe I didn't know what LMAO stood for until around October of last year?
Okay, so ....
I think I made this one up. But, I don't know, since I'm not hip and cool and down with all things Internet ... as evidenced, in part, by my use of the words "hip" and "cool" and "down" ... (Maybe someone else has come up with this one. You'll have to tell me. If not, try to figure it out ... though, I'm not the moon ... but hope you'll still talk with me.)
RAOTFLMAOWTSDMF
Hmmm....
Aaahhhhhhh.....
Would you believe I didn't know what LMAO stood for until around October of last year?
Okay, so ....
I think I made this one up. But, I don't know, since I'm not hip and cool and down with all things Internet ... as evidenced, in part, by my use of the words "hip" and "cool" and "down" ... (Maybe someone else has come up with this one. You'll have to tell me. If not, try to figure it out ... though, I'm not the moon ... but hope you'll still talk with me.)
RAOTFLMAOWTSDMF
Hmmm....
C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Ultimately, I'll end with ... I'm definitely not the moon."
Sweet Heavenly Peaches!!!! I haven't laughed that hard or long in weeks!!!!
I've said it before ... I love the way your..."
I've been trying to force this from my mind, but ....
Now, I'm thinking about peaches. Peach pie. Is there such a thing as peach pie? I've never had peach pie. But, I've also never had sweet potato pie. So, I suppose there could be such a thing as peach pie. I know there's peach cobbler. Mmmm.... With vanilla ice-cream. I find myself wondering about peach pie, though. Which ... is making me rather hungry. But, it's time for bed. OMG! Speaking of ice-cream! Peach ice cream? I've never had peach ice cream either! My father has ... on a trip ... to Texas. He was driving down the road and saw a man selling ice-cream out of his pickup truck. And, my father, being my father, pulled over and got some. He said it was the most amazing ice-cream he'd ever had. Peach ice-cream. Homemade. I gave him hell ... you never buy food from people on backroads who are selling it out of their pickup trucks. Danger ... disease ... you know, salmonella or something. He said he didn't care what I said. It was the best ice-cream ever. And, do they really grow the best peaches in Georgia? And, ....
Since you started this train of thought, I thought I'd share the peaches with you. ;)
Sweet Heavenly Peaches!!!! I haven't laughed that hard or long in weeks!!!!
I've said it before ... I love the way your..."
I've been trying to force this from my mind, but ....
Now, I'm thinking about peaches. Peach pie. Is there such a thing as peach pie? I've never had peach pie. But, I've also never had sweet potato pie. So, I suppose there could be such a thing as peach pie. I know there's peach cobbler. Mmmm.... With vanilla ice-cream. I find myself wondering about peach pie, though. Which ... is making me rather hungry. But, it's time for bed. OMG! Speaking of ice-cream! Peach ice cream? I've never had peach ice cream either! My father has ... on a trip ... to Texas. He was driving down the road and saw a man selling ice-cream out of his pickup truck. And, my father, being my father, pulled over and got some. He said it was the most amazing ice-cream he'd ever had. Peach ice-cream. Homemade. I gave him hell ... you never buy food from people on backroads who are selling it out of their pickup trucks. Danger ... disease ... you know, salmonella or something. He said he didn't care what I said. It was the best ice-cream ever. And, do they really grow the best peaches in Georgia? And, ....
Since you started this train of thought, I thought I'd share the peaches with you. ;)
C-Cose wrote: "cHriS wrote: "Again, you have failed to read on……………. C hinted to me that I should have known he was gay be the discussions he had with Gary. But I did not read all those discussis and so I doubl..."You may not like some of my replies, but they will be honest and for your benefit not for rest of the forum, since I do not have to justify myself to them, I am in no way anti gay. But I do have small issues where I will not agree , the blood topic being one. But go for the other example, it will at least move us on from blood.
Shannon - from one intense person to another, yes, there is a lot to be said about the joys and the perils of being intense!"I know you said it has no bearing on the onversation but that's no reason not to discuss it."
I just meant that nothing seems to be taboo on this thread - I think that's why I keep coming back.
Shannon wrote: When I asked what sexual orientation had to do with the discussion, I was referring to that. I should have been more clear. .You should have been more clear, but that’s ok.
Not gay men who want to donate blood, in general. No. The sexual orientation of the people posting to this thread. I don't believe that's relevant. Further, as I mentioned, if individuals want to share certain parts of their lives, that's their business. It's not for us to say, "Hey, guys. Maybe Gary and C are gay and that's why they're arguing this point." I'm pretty sure a lot of heterosexual and homosexual men would argue the same point.
You say all that but you don’t really give a reason why, other than is their business. I think you are being concerned for a third party where there is no concern. I thought one could be gay, so what, if it were not relevant to the discussion they would have told me so. And if it was not relevant but they were bothered about my comment, though I can’t think why they would be, they would have said so. As I previously said, in a debate it is good to know if someone is talking from a third party perspective or from a personal point of view. You can get a better perception of others views.
I had a seven hour operation a couple of years ago and they had to have a supply of blood on stand by. They never used the blood, but I would like to think that the blood was the most risk free blood they could get. Not just for me but for all the people who have to have blood in the future, you your family and everyone. I have to trust they know what they are doing and what their reasons for assuming a risk from taking blood from a section of the gay community is. Maybe Gary is correct and it is question of public perception. But their first objective is to have enough blood and changing public opinion may not be in their remit.
Regarding my post "suggesting you are married with children" and your thoughts on whether or not I was questioning your sexuality ....
First, you've said you're just a man who types with two fingers. Therefore, I assumed you're a man.
Second, you've said you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. Further, you've said homosexual acts are "unnatural" and you've said you don't support homosexuality. Therefore, it didn't occur to me that you might be homosexual.
Third, I should have said ... imagine if you had a wife and child. I don't know…..
That’s all fine. You did a bit of Sherlock Holmes’ing and came up with your assumptions. That’s what I did as well.
You sometimes fixate, in my opinion, on certain things ... race, equality, homosexuality ... the use of the word "bigot" ... the wrongs of a society attempting to be PC.
That is three things, I think homosexuality, (if you mean the blood thing) has been covered, unless you think otherwise, and race and equality you refer to; you have examples of those to give. And using the word ‘fixate’ suggests you means more that just talking once per topic about these things.
As for Pc, in the UK, in the last ten or so years it has been way over the top, but political parties now recognise how the voters feel about it and are trying to reverse the trend, it’s now a vote looser.
In my opinion, you refused to see the logic ... even consider for a moment the logic ... behind our argument.
I understand your argument very well and I see the logic in it and I have said previously that you may well be right. I have no way of knowing and a few links are not proof. But public perception plays a big part in things and it is not always about being right it is what the majority see as right.
Yo, Gary and C might be gay. And, I looked on C's page and saw something that leads me to believe he is ....
Don't say ...
When did I question their sexuality?
I think we should own our words. That's what I mean..
Well you are wrong. Asking about, is not the same as questioning. Your use of the word questioning has over tones of animosity. Is that what you are suggesting?
."
Gary wrote: It is this inconsistency in policy that makes some people feel that the policy makers are succumbing to prejudice. "
I can see that, but we have to hope thats not so.
If it were true, I would have to ask, what are the reasons for succumbing to prejudice.
cHriS wrote: "You say all that but you don’t really give a reason why, other than is their business. I think you are being concerned for a third party where there is no concern. I thought one could be gay, so what, if it were not relevant to the discussion they would have told me so. And if it was not relevant but they were bothered about my comment, though I can’t think why they would be, they would have said so. As I previously said, in a debate it is good to know if someone is talking from a third party perspective or from a personal point of view. You can get a better perception of others views."
