--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm all for rules!!!! > > I knew if I upped the heat in the kitchen something would budge. > > Rick -- you rejected my offering to impose an "oath" of "good > manners;" you said you didn't want to be a morality cop. > > "Jane you ignorant slut" is a standard SNL line everyone knows, right?>>
No you were not. You're like that white guy that claims he only uses the word "nigger" to mean "stupid person", and that he is not a racist, and everyone should just accept whatever usage anyone cares to make up about words. Bitch' is not a poetical word, it is a degradation of women when used the way you used it, and most women hate it, and would only use it themselves in anger or hate. Maybe Judy doesn't care, but I do because I know why you use it. Because you attack the person, instead of the argument they are making, and that is offensive to me. (But you are correct, I was arrested a couple of times at an early age, but unlike the other 'boys' here, my development was not arrested as you say. It escaped the male-bonding mind cops) OffWorld > I was doing satire. And the word "bitch" is one of the most > poetically used words today. Judy is a fierce > warrior-warrioress-whatever. She's in with mostly boys (all arrested > in their developments at early ages) here and smacking them right and > left like she was as immune to karma as Mary Poppins, and I just felt > she should get some smacks back. She wages battles for years, and you > do not tell her to back off the negative, abusive, demeaning attitude, > and then, she, emboldened by the group passivity here, came at me for > no offense other than that I was following your "no abuse" rules > regarding Turq posts -- some of which thoroughly challenged my POVs. > > If you've changed your stance, maybe you could tell us how that > transition came about. Sorry, sorta, if it was in fact my rude > attempts to amp it all up and make it ridiculous enough to get folks > to move on this issue of "abusive trolls" here. Slick as they are > with lingo, trolls're all in emperor's togs when it comes to anyone > here seeing their energy, their reckless disregard for the tender > feeling level, their almost vampire-like feasting on any dissonance > they can stir up, their sheer psychic vandalism. > > I've contributed many a piece here that was holy in intent. Trying to > lay a little imagination down and take a risk here or there, open up a > bit, and yet, who can do anything subtle and ritammy when fire alarm > emotions are being toggled by stalking, insult-zombic, creepazoid > terrorists with kill-me-and-be-reduced-to-my-level divisive-bombs > strapped to their souls daring us all to boot them out of this small > universe and thus show the same impotency that these feral marauders > feel every second of their miserable existences. > > I mean, Ron is, like, HOLY compared to Judy. He's posting his heart, > but Judy's posting her gall bladder -- hence her dark bile ink. > > Turq posted like he was Hemmingway wandering an ancient town covered > with moss and dripping with culture, and some troll up and calls him a > drunk. I mean, what the hell is that shit, Rick? > > We all have egos that could soar to incredibility if we weren't all > armed to the teeth with shotguns aimed at anything that moves in the > heavens and calling it ready-to-roast duck no matter if swan or angel > crashes dead but sometimes only wounded at their feet. > > Yeah, gimme some rules. > > Edg > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > > > > We reached a consensus on the excessive posting issue and all but a few > > rebels have appreciated and adhered to the guideline. How about if > we reach > > a similar consensus regarding abusive language? I'd like to hear some > > feedback on how people feel about this sort of behavior, either > observing it > > in others, being the brunt of it, or even dishing it out? Do you > actually > > feel better after verbally abusing someone, or does it leave you feeling > > polluted? If I were to mandate behavioral guidelines, it would > violate the > > democratic, community spirit I've tried to establish on FFL. But if > we can > > collectively agree upon some basic standards of respect and decency, > perhaps > > we'll all feel motivated to live up to them. Also, I won't be > playing the > > "heavy" if I have to ban someone for a week for violating something > we have > > all agreed to. > > > > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.8/993 - Release Date: 9/6/2007 > > 3:18 PM > > >
