-
Website
http://sayanythingblog.com/ -
Original page
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in_tennessee_if_she_doesnt_marry_you_she_has_to_give_the_ring_back -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
;-P
Materialism. Certainly not love.
Come on Kevin, don't be so silly. TO PISS HIM OFF!
But, it was given on Christmas so was it a gift?
In that case he decided correctly.
http://www.aaml.org/files/public/Journal_vol_17...
An engagement ring is often viewed as a contractual gift. By accepting, the woman promises to marry. And if she doesn't hold up her end of the deal, he gets the ring back.
And since a lot of courts order court costs...why not get back what should be his?
You gotta consider the heirloom factor; if you give a girl a stone cut for your great-grandmother that was passed down to you, and you catch the girl catting on you, are you obliged to surrender a piece of family history because your girlfriend/fiance is a ho?
Even if it isn't a heirloom, many rings cost the equivalent of a small car. How a piece of jewelry symoblizing a moral bind and promise equates to Rob's hypothetical bachelor-takes-girl to Red Lobster is beyond logic.
Look, if I was an unlucky guy whose fiance kicked him to the curb, there is only one thing I'd do with the returned ring: sell it back to the jewler for a substantial loss, take the money, call up some bros and take the bros/refunded loot to Vegas.
'Twas a joke, dude. Chill out.
I'm somehow reminded of the Jeff Foxworthy (?) crack about the similarity between a tornado and a divorce being that someone's going to lose a trailer...
So, for men, love is only "testosteronitis of the brain"? Can I conclude you believe "estrogenitis of the brain" is the real thing, then?
If it were the other way around I would have used "hormonitis".
Now, will you please lighten up and realize I am not a man hater or feminist or anything closely related (although, I am très beaucoup féminin and others around here can attest to that fact), and for the most part my dear robert108, I like to have fun while here so, please stop pointing to things I say as if it's wrong. Fact, perhaps if you would allow a lil' fun into your life you would understand the things I say are just that ... HUMORISTIC SARCASM!
;-P
How about the chicks buy an expensive toy for the guy at betrothal time.
I disagree with you, btw; and statistics on divorced men bear me out: love, for men, is a whole lot more than "testosteronitis" as you asserted. Shame on you!
You keep firing off those posts girl, you are the single most inoffensive person posting here along with Zsa Zsa and Whistler. Stay here, your sweet feminine nature, intellect and good sense of humor are all much appreciated and needed. Of course, we don't look for the sweet influences of Whistler's nature.
Yeah, where's this equality we were promised by the feminists?
FYI, statistics show that divorced men have a lower life expectancy than either divorced women or men who have never been married. This might indicate that men really mean it when they are in love. The characterization of men in love as being "testosteronitis" is offensive to me. In your view, do I have a "right" to be offended by this mischaracterization of love when it comes to men?
Whistler: At least equal in financial value to the Engagement and Wedding Ring? I am thinking at least a Ferrari Testerosa as an expression of her loving commitment. Then it's divorce and remarriage for me, at my age expensive toys are what are most important.
If that had been the case, maybe a light apology would have been appropriate, but instead, she chose to attack my credibility, and that tells me that she wasn't using humor, as she claimed, but was reciting deeply held beliefs about men.
I have never tried to censor her in any way; I have only asked her to stand up for what she writes, on a couple of occasions. Her reaction this this has been enlightening.
It is your wholly subjective opinion, which you havea right to, that others don't understand the subject at hand and it appears to me that just because you think they are wrong, you doubt the proposition that forms the basis of the argument from which their conclusion is drawn.
I don't find any fault in the basis for Anna's agrument, nor do I see any justification for your feeling offended by her comments. The "testosteronitis" was akin to stop thinking with their penis (lust) and encouraging men to make more mature decisions about whom to marry and about buying expensive rings just to try and impress a woman they have usually known for too short a time and are marrying for mostly physical reasons. A great many men are guilty of entering into marriage and expressing their love through spending money, versus investing time and effort in making sure the woman truly is their bershert (Spelling is probably wrong), it is a Jewish expression meaning the one God created as their one and only soul mate.
