NationStates Jolt Archive

Some dumb couple are polluting their, so called, most beautiful day in their life by marrying in Shrek style.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Head_ogre_heels_in_love&in_article_id=632790&in_page_id=34

Really, I thought it rather lovely.

I wonder what they'll say once the drugs wears off.

sanctity of marriage, indeed, :p


Hey, whatever floats your boat...*contemplates Jedi wedding* lol

Really, I thought it rather lovely.

I would do as well. At least when I was 8 years old or something ;)

I would do as well. At least when I was 8 years old or something ;)

I looked at their age, and I wonder if it's a mid life crisis kinda deal.

Sane people just buy sports cars. Insane people revert back to childhood.

Insanity, doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

I looked at their age, and I wonder if it's a mid life crisis kinda deal.

Sane people just buy sports cars. Insane people revert back to childhood.

I hope they can't produce any children anymore.

Imagine, that they raise their kids in 'Shrek-style'... :)

Insane people revert back to childhood.

According to this guy (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=591575) most of the world is Insane, lol

I hope they can't produce any children anymore.

Imagine, that they raise their kids in 'Shrek-style'... :)

Well, this world do need more mountain men.

I think that's cool. At least they didn't dress as storm troopers.

I think that's cool. At least they didn't dress as storm troopers.

quit killing my dreams, >.>

quit killing my dreams, >.>

and Darth Vader would never marry Princess Lelia....outside of Alabama.....

:D

Some dumb couple are polluting their, so called, most beautiful day in their life by marrying in Shrek style.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Head_ogre_heels_in_love&in_article_id=632790&in_page_id=34

Right. A couple chooses to celebrate their love in a way that is presumably meaningful to them, and it should be banned, free expression be damned.:rolleyes:

Once again, I petition whoever decides the smilies for these forums to give us a wanker smilie. It is badly needed.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.
Any time someone says there oughta be a law there probably oughtn't.

Any time someone says there oughta be a law there probably oughtn't.

there should be a law against suggesting laws, lol...

Edit: and not getting sarcasm...

I quite like the idea. Fairy-tale wedding indeed.
Just... a three hour make-up session... for THAT ? The mans headcap is painfully obvious... Pity :(

I quite like the idea. Fairy-tale wedding indeed.
Just... a three hour make-up session... for THAT ? The mans headcap is painfully obvious... Pity :(

I think they spent 2 hours and 50 minutes on the woman, and 10 minute on the guy.

I think they spent 2 hours and 50 minutes on the woman, and 10 minute on the guy.

Like God himself, :p

I quite like the idea. Fairy-tale wedding indeed.
Just... a three hour make-up session... for THAT ? The mans headcap is painfully obvious... Pity :(

The man his name is...Keith Green. lol

Like God himself, :p

Ba Zing!

*gives slice of cheesecake*

Ba Zing!

*gives slice of cheesecake*

mmmm.....kakey, lol...

Hey, who am I to judge. People to all sorts of things when they get married, like pretend to be Scottish.I have to say that the bride's mum was awesome for being so good natured about the wedding.

Hey, who am I to judge. People to all sorts of things when they get married, like pretend to be Scottish.I have to say that the bride's mum was awesome for being so good natured about the wedding.

I wonder how much of it was the husband's idea though. Because we all know that the Wedding Day is all about the bride.

Which is probably why if I ever get married, I will be bored out of my mind on my wedding day. I view graduations, funerals, and weddings in the same light. Something that could be done in a shorter amount of time, less cash, and more awesomeness.

if anything "polutes" a merrage, its gratuitous conventionality. more power to the origeonals with a little bit of imagination. if ever there were a god's choosen people, its hippies and hoboes, and now a days furrys.

I think they spent 2 hours and 50 minutes on the woman, and 10 minute on the guy.

The woman does not look that convincing either...
Seriously. It is their wedding. A professional make-up artist and three hours should have produced better results...

Still, kudos to them for daring to be different :) They should have considered having the wedding in the Netherlands at Fairytale castle "de Haar" this weekend - about 20.000 people were walking around in similar costumes ;)

Good for them :D

I'm getting married next year, and the idea of putting on a frilly white frock and veil, pretending to be a virgin who's uglyness should remain hidden from my husband until its too late, or of going along with all the other now meaningless and fairly insulting traditions seems more false and silly than this. Good on 'em for not just going with the usual bollocks :)

Heh. Kind of funny, although the guy's headpiece could have used a bit more work.

It's their day and their choice, so frankly if it makes them happy, cudos to them.

Some dumb couple are polluting their, so called, most beautiful day in their life by marrying in Shrek style.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Head_ogre_heels_in_love&in_article_id=632790&in_page_id=34

Why?

I just don't understand the logic in your stance here?

It is their beautifull day, and they can do it anyway they want surely?

Unless you are one of these old fashieond people who belive that the form of the thing must be maintianed?

My working theory:

The only people who feel the need to hate on other people's wedding style are the people who secretly wish they'd have thought of it first.

(And yes, this include the anti-gay-marriage assholes, most of whom I believe are closeted homosexuals who wish they'd come out long ago.)

When you get down to it, a wedding is just a very traditional attention grab. A way of saying, "LOOKIT US! LOOKIT US!" that society finds not only acceptable but actively encourages. This was obviously a very successful one.

When you get down to it, a wedding is just a very traditional attention grab. A way of saying, "LOOKIT US! LOOKIT US!" that society finds not only acceptable but actively encourages. This was obviously a very successful one.

In all seriousness, I think the main disagreement people have is about who a wedding is FOR.

Some people believe a wedding is for the couple. It's supposed to be a day for the couple to celebrate and get attention. From that point of view, "unusual" weddings are fine as long as the couple is getting what they wanted.

Others believe a wedding is for the guest, or for society at large. The purpose of the wedding is to have the couple perform a series of rituals for the benefit of others. From that point of view, if the couple fails to provide the sort of wedding that somebody ELSE wants, then it's a bad wedding.

In all seriousness, I think the main disagreement people have is about who a wedding is FOR.

Some people believe a wedding is for the couple. It's supposed to be a day for the couple to celebrate and get attention. From that point of view, "unusual" weddings are fine as long as the couple is getting what they wanted.

Others believe a wedding is for the guest, or for society at large. The purpose of the wedding is to have the couple perform a series of rituals for the benefit of others. From that point of view, if the couple fails to provide the sort of wedding that somebody ELSE wants, then it's a bad wedding.

Yeah I totaly agree with this. It is a little of both. For example I both understood why and yet still felt hurt when I was not invited to my brothers wedding a couple of years back, and only too the eveing piss up. I would have loved to see myu lil bruv get married, alas it was not to be.

I was hoping for a dragon. :(

Some dumb couple are polluting their, so called, most beautiful day in their life by marrying in Shrek style.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Head_ogre_heels_in_love&in_article_id=632790&in_page_id=34

Says the poster with a tranny as avatar.

What makes you the supreme arbiter how Thou Shalt Get Married? Laws? Against two people choosing to marry however they wish? What's the matter with you?

In all seriousness, I think the main disagreement people have is about who a wedding is FOR.

Some people believe a wedding is for the couple. It's supposed to be a day for the couple to celebrate and get attention. From that point of view, "unusual" weddings are fine as long as the couple is getting what they wanted.

Others believe a wedding is for the guest, or for society at large. The purpose of the wedding is to have the couple perform a series of rituals for the benefit of others. From that point of view, if the couple fails to provide the sort of wedding that somebody ELSE wants, then it's a bad wedding.

I was asked to sing "Sign Your Name" by Terence Trent D'Arby for my best friend's wedding. I was happy to do it. At the rehearsal, the Lutheran priest took me aside and asked me not to sing that song at the actual wedding for fear of -- well, I don't really remember specifics, but I'm thinking the old women present might be afflicted with the vapors or something if they didn't hear something bland.

I assured the old gentleman that I'd do what I could to make sure the ceremony went well. I sang the living shit out of "Sign Your Name", with special emphasis on the line "I'd rather be in hell / with you baby than / in cool heaven".

The GROOM wanted the song. The BRIDE wanted the song. It was THEIR song. Fuck anyone else for trying to shoehorn my friends into their ill-fitting shackles.

When you get down to it, a wedding is just a very traditional attention grab. A way of saying, "LOOKIT US! LOOKIT US!" that society finds not only acceptable but actively encourages. This was obviously a very successful one.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why?

I just don't understand the logic in your stance here?

It is their beautifull day, and they can do it anyway they want surely?

Unless you are one of these old fashieond people who belive that the form of the thing must be maintianed?

My feelings says that getting married in Shrek style is so childish stupid. But hey, if you like your wedding style like this one, go for it.

It’s for sure a Shrek day you’ll never forget!

Says the poster with a tranny as avatar.

What makes you the supreme arbiter how Thou Shalt Get Married? Laws? Against two people choosing to marry however they wish? What's the matter with you?

It's not a tranny.

And even if it was, there's still a difference in using some avatar on some forum and having a shrek wedding.

And why should I share your enlighted opinion? May I have another one as you? What's the matter with you?

My feelings says that getting married in Shrek style is so childish stupid. But hey, if you like your wedding style like this one, go for it.

It’s for sure a Shrek day you’ll never forget!

Ahhh well thats fine then, I do not need to understand the logic of your stance, as there is none, it is just your feelings.

It's not a tranny.

And even if it was, there's still a difference in using some avatar on some forum and having a shrek wedding.

And why should I share your enlighted opinion? May I have another one as you? What's the matter with you?

Your opinion is actually demanding LAWS BE PASSED against people getting married in any way they wish. I'll assume the Shrek concept broke no existing laws.

THAT's what's the matter with you. To be fair, you may have been exaggerating for "humor", but that's not the way I saw it. You're perfectly welcome to have differing opinion. The problem is that yours advocates curtailing others' freedoms. That makes it suspect, if not actually wrong.

Sorry 'bout the "tranny" bit.

My feelings says that getting married in Shrek style is so childish stupid.

And a "normal" ceremony is not ;) ?

Your opinion is actually demanding LAWS BE PASSED against people getting married in any way they wish. I'll assume the Shrek concept broke no existing laws.

THAT's what's the matter with you. To be fair, you may have been exaggerating for "humor", but that's not the way I saw it. You're perfectly welcome to have differing opinion. The problem is that yours advocates curtailing others' freedoms. That makes it suspect, if not actually wrong.

Sorry 'bout the "tranny" bit.

No worries, you have a nice poodle as avatar ;)

And a "normal" ceremony is not ;) ?

Sure. But Shrek style is even more stupid.

This people were probably drunk or something. 40 years later THEY have to remember their Shrek mistake, not me. :)

But hey, I admit children would adore the Shrek marriage concept. Maybe I am too old to act as a child.

No worries, you have a nice poodle as avatar ;)

Briard, but both are French, so you were in the right area. [EDIT: I thought you meant my NS flag. Duh. The OMAC avatar is a wolf.]

