Ask Sen. Lincoln (D) and Sen. Pryor (D) too.

56/43 (Reid voted procedural nay to keep the legislation active)

96% of dems voted to repeal DADT.
100% of republicans filibustered.

That is sort of like when a service member loses their life people will say "we thank them for their service". Do they still say that if they are gay?

Today, they do not have to answer your question since only heterosexuals can die in our fighting forces. You do bring up a valid reason why DADT is still in effect since it removes that uncomfortable question.

Not pointed at anyone.

This issue is deeper than just say.

1 - Can gays fight or run <-- Not an issue
2 - Are gays better soldiers <-- not an issue

Sexually <-- thats the issue, has nothing to with with battle field performance.

The last military poll taken from service members - in general they don't like having to shower with gays or sharing very close quarters, like a fox hole. Otherwise they don't care.

I've been hit on by gays. A simple explanation that I'm hetero is sufficient and there is no problem after that. Knowing whether or not someone is gay doesn't change my bathing habits.

You mean you where showing together?

Since it is the last military poll and so quite recent perhaps you could create a link to this poll?

Please do not tell me to google. All I get is youtubes of some dudes singing YMCA wearing CSI jackets.

No, "they" are more discrete than that.

Sorry it was a blurb on CNN, not even sure if they keep a video on line?

Simply they don't care about gays in the military - just the close quarters stuff make them uncomfortable.

Then I call bullshiit. Our military leaders know their men and they all say it is not a problem.

You believe shiit on CNN like you believe a google search on "CSI"? You really need to find better sources.

Puritanical hangups.

Yeah Carp, send us a real link. Some vague anecdotal attribution to CNN ain't gonna cut it.

I cannot always panty wipe you guys, you have to watch the news or pay attention when you do watch it.

If you don't like what you hear - whatever you don't have to.

Here some links - have not found the 18 or so Numbered surveys, just rather comments on some of them.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/22/survey-counters-backing-of-gays-in-military/

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/12/122908_military_poll_DADT/

Carp:

you say "The last military poll taken from service members - in general they don't like having to shower with gays or sharing very close quarters, like a fox hole. Otherwise they don't care."

They shower with gays, share close quarters with gays, fox holes, etc., since the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, and all other squirmishes up til today. They share all those things with gays 24 hours, 7 days, 365!!


They just don't know it!


I wonder if we would be surprised if anyone could accurately tell us what percentage of military personnel are gay! I am inclined to believe it is more than any of us would believe.


.

I don't care what a person's sexual preference is as long as they are trained, qualified, can shoot straight, and would die to protect my a$$.

Should we have "separate but equal" facilities for straights and gays? Where have I heard that before?

I guess it's OK to shower with them if you don't know they're gay? Really?

I served with some farm boys who stated they liked farm animals. It didn't make them poor soldiers.

You're kidding right? You tell me to watch the news but link to a study which starts:

"A group opposed to ending the ban on openly gay troops in the military has released a national survey that challenges"

I got a hint. Stop watching CNN and learn how to find unbiased information. Start by looking for information which would shoot you hypothesis to hell and work back. It is what scientists do all the time.

Do not look for the answer you seek and then read only that link. Another hint. If you find it in the Washington Times you might want to look a bit further.

Military Times link said in part:

“I think a lot of people are,” Lacy said. “In the field environment, you’re in very close proximity to one another. The fact that someone could be openly gay could exacerbate stress on teams and small units when you’re already at a high stress level.”

However, 71 percent of respondents said they would continue to serve if the policy was overturned."

The other link said that 71 percent of Americans polled wanted DADT overturned!!


Now our representatives in Washington are not listening to us cause they didn't pass that bill this week.


.


.

Show me the survey ... both of your links are bullsh!t.

The Washington (Sun Myung Moon) Times refers to a survey but their link only links back to the article you're reading.

The Military Times talks of a survey it made but there's no info ... did they just ask around their buddies at the office?

Really Carp, show us a legit survey if that's what you "panty wipe" cry about.


Here's what you don't like to hear





source and survey methodology

Carp would have us think
CNN is all you need
to judge them gays

They just don't know it!

BINGO
Hence don't ask don't tell

Not sure if your link is Bullshiit? ?

