URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID9
Thread Number: 586
[ Go back to previous page ]

Original Message
"Twins and baby will"

Posted by jld2594 on 09-01-04 at 10:29 PM
Will is just a #####, he needs to grown and figure out that it is a game. To call the twins a #####, he deserves to be kicked off and too bad he is on the jury .

Table of contents

Messages in this discussion
"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by volsfan on 09-01-04 at 10:32 PM
I had no idea I have a twin!

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 09-02-04 at 10:42 AM
Yes, Will has behaved SO poorly. He should have been a paragon of virtue like Scott and Jase...

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by vixie on 09-02-04 at 12:00 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-02-04 AT 12:00 PM (EST)

"deserves to be kicked off"??
He WAS voted out, so he was pretty much kicked out of the house (sadly, whimper, whimper). But what the heck...did you want him to be executed instead of exhiled to the sequester house? The thing is jld, it is a game which he played well until he was voted out; he stayed legitimately until he was voted out; he is in a lovely sequester house; and he gets to vote, just like everyone else voted out after him....that's the way the game works. If you don't like him, that's okay, too. You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is different, and I think the twins are awful and that's okay, too. Have a nice day!


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Poncho on 09-02-04 at 12:30 PM
>But what the heck...did
>you want him to be
>executed instead of exhiled to
>the sequester house?

Sounds like a good idea to me!

Sorry Vixie, I never liked Will....


Poncho


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by vixie on 09-02-04 at 12:37 PM
That's okay Poncho. We like you anyway. (Dog loves your bouncing orange smiley) That's because it looks similar to dogs own smile ... only more sincere. (HEY! Lay off woman!)

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by syren on 09-02-04 at 02:56 PM
Once again Vixie I am with YOU.....really like Will...he played good, cannot stand either Twin....
Will had to be a good player...his alliance is still playing for him..his alliance with Nak got Nat and his alliance with Marvin is gonna get A...


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Pretty_Kitty on 09-02-04 at 01:49 PM
Ok my main problems with Will were that he was very vocal about going after the twins so it was in A's best interst to get rid of him also all he had to do was tell her what she wanted to hear and she probably would have booted marvin instead I dont feel he played a good game at all he had chances to save himself and didnt thats why I personaly feel he deserved to go I think no matter what the twins didnt stand a chance which is why I wnated at least one of them to kick butt I always root for the underdog (well almost I watched with glee when jase and Scott got the boot)i cant help it its in my nature

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by vixie on 09-02-04 at 02:04 PM
You're alright Kitty! Your opinions are valid and your reasoning is sound, even tho I disagree, I very much respect and enjoy reading your viewpoint. I simply see the situation between Will & Adria from a different direction. From my view, Adria was a bit overwhelmed with power and wanted Will & Marvin to play her game by her rules, and they declined to do so. In this manner of play, they were playing their own game and not hers...as most chess masters do. It's simply a different way of playing..not a better or worse way, just different. As to who deserves to go..I find the term deserve to be subjective. None of them really Deserves to be there and win a million, they just got lucky and pursued a one in a million (literally) shot to play this game. None of them earned their way in, it's just a roll of the dice and appealing to a CBS producer for whatever reason on that particular day. (Good grief woman, lighten up! THis ain't rocket science!) Oh...sorry!
Any way, I, too, usually go for the underdog..it's also in my nature. But it's also in my nature to argue and be sarcastic...so there you have it.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by syren on 09-02-04 at 02:58 PM
Whoa...I should have waited before I posted the first time....again vixie I could not ahve said it better myself....



"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by whoami on 09-02-04 at 10:07 PM
Did you see the way Will acted towards Nat. when she came into the jury house? What jerk he was. So juvenile and childish he was. Crossing his fingers, his comments about the weather being bad. his hopping the cork from the champane would hit Nat in the eye and other places and saying "he" was taking the high road. That is being very very immature by any standerds. To bad he did not go one week earlier the we would not have to listen to his deluded little world he lives in. What makes him think he is so good when he does all this stuff?
When is he going to wake up to the fact that this is just a game. He was going to stab the twins in the back but they got him first. That must be one of the reasons that he is so mad at them.

WHOAMI
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
-Rich Cook


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by cuervoandcookies on 09-03-04 at 09:08 AM
I liked Will as a player. I don't mind people that play the game. He was smart trying to be one of the guys and one of the girls and having a sub-alliance with a floater.