Your other post is exactly right. THEY will have to look back on their wedding photos and realize that their "creativity" was nothing more than borrowing from a mass-produced movie filled with nothing more creative than cultural references placed in a fairy-tale context. Now that's kinda pathetic, but hardly needful of a law. Besides, their kids will love it once they've watched the film (assuming they're childless now and plan to have some).

And even if it wasn't for that reason, life is too full of restrictions and constraints as it is. I say go nuts while you can.

Briard, but both are French, so you were in the right area. [EDIT: I thought you meant my NS flag. Duh. The OMAC avatar is a wolf.]

Your other post is exactly right. THEY will have to look back on their wedding photos and realize that their "creativity" was nothing more than borrowing from a mass-produced movie filled with nothing more creative than cultural references placed in a fairy-tale context. Now that's kinda pathetic, but hardly needful of a law. Besides, their kids will love it once they've watched the film (assuming they're childless now and plan to have some).

And even if it wasn't for that reason, life is too full of restrictions and constraints as it is. I say go nuts while you can.
^^ This.

And hey, they could always renew their vows in more traditional garb, and accidentally lose the Shrek-ceremony photos.

But I want to know, how did she do the transformation from human Fiona to ogress Fiona?

My working theory:

The only people who feel the need to hate on other people's wedding style are the people who secretly wish they'd have thought of it first.

(And yes, this include the anti-gay-marriage assholes, most of whom I believe are closeted homosexuals who wish they'd come out long ago.)

Sorry, I don't wish to be married "Shrek-style". So far I am trying to work out how I can rent a Boeing 747-400 for my wedding ceremony.

Sure. But Shrek style is even more stupid.

This people were probably drunk or something. 40 years later THEY have to remember their Shrek mistake, not me. :)

But hey, I admit children would adore the Shrek marriage concept. Maybe I am too old to act as a child.

I was thinking more along the line of drugs.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

I hope they enact laws against whiny Europeans complaining about how people want to get married.

I hope they enact laws against whiny Europeans complaining about how people want to get married.

Oh yeah? Like Americans who go wild for...homosexual marriages?

You say that like it's a bad thing.
Eh? I say it like it's a thing. Marriage is marriage. It's a relatively absurd thing, in general, if you can take a step back. Some people in this thread seem unable to do so, though.
Sure. But Shrek style is even more stupid.

This people were probably drunk or something. 40 years later THEY have to remember their Shrek mistake, not me. :)

But hey, I admit children would adore the Shrek marriage concept. Maybe I am too old to act as a child.

lulz. You're displaying judgmental arrogance, not aged maturity. How is dressing up like characters from a fun and fantastical movie any different, from an outsider viewpoint, from putting on a poofy white dress and an uncomfortably constricting pants and slacks for, most likely, only a single day while a man whose sworn off sex for the rest of his life so as to garner the love of a risen psychic space zombie jew rumored to have existed two millennia ago? People participate in silly rituals in silly ways. To show such condescending views towards them for that is arbitrary, at best.

I should note, I'm not railing against Catholic marriage ceremonies, either. I'm simply trying to put the comparison in a proper context. I honestly don't find this ceremony any weirder than any other.

Oh yeah? Like Americans who go wild for...homosexual marriages?

Actually, some American states have legalised homosexual marriage, and America overall is making progress towards civil rights for gays. Banning things like this would be regression, and actually worse than banning gay marriage, because at least some people claim religious beliefs as their reason for disliking homosexuality, whereas you want to stop these people from enacting the happiest day of their life in the way they want because you find it stupid and immature. I wonder what that shows us about you?

Eh? I say it like it's a thing. Marriage is marriage. It's a relatively absurd thing, in general, if you can take a step back. Some people in this thread seem unable to do so, though.


lulz. You're displaying judgmental arrogance, not aged maturity. How is dressing up like characters from a fun and fantastical movie any different, from an outsider viewpoint, from putting on a poofy white dress and an uncomfortably constricting pants and slacks for, most likely, only a single day while a man whose sworn off sex for the rest of his life so as to garner the love of a risen psychic space zombie jew rumored to have existed two millennia ago? People participate in silly rituals in silly ways. To show such condescending views towards them for that is arbitrary, at best.

I'm wondering how many of you liberal ones, are liberal enough to accept gay marriages :) Even if they were done Shreky style.

If I ever get married, I sincerely hope I "pollute" my "most beautiful day" by having fun and laughing and being silly.

I'm wondering how many of you liberal ones, are liberal enough to accept gay marriages :) Even if they were done Shreky style.

Huh? Why wouldn't I accept gay marriage? Have I said anything in this thread, or even my relatively small posting history, to make you think I'd not accept gay marriages?

Actually, some American states have legalised homosexual marriage, and America overall is making progress towards civil rights for gays. Banning things like this would be regression, and actually worse than banning gay marriage, because at least some people claim religious beliefs as their reason for disliking homosexuality, whereas you want to stop these people from enacting the happiest day of their life in the way they want because you find it stupid and immature. I wonder what that shows us about you?

I don't bother gay marriages. But we should protect people against their own stupidity in Shrek marriages.

Most countries have all kind of laws to protect people against their own silly dumbness.

If I ever get married, I sincerely hope I "pollute" my "most beautiful day" by having fun and laughing and being silly.

And then on your 50th anniversary you'll look back and regret all that fun and silliness of your wedding. Marriage is serious business for serious faces, sheez.

If I ever get married, I sincerely hope I "pollute" my "most beautiful day" by having fun and laughing and being silly.

I would feel the same, if I was 6 years old or something.

If I ever get married, I sincerely hope I "pollute" my "most beautiful day" by having fun and laughing and being silly.

No, Poli, you can't do that, you have to do it Hairless kitten's way.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.
I agree... that pun was practically leathal!

Most countries have all kind of laws to protect people against their own silly dumbness.

Silly dumbness that might harm people, yes. Not silly harmless fun that is giving these people great pleasure.

I would feel the same, if I was 6 years old or something.

Oh, for fuck's sake, are you that boring and just generally fail-filled that you think laughing and being happy on your wedding day is for 6 year-olds? Jesus Christ, sort yourself out.

I don't bother gay marriages. But we should protect people against their own stupidity in Shrek marriages.

Most countries have all kind of laws to protect people against their own silly dumbness.

You have not explained why this silly dumbness is any sillier or dumber than a religious ceremony.

You have not explained why this silly dumbness is any sillier or dumber than a religious ceremony.

Because it does not properly establish that a wife is the property of the husband ?

Oh, for fuck's sake, are you that boring and just generally fail-filled that you think laughing and being happy on your wedding day is for 6 year-olds? Jesus Christ, sort yourself out.

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain. In which position are you?

It's not funny, it's just plain stupid. It's ridiculous. You act only like that when you're on dope or booze.

It's a nice remembering for their parents as well.

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain. In which position are you?

It's not funny, it's just plain stupid. It's ridiculous. You act only like that when you're on dope or booze.

It's a nice remembering for their parents as well.

Getting married Church style is for the uneducated or for the unintelligent who never got a good education. In which position are you?

It's not funny, it's just plain stupid. It's ridiculous. You act only like that when you're a peasant or live in the dark ages.

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain...
Why do you give so much of a shit?

It's their wedding, they're happy, end of story.

Whining obtusely about the cognitive capabilities of the couple only makes you look the fool.

I wonder if I can get my family to go along with a nude wedding...

Well damn it all to Hell, I went blind....

Oh, for fuck's sake, are you that boring and just generally fail-filled that you think laughing and being happy on your wedding day is for 6 year-olds? Jesus Christ, sort yourself out.

No, no, he's totally convinced me. Weddings should not be about being happy! That would imply that you loved your spouse and marrying them was a good thing or something! I mean, what's next, having music and dancing at your reception? Drinking champagne? Having sex on your wedding night? Shameful!

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain.

Saying "that's too childish for me" is something 12 year olds do.
An adult has no such problems.

Of course, many 50 year olds are not "adults" yet.

Saying "that's too childish for me" is something 12 year olds do.
An adult has no such problems.

Of course, many 50 year olds are not "adults" yet.

Like I always say, if you haven't grown up by the time you turn 50, you shouldn't have to.

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain. In which position are you?

It's not funny, it's just plain stupid. It's ridiculous. You act only like that when you're on dope or booze.

It's a nice remembering for their parents as well.

Well, this supports my thesis. Yet another killjoy who labors under the misconception that somebody else's wedding is supposed to be tailored to HIS tastes.

Of course, this particular killjoy also seems to believe that he knows the parents of the bride and groom better than, you know, THE BRIDE AND GROOM.

I don't no if this has already been posted (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/main.asp?SectionID=6&SubSectionID=84&ArticleID=16944).

What were the chances of someone who liked Shrek so much that they wanted to be married while dressed as Shrek would find someone who liked Shrek so much they wanted to married while dressed as Fiona? This is almost spookily romantic, in it's own way.

Why do you give so much of a shit?

It's their wedding, they're happy, end of story.

Whining obtusely about the cognitive capabilities of the couple only makes you look the fool.

Why are you giving so much for their Shrek shit?

Are you now wearing such a Shrek costume?

Why are you giving so much for their Shrek shit?

Are you now wearing such a Shrek costume?

Oh, excellent counter argument! I tremble before your intellectual superiority. I think Chumbly finds your intolerance repulsive because he believes harmless fun is just that, harmless fun, and these people want to get married like this. You might think it's stupid, and that's fine, but it's not fair to discriminate against them for having fun.

Oh, excellent counter argument! I tremble before your intellectual superiority. I think Chumbly finds your intolerance repulsive because he believes harmless fun is just that, harmless fun, and these people want to get married like this. You might think it's stupid, and that's fine, but it's not fair to discriminate against them for having fun.

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

Why though? I admit that I think the Shrek wedding idea is stupid, and they were probably high when they thought it up and was high during the actual ceremony, but why would being married dressed up as Shrek and Fiona lead to jail time?

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

*Smashes fist through screen*

I can't even be bothered to fight this sort of bigotry anymore.

*Smashes fist through screen*

I can't even be bothered to fight this sort of bigotry anymore.

Did you smashed your fist through the screen after or before sending your last message?

My working theory:

The only people who feel the need to hate on other people's wedding style are the people who secretly wish they'd have thought of it first.

(And yes, this include the anti-gay-marriage assholes, most of whom I believe are closeted homosexuals who wish they'd come out long ago.)

Given how many people are against gay marriage, you're suggesting that a good half of the US or so are probably closet gays.

Given how many people are against gay marriage, you're suggesting that a good half of the US or so are probably closet gays.

And that same 50% which is against gay marriage is thinking that Shrek marriages are ok. Go figure! :)

Obvious troll is obvious.

And that same 50% which is against gay marriage is thinking that Shrek marriages are ok. Go figure! :)

Actually, I'd imagine that the group most likely to oppose Shrek marriages (ie, uptight religious people), would probably overlap considerably with the group that opposes gay marriages. But I'm sure you already knew that.

