What is cruel and intolerant on this message board?

[_charity]

Truth dancer, what I am wondering, and wish you would actually address, is what specifically I do that is mean and nasty. The dumb down remark is the only thing specifically (except for Moniker's problems with the adjustment of teenage girls following divorce which still mystifies my why she is so upset about that because she won't explain why).

So please, quote me a mean and nasty things I said.

Charity, I believe you're being disingenuous. Notice I said "believe". Did you read my reply to you on this thread? The topic of conversation was RAPE -- not teenage girls coping with divorce. You keep trying to change it. You said WOMEN that seek male companionship in a quest for love are neurotic when they were abandoned by their fathers. I take issue with it because 1. Neurosis is not used by the mental health community for 25+ years. 2. Neurosis does not affect rational thought or the ability to consent.

Thank you for giving me some feedback.

You have mischaracterized what I said. This is what I said: Young women who are abandoned by their fathers tend
to engage in sexual relationshipos with multiple partners, not because they are looking for love as you said, but because they are looking for a father relationship. (This does not mean they want sex with their fathers.) They don't know how to related to men other than in a sexual way.

Truth dancer said I think of things in white and black. I am approaching this issue as a gray issue. So, if a person says yes, we can have sex, that is consent? Not always. Too young. Not mentally competent. Drunk. None of those conditions allows for consent, even if the woman says yes. I think a case could be made for a lack of consent if there is the young woman is engaging in abnormal behavior. One of the four defining characteristics used in psychology to determine if a behavior is abnormal is if the behavior does not produce the results the behavior is intended to produce.

The young woman wants a fatherly relationship. She is engaging in sex in a futile attempt to get it. That is abnormal. Now, is it abnormal enough to institute a case of rape in the district attorney's office. No. But is she really give consent for sex? Not really. I provided a reference which states that girls in families with divorce start sexual behavior earlier, get pregnant earlier, marry earlier, and divorce more frequently. All of these behaviors are considered in our society to be evidences of dysfunctionality.


I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know!


Debates shift on these threads. Someone comments on something that is off the original topic and somebody responds. If you don't like the shift, you don't have to reply. You can start another thread, invite the person to participate. I tend to follow sidetracks. You don't have to.
I think bringing the "nuts and sluts" remark to this board was cruel. Why? If there is a woman on this board that does believe she fits that description (TRUST ME -- not me -- my parents have been married for 35+ years) and you say people in the mental health profession refer to them as "nuts and sluts" that is not caring, not empathetic, not sensitive.

I did not say mental health professionals refer to people as "nuts and sluts." I said that is what the class in abnormal behavior is referred to in slang terms on college campuses. See? You get mad because you think I said things I didn't say!
WHAT was your purpose for placing those words on this board? And even WORSE is if you actually do believe these women are raped when they have sex (yet, I don't really believe you think that) is you are ridiculing them and making a rape victim (according to you these woman are rape victims) feel shamed. WHY? THIS IS CRUEL!

I specifically said I NEVER SAID THAT. I said other people referred to abnormal psych classes as that. It had nothing to do with rape victims. So, according to you, I should not have mentioned it all. Okay. But I will look forward to you becoming equally outraged at vicious things that are said by other posters at me. Which is what the real topic of this thread is.

CFR (10+ times now) that these women are not capable of consent and are therefore raped.

I have replied 10+ times that this is a conclusion one could reach from the FACTS that young women who have been abandonded by their father engage in multiple sexual relationships looking for a father figure.

I'd also like to know which school refers to supposed rape victims as "nuts and sluts".

I keep having to caution you to read more carefully. I never said that any school, group, person, etc. refers to rape victims as nuts and sluts. I SAID that this is what the course on abnormal psychology is referred to in slang terms on college campuses.

You really have no reason to be angry. Everything you have charged against me is only a product of your own misunderstanding.
.[/quote]

[_BishopRic]

I think some people have left the Church for reasons not associated with the truth or lack of it. They have learned somethng about the history or some other area that is a challenge Their intellects overwhelm them and they lose their testimonies. But deep down they still know its true.

