Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Moreover, SuperDry was doing just fine with his Brown analysis and didn't need my input. Douglas either doesn't truly understand Brown is really is trying to obfuscate, as usual. THAT use of the word earlier was serious as well.
Originally Posted By X-san Douglas? Any response to SuperDry here? Very interested in reading your reply.
Originally Posted By X-san Douglas has informed me on another thread that it would be "pointless" to reply to SuperDry here.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yeah, I saw it. That's a copout, plain and simple. As I said, I've purposely stayed out of their Brown dialog because SuperDry was doing just fine with his analysis of Brown. I'd be interested to see how he disagrees with SuperDry, and well, most of the legal profession.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<I am not reporting this but you need to really knock it off. This is so beneath you. I know you can do better than this, go for another angle.>>> Grow up. No one likes a tattler. ;p
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Don't report it Elder. I really would rather see them settle this with the old school playground method, you know, sticks and stones. So far they are doing just fine. If you think SPP is offended about the vision comment, you kid yourself. He's just being a good lawyer, and frankly it's fun to watch. I rather like seeing SPP take people to school, even if its me on occasion.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, let's put it this way. Everything I wrote about my eyesight is true.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Oh by all means it is. I don't at all dispute that in any way. What I should say is something like, SPP is a big boy and can take care of himself. No need to bring in the ADMIN to help him fight his battles. Of course I would never want to speak FOR you either. So I really don't know how you felt about the comment, I'll readily admit that am speculating. But I also know that you have some of the thickest skin on these boards.
Originally Posted By X-san Not to mention the thickest glasses! (sorry...I know. not cool. but the set up was just TOO perfect)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So I really don't know how you felt about the comment.." It was an opening and I took it. He often takes things so literally and acts as if everything I say to him is meant to be an insult when it isn't. Lately, just about all his responses to me have been flippant, so when he made the glasses comment I responded quite literally that I already had them, and here's why. I wasn't offended by it, just amused, really. To the casual observer, I probably treat the guy the crud. However, once someone gets very personal on a place like this and tells me my marriage is worthless to society because it's childless, which he did some time ago, he declared war as far as I'm concerned. Say stuff about me and how I behave here, that's fair game, but don't ever say stuff like that. Ever.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Not to mention the thickest glasses! (sorry...I know. not cool. but the set up was just TOO perfect)" Actually, not really. My left eye, the legally blind one, is 20/400 so we don't even try to correct it. The lens is just for balancing the glasses. The right one is 20/60, and that has a correction lens. Since my condition means I use one eye at a time, I use the right eye for distance and the left for up close. Very up close, but up close. 3-D attractions, like HISTA or Bugs Life, do nothing for me because I can't see and process the effects.
Originally Posted By X-san That's unfortunate. As a musician with a hearing loss, I can definitely relate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I was born this way, so I don't know any different. I've had to compensate my entire life. It was that much harder to learn to hit and throw a ball, shoot a ball, all that stuff, because of judging distances and hand eye coordination. In all seriousness, when I learned to box as a kid, I learned how to hit even harder because my opponents would have the tactical advantage as the rounds went on. Since I've always had large arms and chest, that luckily worked out. I wrestled for 12 years and gave up boxing though, because I couldn't always see some things coming from my left side. The best way to describe how see is to say that when you look at a person, you see them fully dimensional. If you were to take a picture and hold it next to the person, the image of the person is flat and two dimensional. I have always seen the picture image when looking at someone. I don't know any different.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<tells me my marriage is worthless to society because it's childless>>> WOW! Uh.... (shifts uncomfortably in his seat). I don't even know where to BEGIN with THAT! Let me quickly say that I absolutely do NOT agree with that notion at all! Holy crap what nerve! Did he REALLY say that? Because I have a hard time believing someone would say something so, so, so ridiculous. I am not missing the point of him making it personal, but I can't let that go without saying I disagree with it entirely!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "WOW! Uh.... (shifts uncomfortably in his seat). I don't even know where to BEGIN with THAT!" To put it in context, it was another gay marriage thread, and one of his arguments against it was that gay marriages would be childless and therefore of no use to society. Many of us pointed out gay couples would want to adopt, and he was steadfast, saying no, still worthless. So I said my marriage was childless and so were many hetero marriages, was he saying mine and those others were worthless as well? He said yes, that the point of being married was to reproduce, and if a union couldn't reproduce, then society received no benefit. We tried to argue that marriages benefit societies in other ways, but he would have none of that. Later, when he caught much flak for it, he tried to say were taking him out of context, but at the time, he was given an out and didn't take it. He's a smart guy, he knew exactly what he was saying adn he repeated it. If married couples didn't have kids the marriage did society no use. It was one of those "Douglas, you've got to be kidding moments", but his reaction was to say he was now being personally attacked, yet with comments like those all he was doing was "speaking the truth", both common themes of his throughout his time here.
Originally Posted By X-san I believe I asked him around that time whether "marriage" should be re-defined as a union between a man and a woman who intended to bear at least 1 child and were fertile...something like that anyway. Anyway, he never answered me (much as he is ignoring SuperDry now...an extremely classless move given all the effort SuperDry put into playing by Douglas' own playbook in his replies).
Originally Posted By VCR_Pongo <<< the point of being married was to reproduce>>> (Guys this is DVC) I couldn't disagree with that statement more. Let's put the gay marriage on hold for a second. Let's speak to hetero. If the purpose of marriage is ONLY to reproduce, why would his god allow people to be married only to deny them a child? I mean there are millions of married couples out there (couples who meet his own criteria of a "couple") who CAN'T have kids. Being able to have kids IS beyond the control of the hetero couple just like being gay is beyond the control of gay couples. It's plain old Biology 101. Wow some people need to get a clue. Ever heard of genetics? I guess not.
Originally Posted By VCR_Pongo By the way SPP, I have read and re-read post 55 several times trying to glean something between the lines. I can't quite guess so I'll just ask, are you gay? On another note, what exactly does "benefit society" mean to him? I know a gay couple that given the chance to adopt, would be far better parents than many straight parents are to their own kids.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Being able to have kids IS beyond the control of the hetero couple just like being gay is beyond the control of gay couples. It's plain old Biology 101. Wow some people need to get a clue. Ever heard of genetics? I guess not.*** Yup. Exactly my point, DVCVCR. Were his claims to actually hold water, there would have to be mandatory fertility tests alongside the usual blood tests for STD's. Along with some sort of oath affirming the couples' intentions to have kids.
Originally Posted By X-san ***On another note, what exactly does "benefit society" mean to him? I know a gay couple that given the chance to adopt, would be far better parents than many straight parents are to their own kids.*** Talk to UtahJosh on that one, could you? He doesn't seem to listen to the rest of us on that point (like, he suggested that kids in the foster care system were probably better off...for example).
