Too many political threads.

[gauchecritic]

Since you seem a little slow, I'll isolate on what your flawed supposition is.

You presume with the "us" for one thing. And I don't hold all posters here in disdain, for another.

So, there's nowhere constructive to go from the flawed supposition.

If I make you feel uncomfortable enough by my being here that you have to get this silly about it, you can always leave if you like.

You're beginning to sound like Joe and MiAmico combined.

Joe won't give definitive or emotive answers when he considers the question to have a logical basis.

MiAmico picks and chooses which questions he will answer.

Posing questions or at the very least provoking thought and reply about statements implies a certain amount of accountability for those. Like MiAmico you refuse to answer questions that appear to make you uncomfortable about your original posts and in a Joe-esque style (but without the consistency) your excuse is that there is no definitive answer.

Far from stirring the pot you are an annoyance, unwilling to engage and holding yourself superior to the plebian world of the AH.

Chill out. Peace out.

 

[TxRad]

I guess we have an entirely different circle of political discussants then. (Of course many of mine are inside the Beltway). Most I read here are really, really politically naive and some seem completely unable to deal with complex circumstances and realities--and certainly have never heard of the concept of balanced perspective. (Seems a pity in that vein that a porn writing board can't just happily be left to be a porn and writing board.)

The longer I've been out of Washington, the more I don't understand the nuances of what's going on either. (When I was a bureacrat protecting a budget and having responsibilities to deliver on, I had to keep track of that for mere survival.) I try not to yak a lot about what I no longer can keep track of, though (other than pricking the balloons of the hilariously off-the-wall). Doesn't stop a lot of folks here--especially the many who never quite understood any of it to begin with. But most of those are harmlessly out of the way except on election day (which brings us to why Bush got one, let alone two, terms).

Oh, you think the "regulars" on AH are "mostly all writers"? I doubt that. Oh, you mean in that they write to the forum. Umm, OK. :rolleyes:

"Most" of them have written at least one thing? I'm not so sure even that is true. Other than posts to the forum, of course. (I do see that at least one who really should be restricting himself to the GB anyway was embarrassed into posting a new story last week). No, AH isn't really either for writers or for erotica in the main. I think it's mainly for yakkers who could be yakking on any generic Web site--and about anything but writing or erotica.

*snerk*

You can have no idea how often I've heard that from nonwriters posting to writing sites and just pretending they belong.

Guessing about what? I don't see how any guesswork fits with the quoted statement. The statement is indexed to a statement of nonwriting.

Sooo many beligerent people here wanting to fight about nothing. Should perhaps go on Seinfeld.

I don't really think I'd call someone who posted a half dozen stories on this Web site a couple of years ago a writer, Roxanne. Most any one can scribble out a couple of pages over their lives. That doesn't really make them a writer. At least a writer on this site with that sort of weak and stale contribution.

Since you seem a little slow, I'll isolate on what your flawed supposition is.

You presume with the "us" for one thing. And I don't hold all posters here in disdain, for another.

So, there's nowhere constructive to go from the flawed supposition.

If I make you feel uncomfortable enough by my being here that you have to get this silly about it, you can always leave if you like.

Check out the red above. Those are your suppositions not mine. How do I presume with the "us". I'm a member of this community and have been for a while. I know more of these people in person than you might believe.

Yes you do hold everyone in disdain. it shows in your every post. The only flaw i see in any of this is your blindness to your own words. read them and see.

As for me leaving. i think not. You don't make me feel uncomfortable in any way. but you do need to be held accountable. Yeah, you. You want everyone else accountable. Well, it applies to you also.

Like I asked before. Why do you hang with people you feel so superior to?

Sorry, that was a very loaded question but a very apt one.

If you find us such poor examples of writers, then maybe you should leave. We wouldn't want to bring you down to own level now would we.

 

[sr71plt]

Check out the red above. Those are your suppositions not mine. How do I presume with the "us". I'm a member of this community and have been for a while. I know more of these people in person than you might believe.

Yes you do hold everyone in disdain. it shows in your every post. The only flaw i see in any of this is your blindness to your own words. read them and see.

As for me leaving. i think not. You don't make me feel uncomfortable in any way. but you do need to be held accountable. Yeah, you. You want everyone else accountable. Well, it applies to you also.

Like I asked before. Why do you hang with people you feel so superior to?

Sorry, that was a very loaded question but a very apt one.

If you find us such poor examples of writers, then maybe you should leave. We wouldn't want to bring you down to own level now would we.

No I don't hold everyone in disdain on this forum. That's a ridiculous statement. Yes, I find you a couple of cards lacking a pack and not a particularly deep thinker, but that doesn't lead to a sweeping generalization that I hold everyone in disdain.

I think you and gauch are just going to have to play with your tenacious nastiness yourselves.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think you and gauch are just going to have to play with your tenacious nastiness yourselves.

You think I'm being nasty? For a self-confessed man-of-the-(internet)world, you don't get out much do you?

 

[sr71plt]

You think I'm being nasty? For a self-confessed man-of-the-(internet)world, you don't get out much do you?

Nastiness can be as much in intent as in wording.

And I never have claimed to be a man of the Internet world that I can remember. The real world, yes, perhaps--at least in contrast here--which quite likely is the crux of the issue you are harrying here.

You guys certainly seem to feel threatened by something in this.

 

[Ascended_Samster]

Too much STFU

 

[gauchecritic]

Nastiness can be as much in intent as in wording.

And I never have claimed to be a man of the Internet world that I can remember. The real world, yes, perhaps--at least in contrast here--which quite likely is the crux of the issue you are harrying here.

You guys certainly seem to feel threatened by something in this.

Ok. now we're getting somewhere. You can divine my intent. You are inferring from what I post. You are bringing your experience to bear on the written word. You are bringing yourself to my writing.

Which, from various remarks is exactly what I did when I said you're a man of the world. Now the interesting part.

You think (obviously from inference) that I feel threatened (I wouldn't presume to speak for Tx.) So you are implying that what I feel is what you would feel in the same situation. Or at the very least that you can empathise with my feelings assuming they correspond with what you say.

Doesn't that say more about how you feel than about me?

 

[TxRad]

Gauche,

As usual, when someone calls him on his bullshit, he tries to turn the question around and twist it to seem that the questioner has a problem. It doesn't work but it seems to serve him well.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I don't really think I'd call someone who posted a half dozen stories on this Web site a couple of years ago a writer, Roxanne. Most any one can scribble out a couple of pages over their lives. That doesn't really make them a writer. At least a writer on this site with that sort of weak and stale contribution.

I'll have you know, my smart-assed friend, that my stories on this site and another one run 20,000 - 35,000 words each, with several of them involving the same character and constituting a good sized novel. In addition, in my real life I get paid for writing a very different type of material. Let's let sr71 worry about sr71's qualifications to call himself a writer, and Roxanne and the rest worry about their own, hmm? And by the way, if you have nothing better to do with your time than to go hopskotching through other threads counting the number of posters who do or don't have stories in their sigs, be my guest.

 

[michchick98]

What?! Roxanne saying too much politics?

No, I love this stuff, God help me. It's a sickness.

But there are an awful lot of political threads going at the same time. Sorry, non-political AHers. I guess we've entered the last few laps before the US election, so if you can hang on for about another eight weeks it will drop back to normal.

Here's what I really want to say, although you'll have to take it on faith: Your AH colleagues who participate in the politicals are pretty darned good and sophisticated about it. We are tough and uncompromising in our rhetoric, and I know that makes you uncomfortable, but with occassional temporary departures we are not mean to each other on a personal level. We may accuse each other of being misguided and clueless, but most of the time we recognize that we all share certain core values and want good things for all people. That's the real definintion of civility - not mamby-pampy, artificial politeness.

This level of civility and sophistication in political debate is a rare thing, especially on the internet. So rather than getting anxious, you can feel proud that, much though it's like fingernails on a blackboard to you, the political discourse that goes on here is a credit to this community.

I agree with Tricialen. Whatever anyone says isn't going to sway my vote one way or the other. I'll make my choices based on what I see over the next couple of months. I normally vote Democrat, but I find myself on the fence this year, unhappy at the time with either candidate.

With that said, I don't enter into political threads or arguments because I get too frustrated about it. I can have a civil discussion about politics with friends but once an argument starts, I try to change the subject to avoid hurt feelings.

I'm not good at arguing politics politely so I just read and keep my opinions to myself. Thanks for this thread, Roxanne.

 

[The_Trouvere]

You have a wonderful way of saying what we all feel....America is a great country and we are lucky to live and work here and we can vote for whoever we want to...and we will... no one's opinon will change so I am not saying anymore about it...don't want to fight would much rather make love....

When I was young I actually tried to change people's opinions. Then I learned that people have different concerns, values, and goals. People like different things. Their opinions will not change unless their circumstances in life change, and not always even then. Now I try to refute people's opinions. I like to show off my knowledge, and to expose cliches.

 

[Guest]

When I was young I actually tried to change people's opinions. Then I learned that people have different concerns, values, and goals. People like different things. Their opinions will not change unless their circumstances in life change, and not always even then. Now I try to refute people's opinions. I like to show off my knowledge, and to expose cliches.

Oooh, an exhibitionist.

 

[sr71plt]

I'll have you know, my smart-assed friend, that my stories on this site and another one run 20,000 - 35,000 words each, with several of them involving the same character and constituting a good sized novel. In addition, in my real life I get paid for writing a very different type of material. Let's let sr71 worry about sr71's qualifications to call himself a writer, and Roxanne and the rest worry about their own, hmm? And by the way, if you have nothing better to do with your time than to go hopskotching through other threads counting the number of posters who do or don't have stories in their sigs, be my guest.

This Web site, Rox--not all that elsewhere supposiiton. A half dozen contributiions--nothing in the last two years. A drone as far as this site is concerned. Not a writer here--at least in the last two years. Just another forum yakker.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

This Web site, Rox--not all that elsewhere supposiiton. A half dozen contributiions--nothing in the last two years. A drone as far as this site is concerned. Not a writer here--at least in the last two years. Just another forum yakker.

Are you deliberately trying to be gratuituously insulting, or is this character flaw unconscious?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Oooh, an exhibitionist.

Given the rich monetary remuneration we receive for the many hours we all spend in this activity , whoever first observed the following was right on the money: The internet is composed of two groups - voyeurs and exhibitionists.

 

[Guest]

Given the rich monetary remuneration we receive for the many hours we all spend in this activity , whoever first observed the following was right on the money: The internet is composed of two groups - voyeurs and exhibitionists.

Lurkers are voyeurs, then. That makes sense.

And exhibitionists are - anyone who posts? Or just those who post really a lot?

What do you call those who post their nekkid bits for all to see, then?

Extra-exhibitionists? Super duper?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Lurkers are voyeurs, then. That makes sense.

And exhibitionists are - anyone who posts? Or just those who post really a lot?

What do you call those who post their nekkid bits for all to see, then?

Extra-exhibitionists? Super duper?

Super-duper? Answer on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Guest]

Super-duper? Answer on a case-by-case basis.

Well, I was thinking pervert, but since I know and love many of these folks online (and have met and partied with many of them in person, too) I'd hate to use that tag.

I like looking, too.

So I suppose we're all a bit perverted.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Well, I was thinking pervert, but since I know and love many of these folks online (and have met and partied with many of them in person, too) I'd hate to use that tag.

I like looking, too.

So I suppose we're all a bit perverted.

Wiki: Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive. Perversion differs from deviant behavior, since the latter refers to a recognized violation of social rules or norms (although the two terms can apply to the same thing). It is often considered derogatory and in psychological literature the term paraphilia is now used instead[1], though this term is controversial.

The concept of perversion is somewhat subjective[1], and its application varies depending on culture. As a psychological term it was originally applied especially frequently to homosexual behavior.[2] However, homosexuality is no longer treated as a disorder in mainstream psychiatry (see Homosexuality and psychology).

I don't think that applies to looking. Showing? A little, maybe, and in the context of this place perfectly harmless.

 

[Guest]

I don't think that applies to looking. Showing? A little, maybe, and in the context of this place perfectly harmless.

Oh, well THAT's good.

For a moment I thought I was going to have to change my license plate.