Hmmmm.... Trying to figure out how best to explain this. A couple different things are going on in my mind at the same time. How to best make myself understood ...?
First, ....
We've discussed a lot of things on this thread. A whole gamut ... Some of us have shared personal information. Most haven't. But, take, for example, my argument regarding my acceptance of things I don't understand. Several months ago I was questioned as to why I'd believe in "God" given the fact that I had no proof. I had given different reasons months before ... when I was questioned then. At that point, though, I gave another reason. So ... sometimes I know things that can't be explained. I'm totally aware of the fact that science can't prove that I know these things ... science would say this "ability" I have doesn't exist. Frankly, some would likely think me delusional or a crackpot. But, I know the truth of it and know it exists, even though it can't be scientifically proven. Given that, I'm more open to the idea of a vast variety of things ... even though I lack proof of them. If I have this ability, which can't be proven, why couldn't other things exist, things that can't be proven. Now, at that point various people started going on about "God of the gaps" ... which isn't remotely on topic. Not really what I was saying. A couple people wrote and said they didn't think I was a crackpot, maybe there was a reason for it, dealing with brain function, that just hasn't been proven yet ... not necessarily a link to "God" ....
Here's the thing. When that happened, no one asked for background. No one asked if the people who were responding had similar experiences or not. (One person offered that information. Maybe two. But, ...)
When we've talked about issues around children, for example, people have had their say. Some, like Shanna, told us she was a parent. She made that information known to the group. Her choice. Interestingly, other people (including you) had things to say about that topic. Yet.... No one asked the people who were commenting whether or not they had children.
In point of fact, when you shared, you didn't divulge whether or not you were speaking from a third person perspective or from firsthand knowledge. Nor did anyone ask. cHris, did your mom stay at home and raise you as a young child or not? Are you married? Do you have children? Is that how things are in your household? Right? You simply had your say. At least ... I don't remember anyone asking you to clarify, for the purposes of debate.
People disagreed with you; I did. But, you didn't make your "perspective" part of the debate. Despite the fact that you say you feel it's important, you didn't offer up that information. And, you weren't asked.
Do you see where I'm going?
This is where I'm about to go ....
Why have so many people talked about so many things without having their background questioned (save why they might believe or not and whether or not Gary is a scientist or a teacher ... that latter part was me ...), only to have sexuality questioned when discussing blood donation?
It wasn't important to question anyone or anything else. It wasn't important to know about anyone else's connection to various topics. But, when it came to gay men donating blood, well, it was important to know whether or not Gary or C were gay. Huh? And, .... Why?
Now, I'm sure you remember we went a few rounds regarding the native peoples of North America. Right? You'll also likely remember that I came right on out with my history and background. Full disclosure and all. I even think I've discussed the fact that the topic might trip my trigger, and I felt it important to be upfront about that possibility. It's something I try to keep in mind.
So, yeah, when discussing something with me along those lines, it might be important to know I'm coming at if from a firsthand perspective. I feel it important to admit that the topic is sometimes a hot topic for me, and I even sometimes question whether I'm being logical or not in that type of discussion.
The kicker is ... I disclosed that. It's my life, my blood, and my business. I'm a very open and honest person. Therefore, I disclosed it. That was ... my ... choice.
Let's think about this ....
Let's say I had on my profile that I'm mostly English with Welsh, Irish, French, Mohawk and Blackfoot ancestry. But, I didn't discuss that on this thread. Then ... I started to talk with you (or Travis) about native peoples.
Imagine if someone posted and said something like ...
Hey, guys. Maybe Shannon is saying it's wrong of medical professionals to experiment on native people's of the Americas because she's an Indian.
Then, ....
After all, I just checked out her profile and it makes me think she's an Indian. Yeah, maybe that's the reason she's taking on this battle.
Ummmm..... My first response would be ... What the hell is up with that? My second response would be ... So flipping what. Either it's okay to experiment upon poor native peoples when you wouldn't be able to conduct those experiments, at least without oversights, on white people in the US ... or ... it isn't okay. How deep I tan if I'm in the sun shouldn't really have an impact on the morality of that decision.
And, that get's to my next thought ....
I've mentioned this before but will do it again.
If Gary or C or both were making illogical arguments, I might sit back and think a few things ....
Am I off today? Is that why I'm not getting it? Maybe I should reread.
Or...
I wonder if they have a vested interest of some sort in this discussion.
Or....
I wonder if they're drunk. What are they drinking? Wine. Beer. Gary lives in the UK. Wouldn't it be cool if he were drinking beer on the grounds of Stonehenge? Would I want to drink beer at Stonehenge or take afternoon tea with Hazel? Crap! I'd need to win the lottery. Why can't my abilities lead me to winning lottery numbers?
Or....
I wonder if they're delusional.
Okay. I get it. But .... They weren't being illogical. So, personally, it really didn't occur to me to go there. If someone is making a logical point, what the heck difference does it make ... if they have a gay lover or if the women involved in this thread have children or if someone who is going on about women staying home with children is a woman, is married, or has children? Really ....?
I'm almost positive that I had another point, but .... STONEHENGE!
Stonehenge and beer and tea and those itty bitty sandwiches sans crust keep popping into my head. Rather distracted.
(And ... I can't help but notice that no one has asked me if I'm ADD, 'cause that might be helpful ... or not ... in understanding any and all points I might make on this thread.)
PS ... I'm not, which makes me wonder at the workings of my brain.
Ahhh....
Had a sip of diet soda pop and it all came rushing back to me ....
Questioning and animosity .... I knew it would come back to that word. Didn't I tell you it would? I think I said ... You'll tell me you mentioned the possibility that they might be gay ... you didn't actually question whether or not they were. One of my bad, bad, bad habits. When I'm right about something, I tend to say, "I was right."
I've no real desire to play word games and talk about the definitions of words. That's not really my thing. I will say this. Was I suggesting overtones of animosity? No. Honestly. I was suggesting overtones of ... what the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China ... and ... who the hell has a right to bring that kind of stuff up on this thread ... other than the people themselves. That's what I was suggesting.
Ooohhh.... Tea. Tea just came to me again. Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?
Now, regarding whether or not I was concerned for a third party ....
Yeah, that's sort of what I do. Guilty. I admit it. Knee-jerk reactions and all. I'm well aware. Whether or not I had a right to be concerned or a reason to be concerned .... Well, that's up to debate, I'd say.
I'll close by asking a few questions, cHriS. And, I'm not being flip. I promise. I admit when I'm flip and this is not that. I'm being real.
Given the fact that you think it's important to know a person's history and whether or not they're speaking from a third person perspective or not ....
Are you going to share with us?
Male or female?
Parent or not?
Heterosexual or not?
You've discussed a range of topics that deal with the above. Should we know what perspective you're arguing from? Is it important for us to have that information? For the purposes of debate ....
(If you were to ask me, it wouldn't matter. But, ... if you think it's important and up for grabs ...? The real question...? Is it or isn't it?)
Hmmmm.... Trying to figure out how best to explain this. A couple different things are going on in my mind at the same time. How to best make myself understood ...?
First, ....
