quote:

---

Bean Counter: This is utter bland stupidity. Not even spectacular stupidity, if you do not think people want to be here, to have what we have, to be as prominent in world affairs as we are, you are simply ignorant.

---

quote:

---

Bean Counter: The only reason Canada is not a part of the US is that we do not want it. Half of Canada services us and the other half comes from us. It is something between our wife and our mistress, perhaps our whore would be the best analogy. But it is a great one!

---

quote:

---

Bean Counter: I think the Japanese are people who shine whatever the circumstances. The greatest followers in the world! They would have made wonderful Americans, they are good at whatever they set there minds too.

I think at times they feel insulted that we did not want them. Kinda like beating up the bully and then not sleeping with the girl. Makes her feel ugly.

. . . .

I tell you, waiting for someone to come up to my level here is like waiting for the Russians to resupply my food.

Come on I'll dance with the ugly girls too, don't be scared and timid!

---

quote:

---

Bean Counter: I love the little people that make all of this possible...

---

quote:

---

Jar Head: If you don't think your wife is the prettiest girl at the dance then you are pretty messed up. Jingoist, what the hell is that anyway? Some fancy word that makes you cool like Latte or something. . . . .

Tell me to chill out? I plan to die of stroke screaming on the CB while working and drive my truck through your house.

---

quote:

---

Jar Head: If you want to have forceful opinions, real opinions that you believe in and will fight for then you should practice grabbing your sack and saying it proud. If you want to whine and ask for a consensus, good luck to you.

The analogy: I guess it is that if you will not take it to the next level, the guy pushing your buttons will. Willingness to push it on up will keep your woman safe.

---

quote:

---

King of Men You, comrade, are a scientifically illiterate idiot, who believes any pseudo-rational explanation he can lay hands on as long as it includes the words 'quantum mechanics.' Be sure to cheer up your bodyguard in hell by telling them how much they've improved the gene pool.

---

quote:

---

Jar Head: Don't make me be insensitive, I can't take another Raia hug-fest. My condolences on the loss of your cousin.

---

quote:

---

Jar Head:There must be better then this here! These are the lovers of the man who wrote Ender's Game!

---

quote:

---

Jar Head: Because you are a coward who lacks the courage to put the fight where it needs to go. Mamby Pamby sympathy is what evil needs, good people who want to share feelings instead of acting viciously and instantly when they are threatened. Does God want your half hearted lip service? I think it is as worthless as a counterfeit penny.

Go encourage the ACLU to attack the Boy Scouts and the US military and Christianity. We will win in the end with or without you. I heard they even have a list of potential contributers, monitoring charitable contributions and personal wealth to know who to dun. Real concerned about Civil Liberty aren't they! You should fit in with the hypocrites, saying you have faith and stabbing the faithful.

---

quote:

---

Jar Head: Yes, who needs such as this? The great 'I do not really give a shit' mass of self indulgence. In the end he will wait for the winners to emerge and jump into that line. Trying to sheepishly blend in with the cheering throng. Better to lose and die then to believe in nothing.

---

Has anybody else's enjoyment of the forum declined during this assault? Obviously, I don't get to dictate what Hatrack ought to be like, but I am describing what I see (as well as lamenting it).


 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I've thought for quite some time that BC and JH were the same person.

Now I am more sure. And I agree that he/they are NOT adding much to the community.

As for KoM, while I find him frequently abrasive, I think most of his posts are more reasonable. He does often contribute to meaningful dialogue, IMO.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I'm used to tuning out inflammatory garbage, but I hadn't realized how bad some of this had gotten. The one about Raia's cousin was entirely uncalled for and it grieves me that someone could be so callous.

I come here to talk to my friends. I don't agree with all of the opinions here (or even most of them) but I want to have a healthy, mature relationship with people that helps us both grow.
 

---

Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
 
Here here, Annie - we're here to be among (or lurk among) freinds, like-minded or not.

Having said that - doesn't everyone have at least one freind who does nothing but talk trash?
People like that are essential, like salt in the soup, grit in the chiken, strichnine in the well... er... oh boy.

[ December 19, 2004, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Wonder Dog ]
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Yeah, stuff like this is vile and uncalled for. And it's not how we talk to each other here. Hatrack is better than 99.9% of places on the web specifically because we listen with respect. I hope the offenders will step back, take a deep breath, and try to learn better methods of discourse.

The moderators usually give people time to calm down and learn our ways. The community is largely self-adjusting. But they have shown that eventually they will step in to ban people who debate like this, if they don't change their methods.

I have gotten better at ignoring stuff like this too, so didn't realize it was as bad as it is. But yes, I support highly any efforts to improve the standards of civilized discourse on the board.

It's not that anyone's argument or message must be watered down in any way. All ideas are welcome to be expressed. It's just that offensive insulting or hateful talk isn't tolerated here. If people will learn to rephrase their thoughts to be sure and address IDEAS rather than people, to eliminate name calling, and to edit out gratuitous insults, not only will they be respected and accepted more, but the strength of their arguments will be bolstered as well. Arguing with meanness or pettiness or nastiness only serves to strengthen the opponent's case.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
The thing is is when they do it a majority of the time.

However, since I have been gone for a while, and when back only looking shortly, I haven't really noticed anyone in specific. Yes, a couple comments here and there on a couple threads, but not enough for me to get really upset.

I will leave this to the resident experts now.
 

---

Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
 
I seem to remember at time when Thor (now known as Telperion the Silver) was regarded as quite the rabble-rouser. Now he's an established part of the pantheon o' regulars.
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 

quote:

---

Thor (now known as Telperion the Silver)

---

Heh. No. The Silverblue Sun.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Mmm. Telp is not Thor. Just to make sure everyone is clear on that. Thor is The Silverblue Sun.

Telp is...well, he's Telp!
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
That confused the hell out of me for thirty seconds. o_O

Thanks for the headsup, birthday girl
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Like Stan said, this is a "most of the time" thing. It's so typical of JH and BC that when I see posts by them, my eyes automatically skip them and go to the next one. That's why I haven't noticed how terribly inappropriate and uncalled for some of them were. It's a good heads up Icarus.
 

---

Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
 
My bad - the former Thor is now The Silverblue Sun. All that silver-talk makes me rabid.

Apologies all around.
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 
eh.....you made a mistake. Just means you're human. You are human right?
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
King of Men is sometimes mean but not a troll. WRT that post of his you quote, I believe he was retaliating in kind.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 


As for the bitter people...I too just ignore most of it. There will always be people who are rude or just have really differing opinions on things. It only becomes a problem with attacks are made personally against people. Which I guess that's what most of those quotes are....but some seems to be attacks against someone's opinion or way of thinking...not nessecarily an attack against the person thinking it.

BC has always been a rude little boy, but he seems to have some insight at times. Half the time I can't tell if he's serious or not.

[ December 19, 2004, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
 

---

Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
 
Look, BC and Jarhead are just working through some issues. While not the same person, they are apparently extremely close friends.

It's an "us against the world and you can't know what we share" kinda thing. Both have to put up a combative and macho front in this world and it's intrinsic that they do it together, supporting each other through thick and thin. One backing up the other, the other taking over when its necessary.

Look, these are obviously two young men working through some very serious issues in their relationship to the world and their own inner feelings. We should allow them work together until they have made a spot they are comfortable in revealing to each other and all others around them who they truly are.

And we should be accepting of them in this difficult time while they cling together and suffer the slings and arrows of cruel public opinion. Acceptance, even tolerance for these special, special men is necessary for them to feel safe and valued in this world.
 

---

Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
 

quote:

---

BC has always been a rude little boy, but he seems to have some insight at times. Half the time I can't tell if he's serious or not

---

quote:

---

They are deeply nasty and malicious. Not acceptable.

---

quote:

---

We do NOT have to accept their nasty, destructive behavior. I'm all for using Hatrack to work out issues, but they don't have to randomly shoot people in their quest.

---

quote:

---

If I am not allowed to have passionate opinions here then I will go

---

quote:

---

So if your arguments do not get response it might be the lack of anything nice to say...

---

quote:

---

However I do know this, the law is so made that I dare not go to court without a lawyer,

---

quote:

---

the judges openly punish those whose only defense is the truth,

---

quote:

---

and the law is made by the lawyers for the lawyers.

---

quote:

---

A lawyer is taught that his highest moral good is to sell his opinion to the highest bidder.

---

quote:

---

The rest of us call that prostitution.

---

quote:

---

So if your arguments do not get response it might be the lack of anything nice to say...

---

quote:

---

BC and JH were the same person.

---

quote:

---

JH? Is that me?