The second and third Shrek movies were terrible.

The couple should've had a Live and Let Die themed wedding, complete with boat chase.

The second and third Shrek movies were terrible.

The couple should've had a Live and Let Die themed wedding, complete with boat chase.

You are wrong. The second film was incredibly entertaining, and I would seriously consider putting it on my list of my ten favorite films of this decade. Not because it was particularily deep or innovative, but for shear entertainment value and for being a rare sequel that outshone the first film in that area. Though to be fair, the main reason I prefer the second film is probably the cat. I loved that character.:)

By the third one, however, the formula had become quite tired and dull.

I wonder how much of it was the husband's idea though. Because we all know that the Wedding Day is all about the bride.
All I can say to that is that my mentor's advice when I told him I had asked my wife to be to marry me turned out 100% true. At the begining, he said, she'll be telling you how it's supposed to be 'our' special day and how she wants your opinion and imput on everything, but when the time actually comes it will be "Shut up! Stand here, wear what I tell you to wear and say what I tell you to say!"

As I said, he was absolutly right. :wink:

Why is anyone this invested in vilifying what this couple did?
Does it change your life?
Does it impact on your wedding?
Do you think they, their families, or their friends care what you think?

What ought to be a law is teaching how to discern the difference between personal taste and the public good (which is what law regulates). The public is not harmed by this. Therefore, the law should avoid sticking its nose where it's not wanted.

Kudos for originality. Hey, you didn't think of it.

Given how many people are against gay marriage, you're suggesting that a good half of the US or so are probably closet gays.
1) It's actually more like 30%
2) Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Of course, I personally think that less than 10% of the population is "innately" exclusively heterosexual, so that's my bias.

Why is anyone this invested in vilifying what this couple did?
Does it change your life?
Does it impact on your wedding?

In a word? Yes.

There are a ton of people out there who harbor horrible, pervasive doubts about their own life choices. Sometimes it's not even doubts...sometimes they KNOW, for sure, that they made choices which make them miserable. They know they didn't want the life they have.

If you are a person like that then the fact that other people make different choices and are happy about it is a direct threat to your peace of mind. They are a constant reminder that you are a sucker and a coward. You played by "the rules" and obeyed "tradition" and ended up unhappy and repressed. They, meanwhile, are doing what you didn't have the courage to do: buck tradition in favor of trusting their own conscience and values. And they're HAPPY as a result.

This is why you must hate them, ban them, stone them. Because their continued existence alone is unacceptable, and their HAPPINESS is even worse.

1) It's actually more like 30%
2) Wouldn't surprise me in the least. Of course, I personally think that less than 10% of the population is "innately" exclusively heterosexual, so that's my bias.

An opinion which so far as I am aware lacks any evidence whatsoever.

I'm just so tired of the cliche drivel that says "you're a homophobe so you must be a closet gay." It just reeks to me of someone who's taking a cheap, shallow shot with virtually no thought while patting themselves on the back for how clever and insightful they are. It even seems a little like a way for the pro-gay rights side to use "you're gay" as an insult without being called homophobes themselves.

I realize that may not always be the case. But God I'm tired of it. Maybe I make too big an issue of it. But I wish that supporters of gay rights would not stoop to such a poor response.

Eh? I say it like it's a thing. Marriage is marriage. It's a relatively absurd thing, in general, if you can take a step back. Some people in this thread seem unable to do so, though.


lulz. You're displaying judgmental arrogance, not aged maturity. How is dressing up like characters from a fun and fantastical movie any different, from an outsider viewpoint, from putting on a poofy white dress and an uncomfortably constricting pants and slacks for, most likely, only a single day while a man whose sworn off sex for the rest of his life so as to garner the love of a risen psychic space zombie jew rumored to have existed two millennia ago? People participate in silly rituals in silly ways. To show such condescending views towards them for that is arbitrary, at best.

I should note, I'm not railing against Catholic marriage ceremonies, either. I'm simply trying to put the comparison in a proper context. I honestly don't find this ceremony any weirder than any other.

Direct hit to HK's bullshit.

Getting married Shrek style is for children or for adults with an unfinished developed brain. In which position are you?

It's not funny, it's just plain stupid. It's ridiculous. You act only like that when you're on dope or booze.

It's a nice remembering for their parents as well.

How do you know the parents don't love the idea? Seriously, what's your problem? I mean, besides having a rotten attitude and a control complex?

What were the chances of someone who liked Shrek so much that they wanted to be married while dressed as Shrek would find someone who liked Shrek so much they wanted to married while dressed as Fiona? This is almost spookily romantic, in it's own way.

Second direct hit to HK's bullshit. Finding someone who is as wacky as you are? Priceless.

Why are you giving so much for their Shrek shit?

Are you now wearing such a Shrek costume?

Oh, brilliant riposte. I'm giving a shit about their freedom to CHOOSE, that freedom which, in your current ignorance forgets applies to you. For example, I think your avatar is a completely fugly "woman" -- BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE JAILED FOR IT. See the difference? Probably not.

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

I rest my case. You're acting like a childish idiot.

In a word? Yes.

There are a ton of people out there who harbor horrible, pervasive doubts about their own life choices. Sometimes it's not even doubts...sometimes they KNOW, for sure, that they made choices which make them miserable. They know they didn't want the life they have.

If you are a person like that then the fact that other people make different choices and are happy about it is a direct threat to your peace of mind. They are a constant reminder that you are a sucker and a coward. You played by "the rules" and obeyed "tradition" and ended up unhappy and repressed. They, meanwhile, are doing what you didn't have the courage to do: buck tradition in favor of trusting their own conscience and values. And they're HAPPY as a result.

This is why you must hate them, ban them, stone them. Because their continued existence alone is unacceptable, and their HAPPINESS is even worse.

And this is the third salvo landing a direct hit on HK's bullshit.

Son, you're done.

An opinion which so far as I am aware lacks any evidence whatsoever.

I'm just so tired of the cliche drivel that says "you're a homophobe so you must be a closet gay." It just reeks to me of someone who's taking a cheap, shallow shot with virtually no thought while patting themselves on the back for how clever and insightful they are. It even seems a little like a way for the pro-gay rights side to use "you're gay" as an insult without being called homophobes themselves.

I realize that may not always be the case. But God I'm tired of it. Maybe I make too big an issue of it. But I wish that supporters of gay rights would not stoop to such a poor response.

Tell you what -- you get the anti-gay side to stop spewing the DOZENS of cliches about homosexuals, ALL proven false, and we'll drop this ONE that MIGHT be false. After all, so many high-profile examples, and the fact that most human behavior isn't black-and-white. Bottle's numbers might be a little extreme, but I think she's right about how sexuality is a sliding scale, and that there's more people not in either 100% camp than anyone cares to think about, let alone admit.

Meanwhile, please don't hijack this thread with your own drivel, k?

Meanwhile, please don't hijack this thread with your own drivel, k?

Kinda killed your original point there dude.

An opinion which so far as I am aware lacks any evidence whatsoever.

Both untrue and also irrelevant, well done!

Yes, it's my opinion, and I said as much. Get over it.

I'm just so tired of the cliche drivel that says "you're a homophobe so you must be a closet gay." It just reeks to me of someone who's taking a cheap, shallow shot with virtually no thought while patting themselves on the back for how clever and insightful they are. It even seems a little like a way for the pro-gay rights side to use "you're gay" as an insult without being called homophobes themselves.

Must be? No, but statistically you are quite likely to be. And there is ample and extensive research to support THAT.

Of course, only a homophobe would find it insulting for someone to imply that they are homosexual. I mean, I once had somebody call me a "Jew" because they thought it was an insult. I'm not a Jew, but I'm also not insulted by being called one, because what's insulting about Jewishness?


I realize that may not always be the case. But God I'm tired of it. Maybe I make too big an issue of it. But I wish that supporters of gay rights would not stoop to such a poor response.
Concern-trolling noted.

Of course, only a homophobe would find it insulting for someone to imply that they are homosexual. I mean, I once had somebody call me a "Jew" because they thought it was an insult. I'm not a Jew, but I'm also not insulted by being called one, because what's insulting about Jewishness?

Well, if you feared being made an outcast because people thought you were a Jew, you might be a little more concerned, might be a little more susceptible to picking on Jews to demonstrate that you're no Jew.

'You' in the general sense, replaceable by 'one'.

Kinda killed your original point there dude.

By asking him not to do what he'd already done in another thread? I don't think so, but thanks for your input.

Well, if you feared being made an outcast because people thought you were a Jew, you might be a little more concerned, might be a little more susceptible to picking on Jews to demonstrate that you're no Jew.

'You' in the general sense, replaceable by 'one'.
Yes, that's true, but it's entirely different from what we were talking about.

Fearing persecution as a result of being labeled "gay" is quite different from feeling INSULTED by the insinuation that one is gay.

Of course, only a homophobe would find it insulting for someone to imply that they are homosexual. I mean, I once had somebody call me a "Jew" because they thought it was an insult. I'm not a Jew, but I'm also not insulted by being called one, because what's insulting about Jewishness?


I love it when someone hurls an "insult" like that at me. The absence of thought process is staggering: "I think Jews are awful, so EVERYBODY does -- I'll call this guy a Jew and he'll get REALLY pissed off!"

:headbang:

Yes, that's true, but it's entirely different from what we were talking about.

Fearing persecution as a result of being labeled "gay" is quite different from feeling INSULTED by the insinuation that one is gay.

I'm not sure they're not closely linked, it's partly involved with being an outcast at a time when it's very important to be part of the group.

I love it when someone hurls an "insult" like that at me. The absence of thought process is staggering: "I think Jews are awful, so EVERYBODY does -- I'll call this guy a Jew and he'll get REALLY pissed off!"

:headbang:

Which mindset we can actually relate right back to the thread topic, since it's just another facet of the same pathology: some people are so self-centered that they really believe everyone else MUST share their opinions, values, and tastes.

Some such self-centered jackoffs entertain themselves by throwing hopelessly failed "insults." (My favorite is the jackoffs who think that a fifth-year biomed grad student will be insulted by being called a "nerd.")

Others focus their energy on public policy, in an effort to waste time and money trying to lock up anybody who doesn't have the right flowers at their wedding reception.

Others pen essays about how the popularity of blue jeans is evidence for the collapse of society (/wave at the George Will thread).

But these days, there is one beautiful unifying force that will bring all these various jackoffs and kooks together, like a charming tossed salad of self-importance and snobbery:

The Internet!

I'm wondering how many of you liberal ones, are liberal enough to accept gay marriages :) Even if they were done Shreky style.

The last poll here showed that about 95% of this forum is in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Which mindset we can actually relate right back to the thread topic, since it's just another facet of the same pathology: some people are so self-centered that they really believe everyone else MUST share their opinions, values, and tastes.

Some such self-centered jackoffs entertain themselves by throwing hopelessly failed "insults." (My favorite is the jackoffs who think that a fifth-year biomed grad student will be insulted by being called a "nerd.")