I find this comment so very odd. I've heard this excuse from others as well. Could you give us some examples of folks who you feel might fit this description? Why do you think this? Is it so difficult to believe that people truly do NOT believe in the LDS church because it doesn't seem true or feel holy to them?

[color=blue]
You have illustrated here one of the "problems" others seem to have with me. I often make comments which include the word "some." Posters often skip over that word and think I said "all." I only said "some" people might still know the Church is true on a subconscious level. I think there are others who don't believe for the reason you said.

My feeling about this is that the statement (I hear it often, referring to me) is a psychological survival ploy for the Mormon. First, I've always, even as a member, hated the emphasis on "know." It falsely teaches people that they can know that the church is true, which I believe is false. I'm not arguing that they have what they interpret as a spiritual witness indicating something, but the drive for this conviction, and the chronic verbalization (and pressure to do such) of "knowing the church is true" does nothing more than locking their functioning mind from new knowledge and growth.

Since it is hammered from birth that it is achievable, and once obtained, will always be there unless the devil is allowed to completely steal the heart of the victim, then it must be believed that one who leaves may be able to "soften his heart and listen to the spirit," and eventually return to the fold as a testimony holding believer. Anything else throws water on the whole paradigm.

Of course there are some that leave, then return to the church. I suspect that most of them say that they "always knew it was true, but lost the spirit for a minute...etc.." This reiterates the false paradigm. What must be done by the members like Charity, to really understand the exmo reality, is to simply accept and believe what we say about our beliefs -- that we don't believe it on all levels - spiritually, logically, emotionally...and that's okay, and may even be better for us.

[_charity]

My feeling about this is that the statement (I hear it often, referring to me) is a psychological survival ploy for the Mormon. First, I've always, even as a member, hated the emphasis on "know." It falsely teaches people that they can know that the church is true, which I believe is false. I'm not arguing that they have what they interpret as a spiritual witness indicating something, but the drive for this conviction, and the chronic verbalization (and pressure to do such) of "knowing the church is true" does nothing more than locking their functioning mind from new knowledge and growth.

I don't think any person can know, strike that, understand why one other person made the decision to leave the Church. In general, I think we have to take any individual's own statement at face value. That doesn't mean that as a general principle, we can't understand multiple reasons why people could make that decision.

So, in my opinion, anyone who says that to you should not be saying that.

I understand but completely disagree with you position on "knowing." I did not grow up in the Church. I was not taught, indoctrinated, or had modeled for me the experience of "knowing." I experienced it for myself without any prior description.

Since it is hammered from birth that it is achievable, and once obtained, will always be there unless the devil is allowed to completely steal the heart of the victim, then it must be believed that one who leaves may be able to "soften his heart and listen to the spirit," and eventually return to the fold as a testimony holding believer. Anything else throws water on the whole paradigm.

I think this still leaves you with the need to explain why those who were not in the Church from birth will have such an experience as I described, without prior experience.

Of course there are some that leave, then return to the church. I suspect that most of them say that they "always knew it was true, but lost the spirit for a minute...etc.." This reiterates the false paradigm. What must be done by the members like Charity, to really understand the exmo reality, is to simply accept and believe what we say about our beliefs -- that we don't believe it on all levels - spiritually, logically, emotionally...and that's okay, and may even be better for us.

People are capable of change. I know of people who have been active, left, and come back. I accept their statements. Just as you do not want anyone to ascribe a reason to your actions, I don't think you should do that to others. I believe that there are many of you who have left the Church have done what you said, and it may even be better for you. But not everyone is the same.

[_Moniker]

Truth dancer, what I am wondering, and wish you would actually address, is what specifically I do that is mean and nasty. The dumb down remark is the only thing specifically (except for Moniker's problems with the adjustment of teenage girls following divorce which still mystifies my why she is so upset about that because she won't explain why).

So please, quote me a mean and nasty things I said.

Charity, I believe you're being disingenuous. Notice I said "believe". Did you read my reply to you on this thread? The topic of conversation was RAPE -- not teenage girls coping with divorce. You keep trying to change it. You said WOMEN that seek male companionship in a quest for love are neurotic when they were abandoned by their fathers. I take issue with it because 1. Neurosis is not used by the mental health community for 25+ years. 2. Neurosis does not affect rational thought or the ability to consent.

