Thread: Hell: Who is the sour mouthed COW who went to Colditz this year? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000321

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
I've been on the ship for several years now, and this is the first time I have ever started a thread in hell, but I finally feel so moved...

It concerns the article on the ship this month about a "Colditz Christian summer camp"

My problem is not with the reviewer pointing out it's flaws, as a matter of fact, I agreed with serveral of them.

My problem is with the COMPLETE lack of any recognition of the positives, the wonderful teaching on social justice from Tony Campolo for example, (a kind of teaching which I'm sure the reviewer would agree is usually sadly lacking from evangelical conferences).

The author was going to the conference for the second time, so they must have seen something positive in it the first year.

So, would the accuser step forward, so I can give her a piece of my mind?!!

matt

{title changed}

[ 30. September 2005, 20:38: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
I get the impression you think you know who it is but aren't confident enough to name names, Matt.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Sincerely, I have absolutely no idea who it is. I suspect what you mean is that my using "cow" in the title, implies I think it is sarkycow?

Actually, I don't, because Sarkycow's foul diatribes are usually witty and amusing, unlike this tirade of mediocrity currently on the front page of ship of fools.

matt
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 
Sounds like a good rundown of South Coast Christianity™ to me.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Matt did you attend? Did you get a Warrior Badge? Can I have it?

P

(who remembers who wrote last years)
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
It brought a tear to my eye, it really did. Ah, such crap memories. And to tell the truth - she got it spot on.

I never got a Warrior badge. I think I did get a "God's Buddy" badge or some such nonsense once though.
 

---

Posted by pepper (# 3895) on :
 
So what badge did you get for going to the womens meetings, then, Chris?


 

---

Posted by snowgoose (# 4394) on :
 
She didn't sound sour-mouthed to me. Unrestful, certainly, but that's what the Ship is for, isn't it?
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Pyx_e i've not seen last years? is it in an archive somewhere?

I didn't get a badge, coz I didn't go to the men's seminar.

Why? because I thought the men's and women's seminars sounded...to be honest..rather trite and cheesy.

But there were many alternatives. I went to excellent seminars on singing, prophecy, a bunch of stuff specially for students about practical things such as handling student debt...etc.

The main meeting speakers were superb. RT Kendall and Tony Campolo were great.

None of these things were commented on in this sour mouthed review. She admits her self that Tony Campolo is a "good speaker" so how come she had no point comments on the actual content of his seminars?

I do sympathise with some of her points, but her critisism would have had a lot more weight to it if it were positively counterbalanced. Instead she just comes across as a moody complaining bitch from start to finish.

matt
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

I do sympathise with some of her points, but her critisism would have had a lot more weight to it if it were positively counterbalanced.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
she just comes across as a moody complaining bitch from start to finish.

matt

---

Matt, it is the mark of a good journalist that they can stamp their personality on their work so that the glint of their character comes shining through, whatever the dross of their subject matter is.

Sarky clearly has a great future in the media.

Now I am off to go find that article...
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
That last post was for those may still have been wondering who wrote the offending piece.
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
Sorry pyx_e (and Sarky) I thought that had already been elucidated. Of course I may very well have been mistaken, and I do not have any prior knowledge of the authorship of pieces in the magazine this week.

Any resemblance to any bovines, living, dead or downright insulting is purely accidental.

[I did try the edit function on the bit above, but I was just too late...]
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Gee, and I thought this was supposed to be a Christian Passive Agressive Bitch Website. Oh, it is. Never mind.

Oh dearie me! I meant to edit that, but....looks at watch....taps foot... ....picks nose...checks watch again....OOPS! I just ran out time. I am soooo sorry.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Oh dearie me! I meant to edit that, but....looks at watch....taps foot... ....picks nose...checks watch again....OOPS! I just ran out time. I am soooo sorry.

---

Funniest thing I've seen on the boards for a while. Credit where it's due

What annoyed me about the article on "Colditz" is that it was so resolutely negative.

I agree with some of the critsism, but when singularly failing to make a single positive comment to balance it, it's rather annoying. An awful lot of people put an awful lot of work into things like "colditz" and an awful lot of people are blessed by it. I bet even sarky got something out of it.

"Pinky and Perky" incidently, are the vicar and music director of my church...I will be sure to bring this comparison to their attention.

By the way, can I just ask anyone with a spare five minutes to toddle over to www.mp3.com/matt_watts and tell me what they think of my musical offerings? Cheers.
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 
I dunno, Sine, you were complaining I was too nice the other day...make up your mind sweeetie...
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,"
 

---

Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
heh - read this thread, then *had* to read the article.

Its great

well done whoever wrote it!

[ 28. October 2003, 21:28: Message edited by: TheGreenT ]
 

---

Posted by welsh dragon (# 3249) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,"

---

And is a foolish inconsistency the house elf of even littler ones?
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
It was a parody, fa criminy sakes. I thought it was hilarious.
 

---

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :
 
My sincerest thanks to Matt for starting this thread - without which I possibly might not have read the article. It was fantastic. This thread should be on the throne of glory in heaven along with that article.

Sources close to the top make me believe there will be electronic tagging in heaven, and for the reporter to have had a foretaste - well i just hope I can spend one minute of my earthly existence just to be with someone who has been tagged in a Christian ghetto. What more could a good Christian girl aspire to?

My apologies to the hellhosts for the totally unhellish post. I have come over all fluffy by such depth in the writings of our dear, dear sister who took the time and effort to share her experience with us. I have so misted up.
 

---

Posted by Light (# 4693) on :
 
The article was a good read. However, I find it hard to believe that Sarkycow is the one who wrote it. She would never have been so... nice ... to the men's seminar leader. I mean, she smiled at him sweetly at least twice!

(come to think of it, that IS very sarky...)
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by welsh dragon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,"

---

And is a foolish inconsistency the house elf of even littler ones?

---

quote:

---

By the way, can I just ask anyone with a spare five minutes to toddle over to www.mp3.com/matt_watts and tell me what they think of my musical offerings? Cheers.

---

Thanks for the link, Matt. I thoroughly enjoyed your music and lyrics. I especially enjoyed the music on "I Love You". I hope God continues to let you use your talents for Him.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Sarkycow stands up and takes a bow

Well, thanks for the kind words guys.

Matt, tell me, what does the concept of Christian satire mean to you? And unrest? I'd venture to suggest they aren't synonyms for 'uncritical positive review which papers over the cracks'. Simon appears to agree with me on this one

Yes I caricatured some of what went on there, but not most of it. Most of what I wrote in the diary was spot on, deadly accurate reporting. I actually pulled some stuff because it was a little too cutting.

And I couldn't write about Tony Campolo because, as a woman, my seminars clashed with his

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
I would have missed this article completely - and it's hilarious! Thank you for pointing it out to me Matt.
 

---

Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Sarks, you really need to take more than one bow. Imagine! Proof that Shipmates read the front page of the Ship. And Respond.

Simon better send you chocolate.

Good article. I would have liked more detail.
 

---

Posted by anglicanråscal (# 3412) on :
 
There's more to the Ship than the chatboards?? You mean those little buttons to the left actually work?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
I think the article is great, wonderfully unrestful stuff. Thanks Sarkycow.

It also very accurately reflects my own experience (many years ago, thank God) of a Christian prison camp – from the “So this is Colditz” feeling and barbed wire to the security tags and desperate need to escape. I didn’t have to sleep in a tent (what very wicked thing has Sarkycow done in a previous life to deserve that – twice), instead we got to air the damp and disgusting beds of a “holiday camp” at the start of the season.

One other difference was that I did get to see Tony Campolo – and what an appallingly manipulative, emotional and hypocritical event I found it. Perhaps Sarkycow could be grateful that she could run along to join the fairer sex and not have to worry her pretty little head about the men were hearing.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

It also very accurately reflects my own experience (many years ago, thank God) of a Christian prison camp – from the “So this is Colditz” feeling and barbed wire to the security tags and desperate need to escape.

---

quote:

---

One other difference was that I did get to see Tony Campolo – and what an appallingly manipulative, emotional and hypocritical event I found it.

---

quote:

---

Matt, tell me, what does the concept of Christian satire mean to you? And unrest? I'd venture to suggest they aren't synonyms for 'uncritical positive review which papers over the cracks'. Simon appears to agree with me on this one

---

Yes, but when you whine about the car parking, next door neighbours waking you up...etc etc...the satirical effect is lost.

As I say, I agree with you, the comments about the Ra ra squad, Pinky and perky and the prosperity Gospel tripe were all perceptive and accurate.

However, the main point of such a meeting, (namely the teaching from RT Kendall and Tony Campolo) got no mention at all. Oh, and since you went to the MENS seminars instead of the womens, you would have been perfectly able to go to T.C.

quote:

---

Thanks for the link, Matt. I thoroughly enjoyed your music and lyrics. I especially enjoyed the music on "I Love You". I hope God continues to let you use your talents for Him.

---

Thanks grits! Distinctly unhellish, but cheers [ ]

matt


Yes I caricatured some of what went on there, but not most of it. Most of what I wrote in the diary was spot on, deadly accurate reporting. I actually pulled some stuff because it was a little too cutting.

Perhaps Sarkycow could be grateful that she could run along to join the fairer sex and not have to worry her pretty little head about the men were hearing.
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

The camp organisers didn't put the Barbed wire there! That's a permenant fixture of the site where the conference is held.

---

Come on Matt they decided to hold the camp there. Upon hearing that there was barbed wire round the conference I decided it was to keep people out (not in). Congregationalism, gone mad.

Why not hold it at Glastonbury then everybody might try and break in.

P
 

---

Posted by richt (# 4679) on :
 
Great article Sarky and thanks Matt for pointing it out . By the way, does the Colditz Christian Camp go by another name?

I don't think the purpose of the article was to be completely objective. It set out to be a parody, and I don't think it claims to be anything else. Certainlly I didn't read it and think that there mustn't have been any good things there - I read it and had a good laugh (well actually I just smiled a bit, but it amused me none the less).
 

---

Posted by The Machine Elf (# 1622) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
By the way, can I just ask anyone with a spare five minutes to toddle over to www.mp3.com/matt_watts and tell me what they think of my musical offerings? Cheers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Matt, tell me, what does the concept of Christian satire mean to you? And unrest? I'd venture to suggest they aren't synonyms for 'uncritical positive review which papers over the cracks'. Simon appears to agree with me on this one

---

Yes, but when you whine about the car parking, next door neighbours waking you up...etc etc...the satirical effect is lost.

