Ship of Fools: No, Mark Betts, I am not going to leave it

Thread: No, Mark Betts, I am not going to leave it Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022842

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

In the Purg thread about Pussy Riot, Mark Betts said:

quote:
If these women really cared about their children, why did they do it in the first place? Why weren't they at home looking after their children?

The suggestion that a woman who really cares about her children must necessarily be at home looking after them is, as I told you on the other thread, a brilliant example of mysogyny and male privilege.

You wouldn't have asked why a group of young men who were staging a protest weren't home with their children, would you? Of course not. Because men are entitled to pursue a full range of opportunities. Women, apparently, not so much.

Children, of course, do need to be looked after. But I have not read that the women in Pussy Riot left their children unattended in a train station or at a park while they went to the cathedral to stage their protest. If they had done so, I'm sure that child neglect or child endangerment or the like would have been added to the charges against them. So I can only assume that they did what any responsible mother does who has an engagement away from home: They ensured that someone else was going to be tending their children while they were otherwise engaged.

And women are entitled to do that, without having you or anyone else suggest that they don't "really" care about their children.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

That really was a pretty snotty thing to say, Mark Betts. I think you owe every woman on the ship an appology for that one.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Mr. Betts chose to extend the insult, saying:

quote:
Ken, I don't want to discuss motherhood anymore - I understand there must be something profoundly unnatural about a woman wanting to take care of her own children.

No, you mysogynistic young fool, there is nothing unnatural about a woman wanting to take care of her own children. There is, however, something ugly about a man insisting that a woman who chooses to do anything else must not "really" care about her children. And your sarcasm here doesn't make it any less ugly.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Seriously, Mark? You think that it's obligatory for a mother to be attached to her child at all times? No babysitters? No childcare? No grandparents?

Father goes off and does whatever he likes, no childminding obligations, because he knows that the little woman is chained to the cot?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.

Exactly.

But even if she didn't, even if this were nothing more than a publicity stunt intended to sell more concert tickets, Mark Betts's opinion would still be vile and misogynistic. Singers, actors, and musicians aren't usually at home with their children 24/7 any more than the rest of us are. And that does not mean that they do not "really" care about their children.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Please leave it, because I already know what the consensus on this board is about such things.

More on point Mark Betts, is the consensus on this board that when Josephine calls you to Hell you have crossed a clearly demarcated line of decency.

Step back, young man.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
So I can only assume that they did what any responsible mother does who has an engagement away from home: They ensured that someone else was going to be tending their children while they were otherwise engaged.

I'm sure the fathers were home watching the children - after all, that is what good fathers do, right?

and just so that Mark can be even more appalled at bad mothers: I've taken my children to protests and demonstrations with me. It's called modeling good behavior. Good behavior, in this case, is not letting your country go to shit out of a lack of interest. My children know that if you want a better world you had better get off your ass and work for it.

at this point, two of my children have organized their own demonstrations. I'm a proud mama.

and furthermore, Mark Betts - eat shit.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

Going to demonstrations together is something my daughter and I have done for years.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Singers, actors, and musicians aren't usually at home with their children 24/7 any more than the rest of us are. And that does not mean that they do not "really" care about their children.

Good point. And as pointed out, who would even think about whether or not any guy involved in a protest is a parent? The idea that nobody cares how much time a dad spends with his kids is both indulgent to men and insulting to men.

The comment is just a brainless parroting of one of the eighty-thousand attitudes built into our society that allow us to judge and condemn every move a woman makes, whether a mother or not.

I say us to be fair, because (working in a female dominated industry) most of the time I am hearing bullshit comments like this, it is other women who are gleefully jumping on the competition/ judgement wagon. Not much of a good example to the Mark Betts of the world.

Sorry, Jo, tangent.

[ 19. August 2012, 03:22: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Sweetie, I don't know what Pammy is bawling about, but you take care of it. I'm playing Bookworm, and anyway you're the woman.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Whaddaya mean you already got the one twin? You got two arms. What kind of mother are you?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Sweetie, I don't know what Pammy is bawling about, but you take care of it. I'm playing Bookworm, and anyway you're the woman.

Sure, I'll take care of Pammy's skinned knee, feed Peter, help Penny with her homework, and give Paula a bath. While I do that, would you change the oil in the car, mow the lawn (and don't forget to edge the sidewalk!), repair the leaky faucet in the bathroom, and figure out what's wrong with the light fixture in the hallway? Thanks, sweetie! [Axe murder]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

It's not fair to poor Mark when you two act in concert.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Bless your heart Mark.