We've discussed a lot of things on this thread. A whole gamut ... Some of us have shared personal information. Most haven't. But, take, for example, my argument regarding my acceptance of things I don't understand. Several months ago I was questioned as to why I'd believe in "God" given the fact that I had no proof. I had given different reasons months before ... when I was questioned then. At that point, though, I gave another reason. So ... sometimes I know things that can't be explained. I'm totally aware of the fact that science can't prove that I know these things ... science would say this "ability" I have doesn't exist. Frankly, some would likely think me delusional or a crackpot. But, I know the truth of it and know it exists, even though it can't be scientifically proven. Given that, I'm more open to the idea of a vast variety of things ... even though I lack proof of them. If I have this ability, which can't be proven, why couldn't other things exist, things that can't be proven. Now, at that point various people started going on about "God of the gaps" ... which isn't remotely on topic. Not really what I was saying. A couple people wrote and said they didn't think I was a crackpot, maybe there was a reason for it, dealing with brain function, that just hasn't been proven yet ... not necessarily a link to "God" ....
Here's the thing. When that happened, no one asked for background. No one asked if the people who were responding had similar experiences or not. (One person offered that information. Maybe two. But, ...)
When we've talked about issues around children, for example, people have had their say. Some, like Shanna, told us she was a parent. She made that information known to the group. Her choice. Interestingly, other people (including you) had things to say about that topic. Yet.... No one asked the people who were commenting whether or not they had children.
In point of fact, when you shared, you didn't divulge whether or not you were speaking from a third person perspective or from firsthand knowledge. Nor did anyone ask. cHris, did your mom stay at home and raise you as a young child or not? Are you married? Do you have children? Is that how things are in your household? Right? You simply had your say. At least ... I don't remember anyone asking you to clarify, for the purposes of debate.
People disagreed with you; I did. But, you didn't make your "perspective" part of the debate. Despite the fact that you say you feel it's important, you didn't offer up that information. And, you weren't asked.
Do you see where I'm going?
This is where I'm about to go ....
Why have so many people talked about so many things without having their background questioned (save why they might believe or not and whether or not Gary is a scientist or a teacher ... that latter part was me ...), only to have sexuality questioned when discussing blood donation?
It wasn't important to question anyone or anything else. It wasn't important to know about anyone else's connection to various topics. But, when it came to gay men donating blood, well, it was important to know whether or not Gary or C were gay. Huh? And, .... Why?
Now, I'm sure you remember we went a few rounds regarding the native peoples of North America. Right? You'll also likely remember that I came right on out with my history and background. Full disclosure and all. I even think I've discussed the fact that the topic might trip my trigger, and I felt it important to be upfront about that possibility. It's something I try to keep in mind.
So, yeah, when discussing something with me along those lines, it might be important to know I'm coming at if from a firsthand perspective. I feel it important to admit that the topic is sometimes a hot topic for me, and I even sometimes question whether I'm being logical or not in that type of discussion.
The kicker is ... I disclosed that. It's my life, my blood, and my business. I'm a very open and honest person. Therefore, I disclosed it. That was ... my ... choice.
Let's think about this ....
Let's say I had on my profile that I'm mostly English with Welsh, Irish, French, Mohawk and Blackfoot ancestry. But, I didn't discuss that on this thread. Then ... I started to talk with you (or Travis) about native peoples.
Imagine if someone posted and said something like ...
Hey, guys. Maybe Shannon is saying it's wrong of medical professionals to experiment on native people's of the Americas because she's an Indian.
Then, ....
After all, I just checked out her profile and it makes me think she's an Indian. Yeah, maybe that's the reason she's taking on this battle.
Ummmm..... My first response would be ... What the hell is up with that? My second response would be ... So flipping what. Either it's okay to experiment upon poor native peoples when you wouldn't be able to conduct those experiments, at least without oversights, on white people in the US ... or ... it isn't okay. How deep I tan if I'm in the sun shouldn't really have an impact on the morality of that decision.
And, that get's to my next thought ....
I've mentioned this before but will do it again.
If Gary or C or both were making illogical arguments, I might sit back and think a few things ....
Am I off today? Is that why I'm not getting it? Maybe I should reread.
Or...
I wonder if they have a vested interest of some sort in this discussion.
Or....
I wonder if they're drunk. What are they drinking? Wine. Beer. Gary lives in the UK. Wouldn't it be cool if he were drinking beer on the grounds of Stonehenge? Would I want to drink beer at Stonehenge or take afternoon tea with Hazel? Crap! I'd need to win the lottery. Why can't my abilities lead me to winning lottery numbers?
Or....
I wonder if they're delusional.
Okay. I get it. But .... They weren't being illogical. So, personally, it really didn't occur to me to go there. If someone is making a logical point, what the heck difference does it make ... if they have a gay lover or if the women involved in this thread have children or if someone who is going on about women staying home with children is a woman, is married, or has children? Really ....?
I'm almost positive that I had another point, but .... STONEHENGE!
Stonehenge and beer and tea and those itty bitty sandwiches sans crust keep popping into my head. Rather distracted.
(And ... I can't help but notice that no one has asked me if I'm ADD, 'cause that might be helpful ... or not ... in understanding any and all points I might make on this thread.)
PS ... I'm not, which makes me wonder at the workings of my brain.
Ahhh....
Had a sip of diet soda pop and it all came rushing back to me ....
Questioning and animosity .... I knew it would come back to that word. Didn't I tell you it would? I think I said ... You'll tell me you mentioned the possibility that they might be gay ... you didn't actually question whether or not they were. One of my bad, bad, bad habits. When I'm right about something, I tend to say, "I was right."
I've no real desire to play word games and talk about the definitions of words. That's not really my thing. I will say this. Was I suggesting overtones of animosity? No. Honestly. I was suggesting overtones of ... what the hell does this have to do with the price of tea in China ... and ... who the hell has a right to bring that kind of stuff up on this thread ... other than the people themselves. That's what I was suggesting.
Ooohhh.... Tea. Tea just came to me again. Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?
Now, regarding whether or not I was concerned for a third party ....
Yeah, that's sort of what I do. Guilty. I admit it. Knee-jerk reactions and all. I'm well aware. Whether or not I had a right to be concerned or a reason to be concerned .... Well, that's up to debate, I'd say.
I'll close by asking a few questions, cHriS. And, I'm not being flip. I promise. I admit when I'm flip and this is not that. I'm being real.
Given the fact that you think it's important to know a person's history and whether or not they're speaking from a third person perspective or not ....
Are you going to share with us?
Male or female?
Parent or not?
Heterosexual or not?
You've discussed a range of topics that deal with the above. Should we know what perspective you're arguing from? Is it important for us to have that information? For the purposes of debate ....
(If you were to ask me, it wouldn't matter. But, ... if you think it's important and up for grabs ...? The real question...? Is it or isn't it?)
Shannon wrote: "Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?"full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days.
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?"
full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days."
Had a feeling you'd say that ....
full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days."
Had a feeling you'd say that ....
Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?"
full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days."
But, I'm still wondering about ....
Would you serve the little bitty sandwiches or just open a bag of cookies?
And ...
Can one drink beer at Stonehenge or is it illegal? I'm guessing it's illegal.
full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days."
But, I'm still wondering about ....
Would you serve the little bitty sandwiches or just open a bag of cookies?
And ...
Can one drink beer at Stonehenge or is it illegal? I'm guessing it's illegal.
Shannon wrote: Are you going to share with us?Male or female?
Parent or not?
Heterosexual or not?
"
I wish I'd waited for the movie, but you write an interesting book and I will get the t shirt.
Share? Maybe.
Lets wind back a bit to the Native American chat, since you mentioned it.
