Can we just rope this area off and make sort of a special boxing ring here?
This way, we can keep other threads of discussion on track... and instead of turning other threads into political discussions or personal attacks... one could just say, "Let's go settle this in the boxing ring!" where everyone could be free to carry on however they wish.

Hell, it can even be a "Tag Team Wrestling" ring... or a "No holds barred" ring. You could have gang wars here if you want!

Then I would be fairly free to wander blissfully in the other areas of the watercooler... laughing, cajoling, without a care in the world... unconcerned about turning down a friendly street that suddenly turns into a dark, nasty, craphole of an ally where I could be knifed.

Just a thought. I'm sure no one will listen to someone as insignificant as I .... but OH how I long for my old friendly forum. <<sheds tear in loving memory>> A few years ago, I would have come here so excited to share with everyone that I landed a new job a couple weeks ago... (I start on Tuesday) and would have regaled you with the story of how it happened... you would have known WHY I was looking for a job. And you would have been so happy for me. Cheering for me and laughing.... You would have been all up to date on the way my life has been going this year.... the land we're buying, the dreams we have ... what my kids have been challenging me with.... But no one knows me here anymore. Because it just seems so inconsequential what is happening with me with such intense debates about the world at hand.

And... I just want my damn world back! Does everything have to change?!?!?! I don't WANT to find new friends!

Tess

Good luck with your new job - I still remember you, and I'm sure that some of the other old farts (they know who they are...) will wish you well too (when they can stop moaning about the USA/Bush/Blair etc).

Tay

As long as you don't call it the boxing ring.
Boxing is a barbaric sport that should be banned.

How's that for going off on a tangent.

Hey Tess,

Thank you for liking my story. Story tellers need someone to tell.

I will be post some thoughts about this boxing ring thread soon.

It is something about which I have continplated for some time now.

Irrational polarization.

When people head down that path, they inevitably descend to a nonintellectual level. It’s alarming to see that it exist elsewhere. People so sure they're right they abandon objectivity, sensitivity, social norms, and even sacrifice relationships in the pursuit of a position.

And even when confronted with evidence that their position is irrational, they become more so. It’s interesting to witness it, but it is nevertheless disturbing.

Yes, I don't know why anyone would ever watch boxing myself.
It's truly barbaric. "Let's see who can bash someone's brains to bits."

However, I don't want to hijack this thread by denigrating it's purpose.... lol.

Tay, I remember you too. I remember when you married.... I wonder how you are. I think I'll start another thread, "What's happening" so all the old gang, and even the new can share stories of what has been happening in our lives while all this bickering has been going on.

:)

Would love to hear from you. So... let's continue and meet there.

Tess

I know boxing is so barbaric..but I can't help watching our country's contender!

Tay, I remember you too. I remember when you married.... I wonder how you are. I think I'll start another thread, "What's happening" so all the old gang, and even the new can share stories of what has been happening in our lives while all this bickering has been going on.
Tess

It's just politics Tess, these type of discussions always get heated, especially when Titans clash.
I blame the Greeks, they started it :D
How's your family by the way, they must be growing away by now? :)
I remember Tay too, hell I nearly had to contend with her dulcet tones :eek: :D

It's just politics Tess, these type of discussions always get heated, especially when Titans clash.
:D

But Rich just sometimes you could take the "an" out of titans - and I'm not thinking anatomically:D

Perhaps we could call Tess' forum Insult Alley and leave the fisticuffs out?

It's just politics Tess, these type of discussions always get heated,

Usually when one or more of the protagonists abandons the topic to make room for a derogatory judgment of character.

especially when Titans clash.

even in your attempted humor you expose your over-inflated opinion of yourself. :rolleyes:

Ding-ding! Round one! :D

Good Humor dan-cat

Good Humor dan-cat

Oh by the way, Mr Sanders - could you carry on with the cable installation saga - we is itchin to know what happens next :)

Yup
But I got some real screamers, wanting me to deliver some product. So maybe this afternoon.

even in your attempted humor you expose your over-inflated opinion of yourself. :rolleyes:


If you want to start slinging personal insults then you'd better be ready for some real flack.
It's your bosom pal MrSanders who keeps posting opinions and then gets assey when confronted with conflicting figures :rolleyes:

Yup
But I got some real screamers, wanting me to deliver some product. So maybe this afternoon.

Sheesh - I guess I'll have to go back to my stored procedures then :(

How disappointing :p

Rich,

I know it's just politics. And I know things get heated when people don't agree on topics such as politics and religion.....

But for me, I come here to have a nice chat, and suddenly there's a brawl going on. And I'm getting SO tired of it! Personally, I'm quite ashamed to know how we (America) looks to the rest of the world. And you are profoundly correct that it is only we who can do anything to change. But having our faults flung smack in the face every day.... sometimes I just want to scream "OK!!! WE SUCK!!!! Can we please talk about something else????" :(

Rich,

I know it's just politics. And I know things get heated when people don't agree on topics such as politics and religion.....

But for me, I come here to have a nice chat, and suddenly there's a brawl going on. And I'm getting SO tired of it! Personally, I'm quite ashamed to know how we (America) looks to the rest of the world. And you are profoundly correct that it is only we who can do anything to change. But having our faults flung smack in the face every day.... sometimes I just want to scream "OK!!! WE SUCK!!!! Can we please talk about something else????" :(

How's the weather there then? :D

:)

I'll be carrying on polite conversation in my What's happening thread. I'll answer your kind inquiries about my growing children there.

If you want to start slinging personal insults then you'd better be ready for some real flack.

Oh I've been wanting to do it for ages, it's just no-one has installed a boxing ring in this forum before. Enough with the threats - put your dukes up, you hound!


It's your bosom pal MrSanders who keeps posting opinions and then gets assey when confronted with conflicting figures :rolleyes:

We've only just met but I like him more than you already. I know you really want to be my best buddy but there just isn't enough room at the inn. Sorry :D

We've only just met but I like him more than you already.
Only 'cause he keeps waving the flag, yours that is :p

Only 'cause he keeps waving the flag, yours that is :p

Public Announcement: "During this event jsanders will be taking care of flag waving duties whilst dan-cat will be taking care of opening the big can of whoop-ass. Oh, say, can you see..."

And you are profoundly correct that it is only we who can do anything to change.

enough with the compliments - he's going to have enough trouble pushing his head between the ropes as it is :rolleyes:

Public Announcement: "During this event jsanders will be taking care of flag waving duties whilst dan-cat will be taking care of opening the big can of whoop-ass. Oh, say, can you see..."
You're out of tune already :rolleyes:

Boxing:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050923/D8CPLKL83.html

Tess, well-spoken in every regard. I'm afraid it's not likely to work. When I got sick of all the bashing, I fought back; it got worse. Then I just shut up and the bashing merrily marshalled on without me. Now I do my best to participate in civil discussions and ignore all the b.s. But no matter what we do there will always be a small group of people who will inject their own rude and/or confrontational comments into any thread regardless of topic, and people who are simply incapable of polite debate.

Perhaps we could lobby the admins to grant each member the ability to edit threads they start. That way, if someone makes a political comment in your thread about favorite wines then you can just delete it.

What you need to do is put some gloves on and throw some unjustified insults around. It's quite therapeutic. ;) dance ... dance ... bobbing ... weave ... weave ...

Eh, tried that too....once the novelty wore off, I realized I was behaving in a manner that I loathed.

Hey Kraj,
Do you think I’m rude or impolite? Cause I thought I was being nice all this time.

Hey Kraj,
Do you think I’m rude or impolite? Cause I thought I was being nice all this time.
yeah, me too :confused:

What you need to do is put some gloves on and throw some unjustified insults around.
oh we're used to it now :cool: :p

Hey Kraj,
Do you think I’m rude or impolite? Cause I thought I was being nice all this time.
yeah, me too :confused:
I don't believe I pointed a figure at anyone, but I seriously doubt Tess's objection has anything to do with people regularly engaging in civil debate.

Originally Posted by jsanders
There’s no problem Rich,

We can turn this bickering into something useful and constructive.


Originally Posted by Rich

Well that's easily done,
1/ Throw Bush out of office
2/ Get rid of the gun ho military top knobs
3/ Bring social justice to the US
4/ Scrap your private health care system that rips everybody off
5/ Implement a fair and just education system that actually educates and doesn't just preach.
6/ Scrap the law that insists every Tom, Dick or Harry can own a gun
Just a few constructive thoughts, you see our aim here is just to try and pull our friends back from the edge of the precipice


What a load of crap.


RICH

Its one thing to have an opinion, It’s quite another to derail every thread to make it a personal billboard for your views.

Hasn’t anyone ever taught you that there is a time and place for everything?

That debating thread has potential, and you’re trying to ruin it as usual.

