The Amazing Race   American Idol   The Apprentice   The Bachelor   The Bachelorette   Big Brother   The Biggest Loser
Dancing with the Stars   So You Think You Can Dance   Survivor   Top Model   The Voice   The X Factor       Reality TV World
   
Reality TV World Message Board Forums
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats, but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are encouraged to read the complete guidelines. As entertainment critic Roger Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
"OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Conferences The Amazing Race Basher Forum (Protected)
Original message

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 11:13 AM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
"OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
with blurring out the ***areas*** of the brothers during the volley ball bog challenge?

Was it THAT obvious that they both were SO enamored of the opposing side's men in black undies? I mean, on Survivor, we only get blurs when some body (bootie) part is actually falling out or being exposed to the public. But this??

IMHO, I think the whole blur thing made it even MORE obvious that these 2 gay guys were really REALLY into this game! And all I can say about that is: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!

Sorry. This is coming from a straight, older, female, with grandchildren under the age of 12 who love to watch this show! I'd love to see how their parents explained THAT one!

"Mommy, why is there a blur on their shorts???"


  Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Prof_ Wagstaff 11-16-09 1
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kingfish 11-16-09 2
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... LibraRising 11-16-09 3
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... JessicaRN 11-16-09 4
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... mindy23 11-16-09 6
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-16-09 5
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... mindy23 11-16-09 7
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-16-09 8
           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... newsomewayne 11-16-09 16
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-16-09 9
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... mhdallas 11-16-09 10
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... mindy23 11-16-09 11
       RE: One more note mindy23 11-16-09 12
           RE: One more note kidflash212 11-16-09 14
               RE: One more note mindy23 11-17-09 18
                   RE: One more note HistoryDetective 11-18-09 19
                       RE: One more note mrc 11-18-09 24
                           RE: One more note Prof_ Wagstaff 11-18-09 26
                               RE: One more note mrc 11-18-09 35
                                   RE: One more note HistoryDetective 11-18-09 36
                                   RE: One more note Prof_ Wagstaff 11-18-09 42
                               RE: One more note mtopaz 11-24-09 70
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-16-09 13
 Or they could deal with it this way... Estee 11-16-09 15
 So so glad moonbaby 11-17-09 17
   Shhhhh! IceCat 11-18-09 30
   RE: So so glad mrc 11-18-09 37
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kingfish 11-18-09 20
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... jbug 11-18-09 21
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-18-09 22
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Estee 11-18-09 31
           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-18-09 43
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Prof_ Wagstaff 11-18-09 23
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... newsomewayne 11-18-09 25
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-18-09 27
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kingfish 11-18-09 29
           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-18-09 34
               RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Max Headroom 11-18-09 39
                   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-18-09 40
           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Prof_ Wagstaff 11-18-09 38
               RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kingfish 11-18-09 41
               RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... PepeLePew13 11-19-09 66
           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-18-09 44
               RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kingfish 11-18-09 45
                   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... kidflash212 11-18-09 47
                   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-19-09 52
                       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Max Headroom 11-19-09 55
                           RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... newsomewayne 11-19-09 56
                               RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-19-09 57
                       The bigger question is mrc 11-19-09 60
                           RE: The bigger question is HistoryDetective 11-19-09 61
                               The smaller question is newsomewayne 11-19-09 62
                                   RE: The smaller question is HistoryDetective 11-19-09 63
                                       This really... Prof_ Wagstaff 11-19-09 64
                                   RE: The smaller question is mrc 11-19-09 65
                                       RE: The smaller question is kingfish 11-19-09 67
                                       RE: The smaller question is Snidget 11-19-09 68
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... fleaismycat 11-18-09 28
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Max Headroom 11-18-09 32
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... fleaismycat 11-18-09 33
           RE: Can we just let it rest now?? I... mindy23 11-18-09 46
               RE: Can we just let it rest now?? I... mrc 11-19-09 51
               RE: Can we just let it rest now?? I... kidflash212 11-19-09 58
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... peachiepie 11-18-09 48
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... Estee 11-19-09 49
       When Estee was four... kingfish 11-19-09 50
       RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... peachiepie 11-20-09 69
   RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... LibraRising 11-19-09 59
 RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witte... HistoryDetective 11-19-09 53
   HD: No harm, no foul, or fowl, whic... mindy23 11-19-09 54

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-16-09, 11:34 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
1. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I suspect that once their drawers got wet, the cling factor became more than the producers could stand.

I don't think they were at attention, but once the blur went up that was where my attention focused too.


Surfkitten Summer Sigshop 2008

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-16-09, 11:38 AM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
2. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Yeah, I wondered about that too.

I vaguely thought they really were falling out. Did not think of erection city until now. But with the warm weather, the abstinence imposed by the race (hopefully, they are brothers after all), the slimy friction of mud up their shorts, maybe they did get a bit of wood. Maybe when one gets it going it becomes contagious.

I kinda doubt that most kids would even notice a bit of bluring here or there, though.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LibraRising 2847 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"

11-16-09, 12:31 PM (EST)
Click to EMail LibraRising Click to send private message to LibraRising Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
3. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
LAST EDITED ON 11-16-09 AT 12:36 PM (EST)

I imagine there was a bit of a bulge due to the wetness/tightness of the pants/position of the equipment and that CBS errs on the side of caution, particularly after the ridiculous overreaction by Brent Bozell and his vapors-prone Parents Television Council when there was an instance on Survivor where one of the players accidentally flashed during a competition (viewable in freeze frame replay, only).

Stereotypes of gay men aside, it is unlikely that one would maintain an erection for that sustained of a period of time while under both physical and emotional pressure without a medicinal aid.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

JessicaRN 1070 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Politically Incorrect Guest"

11-16-09, 12:36 PM (EST)
Click to EMail JessicaRN Click to send private message to JessicaRN Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
4. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Yeah, I kind of thought that either they slipped out or some fabric shows more when wet, although it was funny that none of the others needed to be blurred. I think it would have been better to have a bigger, and less defined blur rather than a perfect, little circle right over the crotch area. Instead of hiding anything, it was more like an arrow pointing to the area.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 12:56 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
6. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
>Yeah, I kind of thought that
>either they slipped out or
>some fabric shows more when
>wet, although it was funny
>that none of the others
>needed to be blurred.
>I think it would have
>been better to have a
>bigger, and less defined blur
>rather than a perfect, little
>circle right over the crotch
>area. Instead of hiding
>anything, it was more like
>an arrow pointing to the
>area.

Yeah-what you said!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-16-09, 12:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
5. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Was it THAT obvious that they both were SO enamored of the opposing side's men in black undies? I mean, on Survivor, we only get blurs when some body (bootie) part is actually falling out or being exposed to the public. But this??

IMHO, I think the whole blur thing made it even MORE obvious that these 2 gay guys were really REALLY into this game! And all I can say about that is: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!

*rolls eyes*

Yup, you've really nailed the mentality of gay men, especially their inability to focus on anything but sexual gratification.

You forgot to mention how turned on they must have been by those big black muscular Globetrotters in their underwear ... and by Cheyne in his underwear with that slim but not especially defined body ... and by Brian even though he was fully clothed ... and by Matt and even Gary ... and Phil ... and any other male person!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 12:59 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
7. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"


>
>
>
>*rolls eyes*
>
>Yup, you've really nailed the mentality
>of gay men, especially their
>inability to focus on anything
>but sexual gratification.
>
>
>
>You forgot to mention how
>turned on they must have
>been by those big black
>muscular Globetrotters in their underwear
>... and by Cheyne in
>his underwear with that
>slim but not especially defined
>body ... and by Brian
>even though he was fully
>clothed ... and by Matt
>and even Gary ... and
>Phil ... and any other
>male person!
The only reason I mentioned THAT was because Dan DID say something about all the HOT GUYS (of whatever nationality) they were on the other side of the court! Otherwise, it would have been a non-issue! I realize they are around some amazingly athletic, jock-like men every.single. day. But they are also competing with THEM for $1 million. THAT could take away a little of the turn-on factor?? What do I know...

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-16-09, 01:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
8. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
The only reason I mentioned THAT was because Dan DID say something about all the HOT GUYS (of whatever nationality) they were on the other side of the court!

Well, that explains it then!

Just don't go over to OT on a Friday because they sometimes have crush threads and lots of guys, gay and straight, make comments about HOT people --- and I don't want you getting confused and think that because they are making comments that specific individuals are hot then that means that all the guys making those comments are sitting at their computers with erections.

After all, only some of them are sitting at their computers with erections.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9065 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-16-09, 08:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail newsomewayne Click to send private message to newsomewayne Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
16. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
*turns off webcam*
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-16-09, 01:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
9. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
That's pretty offensive Mindy - I guess you believe all the heterosexuals could control themselves. All the Het guys had a hot blonde lady in a bathing suit on the other side of the net to look at too. Just the inferior gay guys had any trouble according to you.

Were you as grossed out at Matt ogling the blonde on the Saunabus?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mhdallas 165 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 02:19 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mhdallas Click to send private message to mhdallas Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
10. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Aw, I don't think any male of either sexuality can help how his body reacts at different times and for whatever reasons. I don't think the blurring was really necessary, though; all it did was draw attention to what it was supposedly trying to hide. Sheez. If they can show women in bikinis or t-shirts with obviously erect breasts, then why must men be blurred? I mean, unless something is obviously popping out, then just let it be and, for the most part, people probably won't even notice the damn things.

And, frankly, I was far more grossed out by Matt's naked torso than Sam or Dan's far yummier ones.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 02:36 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
11. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
>That's pretty offensive Mindy - I
>guess you believe all the
>heterosexuals could control themselves. All
>the Het guys had a
>hot blonde lady in a
>bathing suit on the other
>side of the net to
>look at too. Just the
>inferior gay guys had any
>trouble according to you.
>
>Were you as grossed out at
>Matt ogling the blonde on
>the Saunabus?
>
>
NO, I do not believe ALL MEN can control themselves! I have been married to a man for almost 40years, and I also have a son. I haven't been living in a convent-no offense to anyone who has, either! GEEZ. MY point is: WHY THE BLURRING in the first place?? And Dan jumped into it all when HE brought up the fact that there were hot MEN on the other side of the net.

No, I seriously wasn't grossed out with Matt in the sauna, because HE was covered with a towel, and no blurring was necessary. He was acting like ANY man would act. Just as Dan and Sam were. The problem was, as I have stated before, the blurring brought ALL my attention to an area I could have imagined without actually having it thrown in my face! WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SEXUAL PREFERENCE??

I've watched this show for at least 5 years, and if I'm correct, there have been gay couples on every season. Have I ever brought up anything negative about any of them before??? NO! And what I'm bringing up now does not reflect negativity on anyone's preference, either. Can't help who gets all sensitive about things, and reads between the lines, when the lines are not even there.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-16-09, 02:39 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
12. "RE: One more note"
There was a certain Soap Opera Star who appeared on Dancing with the Stars a few seasons ago. He constantly had a 'bulge'. There was no blurring, but several comments by the male judges.

It was obvious, yes. But the comments made me more attentive every time the guy danced-he didn't even TRY to hide it! AND, I suppose, because it's a different network, they saw no need to blur what was quite obvious in the first place. MY point is: WHY DID CBS do this? This is the first time I've seen blurring without nudity involved. THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING!

To turn this into some anti-gay statement?? Where did THAT come from?? You don't even know me, who my friends are, what preference I have (until now, anyway). If anyone is bashing-it's not me.



  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-16-09, 02:54 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
14. "RE: One more note"
"IMHO, I think the whole blur thing made it even MORE obvious that these 2 gay guys were really REALLY into this game! And all I can say about that is: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!"

It was you who brought their sexuality into this.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-17-09, 10:28 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
18. "RE: One more note"
>"IMHO, I think the whole blur
>thing made it even MORE
>obvious that these 2 gay
>guys
were really REALLY into
>this game! And all I
>can say about that is:
>EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!"
>
>It was you who brought their
>sexuality into this.
>
>
Everyone who watches the show, knows by now that they are gay. No big deal. Stating a fact, not leaning in either direction. The blur (BLUR, people!!) is what I was 'eeewwwwwwing'. Not the fact that it came from gay men. WHATEVER. Take it any way you want. You already have, obviously.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 07:26 AM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
19. "RE: One more note"
The rub, Mindy, is that your original post (and subsequent ones) have included commentary about a lot more than just the blur:

Was it THAT obvious that they both were SO enamored of the opposing side's men in black undies?

No comment on the blur there, but lots of comment on the hyper-sexuality of these two Racers.

I think the whole blur thing made it even MORE obvious that these 2 gay guys were really REALLY into this game!

OK, you do mention the blur there, but you again connect it to the hyper-sexuality of two Racers, this time explicitly noting their sexual orientation.

The only reason I mentioned THAT was because Dan DID say something about all the HOT GUYS (of whatever nationality) they were on the other side of the court!

That's not about the blur at all. That's a justification for targeting the two gay guys. As I already pointed out, I think that it is very naive (at best) to think that if a gay guy comments that somebody else is attractive then that means he must be running around with a throbbing hard-on.

WHY THE BLURRING in the first place?? And Dan jumped into it all when HE brought up the fact that there were hot MEN on the other side of the net.

Here's yet another distraction from the blur to state that Dan must have had a big woody simply because he commented that some of the men were hot. I echo what others have wondered: were you worried that Matt was tenting his towel in the Saunabus since he said that blonde woman was attractive?

IMHO, I think the whole blur thing made it even MORE obvious that these 2 gay guys were really REALLY into this game! And all I can say about that is: EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!

Whether you were talking about the blur or not, can you see how following the first sentence in this paragraph with the second sentence really sent a different message?

And since you're so concerned about the blur and why it was there, let me offer a hypothesis based on my own experience wearing underwear. (Yes, gay men do wear underwear on occasion.) Dan was wearing boxer briefs that tend to cling a lot when wet. Unlike a speedo that tucks ***the area*** away into a neat immobile package (much as I assume your soap opera star's pants did on that other show), this style of underwear would show all kinds of movement and flopping that was probably not considered acceptable for prime time television. Sam was wearing boxers that tend to bunch and gap (especially the easy access area). I would imagine that as he moved around sometimes the boxers gapped in such a way that his short-and-curlies (and possibly more) were visible. That would certainly justify a blur, right?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 12:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
24. "RE: One more note"
Boxer-briefs also can "separate" and reveal the nether regions. It's hard to keep the pony (or horse) in the barn sometimes.

A Slice of Manga

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-18-09, 12:35 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
26. "RE: One more note"
Yep, keepin' the stallion in the stall is something you never have to worry about if you wear good old fashion tidy whities.


Into the magna tribe by phyl

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:00 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
35. "RE: One more note"
But it's exciting to think that the hog might leave the pen if you move *just* right.

A Slice of Manga
How many barnyard euphemisms can we come up with?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:01 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
36. "RE: One more note"
Just keep the mouse in the house. This is a family establishment.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-18-09, 02:21 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
42. "RE: One more note"
I guess one can posulate that free range is kinda like going commando.


Into the magna tribe by phyl

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mtopaz 2167 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Roller Coaster Inaugurator"

11-24-09, 02:13 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mtopaz Click to send private message to mtopaz Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
70. "RE: One more note"
And here I always thought it was "tightie whities"
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-16-09, 02:41 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
13. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I suppose EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW is a term of endearment?


Of course, it's my fault for being sensitive.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 55194 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-16-09, 08:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Estee Click to send private message to Estee Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
15. "Or they could deal with it this way."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing

Count the ironies. And when you're done with that, you can count the horrors.

If that's not quick enough, I'm sure Phil could find a knife somewhere.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

moonbaby 17013 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-17-09, 03:45 PM (EST)
Click to EMail moonbaby Click to send private message to moonbaby Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
17. "So so glad"
that the golf equipment did not have the same fate!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

IceCat 17313 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 01:38 PM (EST)
Click to EMail IceCat Click to send private message to IceCat Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
30. "Shhhhh!"
Or they'll start blurring turtlenecks next!
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:02 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
37. "RE: So so glad"
Me, too!

What is Phil's golf equipment?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 09:39 AM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
20. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Ok, I think I see what happened. Itís obvious now, despite the blur.

It's CBS's fault, and it was intentionally done. CBS decided to blur the privates area of two gay guys in order to stir up a controversy between anyone bold enough to mention it in a free and open forum noted for exposing...erÖhypocrisy (yeah, that's the ticket), and gay guys who are always waiting to pounce on anyone who dare make a mention of a gay subject in a way that they can perceive as negative. Apparently they (the thread initiator) always needs to be corrected.

They (CBS) read these threads, and by now they have realized that this is an untapped area (blurred or not) of discussion that will have a CBS show in the popular dialog for just a little bit longer.

And we fall for it. We always fall for those diabolical ploys, DAM YOU CBS!!!

Since they are reading this I may have a lawsuit to defend, but I'm just as knee-jerk as anyone. Can't help it.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

jbug 16685 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 10:13 AM (EST)
Click to EMail jbug Click to send private message to jbug Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
21. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I think I *heart* you.


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-18-09, 11:45 AM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
22. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I'd respond but I'm too busy pouncing on brave souls.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 55194 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 01:43 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Estee Click to send private message to Estee Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
31. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
The problem is that Brave enjoys it.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-18-09, 04:59 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
43. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Probably not as much from me.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-18-09, 12:05 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
23. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
...and gay guys who are always waiting to pounce on anyone who dare make a mention of a gay subject in a way that they can perceive as negative.

Because I'm sure they have nothing better to do. But isn't it also funny that they never have long to wait for that opportunity to pounce. And that there's always someone in the peanut gallery waiting to give a you betcha *heart*.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9065 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 12:15 PM (EST)
Click to EMail newsomewayne Click to send private message to newsomewayne Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
25. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
You misspelled 'damn'.

surfkitten siggie and board shop 2007

And I *heart* you for that.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 12:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
27. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Wow! You really hit on the nail on the head, kingfish! In your usual passive-aggressive clever way, of course. (And that certainly did not reveal any kind of dark bullying side, nope.)

You're exactly right that all three of the gay men who commented on (and objected to) this stereotypical depiction of gay men have nothing better to do than pounce on people who unwittingly make derogatory remarks. We're an evil gay mafia that way. I cannot speak for LibraRising or kidflash, but you already have my number so you know that I actually have a bigger hard-on as a result of this discussion than from watching mud volleyball.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I offer you an apology that my career depends on the ability to engage in textual analysis. I am sorry that I believe that words are important and that language has meaning and that both words and language do indeed express ideas for which an author has responsibility. I apologize that any of my comments may have startled you out of a numb existence in which it is not necessary to actually, you know, think about what is being said and its implications.

You present yourself as an over-sexualized guy on OT. Hey, that's great for you. You should be free to structure your identity in any way you see fit ... but can you possibly see and understand that it is in part because of the way that some of us have been depicted by others as hyper-sexualized that many people then use such depictions (of the supposed Truth) as justifications for preventing our access to equal rights, opportunities, and privileges in American society? Did it occur to you at all that some people might have legitimate reason to be offended by depictions that serve to further stereotype them?

Let's try an experiment. Let's post a thread that depicts a Southerner as an ignorant hillbilly or redneck. Don't forget to use language that suggests that the ignorance is a result of merely being a Southerner. Or we could post a thread that depicts a Republican or conservative as stupid and lacking compassion. Be sure to make it clear that he is stupid simply because he is a Republican and that he became a Republican because he is stupid. (That's a fun little chicken-and-egg problem.) Do you suppose that anybody might object to such characterizations?

I don't suppose that it would matter because as soon as somebody stands up for himself and says, "I do not appreciate the implications of the way in which you are choosing to depict me or members of my community," then you are right on the spot to tell him that he should just shut up and take whatever derogatory abuse is handed out. After all, your point of view seems to be that anybody who stands up for himself is being rude and disrespectful, regardless of how rude or disrespectful others have been to them.

That being the case, I am sure that you would not object to those characterizations of Southerners and conservative, right?

If the gay mafia were really looking to pounce, don't you think that somebody would have targeted Mindy's use of the word preference and all of its implications? I didn't appreciate it, but it was nuanced enough that I just let it go. The original message, however, was not nuanced at all --- which probably contributed to the fact that multiple people, not just a single bitter queen who only derives pleasure from pouncing, objected to it

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 01:31 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
29. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I'm not going to read your entire diatribe right now. If you really want to have impact with the written word, you should try to be more concise, and at least try and disguise that condescending attitude.

I did catch your last line though, and I am Southern born and bred, fiscally conservative, and a social liberal. Believe it or not, IRL I have gay friends and I am as much in favor of minority issues (including gay rights) as you are, IMHO.

(Thanks for changing "Passive aggressive" to "clever", I appreciate the compliment, although it was a bit P/A of you to include it in the first place. Still, my thanks).

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 01:55 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
34. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
My concise response would have consisted of two words. I decided not to go that route because:

(a) it would have been a distraction rather than truly having an impact; and

(b) it would have gotten me banned.

Again, I apologize that some concepts are complicated enough that they cannot be reduced to a slogan that you could read in an instant. Having to actually focus on an idea is indeed hard!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Max Headroom 10028 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Max%20Headroom Click to send private message to Max%20Headroom Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
39. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"

C'mon HD, give it a rest. Your position on this issue is well known, and behaving in a trollish, badgering way greatly diminishes the impact of your words.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:12 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
40. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
You're right. I'll try to be a model minority so nobody gets upset.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-18-09, 02:04 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
38. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
... you should try to be more concise, and at least try and disguise that condescending attitude.

Funny how that sounds a lot like "if you weren't so uppity"; a charge often leveled at members of minority groups whenever they stand up for themselves against stereotyping or attacks.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 02:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
41. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
LAST EDITED ON 11-18-09 AT 02:23 PM (EST)

Funny how others try and drag side issues using unecessary allusions into a discussion. Read the words, they have a direct meaning, you own the allusions, noone other than you.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

PepeLePew13 24731 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 05:17 PM (EST)
Click to EMail PepeLePew13 Click to send private message to PepeLePew13 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
66. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
LAST EDITED ON 11-19-09 AT 05:28 PM (EST)

>Funny how that sounds a lot
>like "if you weren't so
>uppity"; a charge often leveled
>at members of minority groups
>whenever they stand up for
>themselves against stereotyping or attacks.

That sounds awfully familiar, such as when I had to stand up for the use of "It's OK to bash the deaf kid" in a thread last year...

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-18-09, 05:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
44. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
"I have gay friends and I am as much in favor of minority issues (including gay rights) as you are, IMHO.


Just a thought - why not email this thread to your gay friends and get their opinion about it? I'm fairly sure they'll see what some of us found offensive.


And if Sam & Dan sexuality was superfluous and immaterial to the original point why was it necessary to declare her own sexuality in the final sentence?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 06:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
45. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
LAST EDITED ON 11-18-09 AT 06:08 PM (EST)

Hey, good thought. Donít need Email though.

But you're wrong about your guess. I asked an openly gay coworker to read this. I caught him just as he was trying to get out the door, but he agreed to come to my office and read it. And he couldn't stop laughing at my stuff (well, he smiled, anyway). I asked about Mindyís post, and since he didn't watch TAR, he really didn't have an opinion on that based on what was blurred, what should be blurred, etc. He watches Survivor though, and reminded me that guys in underwear often get their backside blurred. He wasnít offended, he thought it was pretty tame.

But I digress.

Iterating, (and this point needs to be emphasized) he thought my post #20 was pretty witty. As a friend he's biased. He did mention that using the phrase "poised to pounce", although perfectly apt and fitting after reading the flurry of protests, wasn't very diplomatic. So, if thatís the offense you mentioned, I can concede a point. Next time I will attempt to get my opinion across with more diplomacy, I don't aim to hurt anybody's feelings.

Continuing with his opinion, he agreed with my thoughts on HD's diatribes (weíre used to them, but he wasnít), and wondered if you might be overstating your case a bit with what you considered "offensive" in one of your posts. He is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though, as do I, you have the right to be offended by anything you please.

Now your turn. Get a straight friend to comment. And ask if he can see the wit in my post, thatís the main thing here.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-18-09, 09:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
47. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"

"He is willing to give you
the benefit of the doubt
though, as do I, you
have the right to be
offended by anything you please."

But as per your post - just not allowed to comment about it?


"Now your turn. Get a straight
friend to comment. And ask
if he can see the
wit in my post, thatís
the main thing here.

Cool - My neighbor and her daughter just visited. My neighbor was diplomatic and said she hopes that the poster just didn't choose her words correctly because it came across "pretty bad". Her daughter was more succinct with a two word comment that is best I don't post. Neither found comparing gay men to predators poised to pounce very witty. Sorry.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 10:03 AM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
52. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Dear kingfish,

I was determined to abandon this thread. As Max notes, I have made my point. But then I saw your most recent response which continues to characterize anything I have to say as a "diatribe" and thus lacking any merit at all.

That convinced me to try again to have a conversation with you, but this time I promise to treat you with respect. I realize now that I erred in taking the bait in your post #20 that alluded to other conversations that have taken place here and in other forums, especially OT. It was my fault for allowing you to bait me like that. I take responsibility for it.

In order to have a real conversation, I need to make several observations. Please understand that I intend these as observations only, not as accusations or judgments. I hope that you will at least approach them that way and attempt to understand my point of view (even if you disagree in the end). All I am asking for is a chance to have a respectful exchange of ideas.

I'm going to start with an account of a recent event. I will explain in a moment why this is important. Last week I discovered that one of my students committed plagiarism. When I discussed his paper and the evidence with him, he emphatically stated that he did not purposefully plagiarize. He said that he did not understand how to include citations or to what extent he needed to process the information on his own. Let's assume that he was completely truthful here (and not just attempting to avoid the maximum penalty). That being the case, he committed plagiarism unintentionally. What was I to do? What would you have done? Whether he actually meant to plagiarize or not, in the end he had indeed committed plagiarism. That demanded a response; it was not something that I could simply ignore, no matter how unintentional.

Based on your comments to Wagstaff, I imagine that you might be objecting that a plagiarism case has nothing to do with this conversation, that this is comparing apples to oranges. Please try to understand what I am trying to do by offering this story. I am presenting a situation in which you (as far as I know) have no stake in the outcome because I want you to think about the implications that intentionally doing something has on the consequences. I am hoping that in the case of plagiarism we can agree that the offense outweighed the intention.

I think that the issue of intention is important in this thread. Here's what I think took place. Mindy posted a comment that was offensive, but it was not her intention to actually offend anybody. Instead, she chose her words poorly and, unfortunately, they were connected to larger discourses that have been discussed in this community and in American society in general.

Then some people objected to Mindy's comments, though they did not grapple with whether or not they were intentional. I think that you gave Mindy the benefit of the doubt and assumed that she unintentionally offended some people, though you did not explicitly say anything about intention in your initial response. Instead, you treated her comments in an all-or-nothing fashion. (I think that you are a smart enough guy that you do indeed understand why some of us objected to Mindy's comments, even if you do not like the manner in which we expressed ourselves.) You set up a false dichotomy in which Mindy's comments had to be either (a) offensive and intentional or (b) not offensive at all. Choosing the second option also allowed you to get in some digs at some people (intending to aim them mostly at me, I suspect --- again, this is an observation, not an accusation).

Then you objected to the tone that some of us took in responding to Mindy's explanations of her original comments. I imagine that my post #19 was one of the "diatribes" that you did not appreciate. Admittedly I could have been more pleasant in my response, but I think that another distinction is important here. Whether or not I was all sunshine and cuddles is a very different issue than whether or not I had a legitimate grievance. I think that you are so invested in critiquing my personality that this necessitates denying any merit to the actual content of what I have to say. (Again, I mean this is an observation, not an accusation.)

Let me explain what I was trying to do in my post #19. Mindy expressed her concern that she did not understand why some of us objected to her initial comments. Simply saying, "That was offensive," was not enough to explain why it was offensive. In post #19 I did what people in my field call a "close reading" by taking each item in turn and explaining why it was individually offensive and how it related to a larger discourse that became increasingly offensive by means of accumulation. Could I have been more pleasant in my explanation? Perhaps, but (again) my demeanor does not impact the merit of my views (just the reception of them).

You don't seem to understand why I worked that closely with Mindy's language. That's fine, but I would like to try to explain. As I said above, I don't know what you do for a living (except that you do it in an office), but I would guess that the types of activities that you engage in on a daily basis are different than mine. (I intentionally used the word different because I intended that statement to be value neutral.) My career requires that I work closely with words, ideas, and theories, using them to construct explanations of how a culture, society, or nation functions. Words and ideas are very important in my profession; they are not treated lightly. I realize that some of the distinction and the stakes might seem strange and even silly to those outside the academy, but they are very important to me and to my colleagues. I hope that you can at least extend to me the respect of acknowledging that.

You think that I am verbose. I work in a field in which our expectations are expressed in the thousands of words. We give lectures that pursue an idea over the course of fifty minutes. When approaching a problem or issue, my colleagues and I are expected to take into consideration a dozen or more books and articles that link to that idea (as well as the extensive historiography that supports it). It is natural for us to draw in lots of information from a variety of sources whenever we engage in conversations, whether in person, in print, or online. We tend to have done more reading on certain subjects than the average person (and, again, this is an observation, not a judgment --- it is simply part of our training and our jobs) and we attempt to incorporate that information into how we view the world. To me, my interactions in this community are indeed concise, even if they do not appear that way to you (with this response being an obvious exception).

My job also requires that I help students to identify patterns or methods of thinking that become discourses that extend across communities of varying sizes. You may think that the way I engaged with Mindy's language in my post #19 was petty, but I believe that the ability to engage in that kind of critical analysis is important for all professionals and all citizens to develop. If one of my students were to go on to, say, the advertising industry or public service, s/he better understand how people are going to react to language and how individual ideas connect to larger discourses that are often loaded with controversy. You seem to think that the attention that I devote to language is excessive. In contrast, I think that it is an important and necessary skill for well-informed and responsible workers and citizens.

I'm not certain that you read my post #27 other than to dismiss it as another "diatribe." Let me try again to make some of those points, but I will do it without intentionally trying to push your buttons this time.

I tried to use a counterexample in that response, hoping that if I expressed a situation in which you indeed had a stake that you might be able to understand the reactions expressed by some people when it was members of their own community who seemed to be the target (whether intentionally or not). I can appreciate that since you are not a gay man that you might not understand exactly what it is like to be a non-heterosexual in a heterosexual world. I've been around these boards long enough though to know that as a Southerner who sometimes expresses conservative views that you and your community have been painted with some pretty broad brushstrokes --- and I understand the frustration, anger, and offense many Southerners, conservatives, and Republicans have experienced in conversations that have taken place in these forums. (Believe it or not, the discussions I have experienced here have caused me to be even more vigilant in the classroom to make sure that multiple points of view are expressed.)

I was hoping that you would ask yourself, "How would I feel if somebody made a comment that played on the stereotypes of my community?" I was hoping that you would do that so that you might understand how and why some us reacted to a statement that played on pernicious stereotypes of gay men (again, whether intentionally or not). You might be able to write off certain comments as just message board chat, but I believe (and I am supported by an abundance of historiography that makes this point) that these sorts of offhand comments are actually indicative of cultural norms in the larger society.

Let's return to the idea of intention. In some ways it was actually worse that my plagiarist did not intentionally commit the offense. It demonstrated that he did not even understand why I was upset with what he did. Mindy's unintentional comment is so imbedded in certain meta-expectations of gay men within our culture that it seemed to go unnoticed by some people. This kind of denigration of gay men is just as harmful (and some would argue more harmful) to being considered equal members of society and the body politic as subtle expressions of racism and sexism that are not addressed yet influence people's lives and ideas.

I think that we see this in other places in this forum and in this thread. I don't know if you saw the post that was deleted in last week's love list before it disappeared, but it was part of a larger discourse that is unfriendly (to say the least) to gay men. Or you might even look at post #48 in this thread. Despite all the discussion in this thread, the author goes out of his/her way to state that the gay men did indeed have erections as they played volleyball. As I said above, I think that you are smart enough that you do realize this is an intentional attempt to be offensive. The author also addresses those who objected to Mindy's comments as "girls," though it is clear that the objections came primarily from gay men. You complain that I pay too much attention to words and that I bring in too many "outside" ideas, so I will leave it to you to consider what the author is trying to communicate by addressing grown gay men as "girls." Whether you think that we are pouncing or not, this is the kind of rhetoric that we face every day, in subtle and not-so-subtle ways.

This has shaped the way that I react to such comments. I can understand that you do not like the way I interact with people. I can even understand that you may not personally like me at all. That's fine. But I think that you are a decent enough person that you could step aside from our earlier attempts to push one another's buttons and acknowledge that you can see how and why some of us found the original comments offensive (even if unintentionally). My views (if not my delivery) have merit. I hope that you can at least respect that. (You have previously stated that people are free to be offended by whatever they want, but that is very different from saying that you understand why people were offended and that their views do indeed have merit.)

You may react to this response as just another "diatribe" simply because of its length. I hope that you do not. It is because I respect you and want you to understand my point of view that I put the time and effort into trying to explain my perspective. If I were as condescending as you want to believe that I am, then I would not have chosen to attempt to engage you on this point any more.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Max Headroom 10028 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 10:40 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Max%20Headroom Click to send private message to Max%20Headroom Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
55. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Thank you, HD, for expressing yourself in this manner. I can't speak for kingfish, but I value your opinions and perspectives (though not as much when delivered in a cross, off-key fashion). I do not encounter many openly gay men in my daily existence, thus comments from you and kidflash are very enlightening and broadening to me, as they offer a different viewpoint, one I don't have many opportunities to consider.


another nifty agman creation

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9065 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 11:51 AM (EST)
Click to EMail newsomewayne Click to send private message to newsomewayne Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
56. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Mega dittoes.

As an offshoot to something you said earlier, HD, a thought about the word preference. In my thinking, preference is a better word than choice, not a similar word. To me, preference means a natural inclination towards something over another. Choice indicates conscience thought. Example 1: I prefer green beans to spinach. Both are viable options to many people, yet my natural tastes say I don't like spinach. Example 2: This morning I chose strawberry jam for my biscuits. Tomorrow I might choose blackberry. Picking one over the other does not change or conflict with my nature.