---

Nah, you're abrasive sometimes Jon, but you're no troll.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
" I still wish Baldar could have shaped up and learned not to attack people-"

Baldar got banned over at ornery shortly after being banned at hatrack. After a while, during which time Tom Davidson and I, among some others, stated that Baldar was an honorable enough person that we expected him to honor the ban, Baldar came back under a new handle. Took a while before we figure out it was him, because he ALMOST behaved rationally for a while, but finally devolved into his normal posting style.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I know I'm a little abrasive; but I am improving and slowly adjusting to this forum, no?

I guess we're in relatively good times here... When was Hatrack at its peak?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Hatrack was at its peak whenever the person telling you about it was new to the forum, I think.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

I know I'm a little abrasive; but I am improving and slowly adjusting to this forum, no?

---

Yeah, absolutely.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
::idly wonders if Jon doesn't have a troll persona out there, and is laughing behind his hand at my telling him that he fits well into the community::

::takes anti-paranoia pill, dismisses the idea::
 

---

Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
 
Hmm. I think if rude behavior is ignored (or reported) long enough it will eventually go away. BC and JH just make me giggle because some of the things they say are so off-base. I for one can ignore that, but I will also happily report anything to the mods that crosses the line. Some of their posts make me wonder why they have such a need for attention; it seems as though they say crazy things in order to develop a tough persona and just upset other people.

space opera
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Really Paul? I wouldn't have imagined that he'd have returned like that. Huh. The draw for these forums can be pretty strong, though, once you've gotten into the habit of frequenting them. I wouldn't be surprised if his sneaky return didn't come as a surprise to him too.
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
***raven slowly backs away from the well, in an attempt to conceal his purpose for being there.
*SUDDENLY* The air raid siren goes off, and 50-100 troops come charging in to surround the supposed purpetrator.
Raven slowly raises his hands, in a possible attempt to throw a suspicious looking vial at the feet of others while looking innocent and trying to show he is not armed. A rustling of the surrounding bushes draws the attention away from Raven, as he rids himself of the evidence. The evidence lands in the well.

Sorry, it was me ok.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
Yeah, I didn't think he would return like that, either. One reason why I never even thought of the possibility that Ron was the same person as Baldar. I had talked to him off of hatrack and ornery, and he seemed like a really upstanding person, not interested in deceit or underhandedness. I still sorta think that of him, but I have to wonder why he decided to come back in a sneaky fashion.

The mod only figured it out when he got an email from baldar saying that he had this new persona. Once I knew the two posters were the same, after mod announced what had happened, I recognized that the two personas were almost identical. But I was certainly embarresed about my defence of him.
 

---

Posted by Fitz (Member # 4803) on :
 
These threads are kind of funny. How often does confronting a troll really work? Jar Head has already shown, even in this thread, that he won't take criticism of any kind. He quotes valid opinions from other posters, and then shrugs them off as whining or stupidity (even though he's the one who most often comes off looking like an idiot).

I guess this thread is great for allowing regular forum members to commiserate, but I seriously doubt it will have any effect on Bean Counter or Jar Head. Personally, my enjoyment of the forum hasn't diminished in any way because of their presence. It would be awesome if we could all just ignore these two, but it seems like someone is always willing to take the bait.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Bah! The vocabulary in which you discuss some of this is over me. I get about 85% of it, but the important 15% I'm a little, ahem, 'new' to it.

Yes, I read books.

Jonny

P.S. Logic! If you can't stand logic you won't stand this forum. As simple as that!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Regarding my post, I was responding to this little gem by our friend the Bean Counter :

quote:

---

KoM you are the turd that half floats and half sinks to the bottom of a bowl while bubbling occasionally.

---

quote:

---

Respect is a line that travels two ways; I do not feel any particular obligation to be polite to this idiot. If I ever say anything of this sort to someone civilised, please feel free to rein me in right sharply.

---

quote:

---

Is there no possibility of some of us banding together to tell the trolls (deliberate word choice, Xap) to shape or get the heck out of this community?

---

Deliberate but poor word choice... A troll is someone who is intentionally harming the forum, not someone who is presenting an opinion in an unpopular, incorrect, or uncivil way. And if these quotes constitute being a troll, most people on this forum are trolls.

I agree that all the statements you listed are both disrespectful and unacceptable for this forum or any civil discussion. However, I disagree with the suggestion that the problem should be pinned on just these three Hatrackers, as some are suggesting. I could pretty easily go find a bunch of recent quotes from plenty of other Hatrackers, some of whom have been here for a long time, who have said equally bad or worse things. I know at the very least, things have been said to me in recent threads by Hatrackers not listed here - things just as bad as what BC, JH, and KoM are being accused of here. And I've seen the same elsewhere to others.

My point here is not that because everybody's doing it, it's acceptable. Rather, it's just the opposite. Rather than putting the blame down on one or two "trolls" to solve the problem, we should recognize that it's a larger problem than that, and that it's something even those who are civil MOST of the time need to work on. Driving any one or two members of the forum is not going to make it civil. All of us acting civil will make it civil.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
You're doing that deliberately!

Edit : This was in response to Dag, not Xap.

[ December 19, 2004, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes. Yes I am.

And from now, even when I screw it up, there'll always be doubt if I meant to do it.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I disagree that respect is only required toward those who behave respectfully. Respect is required toward everyone. Retaliation in kind to unacceptable posts results in yet more posts that are unacceptable.

There are no people who are unwelcome here. There are no ideas that are unwelcome. The thing that's not just unwelcome here but actually not tolerated for long is insults, disrespect, and general nastiness.

This thread is an attempt to give the offenders a chance to see what they are doing and change. Countering with misbegotten ideas about what constitutes a real man won't help. Insulting everyone even more won't help. There are no issues of gender here. The real men on this board are those who speak with intelligence and respect, not braggadocio and swagger.

Knowledge of how to interact with other people in a civilized way will bring huge benefits in every aspect of a person's life. It gives a person enormously more stature with others. It makes lightweights into heavyweights. This is a great gift that the community here has to offer to people, this knowledge. Do the offenders have the wisdom and humility to accept this gift? That is what this thread is hoping to foster.
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
People are not perfect. People get hurt. No matter how hard you try to make things come across with the intent of helping someone, They _always_ have the opportunity to take it as though you mean to harm them.
However: Every time someone says something to you, you have the option of thinking the best, and taking it as best as you can. Only _you_ allow others to bother you, and hurt you.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
"Countering with misbegotten ideas about what constitutes a real man won't help. Insulting everyone even more won't help. There are no issues of gender here. The real men on this board are those who speak with intelligence and respect, not braggadocio and swagger."

Just as a side note, tangent, sidebar, whatever I really hate when women say what a "real man" is. Can you imagine what would happen if a man said what a "Real woman" is? While I do think a real man speaks with intelligence and respect, I also think part of the male persona is the ability to be beligerent in defence of what he loves. There are times when braggadocio and swagger is part of the "real male" package. Just as something to think about, as to why I think saying what a "real man" constitutes is innapropriate behavior (especially from women), what would you think if I said a real woman isn't assertive or aggressive? Most of the women on this board would, rightly, kick my ass pretty hard. There's multiple layers of femininity and masculinity, and unless you address all those layers, you're doing a disservice... and, particularly because of the way the gender balance is right now, it really gets my goat when a woman says that a real man is "x" where "x" doesn't include many of the traditional male roles.

I hope thats more clear then I think it is.
 

---

Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
 

quote:

---

Regarding my post, I was responding to this little gem by our friend the Bean Counter :

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KoM you are the turd that half floats and half sinks to the bottom of a bowl while bubbling occasionally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respect is a line that travels two ways; I do not feel any particular obligation to be polite to this idiot. If I ever say anything of this sort to someone civilised, please feel free to rein me in right sharply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

Hee Hee, I remember this one, I believe you started it too with some dismissive wave of the hand. Still crying? What a chump!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
*Dismisses JH with a wave of his hand*
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I tend to agree with raventh1, Your Majesty (King of Men).

While some of the people you regard idiots might in fact be so (in which case I am a moron), you really do achieve nothing more than your personal satisfaction.

Yes, I know, I'm young, I'm innocent and naive, and I had very little lfe experience - but that experience I had as an 8 year old. I know it gives you pleasure to rant about someone who speaks stupidly, and I know that it's even more self-reassuring when you take one of those bastards who pissed you off and slam him onto the ground, then kick him in all the soft spots, tread on him, tug him and stand on his hands.

But think again, is this REALLY what you want? The stomping, the thashing about, breaking down that bastard's spirit, and show the public you're a true man? Whether at school, the restaurant or the bar, is it really worth rampaging like a buffalo, destroying all that sways astray about your path? Is it really worth trying to annihilate the world with your rage? Ruining it all for your self-satisfaction and the purpose of showing the Universe that when you're pissed off, you are a vicious, vigorous, destructive, blood-hangry, carnivorous threat to all about you?