---

quote:

---

However, the main point of such a meeting, (namely the teaching from RT Kendall and Tony Campolo) got no mention at all. Oh, and since you went to the MENS seminars instead of the womens, you would have been perfectly able to go to T.C.

---

*shrug* RT was blooming early in the morning. You think I was awake enough to take notes? But they were basically ok, so I didn't feel the need to knock them. And since the piece was satirical, i.e. highlighting the negative, there was no point really including them. I wasn't aiming for balance, I was aiming for a humorous yet truthful retelling.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Flounder (# 3859) on :
 
Sarkycow,

I really wish you had left that stuff in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarkycow:
Sarkycow stands up and takes a bow

Well, thanks for the kind words guys.

Yes I caricatured some of what went on there, but not most of it. Most of what I wrote in the diary was spot on, deadly accurate reporting. I actually pulled some stuff because it was a little too cutting.

Sarkycow

---

Frankly, I think you were pretty intrepid to go there at all.

— Best,

Flounder
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
not being totaly serious here but... isn't comparing a place to the nazi's escape-proof prison a violation of godwins law or something?

btw, i don't think that "parody" is exactly what you mean to call the article. according to mirriam-webster, a parody is:

quote:

---

Main Entry: 1par·o·dy
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -dies
Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE
Date: 1598
1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule
2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Fair enough Sarky, tell ya what, give us a glorious picture of your ideal Christian conference? What would it consist of? How would you organise it? And when and where can we attend this "Sarkyfest"??

Matt

---

quote:

---

For a start, you wouldn't be there.

---

Watch it Chris, I bet my handbag is bigger than yours...

matt
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Fair enough Sarky, tell ya what, give us a glorious picture of your ideal Christian conference? What would it consist of? How would you organise it? And when and where can we attend this "Sarkyfest"??

Matt

---

For a start, you wouldn't be there.

---

quote:

---

Put me on the attendance list, then!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Fair enough Sarky, tell ya what, give us a glorious picture of your ideal Christian conference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boopy:
Sarkycow's article had the ring of truth all right - it reminded me of a similar event I attended 20 years ago, and clearly little has changed in the interim (IIRC, Tony Campolo was a speaker at the one I attended too). Never, never again. Shudder. Thanks for the reminder of why I don't attend Christian holiday camps!

---

Shudder indeed! I think I was there. Though they were good for their time. (Or is my memory fading ).

And I did get introduced to a Christian magazine called, errm, Ship of Fools, at that event...
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boopy:
Sarkycow's article had the ring of truth all right - it reminded me of a similar event I attended 20 years ago, and clearly little has changed in the interim (IIRC, Tony Campolo was a speaker at the one I attended too).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

By the way, can I just ask anyone with a spare five minutes to toddle over to www.mp3.com/matt_watts and tell me what they think of my musical offerings? Cheers.

---

Thanks for the link, Matt. I thoroughly enjoyed your music and lyrics.

---

Although that's more than I can say for the music on your site, dear!

(nothing wrong with the rest of it but the MUSIC!
)
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Strikes me that any organisation that does anything so perverse as to (a) divide seminars between women and men and then (b) give totally different messages at them (women aren't defined by what they do, men are) deserves a good kicking.

Likewise, an organisation that has the sort of group that is still indulging the egomanical showmanship of the so-called "worship" sessions needs to be shown how deeply in error it is.

Finally, any event that has RT Kendall at it is clearly so fundamentally (sic) off beam that no amount of Tony Campolo seminars can save it.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
I'm having difficulty wrapping my little brain around the phrase "Christian holiday camp". I just can't cram those particular words together in a meaningful way somehow.

If the author of the report will only start saving up now, I'm sure she can afford a lovely holiday in Ibiza next year.
 

---

Posted by alistair_holland (# 5130) on :
 
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred. I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.
It basically boils down to this. When Jesus spoke it was only to benefit the people he loved in one way or another. There is no encouragement in this article, neither is there any love.
So I can only come to the conclusion that the article in question has no place in God’s work.
I think that this is a fairly basic and obvious teaching that applies to all traditions of Christianity, regardless of culture and denomination.

What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises? People, people, people! Nothing ever changed through whining and moaning. Discontentment is a result of sitting around moaning and refusing to do anything about problems. I have to pose the question. Is there room for so called ‘Christian satire’ of this kind in our faith? If anyone can back the usefulness of this article with scripture then I would love to here about it. As far as I can see it’s only really made a few people a bit more bitter and cynical.

OK we’ve all had a chuckle about it and I like a laugh as much as the next person. The funniest thing about the article for me is the fact that thousands of people were having the time of their lives at that camp, including me. Meanwhile our Author, on a ‘Super Spiritual Journalistic Crusade’ was picking a fight with everyone and everything that came her way. She clearly enjoys her misery, confrontation, manipulation etc. but each to there own I guess?

The article is pure contradiction from start to finish. It complains about so many things and at the same time is completely void of the one thing that is truly important. Love.
Oh and one more thing.
A friend of mine made this valid point regarding criticism:
“If you don't want to be criticised do nothing!”

I.E. It’s much easier to criticise something than to actually do it.
To the author;
What is it that you hope to achieve in writing this article? All I can here is a bunch of whining.
Where is the love?
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 
That's right.

And I thought this was supposed to be a Christian web-site.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Well, that's the Seven Woes and 1 Corinthians out of the canon, then.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Oh my.

And so very lovely to meet you too, Alistair. I agree 100% with your comments. I thought this was supposed to be a Christian web site. These people ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Damn. Chapelhead got in there before me.

[ 30. October 2003, 13:56: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]
 

---

Posted by alistair_holland (# 5130) on :
 
Dear dyfrig.
I think you have missed my point.
I have no problem with God's judgement nor constructive criticism. My problem is with those who judge without love. This article was written without love in mind.
Al
 

---

Posted by strathclydezero (# 180) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
If anyone can back the usefulness of this article with scripture then I would love to here about it. As far as I can see it’s only really made a few people a bit more bitter and cynical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
They both offer a note of hope.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeordieDownSouth:
They both offer a note of hope.

---

Articles like this offer me a note of hope too.

---

Good
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
Dear dyfrig.
I think you have missed my point.
I have no problem with God's judgement nor constructive criticism. My problem is with those who judge without love. This article was written without love in mind.
Al

---

Or perhaps I love the organisers enough to call it how it was, and tell them the truth, rather than simpering and saying it was all fantastic, when it wasn't?

Y'know, like Jesus with Simon Peter? Jesus calls him blessed when he does good (Mt 16:17), and then tells him when he does get it wrong (Mt 16:23).

Or are you just upset because I wasn't uncritically adoring of it all? Because I actually have a brain, and a mouth, and have used them both. Which is a sin in church. Although not as great a sin as breaking the 11th Commandment: Thou shalt be nice to one another.



Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by alistair_holland (# 5130) on :
 
This is a very poor excuse for being so blasé, antagonistic and spiteful. As for the truth, I’ve never read such a biased and coloured article in my life. Give it up. Your article didn’t come anywhere near the truth as normal people would see it, you’re just out for the story.
Try to convince yourself that your doing good but I can assure you that I’ve read far more respectable journalism in the ‘Sunday Sport’.
My original points still stand.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
This is a very poor excuse for being so blasé, antagonistic and spiteful. As for the truth, I’ve never read such a biased and coloured article in my life. Give it up. Your article didn’t come anywhere near the truth as normal people would see it, you’re just out for the story.
Try to convince yourself that your doing good but I can assure you that I’ve read far more respectable journalism in the ‘Sunday Sport’.
My original points still stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I'm having difficulty wrapping my little brain around the phrase "Christian holiday camp". I just can't cram those particular words together in a meaningful way somehow.

If the author of the report will only start saving up now, I'm sure she can afford a lovely holiday in Ibiza next year.

---

quote:

---

This article was written without love in mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred....

Yada, yada, yada.

I.E. It’s much easier to criticise something than to actually do it.
To the author;
What is it that you hope to achieve in writing this article? All I can here is a bunch of whining.
Where is the love?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
Dear dyfrig.
I think you have missed my point.
I have no problem with God's judgement nor constructive criticism. My problem is with those who judge without love. This article was written without love in mind.
Al

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
This is a very poor excuse for being so blasé, antagonistic and spiteful. As for the truth, I’ve never read such a biased and coloured article in my life. Give it up. Your article didn’t come anywhere near the truth as normal people would see it, you’re just out for the story.
Try to convince yourself that your doing good but I can assure you that I’ve read far more respectable journalism in the ‘Sunday Sport’.
My original points still stand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

The author was going to the conference for the second time, so they must have seen something positive in it the first year.

---

Why did you go back for a second year, sarky?

P.S. Shit bugger arse
[Edited to make more hellish.]

[ 30. October 2003, 17:26: Message edited by: In Theory ]
 

---

Posted by ce (# 1957) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
As for the truth, I’ve never read such a biased and coloured article in my life. Give it up. Your article didn’t come anywhere near the truth as normal people would see it, you’re just out for the story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland:
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred. I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.

<snip>

What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises?
<snip>
[emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

What is it that you hope to achieve in writing this [post]? All I can here [sic] is a bunch of whining.
Where is the love?

---

 

---

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Perhaps Mr Holland is just taking the piss by pretending to be a hilariously brain-dead self-righteous newbie who understands nothing about the philosophy or aims of the site.

If so, his posts are a remarkable comedic acheivement.

But somehow I doubt it...


L.
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 
Or perhaps he's being a Warrior and Trying to Make a Difference.
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
I can almost see the badge on his avatar, really I can.

So if we're not meant to criticize one another, being Good Christian Boys and Girls™ and all, what should we say when someone makes a balls-up of living according to their words? Or when an event is a complete flop? Or when someone is completely unsuitable for the role they have placed themselves in? Or when adherance to obscure, vague and ill-researched Biblical passages comes above the overiding commandment to love?

Peter, you got it wrong. Tut tut.

Annaias (sp?) and Sapphira, naughty naughty.

Pharisees and Saduccees - you cheeky cheeky people!

Oh, sorry. Of course we aren't meant to criticize Christians or the church. So where is that bit in the Bible where it says that we are to judge ourselves? Can anyone point that out to me, I know it's there.

alistair_holland, welcome to the Ship. I hope you have a good time aboard. After all you are an honoured guest - no one else has earned their Certified Asshat Certificate© after only three posts!
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
Yeah it took ChrisT nearly 1500

P
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
Don't you dare piss on my bonfire, Understudy.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
This is where I'm supposed to step in as an uninvolved Hellhost and welcome alistaire_holland, and gently advise him to read the guidelines for the specific boards and reread the 10-C's. I should probably sternly warn him that this behaviour really would not be acceptable anywhere else on The Ship, even though it is perfectly fine here in Hell.

I really should.

But I'm not. I'm going to just sit here, chuckling evilly.

-RooK
Hellhost
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Errrr ... whatever happened to cutting Apprentices some slack? Even when they blunder into Hell and say foolish things?
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
This is where I'm supposed to step in as an uninvolved Hellhost and welcome alistaire_holland, and gently advise him to read the guidelines for the specific boards and reread the 10-C's. I should probably sternly warn him that this behaviour really would not be acceptable anywhere else on The Ship, even though it is perfectly fine here in Hell.

I really should.

But I'm not. I'm going to just sit here, chuckling evilly.

-RooK
Hellhost

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
i don't think its exactly in good taste to compare, well almost anything, to a nazi prison camp. except another prison camp.

---

quote:

---

Originally excreted by Tomb:
I don't feel like soiling myself to that extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Errrr ... whatever happened to cutting Apprentices some slack? Even when they blunder into Hell and say foolish things?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nicolemrw:
the irony is that alastair seems, to me, to have done to sarkycow exactly what he is ranting at sarkycow about doing.

---

quote:

---

Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.

---

quote:

---

I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.

---

quote:

---

It basically boils down to this. When Jesus spoke it was only to benefit the people he loved in one way or another.

---

quote:

---

There is no encouragement in this article, neither is there any love.

---

quote:

---

So I can only come to the conclusion that the article in question has no place in God’s work.

---

quote:

---

What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises?

---

quote:

---

Nothing ever changed through whining and moaning.

---

quote:

---

Is there room for so called ‘Christian satire’ of this kind in our faith?

---

quote:

---

It's not whether a *better* conference can be thought of ... they all seem to be as bad as each other. But I can sure as hell think of better things to do with a weeks holiday.

---

Fine, go do them then.

dyfrig,

quote:

---

Strikes me that any organisation that does anything so perverse as to (a) divide seminars between women and men and then (b) give totally different messages at them (women aren't defined by what they do, men are) deserves a good kicking.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, an organisation that has the sort of group that is still indulging the egomanical showmanship of the so-called "worship" sessions needs to be shown how deeply in error it is.

---

quote:

---

[Finally, any event that has RT Kendall at it is clearly so fundamentally (sic) off beam that no amount of Tony Campolo seminars can save it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alistair_holland: I like a laugh as much as the next person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.

---

Well, it DOES also generate a laugh or two, but, if I was an organiser of such and event and read that, I'd feel pretty discouraged. If I were the someone considering going to such an event, I think I'd be put off going.

[snip]

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
It's not whether a *better* conference can be thought of ... they all seem to be as bad as each other. But I can sure as hell think of better things to do with a weeks holiday.

---

Fine, go do them then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.

---

Well, it DOES also generate a laugh or two, but, if I was an organiser of such and event and read that, I'd feel pretty discouraged. If I were the someone considering going to such an event, I think I'd be put off going.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.

---

True enough again, I wouldn't say the article was blatant "abuse" quite...but it was headed in that direction. The rest of this is surely all true? Surely we do want to encourage each other where possible? To find negatives to critisise is easy, to find positives to compliment is hard.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there room for so called ‘Christian satire’ of this kind in our faith?

---

A question which the existence of SoF presupposes the answer to, but it is worth asking. What is the difference between being satirical and just being plain cruel and offensive? Is the only difference whether you are the victim or not?

---

quote:

---

dyfrig,

quote:

---

Strikes me that any organisation that does anything so perverse as to (a) divide seminars between women and men and then (b) give totally different messages at them (women aren't defined by what they do, men are) deserves a good kicking.

---

Well, here we have one example of complete bullshit from Sarkycow.

As to the men and women's strand having different messages...that's a complete load of crap, and Sarky engineered her quotes to create a contradiction where none existed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
[Tangent] Brothers and sisters of the ship, is it not an immutable law of the universe that phrases such as this

quote:

---

I like a laugh as much as the next person.

---

are invariably accompanied by revelations that allow neither wit nor humour, and usually not much insight either? [/Tangent]

---

I thought it was supposed to be followed, by "Except perhaps my wife... and some of her friends... Come to think of it, most people enjoy a good laugh more than I do, but that's besides the point..."

Oh, and call me innocent, but I don't know where Colditz is, having steered well clear of all but one trendy Christian gathering since birth

[ 31. October 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: In Theory ]
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
Well...

Reading Sarky's report made me think that I really must get to Greenbelt next year!

I have no idea which Christian boot camp she went to, and unlike Sarky, I would have organised resistance to the 'men' and 'women' streams. I would have got oodles of men to go to the women's sessions, and oodles of womens to go to the men's. Such sexist pap should not be endured.

bb
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
matt, wipe your nose for heavens sake, that brown stuff is starting to stink.
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
From the summary of the Wednesday call for money: "God can, and will, bless us, but only directly in proportion to what we give."

I thought this was meant to be a Christian event?

This is nothing more than heresy and I hope the organisation that peddles this nonsense is stopped in its tracks. Nasty.
 

---

Posted by In Theory (# 2964) on :
 
Pity the poor people who can't do maths....
 

---

Posted by madferret (# 3353) on :
 

quote:

---

At the women's seminar: "I feel myself slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma caused by the intensely saccharine-sweet talk"

---

Hmmm, difficult.

Hypoglycaemic (Webster): abnormal decrease of sugar in the blood

But despite the mixed metaphor, I understand exactly what you mean. Been there, doubtful I would ever go again...



[fixed code. I hope]

[ 31. October 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: madferret ]
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Well...

Reading Sarky's report made me think that I really must get to Greenbelt next year!

I have no idea which Christian boot camp she went to, and unlike Sarky, I would have organised resistance to the 'men' and 'women' streams. I would have got oodles of men to go to the women's sessions, and oodles of womens to go to the men's. Such sexist pap should not be endured.

bb

---

quote:

---

posted by the madferret

quote:

---

At the women's seminar: "I feel myself slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma caused by the intensely saccharine-sweet talk"

---

Hmmm, difficult.

Hypoglycaemic (Webster): abnormal decrease of sugar in the blood

But despite the mixed metaphor, I understand exactly what you mean. Been there, doubtful I would ever go again...

---

The medic in me smiled at this too...but it paled into insignificance alongside greater inaccuracy...

as a quick biochem lesson for sarky:

Insulin converts glucose in the blood and stores it. Insulin dependant diabetics go hypoglycemic when they accidently OD in insulin. (say, give themselves an injection, then forget to eat).

They get sick and dizzy and irritable, and if they don't down a sugary drink pretty quick they go into a coma.

Saccarine is a sugar substitute, it doesn't make you either hyper or hypo glycemic.

What most people don't know is that some diabetics CAN have HYPERglycemic coma's (ketoacidosis - it's rarer than the normal hypo-coma) This is where the blood sugar level goes to high, and the give away is that the person's breath will smell fruity, something a bit like pear drops. In which case what they need is fluids and insulin. (a combination garunteed to kill someone who is hypoglycemic)

[/tangent]
matt
{Dodgy use of UBB code.}

[ 01. November 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
 

---

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 

quote:

---

Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.

---

Did it ever cross your mind that:

A/ He is saying the same thing but we are hearing different things?

B/ We are hearing different things regardless of gender.

P
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Did it ever cross your mind that:

A/ He is saying the same thing but we are hearing different things?

B/ We are hearing different things regardless of gender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Can I have a metaphorical show of hands, who here, with these facts understood, simply believes that the idea of men's and women's streams is intrinsically sexist? Because, as far as I can see, that seems to be the core of the issue for the key objectors on the thread so far?

---

quote:

---

Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.

---

quote:

---

Marriage is God's way of reuniting two opposites. Two who once were one, but who have become alienated. We confront an "other" in the opposite gender, and we are reconciled to an "other" in marriage. Frequently this otherness is psychological. Lots of introverts marry extroverts, sports types marry stay-at-homes, strong leadership-oriented ones marry supportive ones, artists marry activists, and so on. Not always; but with remarkable frequency.

...

...In their search for a same, homosexuals demonstrate a need to fill a void deep within. Most males are searching for a never-affirmed masculinity — lesbians for a never affirmed femininity.

From Homosexuality and the Great Commandment

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises?

---

All highly pertinent questions, and the rhetorical answers are obvious. None, None and none.

[emphasis added]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jlg:

Well, not that particular article, but the many others like it which have appeared on the Ship helped me overcome my decades of dislike for Christianity and convert. Perhaps in your view, however, it would be better if Christianity kept out those of us who prefer the company of people who can be sincere without being either self-righteous puckerbutts or wishy-washy Good Little Christians.

---

Obviously, your reply should have stated "Perhaps only one, perhaps only one, who knows?"

I really don't appreciate being turned into a non-person just for the sake of your rhetorical responses.
 

---

Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
Now now.. it's not nice to point that out, JLG. He's already made up his mind, and we're just here for him to stamp his foot at and repeat himself.

Sieg
 

---

Posted by caty (# 85) on :
 
I'm half agreeing with nicole and half with Sarky's original article.

Sometimes it is nice to have things specifically targetted at women. However it has to be done well.

Having been to a similar event, the Ladies Seminar (and I think they really did use the word ladies) was Just Plain Naff.

I was dragged along and sat there getting cross about it being just about the only point in the whole proceedings where women were speaking from the front. And there were no men there to listen. There was *nothing* that couldn't have been said to a mixed audience.

The only plus point was that some of the men in our group decided to pull the finger out and do some baby-sitting so their wives could get some well-earned time off... erm... go to the seminar.

But maybe that's another issue.
caty

[ 01. November 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: caty ]
 

---

Posted by Godfather Avatar (# 4513) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Can I have a metaphorical show of hands, who here, with these facts understood, simply believes that the idea of men's and women's streams is intrinsically sexist?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Bede, I only said men and women were different not "opposite".

How many men have been shopping and bought themselves a thong and skirt lately? (dangerous thing to ask around here...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Of those of you who are opposed to gender-split seminars on principle, how many of you regularly walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms?

---

quote:

---

How many men would feel exactly the same about your wife going out for lunch with a male friend as with a female friend or vice versa?