Lemme see if I can sort this out for you.

You think mothers have an absolute obligation to their children. So do I. In fact, I bet just about everyone on the Ship thinks the same way.

I also think that fathers have an absolute obligation to their children. In fact, I bet just about everyone on the Ship thinks the same way.

What your fellow (masculine, didja like that?) Shippies are saying is that your postings indicated that the mothers had to forgo any ambitions outside the house in order to take care of the kiddiewinks.

There may, or may not, be Shipeversal agreement on that point.

A question you may wish to ask yourself is "Should fathers forgo any outside ambitions because of the obligation to take care of the kiddiewinks?"

Before you answer that question, think about how much outside of household ambition our society demands of people in order to be prosperous enough to raise children outside of poverty.

Take your time. I'll wait.

What I am looking for here is some indication of whether or not you think women have a different set of obligations to their progeny than men.

If so, on what basis do you make that assertion?

Are you suggesting women are better suited to raising children, so only fathers should so EVA's? What could make them better suited other than cultural inculcation?

Again, take your time. I'll wait.

Hint. Apologies are generally well accepted.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It's not fair to poor Mark when you two act in concert.

The Queen and Prime Bully of Hell™ doesn't need my help to take care of any little shits that cross her. I'm just here to provide comic relief.

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
<Mark whines:> Please leave it, because I already know what the consensus on this board is about such things.
More on point Mark Betts, is the consensus on this board that when Josephine calls you to Hell you have crossed a clearly demarcated line of decency.

Boy, howdy.

quote:
Step back, young man.

This sounds like more excellent advice that he will completely ignore.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I hope he comes and joins in and tries to defend his argument - it could be so entertaining and today I need a good laugh.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.

Hear, hear!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
I hope he comes and joins in and tries to defend his argument - it could be so entertaining and today I need a good laugh.

Well, it's not as if he could send his wife to do it for him.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.

Don't be a silly billy! That's man's work! Now don't you worry your pretty little head about de big bad world. Surely, choosing your dress for the day and what's for dinner is enough to be going on with? [Big Grin]

I'm not sure Mark Betts meant to be as offensively sexist as he was with that remark. But perhaps it's worth considering that there are many ways in which a person - even a female person - may show concern and care for her family and friends. And it doesn't necessarily need to involve changing nappies and cooking all the time.

There's nothing wrong with mothers staying at home minding the kids. Hardly. But even stay at home mums have to go out to do other important stuff, too, like shopping, school-runs etc, and I don't see why an active involvement in politics shouldn't be one of those things.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Some of wish that Margaret Hilda Thatcher had spent rather more time cooking and dusting and a bit less time in politics!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Mysogeny, like racism, angers me quite a bit. Amen to Kelly Alves*, they were being good mothers. Good parents care for their child's immediate welfare and their future.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{Puts on choir robe, joins the chorus, passes around tray of snacks.}

Mark, um, WTH?

FWIW: my knee-jerk reaction to parents taking any kind of risk with their safety or their freedom tends to be "don't!", 'cause the kids need them. However, I apply that more to things like mountain climbing, demolition derby, and grand theft that isn't done to support the kids. That's due to my own particular sensitivities, and isn't necessarily the way the world should be run.

But "stay home with the kids"??? That could mean a scenario like this, which applied to "Grandma", back in the day. Granted, as a mother, her kids were in school. But if they were home and underfoot, she probably wouldn't have had a whole lot of time to give them.

I haven't closely followed the Pussy Riot case. But Putin seems to be a power addict, hurts his people, and won't leave. He keeps finding a way to come back when his term has ended. And, given Russia's history of such "leaders", the woman had a good reason to protest.

[ 19. August 2012, 07:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

Usually I am greatly afeared to enter the steaming portals of hell, but this Bettsian shit hath caused me to rend mine garment and say,
"Slimy little bastard."

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

He remains slimy in purg - but oddly people are still engaging with him there. Personally, I would have him on my scroll past and ignore list by now.

[ 19. August 2012, 08:05: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
It's not fair to poor Mark when you two act in concert.
The Queen and Prime Bully of Hell™ doesn't need my help to take care of any little shits that cross her. I'm just here to provide comic relief.