Overdone, but I was listening to some heavy rock... Think again, those people are truly not worth your going down to thir level. And words can work metaphorically, the same way. I know.

Jonny

P.S. Sorry for the harsh terminology, but:

A) It gives a better sense of the true feelings of a mad person.

B) If OSC can use the word 'bastard' and the phrase 'pissed off', surely so can I on his forum, when necessary.
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
Jonathan Howard: Some bullies will not respond to anything other than that of a fatherly figure's firm rejection of what they are doing. The only time I have ever used such a tactic was when I tried everything else first. After this, things didn't immediately cool down, but they started on a downward trend.

There is always an exception to the rule.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Comrade Howard, I do not believe I have called you an idiot anywhere, have I? If so, I apologise, for you are not, as far as I can tell.

But your argument does not hold water. Clearly, there are several ways to deal with the likes of BC : Flame right back, try to hold a rational discourse, or ignore totally. You suggest that I would gain more satisfaction from one of the latter two. Well, how do you know? I submit that you are not in a position to judge my emotional states.

As for achieving nothing but my own satisfaction - well, duh. This is a discussion forum, not a racetrack. Just what would you expect to achieve, here?
 

---

Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
 
Enlightenment
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Ah, Paul, you are completely right! Thank you for correcting me! I don't even pretend to know what a real woman is, much less a real man! I just know that hatrack has lots of both.

All I know is what it is NOT, so I'll rephrase my statement in the negative. "The real man is not the one who displays the most swagger and braggadocio." Is that still objectionable that way? Or should I retract that bit entirely, and leave it with "there are no issues of gender here"?

[ December 19, 2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 

quote:

---

I do not believe I have called you an idiot anywhere, have I?

---

quote:

---

Okay I do not want to drive a truck through your house, but I very much am offended by being told to chill out. Passion is no vice!

---

Chill out, dude.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Here we go, a first tease....
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Comrade Howard, you are forgetting something very important : BC is not my father. What do I care if we become unfriends?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Ah yes, Paul, I agree with you on all of the above.

So I still need to rephrase it. How about, "The men who impress me as real men emphasize intelligence and respect over swagger and braggadocio."

I'm not qualified to speak on the qualities of real men. I just wanted to say what I think real manhood not about. It's not about contempt for women and insults to women. Courage is not a gender specific trait.
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
I think that would have been a better way of phrasing

And I agree with you.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Courage is not gender specific, true. Still, historically, it is men who have mostly been required to demonstrate physical courage. No-one has ever drafted women, to the best of my knowledge.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
I know, I'm not a chauvinist.

It's just a little annoying to put "/her" and "/she" every time... Maybe Hebrew affected me again, damn.
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

How about, "The men who impress me as real men emphasize intelligence and respect over swagger and braggadocio."

---

quote:

---

And we should be accepting of them in this difficult time while they cling together and suffer the slings and arrows of cruel public opinion.

---

quote:

---

Care enough to fight, care enough to rage, care enough to bust our humps every day for our loved ones, care enough to stand up and vote for our president and care enough to stand up for our faith.

---

quote:

---

I could pretty easily go find a bunch of recent quotes from plenty of other Hatrackers, some of whom have been here for a long time, who have said equally bad or worse things.

---

quote:

---

The thing is, there's almost always a person or two like this around. BC and JarHead combined don't begin to rival Baldar when he was in a *good* mood.

And the early, angry David Bowles was able to bring intellect to bear in addition to venom, which made him a much more potent, destructive force than either of these two. It was difficult to ignore either Baldar or Bowles, because in additon to being really, really unplesant, they both brought something worthwhile to the community. I still wish Baldar could have shaped up and learned not to attack people--his perspective was an interesting one, when his frothing at the mouth didn't obscure it. And David Bowles, of course, learned how to function in the community and became a valued member for quite some time before quitting Hatrack and taking up residence at GreNME.

---

I am flabbergasted to see David Bowles labelled as "venemous" and mentioned in the same breath as Baldar.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

How about the five million soldiers who died in combat in the Great War, alone? How many of them were female? There are certainly brave women out there in history. But they are utterly outnumbered by the brave men.

---

quote:

---

I am saying that historically, few women have demonstrated their bravery.

---

Women do not necessarily display their bravery in the same way as men in war.

In the same way, many men display bravery that is not the traditional warlike kind.

EDIT: I have to point out that this is my 2222nd post! .

[ December 19, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
David Bowles was certainly not a true unmaker here.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Don't you guys remember what David was like when he first started posting? He was incredibly venimous, by his own later admission. He developed into a highly valued member who contribued a lot to the forum, but he was positively toxic when he first started posting. I can remember once, early on, David cheered me on for the way I'd taken somebody's argument apart, and I was concerned, because his approval almost by definition meant that I'd been too harsh with the person I was addressing.

David has, on multiple occasions, referred to himself as someone who "didn't get" how to communicate successfully on Hatrack, and who had to learn how to operate here.

Don't get me wrong--I like and respect the guy quite a bit, and am glad that he can still be found at GreNME. He jut got off to a pretty rocky start here, is all.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
KoM, you seem to be mistakenly defining bravery and courage as something that can only be shown by a soldier in war.

That's simply not the case.

By that definition, Ghandi was not brave, nor was Martin Luther King, Jr, nor was Amelia Earhardt, nor was Rosa Parks.

Just because wars have been fought predominantly by men does not mean bravery and courage are the sole province of that gender, or that bravery can only be come to only through armed conflict.

[ December 19, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Thank you, FC.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

I am flabbergasted to see David Bowles labelled as "venemous" and mentioned in the same breath as Baldar.

---

quote:

---

quote:
I am flabbergasted to see David Bowles labelled as "venemous" and mentioned in the same breath as Baldar.
Did you read his early posts? He was pretty harsh in some of them.

---

quote:

---

Please note, I am not saying women cannot be brave. I am saying that historically, few women have demonstrated their bravery.

---

What about every woman in history who has had to send her husband, brother, or son off to war, not knowing if she'd ever see him again? I'd call that pretty damn brave.
 

---

Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
 
Annie, the novel "Gates of Fire," which was about the Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae, was (among other things) about the bravery of the women who were the ones who truly held the society together. First, they had to destroy any babies who were not perfect, then send their seven year-olds away, and then lose their sons and husbands and fathers to the wars.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
You know, I don't think I've ever read about a society that seems more alien to me than does that of Sparta.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Liz, that book is one I have wanted to read but haven't really gotten a chance to...I think I will make time for it now that you have mentioned it.

I don't think that men or women are different in levels of bravery, but that they have different types of bravery. Men tend to be better equipt to deal with the physical types of bravery, because that is what we were conditioned towards from birth in our society....and in most societies it was the men who waged war and hunted, who dealt with intruders and security issues. Women have traditionally had a different type of courage, one that is harder to identify. It takes bravery to keep a family together when the man of the house (I am speaking in traditional terms here) was away, perhaps never to return, fighting a war. It takes bravery to face the difficulties of childbirth over and over again for the sake of having a family.

In todays word the roles are becoming intertwined more and more, and the types of bravery are not as clearly defined. It has always been possible to find women that excelled in battle, and men who lead in peace, but there are a lot more role models of both types of behaviors now than ever before. It is acceptable as never before for a man to become a nurse and care for others who need help, and women hold many important roles in the military and have shown bravery under fire.

Welcome to progress people.

As far as the venom....enough is enough. If you can't govern yourselves, then I am sure someone will do it for yourself.

Passion isn't a replacement for intellect, although both are necessary.

BTW, not every person in the military is an idiot. Some of the smartest people I have knows worked to the Army, as well as some of the most stupid.

Kwea

[ December 19, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
My opinion on this can be summed up with a rephrasing of a comment someone made on the evolution thread. If you're going to be debating strenuously with someone or someones, you have to already have a level of trust with them. If you're not even on the same level, it can seem like an attack. You don't have to be friends, but you should have a certain amount of respect.

That's why, Bean Counter and Jar Head, people are having such trouble with your posts here. Because this is not just a forum, it's also a community. I always thought of it as a dinner party where people speak in different groups and participate in different conversations. You two seem to be doing the equivalent of going from conversation to conversation telling everyone they're wrong and why they're wrong and then walking away. It's not surprising, then, that we're having such trouble getting along.

And don't give me some crap about bleeding hearts and how you don't have to like someone to debate with them or how Hatrack is soft or whatever. You have to respect someone to respect their opinions, whether you like them or not. And I for one am finding little to respect.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Boudecia comes to mind. But sadly, she lost. She got crushed by the British I think.. or was it the Romans?
Then you have various queens, ordinary people, all sorts of historically brave women through the ages...