Seriously, most of us here mix humor and silliness into our debating to keep from being boring and that often leads to imprecise use of language, which really bothers you a great deal. If this were all, in every point, a serious debate, then we would need to invest time in expressing our thoughts more carefully; but in this format we need to be a little less critical of each other, and rely more on our humor and trusting in the good nature of others or it is all anger and fighting without cause and it stops being fun posting here.
(and sure, there's estrogenitis, too, but we don't talk about that lest we invite it to the table)
Or, do we not talk about it lest we find ourselves out in the cold, with only our selves and they are unwilling to come to the table at all? Fear of offending the opposite sex is one of their greatest weapons against us guys!
you think they are wrong, you doubt the proposition that forms the basis of the argument from which their conclusion is drawn.[/quote]
I made no such generalized argument; you just made that up. I was specifically replying to this statement from you:
[quote]Anna: Unfortunately, [b]for reasons I cannot understand[/b]...(personal attack)[/quote]
I simply gave a reason why you were unable to understand my reasons; you don't know what they are, and have imagined your own set of reasons, and assigned them to me. In other words, an incorrect premise, or a set of incorrect premises.
[quote]I don't find any fault in the basis for Anna's agrument, nor do I see any justification for your feeling offended by her comments.[/quote]
Fortunately, I am free to draw my own conclusions in life, absent your "justification". I didn't "feel" offended; I was offended, and for reasons which I enumerated. The life expectancy stats for divorced men indicate that we probably are more sincere in our feelings of love than other groups. I am offended by the false characterization, and then by the assertion that it was "humor". I find nothing funny in what she said. What was the funny part?
not turn a delightful reposte by Anna into an occasion for arguing about a fact we all know is truer than gravity. :^)[/quote]
BB: I understand that to you, this is just delightful fun. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of physics, though, and the stats about the life expectancy of divorced men vs other groups is more scientific than a line used by standup comedians with great frequency.
While it is true that, in the initial attraction phase, male response is almost totally hormonally determined, but in long range love and committment, the opposite is true. The strictly hormonal male response is to move quickly to the next attractive female, which we suppress for the good of society. So, describing love for men as "testosteronitis" is not only wrong, it's offensive(to me).
(I still don't but, I'll take you're word for it)
Just for your helpful hint of the day ... Almost all of what I say is with humor. That is how I conduct my myself and could not have gotten through a lot of my life with out doing so. Plus, you will not see me tag anything I say with anything but an icon.
;-P <----- notice icon
As for a mans love for a woman...I've known it very well. A man's love of a woman is when he touches the depths of her soul ... reaching the sacred dimensions of her entire being with a lifetime allness like no other. To a woman there is nothing more valuable than a man who loves her. Unfortunately, for some, this love is taken away before the entirety of their life.
"Diamonds.....that'll shut her up."
[quote]As for a mans love for a woman...I've known it very well. A man's love of a woman is when he touches the depths of her soul ... reaching the sacred dimensions of her entire being with a lifetime allness like no other. To a woman there is nothing more valuable than a man who loves her. Unfortunately, for some, this love is taken away before the entirety of their life.[/quote]
Of course, you are speaking from a woman's point of view. I am speaking from the man's point of view, which you unconsciously denigrated.
I don't wish to seem like I'm piling on here, but really... Anna's remarks, all of them since she has been here, have been insouciantly feminine and not at all feminist in nature.
Besides, at our age, you know perfectly well that the only way to truly win an argument with a woman is to allow her to think that she won it.
Now excuse me. I have to go fold the laundry and cook dinner.
Where do I get them?
robert, this is me. I am nobody else. I try my hardest to see something positive in all around me and even if there isn't, I try to lighten things up so all those involved are able to hear other viewpoints.
I have tried with you robert but, like I said, this is me and I can't change my mannerism any more than I can force you to except it.
I allowed myself to express a personal view about a feeling of love and you took that and turned it to look tainted. It seems you just had to burrow your way into getting to me. You've succeeded.
I have no desire to remain here.
Shoot. I hope my wife speaks as well of how I loved her after I'm dead as Anna speaks of her beloved. And yes, I'm proud to have spent the past 11 years in "testosteronitis" with my dear wife. Sure there's more to it than that, but (Genesis 2:24) ain't no use in wedlock without a bit of it.
And a biological note; the woman has a little bit of it involved as well in her union with her man as well, so the ladies get "testosteronitis" too.
