> "Your violent metaphor is offensive. For a man it is the > equivalent to having something inserted into your body > and damaging an internal organ."--Curtis Delta Blues > > I can hardly wait to see you explain how that comment > doesn't link things people say here with actual physical > violence. I'm sure you'll find a way.
I would also be offended if someone threatened anyone here with knocking their teeth out. But I don't believe it would make that more likely to say it. Most guys who mouth off with physical violence threats are not really tough guys in my experince. Wishing someone was dead or that they burst into flames doesn't make the grade of physical threat for me. And I didn't think that your saying it made it more likely that you would actually do something violent to me either. But the reason it was offensive to me was my own choice. I choose to be offended by it. We all choose what we are offended by. So I don't care if you are offended with something someone says that you deem sexist, or as you usually misstate: misogynistic, I am challenging your claim that it leads to actual physical violence. You saying you kicked me in the nuts does not make it more likely that some other person will actually do it. That is the substance of your claim. My do-over section to earn the right to hear Judy's comments IF I am thoughtful enough and she is satisfied with my work: > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > The guys you are dogging out all have > > > > loving relationships with the women in their lives > > > > > > Whether it's even the case that all the men on this > > > forum *have* women in their lives, the fact is that a > > > large percentage of men who abuse women would smugly > > > declare they had "loving relationships" with those > > > women. I was thinking mostly about Dr. Pete and Turq who seem to be in your and Raunchy's crosshairs lately. Those were the guys you were dogging out. Both of them have posted enough about the women in their lives to make me believe they have good relationships with women. YMMV > > > > > > and you ought to > > > > trust your sisters on the ground about these men. > > > > > > I don't believe we've heard from your girlfriend > > > lately, or any of the wives or girlfriends (or even > > > the one-night stands) of the men on this forum. What > > > "sisters on the ground" are there for us to "trust" > > > with regard to the behavior of the men on FFL? Right, you can't interview the women in our lives. My case for trust may be too weak to be worth much as proof. I believe you have devolved into a gotcha game with words and I was shifting the focus back to our real lives where, at least in my case, I am not viewed as a woman-hater which is your most common charge. I don't see any evidence that Turq or Dr. Pete hate women, I see precisely the opposite and I'll bet the women in their lives would agree with me. Can I prove it to you? Not so much. The fact that you attempt to put us on the defensive as if we need to prove this to you is part of your assumption power game. It stops working once it is recognized. > > > > > > We see how the men here treat *us*. And we see how > > > our "sisters on the ground" are treated in the > > > quotes raunchydog posted. We see how Hillary and > > > Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and Jackie Kennedy > > > have been treated here. Jackie Kennedy is dead. She is not being "treated" anyway. You are being offended on behalf of her memory which is totally weird. Sarah and Hillary are public figures who have asked for any opinions about them that people want to share by taking that role. Again, you are being offended on behalf of other people who don't need your help. Cindy McCain was overtaken by a chill when Obama didn't vote for Iraq war funding for her son without a time table but was warmed up when her husband did the exact same thing the next month because it contained a timetable. She is not an actual person but was constructed as an audio animatronic figure by the Disney group for the Republican party. She has not human feelings and does not care what humanoids say about her. As far as how you and Raunchy are being "treated." I can only speak for myself. I treat you guys fine and enjoy your posts and willingness to go back and forth on topics. If you feel wronged by me, let me know. Otherwise I'm gunna treat you like an equal and figure you can take care of yourself. Raunchy sure can. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Looks like I managed to kick Curtis in the balls > > > > > (metaphorically, of course) hard enough that all > > > > > he can do is sputter. > > > > > > > > Your violent metaphor is offensive. For a man it is the > > > > equivalent to having something inserted into your body > > > > and damaging an internal organ. Funny? > > > > > > > > The fact that you don't understand the hypocrisy of using such > > > > language after taking everyone here to task for the same thing > > > > makes me sputter. > > > > > > <belly laugh> > > > > > > Curtis, why do you think I said that? > > > > To be a hypocrite? > > > > > You *freak out* when someone uses violent language > > > about you, but you deny that it should give any > > > offense when it's used about women--and without > > > even a parenthetical that it's just a metaphor. > > > > Telling you it is offensive language to me is not exactly > > freaking out. But that was not what made me sputter, it > > was your hypocrisy. If you were just trying to get a rise > > out of me by making a violent metaphor then you are a double > > hypocrite. > > Not sure how you get "double hypocrite" out of > documenting that someone else (you) is a > hypocrite. > > <snip> > > > Who's the hypocrite, again? > > > > Still you, but thanks for a chance to repeat it. You were > > doing it in jest which is exactly what you criticize other > > posters here for doing. > > You're really pissed that you fell for it, ain'cha? > > <snip> > > > I really didn't think you'd fall into the trap, but > > > I figured, what the hell, it's worth a try. Glad > > > I chanced it. > > > > As am I. It reveals your inability for self reflection on > > this topic. > > Lotta folks competing for Barry's Master of > Inadvertent Irony crown these days. > > > My complaint is not that you get offended and express that > > opinion Judy. It is that you are trying to link things > > people say here with actual physical violence. > > "Your violent metaphor is offensive. For a man it is the > equivalent to having something inserted into your body > and damaging an internal organ."--Curtis Delta Blues > > I can hardly wait to see you explain how that comment > doesn't link things people say here with actual physical > violence. I'm sure you'll find a way. > > <snip> > > > You might want to have the tendency to resort to violent > > > > fantasies instead of dealing with the points I made, checked. > > > > > > You didn't *make* any points in this post, Curtis. > > > That's why I said you were reduced to sputtering. > > > > Kind of dismissive, but OK. I hope you don't mind me > > assuming that you just didn't have a response to my > > excellent points and took the easy way out. > > You didn't *have* any "excellent points" in this > post, Curtis. You had some actual points in your > previous post, and I responded to them, but you > chose to blow off most of what I said and content > yourself with some flip but insubstantial > ripostes to the two last paragraphs, which were > mostly rhetorical anyway. > > Gonna give you another chance. Here's what you > ignored: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > The guys you are dogging out all have > > > > loving relationships with the women in their lives > > > > > > Whether it's even the case that all the men on this > > > forum *have* women in their lives, the fact is that a > > > large percentage of men who abuse women would smugly > > > declare they had "loving relationships" with those > > > women. > > > > > > and you ought to > > > > trust your sisters on the ground about these men. > > > > > > I don't believe we've heard from your girlfriend > > > lately, or any of the wives or girlfriends (or even > > > the one-night stands) of the men on this forum. What > > > "sisters on the ground" are there for us to "trust" > > > with regard to the behavior of the men on FFL? > > > > > > We see how the men here treat *us*. And we see how > > > our "sisters on the ground" are treated in the > > > quotes raunchydog posted. We see how Hillary and > > > Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain and Jackie Kennedy > > > have been treated here. > > Give me some thoughtful responses to the above, > and maybe I'll take another post and deal with > your ripostes to my rhetoric. But you may not be > too happy about that, because they're really > incredibly weak. >