BUT...the one thing that really rankles when watching BB is seeing people skew off into hypocrisy. I don't mind that he had a hissy spiral, but to maintain that "I was betrayed and bamboozeled" attitude out of the house is really living in revisionist history. Whoever he was talking strategy with, he would always start with "we've got to get out at least one twin" (then followed by "we have to get out Drew or Diane").

The same attitude was what killed it for me with the twins. I think they played a bad game of BB. If either twin had just been up front about why they got rid of Will, I believe that the house would have been p*ssed but wouldn't have substained that anger.

(Why we're on the subject of stupid play...what was with that exit speech of Adria's? Why didn't she simply say something to Diane about "guess that twins alliance you set up with Nat, I and Drew didn't really work out, huh?")

I really don't think that some of the HGs get that internet users see almost (damn those fish) everything in the house. Just a couple of days ago when Drew was practicing the one bounce ball game something came up about people outside seeing him practice and he said "no, they can't see this" --btw: Marvin set him straight. I really think that Will doesn't think that anyone saw him talking to Karen. His conversations with her were not that covert, they even made the show cut.

Oh well, now all I have to look forward to is seeing Diane walk out the door....reallllly can't stand her now.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Pretty_Kitty on 09-03-04 at 01:12 PM
whoami

I completely agree with you Natalie took the high road not Will I thought her Charles Manson refernce was hillarious how dare he act offended after all the poop he's said about her!! as for Adirais speech I dont think any of those morons have stopped to think about the fact that if they do get to the F2 they may not want to have burned all their bridges Diane doesnt was the twins votes?! That just show s how stupid she really is and Marvin saying he doesnt need their votes?! again STOOPID Im thinking after all this is over Nikomis wont be able to walk down the street without getting that finger she so despretley wants heck I gave her many fingers during the show last night I hope A and N tear those *&%$*&%# up during the jury question and answer part


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by AlexanderTheGreat on 09-03-04 at 04:25 PM
>whoami
>
>I completely agree with you Natalie
>took the high road not
>Will I thought her Charles
>Manson refernce was hillarious how
>dare he act offended after
>all the poop he's said
>about her!! as for Adirais
>speech I dont think any
>of those morons have stopped
>to think about the fact
>that if they do get
>to the F2 they may
>not want to have burned
>all their bridges Diane doesnt
>was the twins votes?! That
>just show s how stupid
>she really is and Marvin
>saying he doesnt need their
>votes?! again STOOPID Im thinking
>after all this is over
>Nikomis wont be able to
>walk down the street without
>getting that finger she so
>despretley wants heck I gave
>her many fingers during the
>show last night I
>hope A and N tear
>those *&%$*&%# up
>during the jury question and
>answer part

The only way to get votes from Adria and Natalie is to kiss some serious twin a**. Adria's exit was one of the most classless exits ever, she simply cannot handle losing, so she must make a holier than thou speach to prove that she is superior to everyone else. And in case you've been living in a cave for the last few weeks, you'd know that Nakomis is one of the most popular HG's, while Adria and Natalie are among the most despised.



"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by vixie on 09-03-04 at 04:28 PM
Thank you Oh great one! I bow at your wisdom! (dog bowing, too!) welome aboard, again. We're happy to have you! And we'll still be happy to have you when we the time comes that we disagree.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by AlexanderTheGreat on 09-03-04 at 05:18 PM
Thanks for the warm welcome

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Pretty_Kitty on 09-03-04 at 04:30 PM
if you want the $$ then you should be ready to kiss some A** if you dont want it then dont complain when you've got a boot print on your butt I Love Nikomis for her evil plan to rid them all of Jase but the pinky swear thing has gone on and on Im sick of her
now excuse me while I cough up a hairball in her honor

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by AlexanderTheGreat on 09-03-04 at 05:19 PM
I agree the pinky swear thing is getting lame, she should let it go, but I would still take her over the twins anyday.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Nanook on 09-04-04 at 11:34 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-04-04 AT 11:35 PM (EST)

Will makes me sick. It was nice that he was being civil to Natalie's face, but to call her a b*tch to the camera, and say he was wishing for the champagne cork to hit her in the eye, shows what kind of a person he is. He needs to get over it, and get it through his head what a hypocrite he is. He must think he's a god or something, acting like he should be in the house and other people shouldn't. It's a game!!! Too bad he wasn't evicted just one week earlier, then I wouldn't have to continue to see this @sshole every Thursday. If I were his mother, I would be embarrassed and ashamed of his behavior.

