Yoohoo, Mommies!

Jangchub wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 22:40:19 -0400, "Dr. Brat"
wrote:

Jangchub wrote:
On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:54:29 -0400, "Dr. Brat"
wrote:


Jangchub wrote:


"Desperate Housewives?" What the hell is that? Never
watched it.

That's too bad. I watched the first season all in a go while I was
recovering from surgery last summer and found it delighfully wicked and
funny at the same time. The "Desperate" has to do with beinge expected
to do it all and still be sane.

Elizabeth

Wasn't there cheating going on?
Yes, there was. Happens in real life, too, so far as I know.

Elizabeth

Not in my life it doesn't. I wouldn't dream of cheating and my
husband has too much character and class for that nonsense. We've
discussed many times that if it ever comes to a point where either one
of us is no longer happy, we'd discuss it and work it out however we
need. Mature men and women do not run around cheating. I find shows
which promote it are horrilble, particularly for the women who are
cheated on, or the men who are cheated on.

I suppose my point is with all this moral fiber crap we're supposed to
buy, and gays are not permitted to marry because they are not a man
and a woman, yet we can have prime time television shows portraying
the most vapid behavior I can imagine to be a tad hypocritical.

Sex sells. I ain't buying. Anyone who has been cheated on knows.
Particularly the wife of John Edwards. I cannot imagine how
Elizabeth, his wife, who was cheated on during her hardest time in
life must feel when she passes "Desperate Housewives" on the dial.

I think it all depends on what you want when you switch on your telly.
Some people want to be informed, others want their opinions validated,
others want entertainment and others just want background noise.

Of course, if you want to watch informative, non-fictional stuff, then
some of the farcical shows (I *think* 'Desperate Housewives' would come
under that? I haven't watched it often enough to be sure) surely
wouldn't do. But if you want a bit of fluff and farce, then it's perfect
for that and very funny if you know someone who resembles a character.
It all depends on what's your cup of tea.

When DD was younger, I *hated* her watching 'The Simpsons' because every
time I turned around, I'd hear some kid in a supermarket aping Bart and
smart-mouthing his mother. Now she's older, we both laugh our heads off
at the humour because it doesn't threaten anything I'm trying to
achieve. The problem was all mine, I s'pose.

Then there's 'South Park'. Neither I nor DD can find the slightest
amusing thing about it and we often wonder why, since she's such a TV
connoisseuse and laughs at just about everything. She reckons its
because the humour is immature, but *I* reckon it's because it's often
hurtful in intent to some character or another. DD hates seeing anyone
mocked or bullied, so I reckon it strikes close to home with her. My
DBIL and all his kids just love the show, however, and he's not a bad or
evil person. (Well, not usually, except when he's playing practical
jokes on me). DBIL uses 'South Park' to show his kids how *not* to speak
or treat people. Works for him. Wouldn't work for me. Oh well!

In recent years, Oz TV has gone to the pack! There's barely anything
worth waiting for and we only get a handful of absorbing documentaries.
ALL drama is formulaic and follows an American trend (NB. we're not
American) and US sitcoms are given prime-time while the *really* (to us)
funny Oz stuff is on late at night. So I don't watch it any more. This
is where my dear little PC steps in!

Someone was said something in another thread about it being less than
perfect, using a computer for human contact? Well, I'd rather do that
than sit glued to the idiot-box all night! I do my human-contacting in
the daytime and if I'm forced to watch *one* more iteration of CSI or
Big Brother or 'reality TV' I'll SCREEM!

Dr. Brat wrote:

Karen C in California wrote:

And here I'm being attacked for saying "boring" when it was actually
Lucille's word. But, hey, why check for correct attribution when we
can simply launch an attack and lead everyone to believe that it was
Karen who said it?


Here again, it looks like you are implying that someone did this on
purpose in order to make you look bad.



I don't care if it was on purpose or not.

If it wasn't on purpose, clearly the problem is not what I said, since I
never said that, but that someone else was reading too fast and didn't
double-check who said what before accusing me of saying all old people
are boring. If I thought all old people were boring, I wouldn't have
spent tens of thousands of hours talking to old people over the span of
my life.

And if it was on purpose, then it's still not what I said, but the
responsibility of the person who purposely misquoted me.

In either case, it's not my responsibility to apologize for someone
else's misstatement of what I never said.

"Oh, but you meant to say..." doesn't cut it unless you're Kreskin and a
certified mind reader. What I meant to say was right there in black and
white. This whole group knows that I don't mince words. If I meant to
say "they're boring and stupid" I would have used those words and not
played "intuit what I mean".

I have a whole stack of medical records
full of false statements preventing me from getting my Disability
benefits because the doctors decided to write down what they think I
"meant to say" instead of what I actually did say. Like Horton the
Elephant "I meant what I said, and I said what I meant"; if someone
chooses to interpret it otherwise, then the problem isn't on my end. I
grew up with people who didn't speak English well, and learned that the
best way to communicate is to simply say what you mean instead of
playing guessing games that require them to grasp nuance and inference.