Try harder.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

I am not sure whether anything will get through to a smug and superficial clique but the context is Russian. Apartments are small and expensive. Grandparents are not always available and reliable childcare can be a nightmare in Moscow. The context is also that the penal code allows up to seven years for conspiracy under Article 213(2) where an offence is aggravated by religious hatred. In the circumstances a decision by parents of young children to break the law in pursuit of commercial gain or furthering a musical career is, arguably, selfish and irresponsible.

The calculation that the commercial gain to a band was worth the potential loss to the children (and the other half) went awry in this case. The band has been pushing their luck for some time and topping one tasteless publicity stunt with something yet more outrageous than a chicken no doubt gets progressively more difficult. As it turned out they were lucky to get away with 2 years (less time served). Single people can take these risks if they judge them commercially worthwhile but there is an element of irresponsibility in parents of young children taking that route. Now it may be that the point was put forward by the designated victim in a form of words which were not proof against the assaults what Socialism used to call “Political Correctness” but the underlying idea has merit.

Pussy Riot deserved all they got. Most Russians would add that and more. It is a pity nevertheless when children get penalized by selfish, publicity-seeking parents. I am not sure that in the name of all the sacred Equalities having a dependent child should now be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the holder. Whatever his patronymic, I don’t imagine little Ivan will be altogether comfortable in the playground when his mates ask him where mummy keeps her chickens after she goes shopping. Still, another 18 months or so free of such splendid examples of Russian parenting for little Ivan.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Oooh. Newbie alert.

I think you'll find there are lots of folk here who are both appreciative of the finer points of life in the old Soviet bloc and the in and outs (of prison) of social activism.

You might think that manning the barricades is something left to the 'single', and the babushkas should stay at home, but whatever the rights and wrongs of the case (which is not what we're discussing here, do keep up), you can fuck right off with that.

Back over here on the western fringes of Europe, we had suffragettes. Many of them weren't single, but they were beaten, imprisoned, force-fed and one even died for the cause. And because of them, my grandmothers, mother, wife and daughter have the vote.

Oh, and Mark. You can fuck off too. What you said wasn't just offensive to women, but to any man who believes fatherhood is more than wanking into a vagina.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I am not sure whether anything will get through to a smug and superficial clique but the context is Russian. Apartments are small and expensive. Grandparents are not always available and reliable childcare can be a nightmare in Moscow. The context is also that the penal code allows up to seven years for conspiracy under Article 213(2) where an offence is aggravated by religious hatred. In the circumstances a decision by parents of young children to break the law in pursuit of commercial gain or furthering a musical career is, arguably, selfish and irresponsible.

The calculation that the commercial gain to a band was worth the potential loss to the children (and the other half) went awry in this case. The band has been pushing their luck for some time and topping one tasteless publicity stunt with something yet more outrageous than a chicken no doubt gets progressively more difficult. As it turned out they were lucky to get away with 2 years (less time served). Single people can take these risks if they judge them commercially worthwhile but there is an element of irresponsibility in parents of young children taking that route. Now it may be that the point was put forward by the designated victim in a form of words which were not proof against the assaults what Socialism used to call “Political Correctness” but the underlying idea has merit.

Pussy Riot deserved all they got. Most Russians would add that and more. It is a pity nevertheless when children get penalized by selfish, publicity-seeking parents. I am not sure that in the name of all the sacred Equalities having a dependent child should now be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the holder. Whatever his patronymic, I don’t imagine little Ivan will be altogether comfortable in the playground when his mates ask him where mummy keeps her chickens after she goes shopping. Still, another 18 months or so free of such splendid examples of Russian parenting for little Ivan.

I wasn't going to comment here, but thanks Berwickshire for talking a bit of sense over the usual smug self-righteous liberal binge which is the normal consensus on here.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
the context is Russian

The context is human.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I am not sure whether anything will get through to a smug and superficial clique but the context is Russian. Apartments are small and expensive. Grandparents are not always available and reliable childcare can be a nightmare in Moscow. The context is also that the penal code allows up to seven years for conspiracy under Article 213(2) where an offence is aggravated by religious hatred. In the circumstances a decision by parents of young children to break the law in pursuit of commercial gain or furthering a musical career is, arguably, selfish and irresponsible.

The calculation that the commercial gain to a band was worth the potential loss to the children (and the other half) went awry in this case. The band has been pushing their luck for some time and topping one tasteless publicity stunt with something yet more outrageous than a chicken no doubt gets progressively more difficult. As it turned out they were lucky to get away with 2 years (less time served). Single people can take these risks if they judge them commercially worthwhile but there is an element of irresponsibility in parents of young children taking that route. Now it may be that the point was put forward by the designated victim in a form of words which were not proof against the assaults what Socialism used to call “Political Correctness” but the underlying idea has merit.

