[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I think if you needed gay marriage to be the argument of the day to realize government shouldn't be involved in marriage, that shows the strength of the argument, right there.

I agree. I think its rather transparent that a group of people would rather see their 'toy' taken away than have to share it with another group they don't care for.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This is where I again assert that the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, at all, ever.

That's not the hard part. The hard part is deciding what would be equitable until that actually occurs.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This is where I again assert that the gov't shouldn't be involved in marriage, at all, ever.

Not that I need to say it again, but I agree 100%.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I agree. I think its rather transparent that a group of people would rather see their 'toy' taken away than have to share it with another group they don't care for.

Exactly. The reason I want marriage "taken away" is that legal marriage is a toy. Relationships don't fit this nice binary model. If you're going to have it be represented by a legal entity, have it be one which can actually represent it.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

Exactly. The reason I want marriage "taken away" is that legal marriage is a toy. Relationships don't fit this nice binary model. If you're going to have it be represented by a legal entity, have it be one which can actually represent it.

I said the same thing, though not quite so eloquently, 8 years ago on this forum and was mocked for it.

Ideal level of government involvement in relationships:

Two questions on the 1040 form; "Are you involved in a domestic partnership?" and "Do they live with you under the same roof?"

That's it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Relationships don't fit this nice binary model.

You'll have to be more specific. Do you mean monogamous relationships? Specific types?

[subego]

Ironically, it was a clip Chongo posted which solidified this opinion.

It was from a "radical" lesbian entitled something like "gay marriage is a lie".

The point was she felt somewhat disingenuous supporting gay marriage for reasons along these lines (I may not have her example totally correct).

She's a lesbian (obviously), she has a lesbian partner. They have a kid. The kid's biological father is considered the actual father in the family unit, and participates thusly.

How is that family unit legally represented? It isn't, and gay marriage isn't really any closer to an accurate legal representation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll have to be more specific. Do you mean monogamous relationships? Specific types?

I mean more than two people not-binary.

Not necessarily like what Shaddim has, but complicated situations like the one I refer to above.

[The Final Dakar]

Are they really that common though?

[Shaddim]

I wish there were hard numbers to back it up, but I'd be willing to bet they're an order of magnitude more common now than 30 years ago, and will continue to gain in popularity as society sheds its traditional mores.

[subego]

I was going to say something along the same lines. Definitely the part about the increase.

It's more than that though. I think divorced couples with children are not still considered some form of family unit solely because the standard model does not allow for it, not because it's what's best for the kid.

It would be much better to put that under the rubric of "complex", and thus be legally represented as such.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Gov. Cuomo: Pro-life people not welcome in New York | Fox News

I guess, for supporting the bill of rights (namely, in this case, the second amendment), I am not welcome in New York. America! Land of the Free! Electing idiots like this will put our country on a path to civil war. There will be those of us who support the 1st amendment, and the freedom to express our viewpoints without the IRS....err government targeting us for our beliefs and there will be morons like this, who believe their preferred ideology is the only way. This rhetoric is beyond repulsive for its close-mindedness and lack of respect for opposing viewpoints. What the hell happened to our country? When did our elected officials lose the ability to see past ideological differences and respect one-another regardless of our political beliefs?

Go F*ck yourself, New York. if I wanted to visit a city full of criminals and facists, I'd just go to DC. And yes, I mean all of New York for electing someone who thinks the Bill of Rights only applies to him and his people. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves.

I moved out of New York back in the late 1970s and took my business with me because I saw New York going down the socialist/progressive tax and redistribution of wealth crap road.

My suggestion to the productive citizens of New York, and its small business owners, is to move the **** out of New York and tell scumbag Cuomo to kiss their asses. I moved to Florida which has no income tax and have doubled and perhaps tripled my earnings from when I was in New York.