Others focus their energy on public policy, in an effort to waste time and money trying to lock up anybody who doesn't have the right flowers at their wedding reception.

Others pen essays about how the popularity of blue jeans is evidence for the collapse of society (/wave at the George Will thread).

But these days, there is one beautiful unifying force that will bring all these various jackoffs and kooks together, like a charming tossed salad of self-importance and snobbery:

The Internet!

Beautifully put.

I have lots of experience with your "nerd" example. I used to just seethe inwardly and think "keep laughing while you pump my gas, troglodyte". Now I just laugh.

1) It's actually more like 30%

Interesting. What led you to that percentage? personal experience, or some other power of observation?

The last poll here showed that about 95% of this forum is in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage.

Don't confuse HK with the facts. It interferes with his sweeping generalizations and childish pronouncements.

I should possibly be clearer than my previous post.

Where a group is perceived to be 'wrong', whether that's because they're Jewish or they're gay, and where there are consequences for being in that group, then there's motivation for distancing yourself from that group to the point of helping to isolate that group as well.

As much as I can agree that the end spectrum of this is actually being part of that group and denying it, I'd say the majority of people fall into the first category.

Often, where attention is brought upon someone in that way, the impulse is to deflect attention onto another person, mostly just to deflect attention but also to identify yourself with the persecuting group.

The point is - and I don't know RR's posting style - but I don't fully disagree with his point, and that to accuse homophobes of being gay themselves can be damaging in that it entrenches the grouping.

Tell you what -- you get the anti-gay side to stop spewing the DOZENS of cliches about homosexuals, ALL proven false, and we'll drop this ONE that MIGHT be false.

Jesus Christ. Its lame enough as a joke or taunt. To hear you actually trying to seriously suggest that it may be literally true that most or all anti-gay people are closet homosexuals is so staggering pathetic...

Either provide the evidence indicating a far higher rate of homosexuality in America and Iran than in Canada and Europe, for example, or concede that you have nothing. I don't demand proof, just one shred of meaningful evidence.

You know, I'd probably care a lot less about people spouting this cliche, if they weren't actually serious about it. At that point they move from weak humor/taunts to true idiocy.

After all, so many high-profile examples, and the fact that most human behavior isn't black-and-white.

How many can you name? Ten? Twenty? Out of a population of how many? Can you quote any studies? Any statistics? Anything at all?

Bottle's numbers might be a little extreme, but I think she's right about how sexuality is a sliding scale, and that there's more people not in either 100% camp than anyone cares to think about, let alone admit.

Perhaps so. This proves what in relation to homophobes all being closet gays?

Meanwhile, please don't hijack this thread with your own drivel, k?

I probably wouldn't be continuing this discussion if people weren't trying to defend certain comments in such a laughably absurd manner. However, if the mods (not you) feel that this constitutes a thread highjack, I will be perfectly willing to start a seperate thread to debate this point, as inane as such a thread would doubtlessly be.

Don't confuse HK with the facts. It interferes with his sweeping generalizations and childish pronouncements.

Well, to be honest, I grow tired of being told how stupid I am for opposing same-sex marriage when I do not; and then when I object, being told something along the lines of: "But many in your country do oppose same-sex marriage."

I should possibly be clearer than my previous post.

Where a group is perceived to be 'wrong', whether that's because they're Jewish or they're gay, and where there are consequences for being in that group, then there's motivation for distancing yourself from that group to the point of helping to isolate that group as well.

As much as I can agree that the end spectrum of this is actually being part of that group and denying it, I'd say the majority of people fall into the first category.

Often, where attention is brought upon someone in that way, the impulse is to deflect attention onto another person, mostly just to deflect attention but also to identify yourself with the persecuting group.

The point is - and I don't know RR's posting style - but I don't fully disagree with his point, and that to accuse homophobes of being gay themselves can be damaging in that it entrenches the grouping.

Fair enough -- but you must realize that you're selling this point to the pro-gay side, right? The side most blessed with the rationality to understand it. I get the point -- those in favor of gay marriage and other gay issues shouldn't stoop to the level of their opponents in order to stay above most reproach.

I guess it just gets old having to sit and listen to the infinite variations on "it's icky and makes me personally uncomfortable" as justification for policy. Thank you for the course correction.

The point is - and I don't know RR's posting style - but I don't fully disagree with his point, and that to accuse homophobes of being gay themselves can be damaging in that it entrenches the grouping.
I understand where you are coming from with this theory, but frankly I don't think it makes any significant difference at all. I think the "entrenching effect" you're talking about is a teeny tiny drop in the ocean of hatred generated by homophobes. Of course, that's just my personal experience speaking, and I'm also a person who has long since stopped caring about the feelings of homophobes. :D

Jesus Christ. Its lame enough as a joke or taunt. To hear you actually trying to seriously suggest that it may be literally true that most or all anti-gay people are closet homosexuals is so staggeringly pathetic...

Yet you accept the sliding scale of human sexuality idea below. Hmm.

Either provide the evidence indicating a far higher rate of homosexuality in America and Iran than in Canada and Europe, for example, or concede that you have nothing. I don't demand proof, just one shred of meaningful evidence.

I don't know of anyone who's done a study, else I'd go and look for such evidence. I'm not sure how many would willingly participate in a study that might shake people from their black-and-white simplicity and into a more realistic view of sexuality. Any guesses?

You know, I'd probably care a lot less about people spouting this cliche, if they weren't actually serious about it. At that point they move from weak humor/taunts to true idiocy.

So where is your outrage over "Adam & Steve" or "They're trying to convert our children", or "it's not natural", or, or, or? I'd care a lot less about you spouting this nonsense if you weren't so serious about it -- see how ineffectual that is as an argument?

How many can you name? Ten? Twenty? Out of a population of how many? Can you quote any studies? Any statistics? Anything at all?

I've already conceded the probability that there are none. What's got your panties in such a twist, honey?

Perhaps so. This proves what in relation to homophobes all being closet gays?

Really? You don't see the connection between the far more likely model of sexuality being on a sliding scale and homophobes having to come to terms with that possibility?

I probably wouldn't be continuing this discussion if people weren't trying to defend certain comments in such a laughably absurd manner. However, if the mods (not you) feel that this constitutes a thread highjack, I will be perfectly willing to start a seperate thread to debate this point, as inane as such a thread would doubtlessly be.

Cute. I know I'm not a mod, you needn't adopt such a childishly pretentious tone while pointing out the incredibly obvious. The merely obvious will do nicely.

No more absurd than how anti-gay factions defend their horseshit by an order of magnitude. I don't get to use one ridiculous argument to counter the dozens of their ridiculous arguments -- not even to show how ridiculous they are -- just because you don't like it. Got it. Anything else we shouldn't be doing, O Great Arbiter of Argument Validity?

Both untrue and also irrelevant, well done!

One, I said your position lacked any evidence so far as I am aware, which is true.

Two, you still have not shown any evidence to support your position, so my point still stands.

Three, how is it irrelevant that your position appears to be based on little but a tired cliche and unfounded assumptions?

Yes, it's my opinion, and I said as much. Get over it.

I am, of course, free to disagree with your opinion, especially when you insist on defending it without anything to support it.

Must be? No, but statistically you are quite likely to be. And there is ample and extensive research to support THAT.

You will of course be willing to cite sources, I presume?

Of course, only a homophobe would find it insulting for someone to imply that they are homosexual. I mean, I once had somebody call me a "Jew" because they thought it was an insult. I'm not a Jew, but I'm also not insulted by being called one, because what's insulting about Jewishness?

I would be annoyed by being told by anyone that I was something I wasn't, weather I approved of that thing or not. Also, if something is intended as an insult, and especially if it bases that insult in bigotry against a group, I might be offended by that.

Also, if you acknowledge that homophobes would find being called gay an insult, and if you use it against them in part for that reason, then you are using "gay" as an insult. Which seems somewhat hippocritical to me. But perhaps I'm nitpicking too much.

Concern-trolling noted.

1) What the hell is concern-trolling?

2) If you feel I am trolling you are welcome to report it to the mods.

if they wantto spend and cleebrate their big day like why not , what do we not being in both families have a say if it fooolish or not to celebrate in such a way. at least they wheren't getting married as snorks

Three, how is it irrelevant that your position appears to be based on little but a tired cliche and unfounded assumptions?

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

One -- ONE! -- point the pro-gay side here has raised that's even a LITTLE pejorative simply DOES NOT COMPARE to the ENTIRETY of the anti-gay side's WHOLE RAFT of meaningless and empty points.

And THIS is what you choose to get upset about? THIS?

You need help.

if they wantto spend and cleebrate their big day like why not , what do we not being in both families have a say if it fooolish or not to celebrate in such a way. at least they wheren't getting married as snorks

Or Smurfs.

Fair enough -- but you must realize that you're selling this point to the pro-gay side, right? The side most blessed with the rationality to understand it. I get the point -- those in favor of gay marriage and other gay issues shouldn't stoop to the level of their opponents in order to stay above most reproach.

See, and I really can't agree with this in all situations.

I mean, yeah, it's nice to take the high road in a lot of cases, but sometimes I think it's perfectly appropriate to carry on a discussion at whatever level your opposition is functioning. I don't see any point in trying to have a mature and reasoned discussion with somebody who's argument consists of "PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHREK WEDDINGS SHOULD GO TO JAIL!!!" or "FAGS IZ ICKY!!!" That would be like trying to have a calm and rational discussion about toilet habits with your puppy right after he's peed on the rug.

Instead, when you encounter a puerile homophobe or anti-semite or racist or other such piddling bigot, just point to his "accident" and give him a light rap on the nose with a (metaphorical) rolled-up newspaper.

See, and I really can't agree with this in all situations.

I mean, yeah, it's nice to take the high road in a lot of cases, but sometimes I think it's perfectly appropriate to carry on a discussion at whatever level your opposition is functioning. I don't see any point in trying to have a mature and reasoned discussion with somebody who's argument consists of "PEOPLE WHO HAVE SHREK WEDDINGS SHOULD GO TO JAIL!!!" or "FAGS IZ ICKY!!!" That would be like trying to have a calm and rational discussion about toilet habits with your puppy right after he's peed on the rug.

Instead, when you encounter a puerile homophobe or anti-semite or racist or other such piddling bigot, just point to his "accident" and give him a light rap on the nose with a (metaphorical) rolled-up newspaper.

Exactly this. Thank you.

I mean, yeah, it's nice to take the high road in a lot of cases...

I'm not really taking the high road, and I'm not really concerned with the idea of not responding to homophobia by saying they're probably gay themselves.

I was merely genuinely curious as to the causes of homophobia, not that I'm asserting group identification is so much the cause, well, depending on what level one takes it, I'd probably go further into children's tendency to have a black/white view on things, or at least a tendency for adults to explain things in a black/white view*

Generally I'm just musing.

