The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This is where I live: [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3818411.stm[/URL]
People who park in disabled spaces don't bother me. People who stare at me don't bother me. People who talk loudly and slowly to me don't bother me. People who ask me a question by talking to the person pushing my chair don't bother me.
But, if I found out who these kids were I would call in a few favours from some of my larger friends - I know of at least two mates who wouldn't be adverse to introducing these two f###ing c##ts to the world of pain.
I am angry.
People who park in disabled spaces don't bother me. People who stare at me don't bother me. People who talk loudly and slowly to me don't bother me. People who ask me a question by talking to the person pushing my chair don't bother me.
But, if I found out who these kids were I would call in a few favours from some of my larger friends - I know of at least two mates who wouldn't be adverse to introducing these two f###ing c##ts to the world of pain.
I am angry.
Page:
So I can stop flaying myself then? Phew ...
:^D
:^D
Timmargh wrote:
> "Can open, worms everywhere!"
>
> Guys, I'm really sorry that my mentioning corporal punishment has
> brought on this discussion/argument/exchange of views - I only meant
> it as a throwaway remark.
God dude, don't apologise! The reaction of others isn't your responsibility. Well...unless I lose an argument. In which case, it's your fault.
> "Can open, worms everywhere!"
>
> Guys, I'm really sorry that my mentioning corporal punishment has
> brought on this discussion/argument/exchange of views - I only meant
> it as a throwaway remark.
God dude, don't apologise! The reaction of others isn't your responsibility. Well...unless I lose an argument. In which case, it's your fault.
Rosalind wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Hmm...well, wouldn't you say it's possible to smack ones kids and
> still love them?
>
> Yes of course. However the child may feel unloved unless the parents
> affirm their love towards the child at the time the discipline
> takes place. This is what my parents always did if I ever needed
> discipline. They would tell me why I was being disciplined, but tell
> me that the discipline did not mean that I was not loved by them.
Okay, fair enough. Then we basically agree it would seem, and I'm guessing you and Pandaemonium do as well.
>
>
> Well, to be blunt I'd say you were wrong. Not sure how saying that
> "smacking isn't abuse" (which is something I agree with;
> beating on the other hand IS abuse) equates with "kids only
> need
> physical discipline".
>
>
> Sorry, I'm a bit confused on this point, and I need it explining more
> clearly.
Fair enough. Basically, what Pandaemonium is (i think) saying is that giving your kid a smack for being naughty is a world away from pummelling him into tearful submission cos he was talking too loud. Hence smacking (in the accepting use of the word, which is looking more and more like the same as your term, 'discipline') isn't abusive
>
> Still a little confused.. Am I blming someone for getting the wrong
> end of the stick or is someone blaming me?
Neither; just saying that I think perhaps we've both taken each other's posts in a manner other than the one intended. I'm not looking to cast blame or anything at all like that. Just saying that this whole debate between you and I stemmed from a misunderstanding between you and Pandaemonium, then you and I.
> It seemed to me as if my opinons were being swept aside. If this
> wasn't the case, as I have said, then I'm sorry. I realise that I
> have some self-esteem issues, and if I over reacted then this is
> where the over reaction sprang from. this is not an attempt
> to gain sympathy, more an attempt at analysis of my motive.
Okay, fair enough. My apologies for assuming it was an attempt to elicit sympathy. For my part, the ex-Mrs Light used that tactic fairly regularly hence my leaping to the conclusion you were doing the same. That's an explaination why I did so, not an excuse. So again, my apologies.
>
> I don't know what to say here, but I don't want to just ignore this
> paragraph, and have you think I am dismissing it. I take on board
> your critism, and add only, of course I am self-important. Isn't
> everyone.