Finally someone with some sense of what is at the issue - Thanks Kate.

Now consider
Than in time of war only say 15 to 20% are at (front line conditions) - the rest are support and counting the civilian support as well.

So 71% of respondents have never been in close quarters with gays -- well I should say that a large number of the 71% have never been aside from basic training.

I'm going to arrest you for abuse of percents. You cannot do what you just did to numbers.

I swear, when I think I am taking a opposing point with Carp's discussion, I end up supporting him [in his eyes and way of thinking].

He could probably convince me the world is flat!! or have me wondering if I am possibly incorrect in my belief that it is shaped like a football, heh, heh.


.

LOL

Just throwing out numbers that seeming everyone else throw's out. After all any survey has a margin of error.

Again
The military as a whole, does not have a problem with gays - just concerns about close quarter conditions.

Empirical data and statistics ... bleh! (Like ClimateGate) who needs science when truthiness is a beacon of logic and reasoning.

I dunno
But if I was that Dino I would chose what I eat.

Like everyone here knows that I have many many gay friends - not gay myself either, and they never came across as to pass me to the other side.

I am not against gays - just saying how the military feels about it. <-- end that crap now. I mean attacks on me.

I would like to see the Military own surveys and not some trump up shiit.

The FACT that 100% of Senate Republicans voted no -- filibustered -- the defense appropriations bill to make a political stand against any Obama accomplishment. GOP senators that had favored repeal of DADT voted to kill repeal of it. That's 100% GOP Senate vote to filibuster funding troops in wartime too, that's how much they hate our President. And after they voted Sen. Chambliss staffer posts online "“all faggots must die.”. That is not trump up shiit. That's 100% messed up.

This is close to the wording of the bill. It does not actually repeal DADT but allows the military to make up its own mine when their study is complete. Since everyone knows the military is OK with repealing and the study is going to find out that the foot soldier doesn't mind either makes it pretty much a repeal of DADT.

That makes the filibustering described by Gary even more deceitful/

That is a very duplicitous statement.

We all bleed the same Gay or Straight. McCain is a two faced creep which I hate in my heart among the GOP's.

Not so sure? I mean there are many other concerns as well. For example.
When the military started to except women into their ranks (off base) meaning ships and forward positions. The military had to spend enormous amount of tax payer money to provide for separate accommodations.

So question?
Would the military also need to provide separate accommodations for, His, her, gay, lesbians ? What you think?

This country is still FUBAR on many issues !!

mainly thanks to the GOP and their fear and hate mongering ways !

Here's a fact for you all:

99% of American citizens could give a f (_) ck less about this entire conversation. This is nothing more than abortion, religion, and taxes - frivolous talk for politicians and stupid people who blindly support their preferred political party on any given topic.

If you're not in the military, you should have no care or input about this. If you're not showering with someone who is gay (and you are straight) then you should not have care or input on the topic.

Everyone else is just looking to argue with someone and be deemed the winner. Pure and simple. If you blame republicans, you're an idiot. If you blame democrats, you're an idiot. Blame yourselves for caring about a subject that in no way affects you, yet you put so much weight and importance on it because your political party tells you to.

< / end rant >

That's an odd attitude in a democracy which to be successful should have an informed citizenship. We should not discuss taxes because we are what? Going to be taxed anyway? Or we should not discuss abortion because if we need an abortion for a family member we can find one? That can only happen if the citizens continue to stay informed and coax our politicians to do the right thing and allow a woman the right to choose.

This topic, gays in the military is as you point out, not touching any one person personally but we should not discuss it? The fact that the the don't ask don't tell law is robbing our military of crucial personnel?

I have to disagree with you and hope that your opinion is never the rule of the day. When it is the citizenry of this democracy will no longer have a say in our government.

That would suck.

Sure, this discussion here does little to change anything but neither does one vote. Each discussion builds on another, each vote builds on another and we end up with Obama as President and not John McCain with Sarah Palin as VP.

I think the discussions and votes that caused that to happen were well worth it. I think any discussion which aids the removal of DADT is a very good thing. To say that only military personnel with a chance of taking a shower with a gay person is the only person who should be discussing it is just plain ludicrous.