If giving my side of the story is "slapping a widow" something is seriously wrong on this blog.
You successfully and deeply offended the most unoffensive SABer.
Anna,
Well said.
That is just R108. He just can't seem to help himself.
I wish I knew how to insert the icons like you do, as I would get into less trouble with a few laughing or smiling ones and once in a while the one with the tongue sticking out. Try telling me how to via private email, okay?
Zsa Zsa: You are no less liked and respected around here than Anna, and this is from an old fighting man.
I'll use Anna's words:
[quote]I can't change your concept of me and I also can't or, will for that matter, try to change my mannerism of a conversation.
Anna on September 26, 2007 at 03:43 pm[/quote]
Sorry you all fell for her emotional manipulation.
You successfully and deeply offended the most unoffensive SABer.[/quote]
I'll use Neiman's words:
[quote]...I cannot recall anything you said that could possibly be offensive [b]unless someone is trying to be offended[/b].[/quote]
I simply described the effect of her words on me, and gave the reasons why, chapter and verse. She chose to be offended and to act the victim.
Got it.
Is this what we do here on SA; group together to gang up on someone? You've been played, Neiman.
See what I mean, he just keeps on diggin'.
[quote]Is this what we do here on SA; group together to gang up on someone? You've been played, Neiman.[/quote]
1. To answer your question: Yes, even against me there have been more than a few group verbal gangbangs, but it is not [b]S[/b]tandard [b]O[/b]perating [b]P[/b]rocedure. In this case, I believe there seems to be a general agreement that Anna didn't say anything wrong and that in the personal opinions of a few, you wholly misinterpreted Anna's premise and her humorous (not a male hating, feminist approach) to the subject.
2. My comments to Anna were and are not about you at all, but it was solely my personal expression of admiration for Anna as a person and my defense of her original post which caused some problems here.
3. If you will notice, in my original response to Anna I expressed admiration for your intellect and your considerable contributions to the debates here. So, I have no personal malice towards you whatsoever of any kind for any reason, and in fact I am an admirer of your intellect, communications skills, persuasive manner in getting to the heart of a topic and in other ways.
In this case, as on a few others, I simply felt you made statements against Anna's position, which I (personal, subjective position) don't believe were justified by the facts at hand, while I sincerely respect your right to hold differing opinions and to react as you see fit.
[quote] I can't change your concept of me and I also can't or, will for that matter, try to change my mannerism of a conversation.
Anna on September 26, 2007 at 03:43 pm[/quote]
it's OK, but when I say the same thing, it's no OK? Why the double standard? More "special rights"?
personal opinions of a few, you wholly misinterpreted Anna's premise and her humorous (not a male hating, feminist approach) to the subject.[/quote]
I never said she said anything wrong; I said I was offended by her unconscious misanthropy, and have supplied a reasoned argument at lesst three times. Ignore it if you will, but that's what I did, and that's all that I did.
Anna could have ignored what I said, she could have acknowledged that she unconsciously offended me, or she could have gone to war against me. She chose war, and enlisted some of you to fight it for her.
I now choose to ignore any and all of her comments, because I have no respect for her [b]as a commenter[/b].
My opinion is that you have been emotionally triggered, and when you come back to clear thinking your perspective will change.
I think her response was way over the top.
Dude you are losin' it.
When this many well intended individuals offer you constructive criticism as they have in this post, the wise thing to do is at least consider it. Even if you disagree there is usually something to be learned from it. Instead you go on the defensive digging an even deeper whole and being even more insulting. You have successfully made a mountain out of a mole-hill.
[quote]See what I mean, he just keeps on diggin'.[/quote]
1. Robert108 has a little pit bull in him, when he thinks people are wrong and they or others try to defend the thought, he doesn't let go very easily. It is, in my opinion both a fault and a virtue on his part, but I don't detect any real meanness in his manner, just a dogged way of holding on until others admit the truth as he sees it.
2. No apologies or attempts to moderate the conversation seems acceptable to Robert108, because he sincerely wants others to agree with his position or prove him wrong using his rules of debate.
3. Robert 108 has a great deal to contribute to any debate and I have discovered in dealing with him there is a time to just stop responding and move on. The next time around he will forget the prior disagreement, holding no malice in his heart and fight the new battle on appropriate grounds with intelligence and considerable debating skills.