Hell yes! Me especially; God, what kind of person would write a hundred and odd thousand words of ranting about politics and society if I didn't view my opinions as important in some way? I think I used the wrong term; you were taking yourself too seriously. When all is said and done, this is just a chatroom. It's not a place where the next revolution will be fomented, nor a forum where the unifying philosophy of the world will take shape. Even if Pandaemonium HAD been having a pop at you (and again, I really don't think he was) then who gives a damn? Sure, get passionate about your beliefs (I know I am) but don't let that passion drain away your humour. Nothing, but nothing, turns people against a view than when that view is espoused by someone who seems to lack any sense of self depreciation.
> I took that comment as I read it, as a belittling of my post.
> Pandemoniums next post only affirmed my opinon - "As to the
> disrespectful tone. I really, really don’t give a damn". I took
> this to mean that he had meant to be disrespectful, and didn't care.
Ah. And in truth I can see why. I took it to mean "I don't give a damn (if you think it's disrespectful)". More misunderstandings abound...
>
>
> While I admit to being pleased that you think I am intelligent
> (:D<-- me pleased). I'll admit to having recently taken IQ tests
> that saw me only slighly above average intelligence.
IQ tests suck tiny little Koala balls. I've scored anything between above average to supergenius on IQ tests. They're a decent test of problem solving, but not of true IQ in my opinion.
> I thought mutal apology had put that post behind us. My reply to that
> post didn't come out exacly as I had intended. My apology was
> sincire, and I believe your's was also.
Oh, it has put it behind. But you asked a question about where else you'd given the impression of being rather humourless, and that's just my reply. I wasn't trying to reopen that one.
> There is intellectual snobbery here, so much so that I found another
> board where I may discuss my enjoyment of Big Brother without
> critismism (not from either you or Pandemonium). If you don't think
> there is then check out some of the BB posts here where people have
> commented that people who watch BB are as stupid as the contestants
> on it. I also recieved a severe dressing down some months ago that
> caused my absence from the boards for several months.
But they're just people's opinions. Beliefs. Just cause you have a strong opinion, doesn't make that opinion right. If you believe something, doesn't mean it's true. Shall I let you into a secret (and this will quite possibly boil Goatboys bladder contents; mate, if you're reading this, then how does the train driver steer?); I'm thoroughly enjoying BB this year. And have watched it every year. I'll come in for some ribbing about that, but so what? I reiterate; this board contains only words, and you shouldn't be frightened of lines of text on a screen.
I'm guessing that Goatboy would take a "I disagree with what tv you like, but I'll defend to the death your right to like it. Unless it's Trisha" stance on this. But hey, I could be wrong.
>
> Apart from the two I'm already charged with, when did these
> statements occur?
Just the two mentioned. But (if I were being picky) we haven't exactly flooded the board with thoughtless statements about you either.
>
> I can only say that is not the case. I am hurt and also
> worried about hurting. I realise in some eyes that make me pathetic,
> and I am worried about the way I present myself. I shouldn't be, but
> I am. So be it.
Well, one can't change the person one is I suppose. Well...actually, I believe one can, but anyway....
The point I was making is that your post came across as;
"You've disagreed with me, and I'm going to try and make you feel bad for doing so in order to stop you from disagreeing with me".
If you say that's not the case, then I accept that. But please try and bear in mind that an aggressive or impassioned response from me to one of your posts isn't meant to scare you off. When it comes to the way you present yourself, I personally don't give a damn. It's people's opinions and ideas I'm interested in, not what kind of person they are or want to be.
>
> I'm not the feminist you seem to think I am. I do not wish for your
> sympathy, only your understanding. I'm not intending to play the
> whatever card. If I say I'm sorry then I am. I try not to lie.
> I cannot expect you to take the word of a stranger, but I cannot
> think of anything else to say.
Okay, fair enough. I do hope you can see just why I felt it to be an apology laden with crocodile tears, but if you say that's not the case then I accept that and apologise unreservedly for my mistaken assertion.
>
> People here discuss there views in a way I find unfamilarly
> agressive. I'm not comfortable with that. I can see that I have not
> come off well from this thread. I wish to express myself but I am
> being acussed of bullshitting and trying to get sympathy. If you
> think that is what I am intendidng to do now your wrong. I'm trying
> to write as honestly as I can what is going through my head. I'm
> both hurt, angry and a little confused as to how this has happened.