If enough businesses move out of New York, it will collapse of its own socialist tax and regulatory policies. And don't be fooled by the ad New York is running about no taxes. They recoup all these taxes by "regulations" which are designed to "spread the wealth" created by New York's hard working citizens and businesses.

JWK


They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

When banking goes the way of car manufacturing, maybe.

Maybe, but then car manufacturing is booming elsewhere in the US. IMO, the answer is when the UAW disbands (a government-sanctioned labor monopoly) and when sane leadership prevails among the electorate. Fiscally reasonable people have been warning of Detroit's impending bankruptcy for decades and ramped up the urgency throughout the term of the former UAW organizer who became Mayor and ran the city through the mud over 20 years, chasing out businesses with confiscatory tax rates and woefully unbalanced workers' compensation laws. Businesses will not operate in hostile environments and as technology and communications continue to advance, the ability to relocate becomes more appealing. At some point you have to let go of the political pipe-dreams or the people will suffer.

If no other good can come of this for the people of Detroit, I hope the message spreads like wildfire throughout the multitude of other cities experiencing the same problems from the same legislative folly.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no such thing as an "assault weapon". Machine guns have been banned since 1986 and what is now deemed an assault rifle by activists are responsible for fewer fatalities than baseball bats and golf clubs. Otherwise, "guns" remain legal because they are a great equalizer; rendering grandma on the same footing as a 6'2" thug.

A-freaken-men! Down here in Florida a few years back some thug broke into an 81year old widow's house. She heard the noise and came out of her bedroom with her piece, aimed it at the thug, and made the prick call 911 for a burglary in progress!

JWK


Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

It is simpler.

You refuse to eat your own dog food. While shoving it really hard down other people's throats.

I refuse to eat my own dog food because I have an opinion on the state of marriage in our time? Or that I wished the government would assume a more limited capacity in the relationship? No, of course that would be odd because you agree with those. Okay, so...

Someone tells you how your sticking a boot in their eye, your response is to tell them that boot they're feeling must be imaginary.

Yeah. That's awkward.

I'll remember not to try levity next time I'm faced with that.

Awkward for sure. I've said nothing remotely close to what you've suggested above. It seems useful again to suggest that perhaps you're too dug in. You're making all kinds of reprehensible positions out of what have really been forthright, innocuous responses to you.

You began with an offer of hypothetical homosexuality for me to "walk in their shoes". A noble effort to change my heart and mind I suppose. And In spite of your stereotypical compliment of my fashion sense in advance, I obliged. I claimed that I wanted avenues for equal protection, period. Unfortunately, it wasn't enough that I'd be gay, you wanted me to be your gay; a motivated proponent of same-sex marriage as if they're all online championing it like you do.

I just can't believe that I have a problem with levity here.

[subego]

If you are going to take me to task for the shoe joke, then I'd say you have a problem with levity.

If you go on a rant about civil unions (an utterly dead policy for the foreseeable future) in a topic discussion about what it means to to be pro or anti-gay, while gay marriage is currently being fought over in a bunch of states, and you are in the hypocritical position of being married yourself, you leave yourself open to unsavory interpretation.

This is what I've been trying to tell you. Assuming you have no desire to be unsavory, you are not being cognizant of the context in which you are making your opinions known.

Pretend I'm gay for a second. I'm telling you that I personally feel like you're putting a boot in my eye. Me. A real, physical person.

Ironically, I'm also saying I agree with your underlying philosophy.

Isn't there some form of compromise we can come to where you voice the opinion we both hold but without me feeling I'm getting kicked in the face?

Is that me asking you to be a "motivated proponent"? No, ebuddy, it's me asking you to stop hurting me.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

If you are going to take me to task for the shoe joke, then I'd say you have a problem with levity.

You didn't like my levity? Should I have added an emoticon?

If you go on a rant about civil unions (an utterly dead policy for the foreseeable future) in a topic discussion about what it means to to be pro or anti-gay, while gay marriage is currently being fought over in a bunch of states, and you are in the hypocritical position of being married yourself, you leave yourself open to unsavory interpretation.