Start your own ranting thread, and put all your anti American views there.

And lastly if you are genuinely concerned (which I doubt) then you would never use your style of persuasion. Think about it.

If you don’t have anything to add to the Debate Thread, that’s actually about the process; then please refrain from making comments.

By the way.
Are you man enough to go back and edit those interruptions, to read deleted?
Unlikely, it's evident by your tone that you have a closed mind and are very proud of it. Why in hell would you want to do something to expand your thinking?

Why in hell would you want to do something to expand your thinking?
Kettle >>>>> black pot :rolleyes:

Hmmmm... where to put my post on morality and virginity....

Well, the Debate thread seems to regulated. After all, I don't want to debate just for the sake of debating. Seems like mental boxing to me... lol.

If I'm going to take time to express an opinion, it will be my own.

That being said, in another thread I mentioned that my daughter was 20 and a virgin. (But she doesn't want to be much longer) There were some inferences made by others that I would like clarified. They seemed to infer that one who waited for marriage were somehow of a higher moral fiber than those who did not, and that those who did not were somehow "promiscuous"

I'm thinking these views may have been misinterpreted. So, as a gentlewoman, I'm giving people an opportunity to express their opinions bluntly so that I have a really good idea of exactly what is being said.

I've my own opinion, my own past experiences, and my own responsibilities as a guiding, supportive mother, but I am saving them for when I can respond intelligently to the prevous posts. I'll not take immediate offense, just in case they are not saying what I may have pre-judged initially.

Therefore, previous posters, please clarify. :)

There were some inferences made by others that I would like clarified. They seemed to infer that one who waited for marriage were somehow of a higher moral fiber than those who did not, and that those who did not were somehow "promiscuous"


If she's made it to 20 a virgin then that's fantastic. It shows she isn't going to sleep with someone just for the sake of doing it.

I think if someone is in a serious relationship with someone then that is one thing. If they are sleeping with someone different every week then that is something different. That, to me, is very promiscuous. And I'm saying that because I used to have a friend that was like that. I liked her very much and had fun hanging around with her but after her second abortion that I knew of, I couldn't take it any more. :(

It think it is good that we can all talk about his openly but I've always found people who publicise their own chastity to be exhibitionists. Not that that is wrong or anything but I fail to see what it has to do with morality.

I think it is important to release morality from the chains of religion once and for all. Religion is morality lite a vast majority of 'scriptures' are about control or sociopath rather than morality. For example do you:

a. consider sex before marriage and contraception to be sins because that's what you read in a book,

or b. consider unprotected sex with a two people who won't be able to provide a fulfilling relationship or economic backing to the potential offspring to be irresponsible?

How far are you willing to go with control? After procreation is not all of sexuality, what turns people on is very personal. Some people might get aroused from telling other people they can't be 'had'.

Some people might get aroused from telling other people they can't be 'had'.
Well I can and I'm open to offers :D

Hmmmm... where to put my post on morality and virginity....

Well, the Debate thread seems to regulated. After all, I don't want to debate just for the sake of debating. Seems like mental boxing to me... lol.

If I'm going to take time to express an opinion, it will be my own.

That being said, in another thread I mentioned that my daughter was 20 and a virgin. (But she doesn't want to be much longer) There were some inferences made by others that I would like clarified. They seemed to infer that one who waited for marriage were somehow of a higher moral fiber than those who did not, and that those who did not were somehow "promiscuous"

I'm thinking these views may have been misinterpreted. So, as a gentlewoman, I'm giving people an opportunity to express their opinions bluntly so that I have a really good idea of exactly what is being said.

I've my own opinion, my own past experiences, and my own responsibilities as a guiding, supportive mother, but I am saving them for when I can respond intelligently to the prevous posts. I'll not take immediate offense, just in case they are not saying what I may have pre-judged initially.

Therefore, previous posters, please clarify. :)

I'm guessing this was in response to my comment in the other thread, so here goes...

I was merely implying that she may have, on her own moral scale of right and wrong, whatever the reason, felt like waiting was the right thing to do. In which case, our personal moral scales of right and wrong seem to be tilted in the same direction.

In my humble opinion, there is nothing instrinsically wrong with "promiscuity" or (most) any other sexual behavior. Sex is a part of life and a part of growing up. There is no intrinsic value to keeping your virginity until 17 or 20 or 30. Nor is there a 'better' or 'worse' number of people to have sex with.

What does matter is how healthy the activity is. You can be promiscuous and still have a healthy self-image and healthy outlook on sexual activity. I think the most important factors in sexual activity are: 1.) having an accurate knowledge of the potential consequences (emotional, physical, spiritual); 2.) having a healthy caution of the potential consequences (terror is no more healthy than throwing caution to the wind); 3.) and being able to cope with the consequences you experience.

It's about knowing yourself, what your needs are, and how well you're equipped to deal with potential consequences. It's not about what someone else says is acceptable.

In my humble opinion, there is nothing instrinsically wrong with "promiscuity" or (most) any other sexual behavior.

Some people, like myself, feel like there is something essential in our human nature that desires a monogamous relationship.


Sex is a part of life and a part of growing up.

And placing it in a proper, healthy perspective. Both physically and emotionally ;)


There is no intrinsic value to keeping your virginity until 17 or 20 or 30. Nor is there a 'better' or 'worse' number of people to have sex with.

Unless it makes you feel good about yourself to wait for a monogamous relationship.

It's not about what someone else says is acceptable.

Sure it is, if they lead full, happy productive lives and you value their opinion...

IMHO2 :) :)

Edit: I'm don't mean to attack anybody's lifestyle. It's more of a defense and justification of my own. :) :)

Some people, like myself, feel like there is something essential in our human nature that desires a monogamous relationship.
Yes, it's called fear. Fear of being hurt, fear of inadequacey, fear of being left for someone better, fear of not being socially accepted, fear of catching a disease, fear that the person doesn't really love you, fear of being used, etc. Let me pre-emptively clarify by saying these are not the only reasons people are monogomous. It's a simple preference for many. But I would argue the vast majority of people who desire to have only one partner and have that partner promise to only be with them and believe that's the only way a relationship can be healthy are -at the root- afraid of something.

And placing it in a proper, healthy perspective. Both physically and emotionally ;)
I once read, "If I could have just one bumper sticker, it would say, 'Violate Propriety'". Healthy is one thing, proper is another. Healthy is always positive, proper can be positive or negative. Proper is an outside influence and is often used in restrictive (which often translates into harmful) ways.

Unless it makes you feel good about yourself to wait for a monogamous relationship.
The instrinsic value there is not from waiting, it is from achieving your goal and/or following your beliefs. If you are waiting for marriage and do so successfully, there is no difference in how that makes you feel whether you're 20 or 30.

Sure it is, if they lead full, happy productive lives and you value their opinion...
That's part of knowing yourself: determining what you want and what your needs are. Listening to an opinion you value is part of that process. But if that opinion contradicts what you feel and believe, then it is more important to listen to yourself, not someone else.

Edit: I'm don't mean to attack anybody's livestyle. It's more of a defense and justification of my own. :) :)
I don't think you need to defend or justify your own. I'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't believe a healthy, monogomous relationship is an acceptable lifestyle.

In support of Tess and her daughter, I've changed my sig to an appropriate quote from one of my favorite authors :)

Oh, and speaking of quotes from my favorite author, here's one Rich will like:

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

And that was in the 1880s!

Oh, and speaking of quotes from my favorite author, here's one Rich will like:

"America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between."

And that was in the 1880s!
Can I use it as a sig? :D

Be my guest. Just give Mr. Wilde his props. :p

... I would argue the vast majority of people who desire to have only one partner and have that partner promise to only be with them and believe that's the only way a relationship can be healthy are -at the root- afraid of something.

Not intending to ignore the remainder of your reply, let's chase this rabbit for minute...

If you haven't been there, then I can see how you couldn't possible comprehend this; The reason I elected to commit to my wife was not out of fear of anything, nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything. I think I stay committed to my marriage to my wife because, among other reasons, I feel good and complete when I lay down with her at the end of the day. If you want to twist that around and say that I'm afraid of not feeling great or because I'm afraid I may not feel like a complete person, then that's up to you. But it sounds like a detrimental and poisonous attitude to have towards life...

:) :) :)

Edit: Now I can see where one may wish to stay married out of the fear of having to pay alimony, otherwise...
(Sorry, I couldn't help myself :p )

nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything.
maybe some of them stay together for fear of upsetting their children? ;)

Be my guest. Just give Mr. Wilde his props. :p
No, I prefer this one
"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) :D

If you haven't been there, then I can see how you couldn't possible comprehend this;
Speaking of detrimental and poisonous additudes.... :rolleyes:

The reason I elected to commit to my wife was not out of fear of anything, nor do I feel any kind of majority of the married community feel motivated to stay married out of the fear of anything. I think I stay committed to my marriage to my wife because, among other reasons, I feel good and complete when I lay down with her at the end of the day.
Sorry, but I don't see any reference to monogamy here; you've completely replaced the word with "committment" and "marriage". This is what bothers me about the treatment of sexuality in this country: all the extra baggage we tack on.