> I'm not trying to imply anyone is forcing me to be silent, more that
> I wish to be silent as I cause upset when I do express myself. I hope
> you understand that I tell you how I feel in order that you know how
> your post makes me feel, not in an attempt to make you feel bad, but
> in an expression of my honesty. This sounds pompus, and I don't mean
> it to be. I wish to say more, but I'm struggling to articulate.
No, fair play to you; aggression makes you feel uncomfortable, and whilst that's not the case with me personally, I empathise with anyone brave enough to admit to that and yet still continue to post on the topic and explain themselves. You don't sound pompous; it sounds more like maybe you've only expressed half of what you meant to say in your last post, and given more context here in this post.
I would have agreed you weren't coming off well in this thread were it not for the fact that you keep posting to clarify what you said, and I have the utmost respect for that.
> I am going to go for a coffee away from my computer where I can think
> more reasonably about this.
M'kay. For what it's worth, I'll do my best not to leap down people's throats quite so much; I'd never really considered how much my aggressive debating style could intimidate, and that's not something I'm interested in doing.
> Light wrote:
> Hmm...well, wouldn't you say it's possible to smack ones kids and
> still love them?
>
> Yes of course. However the child may feel unloved unless the parents
> affirm their love towards the child at the time the discipline
> takes place. This is what my parents always did if I ever needed
> discipline. They would tell me why I was being disciplined, but tell
> me that the discipline did not mean that I was not loved by them.
Okay, fair enough. Then we basically agree it would seem, and I'm guessing you and Pandaemonium do as well.
>
>
> Well, to be blunt I'd say you were wrong. Not sure how saying that
> "smacking isn't abuse" (which is something I agree with;
> beating on the other hand IS abuse) equates with "kids only
> need
> physical discipline".
>
>
> Sorry, I'm a bit confused on this point, and I need it explining more
> clearly.
Fair enough. Basically, what Pandaemonium is (i think) saying is that giving your kid a smack for being naughty is a world away from pummelling him into tearful submission cos he was talking too loud. Hence smacking (in the accepting use of the word, which is looking more and more like the same as your term, 'discipline') isn't abusive
>
> Still a little confused.. Am I blming someone for getting the wrong
> end of the stick or is someone blaming me?
Neither; just saying that I think perhaps we've both taken each other's posts in a manner other than the one intended. I'm not looking to cast blame or anything at all like that. Just saying that this whole debate between you and I stemmed from a misunderstanding between you and Pandaemonium, then you and I.
> It seemed to me as if my opinons were being swept aside. If this
> wasn't the case, as I have said, then I'm sorry. I realise that I
> have some self-esteem issues, and if I over reacted then this is
> where the over reaction sprang from. this is not an attempt
> to gain sympathy, more an attempt at analysis of my motive.
Okay, fair enough. My apologies for assuming it was an attempt to elicit sympathy. For my part, the ex-Mrs Light used that tactic fairly regularly hence my leaping to the conclusion you were doing the same. That's an explaination why I did so, not an excuse. So again, my apologies.
>
> I don't know what to say here, but I don't want to just ignore this
> paragraph, and have you think I am dismissing it. I take on board
> your critism, and add only, of course I am self-important. Isn't
> everyone.
Hell yes! Me especially; God, what kind of person would write a hundred and odd thousand words of ranting about politics and society if I didn't view my opinions as important in some way? I think I used the wrong term; you were taking yourself too seriously. When all is said and done, this is just a chatroom. It's not a place where the next revolution will be fomented, nor a forum where the unifying philosophy of the world will take shape. Even if Pandaemonium HAD been having a pop at you (and again, I really don't think he was) then who gives a damn? Sure, get passionate about your beliefs (I know I am) but don't let that passion drain away your humour. Nothing, but nothing, turns people against a view than when that view is espoused by someone who seems to lack any sense of self depreciation.
> I took that comment as I read it, as a belittling of my post.
