Important notice: Understanding attacks on homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Once again, I am certainly not wanting an argument with you, but I am interested in your point of view on this matter.

That was what I meant when I was talking about feeling that I was being stopped from fighting back. And also what I was talking about days ago when I said that I felt that you showed bias on the PPR board.

Why did you allow Parakeets views on homosexuality to stay up on the board, even though you must surely have known that they could easily give rise to a "hot flash" from a gay person, and quite obviously that is what ended up happening?
At the same time you removed my legitimate comments just in case they upset Parakeet, or somebody else who shared his views?

Last edited by Butterflies on 23 Feb 2011, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have removed your word "happily" there because it does not fit. My doings as seldom done with emotion leading the way. With me, faith leads the way ... and then facts and feelings follow along behind, and in that specific order.

You are correct in the speculation that a gay person could happen along and be offended by comments posted on the board, yet that kind of happenstance simply "goes with the territory", so to speak ... and I am sure everyone here understands that. Your question just posed to me, however, is not really about that ... it is about what seems "fair", is it not? Either way, almost anyone could likely see a disparity there, and I can easily see that myself and admit my having caused that disparity. My answer is a simple one and I hope you can accept it: I had hoped to send you a silent message saying it was not okay to come in swinging. I was not acting upon any kind of favoritism. Should the very same situation come up today now that you are here and getting to know people and interacting just like any other member in good standing, I would not even think of deleting posts and I would simply send a PM and ask to continue our past conversation. Honestly.

You had posted "and quite obviously that is what ended up happening" at the end of your question here, but I do not know what instance you have in mind.


Neither of us presently has access to those removed posts, but we would have to review them together before I could possibly comment there.


Essentially, yes, and with "or somebody else" getting at least equal billing ... and yes, I do understand some people view that as some type of censorship on my part. No such thing was ever intended, however, and the proof of that can be seen by anyone perusing the board to see whether any comments such as yours might yet appear anywhere. So then, were you being "picked on" personally? Only within the context of a rookie moderator trying to help calm a firestorm and be sure the freshest embers were out.

Is all of that completely defensible? Maybe not, but it is all "above the line you have drawn" so you and I and everyone else could be here now on this refreshed slate.

Yes. I would say defensible. I think you're saying that you might have erred on that occasion, if so then fair enough. No hard feelings.



I meant that by allowing Parakeets views on homosexuality to stay up on the board, a lesbian (me) ended up having a "hot flash"

I'm sorry that I responded to Volodja's name calling of me and tried to explain why he was wrong in a manner that offended you.

Nice.


Ah. Way back then, I had no idea whether you stood or sit to pee!

Now may I get offended, being that though male, and thus classed in the OT as one that pisseth against the wall, I by preference sit? Stereotyping is rampant. Actually, I was somewhat offended, though I kept quiet, when one brother-in-law ecstatically celebrated his young son's first standing ovation. Like that defines manhood? Gimme a break.

No, I'm too much like Peter to play Paul. Points taken, but that was one incident in Paul's life, not his final attempt at getting the message across; and for myself I'm nowhere near the point of retreating to the choir room. The choir wouldn't have me anyway...

(Edit: That is, I may respond should the subject come up within this subforum. However, I see nothing served by raising the issue.)

Yeah, I hear you. All three of us, actually, sit to pee!

It doesn't define manhood until you do it in someone's backyard.

The Canadian Passage to Manhood, outside of surviving seven days in the Arctic with nothing but your wits, a towel for warmth and a C-7 Assault Rifle, involves writing your name in the snow

Honest question: What is the etymology of "pee"? Any gender there?

Might an allegation of peeing be to a female like someone "flaming the dame"?

The more I learn about words and wordings, the more I am convinced we know not what we speak.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pee

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=piss

Ah. I has wondered whether there might be any implication of pee-nis ...

Guess not, eh?!

This is dead to rights. Spew anti-homosexual rhetoric then when it come to slurs against your heterosexuality in defence you should "take it like a man"

Oh, shut up with you.

Everyone has let all the past just lie now, and it would be really decent of you to please do the same! All voices have been heard, all errors have been admitted and nobody presently has any dry old nasty bones to pick.

I personally believe it is not your intent to re-stir the most recent firestorm, but please just try to be sure that does happen even inadvertently, if at all possible!

Peace.