Anti-Semitism In France!

[gadgetlady 4]

Don't say "no-brainer"!! He thinks you're calling him stupid. He got mad at me before!!

Oh, Heavens to Betsy. Did I use a bad word? Shame on me. But you can't blame me, surely. We terrorists don't have any concept of the sensitivities of the world around us. Saying "no-brainer" couldn't possibly be a figure of speech. It must mean that you think others don't have a brain and are inferior to you. Silly me. :faint:

[Ron Cusano 0]

Listen, on another thread, I have just been labled "stupid" and referred to as "sweetie"!

Hold on to your hat, because the crowd of protestors that went for my jugler this past week because I used words or expressions they though were condesending and arrogant, and they didn't like how I said things, are sure to come back soon to yell some more, right! In my defense of course!!

I mean, there can't be double standards here, could there??

Oh, Heavens to Betsy. Did I use a bad word? Shame on me. But you can't blame me, surely. We terrorists don't have any concept of the sensitivities of the world around us. Saying "no-brainer" couldn't possibly be a figure of speech. It must mean that you think others don't have a brain and are inferior to you. Silly me. :faint:

[Wheetsin 714]

I mean, there can't be double standards here, could there??

I was the one you called "darling", and I was the one who protested it. Laurend is the one who said (paraphrasing) "it would take an idiot to believe that". Laurend is not the one you called "darling". Had I called you "sweety", then it would be a double standard. You also thought Laurend was a moderator. Perhaps you're confusing the two of us?

[Ron Cusano 0]

No confusion! A lot of the terminolgy I previously used was also paraphrasing, but that didn't seem to matter any. Ant the double standard I am referring to applies to the board as a whole and not specifically you.

The double standard is so obvious that it's a joke!

[/color][/size][/font][/b]I was the one you called "darling", and I was the one who protested it. Laurend is the one who said (paraphrasing) "it would take an idiot to believe that". Laurend is not the one you called "darling". Had I called you "sweety", then it would be a double standard. You also thought Laurend was a moderator. Perhaps you're confusing the two of us?

[anonemouse 1]

Ron, the difference is that I didn't actually call you an idiot. My exact words were "anyone who argues with natural selection is an outright idiot". And I figure that if you seem to think calling people "sweetie" or "honey" isn't an attack, it shouldn't be one when I am the one saying it, either.

[Wheetsin 714]

And I figure that if you seem to think calling people "sweetie" or "honey" isn't an attack, it shouldn't be one when I am the one saying it, either.

That's the double standard I see, though perhaps it could lay elsewhere. Ron calls me "darling", but calls foul when he's called "sweety" by someone else. As I said before, if I had called you sweety, it would be a double standard.

[anonemouse 1]

That's the double standard I see, though perhaps it could lay elsewhere. Ron calls me "darling", but calls foul when he's called "sweety" by someone else. As I said before, if I had called you sweety, it would be a double standard.

Exactly. He can't claim that something is harmless when he does it and then decide it's an attack when someone else does it.

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are right! My point is then, when I used similar terminology over the past week, why them were such comments insulting, provoking, argumenative, insensitive and everything else that was said. There is a double standard here that is absolutely sick.

Ron, the difference is that I didn't actually call you an idiot. My exact words were "anyone who argues with natural selection is an outright idiot". And I figure that if you seem to think calling people "sweetie" or "honey" isn't an attack, it shouldn't be one when I am the one saying it, either.

[gadgetlady 4]

I've been called "honey" or "sweetie" or "darling" or something along those lines at least twice in other threads. Even though it was clearly meant as a slam, it didn't seem to inflame anyone at the time; in fact, no one seemed to care.

Now if they had accidentally typed "sweaty", I imagine they would have gotten all sorts of responses :confused:.

[gadgetlady 4]

As an aside, I do believe there is a double standard. As an example, I've seen all sorts of people ridicule Ron for making typos or spelling errors, even when those people are not free from errors themselves; he has told us he is arthritic so I think we should cut him some slack. But the jabs keep coming.

[anonemouse 1]

You are right! My point is then, when I used similar terminology over the past week, why them were such comments insulting, provoking, argumenative, insensitive and everything else that was said. There is a double standard here that is absolutely sick.

My GOSH! :eek:You mean, you were lying when you said it was absolutely harmless!!! I'm horrified!:omg:

My point, Ron, is that you can't claim that something is absolutely harmless and then whine about being attacked when it's turned around on you. I'm just following your lead, after all.

[Ron Cusano 0]

For such a "smart" women you are so dense! It was harmless! And what you said was harmless. I am pointing out the hypocricy and double standard, because when I was the one saying it, everyone thought it was so terrible.

My GOSH! :eek:You mean, you were lying when you said it was absolutely harmless!!! I'm horrified!:omg:

My point, Ron, is that you can't claim that something is absolutely harmless and then whine about being attacked when it's turned around on you. I'm just following your lead, after all.

[Wheetsin 714]

I agree about the spelling errors. I've always agreed with that one - it has come up many many times - on boards far, far away. It's a peeve of mine, but I try not to point it out unless I legitimately cannot understand what the person is saying (and that DOES happen!). And occasionally because I think the person really doesn't know, and it's an opportunity to honestly help someone. But I don't do it as a jab. (I know you weren't referring to me, but wanted to explain that anyway). It's the how that makes it a jab, not the what. True for most things in life, no? To me, and this is just me, and is only a general statement, it seems like people will often move to spelling when they're approaching "attack you not the idea" mode. Or to point out an apparent lack of intelligence, which is really no different from the latter.

[gadgetlady 4]

Yep, but this also forbids criticism of all life styles, even those of the fundamentalists.:confused: It is, however, a controversial law and I am not sure that I am comfortable with it even though its roots were based in idealistic sentiments. I believe that the UK is struggling with similar problems vis-a-vis hate laws and freedom of speech issues at this time. The issues at stake are impossible to hammer down with these clumsy laws it would appear.:cry

My point was that the right is just as afraid of the left as the left is of the right. And each side has what they see as a justifiable reason for their concern.

I think a lot of countries are struggling with similar problems. In 2004, a pastor in Sweden was sentenced to a month in prison when his sermon included Biblical references about homosexuality. I'm sure he's not the only one who has suffered such a charge.

[gadgetlady 4]

I agree about the spelling errors. I've always agreed with that one - it has come up many many times - on boards far, far away. It's a peeve of mine, but I try not to point it out unless I legitimately cannot understand what the person is saying (and that DOES happen!). And occasionally because I think the person really doesn't know, and it's an opportunity to honestly help someone. But I don't do it as a jab. (I know you weren't referring to me, but wanted to explain that anyway). It's the how that makes it a jab, not the what. True for most things in life, no? To me, and this is just me, and is only a general statement, it seems like people will often move to spelling when they're approaching "attack you not the idea" mode. Or to point out an apparent lack of intelligence, which is really no different from the latter.

AMEN, sister? (Can I say "Amen" to an athiest? :confused:) It is also a peeve of mine but I certainly don't have the right to judge. Some people are naturally better at spelling than others (or they don't have arthritis). I have a friend who developed Rheumatoid Arthritis at a VERY young age and her typing has gone downhill fast. We never know the cause behind the symptom we are judging. An I think when someone ridicules someone else over something so petty they are just showing how judgmental they are (especially when they're not error-free -- and I haven't read posts from ANYONE on this board that aren't error-free).