> Pandemoniums next post only affirmed my opinon - "As to the
> disrespectful tone. I really, really don’t give a damn". I took
> this to mean that he had meant to be disrespectful, and didn't care.
Ah. And in truth I can see why. I took it to mean "I don't give a damn (if you think it's disrespectful)". More misunderstandings abound...
>
>
> While I admit to being pleased that you think I am intelligent
> (:D<-- me pleased). I'll admit to having recently taken IQ tests
> that saw me only slighly above average intelligence.
IQ tests suck tiny little Koala balls. I've scored anything between above average to supergenius on IQ tests. They're a decent test of problem solving, but not of true IQ in my opinion.
> I thought mutal apology had put that post behind us. My reply to that
> post didn't come out exacly as I had intended. My apology was
> sincire, and I believe your's was also.
Oh, it has put it behind. But you asked a question about where else you'd given the impression of being rather humourless, and that's just my reply. I wasn't trying to reopen that one.
> There is intellectual snobbery here, so much so that I found another
> board where I may discuss my enjoyment of Big Brother without
> critismism (not from either you or Pandemonium). If you don't think
> there is then check out some of the BB posts here where people have
> commented that people who watch BB are as stupid as the contestants
> on it. I also recieved a severe dressing down some months ago that
> caused my absence from the boards for several months.
But they're just people's opinions. Beliefs. Just cause you have a strong opinion, doesn't make that opinion right. If you believe something, doesn't mean it's true. Shall I let you into a secret (and this will quite possibly boil Goatboys bladder contents; mate, if you're reading this, then how does the train driver steer?); I'm thoroughly enjoying BB this year. And have watched it every year. I'll come in for some ribbing about that, but so what? I reiterate; this board contains only words, and you shouldn't be frightened of lines of text on a screen.
I'm guessing that Goatboy would take a "I disagree with what tv you like, but I'll defend to the death your right to like it. Unless it's Trisha" stance on this. But hey, I could be wrong.
>
> Apart from the two I'm already charged with, when did these
> statements occur?
Just the two mentioned. But (if I were being picky) we haven't exactly flooded the board with thoughtless statements about you either.
>
> I can only say that is not the case. I am hurt and also
> worried about hurting. I realise in some eyes that make me pathetic,
> and I am worried about the way I present myself. I shouldn't be, but
> I am. So be it.
Well, one can't change the person one is I suppose. Well...actually, I believe one can, but anyway....
The point I was making is that your post came across as;
"You've disagreed with me, and I'm going to try and make you feel bad for doing so in order to stop you from disagreeing with me".
If you say that's not the case, then I accept that. But please try and bear in mind that an aggressive or impassioned response from me to one of your posts isn't meant to scare you off. When it comes to the way you present yourself, I personally don't give a damn. It's people's opinions and ideas I'm interested in, not what kind of person they are or want to be.
>
> I'm not the feminist you seem to think I am. I do not wish for your
> sympathy, only your understanding. I'm not intending to play the
> whatever card. If I say I'm sorry then I am. I try not to lie.
> I cannot expect you to take the word of a stranger, but I cannot
> think of anything else to say.
Okay, fair enough. I do hope you can see just why I felt it to be an apology laden with crocodile tears, but if you say that's not the case then I accept that and apologise unreservedly for my mistaken assertion.
>
> People here discuss there views in a way I find unfamilarly
> agressive. I'm not comfortable with that. I can see that I have not
> come off well from this thread. I wish to express myself but I am
> being acussed of bullshitting and trying to get sympathy. If you
> think that is what I am intendidng to do now your wrong. I'm trying
> to write as honestly as I can what is going through my head. I'm
> both hurt, angry and a little confused as to how this has happened.
> I'm not trying to imply anyone is forcing me to be silent, more that
> I wish to be silent as I cause upset when I do express myself. I hope
> you understand that I tell you how I feel in order that you know how
> your post makes me feel, not in an attempt to make you feel bad, but
> in an expression of my honesty. This sounds pompus, and I don't mean
> it to be. I wish to say more, but I'm struggling to articulate.