---

quote:

---

The point is, we can theorise about how there are no differences between men and women, the practical reality is that there are differences, and seminars grounded in that practical reality seem entirely sensible to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Of those of you who are opposed to gender-split seminars on principle, how many of you regularly walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms?

---

quote:

---

How many men would feel exactly the same about your wife going out for lunch with a male friend as with a female friend or vice versa?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pyx_e:
That aspect that has lead to the greatest and most long standing injustice in this creation. The treating of women as second class citizens. From this great horrors and a million million minor ones have been, and still are perpetuated.

---

And, it should go without saying that the church should be at the forefront of the battle against this injustice rather than trailing behind society. Especially those in the Church who take Scripture most seriously (which, I guess, should include the people at Colditz). Now, just how does "there is neither male nor female ... you are all one in Christ Jesus" lead to seminars for men or women only?
 

---

Posted by TheGreenT (# 3571) on :
 
pyx_e (so its overused... but heh he deserves it)
 

---

Posted by auntbeast (# 377) on :
 
Well, I think I'll give Colditz a miss, then again I generally avoid "Christian" (fill in name of event/profession here).

The whole men/women event is rather a murky subject. I have seen some gender specific events done really well but they tend to have been marketed by the topic and have attracted one or the other gender.

I once went to a church in Northern BC where they had Sunday school for everyone before church. I walked into the room marked "Adult Sunday School", being an adult I thought this would be a reasonable place to be.... oops! I was informed that the "ladies Sunday school" was down the hall. I politely told them that I was fine here with "adult" and didn't feel the need to go to the "ladies group" (the word "lady is rarely if ever applied to me). It went from bad to worse when one of the men in the room was asked to give an example of a situation in which the ends justified the means and cited the murder of an abortion provider in the US. I innocently pointed out that the pastor had asked for a situation where it DID justify the means and wsa told that "yes, it was justified". I managed to resist the urge to punch him in the face to adjust his attitude and justify it by saying he really needed an attitude adjustment.

The notion of gender exclusive meetings really makes little sense as it assumes that there are topics in which only women will have an interest. I recall being forced to go to a "women's action committee conference" for my work (some sort of affirmative action shit). I was subjected to a seminar on why Hunter Green is good for power dressing and a Myers-Briggs. There was then a seminar on balancing children and work and trying to organize paid childcare. A male co-worker had been sent by one of the other offices (none of the women were available and every office HAD to send someone). He got flack and I got in hot water when I noted that they might prefer him there advocating for their free childcare to me. He has 4 children as opposed to me who is in fact female but had no interest in breeding and as far as I was concerned they bred the damn things they could figure out how to raise them and it would be a Frosty Friday before I allowed any of my money to go to support their breeding habits.

Just thought of something. Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men? (I say topics because there are all sorts of reasons to have gender specific process oriented groups etc. I mean in a public lecture format). All of the ones listed above could be of interest to some members of either sex (e.g. urinal re-design might interest a female plumber or gynecological issues might interest male healthcare providers or caring partners).

Now I will have something to mull over at work today... to which I must run shortly.

All good things,
Auntbeast
 

---

Posted by Christopher (# 982) on :
 
I know we are not supposed to post just to agree but I just had to thank Pyx_e for that post. It was simply inspirational and if biology allowed, I would wish to have your babies, Pyx_e.
One day, One day.......
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by auntbeast:
Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men? ... All of the ones listed above could be of interest to some members of either sex (e.g. urinal re-design might interest a female plumber or gynecological issues might interest male healthcare providers or caring partners).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by auntbeast:
Just thought of something. Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men?

---

quote:

---

Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".

---

Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women, people put themselves in situations they should never be in, then when it all kicks off, they appear slightly dumbfounded and say "He/she was a good friend...things weren't great at home....It just happened..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".

---

Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women,

---

I think Stoo makes a very good point.

On the other hand, Matt - That makes an awful lot of presumptions!!

Imaginary situation for Matt (assuming you're straught) - If, for example the woman your wife is going to meet is either bi or a lesbian, are you worried for your wife, that she may fall an unwitting victim to something here, if the man she's going to meet is gay, would you
still be worried about what happens. What if she fancies him? Do you not trust them? If you wife is bi would you get worried when she goes to meet anyone? But then they could both be straight - one male and the other female. Of course they will both authomatically fancy each other because all straight and bi men, bi and gay women fancy all women, and all straight and bi women and gay and bi men fancy all men. It's idiotic!! These presumptions are so unbelievably stupid. IME people who feel the jealousy of their partners are more likely to be unhappy and eventually more likely to be unfaithful.

Many of my close friends are male, and I sincerely hope their relevant wifes don't have problems with their husbands spending time with me, nor do any of the partners of my female friends.

Jo
 

---

Posted by Chapelhead (# 1143) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Siegfried:
So, am I reading this correctly? You don't think married folks should be allowed to go off with their friends of the opposite sex without their spouse present?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Advertising knows full well that there are different markets for men and women, and different approaches. Ad executives spend millions exploiting those differences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".

---

Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women, people put themselves in situations they should never be in, then when it all kicks off, they appear slightly dumbfounded and say "He/she was a good friend...things weren't great at home....It just happened..."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

A hell of a lot of uneccessary disasters [I guess you mean, among other things, people indulging in affairs] come about from people refusing to acknowledge gender differences.

---

Nah. They come about from people giving themselves bogus excuses based on gender differences.
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
I don't think you're actually in disagreement here...
Matt never advocated banning anyone from seeing anyone. He just said you would feel differently about your partner going off with a friend of the same sex.
After that initial, natural reaction, you would (hopefully ) choose to trust them. It's the next stage in the thought process - not an alternative to the first stage.
Yes, Matt, I would feel differently about my fiance going out with a female friend than with a male friend; but yes, Jenny, I would choose to trust him, and not dream of banning him.

[ 03. November 2003, 08:55: Message edited by: Talitha ]
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

So, am I reading this correctly? You don't think married folks should be allowed to go off with their friends of the opposite sex without their spouse present?

---

quote:

---

Imaginary situation for Matt (assuming you're straught) - If, for example the woman your wife is going to meet is either bi or a lesbian, are you worried for your wife, that she may fall an unwitting victim to something here, if the man she's going to meet is gay, would you
still be worried about what happens?

---

quote:

---

If you wife is bi would you get worried when she goes to meet anyone?

---

quote:

---

Of course they will both authomatically fancy each other because all straight and bi men, bi and gay women fancy all women, and all straight and bi women and gay and bi men fancy all men. It's idiotic!!

---

quote:

---

These presumptions are so unbelievably stupid. IME people who feel the jealousy of their partners are more likely to be unhappy and eventually more likely to be unfaithful.

---

quote:

---

My best friend is male and if Stoo 'banned' me from seeing him then me and stoo would not be together.

---

quote:

---

If you don't have this kind of trust in your life, I feel really sorry for you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talitha:
He just said you would feel differently about your partner going off with a friend of the same sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Look at people you know who have had affiars, I'll bet 90% got themselves into situations with the opposite sex they just shouldn't have been in long before it ended up in bed.

---

quote:

---

I remember reading once that Billy Graham has always insisted on never being alone in his office with a woman without the door open. At the time I heard that, I thought it to be rediculous, I now start to see the wisdom of it.

---

quote:

---

Suppose there are whispers of something inappropriate, which is better to be able to say to your other half?

---

quote:

---

Blind trust is the final protective mechanism for holding a relationship together, it's better not to enter that territory in the first place.

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about trusting myself and what signals I put out to those around me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Machine Elf:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I remember reading once that Billy Graham has always insisted on never being alone in his office with a woman without the door open. At the time I heard that, I thought it to be rediculous, I now start to see the wisdom of it.

---

I heard that was because, in his position, a malicious law suit would ruin his ministry, not to avoid his own temptation. It is common practise in ministry circles now.

---

and teaching (being alone with kids) and all sorts of things. This is to protect both parties against any kind of accusation.

also, could a Bi woman not have a platonic relationship with a gay man? as he is in no way going to fancy her?

just wondering.

J
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I have at last managed to persuade my computer to let me read Sarkycow's diary (after disabling everything which could be disabled) - my computer must be working as a secret agent for the holiday camp guards
anyway, I foiled 'em and had a great laugh reading about what seemed to have changed little from 1970s youth group camp

Thank goodness I only go to 'ordinary church' each week. Do some people really go to such events as their only form of spiritual life?

I shall await next year's instalment with great interest. That is, if my computer will let me.....
 

---

Posted by Ickle Angel (# 3588) on :
 
sweet merciful crap.

Some thoughts the 'friends of opposite sex being dangerous temptation' issue.

and particularly...

quote:

---

but on rather on the individual to carefully consider for themselves what's appropriate and what's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally blethered by Matt the Mad Medic in a vain attempt to sound like he's making sense:
Bisexuals do have a fairly unique problem in that there is no person they can interact with in a platonic relationship... (I predict This will spark a flurry of indignation about how person X has plenty of platonic relationships...etc etc. To which I say go away and read some social psychology on the definition of a platonic relationship. If someone is of the opposite sexual orientation, the relationship is by strict definition non-platonic)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
<snip!>
as a quick biochem lesson for sarky:

Insulin converts glucose in the blood and stores it. Insulin dependant diabetics go hypoglycemic when they accidently OD in insulin. (say, give themselves an injection, then forget to eat).

They get sick and dizzy and irritable, and if they don't down a sugary drink pretty quick they go into a coma.

Saccarine is a sugar substitute, it doesn't make you either hyper or hypo glycemic.

What most people don't know is that some diabetics CAN have HYPERglycemic coma's (ketoacidosis - it's rarer than the normal hypo-coma) This is where the blood sugar level goes to high, and the give away is that the person's breath will smell fruity, something a bit like pear drops. In which case what they need is fluids and insulin. (a combination garunteed to kill someone who is hypoglycemic)

[/tangent]
matt
{Dodgy use of UBB code.}

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
To which I say go away and read some social psychology on the definition of a platonic relationship. If someone is of the opposite sexual orientation, the relationship is by strict definition non-platonic)

---

quote:

---

From dictionary.com (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
platonic, a. 1. Of or pertaining to Plato, or his philosophy, school, or opinions.

2. Pure, passionless; nonsexual; philosophical.

---

Matt, the fact that you appear to have trust issues does not excuse your apparent lack of ability to give suitable references for your presumptuous claptrap!

Gremlin

p.s. (edit) sarky!!

[ 03. November 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: Gremlin ]
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Matt does seem to live in a world of extraordinary sexual danger, of enormously fragile relationships, which break apart under the most routine social pressure...

