quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie, your scalings-back are still major generalizations. Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'...well, really, who do you imagine you're kidding with that? Honestly, that's about as credible as a real scaling back as the excuses made for the 'private' prom.
ETA: It's strange, but it almost sounds like you think Tom is taking his cues on assessing you from me, Eddie. How likely does that sound to you? Perhaps what Tom posted is grounded in his own assessments of you, rather than just modifying what I think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting is that "contents under pressure" has posted 3 times, but only two are showing. Which means that it's deleted a post. What could possibly have been bad enough for the creature to have self-censored?
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
whistled.
See, I really don't get it. Didn't you just have a thing where you were taking pride in how untrainable you are? Do you really not see how easy it is for people to play you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Eddie, your scalings-back are still major generalizations. Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'...well, really, who do you imagine you're kidding with that? Honestly, that's about as credible as a real scaling back as the excuses made for the 'private' prom.
Well... not that I don't agree that he was being kind of intemperate, but don't you think he's right? I mean, the kind of trash he's talking about probably does vote overwhelmingly Republican. Just like the kind of trash that's prone to gang membership and welfare cheating votes overwhelmingly Democratic.
Both sides have segments of the population that they absolutely count on as a "gimme" vote, but generally doesn't want to be associated with them. Lately, that's blurred. Obama and Acorn on the one side, and Palin and the redneck crowd on the other.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
I disagree. To keep blacks from voting, should opponents have eradicated elections? Or in a more direct analogy: to prevent miscegenation, should opponents have eradicated marriage just as you propose here?
And I fundamentally oppose the line of thought that says that since marriage is a religious institution, it has no place in government. It's intellectually dishonest. As an atheist, can I not get married? Legal marriage is a secular, civil procedure, and "civil unions" are nothing more than separate-but-equal laws in a modern context.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: What the homosexuals and their allies want above all else is the normalization of homosexuality. If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
"Normal people". Imbecile.
Anyway, I've made it clear any number of times that my first preference would be for government to get out of the marriage biz altogether, so apparently you're a moron.
Just sayin'.
Oh, and a coward, too.
whistled.
See, I really don't get it. Didn't you just have a thing where you were taking pride in how untrainable you are? Do you really not see how easy it is for people to play you?
Oh, come one. First of all, check out the foul thread where sinflower is defending atrocities against my people. When was the last time I posted there? And believe me, I've been reading it and holding back.
But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is, I do agree with him, at least on how frankly contemptible these people are - the ones holding their 'private' prom, for example, the tissue-thin excuses they offer as to why it wasn't founded in anti-homosexual bigotry, for their hypocrisy in shaming the ideals they claim to revere, and on and on.
Where we disagree is in the way he uses those things to write off the entire group, the way he appears to think that one could not possibly vote Democratic for a variety of issues and still hold this kind of intolerance in their hearts. The way, basically, that some of the worst aspects of these people defines them utterly as Republicans in ways that similar beliefs* don't define other people utterly as Democrats.
The way that the bad guys are monolithic. They're trash, or at best this sort of trash is almost always just one way. But the good guys, they get nuance.
*Don't believe me? The parties are, in the long-term, pretty evenly split in terms of votes throughout American history. But how long has it taken even for the issue to get this far? That means, necessarily, that for all this time, Democrats have been standing idly by, at best.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
Or, as in the case of heterosexual marriage, it may serve to decrease promiscuity. Do you have any data about how many of the relationships referenced in the article are in legal marriages?
quote:To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
If you define "normal" as "not gay" then your statement is demonstrably false, given that a large number of "normal" people, as many as 40-50% across the nation (much higher in some regions) approve of SSM. This, incidentally, is a greater proportion of the population than approved of mixed-race marriages until late in the 20th century - decades after such relationships were universally legal.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, question. Weren't we just talking about how nice it would be if people didn't feed the trolls? And then a troll comes along and everyone promptly starts feeding it.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that he was suggesting we ignore the trollpuppets.
Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Oh, come one. First of all, check out the foul thread where sinflower is defending atrocities against my people. When was the last time I posted there? And believe me, I've been reading it and holding back.
But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
I think Squick's point was that the whole purpose of this troll was to elicit a response from you, and you fell for it. It's not here for discussion. It just wants a rise out of the general community, either because it's a genuine troll or it's someone trying to prove a point about trolling in a discussion about trolling.
It's very meta, but whoever it is behind "contents under pressure"... stop it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If states stopped recognizing marriage altogether, homosexuals and their allies would be sad, because the government wouldn't have acquiesced to homosexuals' demand that they be equated with normal people.
Some homosexuals and "allies" of homosexuals advocate for exactly the solution that you say would make them "sad." I'm one. It's a neat solution. Unfortunately this option is not much more attractive to many of the opponents of civil same sex marriage. (I will concede that some same sex marriage advocates are not happy with that solution, because it is a compromise and they don't think it's necessary - but I believe almost all of them would find it preferable to the status quo.)
I disagree. To keep blacks from voting, should opponents have eradicated elections? Or in a more direct analogy: to prevent miscegenation, should opponents have eradicated marriage just as you propose here?
Marriage can be an entirely private matter between individuals. Individuals would enter into a marriage using whatever ceremony they wanted. All that is necessary for a couple to be "married" is that the community (at least comprised of their friends, family and coworkers) recognize them as such and they wear rings around their fingers to signal the fact. You can fundamentally remove government involvement and keep the institution intact. You seem to have interpreted this as my saying I'm for getting rid of marriage in and of itself entirely. I'm not.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense
I think you're doing him a serious disservice here. Jeff is theatrical, sure; so are you. His arguments, though, do not invariably "reduce" away; you're just as capable of ignoring (or overlooking) the validity of some of his points as he is of yours.
I've been trying to work past some of this sort of behavior in myself, because I think a desire to "win" conversations is easily one of my least attractive qualities. There's an instinctive desire to explain away the points which seem to score, instead of manning up to bite the bullet and concede that, yes, that's a valid way of looking at it but isn't, in your point of view, as important as this other thing. And every time one does that, the other person believes one's either being too dishonest to admit the point or too stupid to see it -- and we're too easily tempted by the nature of our own brain chemistry into thinking that our defensively dismissive reaction to counterargument now constitutes a legitimate reason to think less of the person who presented it to us.
There's been a lot of research done on this in the last few years, and I've really been trying to take it seriously. It's way too easy to train yourself to think that the people who disagree with you are all stupid or evil, and I see it happening more and more often all around me. I decided I didn't want to be part of it ages ago, but it's really only in the last few months or so that I've managed to learn to recognize the emotion that leads to that behavior in me (and clamp down on it when it happens).
In other words: give Jeff more credit, and I think you'll find that he'll give you more credit, too.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that he was suggesting we ignore the trollpuppets.
Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
Jeff's deliberately misrepresenting my words, but should clarify for you: when I talked about scaling back, I meant the post after that. In order, I went from generalization --> elaboration --> admission of error and clarification.
He's made more claims about my supposedly black-and-white moral sensibilities, my imagined Democratic inclinations, and many more things that simply aren't true. But it's not worth my time or effort to address them, because he'll simply come up with more and argue them to semantic nonsense.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But besides that, you can't honestly think that the regular rules apply to obvious trollpuppets like this, can you?
If the 'regular rules' don't apply to trolls, who do they apply to? And when?
----
quote:Rakeesh, I thought that,"Scaling back 'Republicans are trash' to 'maybe not all Republicans are trash, but trash votes overwhelmingly Republican'" was a significant difference.
"They're trash. Wait, no, they're not all trash. But trash is almost always them." I suppose that is a significant difference, the way -7 is significantly different from -10.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if he has an unpleasant experience arguing with me, it's because his arguments invariably reduce to pointless semanticism or theatrical displays of offense
I think you're doing him a serious disservice here. Jeff is theatrical, sure; so are you. His arguments, though, do not invariably "reduce" away; you're just as capable of ignoring (or overlooking) the validity of some of his points as he is of yours.
I've been trying to work past some of this sort of behavior in myself, because I think a desire to "win" conversations is easily one of my least attractive qualities. There's an instinctive desire to explain away the points which seem to score, instead of manning up to bite the bullet and concede that, yes, that's a valid way of looking at it but isn't, in your point of view, as important as this other thing. And every time one does that, the other person believes one's either being too dishonest to admit the point or too stupid to see it -- and we're too easily tempted by the nature of our own brain chemistry into thinking that our defensively dismissive reaction to counterargument now constitutes a legitimate reason to think less of the person who presented it to us.
There's been a lot of research done on this in the last few years, and I've really been trying to take it seriously. It's way too easy to train yourself to think that the people who disagree with you are all stupid or evil, and I see it happening more and more often all around me. I decided I didn't want to be part of it ages ago, but it's really only in the last few months or so that I've managed to learn to recognize the emotion that leads to that behavior in me (and clamp down on it when it happens).