Monogamy is about sex. Period. Marriage and committment are about relationships. Period. You can be monogomous to a person without being married or even committed to them. And you can be married and committed and have sex with other people. I resubmit to you that the reasons monogamy has become an essential component of marriage and committment are fear-based. I would also argue that the requirement of monogamy is the a key factor in the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

No, I prefer this one
"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take."
- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) :D
Other than him, apparently. :p

Speaking of detrimental and poisonous additudes.... :rolleyes:
.

Why


Sorry, but I don't see any reference to monogamy here; you've completely replaced the word with "committment" and "marriage". This is what bothers me about the treatment of sexuality in this country: all the extra baggage we tack on.

Hum.. I've always felt that they're kind of interchangable when used within context of the discussion we're having. And just to try and play by your google-it type rules, so does dictionary.com (Sorry, I know that was a cheap shot :( )


Monogamy is about sex. Period.

Sometimes,



Marriage and committment are about relationships. Period.

Key, but maybe not so much a 'Period' :)


You can be monogomous to a person without being married or even committed to them.

I'll buy that one... :)

And you can be married and committed and have sex with other people.

Good luck on this one...


I resubmit to you that the reasons monogamy has become an essential component of marriage and committment are fear-based.

And I re-submit my opposition to that view. BTW - It hasn't 'become' a component, it's been that way for quite some time :)


I would also argue that the requirement of monogamy is the a key factor in the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

So off base.. From my perspective at least... :)

Why
Because of the "you couldn't possibly comprehend" comment.

Hum.. I've always felt that they're kind of interchangable when used within context of the discussion we're having. And just to try and play by your google-it type rules, so does dictionary.com (Sorry, I know that was a cheap shot :( )
Not hardly a cheap shot. But if you look at that definition, they're not interchangable. There's four definitions listed; all are relevant to the topic but only two refer to marriage, the other two refer to sex.

Sometimes,
...as long as you accept the marriage-based definition as a possibility. So, that's valid.

Key, but maybe not so much a 'Period' :)
Do marriage and committment apply to something other than relationships?

Good luck on this one...
I'm having good luck with this one, thank you very much.

And I re-submit my opposition to that view.
Care to offer an explanation? Your opposition so far has been contending that commitment is the same as monogamy, which according to the definition is it not even though they are closely related.

BTW - It hasn't 'become' a component, it's been that way for quite some time :)
If by "quite some time" you mean the last century or two, then yes, you're correct. However, marriage has existed for many thousands of years and monogamy was not a part of it until very recently.

"If you're talking about the history of the world and not just the last two centuries, the proportion of the world populated by monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion — just Western Europe and little settlements in North America," said Nancy Cott, professor of history at Harvard University.

So, on a historical timeline monogamy as a part of marriage is a very new concept.

So off base.. From my perspective at least... :)
I think that goes without saying. But do you have any counterargument?

Can I pick just one reply to remark on? You pick...

Oh answer them all, this is supposed to be a boxing ring, fight man, fight :D

Oh answer them all, this is supposed to be a boxing ring, fight man, fight :D

ok :( ....

Give me a few minutes...

]Because of the "you couldn't possibly comprehend" comment.

- OK, then how about "I can see how it's possible that you don't understand" (Which is what I meant anyway...)

Not hardly a cheap shot. But if you look at that definition, they're not interchangable. There's four definitions listed; all are relevant to the topic but only two refer to marriage, the other two refer to sex.

- Another attempt at a technical diversion from the real issue

...as long as you accept the marriage-based definition as a possibility. So, that's valid.

- :)

Do marriage and committment apply to something other than relationships?

- Since monogamy can be requirement of marriage, I'd say there are some gray are here in our debate, yes

I'm having good luck with this one, thank you very much.

- I didn't know you were married?

Care to offer an explanation? Your opposition so far has been contending that commitment is the same as monogamy, which according to the definition is it not even though they are closely related.

- In which line did I say that?

If by "quite some time" you mean the last century or two, then yes, you're correct. However, marriage has existed for many thousands of years and monogamy was not a part of it until very recently.

- Since you and I live in the here and now, let's stay focused

So, on a historical timeline monogamy as a part of marriage is a very new concept.

- You were just born a few hundred years late :)

I think that goes without saying. But do you have any counterargument?

I think I'm getting that headache again... :(

]- :)

I'd say there are some gray are here in our debate, yes


Hell I nearly misread that as "there are some gay are here in our debate" :eek: :D

Yes, it's called fear. Fear of being hurt, fear of inadequacey, fear of being left for someone better, fear of not being socially accepted, fear of catching a disease, fear that the person doesn't really love you, fear of being used, etc. Let me pre-emptively clarify by saying these are not the only reasons people are monogomous. It's a simple preference for many. But I would argue the vast majority of people who desire to have only one partner and have that partner promise to only be with them and believe that's the only way a relationship can be healthy are -at the root- afraid of something.

I completely agree and identify with that. I have to admit some things about myself.
1. I hold my husband to unrealistic standards. I do not want my husband having lustful thoughts about another woman. When confronted with images on TV that I cannot compete with by today's standards of sexual desirability, I shrink inwardly. Most often, my husband is extremely sensitive and will change the channel until the scene has passed. Other times, I'll just quietly walk out of the room to get a drink or visit the bathroom until the coast is once again clear.
2. The reason I attempt to hold my husband to these unreasonable demands is completely out of fear.... and need. In order to ... ahem...enjoy myself... sexually.... :o <<fans face to try and keep the blushing at bay>> I need to feel sexy and desirable. If I know that my husband is fantasizing about someone else, then well quite bluntly, my ego is shot and I'd not be able to think of myself in those terms. Although physically, since I'm a woman, the act would still be possible... if I were a man I would be flaccid. (Again to put it quite bluntly, :o but I'm just trying to put it in terms everyone hopefully understands.)
3. My needs and demands are quite selfish. After all, the poor guy is human. But it's something I am not at all prepared to acquiesce on.
4. It will, every single year that passes, be more and more difficult. And by the time I'm 80, I have no idea how I will be handling it. I mean... I've been a master of delusion most of my life.... but at 80... well, THAT would be QUITE a feat. My only hope could possibly be to become senile yet satisfied. LOL
5. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!

. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!
Come back again when you're drunk, that was fascinating :D

Come back again when you're drunk, that was fascinating :D
LMAO!
That's why I love you guys.

Hell I nearly misread that as "there are some gay are here in our debate" :eek: :D

You're a trouble maker :p

I completely agree and identify with that. I have to admit some things about myself.
1. I hold my husband to unrealistic standards. I do not want my husband having lustful thoughts about another woman. When confronted with images on TV that I cannot compete with by today's standards of sexual desirability, I shrink inwardly. Most often, my husband is extremely sensitive and will change the channel until the scene has passed. Other times, I'll just quietly walk out of the room to get a drink or visit the bathroom until the coast is once again clear.
2. The reason I attempt to hold my husband to these unreasonable demands is completely out of fear.... and need. In order to ... ahem...enjoy myself... sexually.... :o <<fans face to try and keep the blushing at bay>> I need to feel sexy and desirable. If I know that my husband is fantasizing about someone else, then well quite bluntly, my ego is shot and I'd not be able to think of myself in those terms. Although physically, since I'm a woman, the act would still be possible... if I were a man I would be flaccid. (Again to put it quite bluntly, :o but I'm just trying to put it in terms everyone hopefully understands.)
3. My needs and demands are quite selfish. After all, the poor guy is human. But it's something I am not at all prepared to acquiesce on.
4. It will, every single year that passes, be more and more difficult. And by the time I'm 80, I have no idea how I will be handling it. I mean... I've been a master of delusion most of my life.... but at 80... well, THAT would be QUITE a feat. My only hope could possibly be to become senile yet satisfied. LOL
5. I cannot believe I just shared that with everyone whilst completely sober!

Hum...

To start with, just from reading your posts, you come across as being a very charming person. I'm guessing your husband see's much more in you than just an object of physical pleasure. I'm also guessing that when you looked into each others eyes and said I do, is wasn't out of any kind of fear.

:):):)

Hum...

To start with, just from reading your posts, you come across as being a very charming person. I'm guessing your husband see's much more in you than just an object of physical pleasure. I'm also guessing that when you looked into each others eyes and said I do, is wasn't out of any kind of fear.

