|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 14:50:04 GMT
Post by jean on Jun 21, 2012 14:50:04 GMT
And I have nowt to say on gay marriage, which is why I have said nowt on that thread. Don't worry, I don't think there's much to be said - I certainly wouldn't have started a thread about it. I was just trying out one of the more bizarre ideas that have emerged in the course of the discussion.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 15:42:42 GMT
Post by pippop on Jun 21, 2012 15:42:42 GMT
...just wish i could be more like jimmycarr (except that he is a bit hated at the moment - oh, perhaps i am). Now that is funny. I'd give you karma if I could blooming well work out which was which. Why do they have this mad system here? P.S. I do know exactly what you mean about the word association thing Pippa.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 15:47:05 GMT
Post by pippop on Jun 21, 2012 15:47:05 GMT
If a poster wants to reveal parts of their private life that must be a matter for them. I agree. If she want to discuss it it's up to her isn't it?
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 15:50:23 GMT
Post by Jonjel on Jun 21, 2012 15:50:23 GMT
And I have nowt to say on gay marriage, which is why I have said nowt on that thread. Don't worry, I don't think there's much to be said - I certainly wouldn't have started a thread about it. I was just trying out one of the more bizarre ideas that have emerged in the course of the discussion. So you would like my views on gay marriage in or out of church? I personally would not want to marry a gay person.
|
|
pippop
pc
I love everyone here.
Posts: 1,110
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 15:53:49 GMT
Post by pippop on Jun 21, 2012 15:53:49 GMT
And I have nowt to say on gay marriage, which is why I have said nowt on that thread. I think that most people don't really care about "Gay Marriage" (I don't) and it's just a tiny minority of people that do care enough to start threads about it on message boards etc.
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 16:05:22 GMT
Post by jean on Jun 21, 2012 16:05:22 GMT
I personally would not want to marry a gay person. You could marry a gay woman, of course - there'd be no objection to that. The important thing is that both of you should fully understand the situation before you commited yourselves. I think that most people don't really care about "Gay Marriage" (I don't)... So far was I from being a militant campaigner that the whole civil partnership thing took me completely by surprise.
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 16:36:47 GMT
Post by Jonjel on Jun 21, 2012 16:36:47 GMT
Now why would I want to do that, no matter how well she could cook or keep my house and garden spic and span?
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 19:23:25 GMT
Post by pippa on Jun 21, 2012 19:23:25 GMT
If you want people not to miss whatever mark you have in mind, pippa, perhaps you would do better not to invite anyone reading to associate me with these images: www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/swarm.jpgwww.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/cybersisters.jpgWhich, I'll remind you, you have done on this board not once but twice recently. Had you not done so, and had you not (in your own special way) hinted at the bashing you claimed was going on, or mentioned (yet again) the bullying you felt obliged to confront its perpetrator with, your charge of paranoia might stick. But it won 't, because you did write all that stuff. entirely your spin, yet again jean... lets just look at the sequence of events for more accuracy: you may remember pippop asked me my thoughts on the gay marriage/homophobia thread? i replied that i'd lost sight of the point of it (as you and marchesa had had pages of convoluted discussion) other than to bash marchesa (my reference was to visitors op which was explained to you... more than once). next we have the cartoon strip where i responded to your continuing references to me (have already frequently done so on the other gay marriage/homophobia thread) and i asked you to stop it. unable to stop you follow with this: " [pippa] regularly intervene to inform anyone reading of my bullying, goading, harassment that should be confronted, my demonising of posters and getting them driven off and banned from boards, the spin and hype that I orchestrate, the infamous behaviour I manifest." this came completely out of the blue (no pun intended). you had the wrong end of the stick at my answer to pippop's question re gay marriage discussion and obviously you thought i was referring directly to you when in fact i wasn't, despite already telling you so. again out of the blue you persist with: " Pippa... claims (and perhaps really believes) that her interventions help and support the victims of bullying,..."you had it wrong so my response: "since when? i think you'll find it's that she claims (and really believes) it's the behaviour that needs confronting." followed with cartoon images of the type of behaviour i meant. you continue with your haranguing, and intent on spoiling for a fight.... i tell you i'm not interested and you can go and find someone else to fight with. a couple of days quiet then up you pop behind me here on jonjels fish thread and confront me after i have posted a rather lame but totally innocuous quip. i tell you again you've got the wrong end of the stick ie missed themark. but instead of apologising you go on to say: If you want people not to miss whatever mark you have in mind, pippa, perhaps you would do better not to invite anyone reading to associate me with these images:.." "But if she wants her posts to be taken at face value, maybe she should try not to fill so many of them with hints about another poster's malevolence."the mind boggles. lets just say re malevolence, pots and kettles jean. take note. if your wish to continue taking pops at everything i say and derail each and every thread go ahead but dont mind me setting you straight while you're at it. i see that to you it's all about vanquishing your oponent, winning with words, jean. forget the truth. however i am more concerned with actuality and vanquishing your spin.