Wow, this really puts a host of contentious political issues under a new light. Imagine, all those living hypocrites allowing for the termination of a fetus or those who've never served in the military supporting military action or...

Civil Unions, a dead policy for the foreseeable future? I beg to differ. Perhaps if it weren't viewed as a "boot in the eye" of gays, gays may at least have equal protection under the law.

As of December 2012 per CBS News Poll:
A new CBS News/New York Times Poll shows a solid majority of Americans support legal recognition for same-sex couples - though not necessarily through the official act of marriage - and the number of people who do support full marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples is significantly higher among younger generations.
Overall, 38 percent of those who responded to the survey said same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, just like any other couple. Another 24 percent said civil unions should be used to grant same-sex couples legal rights similar to male-female partnerships. Combined, that means 62 percent - close to two thirds - of Americans believe that same-sex unions should be recognized by law.

This is what I've been trying to tell you. Assuming you have no desire to be unsavory, you are not being cognizant of the context in which you are making your opinions known.

I don't know that you're necessarily a qualified arbiter of sensitivity. I've said absolutely nothing objectionable outside a purely cerebral, political context.

Pretend I'm gay for a second. I'm telling you that I personally feel like you're putting a boot in my eye. Me. A real, physical person.

And as a human being, I've had to remind you twice that you're essentially being a cyber-bully. While I don't think I've said anything that should be construed as putting a boot in someone's eye; is there a reason why I should be particularly sensitive to a bully?

Ironically, I'm also saying I agree with your underlying philosophy.

You just don't like the way it looks in someone else's words?

Isn't there some form of compromise we can come to where you voice the opinion we both hold but without me feeling I'm getting kicked in the face?

Is that me asking you to be a "motivated proponent"? No, ebuddy, it's me asking you to stop hurting me.

I'm not going to apologize for expressing a philosophy in the most sober, honest, and innocuous manner imaginable. Frankly, you've been the only offensive actor here, under the guise of humor because you feel a winkee-face somehow makes your digs more palatable. I'm not buying it. We're at one of those irreconcilable points here it seems. If there's nothing else, then...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Ironically, it was a clip Chongo posted which solidified this opinion.

It was from a "radical" lesbian entitled something like "gay marriage is a lie".

The point was she felt somewhat disingenuous supporting gay marriage for reasons along these lines (I may not have her example totally correct).

She's a lesbian (obviously), she has a lesbian partner. They have a kid. The kid's biological father is considered the actual father in the family unit, and participates thusly.

How is that family unit legally represented? It isn't, and gay marriage isn't really any closer to an accurate legal representation.

If I remember correctly, she said the end game is the elimination of the institution of marriage all together.

[subego]

From a legal standpoint.

[subego]

@ebuddy

Didn't like your joke? Didn't realize it was a joke. Didn't have any real joke construction. What was supposed to be funny? Was that it was a joke a joke? That I get, and is funny.

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an opinion, it merely calls it into question. It's something where it shouldn't be surprising when it gets questioned. I've never served. I'm a big supporter of the military. If someone who did serve held a different opinion, that person can authoritatively challenge me, and it is going to obligate me to make my argument that much stronger.

You know, it may even make me feel uncomfortable. I'm some guy in a cozy apartment offering my theories to someone who's possibly had to clean their friend's brains out of the inside of a humvee.

So, civil unions are a live issue because it polls well? State legislatures are having battles over civil unions? You can honestly compare that to the active battle going on right now over gay marriage? Cites or I call bullshit.

If I'm being a cyberbully, my intent is to stop. I honestly apologized for the joke. I saw after the fact how it could be considered out of bounds. I'll apologize for that as many times as you want. I'm not sure I understand what the second example is.

Lastly, I'm totally lost at how a request "can we come to a compromise where you aren't hurting me" as a demand for an apology. I haven't asked you to apologize for a single thing.

[subego]

OTOH, I want to apologize again. My joke crossed the line.

All I can say is it wasn't meant as anything other than a throwaway comment. That's not meant as an excuse, just an expression that "dug in" though I may be, I have zero intent to harm you. Truly, my intention is the exact opposite of that. I consider you a friend. I don't want to accidentally hurt my friends, and I most assuredly don't want to do it intentionally. To use a distinction which Dakar mentioned recently, and I've found useful, I was being thoughtless, not careless.

This isn't the first time I've done the exact opposite of what I intend. That's totally a failing on my part. No question can be asked on this, nor is there justification which can be given.

[besson3c]

The short version of this thread:

A politician says something stupid, people freak out.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If I remember correctly, she said the end game is the elimination of the institution of marriage all together.

I see it more as the "liberation" of marriage, getting it out of the government's hands.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ebuddy

Didn't like your joke? Didn't realize it was a joke. Didn't have any real joke construction. What was supposed to be funny? Was that it was a joke a joke? That I get, and is funny.

You don't think it's at least mildly funny that I would assume the role effectively enough to have identified a stereotype that really couldn't be personally offensive to me? nm

Hypocrisy doesn't invalidate an opinion, it merely calls it into question. It's something where it shouldn't be surprising when it gets questioned. I've never served. I'm a big supporter of the military. If someone who did serve held a different opinion, that person can authoritatively challenge me, and it is going to obligate me to make my argument that much stronger.

You asked a known-married man to be gay for a moment and to consider the question of fairness under that light. I gave you an honest, forthright answer that you did not appreciate. And then you cited the irony of my position as a married man.

We apparently need a "Luke, it's a trap!" emoticon.

So, civil unions are a live issue because it polls well? State legislatures are having battles over civil unions? You can honestly compare that to the active battle going on right now over gay marriage? Cites or I call bullshit.

I'm not sure exactly what you could call bullshit on, but I would've assumed someone as passionate over this matter as you appear to be in this thread would be a little more aware of the status of same-sex unions throughout the US. There are several means by which the State legislatures have acknowledged relationships; Marriage, Civil Unions, and Domestic Partnerships. Because there are varying acknowledgements of same-sex relationships, they've obviously been conceived, refined, and implemented (battled) through the legislative processes in these States. There are, I believe, at least 8 States that offer civil unions, but no marriage. Or they offer Domestic partnerships, but no Civil Unions or Marriages. There are some States that offer a hybrid of Domestic Partnerships and/or Civil Unions and some that offer absolutely nothing to same-sex relationships.

To my point: it seems very reasonable to conclude that without the Civil Unions options available, there would be no acknowledgement at all of the need for equal protections.

If I'm being a cyberbully, my intent is to stop. I honestly apologized for the joke. I saw after the fact how it could be considered out of bounds. I'll apologize for that as many times as you want. I'm not sure I understand what the second example is.

The second example was framing my completely fair and honest response as suggesting that the gay-boot was a figment of their imagination.

Lastly, I'm totally lost at how a request "can we come to a compromise where you aren't hurting me" as a demand for an apology. I haven't asked you to apologize for a single thing.

I haven't asked for an apology either and yet I've gotten no less than four of them. I've said absolutely nothing offensive or hurtful here and have spent too much of my time in this thread completely dismayed at your responses to me.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I see it more as the "liberation" of marriage, getting it out of the government's hands.

We'll see. There is suit in the UK to force the C of E to perform these "ceremonies"

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The short version of this thread:

A politician says something stupid, people freak out.

Pretty rich coming from the guy who made this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...batsh-t-crazy/

Well, it was nice while you were gone.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

We'll see.

lol

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Pretty rich coming from the guy who made this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...batsh-t-crazy/

Well, it was nice while you were gone.