---

quote:

---

My experience/observation of relationships that run to decades is that either they are immensely resilent, or, if they do fracture, it is from causes deeper than the mere presence of social opportunities (affairs arising from those tend to be symptoms, not causes IMO).

---

quote:

---

You are right. It IS for the individual to carefully consider what is appropriate.

So why do you make out that YOU are right on this and that you clearly have more knowledge of all relationships than anybody who might be IN one??

---

quote:

---

Relationships obviously differ due to the personalities of those involved, but clearly you are the all-seeing euthority? If you are not intending to say this, i suggest you reconsider your tone as it comes across as incredibly judgemental.

---

quote:

---

My best friend is male. He is engaged, i am in a long term relationship. Both his fiancee and my boyfriend are happy with it.

How on earth can there be anything wrong with close friendships like that?

---

In a perfect world? Absolutely nothing at all. In the real world, hopefully nothing at all, but it does have potential vulnerablities. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm merely saying it's a situation that requires you to stay alert and sensitive to the feelings of all the people involved, because it could easily become very delicate and if you're not sharp you might miss the signs. That's all i'm saying.


Let me put it to you this way..suppose you were a script writer for a soap opera, and I gave you a character set up, where there were two characters who were both in relationships, but away from their partners, but spent a lot of time together as "good friends". What's the obvious storyline?

Any soap opera fan can tell a mile off what the obvious story line is going to be.

Fortunately, real life is not quite a soap opera, but there is a chap (who, being a raging fundamentalist I actually believe in ) called Satan, who does his best to play the part of script writer and turn life into one.

The situation you describe is a situation that Satan WILL try to attack. It's a stratigic target for demonic attack. Again, I stress, that's not saying it's wrong,I'm merely saying it's a situation you have to think about and not take lightly and that is probably what will determine whether he succeeds or not.

I'm not saying the attack is neccessarily going to be a temptation to infidelity. It could be jealousy on the part of the fiancee, or your boyfriend, or interference by the part of someone else stirring trouble, or maybe your best friend could become attracted to you with no feeling on your part.

My question is simply, have you considered those possiblities? How woud you spot them, and what would you do if you were worried about any of those things?

quote:

---

Also, the idea that there is a danger of being attracted to any person of the opposite sex is crazy...I am no more attracted to my best male friend than i am to some of my female friends. He isn't unattractive but my eyes are no more likely to wander just because he happens to be a bloke!

---

quote:

---

Um, Matt, I have metabolic syndrome, which you may or may not be familiar with.

---

quote:

---

I myself actually DO get hypoglycemic if I eat too much sugar since I get a "spike" in my insulin from it. My pancreas
pumps out waaayyy too much insulin since my cells are insulin resistant, which makes me at high risk for diabetes
since eventually it will wear out.

---

That's tough. As you are probably aware, Type II diabetes is has two elements. One is cell resistance to insulin and the other is eventual falure of the insulin producing pancreatic islet cells.

quote:

---

I had to eat a lot of protein to feel full. I also had nightmares from all the sugar high and lows I had...but now I am on Metformin and Spironolactone

---

quote:

---

which means I HAVE to now eat more carbs (at least 100 grams a day) and I am finally starting to lose weight (along with more aerobic exercise which helps IR)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Matt does seem to live in a world of extraordinary sexual danger, of enormously fragile relationships, which break apart under the most routine social pressure...

---

Uh huh. It's called the real world. Statistics on marital fidelity are not the most reliable but estimates range between 30% and 60% of marriages will experience infidelity.

---

quote:

---

Completely other tangent to duchess....

quote:

---

Um, Matt, I have metabolic syndrome, which you may or may not be familiar with.

---

Very vaguely, you've got yourself one heck of a rare condition there, if it's genuine metabolic syndrome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
Bede, this is not as well known in other parts. It was discovered by a doctor in Stanford.

---

quote:

---

My plea is merely that you ask the question and answer it for yourself. My worry is when people deny there is a question to be answered.

---

Matt, Matt, Matt. We have asked the question. We have answered the question. The answer is that you are talking a load of bollox.

best wishes and big hugs,

bb
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Ah babybear but LO! you learned about this from not ONE but TWO YANKEE sources: The Reader's Digest and from Dr. Atkins (may he RIP +). I love it that I got to correct your spelling of ATKINS this morning.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Re: the Syndrome X thingy. Apologies for the "rare" comment. I believe we are a people devided by a common language on this one.

Syndrome X, (as far as I can gather from the less than one paragraph which it gets in Kumar and Clark, is not in Britian formalised as a "syndrome".

My book says this:

quote:

---

"Type 2 diabetes tends to cluster with other cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, central obesity and lipid abnormalities. This is sometimes called Syndrome X."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I suspect the difference is one of nomenclature. America's Syndrome X is Britian'"NIDDM with hypertension"

Matt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
About the other part, flame me if you want, but I do think Matt is right about da men vs. women when it comes to friendship with each other. It may never be acted on but it seems to be in the back of the mind.

---

quote:

---

Matt the Mad Medic said:
Uh huh. It's called the real world. Statistics on marital fidelity are not the most reliable but estimates range between 30% and 60% of marriages will experience infidelity.

And there's precious little in the way of evidence to suggest that figure is any different for Christians, sadly.

---

I've got to agree with Matt here. I hate to pull age on some of you guys (actually, I don't, pulling age is one of the rare consolations of middle age ) but I have seen too many marriages bite the dust.

By far the most spectacular marital break-up I have witnessed involved adultery between two church musicians. This destroyed two marriages and the homes of four children. At that point it ceases to be a laughing matter, not that it ever was.

Matt is dead right to be cautious. Doctors regularly get into trouble in this area, so do clergy. It is career wrecking stuff - I know of several cases of clergy adultery which have destroyed ministries as well as congregational families.

It's all too easy to become a statistic, even as a Christian.

Neil
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Bede's successor, you missed the "tends to cluster" - Matt wasn't implying that these things always all go together. Just that they often do. That's what "syndrome" means. You don't expect everyone to have all the symptoms.

And yes it could be called adult-onset diabetes, which is not an on-off thing like the better-known insulin-dependent forms but is somethign you can have a little bit of. And the spiking is in some ways is an extreme form of a normal reaction to sugar (after-lunch tiredness and all that).

(My pet theory (which is not respectable at all) is that it is getting more common because of things like diet soft drinks which provoke the hormonal reaction to the expectation of sugar but provide no sugar, so training the body to react inappropriately to food intake. But I'm just a biologist, not a doctor, so pay me no heed)

Calling something a stupis name like "syndrome X" stikes me as a marketing ploy to scare people into buying more drugs or vitamins or whatever. Associating it with the lying fraud Atkins who made millions by duping gullible fools into seriously endangering their health with seriously inadequate diets just makes me more suspicious of it. But thge whole healthscare industry is riddled with lying and duplicity. Thank God we do have the NHS.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Bede's successor, you missed the "tends to cluster" - Matt wasn't implying that these things always all go together. Just that they often do. That's what "syndrome" means. You don't expect everyone to have all the symptoms.

And yes it could be called adult-onset diabetes,...

---

What you missed is that I don't have diabetes (hyperglycemia). I have hypoglycemia. Period. My normal fasting blood sugar levels run average to acceptably low. And, my brief spike (very brief spike) from sucrose or caffiene is followed by a low that can cause severe mood swings, severe shaking, and gastro-intestinal problems. It is not fun, and it is not the normal "tiredness" someone has after a meal; I know the difference. (Some people actually pass out from producing too much insulin. Thankfully, I'm not in that class.)

I know that I am at a higher risk to have diabetes one day, but that day has yet to come.

By the way, while I am not an Atkins devotee, there has been peer-reviewed studies that show that if you really follow the true program (remembering to buy supplements, limiting time, and so forth), it is not dangerous and it does work for some people. I'm not going to bother with it because (1) ten pounds is no big thing, and (2) I'm not sure how it would affect my moods, since I have hypoglycemia.

For the first time in my life I'm happy the US doesn't have a NHS (alhtough I would be happier with a Canadian-style single payer insurance system ).
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Refine carbs are bad [sugar/rice/white flour products etc] since they tend to be rapidly absorbed into the blood stream resulting in spikes of blood sugar which then drop down low. This happens cuz the pancreas shoots out lots and lots of insulin, much more than the normal amount, since the cells do not register the insulin. This means the sugar is totally going down fast which makes a very bitchy/happy/depressed duchess. I had nightmares too. I did not have much energy either and I felt like I was STARVING all the time.

My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it. It is not the silent killer for nothing. Syndrome X may sound stupid but according to my endo at the San Jose Medical Group, there has been more than one name tossed around and debated since doctors can not make up their minds what to call it...blanket...across.

Dang, what a tangent. I hope I did not like bore any hellhost starting this tangent.
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I feel an arbitary thread-closing coming on...
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Praise God! YES, it was RooK today - THANK YOU JESUS.


[just adding, I will control myself now. Blame Bede if this boring medical debate continues. It's more interesting than your lame ass cars. Thx.]

[ 04. November 2003, 21:25: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
But please, RooK, not before I can forcibly extract a promise from Matt that he'll never ever ever examine a female patient or deal with a female colleague. I can see it now....

Matt’s Female Colleague: Come in to my office to discuss a patient. And please close the door so we can protect his confidentiality.

Matt: No can do, Doc. People might talk.

Oh, and Matt Sugar (Sucrose?) about this little gem:

quote:

---

Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.

---

quote:

---

Matt’s Female Colleague: Come in to my office to discuss a patient. And please close the door so we can protect his confidentiality.

Matt: No can do, Doc. People might talk.

---

What you are trying to humourously suggest is that I am being legalistic.

I had no intention of being legalistic. I'm not talking about a "rule".."thou shalt not be alone with someone of the opposite sex" which is to be blindly followed. I'm talking about a "principle". The difference is that common sense and circumstance can have sway over a principle, whereas they can't over a rule.

matt
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Oh, and Re: syndrome X.

Sorry, but it does sound like the kind of thing a drug company would come up with so they can make a drug to manage it.

The problem is that the world "Syndrome" simply means a group of symptoms that commonly go together. It's not a "disease" (which means a set of symptoms with a specific known cause). Hence, any doctor can describe a new "syndrome", stick his name on it and write a book about it.


Medicine very often shades of grey, and particularly with these fairly amorphous "syndromes" (of which there are many) it's not as simply as to say "You have this" or "you don't have this". There are shades of grey. Where "syndrome X" becomes "non-insulin dependant Diabetes mellitus" is, as far as I can tell is not clear cut.