I did not know you are Native American. My analogy to the Native Americans past way of life and our own modern life was with someone here but I have forgotten who. I used some words to describe something, words that I feel were ok and still do, but you said that you were offended by them.
Maybe I should have said,; are there any Native Americans posting here because I need a phrase to describe something and I don’t want to offend. Of course not, and the thought did not occur to me anyway, since I know that it is not offensive to at least some Native Americans. If I remember others here sided with you and so what should have been a short exchange between you and me, became I topic for others, to be offended on your behalf.
I get the feeling that we are walking on ice here. I have not got any issues with Ccose being gay and I don’t see what is wrong with wondering if he is. I also wonder how Gary seems to know so much about the bible, but I have not got around to asking him. But I might do if another religious topic is discussed. He is free not to reply. I know now that if a topic about Native Americans was discussed as a third party conversation, you would be conversing as a first person and what you say should be taken with a bit more authority. Same with C and the Blood/ Gay topic. Anyway why should I think that C would be in anyway offended because I mentioned C and Gay in the same sentence. If we are all ‘one and the same’ what difference does it make?
Again I feel that this is a case of others being offended on his behalf.
Given the fact that you think it's important to know a person's history and whether or not they're speaking from a third person perspective or not ....
I have asked one question, if thats how you look at it, and you have converted that into ‘I think it's important to know a person's history’.
How did you take that giant leap?
Shannon wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Would Hazel serve English or Irish Breakfast?"full english, if I was going to do a proper breakfast. Bowl of cereal most days."
But, I'm still wondering about ....
..."
sandwiches or cookies? Both, of course but I don't bother cutting crusts off, and they will be proper sandwiches not itty bitty ones.
And I think you can have a beer at stonehenge, they have huge gatherings there and celebrations several times a year. I think the problem would be leaving your empty cans lying around.
cHriS wrote: "I have asked one question, if thats how you look at it, and you have converted that into ‘I think it's important to know a person's history’.
How did you take that giant leap? "
Is it a giant leap? Given the fact that you claim it's important, to this debate, to know if a person is speaking from a third person or first person perspective. I'm going off your words cHriS. Just your words.
Well, I guess I should say you said it was good to know. I guess I'm assigning "importance" to the word "good" ....
Your words were ...
"As I previously said, in a debate it is good to know if someone is talking from a third party perspective or from a personal point of view. You can get a better perception of others views." cHriS Message 7281
Further, we're not walking on ice.
You made some statements or maybe asked questions .... I can't remember and am not going to look back to figure it out. Regardless, of which ...
I responded, with the utmost honesty, and did so in a way that would allow you to see how my brain worked and how I put things together ... in order to make an attempt at greater understanding. That's it. That's all.
I find it interesting that your post almost entirely focuses on one point I made ... that wasn't even really THE point .... Yeah, sometimes it's important to admit if one has a vested interest in the topic, especially if one might not face the topic logically. In my opinion. And, I disclosed that about myself .... at the time ... about a certain issue.
You focused almost solely on that ....
Not the question of why it's important to know a person's perspective, as a general rule.
Not why no one has ever brought up people's personal lives before.
Not whether or not you, as someone who says it's good to know a person's perspective, intend to share more of yourself. Since, ... you've freely discussed a lot of things ... involving women, involving the roles of women, involving children, involving parenting, involving "unnatural acts" ....
So, if it's good, in your opinion, to know a person's perspective when engaging in a discussion or a debate, I ask you ....
Is it only good to know other people's perspectives?
Is it only good to know about sexual preferences ... since not many other personal things have been mentioned/questioned in the past?
Is it only good to know certain people's sexual preferences ....?
Again, as I said, I don't think, as a general rule, it matters a whit. In addition, in my opinion, it's for the people involved to disclose pieces and parts of who they are and what experiences are unique to them. It's not for others to do that.
And ... people's perspectives come from their histories, cHriS. If you think it's good to know their perspective, how is it that you don't think it's ... good to know ... important to know ... their histories.
Your words. But, again, if I took the number 2 and added it to the number 2 and got 4 when I should have gotten 28, you'll have to excuse me ... or not.
But, I'm guessing ... we're in disagreement on this. Maybe we should leave it there. Unless, of course, you'd like to comment on any of the other things I brought up ... instead of just focusing on the thing that might get a rise out of me.
Not feelin' it this afternoon.
How did you take that giant leap? "
Is it a giant leap? Given the fact that you claim it's important, to this debate, to know if a person is speaking from a third person or first person perspective. I'm going off your words cHriS. Just your words.
Well, I guess I should say you said it was good to know. I guess I'm assigning "importance" to the word "good" ....
Your words were ...
"As I previously said, in a debate it is good to know if someone is talking from a third party perspective or from a personal point of view. You can get a better perception of others views." cHriS Message 7281
Further, we're not walking on ice.
You made some statements or maybe asked questions .... I can't remember and am not going to look back to figure it out. Regardless, of which ...
I responded, with the utmost honesty, and did so in a way that would allow you to see how my brain worked and how I put things together ... in order to make an attempt at greater understanding. That's it. That's all.
I find it interesting that your post almost entirely focuses on one point I made ... that wasn't even really THE point .... Yeah, sometimes it's important to admit if one has a vested interest in the topic, especially if one might not face the topic logically. In my opinion. And, I disclosed that about myself .... at the time ... about a certain issue.
You focused almost solely on that ....
Not the question of why it's important to know a person's perspective, as a general rule.
Not why no one has ever brought up people's personal lives before.
Not whether or not you, as someone who says it's good to know a person's perspective, intend to share more of yourself. Since, ... you've freely discussed a lot of things ... involving women, involving the roles of women, involving children, involving parenting, involving "unnatural acts" ....
So, if it's good, in your opinion, to know a person's perspective when engaging in a discussion or a debate, I ask you ....
Is it only good to know other people's perspectives?
Is it only good to know about sexual preferences ... since not many other personal things have been mentioned/questioned in the past?
Is it only good to know certain people's sexual preferences ....?
Again, as I said, I don't think, as a general rule, it matters a whit. In addition, in my opinion, it's for the people involved to disclose pieces and parts of who they are and what experiences are unique to them. It's not for others to do that.
And ... people's perspectives come from their histories, cHriS. If you think it's good to know their perspective, how is it that you don't think it's ... good to know ... important to know ... their histories.
Your words. But, again, if I took the number 2 and added it to the number 2 and got 4 when I should have gotten 28, you'll have to excuse me ... or not.
But, I'm guessing ... we're in disagreement on this. Maybe we should leave it there. Unless, of course, you'd like to comment on any of the other things I brought up ... instead of just focusing on the thing that might get a rise out of me.
Not feelin' it this afternoon.
Hazel wrote: "sandwiches or cookies? Both, of course but I don't bother cutting crusts off, and they will be proper sandwiches not itty bitty ones."
Damnation! Need to run out and buy a lottery ticket. A woman after my own heart. Both. And, .... Who needs itty bitty sandwiches? I'm fairly certain real women can handle proper sandwiches.
But, what kind ...? I have a penchant for chicken salad, especially curry. Never make them myself. But, ....
Damnation! Need to run out and buy a lottery ticket. A woman after my own heart. Both. And, .... Who needs itty bitty sandwiches? I'm fairly certain real women can handle proper sandwiches.
But, what kind ...? I have a penchant for chicken salad, especially curry. Never make them myself. But, ....