Burn.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Pretty rich coming from the guy who made this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...batsh-t-crazy/

Well, it was nice while you were gone.

lol

No need to be a dick.

If you feel that this is bat money crazy and are fascinated by it the way I was fascinated by Bachmann et all, I can see the draw, and you can compare this comment to something found in the batshit crazy shrine. However, I'd call this just plain old dumb and not batshit crazy...

It's flattering that people remember my threads better than I do though....

[subego]

@ebuddy

What you call a "trap" is me trying to reconcile why "gay ebuddy" and "straight ebuddy" have such widely differing opinions on this.

Gay ebuddy has no time to waste with insignificant things such as legal gay marriage.

Straight ebuddy is married.


I don't have a problem with the "gay ebuddy" answer, I find it incomplete in the face of straight ebuddy's position.


If I'm a gay person, and I feel not being able to get married is the boot, someone saying it isn't worth worrying about while at the same time participating in what I'm being denied, feels like they're giving me the boot too.

To be clear, though you may not realize it, I've been bending over backwards to give you the opportunity to complete your argument. You seem to think I'm trying to corner you. It's the opposite. I assume there's a reason for the difference and I'm trying to pry it out.

The Mrs. ebuddy joke was exactly that. While I assumed it wasn't the case (hence being phrased as a joke), a completely plausible scenario is one person in the relationship cares more about the legal end of things. When I was with my SO, getting legally married was important to her. Not so much for me. Guess what the plan was? We were going to get legally married.

IOW, the ex-Mrs. subego to be really cared, while Mr. subego goes on believing legal marriage is kind of a crock. Mr. subego was willing to participate because ex-Mrs. subego to be was important, and her happiness was more important than my philosophy.

If I knew this (for example, I'm not saying it is) was your opinion, then I would never have suggested I felt your opinion was like the boot. Without such explanation, the reader is forced to jump to their own conclusions.


Thanks for the civil union cite. I will peruse when I'm on something bigger than an iPhone.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No need to be a dick.

The truth has no temperature. He's not being a dick, he's calling you out for some BS we've all been witness to. EDIT: Ok maybe the "nice while you were gone" part was kinda dickish, but not really all that much so on the Dakar scale

It's flattering that people remember my threads better than I do though....

No, besson, it makes it entirely impossible to have a conversation with you when you can't even remember your own positions, much less fully articulate new ones. From here it appears that you are more interested in championing popular causes for emotional satisfaction than you are in constructing your positions based upon the information available to you.

Take it for what it's worth - I'm not trying to judge you as a person just simply offer my perceptions based on my years in the PWL.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

@ebuddy

What you call a "trap" is me trying to reconcile why "gay ebuddy" and "straight ebuddy" have such widely differing opinions on this.

How are the ebuddies in conflict? They're both saying the same things. And on this matter I have no reason to conclude that they wouldn't. The only thing we need from the government is a lack of intrusion. That is to say I want to be able to share my life; my finances, my hospital visitation, all of our assets, etc... That's what's most important to me from the government perspective. My wife and I define our relationship.

Gay ebuddy has no time to waste with insignificant things such as legal gay marriage.

This assumes that a gay (anyone) always would. As it turns out, you may not need me to discuss this with.

Straight ebuddy is married.

Yes, a little more than 20 years ago. And from that time I've learned and witnessed too many relationships relying on the resiliency of children through visitation and step parents and wayward pets on Craigslist... only to engage a second relationship with statistically lower odds of success. They began believing the marriage would somehow fix the ailing relationship or the other party in it or they want another shot at overcoming what they felt was a personal failure. Over time, it becomes patently apparent to me that marriage does not make a relationship, people make relationships. I don't really see the government in this, other than the protections I mentioned above...

To all: if you are unfortunate enough to have experienced the pain of divorce or of a broken home and the situations above -- nothing I've said is directed at you or could ever define who you are.