*I do wonder about the idea that children can't handle nuance, by the time they're asking about same sex relationships - generally 3~4 - I find children are more curious about, more engaged by, nuanced answers than set answers, just that adults seem to feel they should provide set answers, society in general certainly does.

If they want to marry that way then let them. Are you going to stop people from eloping in Vegas? People have a right to live their life the way they want, without caring what others think.

I love it when someone hurls an "insult" like that at me. The absence of thought process is staggering: "I think Jews are awful, so EVERYBODY does -- I'll call this guy a Jew and he'll get REALLY pissed off!"

:headbang:
Funny enough when I was a kid living in a predominantly Irish-American/Italian-American neighborhood, a neighborhood hooligan thought he was flinging the worst insult possible at me: "Your mother's Puerto Rican!"

I shrugged and said, "Your mother's Irish. So what?"

"I SAID YOUR MOTHER'S PUERTO RICAN!"

"And I said your mother's Irish. So what?"

Then a friend of mine chimed in with wide eyes... "You mean.... your mother IS Puerto Rican?"

"As much as your mom's Italian. What's the big deal, you've eaten at our table -- does that change anything?"

So much ignorance in the world, really. (Yes, yes, I know, they're all American, it's just some idiots think that where their great grandparents originated from makes them superior in the USA. And shock and horror that neither my mom nor I are "brown people" -- we're as white as mayo on white bread -- nor do we speak with a "Spanish [sic] accent" nor are we ill-educated or unmannerly. So NOT what racist idiots are thinking of when they think of the "stereotypical" Puerto Rican in NYC.)

Yet you accept the sliding scale of human sexuality idea below. Hmm.

What is your point? If their is a sliding scale, it still doesn't mean that all anti-gay people are on the gay end of it.

Also, in regard to the misspelling in my post, I'm sure you are aware that when one hasn't slept in 20 hours, the rate of errors probably goes up.

I don't know of anyone who's done a study, else I'd go and look for such evidence. I'm not sure how many would willingly participate in a study that might shake people from their black-and-white simplicity and into a more realistic view of sexuality. Any guesses?

Oh come on. You have certain, particular countries and regions where a much larger percentage of the population is vehemently anti-gay. These places also happen to feature heavy religious indoctrination in favor of such beliefs. But the only logical explanation is that somehow, those regions have a far higher rate of homosexuality than the rest of the world? With no evidence to show that that is the case or explain why it would be so?

Come on. I know you're smarter than this. Please, tell me you're smarter than this.

So where is your outrage over "Adam & Steve" or "They're trying to convert our children", or "it's not natural", or, or, or? I'd care a lot less about you spouting this nonsense if you weren't so serious about it -- see how ineffectual that is as an argument?

I never said any of those things, nor have I said you shouldn't care about them or take them seriously. Is their some point I'm missing here, or is this just another strawman?

I've already conceded the probability that there are none. What's got your panties in such a twist, honey?

Had you done so at the time I made the quoted post? I know you said so earlier in this post, but that doesn't count.

Really? You don't see the connection between the far more likely model of sexuality being on a sliding scale and homophobes having to come to terms with that possibility?

Again, even if sexuality is on a sliding scale, it does not mean that all who are anti-gay are on the gay end of it.

It might be true for some people, but you are grossly oversimplifying.

Cute. I know I'm not a mod, you needn't adopt such a childishly pretentious tone while pointing out the incredibly obvious. The merely obvious will do nicely.

I happen to feel that you shouldn't accuse someone of a rule violation unless you would feel confident enough in the factuality of what you are saying to make that same accusation in front of a mod. So if someone tries to accuse me of any inappropriate conduct or a rules violation, I like to remind them that they can always put their money where their mouth is.

No more absurd than how anti-gay factions defend their horseshit by an order of magnitude. I don't get to use one ridiculous argument to counter the dozens of their ridiculous arguments -- not even to show how ridiculous they are -- just because you don't like it. Got it. Anything else we shouldn't be doing, O Great Arbiter of Argument Validity?

So one wrong justifies another?

A thoughtless cliche stereotype is a cliche thoughtless stereotype. And lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It takes no extraordinary ability on my part to see it and point it out. Of course, you are free to proceed with said foolishness, but that doesn't mean I won't point out how foolish it is.

Don't confuse HK with the facts. It interferes with his sweeping generalizations and childish pronouncements.

Which facts?

This forum isn't representative for the population of a sudden country.

So, I am a child because I think it is stupid to wear a Shrek costume at a wedding? :)

If it fulfils your fantasy wearing such a costume, for heaven sake, just do it. But that does give me the right to have good laugh with you.

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

One -- ONE! -- point the pro-gay side here has raised that's even a LITTLE pejorative simply DOES NOT COMPARE to the ENTIRETY of the anti-gay side's WHOLE RAFT of meaningless and empty points.

And THIS is what you choose to get upset about? THIS?

More two wrongs make a right garbage.

Frankly, I could rant about the stupidity and injustice of the anti-gay movement for hours, and be just another little voice in the throng here.

In other words, my focussing on the same points everyone else does would be redundant. So yes, I focus on this particular piece of idiocy. Partly because it so painfully cliche and illogical, and partly because who the hell else is going to?

Which facts?

This forum isn't representative for the population of a sudden country.

So, I am a child because I think it is stupid to wear a Shrek costume at a wedding? :)

If it fulfils your fantasy wearing such a costume, for heaven sake, just do it. But that does give me the right to have good laugh with you.
Laugh, by all means - but to say there should be a law against it? That's highly intrusive.

Laugh, by all means - but to say there should be a law against it? That's highly intrusive.
And that they should go to JAIL for it. That makes the opinion laughable.

Laugh, by all means - but to say there should be a law against it? That's highly intrusive.

Ok, lets make it sure that the couple is castrated and can't reproduce anymore.

Which facts?

This forum isn't representative for the population of a sudden country.

So, I am a child because I think it is stupid to wear a Shrek costume at a wedding? :)

If it fulfils your fantasy wearing such a costume, for heaven sake, just do it. But that does give me the right to have good laugh with you.

I suppose you could laugh at homosexuals while you are at it.

I hope they can't produce any children anymore.

Imagine, that they raise their kids in 'Shrek-style'... :)

I'm wondering how many of you liberal ones, are liberal enough to accept gay marriages :) Even if they were done Shreky style.

Why are you giving so much for their Shrek shit?

Are you now wearing such a Shrek costume?

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

And that same 50% which is against gay marriage is thinking that Shrek marriages are ok. Go figure! :)

Ok, lets make it sure that the couple is castrated and can't reproduce anymore.

Ah, I see. You're trying to get a rise out of everyone by being increasingly outrageous.
Warned for trolling.

I suppose you could laugh at homosexuals why you are at it.

If they are wearing a Shrek costume at their gay marriage, I would certainly laugh with them.

Says the poster with a tranny as avatar.

What makes you the supreme arbiter how Thou Shalt Get Married? Laws? Against two people choosing to marry however they wish? What's the matter with you? Careful.

I hope they enact laws against whiny Europeans complaining about how people want to get married.
Knock it off.
Oh yeah? Like Americans who go wild for...homosexual marriages? This has what to do with anything?

Oh, for fuck's sake, are you that boring and just generally fail-filled that you think laughing and being happy on your wedding day is for 6 year-olds? Jesus Christ, sort yourself out.Warned. Personal attack.

Kat,

Why do you allow that people, in this thread, call me a tranny and an ugly wife?

Or shout at me in other threads that I'm a communist just because I don't share their ideas?

Or just do stuff as:

"Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana,
and codeine and goddamit, you little motherfucker
If you aint got nothin' nice to say then don't say nothin'
uh..
Fuck that shit, bitch, eat a motherfuckin' dick
Chew on a prick, and lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfucking gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch, eat pussy
And have pussy-lips glued to my face with a clit-ring in my nose
Then quit bringin my flows, quit giving me my ammo
Can't you see why i'm so mean? if y'all leave me alone, this wouldn't be my
m.o.
I wouldn't have to go eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a homo by his toe, man i don't know no more
Am i the only fuckin one who's normal any more?"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14744827&postcount=128

Now, I can handle it, I don't need your protection to take care of this.


But I'm wondering why you can't do silly about Shrek weddings, but that it is allowed to launch personal insults on this board.

Kat,

Why do you allow that people, in this thread, call me a tranny and an ugly wife?....

But I'm wondering why you can't do silly about Shrek weddings, but that it is allowed to launch personal insults on this board.

You should go post a thread in the moderations forum if you want to accuse someone of breaking the rules.

Mod forum: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231

The rules can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

You should go post a thread in the moderations forum if you want to accuse someone of breaking the rules.

Mod forum: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231

The rules can be found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

I know, but that's not my kind of goal. They have enough servants walking around for that purpose.

Besides, it doesn't answer my question:

Why can't you go clear silly over Shrek weddings, but is it allowed to launch personal attacks?

When I would do the same in a bar, talking silly about Shrek stuff, no one would feel offended.
When I would start to insult people then in general I'll receive a well deserved punch in the face.

Now, a forum isn't a bar, but there are some similarities.

I know, but that's not my kind of goal. They have enough servants walking around for that purpose.

Besides, it doesn't answer my question:

Why can't you go clear silly over Shrek weddings, but is it allowed to launch personal attacks?

When I would do the same in a bar, talking silly about Shrek stuff, no one would feel offended.
When I would start to insult people then in general I'll receive a well deserved punch in the face.

Now, a forum isn't a bar, but there are some similarities.

I'll type slowly for you.

If you want someone to do something about insulting you, you have to let the moderators know. The reason someone got away with a personal attack against you was because you let them.

I'll type slowly for you.

If you want someone to do something about insulting you, you have to let the moderators know. The reason someone got away with a personal attack against you was because you let them.

You are insulting me. Guards!

Btw, I saw no one complain about this thread in that mod section.

You are insulting me. Guards!

Btw, I saw no one complain about this thread in that mod section.

Let it go HK, and in future it might be worth letting people know you're not being serious from the off rather than upping the stakes.

It can be difficult to discern the spirit in which a post is made given some of the statements sometimes put across, it's understood you were being flippant, no point making it worse.

Let it go HK, and in future it might be worth letting people know you're not being serious from the off rather than upping the stakes.

It can be difficult to discern the spirit in which a post is made given some of the statements sometimes put across, it's understood you were being flippant, no point making it worse.

Maybe it was clear due the exaggeration.

But I guess that some people are taking themselves too serious.

What is your point? If their is a sliding scale, it still doesn't mean that all anti-gay people are on the gay end of it.

All? When did I say all? It's a combination of the sliding scale PLUS the notion that those who complain the loudest usually have something to hide.

Also, in regard to the misspelling in my post, I'm sure you are aware that when one hasn't slept in 20 hours, the rate of errors probably goes up.

Who cares.

Oh come on. You have certain, particular countries and regions where a much larger percentage of the population is vehemently anti-gay. These places also happen to feature heavy religious indoctrination in favor of such beliefs. But the only logical explanation is that somehow, those regions have a far higher rate of homosexuality than the rest of the world? With no evidence to show that that is the case or explain why it would be so?