But, really those two are difficult for me to ignore. It's like trying to ignore high pitched irratating sounds... It reminds me of being on CWFA. There were these two guys named Snot Nosed Punk and Billy Bob that would just say the most disgusting things about gay people, that would flame just for the sake of flaming.
Those guys sort of remind me of them.
Plus, what makes matters worse is that it seems like millions of people in this country think and talk the same way... It takes every bit of control I can muster not to flame back...
 

---

Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
 
I actually left Hatrack for most of the recent semester because of the extremely politically abrasive feeling to a lot of the threads. I come here just to talk, not for more verbal combat and arguing. More bra size threads, less political ones. Not that I want to be ignorant but.... wait, yes I do.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
OK, there are a lot of responses, and I'm not going to quote them all. sndrake, your point about conscription is well taken, but the fact remains that many of those conscripts then behaved with extreme bravery in a war they might or might not have wanted to fight. Also, it was usually possible to get out of conscription if you absolutely couldn't face it; chop off your finger, run away to a distant country, etc.

Dag, childbirth isn't voluntary. For most of history, there's been no opting out of it. So courage doesn't really come into the matter.

Bravery in war is certainly not the only possible type, but I submit that it is the most common type, by several orders of magnitude. And again : Sure, Amelia Earhart was brave. I am not, and never have, argued that women cannot be brave. I am saying that for physical courage, there are many more male examples than female examples. So far, Boudicca, Earhart, and Jeanne d'Arc have been mentioned : All honour to them. I am going to mention Thomas Atkins, John Smith, and Frederick Schmidt, who all died in battle on the Somme. Which still leaves their comrades. Where are the further female examples?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I disagree, KoM, I don't think it is necessarily bravery that makes men fight wars most of the time. And there have ALWAYS been ways of opting out of childbirth if a woman didn't want to have children.

More children are raised than are killed, and every one of them had a mother, so soldiers courage is far more rare, and much less valuable, than a mothers courage, IMO.

By far more than a singe order of magnitude.

Not that I am belittling bravery on the field of battle, but I don't think that it is fair to prevent women from fighting in battle for most of our history and then say they are lees useful or brave because they don't fight as often.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
One of the techniques used to motivate largely unwilling armies is to maneuver them (under threat of death) into situations where they must succeed or die. Now, I'm not saying it's not bravery - I'd likely curl up into a little ball sucking my thumb - but it's not voluntary.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea : I disagree. Remaining celibate was just not going to happen to any large percentage of women at any point in history, and short of abortion and contraception, what other ways are there to avoid pregnancy? Now, it's true that not all soldiers are brave; still, most are. Consider a line of pikemen or musketeers, being charged by cavalry. If one man runs, the rest will run too, usually, and everyone will be slaughtered. Yet, time after time, such formations held their place.

Dag, that is just not right. True, humans fight better with their backs to the wall, but that is generally a very difficult position to achieve. Can you give any examples of this technique being used?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Most soldiers have very little choice in the battles they fight. If they did most of them would go home.

Why do you think the penalty in wartime for deserting if death?

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Dag, that is just not right. True, humans fight better with their backs to the wall, but that is generally a very difficult position to achieve. Can you give any examples of this technique being used?

---

quote:

---

Remaining celibate was just not going to happen to any large percentage of women at any point in history

---

quote:

---

any large percentage of women at any point in history

---

quote:

---

What about every woman in history who has had to send her husband, brother, or son off to war, not knowing if she'd ever see him again? I'd call that pretty damn brave.

---

quote:

---

Courage implies that you have the option of choosing a safer path.

---

quote:

---

In fact, history does not offer all that many examples of volunteer militias rising up to defend their homes and succeeding against professional armies.

---

quote:

---

But consider the Roman legions, for example : Extremely brave, yes? Yet except at the end, they were hardly defending home and hearth. Likewise, in the Thirty Years' War, armies from Austria, France, Spain, and Sweden marched all over Germany. You oculd hardly claim they were defending their homelands. Every last colonial war : The invaded may have been defending their homes, but generally speaking, it was the invaders who showed the most bravery.

---

quote:

---

Dag, childbirth isn't voluntary. For most of history, there's been no opting out of it. So courage doesn't really come into the matter.

---

Oh, give me a BREAK. Regardless of how unavoidable childbirth may be -- and even now, even assuming that a woman chose to get pregnant, most have a moment (or considerably longer ) when they wish they could get out of the whole labor deal -- it can be faced as a whimpering huddled mass, or with courage and bravery. (I usually opted for option number one.)

Those as ain't tried it should hush.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
And those who recognized and commented on it should get a cookie.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Rivka, I am sure you did opt for bravery. Do you have any numbers showing that most women do?

Edit : As for your other objection, that is why I was most careful to consistently speak of 'physical courage', in order to show that I wasn't suggesting this is the only kind.

[ December 19, 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by Jar Head (Member # 7018) on :
 
A Rotary club had a famous world traveler come in to speak. He said "Yes ladies I have broken most major bones, nearly frozen to death, almost died of thirst, I have experienced virtually every kind of pain possible."

The women of the rotary club chatted a bit and came to the conclusion that no pain could compare to child birth.

The man listened for a while and then said with growing impatience "Ladies until you have been kicked in the balls by a zebra, don't be so sure!"
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
KoM, I notice you haven't responded to one of my main points...go figure.

It is easy to define something so narrowly that only your examples are correct.

If men didn't ALLOW women to fight for most of history, even given you extremely narrow definition of bravery, how can you hold that against women and say that they haven't been brave, or that they can't be?

I think that stupididty would be a better term for what you are saying is bravery, though.

BTW, there have been many examples of deserting armies, and most soldiers fear what would happen not just to them but to their families.

Once again I am not saying that soldiers aren't brave, but I have a lot more respect for the bravery of firemen and police officers than I do for most soldiers throughout history.

BTW, in the Napolianic era most soldiers were conscripts, weren't they? That is why the common people hated him at the end....too many people died. When you say it doesn't take courage to stay at home you forget that without women to hold down the home front there wouldn't be anything for those soldiers left to fight for, really.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*gives Dags a halvah-flavored cookie*


Actually, as I was actually there, KoM, I can say with certainty that I went the whimpering huddled route.

As far as numbers supporting female courage during childbirth:

• Even if the percentage is small, there have been an awful LOT of women giving birth throughout history.
• A fair number of women have, within hours of giving birth: plowed fields, packed up a family to move, walked all day and night, etc.
• More and more women currently opt to have an unmedicated delivery. When's the last time YOU chose to deliver something the size of a watermelon through an orifice the size of a grapefruit without any pain meds -- for someone ELSE's sake?

quote:

---

As for your other objection, that is why I was most careful to consistently speak of 'physical courage', in order to show that I wasn't suggesting this is the only kind.

---

quote:

---

If you were, your argument does not hold up : Both sides were volunteer militias.

---

quote:

---

Don't forget the Mexican woman who gave herself a C-section.

---

Link, please. I haven't heard of her.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
What about the kind of bravery that takes you into the slums of Brazil every day, facing gunfights and drug dealers to teach children? Your definition does not include that type of bravery.

What about the Noble Women who defended their manors while their husbands were off on the Crusades? They showed courage. They could have stayed wimpering in their beds, playing the part of Buttercup in The Princess Bride, so yes, they had a choice, and they chose to take their destiny into their own hands and fight.

What about every woman who's been raped and gathered themselves together and gone back to living a normal life. That takes courage, I'm not sure I could do it.

What about every single mother who works hard for her children instead of descending into drugs and abuse. That takes courage.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Kwea, sorry, so many people insist on arguing with my obviously correct statements that it's hard to respond to everybody. Nations have allowed women to fight when they got sufficiently desperate; but for most of history, fighting depended on physical strength. Further, in a sufficiently defeated nation, couldn't the women themselves form a militia? Who's going to stop them, their dead-or-running husbands? Yet, while history has many examples of guerrilla uprisings (not many succesful ones, true) that has always been a male preserve. Why?

I don't think I've said that physical courage is the only kind that matters. But I have objected when people have tried to define fortitude as courage. I'm not denigrating it, by any means, I'm just saying it's not what I'm talking about.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Blacwolve, I think my definition does include the sort of courage that takes you into Brazil. And certainly, there are women who do that. Can't you people understand that I'm not saying women can't be brave? I'm only saying there have been more brave men than brave women.

The rest of your examples are not physical courage, with the possible exception of the noblewomen, an extremely small minority at best.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Link to BBC's story on the self-C-Section.

We had a thread on it, but I can't find it.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Yet, while history has many examples of guerrilla uprisings (not many successful ones, true) that has always been a male preserve. Why?