The only people who should discuss the removal of the tax break on the ultra rich should be the ultra rich. Oh wait, that's what we had for eight years.

[edit] It isn't all left versus right. On this one I think it is time for Obama to kill the law.He can do it by himself. I think he sucks if he does not. See, it is not all left versus right. (OK, with DLC it is all Bush's fault).

Beat me to it, poly.

And I mean "beat" in a perfectly straight sense.

And by "straight" I mean . . . oh forget it.

Well without reading the posts below, my initial reaction is "Why shouldn't I care?"

It's unjust and IMO unAmerican... if gays want to serve, I don't care- let them, but if they're denied service based on myths and phobias - dammit I do care. Let them serve. IF I only cared about what affects me directly - that's pretty cold and selfish.. sorry I'm just not that kind of individual.
I care when anyone is wronged for BS reasons and conservative azzholes try to make demons out of them.

I have worked with many gays, both male and female, and they're no different that anyone else except for one thing and that didn't affect our interactions or productivity. Most of the ones I've met are very intelligent... maybe I've been very fortunate. SO it POs me that some neanderthals treat them different when it comes to service to this country. I believe they're being denied their rights as a citizen.

WoW - Poly

I have to say was well written.

Do you need to get a grip? Go make yourself useful and tell carp what irony is. I'm flummoxed which is not irony even though I am jack ass know it all. (It's a contradiction.)

If you are bewilder, thats really no fault of our own.
flummoxed <-- what you?

Get a grip? I'll have to consult Christine--although I am coming down with the grippe.

Irony is tough, as is satire, even down and dirty sarcasm. All of 'em require knowledge of some sort. So if I say, "Boy, today sure was a beautiful day," whether it's sarcastic or not depends on your knowing what kind of day it really was. Dramatic irony depends on the audience knowing something that the character does not know. Shakespeare's good at that. So at the end of 3.7 in <i>Lear</i> we see Cornwall and Regan gouge out Gloucester's eyes; in the next scene, as act 4 begins, we hear Gloucester's good son, Edgar, who doesn't know what's happened to his father, say that "The lamentable change is from the best; / The worst returns to laughter." Not one to lose out on the moment, Shakespeare then has the blind, blood-dripping Gloucester enter. Edgar sees him and recognizes the irony of his cheerful expectation that the universe is a sort of comedy waiting to break out: "O gods! Who is't can say 'I am at the worst'?"

Now that is irony.

JC JD. That's some pretty harsh crap man. You've made three posts today and out of those this thread and this one you've slammed. Have those Windows machines you've been stuck on got you wired? Or have you just forgotten your tumultuous roots here? I know you mentioned you were going to be too busy to participate much. If forum life no longer suits you for now I get it, but maybe you should consider bowing out and let the gang have their fun.

Just IMHO. Glad to see you're busy and employed though.

YoYo

I agree, I may need to re read it another 5 times.

Reboot
JD has his points - Sometimes it is better just to let it pass under the bridge - instead of always trying to be a Dam.

Just my opinion, the waters (treads) could flow farther and faster.

You'd better re-read his post, he insulted us all.

I know and thats just JD, meanwhile the rest of us insult each other - go figure

Or maybe just insults to me

Are you replying we are all brain washed by the media ? DADT is an important topic to discuss as it affects maybe some people in this website.

JD is oft times tactless and even brutal with his replies.

But you know, I didn't feel insulted. It is just his way. Doesn't mean it was NOT insulting to a few, some, most [ smile]. He's been here forever and I know of others I consider just a brutal, harsh, mean, etc. with responses at times.

I think moderators do a good job here. But things I object to [sex related, bodily functions, private manipulations of ones own body for enjoyment, etc.] get a pass as "acceptable" forum discussions. So just because sometimes people speak their own opinions and run thru here with "verbal shotguns" is not cause for moderation. Again, it is just my opinion. If such things go on for a time and appear to be creating a mob riot thread, then time to put a foot down or close it, I suppose.

We all have things to which we object.


.

Re Gizmo spraying the room: the guy was venting. He was frustrated - the rant says more about him and his impatience than it does any of us. Nice return serve by Poly.

I don't know that the world will change because of this thread's existence, but if we can't discuss these and other topics, what's the freakin' point of these forums in the first place?