Come on. I know you're smarter than this. Please, tell me you're smarter than this.

When did anyone say the rate was higher? Where are you getting this? I've opined that those who shriek the loudest have some reason to shriek, and it has more to do with being uncomfortable even thinking that they just might possibly have even an OUNCE of homosexual leanings. The sliding scale idea allows for exactly that. Hence, those who think it's icky have to go black-and-white or else risk the potential for imagining that they might have to change their minds.

I never said any of those things, nor have I said you shouldn't care about them or take them seriously. Is their some point I'm missing here, or is this just another strawman?

No, but it's interesting that your point seems to be that it's wrong to assume those who complain just might have something to hide, when that one --ONE -- assumption pales in comparison to the vast number of definitely proven incorrect assumptions made by homophobes.

Had you done so at the time I made the quoted post? I know you said so earlier in this post, but that doesn't count.

I did so in the post you quoted. You seem to have missed it.

Again, even if sexuality is on a sliding scale, it does not mean that all who are anti-gay are on the gay end of it.

Again, true. But it does mean that some are, and others are closer than they'd ever dare to admit. That makes the assumption, if not wholly accurate, at least possible.

It might be true for some people, but you are grossly oversimplifying.

Gee. Just like my opponents. As Bottle said, some ridiculousness is best met with its own level of ridiculousness. For one time -- again, ONE -- I choose to hang one out there, and this is when you choose to go ballistic.

I happen to feel that you shouldn't accuse someone of a rule violation unless you would feel confident enough in the factuality of what you are saying to make that same accusation in front of a mod. So if someone tries to accuse me of any inappropriate conduct or a rules violation, I like to remind them that they can always put their money where their mouth is.

Ah, the playground.

So one wrong justifies another?

What part of "meet silly with silly" didn't you understand?

A thoughtless cliche stereotype is a cliche thoughtless stereotype. And lack of evidence is lack of evidence. It takes no extraordinary ability on my part to see it and point it out. Of course, you are free to proceed with said foolishness, but that doesn't mean I won't point out how foolish it is.

No, but apparently it DOES take extraordinary ability on your part to see it for what it really is. You seem to think that bleating about not stooping to another's level makes you some kind of ethical champion. I assure you, it doesn't.

This forum isn't representative for the population of a sudden country.

Nor are you the arbiter of all that is right with regard to weddings. You said the couple should be jailed. You're a troll.

So, I am a child because I think it is stupid to wear a Shrek costume at a wedding? :)

Well, not until just then. See, "childish" doesn't mean I'm calling you a child. It means your ARGUMENT is childish. You're acting like a fool and not a terribly likeable one for demanding jail or castration for something so innocuous as wedding costumes.

If it fulfils your fantasy wearing such a costume, for heaven sake, just do it. But that does give me the right to have good laugh with you.

Had you stopped at laughter, and not proceeded directly to jailing and castration, I'd have completely agreed with you.

More two wrongs make a right garbage.

Wrong. That makes three. How is it possible that you don't understand that smacking an idiot with their idiocy is not two wrongs. It's talking to your opposition in the only way they seem to be able to understand. You're screaming for nuance in an argument where one side is utterly incapable of grasping such nuance due to one or another brainwashing or indoctrination.

Frankly, I could rant about the stupidity and injustice of the anti-gay movement for hours, and be just another little voice in the throng here.

So instead, you'll make a mountain out of an anthill. Nice.

In other words, my focussing on the same points everyone else does would be redundant. So yes, I focus on this particular piece of idiocy. Partly because it so painfully cliche and illogical, and partly because who the hell else is going to?

Seems to me that you don't focus on the same points as others because you can't. It's okay. I go into some threads and find that, although I have an opinion, it's already been expressed -- and many times, expressed much better -- by someone who's already posted. I just read it and get on with life rather than trying to gain attention for drawing a laser-beam focus to a point that makes no sense and isn't all that important.

Kat,

Why do you allow that people, in this thread, call me a tranny and an ugly wife?

Who said you were an ugly wife? Also, it's interesting that you only objected to it when a Mod appeared.

Or shout at me in other threads that I'm a communist just because I don't share their ideas?

Or just do stuff as:

"Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana,
and codeine and goddamit, you little motherfucker
If you aint got nothin' nice to say then don't say nothin'
uh..
Fuck that shit, bitch, eat a motherfuckin' dick
Chew on a prick, and lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfucking gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch, eat pussy
And have pussy-lips glued to my face with a clit-ring in my nose
Then quit bringin my flows, quit giving me my ammo
Can't you see why i'm so mean? if y'all leave me alone, this wouldn't be my
m.o.
I wouldn't have to go eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a homo by his toe, man i don't know no more
Am i the only fuckin one who's normal any more?"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14744827&postcount=128

Now, I can handle it, I don't need your protection to take care of this.

Then why bring it up?

But I'm wondering why you can't do silly about Shrek weddings, but that it is allowed to launch personal insults on this board.

Because you're not "doing silly". You advocated jail time and castration. That's not "silly", that's trolling.

Mostly because she and the other Mods can't be everywhere at once. If you've come across something that you think needs attention, YOU need to bring to the Moderation thread. That's what it's there for. If you were called a communist, you go to Moderation with the link to that post and you say so. If you don't, and no Mod sees it, you've not got a leg to stand on. Mods aren't paid enough (at all?) to go LOOKING for offenses. That's why Moderation exists.

I apologized for the tranny remark, and you seemed to be okay with it after that. I find it interesting that it's only now a problem once a Mod wanders into the thread.

Because you're not "doing silly". You advocated jail time and castration. That's not "silly", that's trolling.

Mostly because she and the other Mods can't be everywhere at once. If you've come across something that you think needs attention, YOU need to bring to the Moderation thread. That's what it's there for. If you were called a communist, you go to Moderation with the link to that post and you say so. If you don't, and no Mod sees it, you've not got a leg to stand on. Mods aren't paid enough (at all?) to go LOOKING for offenses. That's why Moderation exists.

I apologized for the tranny remark, and you seemed to be okay with it after that. I find it interesting that it's only now a problem once a Mod wanders into the thread.

What you call trolling is just a modest exaggeration of my feelings.

Hello! It is just ONE single couple that is doing something silly, according my standards and values. May I?

I'm not excluding, shouting, shocking an entire population, culture, subculture or whatever.

About your personal insulting tranny remark...

It's still not a problem, however you behaved similar later AFTER your so called excuses.

I'm just wondering why mods pay a lot of attention to this silly thread but not to the personal insults INSIDE the same thread...

Who said you were an ugly wife? Also, it's interesting that you only objected to it when a Mod appeared.


You did:


Oh, brilliant riposte. I'm giving a shit about their freedom to CHOOSE, that freedom which, in your current ignorance forgets applies to you. For example, I think your avatar is a completely fugly "woman" -- BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE JAILED FOR IT. See the difference? Probably not.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14746289&postcount=93

Btw, I didn't connect the personal insults with your name.
And don't start moaning that you were pointing on my avatar and not on my being.

This is trolling as well and personal directed.

Afterall, no worries, personal insults are allowed here.

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

fugly

adj., -li·er, -li·est.
Vulgar Slang. Very ugly.

[Shortening of fucking ugly.]

What you call trolling is just a modest exaggeration of my feelings.

Hello! It is just ONE single couple that is doing something silly, according my standards and values. May I?

I'm not excluding, shouting, shocking an entire population, culture, subculture or whatever.

About your personal insulting tranny remark...

It's still not a problem, however you behaved similar later AFTER your so called excuses.

I'm just wondering why mods pay a lot of attention to this silly thread but not to the personal insults INSIDE the same thread...

I guess your sense of humor is too subtle for us ...

Some dumb couple are polluting their, so called, most beautiful day in their life by marrying in Shrek style.

I hope they invent some laws against this one.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Head_ogre_heels_in_love&in_article_id=632790&in_page_id=34

IMHO, that couple should go to jail forever.

:rolleyes:

I guess your sense of humor is too subtle for us ...





:rolleyes:

Ceci n'est pas humoristique.

And don't start moaning that you were pointing on my avatar and not on my being.

That would not be "moaning", but an accurate statement of fact.
This is trolling as well and personal directed.

No it is not, as you yourself pointed out.

What you call trolling is just a modest exaggeration of my feelings.

Which, when it involves saying things like "I don't like what they chose, they should be jailed and/or castrated," equals trolling. Look it up in the forum rules. You were warned for it, even. I'll wait.

Hello! It is just ONE single couple that is doing something silly, according my standards and values. May I?

Yeah, and according to MY standards and values, your reaction is stupid. May I? Apparently not.

I'm not excluding, shouting, shocking an entire population, culture, subculture or whatever.

Uh...yes you are. Saying someone should be jailed or castrated for something as simple as a wedding theme is way over the top, and the fact that it took a Mod presence to get you to confess that you were kidding is pretty telling.

About your personal insulting tranny remark...

You mean the one I apologized for that you keep saying you weren't offended by but keep bringing up, over and over again? That one?

It's still not a problem, however you behaved similar later AFTER your so called excuses.

I see, still not a problem. Then why are you continuing to bring it up?

I'm just wondering why mods pay a lot of attention to this silly thread but not to the personal insults INSIDE the same thread...

Look, you don't seem to understand. I have assaulted your insistence that someone be jailed for choosing a wedding theme. Your assertion was laughable. I thought it was a little ironic given the look of your avatar. I had no idea the avatar was you -- and I still don't even know if that's true. You can say it is all you like, but there's no way to know.

You, however, seem to want to get me into some kind of trouble, but only after a Mod showed up at random. If you had a problem with something I've said -- and you keep saying you don't, are you lying? -- then you needed to take it to Moderation instead of beating it to death in someone else's thread.

So to sum up -- you can advocate irrational and exaggerated policies, but I can't make a comparison between your extreme views and my extreme views of what your avatar looks like. Is that what you're yammering about?

You did:

Oh, brilliant riposte. I'm giving a shit about their freedom to CHOOSE, that freedom which, in your current ignorance forgets applies to you. For example, I think your avatar is a completely fugly "woman" -- BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE JAILED FOR IT. See the difference? Probably not.

Btw, I didn't connect the personal insults with your name.
And don't start moaning that you were pointing on my avatar and not on my being.

This is trolling as well and personal directed.

Okay, bullshit. Can you not read? Where in that post are the words "ugly wife"? Let me answer for you -- they're not there.

It says FOR EXAMPLE (emphasis added). I was using my opinion in the same way you were using yours. I'm sorry if my opinion is offensive, but you still don't seem to understand the difference between me NOT saying you should be jailed for it and YOU saying others should be if theri wedding doesn't fit into your definition of appropriate.

Afterall, no worries, personal insults are allowed here.

If you'd like to see an actual example of a personal insult, I'll be all to happy to oblige. Just not here. It's not allowed.