I could live without organized religion but not without science. Organized religion is a tool to control and manipulate people into doing what you want them to do...for example The Crusades. How many people have been killed in the name of whatever supreme being they worship? Too many! Although science can be used to hurt, it can also heal. As one who was saved by science, I'll definitely pick science over organized religion.
Shannon wrote: Is it a giant leap? Given the fact that you claim it's important, to this debate, to know if a person is speaking from a third person or first person perspective. I'm going off your words cHriS. Just your words.Yes it is important, sometimes, but that is not what you said previously when you said ‘a persons history.’ Never mind I will leave that.
I got the feeling ‘thin ice’ that you were suggesting that I may in some way be against gays rather than just some people from the gay community not giving blood. So I clarified that with C Cose. Maybe you want to count that as a bit of my personal history.
It is also possible that because C Cose is gay, his view on gay men giving blood could be clouded by his feeling on gay rights and not the safety of the blood. I am sure that, that is not the case. But in any debate it is helpful to know if the person/s taking part have an interest or could have a vested interest or are connected with, or are effected by the debate topic. Just as some ask what qualifications others have on a subject. All stuff that can be of interest in a debate.
I responded, with the utmost honesty, and did so in a way that would allow you to see how my brain worked and how I put things together ... in order to make an attempt at greater understanding. That's it. That's all.
Ok that’s fine. It’s just that sometimes I get the feeling that you think people are wrong, if they do not support your point of view………. not all the time but just sometimes.
I find it interesting that your post almost entirely focuses on one point I made ... that wasn't even really THE point .... Yeah, sometimes it's important to admit if one has a vested interest in the topic, especially if one might not face the topic logically. In my opinion. And, I disclosed that about myself .... at the time ... about a certain issue.
Almost entirely is less than 50%. Never mind. You raised the point and I used it to show how a simple exchange of words can become a sub-topic in it’s own right if others are offended on your behalf.
You focused almost solely on that ....
Not the question of why it's important to know a person's perspective, as a general rule.
Not why no one has ever brought up people's personal lives before.
Not whether or not you, as someone who says it's good to know a person's perspective, intend to share more of yourself. Since, ... you've freely discussed a lot of things ... involving women, involving the roles of women, involving children, involving parenting, involving "unnatural acts" ....
So, if it's good, in your opinion, to know a person's perspective when engaging in a discussion or a debate, I ask you ....
Is it only good to know other people's perspectives?
Is it only good to know about sexual preferences ... since not many other personal things have been mentioned/questioned in the past?
Is it only good to know certain people's sexual preferences ....?
You seem to be, and I say this with some concern, possessed with this ‘question’ I asked C Cose. It seems that you are looking for some hidden agenda. If you have one, ask me and don’t beat about the bush. Otherwise there should be no limits to what questions can be asked…….. They don’t have to be replied to.
Again, as I said, I don't think, as a general rule, it matters a whit. In addition, in my opinion, it's for the people involved to disclose pieces and parts of who they are and what experiences are unique to them. It's not for others to do that.
And ... people's perspectives come from their histories, cHriS. If you think it's good to know their perspective, how is it that you don't think it's ... good to know ... important to know ... their histories.
It good to know a lot of things, knowledge is a good thing, but as they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I think we should let the debates flow and see what comes from it. If it’s histories that’s good and if not that’s good as well. Since this thread has a fixed topic it is limited. But histories are good, if you want to start the sub topic off…….
Greetings cHriS,I have been trying, desperately, to follow your contributions and thoughts in this thread. I must admit it hasn't been easy for me. To summarize:
7152 : I introduced the the disallowing of gay men vis a vis blood and organ donorship in a discussion with Gary about, what we later agreed was a bad application of science. Specifics of that policy in Canada (CBS) were posted in later comments.
7181 : You questioned why a gay man would want to donate blood in these instances and concluded that the only reasoning would be a desire to be malicious.
7183 : I responded with a reversal of the biological sexes in your statement of 7181 and stated that the risk was equal across the board.
Then followed a series of posts by Shannon, myself and others regarding the discrimination, "bigotry", and uneducated nature of these policies.
7197 : You introduced that maybe Gary or I might be gay and fighting from "our" corner.
7200 : You introduced your speeding analogy as support of your position.
7204 : My first attempt to show the logical flaw in your speeding analogy--you eventually disagreed with my "mathematical assumption" in 7252. You should know, btw, that all mathematical statements make assumptions that are agreed on to varying extents: 2 + 2 = 4 iff (if and only if) the base used is greater than 4. The base is an assumption.
7218 : Your wrote, "My view is that if the authorities concerned set the guidelines , unless I know otherwise I assume they have reasons for doing so.
If they change the guidelines regarding gay men then public perception will change."
7220 : My response to this where I indicated my understanding / perception of what you meant by that statement. I closed this post with, "I've said all that I can discuss with you."
7258 : I unwisely allowed myself to be drawn back into a discussion with you; I posted what I thought would be a helpful Venn description of the math sets describing the equivalencies that I introduced in 7204.
7264 : I re-iterated my intent with asking you to review my previous exchanges with Gary--hoping that you would see that Gary and I agreed on the issue of blood donation policies and the inherent prejudice in them. You took my original request to mean that Gary and I shared being gay ... you were wrong.
I should have remained withdrawn from my interaction with you as I indicated in 7220.
You appear to ignore logical / mathematical statements presented by others in this discussion or you agree and disagree with elements of them in support of your position. While this is certainly your right, it makes it very difficult to discuss varying positions in a logical manner.
You continue to ignore or discount that fact that this particular issue has never been about sexuality for me; it has always been about equal and fair application of policies regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation or sexual activity. I cannot be more clear about this.
Throughout the discussion with everyone, you have focused on the use of "bigot", disallowing gay men from donation because the authorities have written the policies, and not feeling that it would be right to allow it just because gay men want it to be so. You appear to have consistently missed the central point in this issue for many of us participating in the thread.
I cannot, and will not, discuss an issue where logical arguments have been presented with someone that doesn't appear to have a basic understanding of the underlying logic.
I withdraw. I ask that you do not reference me directly in future statements that you write. You can either respect that request ... or not.
C-Cose wrote: "Greetings cHriS,I have been trying, desperately, to follow your contributions and thoughts in this thread. I must admit it hasn't been easy for me. To summarize:
7152 : I introduced the the.."
You have again taken some of my words out of context.
Your maths logic is wrong, that I do know even if you think I don't understand logic. And repeating the same maths illustration does not make it right.
Changing the subject ....
If someone doesn't change the subject, I might just take up drinking as a sport. No, not a hobby. A sport. With periods of training, races and awards.
The thing of it will be ... will I be able to connect this to science and/or religion, the need for one over the other, or the need for both ...? I'm not sure that I can. Perhaps someone else will be able to do so.
I played a game of "English" Jeopardy with my students yesterday. Wildly fascinating topics like ... Vocabulary, Grammar, Literature, Literary Elements, etc.... Wildly fascinating, I tell you. At the end, I told the teams they could do one of two things. Stay with their present score or risk it all and then some! I'd give random questions from Children's Literature. If they were able to answer their question, they'd get 10,000 points. If they couldn't, they'd lose it all.
Dun, dun, dun, dun ....
Children's Literature .... What to choose from?
I picked ...
The Velveteen Rabbit
Yup. I did. (Not a science friendly book, I know. Thinking and talking stuffed toys, toys becoming real, fairies....)
Ooohh.... I think I've done it. What is "real" after all? Do we discover what is real, reality, through science, religion, neither or both? Does it depend upon our definition of reality? Does reality depend upon the person or persons involved? Or, is reality simply reality?