Carry on.

Excellent sequence. Yep, I note the parallels.

I still love the coconut / sparrow scene

Where do I comment in any way that JD should be moderated or in any way censored? I only replied what I thought of his post. I hope he can continue to post as much stuff telling us we are all idiots for posting political stuff and I hope I can keep posting about masturbating for a healthy prostate.

You're on a tangent I did not intend if indeed you are replying to me.

Stepping on your turf?

I can't be the only jackass here, it would get boring. And are you "all" idiots? I doubt you all believe in religious fantasies and think you will go to hell if you masturbate. ;-O

Well, if a picture is worth a 1000 words a cartoon obviously ups that ante!



Here's a fact for you-if the above were true there would be no cartoon, no discussion and no discrimination.

I can't be the only jackass here,

Yes you are.

Reboot is the only Douche Bag

And there's only one carp.

Thank God.

To funny.

LOL

That dino is obviously gay. Just look at his fashion sense.

What? you don't like the sunglasses

It seemed to me that Reboot was redressing JD or moderating. I believe he has the right to go off half-cocked on occasion -- whatever the reason.

edit: whoops! used word incorrectly. Redress. Can't think of a good word I should have used. sorry, I ain't got no cooth! [ wink]


.

Yeah, I'm the bad guy. You guys piss and moan day in and day out in the Soapbox, send me PMs asking to delete this thread and that, complain about other people because they're being mean (all in the privacy of a PM or Moderator Notification)... and now you've decided that come hell or high-water, you're going to be personally offended at what I said in public.

Did it say anywhere in my post that I was referring to ANYONE here? I didn't start this topic, and I surely am not the one who has taken sides with Dems or Republicans on it. I'm not the one standing outside a building in DC or anywhere else with signs, nor am I on TV trying to shout louder than the idiot across from me. I'm just expressing my take on the topic, which is:

I don't see it as an issue at all because:
#1 I'm not gay
#2 I'm not in the military

Therefor, I don't feel I should have any say or real input on it whatsoever - and I don't think anyone else who falls in the same category as me (not gay, not in military) should have any say in it either. I just don't care if you're gay or straight, if you can take orders and shoot straight, then by all means join the military. And if a few jackass soldiers are paranoid or uncomfortable, well too friggin bad. Maybe they should quit rather than trying to keep someone else out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And that is my opinion, which I've chosen to post here. If you don't like it, well, I really don't care. And if you choose to interpret a post I make (such as Reboot apparently did and linked to earlier) as mean spirited or "bitching" - that's a YOU problem.

But you don't see my pissing and moaning or calling any of you out about the things you all say here on a daily basis that ranges from mildly annoying to rude, obnoxious, mean, and vomit inducing. Yeah, I'm a lot more direct about it sometimes, instead of tap-dancing around it and dressing my comments in a way that I can play a martyr after the fact. Sucks for me, I guess.

And before the oh-so-predictable response comes, I'll say now that the words "you," and "all" are meant as general terms, so you are reasonably prevented from using the "personal attack" B.S. response with a straight face as well.

Well, the human species is not an optimal one, so any results they produce are less than optimal.

The weak, defective, functionally-deficit get culled out of the other species, but humans insist on nurturing them.



Ed

Rather myopic.
Don't you know someone who is gay?
Don't you know someone who is in the military?
Do you only disagree with discrimination when it affects you personally?

Yeah I wouldn't want to keep someone like Stephen Hawking alive ! What good is that!? Beethoven was deaf... what a waste of a human being !! Van Gogh was half insane . . well you get the point! (maybe)

Gizmo, your post presumably meant to enlighten us only digs you deeper into a hole... Leslie's questions remain pertinent. Can I talk about Obama if I'm not black? How about if I'm not an American? I can't comment about gays or the military because I'm neither a soldier nor gay? How very silly.

I'm with Ed. Humans are a less than optimal species; forum exchanges tend to illustrate this quite vividly at times.

Discussing is one thing

allocating it to an all consuming issue
that tears at the very fabric of the forum..?
**or the country

maybe not so much.