In other words: give Jeff more credit, and I think you'll find that he'll give you more credit, too.
It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone. I have enormous respect for Dagonee, for example, though I disagreed with him on many issues. I disagree with KMBBoots on Catholicism, but I still hold her in high regard. If I were the type to dismiss opponents as stupid or evil, shouldn't I do the same to them?
(What happened to Dagonee, btw? Is he still around?)
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eddie...on what planet is, "Maybe my post was too heated," an 'admission of error'? It's an admission of the possibility of error. Nothing more and nothing less.
I don't think you have black and white moral sensibilities. I don't think you can quote a time where I have suggested you have. I think you've got very black and white sensibilities when it comes to certain religious, political, and social issues-such as this one. Even your possible admissions and clarifications, even they're still quite black and white.
I don't imagine you're a Democratic, I imagine that your contempt for the Democratic party is far, far, far outweighed by that you hold towards the GOP.
ETA: I wonder if Dagonee thinks you have enormous respect for him? If he remembers you, that is-that's not a shot, it's just been awhile since you were around here regularly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone.
Now stop. Allow yourself to frame the same sentence with the presumption that Jeff's tactics are not, in fact, dishonest.
We are left with the observation that you find Jeff's tactics distasteful, but do not find everyone's tactics distasteful. There are things, then, that distinguish Jeff's tactics from those you don't mind -- but is dishonesty one of those things?
What about Jeff's approach is more dishonest than Kate's? I submit that he's more confrontational and aggressive, and quicker to take offense himself. You both wind up feeding off of that, and conclude that the other simply isn't capable of having a "civil conversation;" you both believe the other is consciously dealing falsely. But that's the laziest conclusion.
The truth is that you're both pretty fallible, quick to huffy anger, and occasionally prone to huge misunderstandings. The truth is also that you're both good, principled, intelligent, and educated men who really do like each other and enjoy talking to each other, but get frustrated when you can't easily understand why the other one is determined to stand stubbornly on some point that is, in your opinion, clearly ridiculous. And when you get frustrated, you both have a tendency to assume that it is because someone else is frustrating you.
That doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem to me, to be honest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would be more convincing to explain away my distaste for Jeff's dishonest tactics if I had the same experience with everyone.
Now stop. Allow yourself to frame the same sentence with the presumption that Jeff's tactics are not, in fact, dishonest.
We are left with the observation that you find Jeff's tactics distasteful, but do not find everyone's tactics distasteful. There are things, then, that distinguish Jeff's tactics from those you don't mind -- but is dishonesty one of those things?
What about Jeff's approach is more dishonest than Kate's? I submit that he's more confrontational and aggressive, and quicker to take offense himself. You both wind up feeding off of that, and conclude that the other simply isn't capable of having a "civil conversation;" you both believe the other is consciously dealing falsely. But that's the laziest conclusion.
The truth is that you're both pretty fallible, quick to huffy anger, and occasionally prone to huge misunderstandings. The truth is also that you're both good, principled, intelligent, and educated men who really do like each other and enjoy talking to each other, but get frustrated when you can't easily understand why the other one is determined to stand stubbornly on some point that is, in your opinion, clearly ridiculous. And when you get frustrated, you both have a tendency to assume that it is because someone else is frustrating you.
That doesn't sound like an insurmountable problem to me, to be honest.
To use the most recent example, observe this thread. As I outlined above, I made a short generalization about Republicans, elaborated on it, and then scaled back my generalization to a more reasonable criticism of Know-Nothing philosophy.
Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision. He knows perfectly well that's not true. He simply wanted to obfuscate the discussion, and he succeeded. Kate wound up defending my revision as the scaled-back criticism, because Jeff had revised history to fit his criticism of me.
He's not a bad guy, but he suffers from the win-at-any-cost syndrome you referenced above. Even if it means destroying rational discussion, he sees arguments as having winners and losers -- and he hates to lose.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
How is this any different than marriage in heterosexual couples today, of which 60% of men and 50% of women have extramarital affairs? The numbers for homosexual infidelity seem nearly identical to heterosexual infidelity. I don't see the relevance in bringing this statistic up, are you trying to say that infidelity rates are largely similar regardless of the type of relationship? Because that's what your statistic supports.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision. He knows perfectly well that's not true.