No big deal, all in all. Just food for thought, I suppose.



surfkitten siggie and board shop 2007

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 12:50 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
57. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Thank you, Wayne. I like "choice" even less than I like "preference." In fact, "choice" is one of those words that makes me see red because, as you indicate, it indicates conscious thought. I think that "orientation" is a better and more accurate description than "preference" because it speaks to a an intrinsic character, not merely an inclination that can be altered.

You prefer green beans, but you could be content with spinach. You could easily switch to another vegetable even if it is not your first choice. Extending that analogy to sexuality, that would be like saying that you prefer women, but you could be content with men --- or that I prefer men, but would be content with women. I don't think this is the case for either of us.

Instead, we each have an intrinsic orientation rather than merely a preference. You do not merely prefer women; you are oriented to them. Likewise, I do not merely prefer men; I am oriented to them.

Preference suggests a level of conscious choice that I find uncomfortable, inaccurate, and politically problematic. To me, preference is a code word for choice.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 02:37 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
60. "The bigger question is"
what happened to the plagiarist? I like leaving my classes hanging sometimes, but, c'mon, man!

What is Phil's golf equipment?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 02:52 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
61. "RE: The bigger question is"
Since you asked: I was more lenient than perhaps I should have been. The offense was so blatant that it merited failing the assignment and possibly the entire course.

Since it was a first offense, however, I had the privilege of designing my own settlement rather than immediately handing it over to the Academic Policy Board to determine the penalty.

The student eventually admitted to committing plagiarism. He signed a form that will go in his file for five years. If he is suspected of committing plagiarism again within that time then the case will go directly to the APB (and most likely receive a harsher penalty than I doled out). In signing the form he did not admit to intentionally committing plagiarism; he only admitted that plagiarism had indeed taken place. Information about this incident will not be released to employers or others outside the college.

Rather than failing the paper, I am giving him the opportunity to revise it. If he earns a C- or higher on an essay that has not been plagiarized, then he will receive 50% credit for it. Although that turns out to be a failing score for that particular assignment, it does present him the opportunity to pass the course. I believe that gives him an incentive to do the assignment right the second time (and learn something in the process) and to put as much effort as possible into the remainder of the semester (again, learning something along the way). So, he learns something about History and he learns something about plagiarism. If I had simply failed him then he would learn something about plagiarism but nothing about History. Plus, I've established a paper trail to discourage him from plagiarizing again. We'll see if it works.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

newsomewayne 9065 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 03:16 PM (EST)
Click to EMail newsomewayne Click to send private message to newsomewayne Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
62. "The smaller question is"
How did you discover the plagerism? Was it something you recognized or do you always review source materials as you grade to look for these things? Or did the wording not jive with how the rest of the paper was written so you looked into it more closely?


surfkitten siggie and board shop 2007

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 03:40 PM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
63. "RE: The smaller question is"
I have my students do a short piece of writing related to the assigned reading before each class, hoping that this will cause them to do the reading and be prepared to discuss it in class. (At the very least, they can read what they wrote!)

Having read enough of these short assignments by this particular student, I am familiar with his ability to read primary and secondary sources and articulately explain what they said. Both the prose and the interpretation in his essay exceeded the ability that he has thus far shown in class.

Once I determined that something did not seem right, I ran a suspect sentence through google. Bingo!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Prof_ Wagstaff 4196 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Jerry Springer Show Guest"

11-19-09, 03:46 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to send private message to Prof_%20Wagstaff Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
64. "This really..."
LAST EDITED ON 11-19-09 AT 03:48 PM (EST)

Gives new meaning to History Detective.


Into the magna tribe by phyl

"to"

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 04:54 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
65. "RE: The smaller question is"
Identifying plagiarism, for me, is pretty easy. Most students don't write well, and after X years of teaching, it's pretty easy to spot writing and analysis of a higher order. I've been surprised a few times by students who turned out to be superb, but most of the time, a series of extremely well constructed insights, arguments, or sentences is enough to send me to Google, where the first pop on the search is the link to the plagiarized source.

I tell my colleagues (but not my students) that the savvy plagiarizers are the ones who go to the library and actually look in books to find material to plagiarize. Of course, by the time they tramp over to the library, they may as well have read the source(s).

A Slice of Manga

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 05:20 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
67. "RE: The smaller question is"
I have some original thoughts I'd like to express here.

Friends, Canadians, Lurkers, lend me your cars. Because I feel that the questions is: To be, or not to be. Or IOW, let's get outta Dodge! But first, consider whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?

Well, four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth into this thread, a new notion about that, conceived in revelry, and dedicated to the principle that all men are created on Mars, and women on Venus.

Now we are engaged in a debate testing whether that notion, or any notion so ill-conceived and so depraved, can long endure. But we cannot consecrate this day, this St. Crispian day, for it shall shall ne'er go by, from this day to the ending of the world, but we in it shall be remembered- we few, we happy few, we band of brothers, for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my mother. And shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilest any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

Do I get an A?


  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Snidget 43862 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 06:56 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Snidget Click to send private message to Snidget Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
68. "RE: The smaller question is"
Ah, back in the typewriter days you just had to look for the previous teacher's comments in the margin whited out.

That is how they caught one kid in my high school. Bought a paper from the year before as they had shuffled a couple of the teacher around and he knew she wouldn't have read it before. If only he'd retyped it, that would have worked.

Teacher might have been new to that class, but wasn't new to teaching nor had been born yesterday. Showed paper with white out in the margins to the person who taught that course the year before. She remembered the paper.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

fleaismycat 77 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-18-09, 01:24 PM (EST)
Click to EMail fleaismycat Click to send private message to fleaismycat Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
28. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
See..this is how dense I can be: I don't think I would have noticed anything if they hadn't put the blur there. I often think the blur draws your attention to an area. Like a big sign that says "Don't look here!!!!!" The first thing most people do? Look there.