No, fair play to you; aggression makes you feel uncomfortable, and whilst that's not the case with me personally, I empathise with anyone brave enough to admit to that and yet still continue to post on the topic and explain themselves. You don't sound pompous; it sounds more like maybe you've only expressed half of what you meant to say in your last post, and given more context here in this post.
I would have agreed you weren't coming off well in this thread were it not for the fact that you keep posting to clarify what you said, and I have the utmost respect for that.
> I am going to go for a coffee away from my computer where I can think
> more reasonably about this.
M'kay. For what it's worth, I'll do my best not to leap down people's throats quite so much; I'd never really considered how much my aggressive debating style could intimidate, and that's not something I'm interested in doing.
dude, that story is beyond outrageous.
as young as 11?!?!?!
does no-one parent properly anymore?? how thick do you have to be to NOT see anything wrong with that?!?!?
*fumes*
as young as 11?!?!?!
does no-one parent properly anymore?? how thick do you have to be to NOT see anything wrong with that?!?!?
*fumes*
Those two events give a whole new meaning to the word "shocking". Its an absolute disgrace that these 'people' could even consider acting in that way.
Sickening.
Sickening.
In response to Paradox's/Borat's particularly strong responses - it's not so black and white.
Overly PC society is damaging yes. But that does not mean you go back round the circle and kick the crap out of anyone you don't like. These kids evidently need disciplining - as do their parents to an extent as well. It's not 'oh, namby pamby liberalism' and all that patehtic whining at how being slightly more reasonable is somehow a weakness and an evil.
I agree with the parents comments - a lot of them are, as I've said, ignorant and indifferent, and just as stupid.
Overly PC society is damaging yes. But that does not mean you go back round the circle and kick the crap out of anyone you don't like. These kids evidently need disciplining - as do their parents to an extent as well. It's not 'oh, namby pamby liberalism' and all that patehtic whining at how being slightly more reasonable is somehow a weakness and an evil.
I agree with the parents comments - a lot of them are, as I've said, ignorant and indifferent, and just as stupid.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Pah. I was kicked around the living room floor after doing something
> particularly nasty that could have seriously hurt a third party. I
> didn’t do anything like it again. Nor did my father (who administered
> said kicking).
>
My mum and dad hit me when I did stuff wrong - not beatings, but enough to teach me a lesson. I accept that when young, this kind of thing is good. What my dad was talking about was a full on beating, on kids who aren't even his. Which is wrong.
> Pah. I was kicked around the living room floor after doing something
> particularly nasty that could have seriously hurt a third party. I
> didn’t do anything like it again. Nor did my father (who administered
> said kicking).
>
My mum and dad hit me when I did stuff wrong - not beatings, but enough to teach me a lesson. I accept that when young, this kind of thing is good. What my dad was talking about was a full on beating, on kids who aren't even his. Which is wrong.
Cavo wrote:
> Are you a Cripple Timmargh
*****
I am physically disbabled, yes.
> Are you a Cripple Timmargh
*****
I am physically disbabled, yes.
"Can open, worms everywhere!"
Guys, I'm really sorry that my mentioning corporal punishment has brought on this discussion/argument/exchange of views - I only meant it as a throwaway remark.
Changing the subject slightly, it seems the lovely town of Kidderminster is rapidly going to s##t ( [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3816903.stm[/URL] and [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3818745.stm[/URL] ) - I'm beginning to think that my decision to move back to Worcester is a good one!
Guys, I'm really sorry that my mentioning corporal punishment has brought on this discussion/argument/exchange of views - I only meant it as a throwaway remark.
Changing the subject slightly, it seems the lovely town of Kidderminster is rapidly going to s##t ( [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3816903.stm[/URL] and [URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3818745.stm[/URL] ) - I'm beginning to think that my decision to move back to Worcester is a good one!
Light wrote:
> Hmm...well, wouldn't you say it's possible to smack ones kids and
> still love them?