Not true. If a sincere apology had ever been offered, especially after the first exchange, that would have been the end of it, as I have already indicated to you.
I don't care if you agree with me; just don't try to powertrip me or use lies and personal attack, or emotional manipulation to try to win. If you do that, I fight to the finish. Facts and logical argument work with me. If you do that, I acknowledge your position, even if I don't agree with it. For me, it's about mutual respect, and I got none from her. She went right to the victim card.
1 and 2 I would agree with. 3 is a bit of a stretch but there is some truth in it.
Don't worry, though, I'm ignoring your wounded bird from now on. She will have to find someone else to target.
Demon Neiman- [/quote]
Demon Neiman's [RED HERRING] can't make up his mind....He's trying to throw R108 a bone while at the same time calling him an abrasive condescending fuck .....
Now "THAT's" entertainment!!!
1. Misanthropy: somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people (men) and tends to avoid them. I am sorry, I just don't see any of that, not the tiniest degree in any post by Anna ever.
2. Anna didn't enlist me or anyone, we were volunteers because we feel she was misunderstood and engaged in a battle not of her making.
3. I respect Anna and the fact she brings humor, life and zest to any post with grace and kindness. No, she does not engage in your type of intellectual, hard core debate, that is not her style. But, she is a person of value and much needed around here when we guys get too damn full of ourselves. Like Zsa Zsa, she can nicely and directly let the air out of some pretty big egos.
Robert108: No matter how good your arguments may be or the reality of your offense, you have taken this whole thing far too seriously and hurt your image a little bit in the process. Time we all let it go.
Sadly, I have to run off to a meeting now that is always very informative, but I am lazy and would prefer the recliner and sit until time for sleep.
1. Misanthropy: somebody who hates humanity, or who dislikes and distrusts other people (men) and tends to avoid them. I am sorry, I just don't see any of that, not the tiniest degree in any post by Anna ever. [b]I described Dirty Harry as a misanthrope, remember? I never described Anna that way, but pointed out that her characterization of male love as "testosteronitis" is misanthropic, which it is. I also allowed that she was probably unconscious of that fact, since feminist propaganda is ubiquitous.[/b]
2. Anna didn't enlist me or anyone, we were volunteers because we feel she was misunderstood and engaged in a battle not of her making. [b]She made the battle by denying that her characterization of male love was offensive to me. She refused to acknowledge my position, and attacked me in the process.[/b]
3. I respect Anna and the fact she brings humor, life and zest to any post with grace and kindness. No, she does not engage in your type of intellectual, hard core debate, that is not her style. But, she is a person of value and much needed around here when we guys get too damn full of ourselves. Like Zsa Zsa, she can nicely and directly let the air out of some pretty big egos. [b]Speak for yourself.[/b]
Robert108: No matter how good your arguments may be or the reality of your offense, you have taken this whole thing far too seriously and hurt your image a little bit in the process. [b]I care nothing for what you regard as "my image". It is an artifact of your imagination and flawed premises about me.[/b] Time we all let it go. [b]When you and the rest stop attacking me, I will.[/b][/quote]
You just don't get it, Neiman; you've been played by a professional victim.
This place got some characters, Thats why I enjoy coming here, I'm not gonna bash you for calling what you see as a bluff but I will give you my opinion. I sincerely believe Anna was just playing around, and I would have giving her the pot if it were me. Maybe she would think "Sucker" but I really don't think she would.
Ditto..and so acknowledged... I never took the will o the wisp seriously anyway.
Thank you.
I'll acknowledge that something about this statement just doesn't sound right coming from another guy.
/just kiddin'.
...or just for a plastic bottle of popov vodka to drown...
...himself in.
If you were offended, then you have a right to express that. You were expressing how you felt. Also, you're arguments were concise, never digressed into personal attacks, and stayed on topic.
Bad Thing for Robert:
It took you too long to realize that arguing on the internet is like masturbating with a cheese grater: Slighty amusing, but in the end, rather painful and stupid.
Good thing for Anna:
You went the extra mile and made the effort to start putting an icon to delineate Sarcasm/Humor/Just kidding/Etc.