Not to mention how it would cut short so many many many discussions about whether the Bucs or the Steelers are the better team. I am not now nor have I ever been a football player, so presumably I shouldn't have or express an opinion about that sport--or any other sport, for that matter. And I've never been a singer or musician so I have no opinion about music--or about any other art. And gee whiz, I might as well just give up my profession, cause I've never written a play so I should have nothing to say about Shakespeare. And I don't know how I can be a feminist since I'm not a woman. And no opinion about anything military cause I've never been in the armed forces.

I guess silence is golden.

Not just to VB...

Just asking..

I repeatedly read here how everyone
is Allowed Their Opinion..

Since when is keymaker not allowed his?

All I saw was him stating an opinion about
A) In Vitro Fertilization being both costly
to the Health Care System, and Potentially
Detrimental to the child in question.
and B) That traditional marriage & adoption
is universally recognized as the norm.

So.. why the Tar & Feathers?

Essentially the only times that km has anything to say it's (a) about reproductive differences of one sort or the other, opinions that he's certainly entitled to express but that, since on the whole they tend to suppress the right to choose alternatives to barrenness, for instance, he ought not to expect to be passed in silence, and (b) about homosexuality, a subject about which he invariably expresses a less than open approach to differences in sexual preference, again an opinion that he's certainly entitled to have and express, but which again he should not expect to be passed over in silence.

And the good Sgt. is right--there's no point in responding to the gentleman because he is unwilling to contemplate that his point of view is simply an opinion and not an expression of some unshakable truth. It's pointless to have a discussion with a person who has the truth. I've tried it with Jesus freaks and it doesn't work. I've tried it with km and there also it doesn't work. Discussion implies the possibility that one is wrong and able to change point of view. That just isn't the case with km.

The few time a thread ran for a while wherein
several people DISCUSSED EITHER Topic
(before it turned into purposeful blatant attacks)
it was actually a very interesting discussion.

Whether you agreed with them or not..
..it was marvelous to hear from both sides.


On the other hand..
when the discussion became too friendly or
started to actually get things sorted out,
someone would make it a point to throw
gasoline on the fire to get the fight going
again.
Once the turds started flying, from that point
onward, it was pointless to keep reading.

Well, the definitions for 'weak', 'defective', 'functionally deficit' are a little complicated and different from the general/naive, but there's no point in elucidating them.

Ed

O Rly??

It might help clear the air a bit if you did in fact elucidate to what you refer, lest people get the wrong impression ...

Suffice it to say, such terms that you are using may easily lead to misinterpretation ...

He is, just because hardly anyone agrees with him doesn't mean it's tar and feathers.

And if you don't realize he's the biggest troll around you really don't know him. He only posts to get a reaction, not to really discuss anything. 98% of his posts are in the Soapbox. He seems to have a hard time socializing as he rarely posts in the lounge. Look back through his posts. He's not here to socialize, which is his prerogative of course. He's here to battle, so that's the way he is dealt with by others.

He posts in the help forums if he needs something.

We reap what we sow, get it?

That's patently incorrect - most of my recent posts have been about BP, politics of one sort or another, iTunes, Web development issues and latterly the research methodology used to support 'expert' evidence in a Florida court case. Do you agree on reflection that your statement is wrong?


It's not opinions you have trouble with but facts.


Yeah, as long as the other person's wrong and not you.

km

#1 Yes, I do.
#2 Yes again.
#3 It's not that I disagree with this situation, it's that I believe that while I have my own opinion on the subject, I don't feel it's my place to stand up on television telling the world what is absolutely right or wrong with it - which is what is essentially happening - people take sides (sometimes rabidly) when they don't even "have a dog in the race."

I wasn't trying to enlighten anyone. Everyone appears to be sharing their opinion on this subject, and I shared mine - which is that while I have an opinion on the subject, (I'll use the same line as above) I don't have a dog in the race, so I feel like it's kind of not right to push it on others. This is essentially what's going on with this.

It reminds me of the whole abortion issue. Of course I have an opinion on it, but ultimately I'm not a woman, it's not my body, so I don't believe I should get a vote on the subject. An opinion yes, but a vote no.

Answered above.

Apparently you can, but I can't? I just shared my comment. Nowhere did I claim that nobody else can.