:):):)

Firstly, why thank you kind sir, for describing me as charming.
Secondly, of COURSE my husband sees much more in me than just an object of physical pleasure. We share so much other than that aspect of our lives, which is why I'm not concerned about losing any of that at this point. However, this IS a very gratifying part of my personal life that I'm not keen on losing THAT.

Consider this. My legs do not identify who I am, and if I lost them, I'd still be me.... but I'd CERTAINLY miss them and all the pleasures they've enabled me to experience through dancing and moving in whichever way I wished.

I think it's easy to say that if something in particular is lost, to look on the bright side and consider all you have left. But there would still be a void. And gardening, for example, would not be a fullfilling replacement. LOL... Gardening x ?hours = ?hours Sexual pleasure. I'd be fried to a crisp and have leathery skin to boot!

You're a hoot...

I didn't mean to get into this so deep. I was simply challenging Kraj's assertion that he feels people get married mainly because they fear something. :0

I was thinking the other way around, that people don't get married because of fear - fear of commitment :):)

You're a hoot...

I didn't mean to get into this so deep. I was simply challenging Kraj's assertion that he feels people get married mainly because they fear something. :0

I was thinking the other way around, that people don't get married because of fear - fear of commitment :):)
No no no.... you have misunderstood Kraj's assertion. He was not speaking of marriage. He was speaking of monogamy. You equate, in your experiences and beliefs, naturally, monogamy to marriage.

You see, this is the problem that I think we have gotten ourselves into. Someone says something that is misinterpreted by another. This is why people have gotten into such heated arguments and have turned personal.

You have to read things with a completely open mind as to what the intent may be. This is why I chose to ask for clarification on a previous comment about morality and virginity. If we are given an opportunity to CLARIFY our statements, I think we will find that we are more agreeable to each other than if we just assume that opinions other people are asserting are in direct opposition to our own, simply based on a comment.

Of course, there will be a difference of opinion in any subject of which we may be speaking. But I think if we take those opinions and break them down to their essentials, we can find quite a bit of common ground. Much better than taking the extremist beliefs and standing by them no matter what people say, only to widen the pre-supposed divide between us.

And, I have to say that I have NEVER been offended by anything that anyone has said in this forum. However, I have been deeply saddened when witnessing complete and utter miscommunication that resulted in personal offense toward others.

It is both hilarious and surprising to me that I've set up a Boxing Ring in the middle of this forum and yet it is starting to be one of the most civil conversations here in month. LOL... so I don't mean to hijack this thread with compassion, clarification and understanding. But I certainly like the way it is going.

Several times now I’ve tried to kick start a topic and get momentum in that subject only to have it unravel. I find this very disturbing. I think Tess has so far proved the most intuitive in initiating threads to counter act this phenomenon. Or maybe it just the Wild West effect, as soon as the ladies went West, churches, schools, and the rule of law, were soon to follow.

I meant that in a good way it just sound crass. Been up too long working.

Several times now I’ve tried to kick start a topic and get momentum in that subject only to have it unravel. I find this very disturbing. I think Tess has so far proved the most intuitive in initiating threads to counter act this phenomenon. Or maybe it just the Wild West effect, as soon as the ladies went West, churches, schools, and the rule of law, were soon to follow.

To be fair, I think I have a few advantages.

1. I am a woman, and in public, men do not go out of their way to offend a woman.
2. As a woman, I have experiences in which I've had to listen to what people, especially men, have to say and formulate my response with much deliberation. Most of these experiences include having to treat men as my superior. (i.e. boss, father, pastor, other patriarchs) Therefore, I've learned to give much thought in understanding the viewpoint of a man.
3. As a woman, I am not prone to partaking in piss-fights. I've concentrated, due to past experience and necessity on making the way smooth so I can survive.
4. I have no shame. I can share the most personal of experiences knowing that, if I communicate effectively, I will be understood because I believe that we are all basically the same.... deep down. As a rule, men aren't willing to be that vulnerable for the sake of communication.

:rolleyes: I am in no-wise advocating a men-bashing thread for here on in. But women, although they make 75% of a man's wage... do have a lot of advantage in other arenas. And I THANK you guys for leaving us that. (Really, though... it's for your own good. LOL)

Okay Rich... I came back after two drinks... lol... sorry it wasn't more titillating! :p

Tess

No no no.... you have misunderstood Kraj's assertion. He was not speaking of marriage. He was speaking of monogamy. You equate, in your experiences and beliefs, naturally, monogamy to marriage.

Maybe we let should let hem clarify. Either way, I challenge it. :p

Okay Rich... I came back after two drinks... lol... sorry it wasn't more titillating! :p

Tess
Have a few more Tess, have a few more :D

Maybe we let should let hem clarify. Either way, I challenge it.
Ken, I'm sincerely concerned that there's no way we'll communicate clearly on this one. I thought I made it very clear in my first post (#38) that I was talking about sex, just as Tess discussed that her daughter was anxious to have sex, not to get married. Never did I mention marriage or committed relationships; in fact, neither did you. You simply substituted monogamy for marriage.

While, as you pointed out, that would be valid in some contexts it is far from the only valid use of the word. When I pointed out that 'monogamy' is usually used to refer to sexual behavior, you accused me of attempting to use a technicallity to divert from the real issue. The thing is, we aren't even discussing the same issue yet because we are using different definitions of the word; you have been challenging an assertion I did not make. If I were to use the word monogamy to mean marriage or a committed relationship, then I agree with everything you say. However, I accept that the definition of monogamy may refer exclusively to sexual behavior and that is the definition my previous statements apply to. Consider this: some species of animals (very, very few I might toss in there) have sex with only one partner for their entire lives. This is referred to as monogamy. Obsiously these animals are not married, nor are they in committed relationships.

That said, I have a few responses to some of your specific statements:

OK, then how about "I can see how it's possible that you don't understand" (Which is what I meant anyway...)
That rewording is equally offensive. You have assumed that because my point of view is different that I simply don't understand.

I didn't know you were married?
You described your marriage in this way:
I think I stay committed to my marriage to my wife because, among other reasons, I feel good and complete when I lay down with her at the end of the day.
I stay with my partner because I love him. Every day, I choose to be with him. I choose him when we're happy, I choose him when we're fighting. I choose him when I'm lonely and I choose him when I have the opportunity to choose someone else. There's no one else I'd rather go to bed with and there's no one else I'd rather have holding me when I wake up. I can't imagine my life without him and I get all teary-eyed when I try.

I every way that actually matters, Ken, I'm married.

Your opposition so far has been contending that commitment is the same as monogamy,[...]
In which line did I say that?
...
Sorry, but I don't see any reference to monogamy here; you've completely replaced the word with "committment" and "marriage".
Hum.. I've always felt that they're kind of interchangable when used within context of the discussion we're having.
There ya go. Post #49. :)

So, on a historical timeline monogamy as a part of marriage is a very new concept.
- You were just born a few hundred years late :)
I think if we're discussing concepts like marriage that have been a part of human existance for thousands of years, it's valid to look at history. If you feel monogamy is morally right for no other reason than your personal choice, then that's fine and valid. But if you feel monogamy is morally right based on religious reasons or societal norms, then it's valid to point out that monogamy has not been the societal norm for the vast majority of human existence. You can't just pick and choose what segment of history is valid, and if you completely eschew history in favor of the now, then you must open up to the idea that it might be ok to change what we do now.

I stay with my partner because I love him.

I though you said it was because of fear. :rolleyes:

I though you said it was because of fear. :rolleyes:
Ken,

Whether you're kidding or not, that comment was really, really shitty.

I expected better from you.

Did I miss something?

Fear and desire exsit in all aspects of life. Excuse my spelling my pc crashed this mornig and I'm typing directly into this post (no MS Word to make me look smarted)

Fear and desire exsit in all aspects of life. Excuse my spelling my pc crashed this mornig and I'm typing directly into this post (no MS Word to make me look smarted)

But he asserted that fear was the primary reason that people stay together. Then he said it was love. I wasn't trying to be a smart ___. Believe me, I'm bitting my lip on this one ;)

But he asserted that fear was the primary reason that people stay together. Then he said it was love. I wasn't trying to be a smart ___. Believe me, I'm bitting my lip on this one ;)
Ken, how can I communicate this more clearly? Monogamy and committment are not synonyms, they are not equivalent. It doesn't matter how strongly you associate the two, there are fundamental differences between the two concepts. And I have made it abundantly clear that I never made any statement whatsoever about relationships - my statments were about sex. If you refuse to accept my definition for monogamy, then fine. But stop insisting that your definition applies to my statements.

And irregardless of all this, the fact alone that you responded to my thorough and earnest post with a one-line sarcastic remark was shitty. Period.

