November Member of the Month Nominations!

[♫anna♫]

Yankees win 5 to 2 and advance to the World Series to face the Philadelphia Phillies! I love that expression World Series, which would be so politically incorrect for a European Country to use for it's national sport!
mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2009_10_25_anamlb_nyamlb_1&mode=gameday



I NOMINATE BEEZ0811!!!

[beez0811]

Oct 26, 2009 4:50:42 GMT ♫anna♫ said:

Yankees win 5 to 2 and advance to the World Series to face the Philadelphia Phillies! I love that expression World Series, which would be so politically incorrect for a European Country to use for it's national sport!
mlb.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2009_10_25_anamlb_nyamlb_1&mode=gameday



I NOMINATE BEEZ0811!!!

Yay! Thank you!

[♫anna♫]

Oct 26, 2009 4:59:27 GMT beez0811 said:

Yay! Thank you!

VOTE FOR BEEZ0811!!

[Big Lin]

I'd better start voting now. Sorry for the delay - read the section about 'Technical Problems' to find out why.

No internet connection at home; having to rely on going out (and nothing open on Sunday where we live now).

Anyway, I'll get the poll started.

[Big Lin]

Oct 25, 2009 18:28:58 GMT @skylark said:

I've warmed to Chefmate a lot recently. Nominating her took a lot of thought, because in the early days of this board there was a quite noticable tendency for the anti-abortion lobby to stick together and award each other all the accolades.

But now I discover some of you are quite good people really!!

I'm not sure that's fair, Skylark. Speaking as someone who's pro-life but married to a man who's pro-choice I'm anything but unaware of the problems on both sides of the ethical debate.

I've also never understood why disagreeing with a person's views should make you (and I mean the 'general' you - 'one' if you prefer) unable to see either their personal virtues or their constructive contributions.

I've worked hard to make this board a place where people are NOT slotted into boxes and prejudged on the basis of their political, religious or any other views.

I have my own prejudices and preferences like all of us do but I've never let them prevent me from recognising excellence in others.

I think the same thing is true of my staff and most of my members.

[Deleted]

Lin, I stand corrected and apologise. I will put it down to coincidence that all the first six members of the month were (I believe) anti-abortionists - one of whom flounced off the board around the time Anna first nominated me for the title on the basis of a baseball game !

[beth]

I agree with Lin, 100%, Skylark. I'd never, never, never be influenced by diverse opinions. They are the life of discussion boards. Otherwise, we'd just all look at each other and nod (without even a wink). I'm pro life, but with exceptions and can often see both sides.

[Deleted]

Me too, beth..and Anna, and Lin to mention just a few. And of course Chefmate, and that's why I'm happy to nominate her. But I have followed this MOM competition with some wry amusement because it was beginning to look like an old girls' club - I just got the impression at one stage that you were frantically scratching around for another pro-lifer to nominate!

Must be getting paranoid in my old age.

[Liberator]

Spare us the fanatics marching in line for whom any form of dissent has to be marching in some other line! Spare us too, I suppose, the inconsistent - "I believe a foetus has the right to life except in cases of rape, incest, under-age .... " and likewise those who value life so much that they're happy to shoot or bomb even the abortion clinic's cleaner. Well no - there may have been an outcry about the Pope's attitude to a nine or ten year old's abortion (and he has the diplomatic sensitivity of a cactus) but at least the man accepts that if his principles value life per se then how it came into being is irrelevant. If you 'oppose abortion except when' then you do not 'oppose abortion'. Likewise, the term 'pro-life' is intended to imply that all dissent is 'pro-death' (and for that matter 'pro-choice' that all questions oppose any choice whatsoever).

The fact of questioning a dogma is not the same as asserting another dogma. Though I suppose that to people who think dogmatically there is no other way to imagine it. I am familiar enough with these on religious boards. I have one on another board in relation to gun control. S/He-It has decided that any discussion of the subject whatsoever is European pinko liberalism. Consequently was last seen throwing a wobbler because I quoted the Guns don't kill people - people kill people (though of course the guns make it a lot easier) and raised questions about discrepancies between gun possession and criminal shootings. Since this does not fit the predetermined straw man required, I can only be contradicting myself, quoting cliché or generally something to rant at rather than discuss with.

So too, it would seem that to some, if you do not require the most Frankensteinian mess of protoplasm to be kept going by purely artificial means for the few hours before it conks out, you are Heinrich Himmler, while for others daring to suggest that 'society' might be more helpful towards pregnant teenagers instead of implying that they should get rid of it to spare the public purse and provide some useful labour amounts to viewing women as baby-factories.

You can't please all of the people all of the time - so you might as well please yourself.

[♫anna♫]

Thanks for the insomnia cure retarsed!

[chefmate]

What I love is that any of us can hold an opinon although that doesn't necessarily make us right we can still express it.