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 22:22:35 GMT
Post by jean on Jun 21, 2012 22:22:35 GMT
i tell you again you've got the wrong end of the stick ie missed the mark. If I have, I apologise. Now you know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of insinuations one knows have no foundation.
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 21, 2012 22:24:10 GMT
Post by jean on Jun 21, 2012 22:24:10 GMT
...no matter how well she could cook or keep my house and garden spic and span? You'd be barking up the wrong tree there - it's a gay man you need for that sort of stuff.
|
|
pippa
WH Member
Posts: 230
|
Fish
Jun 22, 2012 0:27:41 GMT
Post by pippa on Jun 22, 2012 0:27:41 GMT
i tell you again you've got the wrong end of the stick ie missed the mark. If I have, I apologise. Now you know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of insinuations one knows have no foundation. apology accepted. although i'd like to add that there's quite a difference between observing, whether conscious or unconscious, the patterns of the same behaviour playing out where a group set against one, and getting a sequence of events over a couple of weeks askew. i'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 22, 2012 0:43:06 GMT
Post by aquatic on Jun 22, 2012 0:43:06 GMT
Now why would I want to do that, no matter how well she could cook or keep my house and garden spic and span? This is becoming intolerable. Not only in sexist terms, but in racist too. Spic and span?From wiki: Some in the United States believe that the word [spic] is a play on their pronunciation of the English "speak." It may also derive from "spig", which was originally used to refer to Italians, in turn from "spiggoty" (sometimes spelled "spiggity", "spigotti", or "spigoty") which may derive from "spaghetti" or "no spika de Inglese". The oldest known use of "spiggoty" is in 1910 by Wilbur Lawton in Boy Aviators in Nicaragua, or, In League with the Insurgents. Stuart Berg Flexner in I hear America Talking (1976), favored the explanation that it derives from "no spik Ingles" (or "no spika de Ingles"). These theories follow standard naming practices, which include attacking people according to the foods they eat (see Kraut and Frog) and for their failure to speak a language (see Barbarian and Gringo). A slur derived from "spic" is "spic and span" (first used in the African-American community in the 1950s) meaning a mixed Puerto Rican and African-American couple.[6] The phrase had legitimate currency at the time as the name of a cleaning product, "Spic and Span", before it was applied to mixed-heritage couples. This product is still sold under the same name. The product took the name from a common phrase meaning extremely clean, "spick and span", which was a British idiom first recorded in 1579, and used in Samuel Pepys's diary. A spick was a spike or nail, a span was a very fresh wood chip, and thus the phrase meant clean and neat and all in place, as in being nailed down. The "span" in the idiom also is part of "brand span new", now more commonly rendered "brand spanking new", and has nothing to do with the words "Spanish" or "Hispanic".
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 22, 2012 8:23:52 GMT
Post by Jonjel on Jun 22, 2012 8:23:52 GMT
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 22, 2012 8:31:49 GMT
Post by Jonjel on Jun 22, 2012 8:31:49 GMT
...no matter how well she could cook or keep my house and garden spic and span? You'd be barking up the wrong tree there - it's a gay man you need for that sort of stuff. I think I will perhaps leave the house slightly untidy. The price I might have to pay for your suggested solution could be more than I am prepared to pay, and how would I explain my new 'help' to the boys in the Harlots Arms on a Friday night?
|
|
|
Fish
Jun 22, 2012 8:32:10 GMT
Post by jean on Jun 22, 2012 8:32:10 GMT
You'll understand if I'd like to take it a little further, though. I have explained to you, very carefully and at great length, pippa, how you did not observe the patterns of behaviour you imagined you observed. The problem seems to be your failure to realise that it's quite normal for a number of people, quite separately and independently, to disagree with what one poster is saying, and to express that disagreement, without being part of any group. It just happens that in the gay marriage thread above, despite your being so sure it was an intended as an exercise in marchesa-bashing, nobody much was interested enough in the topic to argue with the marchesa except me. And even you can see that's not bashing the marchesa. There's no hype or spin involved, just me pursuing my line of argument in answer to what the marchesa has to say. And that's all I've ever done on any thread on any board, ever. It would be no different if other people had joined in too, as has happened on the original thread on the Science board, where a number of posters are disagreeing with Nick. But Nick would never be foolish enough to bleat that people were piling in on him just because there were more of them than there were of him. That's how it works, pippa. I think it would be nice if you could bring yourself to apolologise to me for getting things so horribly wrong. And then perhaps we really could draw a line under all of this. (And I could apologise to aqua fro drawing attention away from his brilliant post.)
|
|