And irregardless of all this, the fact alone that you responded to my thorough and earnest post with a one-line sarcastic remark was shitty. Period.

I didn't mean it as sarcastic. Sorry if you took it that way...

And you can be married and committed and have sex with other people.

and thus divorce the concepts of sex and intimacy. The two together are much better :)


I resubmit to you that the reasons monogamy has become an essential component of marriage and committment are fear-based.

Monogamy builds intimacy which builds strength of trust. These serve as solid foundations for one's offspring to flourish. If there are no dependants then perhaps it is not as important - I don't know.


I would also argue that the requirement of monogamy is the a key factor in the breakdown of marriage as an institution.

Where are you getting the idea that the concept of marriage has broken down?

From Merriam-Webster
commitment - to put into charge or trust, to pledge or assign to some course or use
monogamy - marriage with but one person at a time
marriage - wedlock, ceremony, a close union

From Merriam-Webster
commitment - to put into charge or trust, to pledge or assign to some course or use
monogamy - marriage with but one person at a time
marriage - wedlock, ceremony, a close union
Way to pick whichever definition suits you best. Good job!

From the exact same source, ie. Miriam-Webster Online:
monogamy
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

and thus divorce the concepts of sex and intimacy.
"Divorce" is a rather vague word to use here, but I would argue that sex and intimacy are two different things regardless of your behavior. They certainly correlate but are still distinct.

The two together are much better
I agree. However, since sex and intimacy are different experiences and emotions, human beings desire each seperately. Artificially forcing the two to occur simultaneously is, in my opinion, unhealthy.

Monogamy builds intimacy which builds strength of trust.
Perhaps, but intimacy and trust are not exclusive to monogamous relationships. In fact, I would argue that trust is much greater in non-monogamous because both partners allow the other sexual freedom, yet trust them to remain committed to the relationship. Monogamous relationships, on the other hand, are often very fearful of the partners' desires and unknown activities. (I'm don't mean to say that applies to all monogamous relationships, but Tess's own testimony proves that such behavior does occur.)

These serve as solid foundations for one's offspring to flourish. If there are no dependants then perhaps it is not as important - I don't know.
That's a whole 'nuther can of worms. But I think many marriages would benefit from being less rigid sexually, which would translate into less stress on the marriage, which would mean less stress on the parents, which would mean less stress on the children.

Let me point out that I am not suggesting monogamy is bad or that non-monogamous relationships should be the norm. In fact, if monogamy is what comes natural to you and your partner, then that's what you should do. But if you desire to have sexual contact with people outside your relationship (as the great majority of people do at some point) but don't because you're afraid of what it would do to the relationship, then I would suggest you and/or your partner probably have unhealthy insecurities. If you don't want your partner to have a sexual experience with someone they're attracted to, ask yourself why.

Where are you getting the idea that the concept of marriage has broken down?
Look at divorce rates. Here's a citation for you:
"In America, divorce used to be difficult to obtain and, usually, impossible without good reason: adultery, abandonment, abuse, alcoholism. In 1880, according to the historian Robert L. Griswold, one marriage in 21-fewer than 5 percent-ended in divorce. Over time, there have been peaks and valleys in the divorce rate, such as the period immediately following World War II, when returning soldiers found things rather different from how they had left them, or were themselves tremendously changed by war. "But beginning in the mid-1960s," writes Griswold, the divorce rate "again began to rise dramatically, fueled by ever-higher marital expectations, a vast expansion of wives moving into the work force, the rebirth of feminism, and the adoption of 'no fault' divorce (that is, divorce granted without the need to establish wrongdoing by either party) in almost every state." Griswold continues, "The last factor, although hailed as a progressive step that would end the fraud, collusion, and acrimony that accompanied the adversarial system of divorce, has had disastrous consequences for women and children.'"[Powell, D. (2003) Divorce-on-Demand: Forget about Gay Marriage- What About the State of Regular Marriage? National Review, v55 i20. Retrieved June 9, 2004 from Expanded Academic ASAP.]
Marrriage, as an institution, is breaking down (at least in the United States).

How often do you have sex with other guys?

If you don't want your partner to have a sexual experience with someone they're attracted to, ask yourself why.


Pride, jealousy, fear, or a combination of all.
Seconds out, round ten :cool:

How often do you have sex with other guys?
Well since you asked, actually never :p

If you don't want your partner to have a sexual experience with someone they're attracted to, ask yourself why.


I have asked myself why and here is what I have come up with.

When I was a kid, I had two other best friends. We had this special "camp" that we would go to, to hang out and goof around. Now the location of this place was secret and what we spoke of there was never spoken of elsewhere. This is what I mean by intimate, it's a seperation from the outside world. The fact that no-one else was invited to this place strengthened our bond.

Now for me, same goes for sex. You build a relationship with another by creating those little nuggets that no-one else knows about. The more of these little gems that you and your partner know about and nobody else does, the stronger your bond. That is what I mean by intimacy.

This is how intimacy and sex can combine. If you and only you know how to make your partner squeal by touching him/her in the right place - that is what fortifies your bond. You can tell other people about what makes you squeal if you like but my point is, is that is one less thing that is unique to your relationship and one less thing that you are your partner keep solely to yourselves.

How often do you have sex with other guys?
Ken, if you felt personally attacked by my initial comments because you thought I was suggesting your own relationship was based on nothing but fear, I sincerely apologize. But I have explained myself several times over that your interpretation of my statements was not the intended meaning of my statements. You have yet to demonstrate or even acknowledge that you now accurately understand what I was trying to say in the first place. Until you do I have no desire to continue the discussion with you.

Furthermore, I have made no direct personal comments about you or your marriage or asked any questions about your behavior. That is because the discussion is not about the individual choice a couple makes about their sex life, it is about human behavior in general. So unless you explain what purpose will be served by me discussing my personal life, then I'm not going to do it. Especially when the last time I discussed my personal feelings, you used them to attack my position.

I have asked myself why and here is what I have come up with.[...]
I think I can honestly say that's the best argument for monogamy I've ever heard. I will also say that that desire, in and of itself, has no fear-based component. What I see there is a desire to create a bond with your lover, and one method is to make certain aspects of yourself more special by reserving some things for only her. I'd say there's a degree of illusion there, but hey, Oscar Wilde said that illusion is the first of all pleasures ;) I can also see how, if this type of bond is a significant part of the relationship, sex outside the relationship would damage it no matter what.

However, I would hope that the "nuggets" you speak of run much deeper than sexually. If you gave up some of the sexual ones, you certainly should have plenty more when it comes to your experiences together, secrets, you've shared, hardships you've weathered, etc.

I would also suggest that the strength of one's desire to have sex outside of the relationship is important. If it's minor, then it's probably not worth sacrificing any nuggets. If it is strong, then it might do more damage to the relationship not to act on it than losing a nugget or two would do.

Ken, if you felt personally attacked by my initial comments because you thought I was suggesting your own relationship was based on nothing but fear, I sincerely apologize. But I have explained myself several times over that your interpretation of my statements was not the intended meaning of my statements. You have yet to demonstrate or even acknowledge that you now accurately understand what I was trying to say in the first place. Until you do I have no desire to continue the discussion with you..

I think your 'no desire' and subsequent 'Furthermore' just had a head-on collision :p

I think the catch is this; I think that sex and relationships are inextricably intertwined and I get the feeling that you don't.




Furthermore, I have made no direct personal comments about you or your marriage or asked any questions about your behavior. That is because the discussion is not about the individual choice a couple makes about their sex life, it is about human behavior in general. So unless you explain what purpose will be served by me discussing my personal life, then I'm not going to do it. Especially when the last time I discussed my personal feelings, you used them to attack my position.

Sorry, You certainly seemed willing to discuss them when you felt it bolstered your argument...

I think that sex and relationships are inextricably intertwined ...
Does the rest of the animal kingdom feel this way? :confused:

Does the rest of the animal kingdom feel this way? :confused:

Good question! Why don't you ask the monkey in the mirror? :D

Good question! Why don't you ask the monkey in the mirror? :D
But you're not standing beside me Ken :confused:

But you're not standing beside me Ken :confused:

I'll try to stand by your feeble side and support you whatever the answer is :p

I'll try to stand by your feeble side and support you whatever the answer is :p
Well that's good because I have a cynical view towards marriage and monogamy. Are you still standing? ;)

I think the catch is this; I think that sex and relationships are inextricably intertwined and I get the feeling that you don't.
This is fun. You are attempting to strengthen your position by redefining it in more ambiguous terms.

If by "inextricably intertwined" you mean "they always affect each other" then I'll agree. If you mean that sex cannot occur outside of a relationship, or that sex constitutes a relationship (beyond a sexual encounter), then I disagree and have previously supported such a position.