Yes of course. However the child may feel unloved unless the parents affirm their love towards the child at the time the discipline takes place. This is what my parents always did if I ever needed discipline. They would tell me why I was being disciplined, but tell me that the discipline did not mean that I was not loved by them.
> Well, to be blunt I'd say you were wrong. Not sure how saying that
> "smacking isn't abuse" (which is something I agree with;
> beating on the other hand IS abuse) equates with "kids only need
> physical discipline".
Sorry, I'm a bit confused on this point, and I need it explining more clearly.
> Though, for the record, I do agree with
> you in that kids definitely cannot be raised on physical discipline
> alone. But misunderstandings happen, and no-one can blame someone for
> getting the wrong end of the stick.
Still a little confused.. Am I blming someone for getting the wrong end of the stick or is someone blaming me?
> Come ON Ros;
> "pah"? Disrespectful? "pah"? Are you starting to
> see just how ridiculous that assertion is?
It seemed to me as if my opinons were being swept aside. If this wasn't the case, as I have said, then I'm sorry. I realise that I have some self-esteem issues, and if I over reacted then this is where the over reaction sprang from. this is not an attempt to gain sympathy, more an attempt at analysis of my motive.
> Right; that is NOT the case at all. You may have noticed that by my
> saying that I do actually agree with your opinion that sexism is out
> of order. That's nothing to do with 'convenience' or dismissing your
> opinion on spurious grounds because I don't have a decent argument to
> back up what I say. I'm dismissing your argument that he was
> disrespectful because it's based solely (and I can hardly believe I'm
> writing this) on the word "pah".
> I'm not saying you have no humour; I'm saying you are treating this
> particular debate with self-importance and a lack of humour.
I don't know what to say here, but I don't want to just ignore this paragraph, and have you think I am dismissing it. I take on board your critism, and add only, of course I am self-important. Isn't everyone.
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that. Not the apology; you're
> one of the few on this board who will apologise and I appreciate that
> about you. But about your "I take things at face value".
> You're a very intelligent woman, and I point blank refuse to accept
> that you take what is written here literally more often than not, or
> that you don't see sarcasm and irony in the written word.
I took that comment as I read it, as a belittling of my post. Pandemoniums next post only affirmed my opinon - "As to the disrespectful tone. I really, really don’t give a damn". I took this to mean that he had meant to be disrespectful, and didn't care.
While I admit to being pleased that you think I am intelligent (:D<-- me pleased). I'll admit to having recently taken IQ tests that saw me only slighly above average intelligence.
> How about in your response to my post on Beckham when you darkly
> hinted at my supposed misogyny? You apologised (and I believe I
> apologised for my aggressive response) and fair play to you for doing
> so, but that coupled with your response to Pandaemonium alnog with
> the mention of a complaint about sexism (and I say again, I think
> you're right to complain about that) led me to believe that you are
> leaving the ranks of someone who wants to be treated as an equal
> human being and entering the forces of the Humourless.
I thought mutal apology had put that post behind us. My reply to that post didn't come out exacly as I had intended. My apology was sincire, and I believe your's was also.
> I'm not entirely sure where your belief about intellectual snobbery
> comes from, and as I don't know you I can't comment.
There is intellectual snobbery here, so much so that I found another board where I may discuss my enjoyment of Big Brother without critismism (not from either you or Pandemonium). If you don't think there is then check out some of the BB posts here where people have commented that people who watch BB are as stupid as the contestants on it. I also recieved a severe dressing down some months ago that caused my absence from the boards for several months.
But then,
> neither do you know Pandaemonium or myself and you've made some
> pretty thoughtless statements about both of us.
Apart from the two I'm already charged with, when did these statements occur?
That is bull. Moreover, it rather confirms my suspicion that you're wallowing self-pity and humourless. No-one cares about your feelings? Why then have I just spent time posting a response explaining myself to you and trying to make things as clear as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding?
I can only say that is not the case. I am hurt and also worried about hurting. I realise in some eyes that make me pathetic, and I am worried about the way I present myself. I shouldn't be, but I am. So be it.