Thank you for giving me some feedback.

You have mischaracterized what I said. This is what I said: Young women who are abandoned by their fathers tend
to engage in sexual relationshipos with multiple partners, not because they are looking for love as you said, but because they are looking for a father relationship. (This does not mean they want sex with their fathers.) They don't know how to related to men other than in a sexual way.

This is what you said:

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?


Quote:

Because neurotic behavior is mental illness when it leads to damage to the person. So, you are okay with women who are engaging in risky sexual behavior due to mental illness just because they want to?

Hmmm... I think you did say precisely what I said you said. This is so frustrating for me. You say they have a mental illness. CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR!

A mental disorder should be pretty easy to come up with if it exists. Please do not reply until you find one. Neurosis doesn't cut it -- since it's not valid anymore by mental health professionals -- AND the woman still has the ability to make rational decisions.

So, if a person says yes, we can have sex, that is consent? Not always. Too young. Not mentally competent. Drunk. None of those conditions allows for consent, even if the woman says yes. I think a case could be made for a lack of consent if there is the young woman is engaging in abnormal behavior. One of the four defining characteristics used in psychology to determine if a behavior is abnormal is if the behavior does not produce the results the behavior is intended to produce.

Geez, Charity, I get that there are times when people are incapable of giving consent. YOU SAID THESE WOMEN CAN NOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY SUFFER FROM A MENTAL DISORDER -- WHAT IS IT????

The young woman wants a fatherly relationship. She is engaging in sex in a futile attempt to get it. That is abnormal. Now, is it abnormal enough to institute a case of rape in the district attorney's office. No. But is she really give consent for sex? Not really. I provided a reference which states that girls in families with divorce start sexual behavior earlier, get pregnant earlier, marry earlier, and divorce more frequently. All of these behaviors are considered in our society to be evidences of dysfunctionality.

Sheesh, I don't dispute that women seek love sometimes by having sex -- many women do this regardless of issues with their father! Sure, dysfunctional I'll accept -- WHERE IS THE MENTAL ILLNESS!???!! CFR AGAIN!

(I'm not screaming at you -- I just hope you'll notice the CAP words;)

I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know!


Debates shift on these threads. Someone comments on something that is off the original topic and somebody responds. If you don't like the shift, you don't have to reply. You can start another thread, invite the person to participate. I tend to follow sidetracks. You don't have to.

The only participants in this debate is YOU AND I -- who is shifting it? NOT ME!

I think bringing the "nuts and sluts" remark to this board was cruel. Why? If there is a woman on this board that does believe she fits that description (TRUST ME -- not me -- my parents have been married for 35+ years) and you say people in the mental health profession refer to them as "nuts and sluts" that is not caring, not empathetic, not sensitive.

I did not say mental health professionals refer to people as "nuts and sluts." I said that is what the class in abnormal behavior is referred to in slang terms on college campuses. See? You get mad because you think I said things I didn't say!

Again, do you think that if a woman that fits your description wouldn't be pained by the "nuts and sluts" remark I think you are missing my entire point. Do you not see how that could be hurtful? Seriously? I want to know what your motive was for typing that on this board.

WHAT was your purpose for placing those words on this board? And even WORSE is if you actually do believe these women are raped when they have sex (yet, I don't really believe you think that) is you are ridiculing them and making a rape victim (according to you these woman are rape victims) feel shamed. WHY? THIS IS CRUEL!

I specifically said I NEVER SAID THAT. I said other people referred to abnormal psych classes as that. It had nothing to do with rape victims. So, according to you, I should not have mentioned it all. Okay. But I will look forward to you becoming equally outraged at vicious things that are said by other posters at me. Which is what the real topic of this thread is.

I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU TYPED IT. by the way, you just using the terms and saying -- NOT ME -- SOMEONE ELSE THINKS OF THESE WOMEN AS "NUTS AND SLUTS" is for what purpose? So? So what if others refer to these women by these terms? YOU USED THE TERMS ON THIS BOARD!