Sorry, You certainly seemed willing to discuss them when you felt it bolstered your argument...
If you're referring to this:
I stay with my partner because I love him. Every day, I choose to be with him. I choose him when we're happy, I choose him when we're fighting. I choose him when I'm lonely and I choose him when I have the opportunity to choose someone else. There's no one else I'd rather go to bed with and there's no one else I'd rather have holding me when I wake up. I can't imagine my life without him and I get all teary-eyed when I try.

I every way that actually matters, Ken, I'm married.
it was not an argument at all, it was an answer to your question. It was also before you started making off-color comments at my expense. If you're referring to this:
Good luck on this one...
I'm having good luck with this one, thank you very much.
then yes, I opened the gate on that one. However, all I was really doing was making a smarmy reply to your smary comment, not bolstering an argument.

In any case, I'm getting weary of your personal comments toward me, when I'm just trying to have an honest discussion. This may be the boxing ring, but I didn't wrench myself out of a war with Rich and Colin just to start one with you. So I may choose not to reply to further comments. Good day.

Which comment do you feel was smarmy? (So I can try and avoid it next time) If it was the one about the number of sex partners, I'm sorry. I was just trying establish what you feel is an acceptable level of sexual activites one could have without having it affect the relationship you have with your partner.

Personally, I say none. Would you say a weekly whirl or maybe just once or twice a month? Or maybe just once in a blue moon? I really didn't think the question was flippant or smarmy,espeacially when posed to a person of such self proclaimed sexual liberation. :o

Edit: Maybe the two of us should avoid any debates on these topics in the future, I'd hate to lose you as a friend. :) And I still think we agree on much more than we disagree on :) :) :)

But if you desire to have sexual contact with people outside your relationship (as the great majority of people do at some point) but don't because you're afraid of what it would do to the relationship, then I would suggest you and/or your partner probably have unhealthy insecurities.
Whilst they might be unhealthy, I suspect most of us have them.

I was just trying establish what you feel is an acceptable level of sexual activites one could have without having it affect the relationship you have with your partner.

That would depend on your partners feelings, surely?

That would depend on your partners feelings, surely?

Sorry Rich, I think the page has been turned in this thread :(

You guys mind if I chime in?

I don't. But I may have run Kraj off :(

Let me reinstall word first; cant spell my own name.

I have dedicated a little time to think about this. I think you are both right. I see monogamy as a gift. A process by which you assuage your partners fears. But it’s much more than that. When I was young I had many (too numerous to speak about) affairs. And at one point one woman seemed like another. Now I practice monogamy as a method of making sex into love making. As a pact, a pact that doesn’t let anyone else be part of our intimate life.

Now love making continues to get better. So it is a self fulfilling legacy of intimacy.

Sounds like bs, I know, but it works.

I have dedicated a little time to think about this. I think you are both right. I see monogamy as a gift. A process by which you assuage your partners fears. But it’s much more than that. When I was young I had many (too numerous to speak about) affairs. And at one point one woman seemed like another. Now I practice monogamy as a method of making sex into love making. As a pact, a pact that doesn’t let anyone else be part of our intimate life.

Now love making continues to get better. So it is a self fulfilling legacy of intimacy.

Sounds like bs, I know, but it works.

I light of the fact that I've decided to clip my own wings on this topic, I 'no comment' your reply.

But can still do one of these -> :) (Can't I?)

Which comment do you feel was smarmy? (So I can try and avoid it next time)
The one I quoted: "Good luck on this one..."

It didn't bother me in the least, but if you're not making a serious comment, then I should not be held to my non-serious reply.

If it was the one about the number of sex partners, I'm sorry. I was just trying establish what you feel is an acceptable level of sexual activites one could have without having it affect the relationship you have with your partner.

Personally, I say none.
I would say that's for people to work out for themselves. For most people today, it's none, but I also think for most people that's unhealthy. Why? Because people want to have sex with different people; that's a part of human biology. It doesn't go away when you say 'I do' and that causes a hell of a lot of stress on a marriage. It would be healthier for the individuals and healthier for the relationship if they have some sort of outlet for those desires rather than repressing them. If there's one useful thing that psychology has taught us, it is that repressing emotions is rarely a healthy thing.

My contention from the beginning has been that forcing those emtions into repression damages relationships and marriages. More than half of marriages end in divorce and a large percentage (at least 30%) of those are related or directly due to infidelity. Additionally, more than half of marriages continue after infidelity occurs and 78% of them later describe their marriage as unhappy. (Statistics from www.divorcepeers.com) That works out to around 35-40% of marriages that would otherwise be happy if the partners simply had a healthy sexual outlet.

If you really, really, really, really, really, want to know about my personal relationship, I'll tell you. It's just that the last thing I want to do is to make it seem like I'm arguing that my arrangement is right for everyone or that everyone should feel the same way I do about it.

Edit: Maybe the two of us should avoid any debates on these topics in the future, I'd hate to lose you as a friend. :) And I still think we agree on much more than we disagree on :) :) :)
I'd agree, but I don't think it's necessary to avoid discussing sexual topics as long as we can avoid taking things personally.

I see monogamy as a gift.[...]
I don't think that's b.s., I think that's you recognizing what you want most out of sex and understanding how to be where you want to be. And I think that's wonderful. The key here is it's what you've decided for yourself and not something you've been forced into by your partner or society. And that's very healthy :)

:)
.
.
.
.
What does Tess have for us to discuss next :D

:)
.
.
.
.
What does Tess have for us to discuss next :D
Religion :p

Quote:Originally Posted by KenHigg

.
.
.
.
What does Tess have for us to discuss next

Religion

Done to death, as is economics, and soon the cosmos. I keep telling you we need to talk about crackers.

I keep telling you we need to talk about crackers.
http://www.britsuperstore.com/acatalog/Jacobs_Cream_Crackers_300g.jpg

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/335885/2/istockphoto_335885_christmas_crackers

Way to pick whichever definition suits you best. Good job!

From the exact same source, ie. Miriam-Webster Online:
monogamy
1 archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
2 : the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
3 : the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

Not true, my pocket dict. only had one definition. How ever under USAGE NOTES it does state all USAGE of the word is not defined, only the most commonly accepted usages.

http://www.evl.uic.edu/pape/Marx/films/posters/AnimalCrackers.jpg

http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Ideas/Album/ChineseNewYear/FireCrackers5.jpg

http://www.doheth.co.uk/funny/misc/Animal_Crackers.jpg

http://www.elizabethcarrington.co.uk/images/products/14503large.jpg

Ouch! What a Cracker!

http://www.cameodance.com/images/nutcracker-upcoming.jpg

http://www.nancyricaschiff.com/media/book/Safe_Cracker.jpg

Ref 3a (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=cracker)

:mad: :mad: :mad:

Cracker (http://movies.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=533550)

Good Show

American Crackers (http://www.askuncleralph.com/Life/Book_review_1.htm)

in line with a previous thread. Blam, ugh, take that, fisticuffs a flying, pugilists.
POW (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/050930140708.k6bnuj54.html) :cool:

in line with a previous thread. Blam, ugh, take that, fisticuffs a flying, pugilists.
POW (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/050930140708.k6bnuj54.html) :cool:
With any luck the government will give the same rights to those living together as the married, then the ceremony can be done away with altogether

So basically all of Britian will be filled with bastards in time?
:eek: :rolleyes: :D

ROFL!

Kudos, sir. Quite witty! :D

So basically all of Britian will be filled with bastards in time?
:eek: :rolleyes: :D
Yes of course, but then there still won't be as many as in the US :p

Yes of course, but then there still won't be as many as in the US :p
Boy Rich, that is one of the lamest come-backs you have ever had. You feeling OK?
:p

You feeling OK?
:p
No, I've just read another load of bullsh.. from the biggest bastard (http://www.political-comedy-central.com/bush/bush5/bush_queereye.jpg) in the world :mad:

No, I've just read another load of bullsh.. from the biggest bastard (http://www.political-comedy-central.com/bush/bush5/bush_queereye.jpg) in the world :mad:

Did you take a peek in the mirror again :p

I don’t know about the biggest bastard, but he sure is dumb looking

Did you take a peek in the mirror again :p
But what would be the point Ken? Bush isn't standing beside me and there's no way his picture'll be hanging on my wall! :cool:

Bush isn't standing beside me and there's no way his picture'll be hanging on my wall! :cool:
On second thoughts

http://web-dart.com/Dartboards/images/bush_board_02.jpg

:cool:

You sure waste a lot of time fretting over something you have no control over. Maybe you should re-focus :)

You sure waste a lot of time fretting over something you have no control over. Maybe you should re-focus :)
What a defeatist attitude Kenny, I'm shocked! :eek:

What a defeatist attitude Kenny, I'm shocked! :eek:

I guess one man's defeatist attitude is another's realist attitude :o

Holy Brittainy Spears Batman, three days the boxing ring has laid fallow. There have been no pugilistic fisticuffs, no rants, no raves no ideological vents just quiet. :eek: It is too quiet. TessB, we need your spirit to resurrect this monument of vile bile or discourse depending on one's worldview. Let the latent battles begin anew! :D Let the Queen of Hearts show her true red leanings. Let the Mad Hatter spew forth with litigious or feckless pontifications. Let the countdown continue!