Really, your apology sounds hollow coming as it does with a line which (in my opinion) is intended to ilicit sympathy. If you want to debate and argue, then give as good as you get and good luck to you. If you don't want to be a victim of sexism, then quit playing the "I'm a fragile little flower who's feelings you've hurt" card. It's demeaning to you.
I'm not the feminist you seem to think I am. I do not wish for your sympathy, only your understanding. I'm not intending to play the whatever card. If I say I'm sorry then I am. I try not to lie.
I cannot expect you to take the word of a stranger, but I cannot think of anything else to say.
> In any case before any more feelings get hurt I should perhaps keep
> my views to myself.
Nope, nope,nope. I will not have you playing the poor and wounded soldier. As ever, I apologise for being aggressive in my response. But lets face facts here; we are lines of text on a screen to each other, and nothing else. If you want to 'keep your views to yourself' then that's your prerogative. I'd rather you didn't, but it's a free country. But don't you dare try and imply that you're being forcibly silenced on this board. No-one is stopping you saying anything, and I for one would explode like the apocalypse at anyone who stopped someone from posting their own opinion*
People here discuss there views in a way I find unfamilarly agressive. I'm not comfortable with that. I can see that I have not come off well from this thread. I wish to express myself but I am being acussed of bullshitting and trying to get sympathy. If you think that is what I am intendidng to do now your wrong. I'm trying to write as honestly as I can what is going through my head. I'm both hurt, angry and a little confused as to how this has happened. I'm not trying to imply anyone is forcing me to be silent, more that I wish to be silent as I cause upset when I do express myself. I hope you understand that I tell you how I feel in order that you know how your post makes me feel, not in an attempt to make you feel bad, but in an expression of my honesty. This sounds pompus, and I don't mean it to be. I wish to say more, but I'm struggling to articulate.
I am going to go for a coffee away from my computer where I can think more reasonably about this.
> Hmm...well, wouldn't you say it's possible to smack ones kids and
> still love them?
Yes of course. However the child may feel unloved unless the parents affirm their love towards the child at the time the discipline takes place. This is what my parents always did if I ever needed discipline. They would tell me why I was being disciplined, but tell me that the discipline did not mean that I was not loved by them.
> Well, to be blunt I'd say you were wrong. Not sure how saying that
> "smacking isn't abuse" (which is something I agree with;
> beating on the other hand IS abuse) equates with "kids only need
> physical discipline".
Sorry, I'm a bit confused on this point, and I need it explining more clearly.
> Though, for the record, I do agree with
> you in that kids definitely cannot be raised on physical discipline
> alone. But misunderstandings happen, and no-one can blame someone for
> getting the wrong end of the stick.
Still a little confused.. Am I blming someone for getting the wrong end of the stick or is someone blaming me?
> Come ON Ros;
> "pah"? Disrespectful? "pah"? Are you starting to
> see just how ridiculous that assertion is?
It seemed to me as if my opinons were being swept aside. If this wasn't the case, as I have said, then I'm sorry. I realise that I have some self-esteem issues, and if I over reacted then this is where the over reaction sprang from. this is not an attempt to gain sympathy, more an attempt at analysis of my motive.
> Right; that is NOT the case at all. You may have noticed that by my
> saying that I do actually agree with your opinion that sexism is out
> of order. That's nothing to do with 'convenience' or dismissing your
> opinion on spurious grounds because I don't have a decent argument to
> back up what I say. I'm dismissing your argument that he was
> disrespectful because it's based solely (and I can hardly believe I'm
> writing this) on the word "pah".
> I'm not saying you have no humour; I'm saying you are treating this
> particular debate with self-importance and a lack of humour.
I don't know what to say here, but I don't want to just ignore this paragraph, and have you think I am dismissing it. I take on board your critism, and add only, of course I am self-important. Isn't everyone.
> I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe that. Not the apology; you're
> one of the few on this board who will apologise and I appreciate that
> about you. But about your "I take things at face value".