I'm also sick of Nakomis. I wanted to smack her on the live show Thursday, when she went into the diary room, held up her pinky and said "I vote to evict Adria." Get over that third grade crap already! Will broke it first anyway.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-07-04 at 07:05 PM
I especially liked it when Will referred to himself as a minority. When talking about Adrias nominations he said she picked the "two minorities" in the house. A behavior doesn't qualify you as a minority. Race and behavior are apples and oranges. Will isn't anymore a minority than is a woman. And since women make up 50% of the population, they don't qualify either. Typical.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by syren on 09-07-04 at 07:24 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-07-04 AT 08:25 PM (EST)

First I would like to welcome you to the boards....warning: they will become addicting....lol
Take a few seconds and be sure to read all of the fine print at the top and click the guidelines link for some usefull info on posting....most of all have fun here......

Now on to my two cents....
...Women may not be a minority within the population however if men and women were equal (and women not in a minority classification) wouldn't a woman make the same amount of money that a man makes doing the same job??? As of right now, a women makes $0.77 to every $1.00 a man makes.
Behavior doesn't make you a minority in this country, but sexuality does.
two definitions of minority are: small group: a group of people or things that is a small part of a much larger group
and
smaller socially defined group: a group of people, within a society, whose members have different ethnic, racial, national, religious, sexual, political, linguistic, or other characteristics from the rest of society

so with that said IMHO I feel that Will was right to classify himself as a minority.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by Drive My Car on 09-08-04 at 08:07 AM
I don't think cookiehanster1 is new. There was a Cookiehaunster with about 150 posts, on these boards a few weeks ago.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 08:11 AM
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't think sexuality has anymore to do with making someone a minority than Jefferey Dahmer's preferences in dinner makes him one. It makes him a lunatic, but not a minority. Sex, meaning gender, has categorical meaning, who you screw doesn't. It's funny, Will will gladly call himself a minority, which, using logic, means not within the norm. I wonder if he'd embrace the word abnormal though, which actually means not of the norm. Go figure.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 09-08-04 at 09:04 AM
Whoa! So much fuzzy logic and misuse of words in that post that I don't even know where to begin, or even if it's worth the effort.

First of all, sex and gender are not equivalent terms, as you learn in any Gender Studies 101 course (or a good History course that handles issues of race, ethnicity, and gender). Like race, gender is a socially defined characteristic that changes when moving between time and place. For instance, George Bush, an inner-city gang member, and a college athlete may all be the same sex (male), but they have quite different genders in that each of them defines their masculinity in very different terms.

Second, I don't think "minority" can be equated to "not within the norm" - it means not within the majority. By your logic, Latinos, African Americans, and Southern Baptists are all "abnormal" because they do not compose the majority of the American population. I think that members from any of those groups would also take issue with being called "abnormal."

I think that as a gay person, Will definitely belongs to a minority group, one that the U.S. government continues to discriminate against. For instance, he can't get married and enjoy the more than 1000 rights that are codified in federal marriage laws. He can be fired for no other reason than his sexuality; he can be denied housing; in many places he can be arrested for having consensual sex. Gay people, as a group, are one of the few segments of the population that it is still permissible to so blatantly discriminate against. Considering the attitude that Will has to put up from the U.S. government and a large portion of the American public, I think that I'm willing to let him consider himself a minority.

Could you also clear up your use of the word "lunatic"? It wasn't clear if Dahmer (and Dahmer only) was a lunatic because of his choice of cuisine, or if you also consider Will a lunatic because he is gay (and chooses to be honest about it rather than repressed)...


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by vixie on 09-08-04 at 10:18 AM
Thank you History, once again for your informed and enlightening post. I absolutely agree with you. Discrimination of any sort is offensive, and disrimination against gays is no exception. The fact that our government not only sanctions such behavior, but also promotes it is abhorant to me, and in fact borders on "lunatic" behavior IMHO.

"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 10:24 AM
First of all, sex and gender are not equivalent terms, as you learn in any Gender Studies 101 course (or a good History course that handles issues of race, ethnicity, and gender). Like race, gender is a socially defined characteristic that changes when moving between time and place. For instance, George Bush, an inner-city gang member, and a college athlete may all be the same sex (male), but they have quite different genders in that each of them defines their masculinity in very different terms.

This makes no sense. Your race and gender do not change according to time and place. I'm a white female no matter where I am or what time it is. And how you define your gender in your head is irrelevant. If you have a penis you are a male. You can put on lipstick or wear a wig, but you're still a male. Talk about fuzzy logic and misuse of words. I don't know a 10 year old who wouldn't see the ridiculousness in what you wrote.

Second, I don't think "minority" can be equated to "not within the norm" - it means not within the majority. By your logic, Latinos, African Americans, and Southern Baptists are all "abnormal" because they do not compose the majority of the American population. I think that members from any of those groups would also take issue with being called "abnormal."

Again, you mix apples and oranges by mixing race with behavior, or in this case religious belief. A person is Latino, or black by birth. It has no specific behavior. You can't act black. However, one is Southern Baptist by choice. I suppose the word abnormal has a negative spin. But really, why? It just means not of the norm. Which in many cases is a good thing. I'll chuck the word abnormal for that reason. But the fact remains that you have mixed two variables.

I think that as a gay person, Will definitely belongs to a minority group, one that the U.S. government continues to discriminate against. For instance, he can't get married and enjoy the more than 1000 rights that are codified in federal marriage laws. He can be fired for no other reason than his sexuality; he can be denied housing; in many places he can be arrested for having consensual sex. Gay people, as a group, are one of the few segments of the population that it is still permissible to so blatantly discriminate against. Considering the attitude that Will has to put up from the U.S. government and a large portion of the American public, I think that I'm willing to let him consider himself a minority.


Actually Will can marry. In the same way that ALL people can marry. Rights are equal across the board. ALL people can marry a person of the opposite sex, and ALL people cannot marry a person of the same sex. Will cannot marry a person of his own gender, but hey guess what, neither can I. Equal.

I don't know where you live, but in these parts housing discrimination is not allowed, nor can one be legally fired because of their sexual orientation. It does happen, however, and in such cases litigation is brought and the law is handed down. For your information, ANYONE can be fired for these reasons. There was a bar that catered to the straight community that was bought and transformed into a gay bar. The existing bar tender was fired because she was heterosexual. Sexual discrimination for being straight. That door swings both ways.

Also, I could be denied housing because I'm white or because I'm a woman if the seller doesn't like those two things in a person. It happens. It's illegal, but it happens. If you think gay people have the market cornered on discrimination, think again. All this said, sexuality still has no bearing of minority status.

As for your next arguement. Many people can be arrested for having consenual sex. Again, NOT exclusive to gays. Ever heard of Mary Kay Latourno (sp) and Villi Falloud? Both straight. Sex consensual. She went to prison for it. In many places an adulterer can be arrested for having consensual sex with a person not his spouse. There are other examples that have nothing to do with being homosexual.

The governments attitude. Let's see. Heather Has Two Mommies. My Two Dads. These books sit on the shelves at many a public school funded by the government. I live in the St. Louis area. Our public schools have an agenda of teaching gay acceptance starting in kindergarten. Sexual orientation is a protected class under the federal and many state constitutions. The law says you cannot be discriminated against based on this criteria. So, you are simply wrong there. The government goes out of it's way to protect people based on sexual orientation. And of course that boils down to homosexuality.

Could you also clear up your use of the word "lunatic"? It wasn't clear if Dahmer (and Dahmer only) was a lunatic because of his choice of cuisine, or if you also consider Will a lunatic because he is gay (and chooses to be honest about it rather than repressed)...

I was speaking only of Jeffery. His behavior proved him to be a lunatic. Not a minority. But a lunatic. Among other things. My point was that just because we engage in a particular behavior that most people don't engage in, whether sexual behavior with someone of the same sex, or murdering people, we don't get to latch onto the minority label. Minority status is reserved for things beyond our control such as race. I'm sure you'll latch onto the word murder and try to insist that I am equating homosexuals with murderers. It's a typical strawman.

