anonemouse

You know, I really find all the fuss over this thread quite amusing. Heck, people even started a whole other thread just to bitch! Hasn't it occured to any of them that the more they fuss, the more attention they bring to this thread? Common sense says that if you want a thread to die, you stop posting to it, and you stop posting to a thread complaining about the first one. The more you bump a thread to the top, and the more you fuss about a certain thread, the more people are curious and interested. The end result? The thread that you want to die goes on. On the other hand, if you ignore said thread, eventually other people will too (especially if there isn't any controversy).

I'm not offended by the post, so why do I need reasoning to bump it to the top? I was just wondering about the reasoning behind why people (I wasn't really referring to just you, I'd noticed several people doing it) post to threads that they find offensive. I thought it was fairly obvious that the more posts a thread gets and the more often it gets bumped to the top of the list, the more attention it gets. If I ever want a thread to die, I ignore it and hope everyone else does the same. I certainly don't post in it and bring more attention to it. I don't know about anyone else, but I found the title of the thread to be quite informative. What did you think "boylove" meant?

I was wondering about this. What's the thought behind posting to a thread (essentially bringing more attention to it by bumping it up), just to ask that people ignore it? Wouldn't not posting to the thread and being one less person to bump it to the top essentially work better than bringing attention to it? Eventually, as people stop posting to a thread, the thread is ignored. The more often a thread is bumped to the top, the more attention it gets.

Currently acceptable or currently acknowledged? Something being talked about and acknowledged in today's world doesn't mean that it is accepted. The exception to this, of course, are those things that don't hurt anyone. Jim being gay doesn't hurt anyone. Jill not being a virgin on her wedding night doesn't hurt anyone. LuAnn having a baby 6 months after her wedding night doesn't hurt anyone. Those things are acceptable because they harm no one. Pedophilia may be talked about and the occurance of it may be acknowledged, but it will never be accepted, simply because of the fact that it is, by definition, rape.

I agree, Lisah25. Things really haven't changed very much. Things may be more open today, but they still happened 30 or 40 years ago. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are more acceptable, just that we're more honest. Of course, certain things are more acceptable, simply because we have come to the realization that it really doesn't matter whether Jane had sex before she was married or if Jim is gay or if LuAnn had a child six months after she got married. It doesn't make them immoral or bad people. The fact remains, though, that there is a difference between things like that and having sex with a child. Pedophilia will NEVER be acceptable in our society.

That is just so typical. I think you are a very bright lady mousecrazy and I agree with a good portion of what you say. But censorship is not the answer. How can the moderators be in a position of deciding which content is unacceptable? The fact is, so much of what has been said on various threads here is highly offensive to me. So, should those threads be removed? If you don't like this thread, don't read it. This is the rants and raves section. If you don't like it, don't read it. You conservative religious folks simply do not get to dictate to others what they can read, or, more significantly, how they live. This precise confrontation is the exact reason I posted this thread. Thank you for helping. And by the way, I want to reiterate, I have nothing personal against you at all and, indeed, even find myself agreeing with you from time to time. I agree with this. The only people here who have the right to determine what the rest of us can or can't read are the moderators. Like Alexandra said, anyone here has the right to complain, but the final decision lies with them. The thread may offend your sensibilities, but if we deleted or locked all threads that anyone found offensive, there wouldn't be any threads in RnR. I am personally highly offended by several of the threads and posts here in RnR, but you haven't seen me asking the moderators to delete those threads, have you? The fact is, it is a parent's responsibility to keep their kids out of certain websites and away from certain threads here, if they wish. If you don't want your kids seeing it, don't let them. It's that simple. You have no right, however, to determine what WE can look at. We aren't your kids.

Especially when you have views that aren't exactly popular with some people. That's why I got attacked, anyway, and had my feelings hurt enough that I lashed out. Several people apparently decided to punish me for my political views and were hurting my "rep-power".

I think I will start doing that this summer. I have several recipes that I just do by memory, but every so often, I'll forget and have to think if I used two eggs or four. And of course, by that time, I've thrown out the original recipe.