Dun, dun, dun, dun ....
Methinks that was a daily double!
At any rate, I gave each group a question from said book. Now, one of the groups was a group of all boys, who said it wasn't fair for them to get a question from a book about bunnies. Hey.... I told them they knew it could be from anything within Children's Literature and they, basically, needed to dig deep and suck it up.
Their question?
After the Velveteen Rabbit was taken from the boy to be destroyed, what mythical creature appeared to the rabbit and turned him into a real bunny?
The boys looked at me ... blank stares ...
Tick.
Tock.
"What mythical creature appeared to the Velveteen Rabbit and turned him into an actual animal?"
Tick.
Tock.
"What M.Y.T.H.I.C.A.L. creature came and turned him into a rabbit?"
Blank. Stares.
"Boys! Think MYTHICAL creatures who could turn something into something else!" Attempt, this will be a challenge, to envision me waving my right arm in the air while half-mouthing, "Bippity, ...."
One of the boys yelled, "OH! I've got this guys."
They huddled up, whispering, heads nodding and shaking, hands moving around as if coming up with the perfect description.
"We've got it!"
I beamed. My boys! I was about to be so proud of them! I just knew it!
"Class! It appears the boys have it! Boys, what mythical creature came and turned the Velveteen Rabbit into a real rabbit?"
One of the boys smiled, a glint in his eye, and yelled, "ManBearPig!"
:o
Blank stare, mine.
The room erupted in laughter. I actually stomped my feet and yelled, humorously, "NOOOOOOOO!!!!! A FAIRY! Boys! A fairy! Not ManBearPig!"
Religion brought us, in part, communication and stories. Science brought us, television.
Hmmmm.....
If someone doesn't change the subject, I might just take up drinking as a sport. No, not a hobby. A sport. With periods of training, races and awards.
The thing of it will be ... will I be able to connect this to science and/or religion, the need for one over the other, or the need for both ...? I'm not sure that I can. Perhaps someone else will be able to do so.
I played a game of "English" Jeopardy with my students yesterday. Wildly fascinating topics like ... Vocabulary, Grammar, Literature, Literary Elements, etc.... Wildly fascinating, I tell you. At the end, I told the teams they could do one of two things. Stay with their present score or risk it all and then some! I'd give random questions from Children's Literature. If they were able to answer their question, they'd get 10,000 points. If they couldn't, they'd lose it all.
Dun, dun, dun, dun ....
Children's Literature .... What to choose from?
I picked ...
The Velveteen Rabbit
Yup. I did. (Not a science friendly book, I know. Thinking and talking stuffed toys, toys becoming real, fairies....)
Ooohh.... I think I've done it. What is "real" after all? Do we discover what is real, reality, through science, religion, neither or both? Does it depend upon our definition of reality? Does reality depend upon the person or persons involved? Or, is reality simply reality?
Dun, dun, dun, dun ....
Methinks that was a daily double!
At any rate, I gave each group a question from said book. Now, one of the groups was a group of all boys, who said it wasn't fair for them to get a question from a book about bunnies. Hey.... I told them they knew it could be from anything within Children's Literature and they, basically, needed to dig deep and suck it up.
Their question?
After the Velveteen Rabbit was taken from the boy to be destroyed, what mythical creature appeared to the rabbit and turned him into a real bunny?
The boys looked at me ... blank stares ...
Tick.
Tock.
"What mythical creature appeared to the Velveteen Rabbit and turned him into an actual animal?"
Tick.
Tock.
"What M.Y.T.H.I.C.A.L. creature came and turned him into a rabbit?"
Blank. Stares.
"Boys! Think MYTHICAL creatures who could turn something into something else!" Attempt, this will be a challenge, to envision me waving my right arm in the air while half-mouthing, "Bippity, ...."
One of the boys yelled, "OH! I've got this guys."
They huddled up, whispering, heads nodding and shaking, hands moving around as if coming up with the perfect description.
"We've got it!"
I beamed. My boys! I was about to be so proud of them! I just knew it!
"Class! It appears the boys have it! Boys, what mythical creature came and turned the Velveteen Rabbit into a real rabbit?"
One of the boys smiled, a glint in his eye, and yelled, "ManBearPig!"
:o
Blank stare, mine.
The room erupted in laughter. I actually stomped my feet and yelled, humorously, "NOOOOOOOO!!!!! A FAIRY! Boys! A fairy! Not ManBearPig!"
Religion brought us, in part, communication and stories. Science brought us, television.
Hmmmm.....
Shannon wrote: "Changing the subject ....If someone doesn't change the subject, I might just take up drinking as a sport. No, not a hobby. A sport. With periods of training, races and awards.
The thing of it..."
LOL Shannon :)
I haven't read the Velveteen Rabbit in years, so I wouldn't have gotten the correct answer ... but ...
What is a "ManBearPig" ?!?!?!? lmao :D
As to Science v. Religion vis a vis stories / TV .... I'm going to have to think on that before writing a proper response :)
My fingers are beginning to cramp from all the typing between GR, my Tumblr page and other things :)
C-Cose wrote: "What is a "ManBearPig" ?!?!?!? lmao :D"
It's a sad, sad day ....
Remember ....
You asked ....
The following is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig
"Plot Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore visits South Park Elementary School and warns the school's students about the terrible ManBearPig, a scary monster which is "half man, half bear and half pig" and roams the Earth attacking humans for no reason at all. He also demands throughout the episode that people will take him "serial" or "cereal", which he uses in place of the word "serious[ly]", referencing a real-life appearance made by Gore on The Oprah Winfrey Show before the episode aired, where he misunderstood a question regarding his favorite cereal.[1]
Later, the boys' basketball game is interrupted by another visit from Gore, who is poorly disguised as the ManBearPig and claims to be "trying to spread ManBearPig awareness". Stan's father Randy picks up the boys to drive them home, proclaiming that Gore is just desperate for attention, because he has no friends. Al Gore phones Stan in the middle of the night inviting him to a ManBearPig meeting and convinces Stan to attend out of sympathy for Gore not having any friends. Stan and his friends go to the meeting where Gore states that "MBP" is hiding in the Cave of the Winds. The boys are persuaded to go when Gore guarantees them a day off school.
In the cave, Gore first starts asking the tour guide illogical questions and annoying the group. Gore forces the boys to follow him off the tour path to find ManBearPig. He begins firing a shotgun wildly after mistaking wind for ManBearPig, causing a cave-in that leaves the boys trapped in the caverns while Gore and all the other tourists evacuate the cave only moments before rocks come down, sealing off the cave entrance. Gore claims ManBearPig caused the cave-in and that the monster is still at large. While the boys search for a way out of the cave, Cartman discovers a small cavern filled with what appears to be a hoard of treasure. He hides the loot from the other boys and starts swallowing the treasure piece-by-piece to smuggle it out of the cave.
A rescue team has been assembled outside the cave to find the boys, while Gore whines about killing ManBearPig. Gore later diverts the flow of a nearby stream in order to cause a flood which fills the cavern in an attempt to kill the still-unseen monster. Meanwhile, the boys think that Cartman, bloated with gold and jewels, has become severely ill, and carry him while trying to find a way out of the cave. As the cave floods, Kyle risks his life to get Cartman to safety. The boys manage to escape just as a memorial service is being held for them. Gore is secretly celebrating having "killed" ManBearPig, believing that he is a hero. When Gore claims he rescued them, Stan yells at him and calls him a loser. Cartman tries to walk away, but he does not get far before he begins painfully defecating pieces of treasure. It is revealed to Cartman that the treasure was a prop used for tourist photo ops and is only worth about $14. While Cartman continues to expel more treasure in pain, Gore explains his intention is to make a film starring himself. He ties a cape onto himself and "flies" away, exclaiming "Excelsior!" (the catchphrase of Marvel Comics' Stan Lee)."
