Claradoon wrote:
Whoa, stop defining everything! You define threads as opinions or information. You define Women's Forum as "little", "girls only", and "ridiculous." You define the existence of a Women's Forum as conditional on another forum.
I don't get how you came to these conclusions.
The idea of a private forum for women to discuss things they feel uncomfortable discussing in public is not ridiculous. Nor would I label it with the laughable "girls only" title, or "little."
Trying to limit access to threads that have already been made, that the original poster had no intention of keeping "private," simply because it is already in that forum, and because privacy is "deserved,"
that is absurd. As is the argument that there needs to be a forum for men that is private if there is a forum for women that is private.
On the other forum, it is restricted to women, and a request must be made to one of the administrators to be given access. I'm not defining it, someone else already did: the forum administrator / creator.
Claradoon wrote:
Are you arguing to hear the sound of your own voice?
No.
Are you getting frustrated, and resorting to personal attacks?
Claradoon wrote:
There are threads that women don't want to share with men. What part of that do you not understand? It is irrelevant whether you judge it to be little or ridiculous or absurd.
Trying to lock an already public forum is absurd, as I already stated. You don't seem to understand that I
appreciate the feelings of some women on here that would like a little privacy when it comes to some topics. I'm all for that. I'm not for it being used as a blanket-excuse to change a forum that is already well established and open for all.
Claradoon wrote:
You don't happen to be a dinosaur, do you? Your terminology is familiar, but very old.
Again with the personal attacks? You must be really riled up.