Bad thing for Anna:
You should have just said, "Dude...I'm sorry I ticked you off. It was not intentional," and left it at that. I'd bet a dollar to a donut hole that Robert would have spouted off another post and the issue would have died. People have as much a right to be offened as people have a right to offend. It would be like saying "I wasn't trying to offend you with my remark. Honestly, I have lots of friends who are men/jews/black/gay/women/asian/muslim/zombies. They don't mind when I make those jokes."
Good thing for Neiman:
You have a fairly good grasp of vocabulary and your name makes me laugh.
Bad thing for Neiman:
You do exactly what you accuse Robert108 of doing.
Good thing for all of you:
Most of you kept your sense of humor and didn't over react.
Bad thing for all of you:
I'm a hermaphrodite and I'm equally offended by all of your comments, so you all can kiss the organ of your choice.
Actually, I'll have to take your word for that. You seem to speak from experience.
People who overreact with anger the way Robert does need to look into something; serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Look into it.
Most people having an idle conversation with strangers about the news of the day do not attack others and demand apologies for matters of opinion.
It is certainly more than opinion that men have been driven by their hormones to do silly things. Look at any show off boy in the playground. Why look at Robert108! If his hormones are not what makes him take offense at innocent comments then how do you explain his constant anger?
Robert108, I have a suggestion for you; if you read a comment that offends you then go away. Find someplace where the comments do not offend you and go there. But do not start attacking everyone. You will never make any friends that way. You are not impressing anyone by being so rude and mean spirited.
None of the people you have attacked here today will look forward to ever seeing you in comments in the future. If they see you they will likely not comment and go to some other article. Great way to kill a conversation; start attacking everyone who disagrees with you.
And another thing... how do you correlate happiness with longevity? I have never seen any study that promoted the idea that people who are 'happy' live longer then unhappy people. But if there is such evidence then you should consider ways to BE happier because as curmudeonly as you are you will be one of the ones who dies young because he is constantly unhappy with everyone and offended by everything.
If the women insists on being paid for her participation then she is a... well, let's just say she is not a lady.
[quote]And another thing... how do you correlate happiness with longevity? [/quote]
I did no such thing. The study to which I referred correlated life expectancy to divorce, comparing divorced men with divorced women, with men who had never been married as a control group. The divorced men had a significantly lower life expectancy. You just made up the part about "happiness". Try not to lie so much; it damages your credibility.
I can't tell if you're trying to humorous or offensive.
If you're going for humor, then I'm offended...because that wasn't really very funny.
If you're going for offensiveness, well...I'm amused. That was a really lame comeback.
For Buster: Which side of the cheese grater do you use?
I never said anything about 'hooking' up. YOU ARE THE LIAR! Ha Ha! I laugh at you!
You are rude when you demand apologies for matters of opinion.
You are mean when you call people 'liars' because they do not agree with you on matters of opinion.
You are rude and mean when you denigrate other people's opinions for no reason other than self-agrandizement.
Your testosterone clearly makes you feel like a big man when you prove to your self how stupid everyone is because they disagree with your mighty opinions.
Until you start taking the serotonin re-uptake inhibitors it will be pointless to respond to you. You will only be angry about it no matter what I say.
Rant away, big man.
I am going to lunch.
ROFLMAO. (You proved my point)
You continue to lie about me; it is you who are the narcissist, btw.
It's all about texture, anyway.
Up to this point, all you have been is a liar and a troll. As I said before, all the participants in this discussion have reached resolution on the matter. What is your agenda in trying to stir the pot? Attention?
Robert108, I have a suggestion for you; if you read a comment that offends you then go away. Find someplace where the comments do not offend you and go there.[/quote]
Buster,
Your own opinion on this matter is getting more than a little tedious. As I recall, nobody suggested you for the position of Den Mother, and you've hardly been here long enough to qualify in any case. Furthermore, your presumptuous scolding of R108's behavior is suspiciously akin to what you're accusing him of doing in the first place. That smacks of hypocrisy.
Anna's decision to leave is unfortunate. Her commentary has always been pert, pertinent, and perspicacious. Her wit and her charm will be sorely missed, no doubt. But her decision is, in fact, just that... her decision. She chose to take offense and to act accordingly... exactly the same as R108 did.