I don't have a problem with the "gay ebuddy" answer, I find it incomplete in the face of straight ebuddy's position.

... As long as I have an avenue for equal protections under the law, I'll be happy. Both ebuddies are saying the same things.

If I'm a gay person, and I feel not being able to get married is the boot, someone saying it isn't worth worrying about while at the same time participating in what I'm being denied, feels like they're giving me the boot too.

To be clear, though you may not realize it, I've been bending over backwards to give you the opportunity to complete your argument. You seem to think I'm trying to corner you. It's the opposite. I assume there's a reason for the difference and I'm trying to pry it out.

There is no difference, subego. None. You keep saying this, but it's entirely unfounded. Worse, I never said it wasn't worth worrying about. You asked me what I'd do or how I'd feel and I told you. There's no difference. You're making assumptions about me and IMO, you're making assumptions about homosexuals. My argument isn't incomplete, it just isn't what you expected or sought perhaps.

The Mrs. ebuddy joke was exactly that. While I assumed it wasn't the case (hence being phrased as a joke), a completely plausible scenario is one person in the relationship cares more about the legal end of things. When I was with my SO, getting legally married was important to her. Not so much for me. Guess what the plan was? We were going to get legally married.

IOW, the ex-Mrs. subego to be really cared, while Mr. subego goes on believing legal marriage is kind of a crock. Mr. subego was willing to participate because ex-Mrs. subego to be was important, and her happiness was more important than my philosophy.

If I knew this (for example, I'm not saying it is) was your opinion, then I would never have suggested I felt your opinion was like the boot. Without such explanation, the reader is forced to jump to their own conclusions.

First let me say that I hope the cessation of that relationship was ultimately for the best of all involved. If not, I'm sincerely sorry it didn't work out, brother.

My perception here has been, not that you're jumping to conclusions necessarily, but that you're forcing them where they just don't fit. You may recall where I broke down how my relationship turned out in an earlier post with events strung together. Those items were in order. We did absolutely everything backwards, both of us scared shitless. We were statistically doomed to failure, but we had the pressures of one another, our passion, our children, and God. We've endured and our children are now leaving the home as productive, wonderful people, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we paid $10 and stood for 10 minutes in front of the County JOP.

I don't have a good reason to conclude that a gay ebuddy would feel any differently. No matter how counterintuitive that may seem to you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The truth has no temperature. He's not being a dick, he's calling you out for some BS we've all been witness to. EDIT: Ok maybe the "nice while you were gone" part was kinda dickish, but not really all that much so on the Dakar scale

Whatever. I think there is a difference between an isolated dumb statement and being legitimately batshit crazy, which is usually a title that comes with a string of dumb statements said in conviction. There is no way we can agree upon who is in which category, but let's not pretend that these sorts of personal categories don't exist in our heads.

No, besson, it makes it entirely impossible to have a conversation with you when you can't even remember your own positions, much less fully articulate new ones. From here it appears that you are more interested in championing popular causes for emotional satisfaction than you are in constructing your positions based upon the information available to you.

Take it for what it's worth - I'm not trying to judge you as a person just simply offer my perceptions based on my years in the PWL.

I think the world needs more people like me that are frequent vacillators.

There is nothing wrong with changing a position, or expressing what we are processing at the moment. I often find this much more endearing than having an unwavering position, and reminding us about it frequently while trying to manufacture this cloak of objectivity supporting these positions. Let's face it, most right-wingers in here never liked Obama even well before his first election, and many left-wingers in here never liked Bush either, and more importantly, there is absolutely NOTHING Obama could ever done to make you change your mind, and likewise for Bush.

My coming here less is mostly due to the sheer boredom I have with the same old sorts of conversations in here, and I don't exclude myself from any of the above, I bore myself too.

I might be less bored with less political soapboxing though.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Pretty rich coming from the guy who made this thread: http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...batsh-t-crazy/

Well, it was nice while you were gone.