Let's put the responsibility for this where it belongs, on the people
who make the false statements, whether intentional or unintentional,
which I am then attacked for, when a few minutes backtracking would
reveal that I, in fact, never said it.

I don't give a flying rat's ass whether they apologize to me or not.
Just don't do it again in the future, or you'll be called on it.

--
Karen C - California
Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com

Finished 7/27/08 - MLI Christmas Visit

WIP: Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to
the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market

CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://journals.aol.com/kmc528/Lifeasweknowit/

"Karen C - California" wrote in message
...
Dr. Brat wrote:

The part that you snipped, DIP****:



Is this the way you conduct your classroom discussions, by misquoting
people and calling them dip****s when they don't bore everyone by
restating your previous argument in its entirety?

If you were my professor, you'd be out of a job for such unprofessional
language. Perhaps I should forward this to the Academic Dean of your
institution and let him see what you consider to be a mature professional
debating style; I'm sure he'll be duly impressed.

Don't cite small-segment statistics in order to prove that "on the whole"
statements are erroneous, when, in fact, the "on the whole" statistics
have unanimously proven my point that on the whole seniors are "least
likely to own" computers. I know full well that rich white male lawyers
of any age are more likely to own a computer than poor illiterate cleaning
ladies of the same age. But I wasn't discussing statistics based on
anything other than age range.

It shows your desperation that the only way you can prove me wrong is by
taking a small segment of the population and claiming that that somehow
disproves the statistic for the whole population.

In point of fact, I have not provided any statistics; I have happily
adopted the statistics provided by others because they did, in fact, prove
my point that 22/29/35% of over-65s (i.e., not a majority) own computers
and that whichever of those numbers you wish to use is lower than the
percentage of younger people who own computers.

My original statement is borne out by everyone else's statistics for the
age range as a whole.

That other people threw in words like "boring", "stupid" and "rich white
men" has nothing to do with the statistical evidence unanimously
supporting my original statement.

Now go wash your mouth out with soap for that language. Unlike Lucille's
maturity in acknowledging that she's the one who should take the flak for
introducing the word "boring", you're simply acting childish by resorting
to name-calling when the facts don't bear you out.

--

Karen C - California
Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com

I asked you before, and I will repeat again and again that I wasn't
apologizing for anything I said. Nor do I think I have to take any, your
word, flak for introducing the word boring. I was simply clearing up a
misconception. It seems to me that the only one who disagreed with me (at
least in public) was you. I still think you implied "boring" and "stupid"
and all the other things you're insisting you didn't say.

Now you're lowering yourself to carrying on over Brat's use of the word
dip**** and making threats about it's use.

Grow up! The whole world doesn't revolve around you and you aren't the only
one with a brain or an ability to look things up, but enough is enough and
it's time for you to crawl back into bed and wallow in misery, which you
seem to like. At least you certainly seem to talk about it enough.

This time I am sorry for losing it, but it took a couple of days and given
my temperament, that's a long time.

Lucille

In the other group, I know it's intentional. One of the other members
has declared a personal vendetta on me for daring to expose the dirty
little secret of the medical profession: that not all doctors are gods
who walk on water, some of them are incompetent.

Every time the moderator tracks it back and determines that what I was
accused of saying never appears in my own writings, and boots the
troublemaker out, she rejoins under a new name. I am not the only
person she attacks, but I am her most frequent target.

The moderator sees the problem for what it is, and when it occurs,
e-mails me "don't worry, you've done nothing wrong" because she can
never find where I said the inflammatory thing I was accused of.

One of these days, it'll happen when I'm deathly ill for a couple days,
and just like happened on RCTN a few years ago, it will become apparent
to the whole group, not just the moderator, that the problem is not me
perpetuating the battles (since I haven't posted anything at all for 2-3
days) but that the "mean girls" clique is attacking someone who isn't
even there.

--
Karen C - California
Editor/Proofreader www.IntlProofingConsortium.com

Finished 7/27/08 - MLI Christmas Visit

WIP: Oriental Kimono (Janlynn), MLI The Teacher (gift to
the library), Bethany Angel (Marbek)
Retrieved from UFO pile: Marbek's Snow Angel, MLI Farmers Market

CFSfacts -- where we give you the facts and dispel the myths
Myths, with research cites: http://www.aacfs.org/images/pdfs/myths.pdf
Newest research blog: http://journals.aol.com/kmc528/Lifeasweknowit/

Karen C - California wrote:

Dr. Brat wrote:
The part that you snipped, DIP****:

Is this the way you conduct your classroom discussions, by misquoting
people and calling them dip****s when they don't bore everyone by
restating your previous argument in its entirety?

No, it's not. I'm not in my classroom. I'm in a social situation and I
know the difference between my professional standing (which I have not
brought up in this discussion in any way) and my social standing. But
none of my students would expect to get away with snipping something
that someone said to make it look like something that they hadn't said.
I'm not the one guilty of misquoting here. You are.