I think you're making an assumption here that isn't accurate. At the very least, why not assume that Jeff thinks the bit he quoted is an accurate representation of the content of your revision, even assuming he's aware that more text followed? Why instead assume that he's intending to misrepresent you?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by contents under pressure: In addition to the fact that homosexuals are same-gendered, they're also profoundly different from heterosexuals in that homosexuals don't have a similar concept of fidelity:
Thus gay "marriage" is nothing but an attempt to legitimize homosexuality as "normal," despite its abnormalities and pathological qualities.
I don't know. That article seems to be equating gays and Mormons. Is that what you were trying to say?
Don't be dense.
from the article:
quote: New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.
To grant homosexuals the right to "marry" is to legitimize this aspect of their culture that would strike normal people as the antithesis of marriage.
How is this any different than marriage in heterosexual couples today, of which 60% of men and 50% of women have extramarital affairs? The numbers for homosexual infidelity seem nearly identical to heterosexual infidelity. I don't see the relevance in bringing this statistic up, are you trying to say that infidelity rates are largely similar regardless of the type of relationship? Because that's what your statistic supports.
Ah, but according to the article in homosexual marriages they discuss the possibility of infidelity openly, and it is therefore much more likely to be accepted by the other spouse and not result in a failed marriage.
Whew, those naughty gays, using communication and acceptance to keep their marriages going. How despicable.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Kate wound up defending my revision as the scaled-back criticism, because Jeff had revised history to fit his criticism of me.
Actually, I sort of meant to post that the revision was important independent of anything Rakeesh wrote. I got lazy and was distracted by life and didn't get around to it and Rakeesh's post nudged me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: -7 is significantly different from -10.
It's not, actually, under the reasonable assumption that the error is the square root of the absolute value. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To use the most recent example, observe this thread. As I outlined above, I made a short generalization about Republicans, elaborated on it, and then scaled back my generalization to a more reasonable criticism of Know-Nothing philosophy.
You're switching things around. At times you say 'admission' and other times - such as now - you talk about 'revisions'. I was not objecting to your claim that you revised your statements, though I did object to the suggestion that your revisions were really much of a significant change.
quote: Jeff immediately and repeatedly insisted that my second post, an elaboration of my generalization, is my revision.
Well, no. What actually happened was that I did not consider the post you linked to an admission at all, which is what I was initially talking about. That's why I didn't look at it. You didn't make any admissions of error, just that 'maybe' you were mistaken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father - no joke, this is the story he tells himself - married my mother on account of her collection of science-fiction books. Including Star Trek. So there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I married my hubby in part because he not only quoted Star Trek to me, but knew the episode from which he was quoting.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continued to date my future wife in part because I mentioned Final Fantasy and she knew exactly what I was talking about.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you like a list of things done by Democrats that are repugnant?
Yes, I still would, thank you. As I've said, I already know about Vietnam and Kosovo. Don't bother listing health care, that has it's own thread.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My now-wife made a joke about star trek and time dilation so I decided to ask her on our first date.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the most fun times I've had with my boyfriend- where we were both laughing, and talking, and generally happy- were when I was watching him play some sort of video game. usually, Assassin's Creed or Fable, but once it was Dragon Age. he won't let me sit there while he plays that one, though, because I'm better at it than he is. He won't let me play him at Starcraft, either.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A guy gave me painted D&D miniatures as tokens of affection when he first asked me out. He took me to a sci-fi convention for our 2nd date.
Here's the key question, though: was your nerdery known by him when he courted you with his nerdery?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where are you meeting these nerds? I'd like an inked nerd, so I'm not only going to get inked, but I'M GOING TO an INK CONVENTION.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My nerd... is my best friend/roommate's older brother. It seems like a recipe for disaster, but it works.
I didn't actually get to know him until I started going to this tabletop hobby shop, where he spent most of his time. Until recently, anyway. I was going there for the paint, not the miniatures... well, and they had Munchkin there, too.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, I met my geek partner on OKCupid. She decided to send me a message on the site because I mentioned Maureen McHugh as being among my favorite authors.
On our first date, after we went back to her place, I was impressed to find that her SF collection was incredibly extensive--better than my own for some authors.
As we were sitting at her table talking, I mentioned that I was active on Hatrack, and her reaction was "you hang out in Mormonville?" My response was "no, that's Nauvoo", to which she replied something along the lines of "good point." Apparently she lurked here briefly in the early 2000s.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