No one asked you to officiate, and it certainly isn't up to you to determine who leaves and who stays.
Perhaps the cheese grater has made me too sensative. 8o)~
(<---- This is a joke)
As for the attention...well...of course I want the attention! Although I wouldn't say I was trolling.
We post to bring attention to our thoughts, feeling, and/or ideas. We want people to read that which flows from our minds in the hopes that they finally "understand."
Is this not so?
Whether the motive is pride or rightious indignation at a comment, providing enlightenment or simply a different perspective, or in my case, to simply be amused.
We want someone or everyone to pay "attention" to what we have said.
....or in Busters case...using the KitchenAid mounted version of the cheese grater has left him EXTREMELY sensitive.
On the other hand...he could be a troll.
(I have no goats)
Partly. For me, it's about offering the truth in place of the ongoing propaganda. I feel called to do this. It's not personal, although there are many(Buster, Anna) who continually try to make it so.
[quote]Mr. 108, I'll try once more; sometimes the genre that you infer is not the actual one you read. Please, show people some grace [b]I'm not at all tempted to try to change myself in order to curry favor with the emos; it's just not my style.[/b] and don't just assume that someone meant to offend you. [b]If you read what I wrote, I actually assumed the opposite; I even proposed that the offensive characterization was unconscious, a result of an avalanche of feminist propaganda over several decades. I was being informative. I thought it might be useful to know the truth, instead of simply repeating the same old stereotype about how men are supposed to be.[/b][/quote]
In fishing, trolling is taking a line with hooks on its length, baiting it and dragging it through the water to see what takes the bait. Not a bad metaphor, actually.
Since I have already informed Anna(via personal message; she has sent me two already) that I will no longer comment about anything she writes, her decision to leave(if she does) has nothing to do with fearing my comments on her material. I will leave you to your own conclusions as to what she is trying to do.
R108,
I have every hope, and every expectation, that she will be back... as bright and engaging as ever.
I know, you don't care if you make friends. That isn't what you are here for.
Of course that begs the question; If you are not trying to make friends (and be friendly) then why are you here?
I really, sincerely pray you can find a way to be happy without having to make other people feel bad.
Now I know you are the "I <ib>must</ib> have the last word" kind of person.
So have at it.
I hope you enjoy denigrating me just one more time. I really am outta here.
Bat One: Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black youself? Who named you Den Mother? Why aren't you a hypocrit? Hmmm? Remove the beam from your own eye and all that. I am leaving now as you have sufficiently chastised me.
Trolling is using one hook per one line and using the power of the vessel to move the baited line through the water...hence the need for a "Trolling Motor."
Also...I am really proud of my Three-Billy-Goats-Gruff reference.
Also...How dare you belittle my completely off topic comments?!?
I vow to make inflammatory comments, take all of your responses out of context, and question your parentage while still maintaining that I am the victim!!!
"Help!! Help!! I'm being repressed!!"
(Gouda should NOT be grated.)
To disseminate information.
I think our different ideas about trolling(in the fishing context) is based in the difference between that activity in fresh water vs salt water. In ocean fishing, it's also known as "long line fishing", but it works the same way.
On the other hand, parmesan [i]should[/i] be grated.
Not at all. I have not presumed to suggest that anyone should leave if they don't conform to my idea of proper behavior.
I agree...as with most things in life, "trolling" is best understood when the context is known. Kinda like when dealing with the AP...you actually have to read ten paragraphs before they'll reveal the context...if at all.
Brie should be at room tempreture...unless you've had more than three glasses of wine...then Chesse-Whiz works great.
Robert's insatiable thirst to argue is shown when he attacks one line to a 3 paragraph post. Look at his posts, they start with a copy/paste of one line of someone else's post and a paragraph of his own picking that one line apart. It would mean a little more if he actually debated ideas as a whole instead of picking apart bits and pieces. He doesn't appear to look at the big picture of what anybody says. I think that's why everyone almost unanimously is against him, he has that grating, childish, nit-picky argument style that annoys people.
The whole point of these message boards is to have intelligent conversations about posted articles and topics, not to go off on people who post something you don't like. That's the nature of message boards, sometimes you totally agree with someone, sometimes you can't stand what someone says; but you should always stay on topic. That's the problem with these things, 95 percent of everyone on here wants to have fun and debate topics, the other 5 percent are here to disintegrate topics and eventually turn every discussion into childish attacks and bickering.
