NuclMan wrote:Wow, I can't believe I only just started reading this thread today. I read more of the other thread, avoiding this one thinking it was referring to shadowy figures on the comet itself

Rumraket wrote:because in my view they have a skewed picture of reality with respect to what such a shirt symbolizes.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:That's the most intelligent thing that's been posted in this thread. Thank you, DD.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:because in my view they have a skewed picture of reality with respect to what such a shirt symbolizes.

That's your view, and you're welcome to it.

You yourself may have a skewed picture of any other's reality due mainly to your gender. Who would guess?

Certainly not you.

ED209 wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:That's the most intelligent thing that's been posted in this thread. Thank you, DD.

and the five most active posters to this topic:

Who posted?
This is a list of all members who posted in this topic.
Username Posts
Doubtdispelled 119
Evolving 59
Rachel Bronwyn 41
kennyc 38
Skinny Puppy 32

kennyc wrote:

NuclMan wrote:Wow, I can't believe I only just started reading this thread today. I read more of the other thread, avoiding this one thinking it was referring to shadowy figures on the comet itself

Well that sucks for you. Welcome to the REALLY IMPORTANT stuff.

Rumraket wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:because in my view they have a skewed picture of reality with respect to what such a shirt symbolizes.

That's your view, and you're welcome to it.

You yourself may have a skewed picture of any other's reality due mainly to your gender. Who would guess?

Certainly not you.

And maybe you do due to yours? How do we find out?

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:because in my view they have a skewed picture of reality with respect to what such a shirt symbolizes.

That's your view, and you're welcome to it.

You yourself may have a skewed picture of any other's reality due mainly to your gender. Who would guess?

Certainly not you.

And maybe you do due to yours? How do we find out?

You fail, Rum, because here we are talking about women's reality.

Doubtdispelled wrote: As it is affected by the kind of thing that is supposedly being discussed in this thread, i.e. sexualised images being presented in a serious environment. A skewed picture of reality with respect to what such a shirt symbolizes.

How does this have any effect on men's reality?

Doubtdispelled wrote:Next.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:That's the most likely explanation given the least number of assumptions are involved in it. Obviously though presuming malice is more reasonable.

And I'm the one escalating confrontation? Give me strength. This is just nitpicking. I have no qualms with the given explanation but, if the intention wasn't to present those criticising Matt Taylor's choice as "hounding", which I accept, referring to further hounding, which implies past hounding, was a pretty sloppy way to present matters.

You can throw your hands up and say you're being unfairly picked on and someone is "deliberately" (give me a break - you'll have to do better than mere accusation in order to determine deliberateness) being confrontational OR you can take it as an opportunity to hear insight on how what you see reads to other people and reflect on how you express yourself.

Rumraket wrote:We're pretty far from done.

Thommo wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:That's the most likely explanation given the least number of assumptions are involved in it. Obviously though presuming malice is more reasonable.

And I'm the one escalating confrontation? Give me strength. This is just nitpicking. I have no qualms with the given explanation but, if the intention wasn't to present those criticising Matt Taylor's choice as "hounding", which I accept, referring to further hounding, which implies past hounding, was a pretty sloppy way to present matters.

You can throw your hands up and say you're being unfairly picked on and someone is "deliberately" (give me a break - you'll have to do better than mere accusation in order to determine deliberateness) being confrontational OR you can take it as an opportunity to hear insight on how what you see reads to other people and reflect on how you express yourself.

Well, maybe it's me. Maybe I should reach out and try to make a post which people can agree with. Let's review:-

Every single poster who referred to your post (#441, #527, #554) actually assumed that the "quote" meant the exact opposite of what was written, it was used as evidence more than once of how unreasonable people were being despite coming from a post that stated more than once that its entire content was trying to find things that we could agree on. Presumably you would have me believe that's because quoting single words is "in context". Perhaps your isolating a single word to disagree with in a post which very clearly opens with the words "I wonder if we can find something that all, or most, or maybe even just some agree on." and putting it in quotes which mislead every poster who later mentions the term is my fault.

Or, perhaps there's something to the idea that literally reposting a single word having removed every surrounding word and explanatory comment thus giving numerous posters the impression that the exact opposite of what was said, was said actually is pretty much a textbook example of removing the context.

And to be fair, no I don't think you're picking on me, I think you are quite happy to post equally constructive responses to other posters in other places as well:-

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:YEAH BUT SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT HAVE LIKED THE SHIRT! HOW DARE YOU!

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:FAPFAPFAPFAPFAPFAFAPFAPFAPFAP

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Yet the forum will lose members over this thread because there are so many people still insisting women who were critical of a dude's choice to wear a specific shirt are wrong to feel the way they do.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Round and round (and round and round and round and round and round and round and.....) we go.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:fapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfapfap

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Lol, more white knighting from SP.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:I think Pulsar probably knows that and is just trolling.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:We're pretty far from done.

You may be, Rum, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the road.

Not only for this thread, but the whole forum.

I'm done.

Acetone wrote:Yeah, not that it matters but the last week or so my opinion of Bronwyn has plummeted. Constantly spewing non-sense rhetoric and ignoring everything that has actually been said. Many times taking things completely out of context, sometimes I think purposefully.

Typically that would qualify as trollish behaviour but w/e.

EDIT: INB4 SHE SAYS IM SEXIST AND THAT MY OPINION PLUMMETED BECAUSE I FOUND OUT SHE STANDS FOR WIMMINZ RIGHTS!!! Shove it.

Acetone wrote:BECAUSE I FOUND OUT SHE STANDS FOR WIMMINZ RIGHTS!!!

Rumraket wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:We're pretty far from done.

You may be, Rum, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the road.

Not only for this thread, but the whole forum.

I'm done.

Uhm, okay.

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Doubtdispelled wrote:

Rumraket wrote:We're pretty far from done.

You may be, Rum, but as far as I'm concerned, this is the end of the road.

Not only for this thread, but the whole forum.

I'm done.

Uhm, okay.

It isn't your fault, Rum. It's a combination of several things.

This idea of a 'death by a thousand cuts' not being the least of them.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Can we have another chorus of "No one is saying it was intentional or malicious"?

Rumraket wrote:I for one never got the impression that any of the people I have been arguing with, had any issue about what Matt Taylor personally thinks of women.

...