---

[snarky] Because women are bright enough to make the best of a bad situation, rather than make things worse? [/snarky]

I'm sure glad to come of a tradition that knows that women can be military heroes too -- even though I am actually against the Israeli practice of drafting women.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Oh, fer god's sake. Can I please get it on record that I understand women can be brave? I believe this is the fourth time I state this. But you are DAMN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
How do you know?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Narnia, did you read the last thirty posts or so? If not, please do so.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Yeah, I read them, and you still didn't answer the question I just asked. I'm baffled that you're so sure...that's all.
 

---

Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
 
How is it this thread has become an example of the very thing it's deploring?
 

---

Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
 
By the very limited definition of people who have put their lives on the line in situations where death is likely, there have been more men then women who are brave, by simple virtue of the fact that of the millions of people who have had to do so, when it occurs systematically, its almost always men who are systematically placed into that situation.

However, this is a foolish definition, and KoM shows himself to be foolish for adopting the position he has.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
It also ignores the difference between being brave (as an attribute of character) and exhibiting bravery in a particular situation.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Dag, I think you are introducing a distinction without a difference. How can you tell if someone is brave, if they do not exhibit bravery in some particular situation?

I do not think it a foolish definition, though I admit I introduced it more or less as a nitpick. I was careful to limit the discussion to 'physical courage', and I did not ever say that this was the only kind worth considering, as some have accused me of.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Did someone just say that in the American Civil War, both sides were volunteer militias?
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
The problem, I think, KoM, is with your focus on one definition of bravery more than anything else. This definition seems to be "when faced with death, a person does not run".

While that *is* an example of physical bravery, that is as limiting as saying an organism is "something with four limbs and internal organs".

As for physical bravery and courage, childbirth is a big one - one cannot exactly say it's not physical. From very, very, very early in civilization contraception and abortion were possible - as far back as the Egyptians certainly. Suicide was another option that many women took instead of going through with the pain of pregnancy.

And further, for that matter, the decision to take responsibility for a child instead of abandoning it (on a doorstep, at a shelter, in a dumpster) takes a definite level of courage.

But, since you are so intent to beat your chest and say that warfare is the only arena to display what you call "physical bravery" (though even that narrowing of definition is problematic, seeing bearing physical pain, or threat thereof, with dignity is not limited to military action), I will provide examples of women with your type of bravery.

A list of women warriors throughout the ages. If you remember, Athena was the *female* goddess of battle, and sent the *male* god of war crying back to his mother. The Greeks had no such delusions about the bravery of women, as the stories of the Amazons were of the most ferocious warriors, not the most timid.

A little more depth and description of women warriors.

Some more modern examples

Here are some african women warriors as well

A resource for women fighters in the SCA from which to choose adopted personas

Here is a bibliography of sources concerning medieval women and war

And that's just offering examples of *women in war* - which is only the tiniest, tiniest sliver of what true courage and bravery encompass.

Thinking about it further, the women warriors of antiquity were *braver* than the men. Even with smaller stature and less muscle mass, they still donned armor and weapons and faced enemies larger and stronger than themselves. In a fight between a small woman and a large man, who must have the greater courage to press on?

But this is simply stooping to your overly-specific definition of bravery, likely cultivated by great misogyny and machismo present in your environment over the years. Often it is the decision *not* to fight which exhibits more courage, and many times choosing to kill your enemies is the greater act of cowardice.

[ December 19, 2004, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: FlyingCow ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
In the beginning, at least. And right quickly they ran away, too.

Edit : This was to Rakeesh.

FlyingCow, for the fifth time, I am aware of the occasional woman warrior in history. I am getting really tired of repeating this. They are still heavily outnumbered. As for the Amazons, they were a myth. There are plenty of women warriors in modern fantasy and science fiction, but you can hardly call on them as examples of female bravery, can you?

[ December 19, 2004, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Occassional? You obviously didn't check *any* of the links. Not one. Dismissing the thousands and thousands of women who have fought in armed conflict in every civilization of the world is foolish.

It is like saying asians are heavily outnumbered because you don't see many every day. Do some research and you'll find out the numbers are far greater than you think. Same with women in battle.

The trick is, historians tend to be *male* and male historians tend to speak of the accomplishments of male warriors.

But, that, again, is beside the point.

As for the Amazons, they are a myth born of a cultural consciousness. The possibility for such a myth being created in a society means that the prevailing thought of women was not one of meek servitude, but of strength and courage. Note that there are not stories of triumphant warrior women in the Muslim faith, because that culture would not birth such a concept.

The Greek myths, if you look closely, show a culture that respected the strength of women. We do not currently live in such a culture, and so, attitudes like yours have unfortunately developed.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If you look at the myth of the Amazons, you will observe that they were always enemies of the Greeks, and as such, were duly beaten every time. And 'thousands and thousands' just doesn't stack up very well against tens of millions of men.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

quote:

---

DARN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.

---

I said it before and I'll say it again:

You do not have to be in a war to be brave! There are heroes of war and there are heroes of life!

*resists urge to break own single pseudonym rule to register King of Women*

EDIT: Also, as you well know, KoM, women have not exactly been encouraged to take up the sword. History was recorded largely by men. It's a little biased. No one can ever make a statement "that women are braver than men" or "men are braver than women" because it's like chalk and cheese.

[ December 19, 2004, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Just to make another point, the only reason men tended to be more heavily relied upon as warriors had nothing to do with courage or bravery, but with brawn.

The male physique is more akin to a pack mule than a woman's, making them more ideal for wearing suits of metal and swinging large weapons. It does not take courage to swing a great axe, but arm strength. A woman, if attacked, will fight a knight in armor just as tenaciously with a knife, pitchfork, or cast iron skillet to protect her family.

Just because she is not conscripted into service doesn't mean she is less brave.

Broad shoulders and strong backs are what military conflict was built upon - that is why there are more men than women, not because of any disparity in bravery or courage.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
And just because the Amazons were defeated does not mean that they were any less brave - or do you define bravery by winning, too?
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
You know, up til the last page or so of this thread, I would've perhaps argued against the lumping in of KoM with BC and JH, but clearly, I would've been mistaken. KoM, the whole complaint lodged in the beginning of this thread is that certain posters tend to disregard the points made by other posters, ignoring them or dismissing them without actually paying attention to them, and you seem to be doing that now. Try to take a step back from your argument and read what everyone else has to say: that brave men do not, in fact, outnumber brave women in history--or that, at the very least, there's very little proof for the point you're making.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I hate to say it, because it makes me sound like a whiny troll, but it seems that you people are determined to misunderstand me. I am sorry to make such an accusation, but I have tried my best to be clear, and I really cannot seem to get through to you.

Let me state one more time what I am trying to say, and then go to bed :

Men have, throughout history, had more opportunities to demonstrate physical courage than women.

That's it. I am not drawing moral lessons; I am not saying men are braver than women. I am making an extremely limited statement of what I believe to be historical fact. If you choose to be offended, take a deep breath and remember that old quote, 'Methinks the lady doth protest too much.'
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
The Yoruba royal guard in the 19th century in modern Niger and Nigeria were "Amazons". They were insanely-capable warrior-women (also probably slaves, but that's beside the point). They were excellent with the scimitar and brutally accurate shots with Long Dane muskets. They were equipped with the best of the best the Yoruba states could offer.

Note that that's completely tangential to the argument I mostly-skimmed. I just like that particular bit of history.

Less tangential,

quote:

---

"Can a man be brave even if he's afraid?"
"That is the only time he can be brave."

---

Bran and Eddard Stark from A Game of Thrones and in context, "man" can be interpreted as people in general. It wasn't making a statement about gender, but rather a statement about courage.

EDIT:
I really don't think KoM is being a troll. Then, by my own admission, I wasn't reading the thread very carefully. Indeed, he was only trying to state that many men have fought and died, presenting great courage all the way. And, by the numbers, they outnumber women in a similar circumstance.

At the same time, I don't think he was cutting down notable warrior-women in history, instead pointing them out as exceptions--which they were. At the same time I didn't read any hostility toward labeling women as brave in other ways. I may be reading KoM wrong, though.

[ December 19, 2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Megan, while I certainly disagree with many of the other posters here, I do not believe I have completely ignored their points; I certainly have done my best to respond to their posts. I may have missed a few from the sheer mass of people arguing with me; point them out and I'll try to rectify that - tomorrow, I'm off to bed now.

Further, I do not believe I have been rude. Sharp and abrasive, which I believe was justified in order to get people to respond to what I was saying and not what they were apparently hearing. But not rude. I have called no names, insulted no intelligences, accused no one of a lack of conviction. I do not think it fair to accuse me of behaving as badly as JH and BC, and I would appreciate it if you retracted that.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Can I please get it on record that I understand women can be brave? I believe this is the fourth time I state this. But you are DAMN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.