Just to really confuse you, most NIDDM patients don't inject insulin, but some NIDDM patients sometimes DO take insulin injections, in which case they are called IRNIDDMs (Insulin replacing non-insulin dependant diabetes mellitus). Confused yet? I am.

Oh, and just for more confusion, there is another condition called diabetes (diabetes inspidus) which has absolutely nothing to do with sugar levels whatsoever.

When things are so vague in medicine, it's sometimes because we don't know, and sometimes because it's useful to be vague. In the world of american medical insurance, there is probably some milage in avoiding having the tag "Diabetic" for the sake of premiums. eg. "No no..I'm not diabetic, I have syndrome X..."

It's all shades of grey...

matt
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
Call it a rule. Call it a principle. I call it a very conveeeeeenient way to discriminate against women in the workplace.

Years ago I worked for one of these "above reproach" types. The result of his policy was that he would travel overnight only with male employees -- meaning that women got less face time with the boss and less exposure to important clients -- because he thought it might "invite gossip" for a man and a woman to check into a hotel together. He conducted one-on-one closed door meetings -- the kind where the decisions really get made -- only with male employees, not female, because he thought it would "look bad" for a man and a woman to be in a room alone together. He regularly invited male subordinates, not female, to sporting events at night or on weekends because it would "appear inappropriate" for him to socialize in public with someone not his wife.

The day we got his sorry ass fired was among the happiest of my life and the fact that he hasn't been able to find an equivalent position since then makes me positively gleeful. And were I to find out that a doctor or attorney or trash collector at any institution with which I had an affiliation followed the same "principle," I'd do everything in my power to get his -- or her -- sorry ass fired, too.

[ 04. November 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]
 

---

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Presleyterian, based on the sheer beauty and fantastic form of that last scorcher, I'll gladly hold open ANY thread in Hell that you wish to add to.

Your humble servant, and willing sex toy,
-RooK
 

---

Posted by Never Conforming (# 4054) on :
 
Pres, Well said.

I worked for a company which took me on as a token female person because they were all equal ops and stuff. I mean, all the admin staff were female, the salesmen were, er, men (well, boys really) and the mechanics were all men. So much for equal ops that they fired me as the first (and last) female salesperson due to my gender. I hate it when people are trying to be so 'correct' that they SO entirely miss the point it's beyond belief.

I do have to say that I'm in a matriarchal family, but that's not due to inequality, but equality!!! There are 3 women in my house, and even in the extended family there is still only one bloke (poor grandad) so things generally work on a more female wavelength. We DO NOT give him four votes in democratic discussions, cos that would be discrimination again.

Matt, final point. You have spouted complete and utter drivel throughout this thread, whether it was about Colditz or gender specific preconceptions, it's still complete and utter bollocks.

I'll make sure I only go off and spend time with more women, and I must remember not to shag any of them while I'm there.

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be a problem because they aren't blokes. Sorry.

Jo

 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Matt, my doctor dx'd me with it. Call it Yankee Syndrome if you will.

To some of yous: how about wanting a nurse to be in the room with a female patient, for the love of pete, what is so jacked up about that? I fail to see how requesting a nurse to be present is tantamount to the higher up good ol' boy's club excluding females? How did we get there so fast from breeders of the opposite sex can not hang together alone too much for fear of igniting sparks of passion for the love of pete?

I personally LIKE a nurse in there when a male doctor has to do some...er...fun tests on me [omitted descriptions]. There is something comforting about her being there for me. If she ain't there though, it is ok with me. Am I not getting a distinction here?

[dang it I will never be an English teacher ever]

[ 05. November 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Duchess, without wanting to be disrespectful, or show any lack of feeling to your family's medical problems, this did conjure up an interesting picture for me:

quote:

---

My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it.

---

quote:

---

Call it a rule. Call it a principle. I call it a very conveeeeeenient way to discriminate against women in the workplace.

---

quote:

---

things generally work on a more female wavelength.

---

quote:

---

Matt, final point. You have spouted complete and utter drivel throughout this thread

---

Oh, don't...stop it! I'm blushing!!

quote:

---

whether it was about Colditz or gender specific preconceptions, it's still complete and utter bollocks.

---

quote:

---

Matt the Mad Medic wrote: When people of opposite sex (or compatible sexual orientations to be accurate) spend considerable time alone together, stuff happens.

---

quote:

---

Matt the Mad Medic wrote: Anyone can manipulate any rule or principle as a convenient excuse for anything if they are creative enough. There's nothing wrong with the principle, there was something wrong with your boss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If you’re that much of a sex-crazed, prone-to-temptation monster that you can’t be trusted to behave yourself over lunch with a married female friend or at a medical convention with a female colleague, stick to pathology, Sugar, ‘cause you have no business examining the gall bladder of a real live woman.

---

She shoots... She scores! Go Presleyterian!
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
We've had the opinion of several couples on this thread, all of whom say they don't have a major problem with each other seeing members of the opposite sex. I would guess that's something that has been sorted out between them, probably over a lengthy period of time. And that's how it should be - working together to forge a common, loving outlook.

The more I read of this, and the more I know about people, the more I realise that men and women are both so complex as to be far beyond any kind of generalisations based on their sex, or for that matter age, location, upbringing etc. For instance, would people say that it's normally women that want children more than men, that it's normally men that like to watch more sport than women? No, because it isn't possible to make those statements taking into account the huge diversity of people in the world.

And while some people may think that you need to take reasonable precautions to keep appearances such that no untoward signals are given out, to do that simply because the person you are interacting with is a member of the opposite sex is at best pretty silly. I'll warrant that there are people in organisations across the world where appearances are being kept spotless, but the couple concerned are at it like rabbits.

So what does it boil down to? Self-control and respect, I think. Although, of course, it's men that have a much harder time than women in keeping their raging hormones under control. Or am I being sexist with that comment?

And to illustrate the point that has been made by other much greater than I on this thread, take a look at this website: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com
 

---

Posted by Moth (# 2589) on :
 
Can I, as an extremely conservative, evangelical, dull-as-ditchwater, married Christian woman weigh in here to agree with Presleyterian?

Matt the Medic is spouting a load of old tosh.

I go to lunch with whomever I wish. So does ShadoK. The day we start having to worry whether one of us might run off with a colleague we dallied too long over lunch with is the day hell freezes over. I would have thought better of a good bible-believing Christian, really I would. I'm married Matt, so I won't be starting an affair with anyone. It's really very, very simple. I'm not free, so I'll keep myself for my husband.

And even if I weren't married, I'd be able to distinguish between friendship, business and romance.
 

---

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisT:
So what does it boil down to? Self-control and respect, I think. Although, of course, it's men that have a much harder time than women in keeping their raging hormones under control. Or am I being sexist with that comment?

---

This would be a nice excuse if it were true, but I'm sure we all know of women who suffer wild hormonal fluctuations on a monthly basis!

The difference is that our secular society seems to accept male lack of control more than female.

So, yes, I think you're being sexist with that comment.

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gremlin:
The difference is that our secular society seems to accept male lack of control more than female.

---

Spot on, brother. And to clarify, you may insert a anywhere at the end of my last post if you wish
 

---

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 3631) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moth:
Can I, as an extremely conservative, evangelical, dull-as-ditchwater, married Christian woman weigh in here to agree with Presleyterian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Duchess, without wanting to be disrespectful, or show any lack of feeling to your family's medical problems, this did conjure up an interesting picture for me:

quote:

---

My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it.

---

---

quote:

---

You bet stuff happens, Sweetie. Cases get tried. Sick people get healed. Buildings get designed. Software gets developed. Oh, yeah, and the Gospel gets proclaimed. But obviously while the rest of us are getting our work done alone together with members of the opposite sex, something else is going through your febrile little brain stem. Pathetic.

---

quote:

---

And how is your “principle” that it may be “not appropriate” for married people to interact with friends or colleagues of the opposite sex without their spouse present any different from his attitudes?

---

quote:

---

If you’re that much of a sex-crazed, prone-to-temptation monster that you can’t be trusted to behave yourself over lunch with a married female friend or at a medical convention with a female colleague, stick to pathology, Sugar, ‘cause you have no business examining the gall bladder of a real live woman.

---

quote:

---

We've had the opinion of several couples on this thread, all of whom say they don't have a major problem with each other seeing members of the opposite sex.

---

If I may indulge in a little playact?

*Scenario A*

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

Partner 1: "Why not, don't you trust me?!?!"

Partner 2: "it does make me a little uncomfortable..."

Partner 1: "You DON'T trust me!!!"

partner 2: "I...I...just said..."

Partner 1: "Well, fine!!! If you don't trust me, this relationship is over. you can't have a relationship without trust"


*Scenario B*

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "yes dear, that's fine"

Partner 1: "Good"

*************

The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation. ANY time you place before a partner something which requires their trust of you, they must respond in the affirmative, or else they are affectively saying they don't trust you...and from that point the relationship is basically over

Of course in real life this isn't vocalised quite as bluntly as in my little dialogue.

When you say to a partner, with respect to some proposed act or behaviour, "trust me" (and even when you don't actually say it, but do something which implies an assumption of trust) you are engaging in a kind of bet, in which you are saying "I this relationship is worth too much to you to stop me doing this...".

I mean this as a general principle, in a wider context than just sexual fidelity. It might equally apply to decisions about finances for example.

Of course, a partner in a relationship has a right to expect trust, but, I think you could almost define "Love" in some contexts, as the sacrifical laying down of rights.

Being loving very often means not exercising your rights to the fullest, in order to be charitable to your partner.

It means pre-emptively thinking around situations so that you don't create a potentially manipulative "do you trust me?" scenario.

Matt
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 

quote:

---

May I just say, that compared to Joshua Harris (He of "I kissed dating goodbye" ) I am positively liberal on this issue.

---

quote:

---

Suppose company boss tells married man and single woman who work for him to go off on a business trip together, where does that married man, (or his wife) get a choice in that? And if the man or his wife do object, is that not going to hurt his career?

---

quote:

---

As I understood it, the boss used the principle to avoid women getting to do any important stuff. If he wanted women to succeed and be important in the company, AND stick to his principle, he could have easily done so. For example, the boss could *shock horror* send TWO women away on the business trip together.

---

quote:

---

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

* * * *

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "yes dear, that's fine"

---

quote:

---

The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Compared to Marie Antoinette, I’m a warm, nurturing earth mother.