Where'd you find all those adverbs and adjectives? :) :) :)

Let the latent battles begin anew!
Alrighty, I'll fan the flames. :D

Here's a little pic I cooked up in response to a PM I received inquiring as whether there is a part of Hell reserved for hypocrites, which was referring to a certain person's (starts with an 'R') hypocritical comment. It's just too much fun not to post.

That oughtta get the ball rolling! :p

Where'd you find all those adverbs and adjectives? :) :) :)
www.GrammarialGramerye.com ;)

Kraj: www.GrammarialGramerye.com

Alas your hyperlink returns The page cannot be displayed

KenHigg:
My hyperbolic adjectives are the result of years of mushroom farming by using the fallout of political rhetoric as the fertilizer for prolific growth.

The page cannot be displayed and what was the hypocritical comment that brought this thread into being.
We need the full facts if we're to make a balanced judgement

Kraj:

Alas your hyperlink returns

KenHigg:
My hyperbolic adjectives are the result of years of mushroom farming by using the fallout of political rhetoric as the fertilizer for prolific growth.

I don't see how you manage as well as you do :p

Kraj:

Alas your hyperlink returns
I know. I made it up. Does that anger you??? Let's box!
http://www.greatbigstuff.com/prodpics/boxinggloves.jpg

what was the hypocritical comment that brought this thread into being.
We need the full facts if we're to make a balanced judgement
Why do we need to make a balanced judgement? You're a hypocrite. Let's box!
http://www.boxinggyms.com/images/miche_glove_med.jpg
http://www.angelfire.com/sk/poisonsteak/images/boxing.jpg

Anyone else think this guy is &*@#% hot!!?? Let's box!
http://www.draytonsunderwear.com/images/187IJContender%20Black%20Boxing%20Protector.gif

Why do we need to make a balanced judgement? You're a hypocrite. Let's box!

All my judgements are balanced, the fact that they differ from yours on many occasions doesn't make me a hypocrite, try again

All my judgements are balanced, the fact that they differ from yours on many occasions doesn't make me a hypocrite, try again
I can't try again because I never tried in the first place.

*Duck!* *Dodge!*

Kraj:I know. I made it up. Does that anger you??? Let's box!

You made up a hyperlink! GRRR, barefists only, take that POW, and that WHAM and this OUFFF. Egads you are a formidable opponent. That hurts. Watch where you are hitting. UMMP, OWIE, OUCH. Alas, sweet Camilla, Kraj has put the whoops on me. My breath is growing more labored (laboured to you Brits)(and no I’m not having a baby). At last the long exhalation exhibited by spasms of my trembling and broken fingers and my expiration is nigh. Goodbye cruel world. I’ll miss the watercooler. EXPIRED. (put money in the meter). (Gadzooks, I’m long winded today).

Now that was funny! :p

Kraj:

labored (laboured to you Brits).
Only for those that can spell correctly

Only for those that can spell correctly
Oh yes! Bah-Zing! So fresh and orginal! What wit! What finesse! I'll be laughing about that one all the way home, yessir I will....

I'll be laughing about that one all the way home, ...
That'll make a change :cool:

Some one in googleland has a sense of humor(humour). Go to google, put in "failure" see the first link shown.

Come un ya slackers, the fight must continue. Put up yur dukes (I'll put up John Wayne and the city of Albuquerque(the duke city))

Wow,
What an incredibly accurate portrait of our 43rd President.

But now for something a little less upbeat.

There have been 43 presidents and I have been alive for 10 of them. Damn I must be getting old.

Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton? One can only hope.

Put up yur dukes
http://cartoonvillains.8m.com/images/maleimages/dukegummi.jpg
http://www.thechapmansonline.com/Marmaduke.jpg
http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/dune/lynch/leto.jpg

Clinton
Bush
Clinton? One can only hope.
You do not deserve to fly to the Lone Star flag, It is obviouse you have become a right coast extremist as most of them. Will have to label you Rich Jr.

HEHEHEHEHE
Got you going didn't I

http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/images/duke-wellington-200.jpg

Clinton? One can only hope.
It's the only name on the list worthy of any merit :cool:

It's the only name on the list worthy of any merit :cool:
Are you on drugs?

All of them had accomplishments worthy of history, maybe you think Monty would have made a better Supreme Commander.

All of them had accomplishments worthy of history...
Even Carter? :confused:

It's the only name on the list worthy of any merit :cool:
You know sometimes I think you are actually a hard-line conservative in disguise. Cause whenever you open your mouth, thinking people around the world flock to the Republican Party.

The last thing they’re heard saying as they cross the line. “If he’s a liberal, thank god we have the conservative to rely on.”

I posted that trying to get a rise out of the conservatives, Hell they’ll just sit back and let you do their dirty work.

thinking people around the world flock to the Republican Party.
.

No not the world, just the US of A, that's why Bush was re-elected with a majority :rolleyes:

No offence to the ladies. But before, when we were all arguing and fighting, we were having a lot more activity. Now it seems everyone is taking the kids to school, going to church, tending their jobs, and generally being boring.

All of them had accomplishments worthy of history, maybe you think Monty would have made a better Supreme Commander.
We're talking presidents, not war generals, but since you asked, Monty would probably have made a better pres than most on that list :cool:

Monty??
Python?

General Montgomery

You know, the British guy that thought a direct assault on Germany was the way to go. He ended up getting lots of people killed, and losing the objective in the process.


No offence to the ladies. But before, when we were all arguing and fighting, we were having a lot more activity. Now it seems everyone is taking the kids to school, going to church, tending their jobs, and generally being boring.

Ok then Rich,
Glad to see you took up my invite.

General Montgomery

You know, the British guy that thought a direct assault on Germany was the way to go. He ended up getting lots of people killed, and losing the objective in the process.
.
Where exactly did this happen.? Do you mean Market Garden? that's where we were denied the resources for fear of upsetting glorious George :rolleyes:

Monty??
Python?
Definitely :D

We're talking presidents, not war generals, but since you asked, Monty would probably have made a better pres than most on that list :rolleyes:

Yeah he would have made a great president.
General Montgomery's 'Racist Masterplan'. Mark Weber. The reputation of Britain's most famous Second World War military commander has suffered a major blow ...

Monty for President (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n2p33_Weber.html)

Yes as a racist he would have fitted in the US really well :eek:

Well it’s actually a little more complicated than either of our post would indicate.
Both Patton and Montgomery thought Eisenhower erred, to fight a projected front. Ultimately they (Patton and Montgomery) were wrong, The war was more or less concluded, or at least hastened by the bombing of German fuel facilities. Lucky for the Allies, The United States had plenty of domestic oil production. I think its easy to look back and say this decision was right and that one was wrong. Certainly without strong cooperation between Briton and The US, Germany would have won the war.
Zeig Hail, huh Rich?

Wasn’t sure how to spell it so I Googled it. Here’s one you’ll love
Zeig Hail (http://www.greenepages.com/ear/yourmom/zieghail.html)

The war was more or less concluded, or at least hastened by the bombing of German fuel facilities.
That's far too simplistic, and only played a small part in the overall picture, the greater part of the war was of course won by the Russians

Your national anthem is also out of date, I'm thinking this line,
land of the free and home of the brave.
Neither of these statements are correct of course, you're not free and since you all but wiped them out there are few braves left.
How about
Land of the capitalist and home of the poor,
Land of gun culture and home of the corrupt,
Land of the church and home of the soulless.

Rich has a good point; the German loss at the battle of Kursk was a turning point greater than Stalingrad. With German armour broken, the Soviet march into the west was all but unstoppable.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt, you were bagging each other’s country.

Your national anthem is also out of date, I'm thinking this line,
land of the free and home of the brave.
Neither of these statements are correct of course, you're not free and since you all but wiped them out there are few braves left.
How about
Land of the capitalist and home of the poor,
Land of gun culture and home of the corrupt,
Land of the church and home of the soulless.

How about 'up your bum'? :)

How about 'up your bum'? :)
Home of the up your bum,
that might please some, but I suspect most yanks would object :p
now try again :D

Oh Ricky, you're such a prick one minute and so silly the next...