If they had been hanging out like some of the Survivor folks I can see the need but they were covered (or at least looked covered) and they were not in white (which once wet would be see through). I guess I didn't think it was a big deal. Even if they had been "excited" why would that cause the need for a blur. Or am I just Canadian?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Max Headroom 10028 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-18-09, 01:43 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Max%20Headroom Click to send private message to Max%20Headroom Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
32. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I guess I didn't think it was a big deal. Even if they had been "excited" why would that cause the need for a blur. Or am I just Canadian?

To most people, it isn't a big deal, but ever since the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, the FCC has been hyper-vigilant for these types of incidents, intentional or not. The end result is the excessive use of blurs just to ensure no regulations are being broken.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

fleaismycat 77 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

11-18-09, 01:51 PM (EST)
Click to EMail fleaismycat Click to send private message to fleaismycat Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
33. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
I guess. But I still think it causes more attention to be drawn to it than if they did nothing. I know I don't spend my reality tv time staring at the crotch area of contestants (unless they draw attention to it themselves).

Better safe than sorry?

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-18-09, 07:29 PM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
46. "RE: Can we just let it rest now?? It's about the BLUR, people"
And nothing more!! HONEST!! And guess what? Max Headroom totally answered my question, so now I know! THANK YOU! Sorry for all the confusion, confrontations, and otherwise lost relationships.

I have a very large mesquite tree in the back of my yard, and I'm sure my hubby has tons of rope, if any of you feel the necessity to utilize it on me due to this ONE post. Have at it! Just please-don't let my dogs see any horrendous acts of violence. I have taught them to be kind and gentle.

Thank you!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mrc 10020 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 09:37 AM (EST)
Click to EMail mrc Click to send private message to mrc Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
51. "RE: Can we just let it rest now?? It's about the BLUR, people"
And now lynching is part of the convo . . .

A Slice of Manga

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kidflash212 3854 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

11-19-09, 01:43 PM (EST)
Click to EMail kidflash212 Click to send private message to kidflash212 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
58. "RE: Can we just let it rest now?? It's about the BLUR, people"
Can I borrow the rope and tree for a someone else?

After which the dogs can enjoy some peach pie.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

peachiepie 3 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"

11-18-09, 10:48 PM (EST)
Click to EMail peachiepie Click to send private message to peachiepie Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
48. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Poor Mindy - you guys are all nuts. I was curious if anyone but me noticed the blur that covered the erection of the guys and ended up in a politically correct nightmare.

Lighten up, girls. It's a really short life and not worth a hissy fit over something this stupid. How old are some of you anyway? You are reacting like babies.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Estee 55194 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 08:16 AM (EST)
Click to EMail Estee Click to send private message to Estee Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
49. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
How old are some of you anyway?

Old enough to know that when someone pulls out the 'how old are you?' question in this kind of context, they:

1. Are using their own age as their sole means of establishing both authority and moral superiority.

2. Have absolutely nothing else going for them in that department.

But honestly? I originally figured that one out when I was four.

Alerted.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

kingfish 16088 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 09:34 AM (EST)
Click to EMail kingfish Click to send private message to kingfish Click to view user profile Click to send message via ICQ Click to check IP address of the poster
50. "When Estee was four..."
When Estee was four,
In golden days of yore,

Her friend was named Holly
She was actually her Dolly.

But now that she's older,
And quite a bit bolder

When asked "How many years?",
She's no reply, no smile no tears,

She just imposes a blur...

(Segue, right? To blur? Get it?...sigh)

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

peachiepie 3 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "American Cancer Society Spokesperson"

11-20-09, 09:22 PM (EST)
Click to EMail peachiepie Click to send private message to peachiepie Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
69. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Agree with both points. Did you think to offend me with this biting wit of yours? I'm too old and stupid to care. I also have lots of insurance. You'll understand better when you get into high school.
  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LibraRising 2847 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Howard Stern Show Guest"

11-19-09, 02:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail LibraRising Click to send private message to LibraRising Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
59. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
LAST EDITED ON 11-19-09 AT 02:10 PM (EST)

It's a really short life and not worth a hissy fit over something this stupid.

Ironically enough, if a a tiny group of people led by their orange-bearded hissy-fit-prone doyen had followed this advice after the Super Bowl several years ago, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

HistoryDetective 9516 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

11-19-09, 10:14 AM (EST)
Click to EMail HistoryDetective Click to send private message to HistoryDetective Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
53. "RE: OK, I know I'm fairly dim-witted, but what was the deal"
Dear Mindy,

I do not know if you are still reading along or not. I hope that you are.

I apologize for being cranky in my responses to you. I still consider your comments offensive, but (as I explained in my extended response to kingfish) I can appreciate that it was not your intention to be offensive and that you perhaps chose your words and phrasing poorly.

Still, I could have done a better job to explain why I found your comments problematic by using a friendlier tone.

I have learned something from this experience. I hope that you have learned something too. I hope that you can at least understand how and why I found your comments offensive (even if they were unintentional). If you choose to be more careful with you language, well, that would be great too.

Most of all, I hope that this thread does not scare you away from these forums. Enjoy the Project Runaway finale tonight. I know that you are a fellow (frustrated) viewer.

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

mindy23 1319 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beef Jerky Spokesperson"

11-19-09, 10:31 AM (EST)
Click to EMail mindy23 Click to send private message to mindy23 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
54. "HD: No harm, no foul, or fowl, whichever..."
As far as I'm concerned. This has been one of the most intense lessons I have ever learned on a forum! But I do appreciate all the threads (at least the ones that I understood), and I take no offense.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I wish I would have left out the phrase that offended you-I know exactly what it was and how I could have changed it! I actually DID do well in college English! Hard to believe, isn't it??

Yes, I will enjoy PR tonight, mostly because (PLEASE NO OFFENSE, ANYONE-joking, joking!!) it is the LAST EPISODE!!!

Take care, my friend!

  Remove | Alert Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top


Lock | Archive | Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
about this site   •   advertise on this site  •   contact us  •   privacy policy   •