We've got a few of those charity cookbooks (you know, the ones made by churches, Rotary, or the radiology department of the local hospital) laying around somewhere. I never use them because I am never sure about what a lot of the ingredients are. I've had to ask my mom what oleo was, for example. I'll stick with BC and the old Southern Living yearly cookbooks. I found the BEST ham, celery, onion, an brown sugar stuffed acorn squash recipe in one of those. I just can't remember which year it was, damn it!

Those are CUTE! If I didn't hate kids so much, I'd have one just to buy baby clothes. (just joking, so don't kill me, anyone)

If you are into wildlife or anything like that, the Everglades are great around that time of year. It's not as hot or as buggy as it is in the wet season. There are lots of trails and little things to do. Of course, Yellowstone would be good, too, but cold. If you are more the "be lazy on a beach" type, a trip to the Bahamas or Mexico would be good.

Jack, I think I am going to take a page from BJean's book (from another thread). Feel free to respond to any of my posts, but I won't be seeing them.

And the customers don't have to order Rocky Mountain Oysters if they don't want to. The restaurant can still serve them to the customers that do.

You want to be able to discriminate and violate the Constitution, Jack, and yet you still want your Second Amendment rights (ignoring the fact that the Supreme Court disagrees with you about what those rights are). Don't you see the irony there? And the fact is, if they are accepting government funding, they have to play by the government's rules. And that means no discrimination.

Yes, it is, actually. You see, they are standing up for the spirit of the law. Free speech means nothing if only the people that have agreeable messages can use it.

I could understand the outrage if that thread was actually endorsing the practice of pedophilia. It's isn't, though. Every single post in the thread is expressing absolute disgust with it. How is that not acceptable? And again, if you hate the thread and think it is improper, don't look at it. It's really that simple.

Well, there isn't any rule forcing you to look at it. If you don't want to, don't. It has no pictures or anything like that in it, it was simply posted to get discussion going. Sort of a "That's disgusting" post, IMO.

How does something become offensive on a cat forum?

I like her until she laughs or says something like "romantical". It's like fingernails on a chalkboard to me. Seriously, I twitch every timer I hear her laugh.

To me, you can't get much better than my tattered old version of the Betty Crocker cookbook. I love it because it gives detailed instructions, and it has explanations of commonly used terms and techniques. Plus, lots of pictures. I really need to start my own recipe collection. I have an entire drawer at my parents' house filled with cookbooks and cut-outs of recipes. I need to sit down at the computer one day and type them all up and put them in a binder that I can eventually pass down.

Apparently, you can only be a contributing member of OH if you always agree with everyone else and never post anything that can be taken even remotely offensively. To me, it totally defies the whole point of a message board. Don't like a certain person? Have all replies that they've made to your threads or posts deleted. Someone disagreed with you? Have their post deleted. The whole thing is stupid. To top it off, apparently lots of folks there are 5th graders in disguise. They are always screaming, "You're attacking me!!!" whenever someone slightly disagrees with them. Heck, they yell that even when people DO agree with them and try to offer suggestions. "You're calling me a bad mother!!!" was a thread-starter's response when someone said that she needs to stop giving her runaway daughter privileges. I go over there every so often, and then I always get so pissed at the childishness that is so common there. I just come running back over here, where it's sane.

Yep. If anyone ever wonders why liberals are so antsy with the current administration in power, all they have to do is look at our country's history. Dissenters usually aren't well-treated.

I was just over at OH and learned that if you start a thread, you can have the mods remove any post that you want removed, even if there weren't any rules broken. That makes no sense to me. The whole point of a message board is to get multiple points of view on topics. If you want to hear only your own point of view, why join? So I just want to thank the guys that run this place for being great moderators. You guys make sure that the peace is kept without going too far and squashing any opinions. You only close threads that are obviously beyond hope of redemption and you don't delete posts just because someone else doesn't like them. So, kudos to you! :clap2::biggrin1:

The man "goofed up" by being stupid enough to lie under oath. Unfortunately, "impeachment" and being "disbarred" are consequences of that "goof up".

:tsk:So it's like NAMBLA, yet Christian. :fear: