|
Post by beth on Jan 14, 2010 20:04:49 GMT
Apparently, only admin and staff are allowed to post on the "Rules" thread, so I'm going to resort to opening this thread for members in case they have a different POV. The last thing I want is to be disagreeable, but there seems to be a misconception - at least in my own field of reference. "Freak" is often used to designate avid interest or enthusiasm for a particular thing or subject - not derogatory at all. For example, I am a "music freak", Jim is a "gun freak", Mike is a "minimal government freak" and so on. Am I the only one who is familiar with this common usage for the word "freak"? If so, I'm totally amazed.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 14, 2010 20:38:54 GMT
Context is everything, Beth. When I use the term 'gun freak' or 'gun nut' I mean people with an unhealthy obsession with guns.
In this Country we had a guy who walked into a school and shot a class of children then blew his own brains out. The tenis player Andy Murray went to that school too and had he not been off that day, he could have died that day.
That guy was Thomas Hamilton, a sad loner with little or no social life who found humans too difficult to handle so turned to guns. The power that his gun collection gave him was better than his relationships with people did. No doubt he would have agreed that a gun beats four aces!
What kind of people get pleasure owning guns? In my own personal view people who find real life too difficult. A few years ago another guy, Mike Ryan walked through Hungerford and killed people at random, another missfit and loser. The significant him about him was when his gun jammed, he did not use either of the knives he was carrying to kill his victim, he went onto the next person. Using a knife takes some guts; You have to get up to your victim and attack him with force than simply aiming a gun and pulling the trigger.
I wonder if Ryan had had a knife or cricket bat wether or not he would have killed anyone?
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 14, 2010 22:40:23 GMT
Thanks, RV. I had been reading along in that thread, with interest, and understood where you were coming from, yet, I didn't find your post that was moved offensive - just a reply (in kind) disagreeing with Jim. I like you both and enjoyed following the discussion. I felt, and still believe, if Jim chooses to imply you are an idiot (basically), calling him a "gun freak" is not out of line - even if you intended it to have a more negative meaning than I first thought. Maybe I'm just not used to this board taking the authoritarian stance that seems to have started about 2 months ago. It troubles me and causes me to feel quite uncomfortable. Seems out of balance, somehow, too. Personally, I don't have a problem with people owning guns if they use and maintain them In a responsible way. I'd never have one in my own home, but have friends who keep guns and recognize many people feel it's important. My son's girlfriend was shot and killed by a friend of her younger sister when she was 16. Her mother was dating a policeman who left his loaded gun in the holster on her kitchen table. The young children (6 yrs old) were "playing" and BOOM she was gone. Both sides of this debate should be given equal opportunity to have their say, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 15, 2010 0:16:45 GMT
I think a currently suspended member caused so much chaos and led to the staff tearing their hair out trying to control him that we may now be over-reacting and jumping on things because we let too much go on for too long in the past.
I'd like to think we can all calm down a bit and try to take a quieter approach to things.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:21:19 GMT
Apparently, only admin and staff are allowed to post on the "Rules" thread, so I'm going to resort to opening this thread for members in case they have a different POV. The last thing I want is to be disagreeable, but there seems to be a misconception - at least in my own field of reference. "Freak" is often used to designate avid interest or enthusiasm for a particular thing or subject - not derogatory at all. For example, I am a "music freak", Jim is a "gun freak", Mike is a "minimal government freak" and so on. Am I the only one who is familiar with this common usage for the word "freak"? If so, I'm totally amazed. true. it never bothers me. as i have said before, i can't be insulted. in order to insult me, an individual has to be at least half as intelligent as i am, and the number of those even qualified is miniscule
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:30:01 GMT
Context is everything, Beth. When I use the term 'gun freak' or 'gun nut' I mean people with an unhealthy obsession with guns. In this Country we had a guy who walked into a school and shot a class of children then blew his own brains out. The tenis player Andy Murray went to that school too and had he not been off that day, he could have died that day. That guy was Thomas Hamilton, a sad loner with little or no social life who found humans too difficult to handle so turned to guns. The power that his gun collection gave him was better than his relationships with people did. No doubt he would have agreed that a gun beats four aces! What kind of people get pleasure owning guns? In my own personal view people who find real life too difficult. A few years ago another guy, Mike Ryan walked through Hungerford and killed people at random, another missfit and loser. The significant him about him was when his gun jammed, he did not use either of the knives he was carrying to kill his victim, he went onto the next person. Using a knife takes some guts; You have to get up to your victim and attack him with force than simply aiming a gun and pulling the trigger. I wonder if Ryan had had a knife or cricket bat wether or not he would have killed anyone? several errors there laddie. first of all, your comparing the worth of people is abominable. a tennis player is NOT worth more than anyone else. your big boo boo though, is that you are unable to comprehend the REALITY that the reason that people die in multiple shootings is the UNAVAILABILITY of guns. in EVERY case, there, and here in the u.s., if people were armed when a crazy fool started shooting, the death toll would be minimal or non existent. it is ONLY the victim's inability to shoot back that causes death. a good example is the church shooting in colorado a while back. unfortunately, a few people were killed before she got there, but when the security guard showed up and blew the punk away, no one else was killed. of course, had the church members been armed, one of them could have killed the piece of shyt, and the death toll would have been even lower. you have every right to choose to be on the wrong side, though. i realize that you live in a country whose government delights in persecuting great citizens such as tony martin and in turning loose those who viciously torture and murder ten year old boys, and this is the insanity that you have been taught.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 11:32:52 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2010 11:37:52 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Jumbo, when you stay stuff like 'nobody here is as intelligent as me' and that kind of thing (I paraphrase) you might be doing it tongue-in-cheek, but it does irritate immensely. Maybe the humour doesn't cross the ocean. It would be easier to debate with you if you didn't constantly accuse those who disagree with you of being stupid, or unable to read, or whatever. Your absolute certainty that your own views are unassailable (which, again, may be tongue-in-cheek) makes you come across as arrogant and it actually reduces the likelihood of people responding to you. I'm assuming you come on to MBs because you enjoy the cut and thrust of having your views challenged, and defending them. Sometimes your posting style gets in the way of people doing that.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2010 11:39:29 GMT
P.S. Jumbo
Also, calling people 'laddie' and 'hon' may be meant kindly, and it may be a cultural thing again, but it does seem to be patronsiing. That seriously might be a UK thing . . you would only call someone 'dear' or whatever on a MB if your intention was to look down on them, and maybe Americans don't have quite that same nuance.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 15, 2010 11:41:57 GMT
your big boo boo though, is that you are unable to comprehend the REALITY that the reason that people die in multiple shootings is the UNAVAILABILITY of guns. in EVERY case, there, and here in the u.s., if people were armed when a crazy fool started shooting, the death toll would be minimal or non existent. This is the mentality of the gun freaks, it is all OUR fault. A gun nut walks into a school and blows a dozen children away and it is the teachers fault because she was unarmed. Why should a school teacher be forced to learn how to use and carry a gun 'just in case' a Thomas Hamilton walks into a school? We ahould she be forced to endanger the lives of her fellow pupils just because the gun lobby cannot or will not regulate themselves. It is not our job to take up arms so that the gun freaks can continue the carrying of weaponry. It was the gun freaks jobs to fit into our society, the fact they think we should learn to use guns so that we can stop one of their number when they go postal. Sorry, that is not how it should work. No-one should be allowed to carry guns, and it is up to the gun nuts to deal with that.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 15, 2010 11:44:26 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Sorry, when were you voted to decide what is and what is 'irrational'. There is nothing rational about killing school children or defending those that do!
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 13:43:27 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Jumbo, when you stay stuff like 'nobody here is as intelligent as me' and that kind of thing (I paraphrase) you might be doing it tongue-in-cheek, but it does irritate immensely. Maybe the humour doesn't cross the ocean. It would be easier to debate with you if you didn't constantly accuse those who disagree with you of being stupid, or unable to read, or whatever. Your absolute certainty that your own views are unassailable (which, again, may be tongue-in-cheek) makes you come across as arrogant and it actually reduces the likelihood of people responding to you. I'm assuming you come on to MBs because you enjoy the cut and thrust of having your views challenged, and defending them. Sometimes your posting style gets in the way of people doing that. no, that's not what i said at all. i said that it is impossible to offend me, which SHOULD be the case for EVERYONE. it is an absolute FACT that no one can offend you without your consent. everyone who is ever offended by anything CHOOSES to be offended. i never make that choice. it then follows that anyone who could possibly manage to cause me to make that choice would have to be better than i, and such a creature simply does not exist.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2010 14:27:29 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Jumbo - 1. I make a comment that X is Y 2. You make a comment that anyone who thinks X is Y is stupid, or a nutjob. 3. ..........? Well, I'd have to be stupid, or a nutjob, not to make the logical deduction. It is actually quite nice to be called "hon" when one considers the alternatives! (and "laddie" made me laugh, before Jumbo noticed I wasn't one)
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jan 15, 2010 14:34:50 GMT
Jim, it's true you do not attack personally - dead on - but you do imply, and only a brick wall would fail to understand what you mean. That's good in a way, but still hangs your discussion partner out to dry - very deftly. I think all this post moving and hand wringing annoyed me because I was enjoying the discussion, and it disrupted everything. It appeared your lady fans were trying to save you from . . . I dunno, Random Vioce and his logic, maybe. One more thread blown. Off to find some interesting communication.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 14:53:33 GMT
P.S. Jumbo Also, calling people 'laddie' and 'hon' may be meant kindly, and it may be a cultural thing again, but it does seem to be patronsiing. That seriously might be a UK thing . . you would only call someone 'dear' or whatever on a MB if your intention was to look down on them, and maybe Americans don't have quite that same nuance. admittedly, '"laddie" is a bit condescending, as opposed to "lad" which is a common term, just like "chap". "hon" however, is a totally different matter. i usually use it probably more than half the time when i am talking to a girl, whether on the inernet, or at the store. it is endearing, not condescending. it is a term that differentiates whether or not one is being nice, or being an idiot calling a girl a bytch, which i NEVER do, no matter what they might say. unlike the majority of lads roaming around the internet, and everywhere else, my white horse is STILL in the corral until he is needed again
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 14:55:23 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Sorry, when were you voted to decide what is and what is 'irrational'. There is nothing rational about killing school children or defending those that do! you are quite correct. that is why i NEVER kill school children, or defend any fool who does. hell, i don't even know anyone who would
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 15:14:04 GMT
of course, i have never made a personal attack. not one time did i ever say that our poor chap is stupid, or a nutjob. i simply referred to those who choose to think irrationally AS A GROUP, never any particular individual Jumbo - 1. I make a comment that X is Y 2. You make a comment that anyone who thinks X is Y is stupid, or a nutjob. 3. ..........? Well, I'd have to be stupid, or a nutjob, not to make the logical deduction. It is actually quite nice to be called "hon" when one considers the alternatives! (and "laddie" made me laugh, before Jumbo noticed I wasn't one) yes, i recall with much chagrin. serious error on my part. of course, it amply demonstrates that even those of us who are perfect make mistakes
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 15, 2010 15:16:20 GMT
P.S. Jumbo Also, calling people 'laddie' and 'hon' may be meant kindly, and it may be a cultural thing again, but it does seem to be patronsiing. That seriously might be a UK thing . . you would only call someone 'dear' or whatever on a MB if your intention was to look down on them, and maybe Americans don't have quite that same nuance. admittedly, '"laddie" is a bit condescending, as opposed to "lad" which is a common term, just like "chap". "hon" however, is a totally different matter. i usually use it probably more than half the time when i am talking to a girl, whether on the inernet, or at the store. it is endearing, not condescending. it is a term that differentiates whether or not one is being nice, or being an idiot calling a girl a bytch, which i NEVER do, no matter what they might say. unlike the majority of lads roaming around the internet, and everywhere else, my white horse is STILL in the corral until he is needed again Yeah, so it's just a cultural thing. Cool.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 15:29:15 GMT
Jumbo - 1. I make a comment that X is Y 2. You make a comment that anyone who thinks X is Y is stupid, or a nutjob. 3. ..........? Well, I'd have to be stupid, or a nutjob, not to make the logical deduction. It is actually quite nice to be called "hon" when one considers the alternatives! (and "laddie" made me laugh, before Jumbo noticed I wasn't one) yes, i recall with much chagrin. serious error on my part. of course, it amply demonstrates that even those of us who are perfect make mistakes i neglected to add that your deduction is undoubtedly correct. however, i am not directly attacking you personally, which is what the tos forbids nonetheless, it is much the same as saying that everyone who chose to be a nazi and follow hitler was an idiot
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 15, 2010 15:33:18 GMT
admittedly, '"laddie" is a bit condescending, as opposed to "lad" which is a common term, just like "chap". "hon" however, is a totally different matter. i usually use it probably more than half the time when i am talking to a girl, whether on the inernet, or at the store. it is endearing, not condescending. it is a term that differentiates whether or not one is being nice, or being an idiot calling a girl a bytch, which i NEVER do, no matter what they might say. unlike the majority of lads roaming around the internet, and everywhere else, my white horse is STILL in the corral until he is needed again Yeah, so it's just a cultural thing. Cool. probably because you guys like to speak the king's english, and we tossed his azz out two hundred years ago
|
|