---

quote:

---

*resists urge to break own single pseudonym rule to register King of Women*

---

I, however, have no such qualms.

*cuts off all manparts within a two-mile radius*


 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I am not so violent, KoW, but nevertheless,



EDIT: And this is hats off for taking the name not for the *action*. As I said, I am not so violent!

[ December 19, 2004, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

It doesn't; just like all essays I write and fret over don't matter except to make me a more informed human bean.

---

Heh, I see. What are you studying? (I did not have essays, really, given that I did engineering.)
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I am studying Anglais, History and Politics.

English is my most "redundant" subject; I have actually been told not to try to be original. History and Politics are slightly more applicable. At least, I try and write on the most applicable-to-real-life topics.

The point is though, that many topics that are discussed and argued are completely irrelevent. Especially ones where you're writing about analogies in a book that the author specifically said were not there.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
I must have missed the Teshster's point.

Unless your point was that your program is unfulfilling? I which case I've got your back. Preach it, sister suffragette.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

The point is though, that many topics that are discussed and argued are completely irrelevent.

---

Sounds like a point to me.

I was just smiling 'cause I'm in kind of a good mood, though. Was out for some drinks with Dunc and Chris, pulled an Eric and picked up the entire tab.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Anyway, you're never fulfilled. And I don't feel like editing.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It just feels like an essay where the third paragraph suddenly starts arguing a point not presented in the thesis statement

I'm out.

Of what?

I'm out. Of this.



See, while you're out having drinks with your friends I'm still not done finals. Although, I did get to say a number of my profs a little schnockered over the weekend at the end of term chem party. Tong is a funny, funny man.
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 

quote:

---

The point is though, that many topics that are discussed and argued are completely irrelevent. Especially ones where you're writing about analogies in a book that the author specifically said were not there.

---

That's why I avoid English classes. I spend a lot of time in them debating that the author couldn't have possibly included the depth of material covered.

For isntance, H.G. Wells was a good author, but face it, he wrote pulp Scifi. We got into the nature animals and humanity and how it related to misogyny in Frankenstein... or something like that. It was absurd. I'll stick to African History, thanks.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Oh man. Chris worked at Pearson this summer, doing Korean Air flights. So very many funny stories. And there was a midget. Much hilarity.

I'm glad Dunc's back. Things will be much more fun around here.

And who knows, maybe we'll even manage to derail this thread by talking about things no one else can make head or tail of?
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
It's what we do best. I think of all the people on the board we've got the most history. Can anyone else top two decades? Nope? Alright then.

I can only imagine the antics that DJ Nick got up to. How'd the band do, anyway? Remember I said that they'd get eaten alive? I'm morbidly curious to find out if I was right.
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
No, there are whole families who post here, I'd say they win that particular contest.

I have no idea about the band, really. They're still together, but I don't know how they did while they were in Toronto. Chris seems to have a lot less time now that he's going to school, working, AND doing the band thing.

On the other hand he finds time to date married women and midgets.
 

---

Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
*whimpers* I'm getting so sick of men v women arguments and debates. How come people can't just say human and be done with it?
 

---

Posted by kaioshin00 (Member # 3740) on :
 
Has anyone ever seen a well?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Well, sure! Haven't you?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I don't agree with KoM, but he most definatly isn't a troll. He has manners, even though he sometimes decides not to use them for a bit, but he has contributed to this forum.

I play online DnD with him, and he is OK, not like JH/BC, who I STILL think are one and the same. They don't EVER care about other peoples opinions or feelings, and KoM is far smarter than either one of them (if in fact they are not one and the same).

Don't get a big head because I said that KoM ...my 5 year old neice is brighter and more polite than they are too.


Also, I agree...men have had more oppertunities to SHOW that sort of bravery. Regardless of how clear you THOUGHT you were being I would say by the number of people who have commented that what you were saying and what it sounded like you were saying were two different things....

Kwea

[ December 20, 2004, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Here's my question: even if this is true, why do you care?

I certainly don't.

---

quote:

---

DARN WELL OUTNUMBERED by all the brave men through history.

---

I think the reason people are responding so strongly to it is the basic idea that women are not as brave as men. You claim that's not what you say, but that's exactly what that quote says, with none of the qualification (of physical bravery) that you mentioned in your response to me. I think the people replying to your posts have managed to prove through example that you are wrong both on the idea that the majority of brave people in the past have been men and on your more basic idea of courage. I also think you acknowledge the examples hardly all, or dismissively at best. Not only that, but your basic dismissal of childbirth as an act of courage, I imagine, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way (me not the least--I'm terrified of childbirth, and I think it must take an enormous amount of courage to go through it).

I would not call you a troll, and I don't think you're quite in the same arena as JH and BC, but your posts in this thread are more representative of the problems that were originally pointed out in the first post of the thread. However, you have a point: you have not been as rude as they have been, and for implying that, I apologize. I stand by my description of the problems with your posts, though.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
Icarus

Man his original point got totally lost...
 

---

Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
 
No it didn't. The thread worked.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
Possibly a bit off the issue, but:

quote:

---

It does not take courage to swing a great axe, but arm strength.

---

I'd say that also the location of larger breasts proved as a flaw in battle, making it less efficient to manoeuvre.

Please refer to the bras' post in order to get a different perspective.

Jonny
 

---

Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
 
I can't believe I just read this whole thread.

KoM I would guess that way back in the day if your village was getting attacked you had plenty of opportunity as a man, woman, or child to show physical bravery. And the simpler option probably was to go quietly into the dark night. But, there are probably many many examples of people fighting to protect their homes. And if your men are away at war who do you think is going to do it?

But really the problem is we can't say can we? Because we're not there and most of human history is quite poorly documented. So this thread tangent can never die.

*slowly backs away from this thread*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that KoM would also agree that we have many many more items of documentation that many many many more men have lied, cheated, stole, murdered, committed acts of torture, and -- probably more to the point -- betrayed public trust and acted dishonorably.
.
.
Including many many many more displays of physical cowardice.
.
.
Why? They were predominantly the ones in the position to have acts of cowardice and the like both noted and recorded. *shrug

Means nothing more or less than this is what we have record of.

[ December 20, 2004, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

My apathy is spreading. Soon, the world will be mine.

But I won't care.

---

That totally made me snort.
 

---

Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
 
Generalizing with gender will always get you in trouble. In fact generalizing always gets you into trouble. (Note: This is the sentance the breaks, and proves the rule.)

Some people are brave, others are not. Some people are brave where others are not.

Moral of the story: Men are stupid oafs that can't care for children, and women can't do anything but.

*ducks*
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
As promised, my responses. About that 'darn' : I was possibly getting just a touch carried away by the heat of the argument. But I am also annoyed by the apparent knee-jerk reaction displayed : If I say 'Men are good at X', instantly three other members will offer examples of women in history who were also good at X. Fine, I'm not saying women can't be soldiers, statesmen, whatever. I'm saying there have been more men.

As for dismissing others' arguments, I don't think I did. What I did do was state that the examples offered were all valid, but extremely badly outnumbered. I stand by that. Even if you assume that in the reaches of un-recorded history there are many instances of women rising in arms, the mass mobilisations of the past few centuries will easily swamp them.

King of Women, I do not think you are being particularly funny. How much would you chortle if I stated my intent to circumcise all women in a two-mile radius?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'm pretty sure that KoM would also agree that we have many many more items of documentation that many many many more men have lied, cheated, stole, murdered, committed acts of torture, and -- probably more to the point -- betrayed public trust and acted dishonorably more often.

Including many many many more displays of physical cowardice.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

But I am also annoyed by the apparent knee-jerk reaction displayed

---

quote:

---

Unless your point was that your program is unfulfilling? I which case I've got your back. Preach it, sister suffragette.

---

BtL, The Teshster was not really making a point about anything, except to answer the Twinkster's question, which was "what are you studying that makes you write redundant essays?" or words to that effect.

I am not unfulfilled by my program. It never occured to me, actually. All the fulfilling I need, I get at Hatrack or I go find it someplace else. Classes are secondary and have always been. I just go to University to be able to function more successfully at Hatrack .

EDIT:

quote:

---

It just feels like an essay where the third paragraph suddenly starts arguing a point not presented in the thesis statement

---

Just to confuse you, BtL. Nothing like a random point.

It was actually the point referring to an earlier post of mine to which Twinky's question was referring. So although the point seemed kind of random of that post it's actually the end of a complete entity that encompasses mine, Twinky's and my second post (the one that confused you), and therefore was not actually all over the place.