---

quote:

---

Yeah, but so what? Compared to Marie Antoinette, I’m a warm, nurturing earth mother. I hardly hold Joshua Harris up as the comparative figure. And his latest book Not Even a Hint: Guiding Your Heart Against Lust, suggests that his strategy of “kissing dating good-bye” left him with a major “lust problem” (his description) that’s taken a toll on his marriage.

---

lol. Well, exactly, all I'm saying is to give a little perspective..there are circles in which I'm considered a dangerous liberal ya know I rather like it. Just like I rather like being known as a redneck fundamentalist on the ship

quote:

---

Well, I sure as hell hope it’ll hurt his career. And if he doesn’t like it, he’s perfectly free to go get a job elsewhere.

---

quote:

---

Matt Sweetie, in what parallel universe are you living where conversations like this actually take place and can you bring me back a t-short next time you go? Do you and Your Significant Other actually talk like this? And will she be willing to file an affidavit to that effect?

---

quote:

---

The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation.

---

quote:

---

Matt the Mad Medic said:
Likewise, trust is passively continuously at work (and necessary) in a relationship 24/7, but times when you create situations which call trust actively into play should be well considered and used sparingly.

Why? Because human beings screw up and break each others trust all the time. Even married people who love each other. Even Christian married people who love each other. If you foolishly believe you have an unbreakable relationship of infinite trust and put yourself repeatedly in situations which demand trust, sooner or later it will blow up in your face.

---

Once again I have to agree with Matt. I get the impression a lot of people on this thread have never witnessed a marital situation between Christians in which trust has been grossly abused, leading to the break-up of the marriage. Believe me, it's not pretty.

St Paul says something about "those who stand, take heed lest they fall". That applies to us all.

Here's a link to a secular relationship website (run by a counsellor who has apparently just died from cancer ). Much of what she has to say seems eminently sensible to me. She has a specific section on safe friendships and secure marriages.

Neil
 

---

Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
Another question for Matt based on a quote of his from the previous page (sorry I've only just caught up with this thread)

quote:

---

Moreover, I would be curious as to why someone who is married (or for that matter in a life long lesbian or homosexual relationship) would insist on defining themselves as bisexual when presumably they have settled on one partner. The "bi" part can only refer to some counterfactual reality in which they are not with their current partner.

---

quote:

---

I'm intrigued by the words 'would insist on defining themselves'. To me, defining one's orientation is not something one chooses ('insist on') based on one's current relationship, but it an honest assesment of which gender(s) one may find oneself attracted to.

---

quote:

---

I think it was the 'insist' bit that annoyed me, as if people are just saying they are bisexual for the hell of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Presleyterian, based on the sheer beauty and fantastic form of that last scorcher, I'll gladly hold open ANY thread in Hell that you wish to add to.

Your humble servant, and willing sex toy,
-RooK

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I actually know someone like this. Married for many years, but she insists she is "bisexual"...to the point of being actively involved in lesbigay organisations and conferences etc.

---

quote:

---

But Matt I wasn't meaning a public persona. Maybe thats where the confusion is. I was talking about how you think of your sexual orientation yourself - not what others think of you, or know you as.

---

quote:

---

Also remember that very few people are 100% straight or gay, but most have degrees of bisexuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
So you really have to be coming to psychology from a fairly freudian school of thought which believes in subconcious motivations and inhibitions to entertain the idea that "Most of us have homosexual tendancies"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:
Being bisexual means that you are capable of forming a loving, supportive, sexual relationship with either a man or a woman. Well, more likely, you are capable of forming a loving, supposrtive sexual relationship with the specific person that you fall in love with, regardless of their sex. Bisexuals are just as capable of monogamous relationships as straights and gays. (verb corrected on first line by TBAS)

---

Amen! Preach it, sister!
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Matt, hate to tell ya, buddy, but I can't count the number of men I ran up against (if you'll pardon the expression) in my wilder days in the siesta room of the local YMCA who wanted some action before they went home to their wife and kids.

It's not that subconscious. Sorry.

---

YMCA? Well, what do you expect from Village people fans???

matt
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 

quote:

---

Be bisexual means that you are capable of forming a loving, supportive, sexual relationship with either a man or a woman. Well, more likely, you are capable of forming a loving, supposrtive sexual relationship with the specific person that you fall in love with, regardless of their sex. Bisexuals are just as capable of monogamous relationships as straights and gays.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
YMCA? Well, what do you expect from Village people fans

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
if what you say is really true, then bisexuality is the status every human being should be aiming to achieve.

---

quote:

---

The reality is that most bisexual people I have known struggle deeply with identity and role issues in relationships...and not just their sexual/romantic ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

The reality is that most bisexual people I have known struggle deeply with identity and role issues in relationships...and not just their sexual/romantic ones.

matt

---

The reality is that most people I have known struggle deeply with identity and role issues in relationships ...

Neil (watching Matt's comments from afar with total amazement that there is anyone out there like him)

[And the first edit of the day goes to Starbelly, so he gets no mean comment.]

[ 10. November 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
 

---

Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 
I'm absolutely stunned that someone actually believes some (oh heck, just about all!) of the crap that is spewing from Matt on this subject!

A male colleague and I just spent the best part of a month working away from home. In addition to working closely together on the project, travelling to sites together and so forth, we also (shock horror!) stayed over in the same hotel and ate out together every night. We got on exceptionally well. In the light of Matt's postings however, I'm stunned that at no point did the slightest bit of sexual tension rear its head.

I can only suggest that this must be because...oh I don't know...we are p-r-o-f-e-s-s-i-o-n-a-l or something...

Indeed his wife was more than happy about the situation (apparently I encouraged him to phone home more than our male colleagues! ).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Call it a rule. Call it a principle. I call it a very conveeeeeenient way to discriminate against women in the workplace.

---

Absolutely!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic
As I understood it, the boss used the principle to avoid women getting to do any important stuff. If he wanted women to succeed and be important in the company, AND stick to his principle, he could have easily done so. For example, the boss could *shock horror* send TWO women away on the business trip together.

---

Hmmmm... Except of course I'm the only woman in my department Matt.

And I can't help getting the feeling that you, like some of my more backward colleagues, feel that's probably one too many.

Grow up or get out our way.
 

---

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

quote:

---

Also remember that very few people are 100% straight or gay, but most have degrees of bisexuality.

---

I'm not that sure about this. It's one of those things that has become part of pop. psychology in the last 20 years or so, and is ofen quoted, but I'm not sure what' it's quantifiably based on.

---

quote:

---

If it is true, it can only be true on a subconcious level. (since the majority of straight men will give a slight shudder at the idea of themselves kissing/having sex with another man even if they don't object to other people doing it).

---

Pure bullshit. The Kinsey Scale, for instance, is assessed on individuals based upon their conscious preferences and behaviors, and I for one question that the disgust that Matt and homophobes like him feel and direct towards same sex affection is not culturally instilled rather than normative and inate as his ilk claim without any kind of support.
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
ohhh...you get your "facts" from Alfred Kinsey do ya?!! Me kettle..you Pot.
 

---

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
ohhh...you get your "facts" from Alfred Kinsey do ya?!! Me kettle..you Pot.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and sorry, Matt, I'll be the first to say I could be absolutely wrong on this, but something about your comments on the messy and difficult struggles of adults trying to maintain meaningful intimate relationships makes me suspect that you're speaking more from the latest I Kissed Dating Good-Bye-type book and less from substantial real world experience. But as I said, I could be wrong.

---

You could hardly be more wrong on this one. My hatred of Joshua Harris (and Joyce Hugget too incidently...) is profound.

I insisted on their removal from a bookstall of a summer camp for 14-18 year olds I was helping run over the summer, lest the innocent young teenage minds by corrupted by such puritanical, guilt inducing, holier than thou crap.

For this I recieved some frowns, and worried looks. I'm sure people were later praying about my dangerously liberal tendancies....
matt
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
That's good to know, Matt. Congratulations for taking such a principled stand. But now I'm even more worried that you actually thought up all these cockamamie ideas on your own.

Thanks for the clarification, Laura. "Elfin grottoes"? Keats got out about as much as Matt, I guess.

And Duchess, before you swoon over Boy Meets Girl, read an excerpt from Harris' latest book where he describes how his uncontrollable lust is threatening his marriage.
 

---

Posted by nicolemrw (# 28) on :
 
not sure that this is germain to the discsion, but i have found myself reminded of an incident her at the library some years ago.

a man came in and asked for books on homosexuality. he explained his situation: he was gay, but his best friend was straight. best friend had just gotten married, and best friend's wife was very concerned about her husband's friendship with a gay guy. the guy was looking for something that would allay the wife's fears.

poor guy. i gave him what i had, hope it was good enough.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Presleyterian - you dang rained on my parade.
Buying THE BOOK.


[And I thought Josh was a good boy ]

[ 10. November 2003, 19:34: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :
 
Piling in a bit late here, but felt the need to add my 2p to the tangent on the tangent on the.... what was the subject of this thread again?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:

*Scenario A*

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by elsi:
In the light of Matt's postings however, I'm stunned that at no point did the slightest bit of sexual tension rear its head.

---

That's what you think

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 



 

---

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
Sorry, elsi, just being Hellish... I'll stop now.

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Gremlin..you took the words from my mouth

I was actually more concerned about the wife who is more than happy to get rid of her husband for the best part of a month...what's she up to there then eh? eh? EH?!!! The milkman got an extra stop on his rounds has he??

Matt
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Perhaps she just wanted some concerted time on her own to get on with that novel she's been writing or whatever. It hardly need be an ominous sign.

[ 11. November 2003, 10:32: Message edited by: kentishmaid ]
 

---

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I was actually more concerned about the wife who is more than happy to get rid of her husband for the best part of a month...what's she up to there then eh? eh? EH?!!! The milkman got an extra stop on his rounds has he??

---

You have the mind of a pornographer. You don't seem to be able to imagine anyone in a relationship wanting some distance without running some downmarket smut scenario in your head. Listen, we don't even have milkmen any more: you buy cartons at the supermarket.

I do not say that welcoming the absence of your spouse is a good sign: but is more likely about friction or oppressiveness in the domestic arrangement, that because there is an off-stage lover.
 

---

Posted by elsi (# 2098) on :
 
Look no one was delighted at our having to be away from home, but sometimes we have to do these things in the line of work we're in. Specifically, to secure future workload to help pay our mortgages etc. Whilst we don't like it, we (and our families) understand that sometimes this is necessary.