Being honest is fine. But simple honesty doesn't give us a license to engage in any behavior. As a straight woman, I don't think engaging in permiscuous behavior is ok as long as I tell you up front about it. It's still a choice in behavior. Gay or straight is irrelevant. ALL behavior is a choice. And I don't get to call myself a minority because I choose to sleep around with many men. Or for any other behavior whether sexual or not.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 09:44 AM
Forgot the other part of your question. Women aren't paid equally sometimes because of discrimination. But my post wasn't about discrimination. It was about minority status.

"Two warnings"
Posted by Bebo on 09-08-04 at 10:37 AM
LAST EDITED ON 09-08-04 AT 10:38 AM (EST)

1. Stick to discussing the show. This thread started out as a discussion on cast members - let's get back on that track.

ETA: While going on a tangent is not against the community guidelines, some of the discussion is getting dangerously close to the types of discussions that we don't want around here. That's why I'm advising folks to get back on track before I have to lock this and start recommending some bans.

2. Speaking of bans, registering multiple ID's is a definite no-no on this site and is clearly forbidden in the community guidelines. Any time a poster is discovered to be posting under multiple IDs, the extra IDs will be disabled.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 09-08-04 at 12:41 PM
Thanks for getting us back on track, Bebo. I'd also like to apologize to anybody I offended in my recent posts. I tried to engage in a respectful dialogue, but if you feel that I fell short of that goal, please accept my apologies.

I'll turn back to the show and what I find so interesting about it. Big Brother (like so many other reality shows) is designed as a forum for continuing the Culture Wars that are already being fought elsewhere in the media and in American politics. It was no accident that Will, a gay man, and Mike, a fairly conservative Republican, were both cast for the show. The producers wanted them to be in tension with each other. I don't think that the plan worked out quite as well as CBS hoped because when they did figure out their differences they sat down and had a long conversation in which they each respectfully disagreed with each other. Both even said that they found the other to be the most reasonable and intelligent person in the house. No fireworks there! Then Mike was almost immediately evicted so we didn't get to see their relationship develop any further. Two people with different views refusing to have a verbal catfight doesn't make very good television, but they did set an example for the rest of us to follow. (I might add that as an someone who has earned graduate degrees in History and Gender Studies, I find reality shows extremely fascinating because of the way that they handle issues of gender, sexuality, and appropriate roles for men and women - and the way that they are edited to impact viewers and cause them to react and think about these issues.) I've written in other threads that reality shows are interesting, in part, because even though some might consider them lowbrow entertainment, they actually play off of a lot of very important social and cultural issues that are playing themselves out both on the national stage and in common people's everyday lives.

Getting back to stuff more specifically about this thread, I agree that Will has shown a lack of, well, let's say class or sincerity for lack of another word. I don't think that he is alone, however. All of the HGs say one thing in the diary room and another to the other HGs, like when Marvin confessed that he is nice to them all in person but he really can't stand being around any of them ("I hate all them people."). From what we have seen, Will has not yet gotten over his eviction, but I hope that he will bounce back and start to act like a better person soon.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by Lasann on 09-08-04 at 01:06 PM
Thanks HisDet. Your discussions in this thread were well writted and non-offensive. Cookie has a bug up her b*tt and the tone was very offensive. I like your comparision of BB to society's ills and struggles. That is part of the appeal to me as well as the fact I've never been a good schemer, nor was I "popular" in school, so I'm learning my lessons later in life. Watch out Nursing Homes!!

"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 03:01 PM
My tone was fine. Yours however is being reported. Making references to ones body parts is unacceptable.

"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by Lasann on 09-08-04 at 03:24 PM
. . . . . . . .

"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by Bebo on 09-08-04 at 04:04 PM
XIII. RESPECT THE MODERATORS, THEIR ROLE, AND THEIR DECISIONS

Please remember that moderators are people too -- people who generously volunteer THEIR TIME to manage a community FOR YOUR USE. They also have personal lives and feelings. While they are very generous in volunteering their time, do not presume that a moderator will always be immediately available to respond to your issue. Do not take a lack of response or action on their part as grounds to take you own "vigilante moderation" action. "Vigilante moderation" will not be tolerated and will possibly result in the termination of your RealityTVWorld.com membership. While disagreeing with the actions or decision of the moderator team is permitted, respecting their decision is required and repeated open questioning or badgering of their decision is not permitted.