Is that clear ?

Also: The point I was making was that although it is completely and totally irrelevent to argue that men have been more active in military pursuits in the past, it is valid point, as arguments go.

[ December 20, 2004, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Sara, you are obviously correct.

Dag, I stand by 'knee-jerk'.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
As long as you admit that your conclusion is based on faith and not proof of any kind.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
 

quote:

---

I can't believe I just read this whole thread

---

I'm glad I didn't. Sheesh! Half way through I felt like I was at a group therapy session.

KoM Hey for what it's worth I think you're alright. I don't read too much of the other two to form a real opinion. There have been a few or more of you're posts I liked. Other times I just treat them as the blibber-blah of the threads that I don't respond to out of disintrest .

edited to add: Sorry Ic, but it was turning that way.

[ December 20, 2004, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: Stan the man ]
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
KoM, I can't lump you in with the Bean Counters, JarHeads, Cedrioses or Baldars of the world, at least from what I've seen.

You're more in line with the Tresopaxes of the world in my mind.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
I'm just here for the cake. *mmphgood!*
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Yeah, really not necessary, but I wanted to point out to the few people that care that Baldar seemed to me to have a need to see himself as honorable, which is a very different thing from actually being honorable. From what I've seen, this distinction, though very important, is often not well understood.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Mmmm. This chocolate double fudge cake is so good it's definitely honourable! *Mmunch*mmph*good!*
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
That's not the same, you know.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Really? You don't think so?

I think you should have a piece before you say that. *cuts slice and hands over to Iccy* Notice the rich, fudge frosting, and the melted chocolate chips in the cake. Mmm, it's so gooey!

Anyone else want a piece? *slices the rest of the cake and offers*
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
The wonderful thing about virtual cake is that it's generally kosher.

*accepts piece*

*munches*

Yum!
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
What about virtual pork cake?
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
That's kosher too, believe it or not!
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Yeah, really not necessary, but I wanted to point out to the few people that care that Baldar seemed to me to have a need to see himself as honorable, which is a very different thing from actually being honorable. From what I've seen, this distinction, though very important, is often not well understood.

---

And that, Squick, is a very good point.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
David here. You may've noticed me from time to time, easing back slowly into the forum. I needed to be away for a time, but I could never leave this site totally, not after what I learned here, not after what you helped me get through (often without knowing it).

Taking a vitriolic, over-the-top 'comer and turning him around is always going to be touch and go. First off, he needs to be handled in a way that is less likely to exacerbate his natural tendency to explode into bilingsgate and so forth. Show him you're above that sort of nonsense. Calmly point out to him why his chosen form of of expression is detrimental to the community. Show him examples of good, useful disagreements and dialectic. Try to engage him in some.

But, guys, at the end of the day HE is the one who needs to change. And only he can do what needs to be done. All you can do is hope that, as with what happened to me, he will wake up one morning, log on, and realize what incredible opportunities he's missing out on by being a total schmuck.

One thing that might edge him in the right direction is one-on-one conversation with the "elders" of the group, like aka and Slash (yeah, that's the voice of experience you hear).
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
So David, why did a talk with The Elders work for you, do you think?
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
I dunno. I guess because I saw clearly that it wasn't an attempt at grand-standing on their part: they weren't trying to look important or open-minded in front of others, but were rather genuinely concerned 1) about my hurting their friends and 2) about my own inability to fit in. The second was really compelling in that they WANTED to have me as a fellow hatracker, and they were willing to work with me so that I might better integrate myself.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
It was the snazzy suit and ties, I bet.



Or the flip chart on prayer! I love that one.
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
Well, I wasn't talking about the coversation with you and Patrick, Scott— that was just... scary.
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
Is David becoming a Mormon?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
In another three-and-a-half months or so, maybe.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I was wondering why this thread was so long. Now I see--it was the discussion about men/women/bravery.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Don't forget the double fudge chocolate cake!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

What about virtual pork cake?

---

quote:

---

That's kosher too, believe it or not!

---

Actually, it's virtually kosher. As in almost. And mostly kosher is entirely treif.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Good to see you back, David. I use to see you around once and a while when I first joined.

Good to see you didn't leave for good.

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Yeah, David, it's great to see you back! I will never forget the spanish slang phrases thread (where else could I ever learn how to say "You are on crack, Dude!" in Mexican, Central American, and Spaniard Spanish?) and the hilarious April Fools thread about your conversion. I took that one hook line and sinker! <laughs> Then when I realized what day it was I laughed for the whole week! (I still think it just felt RIGHT, you know? Are you positive you haven't started investigating the church yet? Please promise you'll invite me to your baptism if and when the day ever arrives.)

Anyway, as has been proven multiple times, the most abrasive newcomers can become the very most interesting and productive members of the board once they settle in and lose some of their prickles. It's always the best outcome, when people can learn and change like that. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to do that.

The coolest thing about hatrack is that if Jar Head changes his mind and comes back and tries to change, I know everyone will be glad to see him, and will be friendly and cut him yards of slack while he's learning. Just a willingness to try to do better goes a long long way. I hope he will do that someday.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
And that was the point we were trying to get across to Jar Head - that if he were to be a tad more polite, we wouldn't mind him. He just didn't get it. It's sad. But yes, if he does come back and does try to behave better, I would have no problem with him. Bean Counter too, for that matter. But it's their choice, not ours.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Yeah...I was wishy-washy to him, because I left room for the idea that he might actually want to change one day and try at least a little to be civil. I didn't mind him disagreeing with me. As a matter of fact I used him as a weather vane of sorts...if I agreed with anything he said I know I was way off base......

Lots of people here have differing opinions from me, but I get along with most of them. Often I would rather talk to them about an issue or a problem because they are more likely to come at it from a different angle than I would, and a lot of times I learned something just by discussing an issue with Icarus, or Dag, or Tom.

Even with Xap, once and a while, although if he realized it at the time I am sure he would have tried to stop it somehow....

Who wants to talk to themselves 24/7? Because that is what you would be doing if everyone always agreed with you about everything...Greek choruses suck, even on stage, so why debate with one?

Kwea

[ December 22, 2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 

quote:

---

And that was the point we were trying to get across to Jar Head - that if he were to be a tad more polite, we wouldn't mind him. He just didn't get it. It's sad. But yes, if he does come back and does try to behave better, I would have no problem with him. Bean Counter too, for that matter. But it's their choice, not ours.

---

quote:

---

Greek choruses suck, even on stage

---

Okay, let's not get crazy here. Step away from the dithyrambs... step aWAY from the orchestra...
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
How about you step away from the Josh?
 

---

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
 
What, no "hello" before you start slandering me? Silly Pat, jokes are for funny people.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Katarn (Member # 3567) on :
 
I have to say, that Groban link is funnier every time it comes up.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
It IS nice to have DB back. I didn't realize that I was capable of missing a virtual person.

Apparently, I am. Was. Whatever.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Hey Dave! What's new?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Bean Counter and Jar Head leave, and then David Bowles and Pat return. Coincidence? Hmmm....
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Naw. Slash ate them.
 

---

Posted by SIash the Berzerker (Member # 3897) on :
 
Did not. *Scatters welcome-back flowers through thread for Pat and Dave*
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Galactic Cactus is boring. I thought I'd wander over here.

What's new around here?
 

---

Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
 
Okay, I can only think of one person who is still missing.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Katarn (Member # 3567) on :
 


*avoids landmark*
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Slash, bonduca and Jeff, lukelmiller, Emily Milner ...

Kayla's posting again. Was worried for awhile. Sharpie's made a traditional cameo recently, too.

APerfectGentleman, my friend who I came to know as Jin (started with a "K", ended in "jin"), and the couple who lived with AK and whose names always slip my mind. Who else? There are some nagging at the corner of my thoughts, but I'm blanking.

Not enough celia.

OlavMah (but here not too long ago).

[ December 22, 2004, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 

-->for Sara
GreNME said I'd be back. I guess he's that makes him the smartest.

P.S. When did they delete all the member numbers that have zero posts? That totally derailed my plans.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Hey, girl!

Dean and moonflower, that was the couple I was thinking about. amira tharani? masteroftheobvious. Richard Berg! (But not too long ago)

Brettly.

JohnKeats, but here pretty recently.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Aren't moonflower and Perfect Gentleman the same person?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'm not sure. PG had a "regular name" that I didn't know.

And Pepperuda!

ladyday ...

SamuelBush, but not too long ago.

Yebor, the thread-rescuer.

Jettboy. Destineer. jehovoid.

And we have Ela , but Ele hasn't been around for a good while, AFAIK.

Thor is still around as TSS.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
porcelain girl.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
yep.

Is Zalmoxis still around? pH posted a few days ago, I think.