All I was meaning was that given the professional parameters, it really (as far as I could tell Gremlin, don't start !) wasn't a particular issue to anyone involved as to what the genders of those involved were. We were there to work, which is what we did.

The comment about his missus being happy that it was myself accompanying him, was merely a glib reflection on the fact I rate phoning home highly.

Matt, as Firenze has highlighted, you seem to have a strangely tuned mind about these things. Maybe it's not the genders that need separating, but those capable of mature, non-sexual, inter-gender relationships, from those that aren't.

In the meantime if you'd like to cover up with a veil and full length cloak so that the rest of us avoid any temptation where you are concerned then feel free.

But trust me, it so isn't necessary...
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
People people! you really do take things to seriously sometimes.

Firenze, so long as I have the rest of the anatomy of a pornographer thrown in too, it's not really such a bad deal is it?

Elsi, I accept what you are saying. There are very many considerations with the question of what is good and bad practice in the workplace: Functionality, practicality, neccessity and morality are just some of them.

It is my belief that far too often it is morality that draws the short straw. You say yourself "no one was delighted". While we all accept we occassionally have to make family sacrifices for the sake of work, it just seems to me the balance too often swings in favour of work for too many people.

Workload is malignant. It grows uncontrollably if not ruthlessly checked.The more you do, ther more you are expected to do. I've just seen enough times that when family and work committments come into conflict, it takes a huge effort of will to ensure family comes out on top.

matt
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
People people! you really do take things to seriously sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Firenze, so long as I have the rest of the anatomy of a pornographer thrown in too, it's not really such a bad deal is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Listen, we don't even have milkmen any more: you buy cartons at the supermarket.

---

quote:

---

Not a porn star, Matt, a pornographer. The one who writes the stuff. No physical attributes implied (au contraire...), rather mental and emotional ones eg prurience, voyeurism, immaturity, inadequacy that sort of thing.

---

A lot of pornographers are retired pornstars, or star in their own work actually! [ ] I'm betting i'm the only person on the ship who can count a pornstar amongst my friends...(Yes, I'm serious). Damaging to my puritanical credentials I know.

matt
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
There was a rumour going round my old secondary school that I was a Porn King.

Or was it a king prawn? I forget.

Anyway, we have a milkman.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
We have a milkman too, but I don't think he is a pornstar.
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
chorister, introduce him to Dyf then. Who know what might happen?

We have a milkman, but we do not buy milk from him, only yogurt, and the occasional egg.

bb
 

---

Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Is an occasional egg a bit like an occasional table, bb?
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Especially if it belongs to the curate?
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
Ah yes, it's like the curate's occasional table.

Neil
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
What's with the Curates Egg expression??

Never understood that.

matt
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:
Is an occasional egg a bit like an occasional table, bb?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
What's with the Curates Egg expression??

---

Old Punch cartoon of clergypersons eating boiled eggs.

Young curate has been asked to stay at the Bishop's palace for some reason. (I think we are in the Trolloposphere)

At breakfast the bishop asks how his egg is.

He says something like: "very good, in parts, my Lord".



(You won't get it. It's a MW thang)

[ 12. November 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: ken ]
 

---

Posted by auntbeast (# 377) on :
 

quote:

---

From, Firenze:Not a porn star, Matt, a pornographer. The one who writes the stuff. No physical attributes implied (au contraire...), rather mental and emotional ones eg prurience, voyeurism, immaturity, inadequacy that sort of thing.

From MTMM: A lot of pornographers are retired pornstars, or star in their own work actually!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Firenze, so long as I have the rest of the anatomy of a pornographer thrown in too, it's not really such a bad deal is it?

---

Not a porn star, Matt, a pornographer. The one who writes the stuff. No physical attributes implied (au contraire...), rather mental and emotional ones eg prurience, voyeurism, immaturity, inadequacy that sort of thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starbelly:
No, we have a milkwoman, now what sort of spanner does that thrown into the works???

Neil

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Firenze:
Ok, smarty-pants. What time-honoured (in military circles anyway) anecdote relies on -

The wire brush and the DDT?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Myer:
What self indulgent introverted clap trap this thread is, grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

---

quote:

---

I see. So, Matt, are you referring to most of heterosexual porn which features pasty nasty looking men with very young, enhanced women (ah isn't marketing wonderful), or gay men's porn which in my limited experience generally features the more attractive men.

Enquiring minds want to know... is it the nasty pudgy straight porn star you were aspiring to be, or the buff, built gay one with 6-pack abs?

Eagerly awaiting you answer, and the title of your first flick.....

---

Oh, methinks you are not aware of modern trends in pornography! Gone are the men with dodgy tashes. Apparently, heterosexual women are more interested in "Erotica" these days, hence the emergence of a more refined porn film...starring attractive heterosexual men, and often even attempting to have a "plot" of sorts.

matt
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Connoisseur, are you?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Matt, I am not going even ask how you know that.
First Joshua Harris, then you. *Sigh*

Somebody shoot me.
 

---

Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 

quote:

---

Matt the Mad Medic wrote: Heterosexual women are more interested in "Erotica" these days, hence the emergence of a more refined porn film...starring attractive heterosexual men, and often even attempting to have a "plot" of sorts.

---

Oh please, Sugar, get with the program and call them by their official name: Alan Rickman movies.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
AND Colin Firth movies but I won't mention any
*cough* P&P MR. DARCY...*cough* Bridget Jones...*cough*
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
So anyway Sarkycow, did you have a good time at bible week?

Neil
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Yes, Sarkcow, sometimes you're so coy I just can't understand you. Don't beat about the bush - tell us what you really thought.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 


Those that have ears... are shoots of corn
 

---

Posted by The Black Labrador (# 3098) on :
 
and are you planning to go next year to see if it gets better?
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Patience is a virtue...
 

---

Posted by Gremlin (# 129) on :
 
Perhaps a shipmeet should be arranged... with mass walk-ins to the 'wrong' sessions, and walk-outs at crucial moments during the appeals for cash?

I'll bring the wire cutters for the Day-2 breakout attempt. Who'll bring the folding spade for Tom, Dick & Harry?

Gremlin
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Bags I bring the vaulting horse, so that folk can tunnel out beneath it!
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
But of course...anyone is free to leave the camp at anytime. The security and fences are for your protection.

Yet many of you feel them to be restrictive, believe yourselves to be trapped and feel a need to escape. Not recognising the true freedom you are living within.

Oh..what a beautiful metaphor that is.

matt
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Just out of interest, has the male leader of these "warrior" seminars been going to drum beating, sweat lodge, campfire, male bonding w/ends, and was he teaching you that sort of stuff, Sarky? Is there a sweat lodge on site, concealed within a seminar marquee? Or was it much more sweetly conventional?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
I vote to send sweet sarkycow to a nice friendly Women of Faith Conference™. She will have to sit through hours of Estrogen-dripping stories and choruses, talking in detail about husbands, changing babies and my favorite, if there are any single ladies, well remember this someday too shall be yours however in the meanwhile, Jesus is your husband™.

As she begs for mercy, we will duck tape her little boots and chain her to her seat, only allowing her up to use the ladies' bathrooms (which are everywhere since the men's rooms are converted into ladies', flowers being put in the urinals, no I am not making this &*%& up).

Scream, child, scream...as you are told one more time that real beauty doesn't come from the outside but the inside from a lady with her own make-up artist, hairdresser and rock-star dressing outfit.

Don't bother to bring your own bible...you won't need it. This is all about feelings, bring your own kleenex or hankie.
 

---

Posted by ChrisT (# 62) on :
 
duchess, with such a wonderful advertisment for these events, how can any man resist going?
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisT:
duchess, with such a wonderful advertisment for these events, how can any man resist going?

---

Admit it...the flowers being put in the urinals really got you curious. It is my idea of HELL. I have been to two. I literally got a migraine after one [shall remain nameless] lady comedian went on and on in her HOUSEWIFE HUMOR. I really truly did clutch my head in pain. "Girls, isn't it funny how the husband will never see the trashcan on yet he'll spot a sportcar 500 feet away...yammmeryammmeryammer" "Going shopping once again! Shoes-make up-girly girl things..." Then moveonto SHOUT TO THE LORD one more time (no Lord, no, not again. I USED To love that song the first 1000 times). 1000000 women raising hands and weeping ... me feeling like a complete heathen cuz I actually can't cry...and secretly wish for just ONE COTTON-PICKING HYMN to be song).

Joni Eareckson Tada was at one show. Of couse she went on LAST so I had to suffer through the whole night to get to her (she is truly an inspiration and my idol...I luv her). I wanted to see her again so I suffered though yet another WoF conference.

Don't get me started on how cute [CUTE-AS-BUTTON-all-girl-group]. Please. I STILL DO like "[some song of theirs]" and have sang on stage their songs in the past...however...hearing all night about how "cute and precious they are" and then seeing them do cute dance moves to their songs all night...no words.

I woke up my roomate the other day with LOUD [dang cute-as-button-all-girl-band] music. Ted Nugent did not work so I put [dang cute-as-button-all-girl-band].. she got out of bed cheesed off at me but it worked.

Please do not give out my name in San Jose. Somebody is going to lecture me soon. Thx.

[ 17. November 2003, 16:57: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
On the subject of singing shout to the lord too many times Dutchess...

Quote from Tony Campolo at Colditz this year:

"It's not that I don't like modern choruses...it's just that sometimes the only difference I can tell between them and a machine gun, is that a machine gun only has a 100 rounds!"

matt
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
Matt...

"There is no "T" in duchess" - Duchess Fergie

I think that Starbelly's* fridge magnets sum up how I feel about some choruses. I am still young however I am getting to feel more drawn to hymns than songs that repeat over and over a mantra, "Oh God you are this...Oh God you are that".

"Shout to the Lord" from Hillsong (I think) is acutally one of the BETTER ones. I used to like it...long ago, during the first thousand times I heard it. [evil confession] Now I use it as time to hit the restroom before the sermon starts whenever it comes up [/evil confession]

*Starbelly the shipmate has a webpage he links to in his profile that has a fridge magnet section. I laughed so much I slapped myself after perusing it.

[edited to explain]

[ 17. November 2003, 21:19: Message edited by: duchess ]
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
What about "Men of faith rise up and sing".. "Rise up women of the truth"... keeps the sexes separate, duchess! No flowers in urinals.
 

---

Posted by duchess (# 2764) on :
 
daisymay, WoF came out of Promise Keepers™.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Ah well, in the UK they don't trust us to keep promises!
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0