> You're a very intelligent woman, and I point blank refuse to accept
> that you take what is written here literally more often than not, or
> that you don't see sarcasm and irony in the written word.
I took that comment as I read it, as a belittling of my post. Pandemoniums next post only affirmed my opinon - "As to the disrespectful tone. I really, really don’t give a damn". I took this to mean that he had meant to be disrespectful, and didn't care.
While I admit to being pleased that you think I am intelligent (:D<-- me pleased). I'll admit to having recently taken IQ tests that saw me only slighly above average intelligence.
> How about in your response to my post on Beckham when you darkly
> hinted at my supposed misogyny? You apologised (and I believe I
> apologised for my aggressive response) and fair play to you for doing
> so, but that coupled with your response to Pandaemonium alnog with
> the mention of a complaint about sexism (and I say again, I think
> you're right to complain about that) led me to believe that you are
> leaving the ranks of someone who wants to be treated as an equal
> human being and entering the forces of the Humourless.
I thought mutal apology had put that post behind us. My reply to that post didn't come out exacly as I had intended. My apology was sincire, and I believe your's was also.
> I'm not entirely sure where your belief about intellectual snobbery
> comes from, and as I don't know you I can't comment.
There is intellectual snobbery here, so much so that I found another board where I may discuss my enjoyment of Big Brother without critismism (not from either you or Pandemonium). If you don't think there is then check out some of the BB posts here where people have commented that people who watch BB are as stupid as the contestants on it. I also recieved a severe dressing down some months ago that caused my absence from the boards for several months.
But then,
> neither do you know Pandaemonium or myself and you've made some
> pretty thoughtless statements about both of us.
Apart from the two I'm already charged with, when did these statements occur?
That is bull. Moreover, it rather confirms my suspicion that you're wallowing self-pity and humourless. No-one cares about your feelings? Why then have I just spent time posting a response explaining myself to you and trying to make things as clear as possible so as to avoid misunderstanding?
I can only say that is not the case. I am hurt and also worried about hurting. I realise in some eyes that make me pathetic, and I am worried about the way I present myself. I shouldn't be, but I am. So be it.
Really, your apology sounds hollow coming as it does with a line which (in my opinion) is intended to ilicit sympathy. If you want to debate and argue, then give as good as you get and good luck to you. If you don't want to be a victim of sexism, then quit playing the "I'm a fragile little flower who's feelings you've hurt" card. It's demeaning to you.
I'm not the feminist you seem to think I am. I do not wish for your sympathy, only your understanding. I'm not intending to play the whatever card. If I say I'm sorry then I am. I try not to lie.
I cannot expect you to take the word of a stranger, but I cannot think of anything else to say.
> In any case before any more feelings get hurt I should perhaps keep
> my views to myself.
Nope, nope,nope. I will not have you playing the poor and wounded soldier. As ever, I apologise for being aggressive in my response. But lets face facts here; we are lines of text on a screen to each other, and nothing else. If you want to 'keep your views to yourself' then that's your prerogative. I'd rather you didn't, but it's a free country. But don't you dare try and imply that you're being forcibly silenced on this board. No-one is stopping you saying anything, and I for one would explode like the apocalypse at anyone who stopped someone from posting their own opinion*
People here discuss there views in a way I find unfamilarly agressive. I'm not comfortable with that. I can see that I have not come off well from this thread. I wish to express myself but I am being acussed of bullshitting and trying to get sympathy. If you think that is what I am intendidng to do now your wrong. I'm trying to write as honestly as I can what is going through my head. I'm both hurt, angry and a little confused as to how this has happened. I'm not trying to imply anyone is forcing me to be silent, more that I wish to be silent as I cause upset when I do express myself. I hope you understand that I tell you how I feel in order that you know how your post makes me feel, not in an attempt to make you feel bad, but in an expression of my honesty. This sounds pompus, and I don't mean it to be. I wish to say more, but I'm struggling to articulate.
I am going to go for a coffee away from my computer where I can think more reasonably about this.
Page: