Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
There you go again with your penchant for finger pointing, labeling & name calling; not to mention your negativism & defeatism. You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
There you go again with your penchant for finger pointing, labeling & name calling; not to mention your negativism & defeatism. You're part of the problem, not the solution.
Who did I call a name? I was explaining to tenni, about the negative effects some people have. And I do not feel a conversation like I spoke of would be possible here and now. This opinion comes from past experience of these people whom act as trolls, puppets or gamers. I did not point fingers, or call names.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepperjack
Apologies if you think my opinion is negative. I am still entitled to have that opinion. You're entitled to your own opinion. If you think a discussion like I spoke of could happen, go for it. More power to you. I'd be happy to join such a discussion. I do not think it likely to happen as people would ruin it. This has happened a lot in the past.
Also, I do believe that there were some constructive suggestions made as well. Sure, I'm the problem. You may need to reread that post.
Yes; virtually everyone. Unlike most good forum sites, newfriends was quite localized, so that we had opportunities to familiarize ourselves through geographic as well as subject-matter references, then carried that on to physical meets on several occasions. I made the effort to meet couples as well as a few like-minded men after "finding" them there. That made the foul-up with one jerk that much more maddening. It was a case of stalking in the worst sense.
Also, now that I think about it, thank you for proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by pepperjack
I think Slipnslide has a very good point in that it appears the overriding attitude here is that "if you're not with us, then you are against us." And to that end, you cannot be with us unless you believe in our specific brand of bisexuality. I have no issue with Drew's base line definition, that is the distilled variant that bisexuality is simply an attraction to both sexes, what I find perplexing is the clear intolerance to a genuine discussion. But more importantly, why is it that rather than ask for clarification of a position, many will resort to name calling. That is a rhetorical question I think, as it really speaks for itself.
SJMurph
My over-the-top name calling and nonsense was to demonstrate that for some reason that bullshit is tolerated, but different opinions are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by SJMurph
Slipnslide, your point was well taken and clearly accurate in your approach to demonstrating hypocrisy. I thought that was well done and a clever approach. Good work.
Drug Store Cowboy,
Did I disrespect you? I'm not sure why you are trying to harangue me. I open to an explanation however.
SJMurph
Wow...bisexual.com drama.
I can assure you, SJMurph is not Aeonpax.Quote:
Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy
Why are you she;)? *laffs* Sorry.. a bit of levity.. it was a bad joke...but a bit of levity is badly needed today I think..:bigrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cast Iron
..by accusing SJ as being Joan it serves to cast doubt and so the intention is to descredit..
did u really kick them out because they weren't bisexual? or did i totally misunderstand?
please no, say it not so.. for that is madness...pure and simple, madness.
i think i must have missed some stuff here.
Missed it u did Daffy.. no, I don't think he is saying that.. not quite.. but then I am absolutely unsure of just what he is saying because Drew's decision and its reasons are clear as mud and it's one sidedness woeful to behold.... so madness there is indeed, babes..Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd
hmm darkeyes and poor daffy
post 1 from drew
"Here is the definition of bisexual:
A person who has attractions to both genders.
That is the definition the world uses. That is the definition that is the basis of the site.
You can think of the site as: bisexual.com == a-person-who-has-attractions-to-both-genders.com
Non-bisexuals (people who are completely straight or completely gay) are welcome on the site of course, but science deniers, and those who advocate to re-write the definition of bisexual, are not particularly welcome.
candidate X was constantly posting that bisexual men are really gay (denier)
candidate Y apparently stated to new comers that they were not bisexual (denier)
So, daffy no drew did not kick them off because they were not bisexual. He kicked them off for saying others were not bisexual and (I think) personal attacks(attack the issue and not the person)? It seems less uh...stressful without them..and the other two or three?(Slip, Cast Iron, SMurph) who were also booted.
I can and do take issue with much of that tenni me luffly.. actually..almost all of it.. but for now sit on me hands cos we do need a relative while of calm... the bit where u state it is less stressful now they have gone?? I have me own view why that is, and it does have to do with them not being around, but I doubt it is the same view as u hold... there are sufficient little post banning niggles for us if we are honest, to know that there is far more to it than u and Drew and others make out... my posting this no doubt will disturb the calm a little, but not too much I hope.. so I will say no more for now... any further disturbance will not be of my making but in time I have no doubt it will come..Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
franny wanny (kid'n :)
We are both entitled to our opinions and agree to disagree on some things. I thought that it got a lot disturbingly wackier after the ban initially. Then it has become less crazy..or our normal crazy...which makes it look calm..by comparison.. ;)
Tenni, it is true that things have gotten quieter since Slippy and SJMurph were been banned (following the initial madness when Joan and BV were banned). But I think we may be submitting to misdirection if we *attribute* the recent quiet to those bans. It is also true that things are much quieter now that DC has not been posting (for reasons unknown...and probably largely uncared-about) for some time. It was his proddings, insisting that SJMurph was Joan against all reason, for instance, that led SJ to go off the rails...and I have little doubt that if DC had been posting his usual crap this weekend, there would still be chaos here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tenni
I agree with Kate (in another thread) that I don't see how DC wasn't banned. His insistance to Kate that she wasn't bi unless she was experiencing cunnilingus with another woman (he expressed it with more vulgarity of course) certainly sounded like trying to rewrite the definition of bisexuality that Drew gave in this thread (that you cite above). Drew makes it pretty clear with his statement that such people are not particularly welcome here. But I would be surprised if that's why DC (and hence possibly the site) has been quiet.
Meh, in any case, as Depeche Mode might say...Enjoy the Silence!
(while it lasts)
I reckon this site is for bis/gays or people who arent sure what they are yet, you did the right thing :)
I would say that this site is for people of all sexualities. Especially those who are either bi, or in a relationship with a bi person. BiVirgin was making very unfair blanketed statements about bi men and that they don't exist. Aeonpax was I think a harder call, but she seemed to have the feeling that only bi and gay men had stds and they are totally responsible for the passing of stds into every other group, not to mention she was extremely harsh and used name-calling against everyone who disagreed with her, even those who did not call her a name or even made comments directed towards her.Quote:
Originally Posted by eitherway<3
I know that Drew welcomes people of all sexualities, just not those who are hostile to the whole or part of (the male half in Bisexual Virgin's case) the bisexual community.
Darwi sweetheart, you've stopped taken them haven't you?:rolleyes:
Amen and I think this should mean if you're banned you're banned for life. I know that there are a few members that have been banned but then have been let back on. Not a good idea.
What would Darwi even do with the screen shots? lol. I am a woman and I do not feel like this site is anti-woman. I have seen some members that have said some things that could be considered anti-woman and some members who have said things that are anti-man, maybe even some other prejudice thrown in, but never from Drew. I think he is a little lax on the rules sometimes, but hey, it is his site and he can manage it how he darn well pleases.
What I say to this is Shit or Get off the pot, you got em, POST EM. Cause it didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwi
It's pretty stupid to post an obvious threat in writing on a public forum. Law enforcement loves open and shut cases. In fact, it is such a stupid thing to do, I doubt you even have the intelligence to know HOW to take a screenshot (unless you are actually using a nikon and taking a picture of the screen).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwi
Too bad there aren't any photos of the meeting that took place. ;)
It is probably a shame I am no longer clamoring, or entranced by Anonymous. Learned something about them a while back from a trusted mate whom would know. Knowing this, the post which falcon deems a threat seems nothing more than a joke at best.
Void,Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
What are you talking about? There is no post on this thread I consider a threat. Not that I remember (and no, i am not going to go back and read the whole bloody thread unless I absolutely have to).
But while I am at it, this thread has deviated so far from Drew's original post that we should all be disgusted with ourselves for hijacking his thread.
Commenting on what he wrote is one thing. This is ridiculous.
If people do not have enough courage of conviction to start their own thread, they need to shut up and stop hijacking other's threads.
Falcon I just had a really intense deja-vu whilst looking at ur profile...anyway
I actually started a thread of its own devoted to complaints of thread hijacking, which can be still searched for, this year some time. It was intended as a repository of thread hijacking comments so that threads wouldn't get hijacked by people who started complaining about people who hijacked threads. It was around around the time when loads of people were unwittingly hijacking threads by telling people not to hijack and to stick to the thread. The 'Hijack Thread' thread failed and was forgotten, but now, everytime someone mentions thread hijacking, it makes me chuckle. May I hazard a guess that people against thread hijacking alphabeticalise their Blu-ray/DVD collections, and can't stop reading a book in the middle of a chapter?
Sometimes threads work best as they flow onto other ideas naturally like word association games .. or conversation.. Also other threads require a slight deviation away from how intense, heated, and stressful they can become here (yeah) because, before you know it, somebody has dug their feet in, or got backed up against a wall and the word 'troll' gets bandied around and people go mental.
Thread hijacking may indeed be necessary to avoid a big flaming drama, just as a winking smiley is necessary after a lot of trite;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darwi
but thats hilarious. Its got to be a wind-up right?
who takes this stuff seriously? its harmless.
'One foul post and Im pushin' the PRINT screen-key'
She sounds like a snippping tool if you ask me.
equal and opposite reaction? hmmm. .. so thats like forming a 'pro-male group', to combat 'the anti-female group'...smart idea, I'm in. We're equal, yet opposite.
Anything's better than the threat of finding mis-quoted pieces from the S.C.U.M. manifesto scattered across the forum.
you gotta keep these people on here, not least for entertainment....god knows we need a laugh. especially if you read her post aloud whislt with a Dalek voice.
AH! I did not recognize it! But yes, the Dalek voice is so needed in reading the threatening post.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd
OR. The Borg voice. Much more sinister so you actually feel threatened. Or maybe the voice of Megatron.
Picard defeated the Borg. Optimus defeated the decepticons. This bitch will be defeated too.
OH!
An even more appropriate voice!
Alvin and the Chipmunks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by falcondfw
You said it was a threat, yourself. I get so tired of people weaseling. You say you think it's a threat, you mean it's a threat. So, don't say "that's not how I meant it" or "you misunderstood". You said it. Not hard to read the word threat in your post. Not hard to use a dictionary either, plenty exist on the web and internet, as well as having hard copies via local library. So please do not insult me by saying I misunderstood what you said. It's right there as plain as day.Quote:
Originally Posted by falcondfw
Simply put, just because one is mentally ill does not immediately disqualify them as a human being. Merely because they are mentally ill does not mean it is always they with the problem. And I'm tired of folks trying to denying what's said by suggesting mental illness somehow causes me to be disqualified from seeing, from comprehension of what is said. Like I said, you wrote it, black and white, plain as day. How could one misunderstand?
Guess you and pepper can be co-kings of that dung heap. Excuse me, wasted enough energy here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd
I like this post and agree with it. I think what sometimes appears as hijacking is a normal, spontaneous straying from a topic because we all make different mental associations to said topic. This was recently illustrated on Falcon's thread where someone complained it was being hijacked to which he replied the spirit or essence of the topic were still intact.
Ah. That one. Sorry. Memory is not what it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
No reason to be snarky about it. Just point out what I said. I told you I did not remember. That was the truth. I also told you I was not going to read through almost 160 posts to find it. That was also the truth.
Did I say anything about you being mentally ill or about anyone being mentally ill? I know I didn't do that. So please, stop bringing things into the conversation that do not exist.
And please, don't try to insult me. It is far beneath you and way beneath me to respond in kind.
Yes, I did see it as a threat. Still do. How would you take it if someone wrote that to you (I know. They wrote it to Drew.)?
Actually already posted I thought it was a joke at best. Had it been directed to me, same response would have stood, a joke it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by falcondfw
How is it sarcastic (snarky) to ask a direct question? I would like an answer to this question as well. I am aware some here use a derogatory ploy of suggesting mental illness causes others to not understand. You did not but you did use the same basic ploy, just a different label, sarcastic (snarky).
How does one misunderstand what is plainly said? That's the question at hand. I am asking it to illustrate a point as well as establish an answer. I would like an answer
Care to answer a direct question without tearing down the person asking, in any way?
Sorry I did post a sarcastic reply to Dewi (if that's the right name). I sugested that she/they had stopped taking their medocation for paranoid schizophrenia.Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
Wasn't very tactfull of me but was insensitive. Sorry about that.
Thank-you, you very clever smart arse!:smilies15Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearbox
No real worries, merely serves to set the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearbox
Ok. First, this will be my last post on this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by void_dweller
I'm sick of the nit-picking, arguing, and fighting. Again, it hijacks the original intent of this thread, which was for Drew to inform us of why he banned aeon and the bivirgin. But it seems like a lot of threads have been hijacked recently. Rather shamelessly.
Quote:
I get so tired of people weaseling. You say you think it's a threat, you mean it's a threat. So, don't say "that's not how I meant it" or "you misunderstood". You said it. Not hard to read the word threat in your post. Not hard to use a dictionary either, plenty exist on the web and internet, as well as having hard copies via local library. So please do not insult me by saying I misunderstood what you said. It's right there as plain as day.
I was referring to the statement about weaseling as snarky. You don't see the sarcasm and rudeness dripping from that statement? Hellen Keller would and she's blind. I told you plainly and simply I DID NOT REMEMBER. How much more obvious do you want it?Quote:
How is it sarcastic (snarky) to ask a direct question? I would like an answer to this question as well.
Void, I have never brought up or used mental illness, yours or anyone else's. Stop painting with such a broad brush. Deal with one person. I am not fran. I am not pepper. I am not DD. I am not LDD. I am not Tenni. I am me. Deal with me when you address me.Quote:
I am aware some here use a derogatory ploy of suggesting mental illness causes others to not understand. You did not but you did use the same basic ploy, just a different label, sarcastic (snarky).
Would you like to know why I don't bring up mental issues? Too bad. I will tell you anyway. My eldest son has issues. He has never been diagnosed with autism, but he exhibits a lot of autistic behaviors. He has, however, been diagnosed with a laundry list of alphabet soup issues along the autism spectrum. His mother (my ex) lets him get away with anything and enables him to use his issues as an excuse. He runs rampant over her. With me, he is well-behaved, he does well, he accomplishes things. Because I don't baby him or allow him to use his issues as an excuse. When they are really a problem, I recognize that and help him. But he does not use it as an excuse with me. I expect him to do his best on whatever he tries and he usually accomplishes what he is trying. He almost never accomplishes things with my ex.
You are an intelligent man and fully capable of dealing with people and issues. You don't need to use your issues or hide behind them. That is why I don't bring it up. It serves no purpose.
In answer to what I think is your question, that I have already answered at least twice, I did not misunderstand. I simply did not remember.
Why can't all of us bisexuals get along? Hell! Half of you act like you've got something stuck up your arses! LOL
Bisexuals like any group of people will have differences as to how they will see the world... differences as to how they view themselves and their kind.. sometimes these will come out as apparently petty, sometimes as cataclysmic... the infighting that falcon talks of is but symptomatic of difference.. we are human.. simply because peeps disagree and even sometimes appear to disagree bitterly, does not mean that on a personal level they hate each other.. tho sometimes being human that will be the case.. sometimes they will treat each other with the greatest of contempt and sometimes become too personal..and we could do with less or better, none of it... but how else do we gain understanding but by airing our differences? I am not bisexual as it happens, but do I think any less of them because they fight their corner? Nope.. not a bit of it.. as I do not think any less of lesbians or gays or trans or straight peeps for doing the same... once I did have a different view and not so long ago either.. but we change and gain different perspectives of how the world is and should be...Quote:
Originally Posted by SlimDandy
Falcon says he is tired of infighting and so on.. as do I, sweetheart, and often.. yet, it will never stop babes.. it will always be to a greater or lesser degree.. accept it and relish it...because we are human and because we all think differently and argue for our view of the world as is our right... and if I may say so.. why else do forums here and elsewhere exist? Why else do we hold freedom of speech and expression so dear? If only 2% of the people of the world are bisexual (just a random figure) and another 2% gay or lesbian, that means in my country 2.5 million people... in the US it means 15 million plus... now u tell me where within any group of people of such size there will be no differences of opinion, no dislike, no hatred and anger. no contempt.. no differences of how they see the world? U cant and u never shall.. live with it and in fact glory in it cos the freedoms u have now u may not always have... the best way to retain such freedoms is use them....wherever they exist..