The mind reels at the possible responses ....
It's a sad, sad day ....
Remember ....
You asked ....
The following is taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ManBearPig
"Plot Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore visits South Park Elementary School and warns the school's students about the terrible ManBearPig, a scary monster which is "half man, half bear and half pig" and roams the Earth attacking humans for no reason at all. He also demands throughout the episode that people will take him "serial" or "cereal", which he uses in place of the word "serious[ly]", referencing a real-life appearance made by Gore on The Oprah Winfrey Show before the episode aired, where he misunderstood a question regarding his favorite cereal.[1]
Later, the boys' basketball game is interrupted by another visit from Gore, who is poorly disguised as the ManBearPig and claims to be "trying to spread ManBearPig awareness". Stan's father Randy picks up the boys to drive them home, proclaiming that Gore is just desperate for attention, because he has no friends. Al Gore phones Stan in the middle of the night inviting him to a ManBearPig meeting and convinces Stan to attend out of sympathy for Gore not having any friends. Stan and his friends go to the meeting where Gore states that "MBP" is hiding in the Cave of the Winds. The boys are persuaded to go when Gore guarantees them a day off school.
In the cave, Gore first starts asking the tour guide illogical questions and annoying the group. Gore forces the boys to follow him off the tour path to find ManBearPig. He begins firing a shotgun wildly after mistaking wind for ManBearPig, causing a cave-in that leaves the boys trapped in the caverns while Gore and all the other tourists evacuate the cave only moments before rocks come down, sealing off the cave entrance. Gore claims ManBearPig caused the cave-in and that the monster is still at large. While the boys search for a way out of the cave, Cartman discovers a small cavern filled with what appears to be a hoard of treasure. He hides the loot from the other boys and starts swallowing the treasure piece-by-piece to smuggle it out of the cave.
A rescue team has been assembled outside the cave to find the boys, while Gore whines about killing ManBearPig. Gore later diverts the flow of a nearby stream in order to cause a flood which fills the cavern in an attempt to kill the still-unseen monster. Meanwhile, the boys think that Cartman, bloated with gold and jewels, has become severely ill, and carry him while trying to find a way out of the cave. As the cave floods, Kyle risks his life to get Cartman to safety. The boys manage to escape just as a memorial service is being held for them. Gore is secretly celebrating having "killed" ManBearPig, believing that he is a hero. When Gore claims he rescued them, Stan yells at him and calls him a loser. Cartman tries to walk away, but he does not get far before he begins painfully defecating pieces of treasure. It is revealed to Cartman that the treasure was a prop used for tourist photo ops and is only worth about $14. While Cartman continues to expel more treasure in pain, Gore explains his intention is to make a film starring himself. He ties a cape onto himself and "flies" away, exclaiming "Excelsior!" (the catchphrase of Marvel Comics' Stan Lee)."
The mind reels at the possible responses ....
Nooooo....
I do not watch South Park. My students told me the "identity" of ManBearPig. After Googling "him" for you, I now know why some of my students have been saying, "I'm so cereal," and "Cereal, I really mean it."
Grrrr....
I'd stomp my feet again if I were standing.
I do not watch South Park. My students told me the "identity" of ManBearPig. After Googling "him" for you, I now know why some of my students have been saying, "I'm so cereal," and "Cereal, I really mean it."
Grrrr....
I'd stomp my feet again if I were standing.
I don't have television, but I wouldn't watch South Park for the world. Some kids (elementary age) said during breakfast time to their friends that they watch Family Guy which I think is WAY too sophisticated in other words, too mature for young viewers. I don't like the idea that kids can and will watch whatever junk is on television, and their parents are letting them.
Shannon wrote: "Nooooo....I do not watch South Park. My students told me the "identity" of ManBearPig. After Googling "him" for you, I now know why some of my students have been saying, "I'm so cereal," and "C..."
*groan*
Shannon .... this deserves an ODG *face palm*. Al Gore, South Park and Oprah in the same story *shakes head*.
You'll excuse me while I search for a bottle of brain and eye bleach to erase the memories and visuals that I am stuck with ;)
C-Cose wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Nooooo....
I do not watch South Park. My students told me the "identity" of ManBearPig. After Googling "him" for you, I now know why some of my students have been saying, "I'm so..."
I told you ....
Remember ....
You asked ....
Why? Why couldn't they have said, "A FAIRY!"
I was waving my hand ... like I was holding a wand ....
It would have been so simple to say, "A FAIRY!"
I'm beginning to think they're attempting to drive me out of my ever-loving mind.
Last week, when introducing an independent reading project and pointing out books in the room that they could choose ....
I said, "And, ...! This is SO cool! You could challenge yourselves by one of the classics. It's not mandatory. But, you could. Look. This is where I have the classics. Oooooooo..... Aaahhhhhh....." I ran my hand along them like I was that woman on that game show, both names escape me. I picked one and said,
"For example, you could read Kim by Rudyard Kipling! Would anyone like to read one of the classics? Kim by Kipling?"
Blank stares.
Tick.
Tock.
"Come on ...." I said. "Surely someone wants a challenge!"
Blank. Stares.
Tick.
Tock.
One of the boys raised his hand. OH! He wanted to read Kim!
I yelped his name. We'll call him ... "Joe" ... I yelped, "JOE! You want a challenge! You want to read Kim!!!!!!!!"
He said, "No, actually, I just had a question."
Mildly disappointed, I said, "What's your question, Joe?"
He asked, "Kim, as in Kim Kardashian?"
:o
I closed my eyes, grasped my chest, and fell into the board ... all at the same time.
The children laughed and laughed and laughed.
Kim Kardashian followed by ... "MANBEARPIG!"
What are the odds that they're trying to drive me into a mindless stupor or see to it that I take leave of what remains of my senses or that they've taken it upon themselves to play "Greensleeves" or "Bridge over Troubled Water" or something on my last nerve?
Again, religion brought us, in part, communication and stories .... Science brought us, in part, television ....
Is there a moral to this story? Short of the fact that my students either have wickedly sick and twisted senses of humor ... or ... they're trying to drive me to the brink of daftdom?
I do not watch South Park. My students told me the "identity" of ManBearPig. After Googling "him" for you, I now know why some of my students have been saying, "I'm so..."
I told you ....
Remember ....
You asked ....
Why? Why couldn't they have said, "A FAIRY!"
I was waving my hand ... like I was holding a wand ....
It would have been so simple to say, "A FAIRY!"
I'm beginning to think they're attempting to drive me out of my ever-loving mind.
Last week, when introducing an independent reading project and pointing out books in the room that they could choose ....
I said, "And, ...! This is SO cool! You could challenge yourselves by one of the classics. It's not mandatory. But, you could. Look. This is where I have the classics. Oooooooo..... Aaahhhhhh....." I ran my hand along them like I was that woman on that game show, both names escape me. I picked one and said,
"For example, you could read Kim by Rudyard Kipling! Would anyone like to read one of the classics? Kim by Kipling?"
Blank stares.
Tick.
Tock.
"Come on ...." I said. "Surely someone wants a challenge!"
Blank. Stares.
Tick.
Tock.
One of the boys raised his hand. OH! He wanted to read Kim!
I yelped his name. We'll call him ... "Joe" ... I yelped, "JOE! You want a challenge! You want to read Kim!!!!!!!!"
He said, "No, actually, I just had a question."
Mildly disappointed, I said, "What's your question, Joe?"
He asked, "Kim, as in Kim Kardashian?"
:o
I closed my eyes, grasped my chest, and fell into the board ... all at the same time.
The children laughed and laughed and laughed.
Kim Kardashian followed by ... "MANBEARPIG!"
What are the odds that they're trying to drive me into a mindless stupor or see to it that I take leave of what remains of my senses or that they've taken it upon themselves to play "Greensleeves" or "Bridge over Troubled Water" or something on my last nerve?
Again, religion brought us, in part, communication and stories .... Science brought us, in part, television ....
Is there a moral to this story? Short of the fact that my students either have wickedly sick and twisted senses of humor ... or ... they're trying to drive me to the brink of daftdom?
Robin wrote: "I don't have television, but I wouldn't watch South Park for the world. Some kids (elementary age) said during breakfast time to their friends that they watch Family Guy which I think is WAY too s..."
You poor thing, Robin. No television. Missing all of those South Park episodes!!!!! No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must feel so deprived.
Not.
;)
(I have one. Over 100 channels! I promise you ... you're not missing much.)
You poor thing, Robin. No television. Missing all of those South Park episodes!!!!! No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You must feel so deprived.
Not.
;)
(I have one. Over 100 channels! I promise you ... you're not missing much.)
Shannon wrote: "Is there a moral to this story? Short of the fact that my students either have wickedly sick and twisted senses of humor ... or ... they're trying to drive me to the brink of daftdom?"Shannon m'dear :)
I'm giggling as a write this :D
I think I remember you writing that you've recently transferred either from middle school to high school teaching ... or the reverse.
If you're currently in middle school, I'd pick driving you "to the brink of daftdom" ... HS students have notoriously "twisted senses of humour".
In either case, I'm very grateful that you have these stories to share with us as they put a huge smile on my face--generally when I most need to be smiling :D
Hmmmmm.... If we believed in past lives and karma ....
Would I have been very, very good in a past life? Therefore, my karma is coming back to me in humor. Fate and my past choices are bringing me funny, funny children. Ahhhh....
Or, was I very, very bad in a past life? The type who left tacks and frogs to lie in wait for unsuspecting teachers. Therefore, fate and my past choices are bringing me naughty, naughty children who are trying to make me take leave of my senses. Hmmmm.....
I'm sure there's a science option. Ummmm.... Given the type of television shows and the fact that children have more access to certain things, like bad TV, probability and statistics would say, given the number of children and the number of television shows and ... a bit of mathematical acrobatics later ... it only makes sense that children would make such statements. Just a matter of statistics. To be fair, I'll throw out that option.
;)
Now, I truly have to decide .... Am I going to bake an apple crisp to take to work tomorrow or an apple pie?
Apples make me think of ... If I were in England, visiting Stonehenge, would I want to take a picnic basket with apple pie? What would taste better with apple pie? Beer or a thermos of tea? And .... When I was at the pharmacy the other day, waiting for a prescription, one of the workers came for her shift, and another pharmacy worker said something like ... she's back ... about to tell us if UFO's really visited Stonehenge. STONEHENGE! It's as if it's haunting my thoughts. I wonder if there are UFO's. Well, heck. Of course there are ... as in unidentified. They could be military. But, I wonder if there are ... you know ... alien UFO's and if they visit ... STONEHENGE. And, I've heard scientists don't study UFO's because they're afraid they'll lose respect within the scientific community. Is that true? If so, I think that's rather sad ... and seemingly, at first blush and if true, rather outside the spirit of science. You've got to know, if I had become a scientist ... shudder ... I'd be coming up with a hypothesis for and attempting to test all things Nessie and Big Foot and ghostlike and UFOish. You just have to know that to be true. But, speaking of apples, is it true that there was an island off the coast of Wales with trees, apple trees, I think, that were very special to the people and the Druids? And, when the nasty, evil, horrid, and foul Romans went there and killed all of the Druids, is it true that they chopped down all of the apple trees? And, is it true that the apples were said to have magical healing powers? And, ... I wonder where we got the saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Could it have been a Welsh thing or a Druid thing? Or, is it just an apple thing? And, ...
Would I have been very, very good in a past life? Therefore, my karma is coming back to me in humor. Fate and my past choices are bringing me funny, funny children. Ahhhh....
Or, was I very, very bad in a past life? The type who left tacks and frogs to lie in wait for unsuspecting teachers. Therefore, fate and my past choices are bringing me naughty, naughty children who are trying to make me take leave of my senses. Hmmmm.....
I'm sure there's a science option. Ummmm.... Given the type of television shows and the fact that children have more access to certain things, like bad TV, probability and statistics would say, given the number of children and the number of television shows and ... a bit of mathematical acrobatics later ... it only makes sense that children would make such statements. Just a matter of statistics. To be fair, I'll throw out that option.
;)
Now, I truly have to decide .... Am I going to bake an apple crisp to take to work tomorrow or an apple pie?
Apples make me think of ... If I were in England, visiting Stonehenge, would I want to take a picnic basket with apple pie? What would taste better with apple pie? Beer or a thermos of tea? And .... When I was at the pharmacy the other day, waiting for a prescription, one of the workers came for her shift, and another pharmacy worker said something like ... she's back ... about to tell us if UFO's really visited Stonehenge. STONEHENGE! It's as if it's haunting my thoughts. I wonder if there are UFO's. Well, heck. Of course there are ... as in unidentified. They could be military. But, I wonder if there are ... you know ... alien UFO's and if they visit ... STONEHENGE. And, I've heard scientists don't study UFO's because they're afraid they'll lose respect within the scientific community. Is that true? If so, I think that's rather sad ... and seemingly, at first blush and if true, rather outside the spirit of science. You've got to know, if I had become a scientist ... shudder ... I'd be coming up with a hypothesis for and attempting to test all things Nessie and Big Foot and ghostlike and UFOish. You just have to know that to be true. But, speaking of apples, is it true that there was an island off the coast of Wales with trees, apple trees, I think, that were very special to the people and the Druids? And, when the nasty, evil, horrid, and foul Romans went there and killed all of the Druids, is it true that they chopped down all of the apple trees? And, is it true that the apples were said to have magical healing powers? And, ... I wonder where we got the saying, "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." Could it have been a Welsh thing or a Druid thing? Or, is it just an apple thing? And, ...
C-Cose wrote: "HS students have notoriously "twisted senses of humour"."
Ahhhhh.... My babies...!
I switched from middle school to high school. It's just that they have gloriously twisted senses of humor.
It's as if the clouds are parting ....
That would explain the glint in their eyes ....
I'm so proud of them!
Gotta love a sick and twisted sense of humor ...
Ahhhhh.... My babies...!
I switched from middle school to high school. It's just that they have gloriously twisted senses of humor.
It's as if the clouds are parting ....
That would explain the glint in their eyes ....
I'm so proud of them!
Gotta love a sick and twisted sense of humor ...
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
You have made the mathematical assumption to produce the result, but I don't agree wit..."
Shannon, you have missed the whole point.
It is wrong that the motorists in front were speeding bunly one was stopped by the cops and
It maybe wrong that some gay men are not allowed to give blood but suggesting others should not give blood either, is not the way to go.