I HAVE TAKEN ISSUE WITH THINGS SAID ABOUT YOU! MORE THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD! I WENT ROUNDS FOR PAGES WHEN YOU WERE CALLED A VERY UGLY TERM! I have defended you repeatedly!!!

CFR (10+ times now) that these women are not capable of consent and are therefore raped.

I have replied 10+ times that this is a conclusion one could reach from the FACTS that young women who have been abandonded by their father engage in multiple sexual relationships looking for a father figure.

NO! I WANT A MENTAL DISORDER -- THAT IS THE CFR!

I'd also like to know which school refers to supposed rape victims as "nuts and sluts".
[color=blue]
I keep having to caution you to read more carefully. I never said that any school, group, person, etc. refers to rape victims as nuts and sluts. I SAID that this is what the course on abnormal psychology is referred to in slang terms on college campuses.

Well, which school was that? I certainly hope you took them to task. I've taken psychology courses and have NEVER heard anyone refer to those that suffer from mental disorders in such crass terms.

You really have no reason to be angry. Everything you have charged against me is only a product of your own misunderstanding.

I'm not angry. I am frustrated.

[_charity]

This is what you said:

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

Quote:

Because neurotic behavior is mental illness when it leads to damage to the person. So, you are okay with women who are engaging in risky sexual behavior due to mental illness just because they want to?

Hmmm... I think you did say precisely what I said you said. This is so frustrating for me. You say they have a mental illness. CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR!

American Heritage Dictionary -mental llness
n. Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors.

So let me ask you, a young woman engaging in risky sexual behavior, exposing herself to disease, to unwanted pregnancy, to emotional trauma BECAUSE of the social factor of being abandonded by her father. Is this "normal, cognitive, emotional, behavioral functioning? Seems to fit the definition to me.

There is your reference.

A mental disorder should be pretty easy to come up with if it exists. Please do not reply until you find one. Neurosis doesn't cut it -- since it's not valid anymore by mental health professionals -- AND the woman still has the ability to make rational decisions.

See above.

So, if a person says yes, we can have sex, that is consent? Not always. Too young. Not mentally competent. Drunk. None of those conditions allows for consent, even if the woman says yes. I think a case could be made for a lack of consent if there is the young woman is engaging in abnormal behavior. One of the four defining characteristics used in psychology to determine if a behavior is abnormal is if the behavior does not produce the results the behavior is intended to produce.

Geez, Charity, I get that there are times when people are incapable of giving consent.

We are beginning to make progress.

YOU SAID THESE WOMEN CAN NOT CONSENT BECAUSE THEY SUFFER FROM A MENTAL DISORDER -- WHAT IS IT????

Again, you are saying what I didn't say. Some. Not all.

The young woman wants a fatherly relationship. She is engaging in sex in a futile attempt to get it. That is abnormal. Now, is it abnormal enough to institute a case of rape in the district attorney's office. No. But is she really give consent for sex? Not really. I provided a reference which states that girls in families with divorce start sexual behavior earlier, get pregnant earlier, marry earlier, and divorce more frequently. All of these behaviors are considered in our society to be evidences of dysfunctionality.

Sheesh, I don't dispute that women seek love sometimes by having sex -- many women do this regardless of issues with their father! Sure, dysfunctional I'll accept -- WHERE IS THE MENTAL ILLNESS!???!! CFR AGAIN!

Look at the definiton. Mental illness equals dysfunctional. Of course theree are different degrees of dyfunctionality. Don't think in such black and white terms.

I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know. The only participants in this debate is YOU AND I -- who is shifting it? NOT ME!

You are tilting at windmills. Look at the definition. You have accepted dysfunctionality. Dyfuncutionality is a mental disorder. Case closed.

I did not say mental health professionals refer to people as "nuts and sluts." I said that is what the class in abnormal behavior is referred to in slang terms on college campuses. See? You get mad because you think I said things I didn't say![/b][/color]

Again, do you think that if a woman that fits your description wouldn't be pained by the "nuts and sluts" remark I think you are missing my entire point. Do you not see how that could be hurtful? Seriously? I want to know what your motive was for typing that on this board.