If you were my professor, you'd be out of a job for such unprofessional
language. Perhaps I should forward this to the Academic Dean of your
institution and let him see what you consider to be a mature
professional debating style; I'm sure he'll be duly impressed.

You know nothing about academia if you think one instance of
unprofessional language in an non-academic context would have any impact
on a stellar job performance (or even on a mediocre one, for that
matter). But if you want to forward this to my dean, go ahead. The
only reason you'd be able to do so is because I once trusted you with
enough information to identify my employer. I'm actually not surprised
to see you threaten to breach that trust. It's about time you showed
your true colors.

Don't cite small-segment statistics in order to prove that "on the
whole" statements are erroneous, when, in fact, the "on the whole"
statistics have unanimously proven my point that on the whole seniors
are "least likely to own" computers. I know full well that rich white
male lawyers of any age are more likely to own a computer than poor
illiterate cleaning ladies of the same age. But I wasn't discussing
statistics based on anything other than age range.

I didn't cite small-segment statitics to prove anything. I responded to
someone else's citation which you then clipped to make it look like I
responded to something else.

It shows your desperation that the only way you can prove me wrong is by
taking a small segment of the population and claiming that that somehow
disproves the statistic for the whole population.

I don't care about proving you wrong and I'm certainly not desperate.
My point was that Lucille and Sheena were not wrong in saying that
"everyone they know" is on-line, in spite of your contention that
grannies aren't aware of on-line trends.

In point of fact, I have not provided any statistics; I have happily
adopted the statistics provided by others because they did, in fact,
prove my point that 22/29/35% of over-65s (i.e., not a majority) own
computers and that whichever of those numbers you wish to use is lower
than the percentage of younger people who own computers.

My original statement is borne out by everyone else's statistics for the
age range as a whole.

But your statement about ownership isn't actually what's under
contention here, no matter how you insist that it is. It's a red
herring to divert people's attention from the statement you originally
made, implying that grandmothers wouldn't be aware of web-trends.

That other people threw in words like "boring", "stupid" and "rich white
men" has nothing to do with the statistical evidence unanimously
supporting my original statement.

Not your original statement, but a statement made after the discussion
had begun.

Now go wash your mouth out with soap for that language. Unlike
Lucille's maturity in acknowledging that she's the one who should take
the flak for introducing the word "boring", you're simply acting
childish by resorting to name-calling when the facts don't bear you out.

I did not resort to name-calling when the facts didn't bear me out.
That is a misstatement of the situation. I made it explicitly clear
that what drove me to name-calling was your deceptive editing of a post
(when you almost never bother to edit posts) to make it look like I was
responding to something I hadn't responded to.

And I have to tell you, but I'm far too old for you to be ordering me to
wash my mouth out with soap. I'll use whatever language I please,
whenever I please, and you threatening to get me fired over being called
a dip**** just shows what a pitiful, delusional creature you are. As if!

And I note, that while you claim to be impressed with Lucille stepping
up to take responsibility for using the word "boring," you haven't got
the personal integrity to admit that purposefully, or by accident, you
snipped the part of Ericka's message I was actually responding to,
making it look like I claimed something I didn't.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C - California wrote:


What is so difficult in admitting that when I stated that seniors, on
the whole, are "least likely to own a computer" and the statistics show
that only about a fifth to a third do, in fact, use computers, I made a
correct statement that computer ownership is lower among seniors than
among other age ranges?

Nothing, obviously, since I have several times now said that you were
correct about this. Did you miss it?

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C in California wrote:

That was all the point I was trying to make: that in Sheena's part of
the world, there are people who don't get out much in winter because of
weather, where we don't have the same hazards here, and therefore,
there's not the same need to seek out online companionship because we're
never snowed in and isolated.

But this is still an unwarrented generalization. A)lots of people
seek online companionship without being isolated. B)being snowed in
isn't the only reason to be isolated. So if you are trying to say that
people (seniors or otherwise) are more likely to go online in places
where the winters are bad, I think you're absolutely incorrect.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C in California wrote:

Dr. Brat wrote:


But you'll spend six hours defending yourself from someone with no
ulterior motive who simply misunderstood you rather than take the time
to compose your post more carefully in the first place.



I thought there was nothing to misunderstand about "statistically,
people over age 65 are least likely to own computers." If anyone
misunderstood that simple declarative sentence, it has more to do with
their reading skills than my writing skills.

That's not what people misunderstood.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C in California wrote:

I am scheduled to have work coming in tomorrow, and therefore, will not
have another 6 hours to spend explaining that I said what I said, and I
did not say what other people said.

Right, but you wont have time to do that work, since you'll be too busy
contacting my dean to get me fired. Don't forget to do that.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Karen C in California wrote:



I don't give a flying rat's ass whether they apologize to me or not.
Just don't do it again in the future, or you'll be called on it.

I would think that if you felt that strongly about it, you would be more
careful about not doing it yourself.

And if that "you" is directed at me, I'll note for the record that I
haven't said you said anything you didn't.

Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*