OK, thank you for actually addressing the language of the conversation. Are you accusing me of generalities, name-calling and polarizing?.
Oh settle down. Don't read into things. I didn't accuse you of anything and you know it. Being on the defensive is not a good look for you, and to be honest, I like most of your posts, they're honest and intelligent, so I hope you can be cool and stick around.
[/QUOTE]
.
Is it the "Marty Haters" phrase? If so, okay then - I'll rephrase - is "Marty Disagree-ers" better? If that simple word change will unstick people's attention from "Marty Haters" in order to get the gist of my point then I'll go with it.
YES YES YES and a thousand times YES! And just the "Haters" label is awful, thanks!
.
No, it is not. I am only using the same terms (emotionally charged) that were used in Veda's attack on me.
Ugh. I have no faith in the emeter. It reads on everything from the 7:00 news to Harry Potter. I've been out for decades and when I was in we didn't use the term in that colloquial way in the 80s, so to be quite honest, whether you or Veda or anyone else uses the term, it means nothing to me and IMHO, emotional "charge" doesn't mean much of anything anyway. :confused2:
.Of course not. Zombie has an actual agreed upon definition that includes lack of initial thought. Is there another cultural definition you meant by that that might not be derogatory? If so, please enlighten me..
Huh?!?! So when others insult you, you refer to a dictionary and never think of getting offended because you had "TR's" and were taught not to? Okay, seriously, that sounds like Scientology reprogramming and it's really unnatural and kind of creepy. There you go, see? When I have an opinion on something, nobody needs to guess.
.Fine, I see that and have been educated. That does not give you or anyone else the right to imply that THAT was the definition I was using when I made my statement, especially since I was not aware of that definition. I sure as hell am not going to retract my post due to one stupid word that completely derailed the intention and essence of my message. ..
IMPLY?! I typed my answer, WTF? I didn't imply any such thing. I have every right to state my opinion and whatever opinion I have I will state VERY CLEARLY AND BLUNTLY, without guesswork. Ask anyone. So no, that wasn't my opinion but I also didn't feel it was my place to state an opinion on what you might be thinking or not thinking. How would I know? Only you would.
Thank you, Gottabrain, for actually engaging in an intelligent discussion with me about the details of my post(s). I appreciate your efforts. ..
Thank
you. I like a lot of your posts and think you contribute a great deal to the Board so didn't want to see a firefight, esp since you're kind of new.
Through this experience I now also realize that intelligent, reasoned discussion of polarizing subjects/people in $cn is next to impossible on ESMB. The same is true on Marty's blog. There seems to be enough of a diversified clientele on Tony's blog to engage in such discussion. It seems that once people commit to taking sides they forego their own ability to think for themselves in favor of parroting the party line. That is what I hated most about $cn. (Yes, "hated!")
I am disappointed because when I first came to ESMB and felt so welcome, I thought I had found a place of convergence of exes, indies, nons, and others. Apparently I misunderstood that as much as I misunderstood the unwritten, colloquial definition of H/hater.
Nancy, there are people here at all ends of the scale, with all sorts of opinions. If you want your opinions challenged, this is the place. Stick around a bit. You haven't been here long enough to know the personalities yet, and as I said, you contribute a great deal and are valuable to ESMB. I don't bullshit or hint about my opinions, either. Thanks for being here.
aw, thanks!