Pussy Riot deserved all they got. Most Russians would add that and more. It is a pity nevertheless when children get penalized by selfish, publicity-seeking parents. I am not sure that in the name of all the sacred Equalities having a dependent child should now be a get-out-of-jail-free card for the holder. Whatever his patronymic, I don’t imagine little Ivan will be altogether comfortable in the playground when his mates ask him where mummy keeps her chickens after she goes shopping. Still, another 18 months or so free of such splendid examples of Russian parenting for little Ivan.

Most of this is might be relevant in the Purgatory thread, but is spectacularly IRrelevant to the Hell call.

Unless you've got evidence that the women in Pussy Riot didn't make arrangements for their children to be looked after before heading to the cathedral, Mark Betts doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Not least because practically everything you said here should apply to the FATHERS of small children every bit as much as their MOTHERS.

[ 19. August 2012, 09:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Not least because practically everything you said here should apply to the FATHERS of small children every bit as much as their MOTHERS.

OK - if a male does something unlawful and offensive and risks being incarcerated, he is wrong and uncaring also. Happy now?

Do two wrongs equal a right? I don't think so.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do two wrongs equal a right? I don't think so.

So you admit what you said was a wrong?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do two wrongs equal a right? I don't think so.
So you admit what you said was a wrong?

I'll gladly admit that what others claimed I meant or was inferring was wrong.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
More on point Mark Betts, is the consensus on this board that when Josephine calls you to Hell you have crossed a clearly demarcated line of decency.

I've no interest in this particular hell call, one way or the other. But you can count me right out of that purported "consensus"...

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Do two wrongs equal a right? I don't think so.
So you admit what you said was a wrong?
I'll gladly admit that what others claimed I meant or was inferring was wrong.

I'm not objecting to what you may have meant; I'm objecting to what you said.

Do you understand that saying, "If these women really cared about their children, why weren't they at home taking care of them?" is harmful to women?

And what did you mean, if you didn't mean what you said?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...And what did you mean, if you didn't mean what you said?

I think Berwickshire covered it all here.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Mark, honey, I'm gonna call bullshit on that.

That is not what you originally meant. It was a convenient something to bring up so you could avoid either having to defend a position you know is extremely unpopular, or apologize.

Apologies seem to be something you do not wish to do. This is unfortunate because being capable of apologizing is a part of being mature.

So, defend the mommies should stay at home position. Go ahead, I want to read it.

Posted by Scarlet (# 1738) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
More on point Mark Betts, is the consensus on this board that when Josephine calls you to Hell you have crossed a clearly demarcated line of decency.
I've no interest in this particular hell call, one way or the other. But you can count me right out of that purported "consensus"...

Add me to the list. I am dearly allergic to being incorporated without having given consent.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...And what did you mean, if you didn't mean what you said?
I think Berwickshire covered it all here.

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between what you said, and what Berwickshire said. Would you spell it out for me?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...And what did you mean, if you didn't mean what you said?
I think Berwickshire covered it all here.

Berwickshire certainly coveredit, nine inches deep in horseshit.

btw, the context is justice, and ISTM that the Russian concept of justice has differed from that in the West for centuies.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

What your fellow (masculine, didja like that?)

Is it? Masculine I mean. Its used as an informal term of address for a man, but that's not the same as saying its masculine.

Other than that what you said in your post of course.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

Back over here on the western fringes of Europe, we had suffragettes. Many of them weren't single, but they were beaten, imprisoned, force-fed and one even died for the cause. And because of them, my grandmothers, mother, wife and daughter have the vote.

A- Fucking-men.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
...And what did you mean, if you didn't mean what you said?
I think Berwickshire covered it all here.

I hope not. I mean that I hope that what he wrote is not what you meant, because if it is you would be a much nastier person than you seem to be otherwise.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

My main concern was that the young women should have stayed at home and looked after their children, rather than go out causing mayhem and offence, knowing that they might be arrested and separated from their children. I know some of you think they are modern day "holy fools" but I don't buy that.

My only modification is to add that the same should apply for fathers if they go out and do such things, just for publicity and fame.

I've prettymuch said all this already, but this is where I stand and always did.

I'm sorry Ken if this makes me a nasty person in your eyes, just because you seem to hate any church which doesn't conform to your open evangelical/liberal standards.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

Whether the young women of Pussy Riot are modern day "holy fools" or totally misguided idiots is of no consequence.