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

fugly

adj., -li·er, -li·est.
Vulgar Slang. Very ugly.

[Shortening of fucking ugly.]

I know what "fugly" means. That's why I used it. And guess what, it's my opinion. I'd probably not have used the term, or even commented at all, had I known the avatar was you. See, the vast majority of avatars here are not personal portraits. Yours looks a bit fanciful, which was why I didn't think it was you, but rather some guy. I've already apologized for that, and you keep saying it's okay.

Apparently it's not -- so here's the deal, either report me to Moderation or SHUT YOUR HOLE. Get it? This thread is NOT the place for you to keep beating this dead horse.

Ceci n'est pas humoristique.

Yeah, but it has to actually BE humorous.

Kat,

Why do you allow that people, in this thread, call me a tranny and an ugly wife?

Or shout at me in other threads that I'm a communist just because I don't share their ideas?

Or just do stuff as:

"Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana Rana,
and codeine and goddamit, you little motherfucker
If you aint got nothin' nice to say then don't say nothin'
uh..
Fuck that shit, bitch, eat a motherfuckin' dick
Chew on a prick, and lick a million motherfuckin' cocks per second
I'd rather put out a motherfucking gospel record
I'd rather be a pussy-whipped bitch, eat pussy
And have pussy-lips glued to my face with a clit-ring in my nose
Then quit bringin my flows, quit giving me my ammo
Can't you see why i'm so mean? if y'all leave me alone, this wouldn't be my
m.o.
I wouldn't have to go eenie meenie minie mo
Catch a homo by his toe, man i don't know no more
Am i the only fuckin one who's normal any more?"

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14744827&postcount=128

Now, I can handle it, I don't need your protection to take care of this.


But I'm wondering why you can't do silly about Shrek weddings, but that it is allowed to launch personal insults on this board.

I know, but that's not my kind of goal. They have enough servants walking around for that purpose.

Besides, it doesn't answer my question:

Why can't you go clear silly over Shrek weddings, but is it allowed to launch personal attacks?

When I would do the same in a bar, talking silly about Shrek stuff, no one would feel offended.
When I would start to insult people then in general I'll receive a well deserved punch in the face.

Now, a forum isn't a bar, but there are some similarities.

I'll type slowly for you.

If you want someone to do something about insulting you, you have to let the moderators know. The reason someone got away with a personal attack against you was because you let them.

What you call trolling is just a modest exaggeration of my feelings.

Hello! It is just ONE single couple that is doing something silly, according my standards and values. May I?

I'm not excluding, shouting, shocking an entire population, culture, subculture or whatever.

About your personal insulting tranny remark...

It's still not a problem, however you behaved similar later AFTER your so called excuses.

I'm just wondering why mods pay a lot of attention to this silly thread but not to the personal insults INSIDE the same thread...

I'm a bit mystified: did you miss this post? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14746610&postcount=131) You know, since I closed the thread temporarily to make it, and it was posted thirty two minutes BEFORE your complaints that no one else was warned?

Intangelon made the remark, and was only cautioned since you accepted his prompt apology. No Names Left Damn It received a warning for his personal attack on you. If you still feel you were wronged, I suggest posting to moderation so some other moderator can look it over.

Well, I can't top that. I'm done here. HK, it's all yours.

sanctity of marriage, indeed, :p


Hey, whatever floats your boat...*contemplates Jedi wedding* lol

Jedi are celibate.

EDIT: Actually I might be wrong on that, but I think in Ep 2 or 3 they mention it.

Jedi are celibate.

EDIT: Actually I might be wrong on that, but I think in Ep 2 or 3 they mention it.

You are, lol....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Jade_Skywalker

Marries Luke, and has a kid named ben...

and Leia and Han get married and have twins and a son:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_Solo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacen_Solo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anakin_Solo


....I think Luke decides its for the best if Jedi dont have to be put through the pressures of Celibacy after what happened to his Father...

You are, lol....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Jade_Skywalker

Marries Luke, and has a kid named ben...

and Leia and Han get married and have twins and a son:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaina_Solo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacen_Solo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anakin_Solo


....I think Luke decides its for the best if Jedi dont have to be put through the pressures of Celibacy after what happened to his Father...

pfft... *mumbles something about expanded universe*

pfft... *mumbles something about expanded universe*

But...bu-bu-bu-I LIKE the Expanded Universe! :(

*mumbles something about expanded universe haters* lol

I'm a bit mystified: did you miss this post? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14746610&postcount=131) You know, since I closed the thread temporarily to make it, and it was posted thirty two minutes BEFORE your complaints that no one else was warned?

Intangelon made the remark, and was only cautioned since you accepted his prompt apology. No Names Left Damn It received a warning for his personal attack on you. If you still feel you were wronged, I suggest posting to moderation so some other moderator can look it over.

Maybe, there’s an explanation for it.

My edit window was already open, did some other stuff and continued later.

No, I rarely report such things. I know that it is not working. Some people can say what they want, others are crucified for almost nothing. And that’s even normal too. Some people you can stand better than others.

Yeah, but it has to actually BE humorous.

You are so anal focused that you do not see the Margrite (http://www.projectopus.com/files/images/Ceci%20nest%20pas%20une%20pipe_0.jpg) line.

I don't like people who make excuses and then just continue.

You are so anal focused that you do not see the Margrite (http://www.projectopus.com/files/images/Ceci%20nest%20pas%20une%20pipe_0.jpg) line.

I don't like people who make excuses and then just continue.

It's spelt Magritte. If you're trying to look intellectual, it helps to spell properly.

Margrite sounds like an expensive, but healthy, butter substitute.

It's spelt Magritte. If you're trying to look intellectual, it helps to spell properly.

Margrite sounds like an expensive, but healthy, butter substitute.

To be fair, neither English nor logical thought appear to be HK's first language.

It's spelt Magritte. If you're trying to look intellectual, it helps to spell properly.

Margrite sounds like an expensive, but healthy, butter substitute.

Since when is making a typo a sign that your intellectual capacities are low?

To be fair, neither English nor logical thought appear to be HK's first language.

Yes, but I am able to express myself in 4 languages, and you?

And can you stop the personal attacks, please?

Since when is making a typo a sign that your intellectual capacities are low?

Since your teachers told you to proofread your work.

Since your teachers told you to proofread your work.

And you are some spelling Nazi?

English is not my first language, not even my second. But still I am capable to write better than many native speakers on this board. Go figure!

Yes, but I am able to express myself in 4 languages, and you?

And can you stop the personal attacks, please?
Yes, you're e-peen is very large. I've studied and have varying proficiency in multiple languages, as well, but that's irrelevant. I will apologize, though, for the personal attack. We often dance a fine line on this forum between attacking the person and their posts and I, perhaps, overstepped that line that time...though I will say that I've yet to see you present anything resembling a convincing argument in your posts. That is not a personal attack, that's an observation of your posts in the couple threads I've seen you in.
And you are some spelling Nazi?

English is not my first language, not even my second. But still I am capable to write better than many native speakers on this board. Go figure!

I would disagree. However, since you're not a native speaker I do think some degree of leniency is merited as regards your linguistic mistakes.

And you are some spelling Nazi?

English is not my first language, not even my second. But still I am capable to write better than many native speakers on this board. Go figure!

Magritte is not an English word.

Yes, you're e-peen is very large. I've studied and have varying proficiency in multiple languages, as well, but that's irrelevant. I will apologize, though, for the personal attack. We often dance a fine line on this forum between attacking the person and their posts and I, perhaps, overstepped that line that time...though I will say that I've yet to see you present anything resembling a convincing argument in your posts. That is not a personal attack, that's an observation of your posts in the couple threads I've seen you in.


I would disagree. However, since you're not a native speaker I do think some degree of leniency is merited as regards your linguistic mistakes.

It's so easy to say that one is having no logical thinking and stuff. But that's all what you do. You don't argue why, you don't point where. You just launch whatever is in your head.

Personal attacks are usual a sign of some poverty. Let it be arguments, knowledge or just some politeness.

Magritte is not an English word.

Wow! :)

Wow! :)

I know. It is quite amusing that you defended your inability to spell the artist's name correctly by blaming your English skills.

It's so easy to say that one is having no logical thinking and stuff. But that's all what you do. You don't argue why, you don't point where. You just launch whatever is in your head.

Personal attacks are usual a sign of some poverty. Let it be arguments, knowledge or just some politeness.

I have pointed out, in both of the threads, where the disconnect is. I said why, where and even how, potentially, to correct such. I continue to urge you to do so; there is a lack of reason in the world and any time people try to argue or think in a rational manner, this does a little teeny bit to correct this.

I don't disagree that personal attacks show a poverty of something or the other. In regards to mine, it was a poverty of energy (pre-breakfast coffee posts run this risk) and patience. *shrug*

Let's not bicker about politeness, though. You've exhibited numerous "breeches of etiquette" and it is neither relevant to my criticisms nor even that interesting.

I have pointed out, in both of the threads, where the disconnect is. I said why, where and even how, potentially, to correct such. I continue to urge you to do so; there is a lack of reason in the world and any time people try to argue or think in a rational manner, this does a little teeny bit to correct this.

I don't disagree that personal attacks show a poverty of something or the other. In regards to mine, it was a poverty of energy (pre-breakfast coffee posts run this risk) and patience. *shrug*

Let's not bicker about politeness, though. You've exhibited numerous "breeches of etiquette" and it is neither relevant to my criticisms nor even that interesting.

Sure. I have the same feelings about you. I am waiting for your first remarkable or smart posting on this planet.

And about politeness, it's rare that I personal insult people. And if I did, I never started.

When one is exaggerating, then it's obvious that you don't have to take it too seriously. But nerds and look a likes, can't do that. They take it literally and suddenly start to defend the Shrek marriage. lol

Sure. I have the same feelings about you. I am waiting for your first remarkable or smart posting on this planet.

And about politeness, it's rare that I personal insult people. And if I did, I never started.

When one is exaggerating, then it's obvious that you don't have to take it too seriously. But nerds and look a likes, can't do that. They take it literally and suddenly start to defend the Shrek marriage. lol

I took your comments regarding jailing and other such nonsense as just a showing of a poor sense of humor. I was addressing your condescending attitude and why, in the context of marriage ceremonies in general, this really isn't that silly.

Also, I again point out that I've not really mentioned my own feelings much. I've brought up observations. Nor have I actually personally attacked you with the exception of the one for which I already apologized. I've attacked your point of view, most assuredly. That you seem unable to understand this, or the other numerous criticisms people have leveled against you, is somewhat bewildering, even with your limited grasp of English.

I know I said I was done, but this was beyond the pale.

Yes, but I am able to express myself in 4 languages, and you?

And can you stop the personal attacks, please?

You mean like this one:

You are so anal focused that you do not see the Margrite (http://www.projectopus.com/files/images/Ceci%20nest%20pas%20une%20pipe_0.jpg) line.

I don't like people who make excuses and then just continue.