From the dictionary: slut, n. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous. A woman prostitute.
A slovenly woman; a slattern.

So what is hurtful? That the name "slut" is applied to a sexuall promiscuous woman or prostitute? Does it change the promiscuity or occupation? It seems to me that the "hurtful" part is that the person is promiscuous or a prostitute. Do you think prostitutes really think what they are doing is moral and honest and are shocked and hurt if someone calles them a slut?

I just threw the term out on the board. Nothing that hasn't been done by other posters as they toss derogatory terms around. You just haven't objected to the practice by others. I want to know what brought out such ire when I did it. I didn't name anyone specifically, as other posters have done, either.

I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU TYPED IT. by the way, you just using the terms and saying -- NOT ME -- SOMEONE ELSE THINKS OF THESE WOMEN AS "NUTS AND SLUTS" is for what purpose? So? So what if others refer to these women by these terms? YOU USED THE TERMS ON THIS BOARD!


I HAVE TAKEN ISSUE WITH THINGS SAID ABOUT YOU! MORE THAN ANYONE ON THIS BOARD! I WENT ROUNDS FOR PAGES WHEN YOU WERE CALLED A VERY UGLY TERM! I have defended you repeatedly!!!

Thanks for the defense.

Look, Moniker, if I had known this would be such a hot button issue for you, I wouldn't have typed it. I am sorry it is so upsetting to you. If I could take it back I would so you could spend your energy on something more worthwhile than a throw away comment on a message board.

I did not insult any particular person, I said I never used the term, I said it was a slang term used on college campuses. No one should have been insulted by what I said.

NO! I WANT A MENTAL DISORDER -- THAT IS THE CFR!

You have it.

I'd also like to know which school refers to supposed rape victims as "nuts and sluts". Well, which school was that? I certainly hope you took them to task. I've taken psychology courses and have NEVER heard anyone refer to those that suffer from mental disorders in such crass terms.

Again, Moniker, SCHOOLS neve referred to any rape victim in that way. The only time the term was used was in reference to ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY CLASSES. Not people. Students use the term at Oregon State Universitiy, Portland State University, the University of Washington, UCLA, to name a few that I know of specifically. Again, it was individual STUDENTS, not health professionals, professors, etc. STUDENTS. I have also heard students use the b word.

Let me repeat: Students made the reference to Abnormal Psych classes.
No rape victim was called that.
No school ever titled their course that.
No health professional ever used the term.

Now do you have it straight?

You really have no reason to be angry. Everything you have charged against me is only a product of your own misunderstanding.

I'm not angry. I am frustrated.

Then please read my post, understand what I told you to straighten out the misunderstandings, and calm down.

[_the road to hana]

Then please read my post, understand what I told you to straighten out the misunderstandings, and calm down.

Charity, I'd just like to point out amid all this mayhem that it's a tribute to Dr. Shades that you're even able to have a thread like this on this discussion board.

Over on MADB, personal threads are not allowed. This thread has continued three pages on a topic that could never exist there.

My own opinion is that nothing is really served by continuing it further, since you feel misunderstood and mistreated, and that's unlikely to change. But I'm happy you're able to post in an environment where you can have the discussion unhindered, even if it bears no fruit.

[_Moniker]

This is what you said:

Since you like scenarios, let's try this one. A young woman has been rejeced and abandoned by her father. This creates what psychologists call "father hunger." She wants approval and love from her father and because she doesn't know how to behave appropriately to meet her neurotic need, she behaves seductively toward men and engages in sexual liasons with multiple partners. She isn't really looking for sex. She wants love. Has she been raped? Does the sexual intercourse cause her trauma?

Quote:

Because neurotic behavior is mental illness when it leads to damage to the person. So, you are okay with women who are engaging in risky sexual behavior due to mental illness just because they want to?

Hmmm... I think you did say precisely what I said you said. This is so frustrating for me. You say they have a mental illness. CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR! CFR!

American Heritage Dictionary -mental llness
n. Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors.