Yet I note your latest response is a good deal more tempered than the two which preceded it ... that much I can be thankful for.

I don't know that we can equate homosexuality with abortion or race. Not being of a particular race, gender or orientation shouldn't necessarily bar each of us from casting a vote on various issues - whether we 'have a dog in the race' or not (curious phrase when we're talking about women's bodies or people's skin colour).

Discussion/Debate is good, Co-Opting an issue
in order to use it as a platform from which to
launch attacks on those we disagree with is not.

CyberBullying

Well, this is not television but it is our "hallowed" space.
Why would you think you know what is absolutely right or wrong?
Of course we take sides, we "the people" believe what we believe. However, that does not dismiss discourse, in fact, this forum encourages you to tell me what you think. That is what I want.

And for your information, we all have a dog in this race; it is called the human race.

This reminds me o the arguments I would overhear while driving around with my older sisters in 1968. My sister's friend said that President Johnson had a reason for staying in Viet Nam. He had experts who could tell him and secret intelligence.

But she was wrong. And Bush was wrong about WMD. The experts did not know squat. And everything in between. We abdicate our responsibility to be an informed electorate and we get screwed.

Do we have to be gay and in the military to make an informed decision about Don't Ask Don't Tell? Do we have to be a tax lawyer to decide that taxes are bad if they are screwing us (middle class) or good if they are used for useful projects, (Cure cancer , build highways?) Do we have to be a woman to know the ramifications of making abortions illegal (back alley abortions)?

The list goes on and on. This idea that Johnson's and Nixon's supporters used back then is just as evil now as it ever was. Don't think. Do not figure it out. There are experts and people more involved that should make those decisions for you.

Thank you but no, I prefer to stay informed, to form opinions, to discuss them on a forum like this and change my opinion, and to not be lead around by the nose by experts.

Sure there are rabid voices both left and right in a forum like this. I think it is a great way to take the temperature of the nation. But there are also a lot more voices in the spectrum here that I value. I like to listen to the entire cacophony.

All god's children got a place in the choir ...

Yep, I guarantee anyone in the military who opposes gays serving would drop that position in a heartbeat if a gay was the only one standing between them and a bullet.

Well.. now that we're discussing instead of yelling
can I ask an honest question?

Never been in the service, nor in an open barracks,
Is the objection simply KNOWING someone's gay?
..or is it objecting to the 2 guys in the next cot
going at it and you being stuck having to deal
with whatever feelings you have about it?

Being trapped in a situation from which there's
no escape, nor authority that you can turn to?

As far as I'm concerned, a forum where the participants are too genteel to have a lively discussion is a deadly dull forum where taking the temperature of its members is a difficult - no, pointless - exercise. I would rather people rant than hold their tongue. I can always walk away if I find someone's arguments ridiculous, or if they decide they wish to ignore me or even berate me. I can choose to fight back or to take a high road or to just shut up... and like any of us, my own choices in that regard are often rash.

But to have an artificially antiseptic place where no discussion of weighty current events is encouraged - well, that would suck.

I vote for the continued harmony of discord. Gizmo is welcome any time to blast the blasters. It would not be a forum if we all agreed to symbolically hold hands and think nice thoughts of one another, 24/7.

For sure. You all start holding hands singing kumbaya and I really will be out the door and I will be taking my ball too.

Break out into choruses of "We Are the World." Right-o.

Gimmeeabrake!

There's a vast difference between the kumaya/cream-o-wheat
in the Lounge and "THE THREADS THAT WOULDN'T DIE!"

Isn't it possible to have SOMETHING SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN?

We are the children.

You know, I used to find that song impossibly saccharine - still do, really - but that one line is pretty good.

The only reason the thread does not die is because those engaged are passionate about the topic. It usually comes down to 2/4 people who hang around trying to get their point across to the others. When people get bored, they leave.

Ain't that the truth. Stale threads are rarely resuscitated... fresh energy tends to be poured into fresh threads, even if they embody the same themes that have been gone over umpteen times before.

Only if everyone felt like you do about it, huh? Tricky, isn't it? Others have the freedom to drag it out if they want.

Just don't participate in it if you don't like it.