Honestly, I barely noticed.

[ebuddy]

I noticed besson's absence. Mostly because he's another poster with a cool set of stars allegedly reserved only for technical contributions to the forum. Me, one of the few at this point who haven't contributed my technical expertise to the forum -- whatever constitutes that I suppose.

Seriously though, I noticed his absence and thought Dakar's statement was a low-blow. I don't know how/when those two went this sour at one another, but it's surprising. Y'all should be meeting up at Starbuck's, focus your ire at evil Republicans, and patch things up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever. I think there is a difference between an isolated dumb statement and being legitimately batshit crazy, which is usually a title that comes with a string of dumb statements said in conviction.

I think a governor telling a sizable chunk of his state their not welcome there is more than just "dumb".

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Honestly, I barely noticed.

It's like silence, I didn't notice either.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I noticed besson's absence. Mostly because he's another poster with a cool set of stars allegedly reserved only for technical contributions to the forum.

Uh, besson doesn't have custom stars. He, subego, and Shaddim all have the same stars.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't know how/when those two went this sour at one another, but it's surprising.

Why is it surprising? (I don't think I'm going to like the answer)
PS: Its been like this for years, and I would figure in multiple threads you've participated in.

[besson3c]

What's surprising is that evidently you don't care for me, yet:

1) you apparently insist on harboring some sort of grudge
2) you mentally document my threads, despite not caring for me

It's also surprising that you don't care for me, because I'm besson3c.

I think the internet requires having a shorter memory, and/or trying to move on as best as you can.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I noticed besson's absence. Mostly because he's another poster with a cool set of stars allegedly reserved only for technical contributions to the forum. Me, one of the few at this point who haven't contributed my technical expertise to the forum -- whatever constitutes that I suppose.

Seriously though, I noticed his absence and thought Dakar's statement was a low-blow. I don't know how/when those two went this sour at one another, but it's surprising. Y'all should be meeting up at Starbuck's, focus your ire at evil Republicans, and patch things up.

Thanks ebuddy!

Also, do you and your fellow Republicans meet at Applebees to focus your ire on evil Democrats? What is the right-wing equivalent to Starbucks?

[subego]

@ebuddy

Thank you for the kind words about my old relationship. It was for the best, she's psycho. To her credit, she dumped me because she realized she's psycho and how far she was dragging me down. Not a bad person at all. She's a shrink for domestic abuse victims, you need to be a good person to want to do that, just craaaaazy and self-loathing.

She lives a block away. We're still close friends.

The main reason I brought it up though was to demonstrate a situation where you can have the most serious of relationships (in my case reflected by me not dumping her even though she was abusive) where the legal connection matters not one whit to a particular individual in the relationship (as in we didn't even have one).

This is an example of, what you say above, there being "no difference". I personally have no need for the legal entity of marriage. The lack of need is demonstrated by my unwillingness to back out even if there isn't some legal contract theoretically making that a lot more difficult.

Gay subego as an individual doesn't care about it either. They (as I'm assuming gay and straight ebuddy) are essentially the same person. Just as you say, there is no difference.

Here is where I take issue with what you said in your last post. You accuse me of trying to force something which isn't there when what's happening is up until this point you've refused to provide it.

What I had been looking for, and dearly wanted to assume was true, was there was a reason why the legal aspect of marriage didn't matter to your straight self, even though you participated in it anyway.

You completely provided it in the last post. For one thing, you got married after you had kids. That's not exactly doing it in the traditional way.

The problem is it would be extraordinarily presumptuous of me to assume something like that. Without a direct statement to the contrary, the reader is stuck assuming you got married first because that's the default.

Seriously, if you had responded to my joke "Mrs. ebuddy doesn't care either, we had kids and a house before we got married" my only response there could have been "whoops, he did eat his own dog food, point withdrawn".

