Women jabber about themselves

[Roy]

Dr. E.,

So you're da man! Cool.

Could you please define "gross?"

It seems to be the primary concept arbitrating discourse here.

If I alleged that this very concept is "gross," would I be incontrite?

[dr e]

144 :mrgreen:

[dr e]

Gross is the line between a post that is acceptable and one that isn't.  

For instance, saying "Men are puzzling" is a generalization about men or maybe "men are tall."  In those cases there is no malice towards men in general.  Saying "men are idiots" crosses the line into an attacking mode that lumps in all men into a negative characterization.  That's the sort of thing we are trying to avoid.

[Roy]

Crap! I never read the rules...

4. Negative global generalizations about either gender like "Men are Pigs" or "Women are whores" are not allowed.

So, stating men "in general, occasionally in my limited experience, typically (again, in my experience), and most of the time... are pigs" ---

would be OK?

(Webster's): GLOBAL: "of, relating to, or applying to a whole..."


But if I stated --- "All men are superior beings and represent the very best of the human species."

Then, I'm OK, right?

Because I didn't say any negative thing.

Or, I could say -- "The very best thing about most women is their narcissistic self-infatuation and total disregard for anything other than their own self-gratification."

All still positive language, right? A true compliment!

With the requisite P.C./SYG disclaimer ...

Doc E. ... you gotta reflect seriously on this issue.... it killed Hunter Thompson.

And you know how he died.

[LST]

While women do seem to enjoy attention , they probably do not enjoy it any more than men. Men simply have been trained to give as opposed to receive. I wouldn't make sweeping statements about women's motivations when the causal factor is likely training, not intrinsic nature.

How can you be so sure.
"Nature vs. nurture" is boring.
Regardless of the underlying reason why it is the way it is, it's still how it is.

[typhonblue]

I think most women possess an innate narcissism. It's nessisary for survival of the species.

But then I am also of the opinion that a lot of the emotional "negatives" people talk about aren't negatives at all. In fact it seems obvious to me that they are positives in the right context.

[dr e]

I think you know the intent of the rule.  It's up to you to do as you think is right.  I will do the same.

[Roy]

Dr. E. --

Gross is the line ...

True enough.

Could you please draw/define it now? Specifically?

In terms that Dr. Summers of Harvard could grasp?

I'd hate to be banned for crossing a subjective line....

[typhonblue]

name an objective line?

[dr e]

No thanks Roy.  I think I have described it sufficiently.  I am not at all interested in getting into a semantic discussion on this.  Enough said.

[Roy]

Doc E.,

In all seriousness and with absolute respect...

If you decide to walk down the road of censorship under the guise of faux-civility based on memes and grammar, you'll become an "errand boy sent by grocery clerks."  

You have created a truly unique open space....

Don't fence it in....

[Graboid]

BTW, what are we going to call this decade? The 80's, the 90's, the what?

It has been weighing heavily on my mind.

 :?

The Noughties I think

[dr e]

Thanks for the feedback Roy.  I will fence it the way I see fit.

[Sir Jessy of Anti]

Are you worried about being banned Roy?  

The rules are simply a loose code of civility.  Obviously you abide by it, you manage to say what you need to say without recourse to the lack of civility the rules attempt to engage.  What is it exactly aside from issues of semantics you have a problem with?  Is it the subjective nature of the administration?  Well, this isn't the United Nations, it's a privately owned message board.

[contrarymary]

. Men simply have been trained to give as opposed to receive.

I think my boss, my father, my brother, one of my young associates at work, and few of my cousins and many of my customers must have failed "training".