Doug J. Justin Pullen.

Maethoriell! And Fael.

John/Leto II, of course.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Zalmoxis was around pretty recently, and I saw a few posts by jehovoid recently, too.

I'd love to see Doug J. back.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Me, too. I thought Zalmoxis' name had shown up recently. Glad to know jehovoid's still here.

Saudade has been incommunicado for awhile now, no?

JaneX and Kate Emily.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Has PSI Teleport been posting much?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
PSI has definitely been around. Lively and kicking as ever. *grin

Maybe the bra thread?

MyrrdinFyre. Emperor Palpatine (unless he changed names).

[ December 22, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
PSI has been here pretty recently, I believe.

Interesting and kind of sad how all these names kind of slip out of your consciousness if you don't see them for a while. You don't notice some of them are gone until you look around one day and their familiar faces aren't there.

Just looking at a thread from a year or more ago is an eye-opener about how constantly the active Hatrack population changes.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Oh yeah, I remember she affirmed that DD and E are the same. So, in the pattern of Hatrack, did that fluff thread drift into complex social issues after a while?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Yeah. I'm jogging my memory with the Orginal Potry thread and the landmarks.

It still feels like so many of them are here, but just tucked away around the corner, you know? But so many have moved on.

*sigh
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
That Orginal Potry thread is like the History of Hatrack, is it not?

And kudos for spelling it right.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Yes, it did. A good deal of info about what is and is not painful or distressing for sex, both for men and women. Hmmm. A dive into childhood escapades with tadpoles that morphed into Noemon having sex in public (and getting applauded).

*grin

Typical.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
May we never lose our Orginal Potry.

enjeeo and Rakeesh. Not enough of The Rabbit, lately.

[ December 22, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Who is this Sara Sasse person?
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
<Unsure if Pat is kidding.> It's CT.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Earlier today as I was wrestling with the decision to come back, I thought of asking you what all happened that made you change.
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Ah. Following in my footsteps.

**sniffs**

How are ya, girl?

I'd ask Moose, but he always seems to know what I'm up to.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Earlier today as I was wrestling with the decision to come back, I thought of asking you what all happened that made you change.

---

quote:

---

Ah. Following in my footsteps.

**sniffs**

---

Yep.

quote:

---

How are ya, girl?

---

Good. Keeping busy, doing a lot of thinking, likely moving to Canada next Fall with my husband. We're both sending out feelers for work, and I'll take the Canadian licensing exams in Spring and Summer.

What's up with you?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Emily Milner had a few paragraphs in this month's Ensign, in the article about parents coming to live with their children, and how to make it work. Did anyone else see that? She's so great! What a sweet girl!

It's wonderful how old hatrackers come back and say hi. Lara Gale, who was La on the old BML forum was even back for a while last month.

I was wondering about Coil of the backwards smilies a few days ago. Remember him? And where has Ethics Gradient been lately? I miss him! Does he still lurk?
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
I've turned into a capitalist pig.

Started a magazine. Doing HR for a startup company. Anything but newspaper journalism.


 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Good for Emily!

I think EG is hanging out with pYx. *grin
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

Started a magazine.

---

Which? Where can I find it?

(*going out for lunch, will be back in a bit)

Pat
 

---

Posted by Pat (Member # 879) on :
 
Our website is www.freecapitalist.com, but we haven't updated it for two days. We're working out some kinks n stuff. Keep in mind, however that this is the online version and is very different from our printed magazine.

It's a magazine that focuses on capitalistic principles to attain self reliance, financial freedom and economic independence. It's the official magazine of the FrankinSquires companies.

It's not for everyone. It leans right. A lot. But it has it's niche and I'm in charge of building it.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Wow, you are really moving to Canada. I'm proud of you, but a little sad- not really sure why.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
CT!!! Yay!

*hugs for CT*
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Myr is busy with school, but is still around a bit.

JK just posted last week, I hope to see him back more often in the future.

Ela is around, but not as much as before, and her daughter JaneX is at Smith College.....we had dinner at the beginning ofthe school year, along with sarahindipity. I am sure that school is the main reason she has been busy as well.

Kwea

[ December 22, 2004, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Haven't seen Shlomo in some time. Bonduca and...what's her partner's name? The guy who always gives fashion advice? Anyway, they've been gone for ages, although the male half of that couple (Jeffry Getzin, maybe?) did return for a few weeks at one point. Surveyor1 has been gone for ages.

Pat, David, did you hear that Centurion died? Leukemia, I believe.
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
I wholeheartedly support Icarus in his condemnation of idiots.

And Pat is posting here again, I see.

(leave for a few days and see what happens?)
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
You know what I love about Hatrack?

You read the first page of a thread like this. It is actually very serious, with some interesting comments, and you plan your own response.

Then you skip to the last page. Most of what you see are now emoticons. People are remniscing and joking around. Your post dissolves from your mind and you grin and laugh.

Hatrack
 

---

Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
 
I think it all comes down to this:

Hatrack survives and thrives. Folks come in and make a mess and we all get flustered about it. Then we all get a big mad going and get together in a thread like this to talk it over and hash it out.

Somewhere along the way, we remember how much we all like chatting more than complaining about the new problem posters and voila`! We've forgotten the problem.

Which, in the end, is the best way to handle the trolls of the world. Remind yourself that they are just make believe and get back to the people you care about.
 

---

Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
 
This thread reminds me of those final episodes of sitcoms where they bring back all the main characters that have gone on to movies and pantyhose commercials for one last hurrah.

Should we all be nervous?

(It's really bugging me that I'm now thinking of Full House.)
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Thinking of Full House?

It is all your fault then, and you deserve it....

Kwea
 

---

Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
 
This post went into the wrong thread. Please pardon the interuption.

[ December 22, 2004, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Um, no.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Now, wait just a minute...

Sara Sasse and CT are the same person???

...

huh, and I thought SS was sucked in to fill the cozmic void left by CT.

(((SS and CT, who are the same person. Hopefully )))
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Yes, they are one and the same.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
And we know this because they've never been seen in the same place at precisely the same time!
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That, plus they both wear the cape.
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
I think I caught her changing in a phone booth once, but I'm not positive.

She looks good even without the cape....
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Hooray! Some of the old-timers are back! I'm glad to see all of you.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Do I count as an old timer? I was gone for a year and, um, three months, and now I'm back. Does that count?
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
No.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Oh. *hangs head in shame. walks away*
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
pfffft! Don't listen to Kwea!

You were and oldbie to me when I was new, and then you left, and now you're back. So I say yes!

(((((quid)))))
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Rivka, I don't get it. Your date joined is March 2003. Mine is April 2003. How does that make an oldbie when you were new?

Or are we back into my chaos time thread?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 


Ok, maybe I just thought you were an oldbie in what, May of 2003?

The thing is, I joined in March, posted twice, and then didn't return until sometime in May. (And y'all haven't been able to get rid of me for long since. ) So those who joined between my March join date and early May probably seemed to me about the same as those who'd been around for ages prior.


 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I've been here since 1999. Holy crap I feel old.

And the OLDER ones..."A Long Time Ago"

o_O
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*pat pat*

That's ok, mack. You feel old because you are old.

*dodges cane*
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I feel stupid. I was just wondering where someone had gone, and I spent quite some time thinking about them. Now I get to this thread and I can't for the life of me remember who it was. All I remember is assuming that they'd gone over to Gremne at some point during the mass exodus over there.

EDIT: I just remembered, it was Jon Boy, I was thinking about him because his thread was bumped. Does anyone know what happened to him?

[ December 27, 2004, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Jon Boy started a forum of his own.

[ December 27, 2004, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Jon Boy was, IMO, the original prolific newbie.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
Yeah, that's how I remember his start too.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
There was a mass exodus?
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
Yeah, within your time, too. When GrenMe, sakeriver, and (I'm guessing) galacticcactus became the forum-of-choice for many regulars. I'm guessing that was during this past spring, no? I wanna say around... april/may?

I left at the same time, but came back several months later.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I'd say T_Smith was the original. With his 1000 posts in one month, as I recall he and Mae were neck to neck for the honor.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

the original prolific newbie

---

This honor clearly belongs to Maethoriel (sp?).

She even started a landmark thread within a week or so of joining!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
Heh. I'm holding relatively steady at about 1,000 post per annum. At this rate I'll break 10k in 2010.
 

---

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
 
Just remember mack, I'll always be that smidge older than you

-Bok
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I think the ORIGINAL prolific newbie was Chaeron. Like so many of those prolific newbie types, he peaked early, though, and after his initial flash-in-the-pan, is down to a steady candle flicker.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
I just wannabe the first on the next page.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Yer a wannabe alright . . .


 

---