So it's only personal when it happens to you, is it? Nice double standard.

I'm "anal focused" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because I didn't get an obscure line from an obscure -- wait for it -- painting? And you're calling others rude? Nice to know hypocrisy isn't just for Americans anymore.

Sure. I have the same feelings about you. I am waiting for your first remarkable or smart posting on this planet.

Another insult!

And about politeness, it's rare that I personal insult people. And if I did, I never started.

Oh, but HK doesn't insult people, that's right.

When one is exaggerating, then it's obvious that you don't have to take it too seriously. But nerds and look a likes, can't do that. They take it literally and suddenly start to defend the Shrek marriage. lol

When one is exaggerating in a forum where English is the primary language, and one tries to exaggerate when English isn't their native tongue, one's command of English idioms had better be very good. Yours is clearly not very good. It's fair -- I follow you about 80% of the time -- but not so good that you can sit there claiming any kind of superiority about not being very rude yourself.

It was not obvious you were exaggerating because typing doesn't allow for tone. That's why the smiley icons exist. You failed to use one, therefore, the uproar.

As far as we know, you advocate jail time for anyone who does something you find merely lacking in taste. I've since seen you try to backpedal from that with limited success, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt if you'll stop claiming any high ground with regard to politeness. You're just as guilty of attacking posters as any of us are -- I've shown it in this very post, and you've shown it all over this thread.

I know I said I was done, but this was beyond the pale.

You mean like this one:

So it's only personal when it happens to you, is it? Nice double standard.

I'm "anal focused" (whatever that's supposed to mean) because I didn't get an obscure line from an obscure -- wait for it -- painting? And you're calling others rude? Nice to know hypocrisy isn't just for Americans anymore.
"


Eh, saying that someone is anal focused, doesn't mean he's gay or something. Go back to school to learn that it is not an insult.




Another insult!


No, it's not an insult, I'm really waiting for his first remarkable and smart post. Besides, after being attacked a dozen times by that creature, i'll bite back. May I?


Oh, but HK doesn't insult people, that's right.


That's not what I said but "it's rare that I personal insult people".

There's a difference in:

'Your avatar dog is ugly'

or

'Some avatar dogs are ugly'






When one is exaggerating in a forum where English is the primary language, and one tries to exaggerate when English isn't their native tongue, one's command of English idioms had better be very good. Yours is clearly not very good. It's fair -- I follow you about 80% of the time -- but not so good that you can sit there claiming any kind of superiority about not being very rude yourself.

It was not obvious you were exaggerating because typing doesn't allow for tone. That's why the smiley icons exist. You failed to use one, therefore, the uproar.

As far as we know, you advocate jail time for anyone who does something you find merely lacking in taste. I've since seen you try to backpedal from that with limited success, but I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt if you'll stop claiming any high ground with regard to politeness. You're just as guilty of attacking posters as any of us are -- I've shown it in this very post, and you've shown it all over this thread.


"...not obvious you were exaggerating..."

Sure by suggesting castration, jail time and stuff for Shrek wedding people, we all know that it is not over the top.

I do (mild) insult people, but not on a personal level. And even when I do it personally, then it's mostly a defending reaction after being personal insulted a dozen times or something.

About my English, how's your Dutch, French or German?

Are you aware that it is maybe very difficult to debate about anything in a language which is not your mother tongue?


No, you don't. And that's partly why I can call you anal focused person.

Eh, saying that someone is anal focused, doesn't mean he's gay or something. Go back to school to learn that it is not an insult.





No, it's not an insult, I'm really waiting for his first remarkable and smart post. Besides, after being attacked a dozen times by that creature, i'll bite back. May I?



That's not what I said but "it's rare that I personal insult people".

There's a difference in:

'Your avatar dog is ugly'

or

'Some avatar dogs are ugly'







"...not obvious you were exaggerating..."

Sure by suggesting castration, jail time and stuff for Shrek wedding people, we all know that it is not over the top.

I do (mild) insult people, but not on a personal level. And even when I do it personally, then it's mostly a defending reaction after being personal insulted a dozen times or something.

About my English, how's your Dutch, French or German?

Are you aware that it is maybe very difficult to debate about anything in a language which is not your mother tongue?


No, you don't. And that's partly why I can call you anal focused person.

Whoa, wait...so you even admit that you're fine dancing around between implied insults and explicit ones. Ok, in that case, where have I, ever, personally insulted you? Especially seeing as you just called me a creature, which is generally used in a derisive manner. Furthermore, you still have not answered a single question of mine in this thread. Rather, it seems you're trolling, except poorly.

Anyway, a remarkable thing is something that is a rare occurrence by definition. If you want a remarkable post and are waiting specifically for such, you'll likely be waiting a long time.

Foolish, illogical troll is being foolish and illogical.

Whoa, wait...so you even admit that you're fine dancing around between implied insults and explicit ones. Ok, in that case, where have I, ever, personally insulted you? Especially seeing as you just called me a creature, which is generally used in a derisive manner. Furthermore, you still have not answered a single question of mine in this thread. Rather, it seems you're trolling, except poorly.

Anyway, a remarkable thing is something that is a rare occurrence by definition. If you want a remarkable post and are waiting specifically for such, you'll likely be waiting a long time.

Foolish, illogical troll is being foolish and illogical.

I asked you several times to stop your personal insults.
You didn't.
Then don't be surprised that people start calling you a creature, creature.

And you're a liar too. A bad one.


To be fair, neither English nor logical thought appear to be HK's first language.


Yes, but I am able to express myself in 4 languages, and you?

And can you stop the personal attacks, please?



Yes, you're e-peen is very large. I've studied and have varying proficiency in multiple languages, as well, but that's irrelevant. I will apologize, though, for the personal attack. We often dance a fine line on this forum between attacking the person and their posts and I, perhaps, overstepped that line that time...though I will say that I've yet to see you present anything resembling a convincing argument in your posts. That is not a personal attack, that's an observation of your posts in the couple threads I've seen you in.


I would disagree. However, since you're not a native speaker I do think some degree of leniency is merited as regards your linguistic mistakes.

Here you admitted that you personal attacked me, you even said sorry.

You even confirmed this later:


...I don't disagree that personal attacks show a poverty of something or the other. In regards to mine, it was a poverty of energy (pre-breakfast coffee posts run this risk) and patience. *shrug*...


And now you ask:


Ok, in that case, where have I, ever, personally insulted you?


Bye bye, liar.

Like I said, it danced between personal attack and attack on content and, since you felt personally insulted, I apologized for it in case I overstepped that line. However, even then, it wasn't really a personal attack, strictly speaking, a designation you seem to be ok with so long as you aren't on the receiving end.

So, where, exactly, was the lie? Now you're simply being a senile hypocrite, I'd hope you have the self-response to cease.

Hypocrisy, denial of context, irrational discourse, head-in-the-sand and poorly justified personal insults. You are quite an adorable breakfast troll (to clarify, it is breakfast for me).

Like I said, it danced between personal attack and attack on content and, since you felt personally insulted, I apologized for it in case I overstepped that line. However, even then, it wasn't really a personal attack, strictly speaking, a designation you seem to be ok with so long as you aren't on the receiving end.

So, where, exactly, was the lie? Now you're simply being a senile hypocrite, I'd hope you have the self-response to cease.

Hypocrisy, denial of context, irrational discourse, head-in-the-sand and poorly justified personal insults. You are quite an adorable breakfast troll (to clarify, it is breakfast for me).

You clearly personal insulted me. You admitted this, said sorry. And later you ask where you insulted me....

Yes you are a liar.

And I'm not a troll because I go a little wild about Shrek weddings. For heaven sake. It's just ONE stupid dull couple which is doing this AND they are not on this forum.

But suddenly, creatures like you, feel like they have to protect the Shrek marriages like it was something as the right for gay marriages. lolz

And some people, like you, protect it by all means. Just by shouting at me, calling me a troll, personal insulting me or whatever.

Like I said: Bye bye.

Eh, saying that someone is anal focused, doesn't mean he's gay or something. Go back to school to learn that it is not an insult.

Another insult. Just because you say it's not, doesn't mean it isn't. If you don't understand what you're saying because your idiom knowledge is poor, you shouldn't try. FIrst of all, you're missing adverb endings. "Anally focused", which is how I had to read your quote because "anal focused" doesn't make any sense in English unless you're actually talking about anal sex, comes off as something at least partially insulting, whether you want it to or not. I can't see your face or hear your tone of voice, so I don't know.

Why can't YOU learn that your grasp of colloquial English isn't good enough for such fine distinctions as you're trying to make? The fact that you've irritated several English speakers here should tell you that. Unless you are too arrogant to admit that it might be true.

I don't have to "go back to school" to learn that nonsense is nonsense.

No, it's not an insult, I'm really waiting for his first remarkable and smart post. Besides, after being attacked a dozen times by that creature, i'll bite back. May I?

Oh, by all means, but then you must realize that posting later claims that you don't insult people personally are incorrect.

That's not what I said but "it's rare that I personal insult people".

Rare or not, you still do it. Therefore, saying you don't is a lie.

There's a difference in:

'Your avatar dog is ugly'

or

'Some avatar dogs are ugly'

Yes. So? That doesn't help when you wish to refer to a specific avatar dog, now does it?

"...not obvious you were exaggerating..."

Sure by suggesting castration, jail time and stuff for Shrek wedding people, we all know that it is not over the top.

I'm going to try this one more time.

I DON'T KNOW YOU, get it? There are plenty of people who have come through this forum whose opinions are far stronger than yours. Without knowing much of your posting history, I have to take your stuff at face value. Again, this is why we have the smiley icons to get the point across when we're kidding.

I do (mild) insult people, but not on a personal level. And even when I do it personally, then it's mostly a defending reaction after being personal insulted a dozen times or something.

Whatever. If that's what you want to believe in order to feel good about yourself, go right ahead. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make you less of a liar when you said you didn't insult people. You've since moderated that stance to say you don't unless you're insulted first, which has also been shown to be false in this thread.

About my English, how's your Dutch, French or German?

Are you aware that it is maybe very difficult to debate about anything in a language which is not your mother tongue?

*sigh*

The DIFFERENCE is, I'm not trying to create SATIRE or JOKE posts in any of those languages, see? I know enough German to get around (and sound like an US citizen who fractures German grammar but gets basic points across), but I'd never enter a German-language forum and attempt to create satire about some silly German news story.

Again, why can you not understand that? Why do you have to trot out how many languages you can speak? That simply does not matter. Do you know why you speak so many languages? Because there are so many in your immediate proximity! Have you no idea how large the USA is? You have a practical need to speak more than one language. I don't. How does that make you in any way superior to the point where you get to lord your necessary knowledge over anyone? That would be like me saying "how many choral masterworks have YOU conducted?" It's completely irrelevant!

No, you don't. And that's partly why I can call you anal focused person.

And until you explain what you think that means, I'm going to consider that a personal insult, and you a lying hypocrite.