By the way, weren't we talking about something involving rings and marriage or something? I forgot.
Robert had an issue with another posters comment. He stated his position. It should have been left between them.
Others commented on Roberts statements. He responded to each of their statements and further clarified his position.
Robert and Anna's beliefs, feelings, notions, twinges, etc. are completely open for debate, since they decided to vent them here. To expect someone to NOT defend their posisition is akin to telling someone to "shutup and go away" simply because you cannot brow-beat them into submission.
(Please note: I am not stating whether Robert or Anna was a/the victim. How YOU percieve that position illustates all)
Also...You are a sexist. This is statement of fact.
One who generalizes an entire group based biased experiences with select members of that group, is bigoted. One who is bigoted towards a particular gender is a sexist.
Lastly, you are wrong.
We are talking about cheese.
Goat cheese makes a good pairing with honey-covered almond slices.
Actually, "rickbo", you had it right in the beginning of your first comment, when you said this:
[quote]I just joined this board, and I don't know anybody that well.[/quote]
I have made over 11,000 comments on this blog, and have submitted a lot of topics to the Reader Blogs, so if you think your shallow characterization has any merit, you are dreaming. You might want to try some anger management.
Rickbo: if you are "Buster," I have no goats.
BTW, I am thinking we are undergoing some sock puppetry.
I personally saw nothing wrong with Ana's post.
[quote]Trolling is using one hook per one line and using the power of the vessel to move the baited line through the water...hence the need for a "Trolling Motor."[/quote]
Not always true.
Hmmmmm...Sock-puppetry...I could make sooooooo many jokes towards both genders about socks, hands, and the types of commentary coming from such posters....but I won't.
To quote Robert Stack: "Get your finger out of your nose...you don't know where that finger's been!"
Perhaps he/she/they/it/zombies are lactose intolerant?
...and I though everyone loved cheese.
Of course R108 was not doing this very same thing, right? Nor was Anna before that? You have spent 25 lines doing exactly what you've accused those before you of doing. Your efforts would have been better spent distinguishing between a mere hypocrite and a fool.
MH,
Washington State University produces a nearly white cheddar-like hard cheese known as Cougar Gold, that is particularly pleasing when served with smoked salmon, fresh d'Anjou pear slices, and a soft, young Merlot.
Is it available in extra sharp? How does it taste melted? I'm definitely interested.
I also appologize, I didn't know we were talking about cheese. I'm from Wisconsin, so I'm a little cheesed out. However, honey covered almond slices are freakin good, actually any form of almond is good, except almond joy (oddly enough).
I'm seriously going to have to order some of the Cougar Gold....the Viking/Hot Pepper doesn't look too shabby, either. I might have dig through my recipie card index and do some re-writing.
Corky/Buster/Trashy/Rickbo/Etc:
See....I told you so. We're talking about cheese.
Your vocabulary appears not to match you enthusiasm. If you'll read both Rickbo's remarks and those of Robert108, you'll see that "characterization" is a far more accurate description. Perhaps you were simply confused by the number of syllables?
Behold....the power of cheese!
...and almond goodness.
Even though you have yet to post anything positive or informative, I continue to answer your comments. Please don't start whining like a victim because I'm not buying what you're trying to sell.
We're here enjoying an afternoon of snark and cheese, and here you are trying to re-direct everyone's attention back to the original subject of the thread?
WTF?
R108,
Sorry! Didn't mean to overlook your questions. I don't think it is available in extra sharp. As for melted, I've used it in omelets, a variety of cheese sauces, and grilled cheese sandwiches (if I'm cooking, it ain't no damn Panini!). But my favorite is still as described above with the pears, smoked salmon, and Merlot.
I've stayed out of this one but I have to pick up on this:
[quote]Who named you Den Mother? [/quote]
Den Mother? If you're anything like me, when the word "mother" is used in reference to me there's a word behind it instead of in front of it and it ain't "den".
Sorry. Couldn't help myself. It's a personality disorder.
However...
The appelate judge was, in my mostly random opinion, correct in his judgement.