So let me ask you, a young woman engaging in risky sexual behavior, exposing herself to disease, to unwanted pregnancy, to emotional trauma BECAUSE of the social factor of being abandonded by her father. Is this "normal, cognitive, emotional, behavioral functioning? Seems to fit the definition to me.

There is your reference.

Charity, which mental illness? You provide proof that women that engage in the behavior you describe above fit under a mental illness, please?

Geez, Charity, I get that there are times when people are incapable of giving consent.

We are beginning to make progress.

Charity, what in the world are you talking about? We went for pages on this on the other thread. I defined consent twice for you on that thread and we discussed in detail how some women were incapable of consent. I want proof that these women suffer from a mental illness (not the definition) and it is shown they are incapable of consent -- rational thought. Are you now willing to retract that they are neurotic?

I feel like I'm in bizarro land. Does anyone else have trouble following what Charity said in regards to these women, my replies, and Charity's shifting the debate? Maybe it's just me?? I don't know. The only participants in this debate is YOU AND I -- who is shifting it? NOT ME!

You are tilting at windmills. Look at the definition. You have accepted dysfunctionality. Dyfuncutionality is a mental disorder. Case closed.

Opening it back up. :)

Does "dysfunctionality" relate to a woman's ability to give consent.

Again, do you think that if a woman that fits your description wouldn't be pained by the "nuts and sluts" remark I think you are missing my entire point. Do you not see how that could be hurtful? Seriously? I want to know what your motive was for typing that on this board.

From the dictionary: slut, n. A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous. A woman prostitute.
A slovenly woman; a slattern.

So what is hurtful? That the name "slut" is applied to a sexuall promiscuous woman or prostitute? Does it change the promiscuity or occupation? It seems to me that the "hurtful" part is that the person is promiscuous or a prostitute. Do you think prostitutes really think what they are doing is moral and honest and are shocked and hurt if someone calles them a slut?

Oh, my goodness. We're not talking about prostitutues. You said these women have been raped -- would YOU find it offensive if a rape victim is called a "slut"?

I just threw the term out on the board. Nothing that hasn't been done by other posters as they toss derogatory terms around. You just haven't objected to the practice by others. I want to know what brought out such ire when I did it. I didn't name anyone specifically, as other posters have done, either.

YES I HAVE OBJECTED! I have objected when you were called a "douche", when harmony was called a "c**t". I go round with the guys on this board that use these terms to demean certain women. I asked them to refer to their wives and daughters by those terms -- and they booked it in the debate.

[_skippy the dead]

"Amid all this mayhem" I've realized that the cranky-level on the board this week has just exhausted my brain. I realize we all get caught up in various discussions, but it's gotten to the point where I need a short recess.

And although it's obviously an unpopular stance, I wouldn't mind if folks quit dredging up Charity's past "offenses" (for lack of a better word) and hammering her with them. If the past is any indicator, she'll give people plenty more to respond to moving forward (and no Charity - I don't mean that offensively; it's just the board dynamics). It would be nice to see something new discussed.

See y'all in a bit.

[_Moniker]

"Amid all this mayhem" I've realized that the cranky-level on the board this week has just exhausted my brain. I realize we all get caught up in various discussions, but it's gotten to the point where I need a short recess.

And although it's obviously an unpopular stance, I wouldn't mind if folks quit dredging up Charity's past "offenses" (for lack of a better word) and hammering her with them. If the past is any indicator, she'll give people plenty more to respond to moving forward (and no Charity - I don't mean that offensively; it's just the board dynamics). It would be nice to see something new discussed.

See y'all in a bit.

I'll stop. I have been very cranky with Charity. I apologized to her and she referred to me again in the discussion -- and I should have just ignored her.

Bye Skippy.

Bye Charity.

[_charity]

I started this thread wanting to discuss the difference bewteen what is called outrageous, cruel, etc. for some posters, but not others. That never quite got off the ground.

I have answered Moniker over and over again. I cannot say it any more plainly than I have said, and she keeps putting words in my mouth, demanding what has already been provided, etc.

I am done, too.