Rich has a good point; the German loss at the battle of Kursk was a turning point greater than Stalingrad. With German armour broken, the Soviet march into the west was all but unstoppable.

Ah yes but I doubt this event appears in US history books, John Wayne and Robert Mitchum couldn't be credited with winning the battle for America :D

Oh Ricky, you're such a prick one minute and so silly the next...
How can I be the prick when it was your suggestion???? :confused: :rolleyes:

You are a prick for making the 'Your national anthem ' remarks deary boy... :)

You are a prick for making the 'Your national anthem ' remarks deary boy... :)
You mean there's nothing wrong with it as is? :confused:

Hum... Not so much an issue of is there anything wrong with it as there is the issue of your wise cracks... :)

Perhaps you should focus on fixin' your 'Save the Queen' thing :)

Hum... Not so much an issue of is there anything wrong with it as there is the issue of your wise cracks... :)

But I just offered some viable alternatives and then put your suggestion into context :confused:

Perhaps you should focus on fixin' your 'Save the Queen' thing
Untill she pops her clogs we don't needs to, and when she does we only have to change one word :cool:

Land of the church and home of the soulless.

I love it when you accidently reveal your pseudo stance of against the US system not the US people. It simply exposes your callous indifference to other people's feelings.

...don't needs to,

You hitting the bottle a little early? :p :D

I love it when you accidently reveal your pseudo stance of against the US system not the US people. It simply exposes your callous indifference to other people's feelings.
Actually I think the quote belongs to GBS, although I could be wrong of course :eek:

You hitting the bottle a little early? :p :D

sounds a bit redneck... :p

I don't wants me no pie ma, I'm fixin to go to Dairy Queen.

You hitting the bottle a little early? :p :D
no it's the result of picking up titbits of the modern education system, frequently posted here :p

no it's the result of picking up titbits of the modern education system, frequently posted here :p

Or your medication wearing off... :p

I'm fixin to go to Dairy Queen.
What does she have on offer? :confused:

http://downtownme.com/weblinks/581/Images/pic6.jpg

:) :) :) :)

Or your medication wearing off... :p
well can I borrow some of your Sanatogen then? :p

http://downtownme.com/weblinks/581/Images/pic6.jpg

:) :) :) :)
Typical American diet, yuk! No thanks :cool: :p

well can I borrow some of your Sanatogen then? :p
You want some of this?

http://www.thedrinkshop.com/images/products/main/1906/1906.jpg

Does it taste like American beer? :eek:

How should I know, you requested it :)

That's far too simplistic, and only played a small part in the overall picture, the greater part of the war was of course won by the Russians


Hard to Run a modern war:

When your tanks won’t run,
When you can’t supply the troops,
When you can’t manufacture arms and supplies,

Yeah running out of fuel sure was a small thing.

Now that whole Russian thing, you’re absolutely right without the Russians the war would have gone on much longer. But once again you’ve proven my point for me.

Why did the Germans want Russia, Hmm let me think. Oh yeah I remember, Oil

Oil, once again the main reason the Germans lost the war; we had access to it, and they didn’t. So in a manor of speaking the Russia did win the war by denying oil the Nazis.

Does it taste like American beer? :eek:
Good try, but your lack of the American beer market knowledge is showing.
Last time I was in London (about 4 years ago) I was suprised to see most of the young Friday night pub crowd hang'n out in the streets by the pubs drinking BUDWEISER of all things. Ok a few had Miller. I remember walking by thinking, all that great British beer and they are drinking that :eek:
But the American beer market has changed, and there are many local beers that are wonderful now. We are not limited to Bud, Miller and the like any more :p

The Germans lost the war when they lost the Battle of Britain, and thus Britain was still in the war
The knock on effect of this was that the Germans did not have access to oil
Their infrastructure was subject to airiel bombardment
Troops were tied down in the west
The resistance forces were supplied
etc etc
Sure the Russians were able to play a major part as were other allies, but without that defeat Germany would have been unchalleged in Europe, Russia would probably have been defeated, and America would not have entered the European theatre of war.

Brian

Anyway, sorry to interrupt, you were bagging each other’s country.
Actually Lister,

That is not my intention. If you go back and read the post you’ll find that I say many wonderful things about the British people. I think that our relationship with the British is one the most important ones in the world. Not just to us, but to others as well.

I’m not “bagging” his country.

Here are the facts:
I said there have been 43 presidents and I have been alive for 10 of them. I listed them, plus a joke at the end about Hillary.

He made disparaging remarks about the presidents and offered up that his racist general would have made a better president than any of the last 10.

That is not “bagging” another’s country, that’s someone trying to use the internet as a diversion to his own mental illness.

We (the people of the United States) are not to blame for your insanity Rich. Try to get a grip on your life. I just want to make it clear that this is not about US verses Briton this is about the nonsensical raving of a lunatic mind. (Quoted from Saturday Night Live).

I feel better now.

...

That is not “bagging” another’s country, that’s someone trying to use the internet as a diversion to his mental illness.

We (the people of the United States) are not to blame for your insanity Rich. Try to get a grip on your life. I just want to make it clear that this is not about US verses Briton this is about the nonsensical raving of a lunatic mind. (Quoted from Saturday Night Live).

I feel better now.

Bravo !! Well said !!

http://mk23.image.pbase.com/u8/erichmangl/upload/13293897.Grin.gif

Why did the Germans want Russia, Hmm let me think. Oh yeah I remember, Oil
.
Well actually no, Russia wasn't a major oil producer at the time, the Krauts went to Rumania for that

Oil, once again the main reason the Germans lost the war; we had access to it, and they didn’t. So in a manor of speaking the Russia did win the war by denying oil the Nazis
Well actually wrong again, although there were shortages after the Ruskies took back Rumania, Germany actually produced most of its needs synthetically.
The main reason for the war ending was the combined might of the allied forces raged against it.
The attacks by the allies against the synthetic oil installations was just another means to the end

Good try, but your lack of the American beer market knowledge is showing.
Last time I was in London (about 4 years ago) I was suprised to see most of the young Friday night pub crowd hang'n out in the streets by the pubs drinking BUDWEISER of all things.

That's kids for you, they wouldn't know the difference between real beer and a pint of milk :D

First I must apologies to Rich for attacking him personally. There are however 2 reasons why I did and I thought in the interest of maintain diplomatic relations I would relate them to you.

1. My intention was to make it clear that transatlantic bickering is of no value, to anyone, and that most Americans harbor no ill feelings towards any foreign nationals. Most particularly Britts.

2. Anytime someone post a fair rebuttal it is answered either by something taken out of context, a glib reply, or a complete falsehood, I have yet to see an argument go where he actually admitted that he was wrong.

So growing tired of having every post turned around to be fuel for anti-American rantings I decided to take that approach.

Now that I’ve done it, I’m not sure it was appropriate. So if anyone want to critizise me for it. Please do so.

I’ll take it, if I can dish it out…

Actually Lister,

That is not my intention. If you go back and read the post you’ll find that I say many wonderful things about the British people. I think that our relationship with the British is one the most important ones in the world. Not just to us, but to others as well.


Here are the facts:
I said there have been 43 presidents and I have been alive for 10 of them. I listed them, plus a joke at the end about Hillary.

He made disparaging remarks about the presidents and offered up that his racist general would have made a better president than any of the last 10.

I feel better now.
What are you prattling on about, it was you who brought Monty into the discussion, NOT ME :rolleyes:

I’m not “bagging” his country.
You can't :cool: :p

First I must apologies to Rich for attacking him personally.
Good, now stick to arguing politics :p

So growing tired of having every post turned around to be fuel for anti-American rantings I decided to take that approach.
Welcome to the club. :rolleyes:

Since part of this thread deals with WWII, and part of it deals with the relationship between UK and NA, I point to a movie I watched recently, Reunion at Fairborough. Robert Mitchum is terrible in it, but Deborah Kerr is pretty good, and Barry Morse is excellent. Anyway, it's a feel-good movie that parallels my feelings for folks in the UK, including Rich. :)

I don't recall that one Friday and now they've closed winmx, I can't go and search for it :mad: :D

Closed winmx? What you talk'n about?

Closed winmx? What you talk'n about?

I was wondering that myself. What's winmx?

Typical American diet, yuk! No thanks :cool: :p

What's wrong with ice cream? :confused: ;)

I was wondering that myself. What's winmx?
peer to peer file sharing

I don't recall that one Friday and now they've closed winmx, I can't go and search for it :mad: :D

Haven't you tried Kaza yet then!.....after all that trouble I went to finding you the link :mad: I decided to get rid of it myself after the adverts started annoying the hell out of me :mad: bring back winmx :(

Of course there is Kaza Gold which you pay a small amount for, not sure how much it is but probably worth it.

Hay