I wasn't the one who dubbed them "The Threads That Wouldn't Die"

Certain topics go on and on simply because you'll never get everyone on side. Thankfully! I can scarcely imagine a world in which everyone agreed. Chronic boredom!

Guys,

Find a way to get along so that I don't have to step in here. Seriously. I don't have the time between:

* my dad being in the hospital for 9 weeks now
* my daughter's bat mitzvah this weekend
* MacTech Conference Nov 3-5

and some other really large things consuming my time, I do not have the time to play parent here.

Everyone take a deep breath and get along. And, for everyone that wants to private message, IM, or email me about this now ... don't. Just get along.

I would rather focus my time on the integration and other items that are far deeper a task than they seem on the surface.

Neil

Did I miss something? Who's not getting along?

I'm a little mystified too, Leslie. Nothing to see here . . . move along.

Sure. If a thread continues, "you're a homophobe" "no I'm not" "yes you are" infinity, we all know how stupid it is. The personal attacks are stupid and threads that switch to that are just plain dumb. It's unfortunate that some good threads get derailed too quickly by this tactic to try to shut someone up but we all can see how dumb it is and don't need someone pointing it out.

But only if you are a participant. Don't participate, don't become forum cop pointing out stupid,(yes, I have committed this offense and I call myself really stupid for doing it), just ignore it. Stupid eventually peters out .

i didn't participate (post)
but was content to read along hoping to learn something

When the turd flinging would begin, it was pointless
to read any further.

Still no worries... let them slug it out in the corner.

When it was dragged into just about every OTHER Thread
it got irritating.

"My dog has fleas."
"Prolly because your dog is a homophobe too!"


Look around..

..where'd everybody go?

Hmmmmm... I don't see the problem myself. Today it's been rather tame in here.

Celandine: if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen... works for most of us. Best thing you can do sometimes is step away from the keyboard and get outside, find a change in perspective. All this is, when you come down to it, is a bunch of people tapping away from various points on the globe. Really wonderful on one level, but also pretty inconsequential on another. No one is creating toxic threads that are poisoning other threads - it's more a matter of us all reaching our own independent saturation levels. Get outside a bit and the levels climb down. Pretty simple.

Sounds to me like some unhappy participants in this thread are PMing or emailing the "boss". !!!! Hard to believe.

I think I read in a post something about ". . .just don't participate." I read a lot of posts threads etc. but don't participate.Seems like talking to some people is like talking to a brick wall. You KNOW they aren't going to change their opinion anyway.

I'm still here reading these forums so I guess I am still entertained by them. Good, bad or indifferent. Some really give me big laughs.

I agree that having persons with differing opinions is what keeps the place worth reading.


.

And I totally agree with you.

Well I DON'T I think you're both wrong !!

Meet us both outside in 10 minutes.

Well if your going outside for smoke make sure its 20 feet from the forum

LOL

LOL

What was it? NY was going the same way as Hawaii non smoking laws recently?

In Canada you must be at least 3 meters away from any public entrance.That has been around for at least a year. More in some provinces.
Watch out, our smoke is coming your way!

In Hawaii.

1 - 20 foot rule from any door way and from any window are non smoking - so if your working in the city you have to be standing in the streets to smoke. We don't have 20 foot wide sidewalks.

2 - No smoking in (any buildings) public or private. This includes hotels, restaurants and bars. You will not find a smoking room anywhere in the state.

3 - No smoking in public parks, courtyards and sidewalks includes bus stops.

4 - No smoking on State property outside and inside - Like with state parks - this includes if you drop your kids off at school - you cannot smoke even in the parking lot. <-- I was warned about that once

Pending laws if passed? They tried it once, now going for a 2nd run.

1 - No smoking while driving

2 - No smoking at home <- if you have children.

Side note; Hawaii already has.

1 - No public drinking - alcohol
This means any beach any park, State or County

OH no, I know better... you and Kate would trounce me....

besides, I couldn't strike a MacBabe. John and Neil would throw me out !

The reason for my post is that I was getting PMs complaining about the thread. It looks like the post gave people time to think and resolve.

Thanks for that.

I did not notice it was getting over-heated. Guess, as you say, it was all going on behind the scenes. In any event, looks pretty cool in here now.


Hope the bat mitzvah went well and also that your father is restored to health.