Please pay attention to the portion of the guidelines bolded above. Hitting Alert is an appropriate way to handle a situation where you believe you have been bashed. But you then need to leave it alone and let a moderator handle it.

And when a moderator handles an issue and you aren't quite satisfied with how it's been handled, there are two acceptable options:
1. Address it privately off the forums.
2. Keep it to yourself.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by Just Plain Bill on 09-08-04 at 01:11 PM
>I'll turn back to the show and what I find so
interesting about it. Big Brother (like so many other
reality shows) is designed as a forum for continuing the
Culture Wars that are already being fought elsewhere in the
media and in American politics. It was no accident that Will, a gay man, and Mike, a fairly conservative Republican, were both cast for the show. The producers wanted them to be in
tension with each other. I don't think that the plan worked out quite as well as CBS hoped because when they did figure out
their differences they sat down and had a long conversation
in which they each respectfully disagreed with each other.
Both even said that they found the other to be the most reasonable and intelligent person in the house. No fireworks there! Then Mike was almost immediately evicted so we didn't get to see their relationship develop any further. Two people with different views refusing to have a verbal catfight doesn't make very good television, but they did set an example for
the rest of us to follow. <snip>

CBS & BB5 had a chance to take the level up a notch but chose not to. But that would have involved some risk and TV is definitely not about taking risks. Much better to have a Jerry Springer type of interaction than actual discussions and intelligent exchanges of points of view.

I'm sure the producers were thrilled when Mike got an early boot and they could focus on the antics of Jase, Scott, Holly, et al.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 03:05 PM
All of the HGs say one thing in the diary room and another to the other HGs, like when Marvin confessed that he is nice to them all in person but he really can't stand being around any of them ("I hate all them people.").

This is called being civil. You don't have to love everyone. But you do have to be civil to one another. Marvin is a good example by being nice to people in person. That's the way we should all be. If you don't like someone, fine. But be civil to them. It's a good attribute in Marvin.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by HistoryDetective on 09-08-04 at 04:56 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-08-04 AT 04:58 PM (EST)

- edited because I wanted to try to change the subject line to get us back on track about Will and Natalie, but it's not possible to change the subject line once you have submitted the first time.

Subject: Will and Natalie

I completely agree, cookie! Marvin was being civil, which gets us back to the original topic of this thread: Will and Natalie and how they treat each other. Will has some strong feelings about Natalie and he expressed them in private. When he met her face to face, he hugged her and shared a bottle of champagne with her. That is called being civil. Will doesn't have to love everyone. But he does have to be civil to others. Will is a good example by being nice to people in person. That's the way we should all be. If he doesn't like someone, fine. But he's civil to them. It's a good attribute in Will.


"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 05:25 PM
Yes, it is.

"RE: Two warnings"
Posted by cookiehahnster1 on 09-08-04 at 02:58 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-12-04 AT 08:14 AM (EST)

LAST EDITED ON 09-08-04 AT 09:34 PM (EST)

Not sure what you want me to change. But consider it changed.


"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."


"Please remove"
Posted by AyaK on 09-08-04 at 07:27 PM
LAST EDITED ON 09-09-04 AT 10:25 AM (EST)

cookiehahnster1,

I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here. But please change your post above to comply with the board guidelines regarding discussions with moderators.

As we have structured this board, the five moderators and administrators (myself, SurvivorBlows (aka Webby), Bebo, IceCat and sleeeve) do have the authority to decide that discussions on a particular topic are forbidden or must end (but only the five of us do, so everyone else should follow the Ebert quote). Why? Because, from bitter experience, we have learned that some discussions get so heated that even intervention isn't enough to prevent long-term damage to the board. Thus, the word of a moderator in such situations is final.

Even if you don't agree with a moderator's post in such a situation (and even if it's factually wrong, such as the blunders about other posters that I've made on more than one occasion!), you can't protest such a decision publicly. You have to communicate via e-mail. If your tone is reasonable, we generally reply in kind (but not always ).

Therefore, I request that you edit your post above to remove the comments that are directed at a moderator of this board.

AyaK

Edited to add: Thanks.


"RE: Twins and baby will"
Posted by CowboyIsCreepy on 09-12-04 at 08:17 PM
I don't blame Will for his attitude toward those two. I cheered when both got booted. I've never seen such a pair of posturing bullies in my life.

They both got what they deserved.