Bhairitu wrote: "All you're trying to do is impose political correctness here and instead you will wind up killing off this this group. No one will come here. Who wants to read the posts of a bunch of pansies. :D FFL R.I.P. 2001-2007"
Edg: I believe I understand your concept. We all want everyone to have the swagger of John Wayne when opinions are bruted -- the ego loves certainty -- mine sure does. Look how many Americans are liking Fred Thompson who oozes manly confidence. So I resonate with your desire for all of us to have a certain level of "allowed spontaneity" in posting. And I don't think you meant to slur homosexuals, er, did you? See? I have to ask you this, because you used a word that has a history of being used mostly by homophobes. As much as Charlie Lutes spewed whatever, I do like the concept he introduced to me -- that souls incarnate -- ideally -- by alternating genders, but that a soul is "allowed" to incarnate as the same gender up to three lifetimes in a row, but then they must switch over in the next, and, then, they are very likely to be challenged by being "so used to being one gender that it is continued in the next incarnation's 'wrong body.'" Thus, said Charlie in a moment of wearing the mask of being a psychic, Clark Gable was a man's man -- being on his third adventure in a row as a man -- a man's man to such a degree that other men were as if "women in his presence." Good luck on getting only men's men and women's women here. In fact, I do believe that a balancing of the psyche is a desireable goal and that a man's man may be, urp, er, gulp.....deviant? creepy? sick? immoral? On the other hand, who wants a group of only "spiritual hermaphrodites" wavering back and forth like a drunken trikker over the line of gender identification? Turq comes off as non-pansyish in his forthright shootings-from-the-hip, but I'll bet he likes his "inner babe" as much as he likes his outer bubba. He just has too tender a vision of his world to be a man's man IMO. Yet he "mannishly" used the word "obviously," and I called him on it. To me, my desire to have this group honor the sweet truth isn't to ask for some absolute squelching constraint on Turq's language, but it is a call for him to consider "how obviously" his own emotions are showing. If I can see it, others can too. It may change his opinion of "how much he's getting away with that he won't be called on the carpet for." He could perhaps then get more subtle than my radar, and if so, then, hey, that's good for Turq and all of us. Not that the intent is moral, but at least if we can keep our petty attempts to prick another as quiet as possible, then we've taken a step towards learning how to control knee jerks meant to punish and perhaps to promote the use of positivity to nurture. And, Bhairitu, if we ever meet, why hell man, I'll buy ya a beer and tell you stories about my dog-sledding trip into the Artic circle where I lived on blubber, whiskey and cigarettes. (Insert Tim Allen's caveman/ape sound." Edg > > Duveyoung wrote: > > Judy, > > > > I didn't go very deeply into it, because, well, Rick would know > > whatever you seem to know that I don't know regarding this matter. > > That and the fact that I am a sinner of this very kind of sinning and > > to the same or worst degree. I didn't delineate my own conceptions > > because Rick is the one who has the power to describe what a flame is. > > I merely bring to his attention a posting that -- even if editorially > > reiterative -- "abuses the spirit of our group's intent to keep things > > a bit more responsible." To wit: the swear words and the ad hominem > > attacks cited have been "actively and mindfully edited into a 'list of > > past offenses' for the obvious purpose of attacking the character of > > another poster." We've all sinned, but for Willy to single you out -- > > gratuitously -- is a flame in my opinion. > > > > Others may have other issues to "see" in this scenario, but mine is > > the first one to pop in my mind. > > > > Come on, you folks o'light, ain't it a flame on Judy? > > > > Given that at a this time when we're trying to "begin anew" to have > > "community of civility" here that at the least accords each poster the > > dignity of having logic, truth, and kindness (sweet truth) applied to > > her/his presentation with the expectation that all will enjoy the > > benefits of these velvet constraints on our egoic artistries, why the > > Willytext posts? We all know, right? If you're silent, thanks for > > agreeing with me. > > > > If there's any aging hippies out there reading this, "Give peace a > > chance you hosers!" > > > > Edg > > > > >