A precedent has already been set in Meyer v. Mitnick, 625 N.W.2d 136 (Michigan, 2001), where the judge ruled that the engagement ring is a conditional gift.
There are currently two schools of thought on the issue:
1. There should be a "No-Fault" rule regarding the ring. That no matter what the reasons for the engagement breaking off, no matter who was at fault, that once the engagement is terminated the ring MUST be returned to the giver. If the recipient has destroyed the ring or rendered it irretrievable, the recipient must pay the giver equal value of the ring or pay for the retrieval and cleaning costs.
2. That there should be a clause to allow for fault. Basically, if the giver's actions caused the breakup, the ring is the recipients. If the recipients actions caused the breakup, it should be returned to the giver.
There is also some scuttlebutt about the timing of giving the ring having some bearing (Holidays, Birthdays, Zombie Attack, Cheese Festivals, etc), but I feel that is one person trying to create loop-holes.
In today's world as the ring is, at it's most basic form, a loan of a valuable item designed to show off finacial stability, deep emotion, good taste, or any combination thereof given to ensure completion of the marriage contract, I feel that the "no-fault" ruling is the correct one.
On a side note: at the inception of the concept of the "Engagement Ring" by Pope Innocent III back in the 13th century, both parties were to recieve a ring. I think that should still be the way things are done.
Engagement breakups are always a nasty thing...it's like muenster that's been set out too long. It was odd and different yet pleasing in the beginning, but then things get hard and stinky, and no one really likes that.
Except trolls.
[quote]Who named you Den Mother?[/quote]
Den Mother? Usually when someone calls me a name with "mother" in it the second part doesn't have anything to do with dens. Den Mother...now THAT'S insulting.
I'm just sayin'........
When I wrote the above comment the first time I thought it didn't post, which happens sometimes, so I wrote it again. It didn't occur to me to go to page 2.
What a maroon.
What do coconut cookies have to do with anything? We were talking about cheese.
Actually, I had given some thought to what you've suggested about the more common pejorative use of the word "mother", but I was excoriated a day or two ago for references to Kools, malt liquor, and welfare checks, so I'm trying to be less blatant with the racial overtones. Wouldn't want to put anyone in a black mood.
And almonds.
Sometimes people try to change the subject and have indepth discussions on law, politics, religion, zombies, etc., but cheese is where it's at.
An awe-inspiring and brutal drama, based on a real-life story, made television history when it was originally aired in 1977.
Sally Field gives an outstanding award-winning performance as [b]Sybil[/b], a [b]disturbed young woman [/b]who suffers from [b]multiple personality [/b]behavior.
Living alone in a New York apartment, Sybil is tormented by flashbacks and visions of her extremely painful childhood... and cheese and goats...
As far as I know...and I should...I am not Rickbo, Ali, Corky,Trashy, FishFry, Promises2Kee, or Buster (the obvious one you left off), simply because of all of those I have not attacked Robert208 for his opinions, views, tactics, etc. It should be noted that I have not attacked Anna either. Come to think of it, I haven't defended either of them.
My overarching point is that everyone has a point of view and they should be allowed to defend it as long as they want, as vigorously as they want, provided that they actually use logic and reason to back up what they say.
Also, I'm the only one of those who has exhibited any amount of humor from the get go.
Another good point is that my "speech" patterns are in no way, shape, or form similar to those with which you've done the dubious honor of comparing me with.
Naming of profile is something else to watch out for. I existed before several of the ones you listed (Except promises2keep & Fishfry001). My name differs in that mine is NOT a two syllable handle and is not a "Name" but rather a play on a name referencing an old Bugs Bunny cartoon.
I'm also the only one, so far, who backed up his opinions with a court case reference.
Lastly, I'm more concerned with cheese (and peanut brittle) than with who hurt who's feelings.
If you can't discuss something rationally, even if you're not it your right mind, you've lost the debate already.
Another good thing to consider is timing. If you look at the time stamp of the posts, you could probably get a decent idea of the timezone I live in...and where the others live as well.
Of course, you could just be yanking my proverbial chain.
If so, you're a big fat meanie head and I'm gonna take my (cheese) ball and go play somewhere else!!
Did you know that Velveeta sells pepperjack slices now? Still not as good as shaving off a block of your own, but it's great for a quick sandwich!