So I will respond in such a manner now. Point withdrawn.


tl;dr The fact you didn't get legally married until after you had a family lends enormous weight to your argument. I would go so far as to say it's vital information if the audience knows you're married, lest they be forced to put something else there (the societal default) in its absence.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

you apparently insist on harboring some sort of grudge

My 'grudge' is your severe lack of a memory, and its effect on your discussions in the PL: Restarting old discussions you already had and hypocrisy. I have this grudge with all PL participants.

For the most part I actively avoid your threads and your discussions with other members because I don't want an aneurysm, but when you do shit like the above, not commenting will give me an aneurysm.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

2) you mentally document my threads, despite not caring for me

I'm not 'mentally documenting' your threads. I have a functioning memory, doubly so for threads I enjoyed or participated in. I believe this is called "remembering things you've read." I can't speak for all the content, but I certainly remember the title and OP.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think the internet requires having a shorter memory, and/or trying to move on as best as you can.

Well, that explains a lot.

[subego]

I've started threads asking the exact same question.

What's worse is I got a lot of nice answers the first time, completely forgot about it, and then asked the question like a total dick and got slammed for it.

Some of the same participants in both threads. If they remembered the first one, they didn't slam me for asking again like a dick.

Maybe they were being nice, but I would have totally slammed myself over it if I were them.


For the curious, the question was why don't people try to imitate the accent of the foreign language they're speaking? My dick asking of the question was after hearing someone French speak English like he was about to puke up. It felt intentional.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I've started threads asking the exact same question.

What's worse is I got a lot of nice answers the first time, completely forgot about it, and then asked the question like a total dick and got slammed for it.

Some of the same participants in both threads. If they remembered the first one, they didn't slam me for asking again like a dick.

Maybe they were being nice, but I would have totally slammed myself over it if I were them.


For the curious, the question was why don't people try to imitate the accent of the foreign language they're speaking? My dick asking of the question was after hearing someone French speak English like he was about to puke up. It felt intentional.

You know in sports how someone with a history of dirty play gets called for fouls other people don't always get called for? It's that.

[subego]

I really deserved it that time, though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I really deserved it that time, though.

I feel like you picked on a group and a manner of speech that gets no sympathy to begin with (At least among Americans).

[subego]

IIRC, I didn't mention that part. I just let fly with the RAEG, and directed it at all foreigners.

I honestly think no one remembered.

[subego]

To relate it to the topic, why do New Yorkers talk the way they do?

You don't have to talk that way.

[subego]

You know, on the topic of things I totally forgot, I totally forgot Cuomo's dad's unofficial slogan when he was running against Koch was "vote for Cuomo, not the homo".

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have this grudge with all PL participants.

This says everything that needs to be said. This is your problem, not mine. A great many people on the internet speak to what is on their mind in the moment even if it is different than what was said in the past - i.e. they provide snapshots, not expecting or wanting people to try to construct Time Machine backups out of their postings. If you want to tell yourself that this is just an annoying besson3c thing, fine, but please keep your snark to yourself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You know in sports how someone with a history of dirty play gets called for fouls other people don't always get called for? It's that.

Does the internet need a referee though?

[subego]

Shut up with your Frog accent!

[subego]

Hoser.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A great many people on the internet speak to what is on their mind in the moment even if it is different than what was said in the past - i.e. they provide snapshots, not expecting or wanting people to try to construct Time Machine backups out of their postings.

I believe this is called being thoughtless. I don't see you taking issue with me remembering things, it's that I remember you saying contradictory things. I can't be blamed for you lack of consistency of thought or philosophy. I can be blamed for misinterpreting it.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If you want to tell yourself that this is just an annoying besson3c thing, fine, but please keep your snark to yourself.

No where did I say this is just a besson3c thing.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does the internet need a referee though?

Political discussions certainly do better (well, if you're looking for constructive discussion). I may not enjoy having logical faults pointed out, but it does give me pause to evaluate why I hold one situation in different regard from another.