What you wrote is still sexist shite.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
My main concern was that the young women should have stayed at home and looked after their children, rather than go out causing mayhem and offence, knowing that they might be arrested and separated from their children.

You've got an odd definition of mayhem. Pussy Riot staged their protest in a practically empty church, damaged nothing, and left when they were asked to leave.

And I am not sure that they saw arrest as a major risk. Possible, of course. But initially the cops just took their names and told them to go.

Yet women, and men, have often accepted the risk of being separated from their children when they thought there was something important at stake.

quote:
I know some of you think they are modern day "holy fools" but I don't buy that.

They are Russian Orthodox Christians who are familiar with the tradition of the holy fool, and cited that tradition in their statements. That does not make them holy fools, of course. But it might help someone else understand what they thought they were doing, and why they were doing it.

quote:
My only modification is to add that the same should apply for fathers if they go out and do such things, just for publicity and fame.

And you know they did it "just for publicity and fame" ... how? Do you have the gift of clairvoyance? Or are you absolutely certain that they're liars as well as being shallow fame-seeking irresponsible excuses for mothers?

What reasons are important enough for a parent to risk being separated from their child? Should parents be considered unfit for military duty, because they might be separated from their children? Should they be allowed to serve as fire fighters or police officers? What about people who like to go mountain climbing or parachuting or who ride motorcycles -- should parents be forbidden from doing those things?

What about the suffragists? Was the right to vote important enough to justify their risking going to jail or being killed? What about people who marched for civil rights in the 1960s? I once worked with a woman who could show you the scars on her arms, where the cops set their attack dogs on the protesters. She was a mother. Should she not have marched in that protest?

And, finally, you are aware, aren't you, that the attitude that parents should stay home with their children has been used to keep women out of fields such as law, medicine, and corporate management? That the attitude is harmful to women, even if you intend it to apply to both men and women?

[cleaned that up for you, Dear Queen of Hell]

[ 19. August 2012, 17:14: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The Queen and Prime Bully of Hell™ doesn't need my help to take care of any little shits that cross her. I'm just here to provide comic relief.
Try harder.

Can't be arsed.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

I'm sorry Ken if this makes me a nasty person in your eyes, just because you seem to hate any church which doesn't conform to your open evangelical/liberal standards.

You're really asking for trouble there, Mark Betts, implying that Ken might be a liberal. Even I resist the label and I don't claim to be evangelical.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Back over here on the western fringes of Europe, we had suffragettes. Many of them weren't single, but they were beaten, imprisoned, force-fed and one even died for the cause. And because of them, my grandmothers, mother, wife and daughter have the vote.

Yeah, but according to Berwickshire and his little clique these would've been the evil liberal westerners of their time. Imprisoned, force-fed, death? To pharaphrase Berwickshire these women got what they deserved. Right? [Disappointed]

How dare they say 'can't we have an input in how our lives are ruled?', when the regime has already told them what they should be thinking.

As Mark Betts would undoubtedly have told them, back then, why don't you go home and look after your children. (Because of course they would've been married, and of course they would've had children. And also because of course women would've received the vote without the agitation and publicity and suffering for their cause. Once someone had got round to it.... [Roll Eyes]

)

It's moments like these remind me - sadly - of how much work authentic feminism still has to do.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It's moments like these remind me - sadly - of how much work authentic feminism still has to do.

Don't set your sights too high. No matter how well they are educated, some people will always be dickheads.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

In my work I have a fair bit to do with people from Russia. Their views on the matter of Pussy Riot and the reaction of the state to them are as far away from the views of the arrogant (and in Mark's case sexist) gobshites standing up for state repression as those same arrogant gobshites are far away from Russia.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Just supposing... that the women weren't that interested in the Church, nor politics, they just wanted to latch onto something people felt strongly about (one way or another) in order to shock and outrage, to promote their own publicity and make them famous.

Just supposing... that Putin nor the Church could influence the outcome of the trial, and the court reached it's own decisions.

Just supposing... that the reason Putin became President again was because that was what the majority of russian citizens wanted.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

When you find that parallel universe, do let us know.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just supposing... that the women weren't that interested in the Church, nor politics, they just wanted to latch onto something people felt strongly about (one way or another) in order to shock and outrage, to promote their own publicity and make them famous.

Well, if that's what they wanted, the government seems to have decided to help them out. If it hadn't been for the trial, the video would have gone viral in Russia for a few weeks, until the next new thing made everyone forget about it. Neither you nor I nor anyone else I know would ever have heard of Pussy Riot.

quote:
Just supposing... that Putin nor the Church could influence the outcome of the trial, and the court reached it's own decisions.

Just supposing... that the reason Putin became President again was because that was what the majority of russian citizens wanted.

That would make an excellent alternative history. Why don't you suggest it to Harry Turtledove?

Posted by cosmic dance (# 14025) on :

quote:
Just supposing... that the reason Putin became President again was because that was what the majority of russian citizens wanted.

Surely you are not that politically naive?? There have been and still are many governments around the world who are in power by means of coercion, corruption and the rule of fear; or simply because the populace is powerless in despair or poverty and there is no viable option. I'm not saying Russia is one of them because I don't know enough about it but you must admit that from time to time, governments are not there by majority vote.

[ 19. August 2012, 22:36: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That would make an excellent alternative history. Why don't you suggest it to Harry Turtledove?

HA!

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just supposing... that the women weren't that interested in the Church, nor politics, they just wanted to latch onto something people felt strongly about (one way or another) in order to shock and outrage, to promote their own publicity and make them famous.

If they wanted to be famous, wouldn't they take off the mad balaclavas?

quote:

Just supposing... that Putin nor the Church could influence the outcome of the trial, and the court reached it's own decisions.

Yeah. But I'm still trying to imagine a bunch of people being arrested for doing a rubbish song in Saint Paul's. So whatever influences are at work in the Russian state, it gives me the creeps.

(And also, rogue apostrophe. If you're going to talk shit, kindly punctuate correctly.)

quote:

Just supposing... that the reason Putin became President again was because that was what the majority of russian citizens wanted.

Like the abused goes back to the abuser.

Your opinion of Pussy Riot notwithstanding, you're a sexist pig. Coming back with 'Yous guys are just liberal' doesn't cut it. Sexism is unjust and un-Christian, and politics doesn't come in to it.

Ill-judged comments like yours normalise poor treatment of women in ever part of the world. It makes it okay for an employer to pay me less to do the same jobh as a less-well qualified man. It makes it okay for families to bully their daughters into marriage. It makes it okay for college tutors to say, as one did to my friend: "why do you want to go to college? You'll only get married and have a family."

Wanker.

[ 19. August 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
My main concern was that the young women should have stayed at home and looked after their children, rather than go out causing mayhem and offence, knowing that they might be arrested and separated from their children. ...
My only modification is to add that the same should apply for fathers if they go out and do such things, just for publicity and fame.

I'm sorry Ken if this makes me a nasty person in your eyes ...

It makes you a dickhead in pretty much everyone's eyes. And all that phoney handwringing "my only concern is for the children" shtick, isn't fooling anybody.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
My main concern was that the young women should have stayed at home and looked after their children, rather than go out causing mayhem and offence, knowing that they might be arrested and separated from their children. I know some of you think they are modern day "holy fools" but I don't buy that.

My only modification is to add that the same should apply for fathers if they go out and do such things, just for publicity and fame.

I've prettymuch said all this already, but this is where I stand and always did.

I'm sorry Ken if this makes me a nasty person in your eyes, just because you seem to hate any church which doesn't conform to your open evangelical/liberal standards.

I have no idea whether you're a nasty person in general or not. But your words in the offending post were objectively nasty, sexist and ill-considered. This offends humans in general, male, female, other. It is seen that you wish to modify or take back what you said in wiggly wormy manner. It is also seen that people are looking for something more straightforward, less wormy, wiggly and less exculpatory, because it was so plain what you originally posted. You have tried any number of angles, from "dads too" to "liberal". You could close this all up if you did what normal people do, just own up. The owning up needs to either be that you admit you're wrong, or that you admit you're sexist and a worm, and that you like yourself that way.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Mark Betts, you obviously don't know or don't remember that there were huge protests in Russia following the elections that put Putin in power. The Russians I know from other internet boards are very, very careful what they post and are often absent and struggle to stay in contact (there are quite a few on 365 project)

We're talking huge recorded protests in December 2011, May 2012 - see wikipedia I'm really not sure you can assert that the Russian people wanted Putin.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Actually, I agree with the sexist gobshite on that point. Putin did get a large share of the vote, and even if one takes probably dodginess into account he would still have won. (Not to make out that Putin is any good, but the opposition in Russia includes racist leaders, something not often reported in the west.)

Just to be clear here, I'm no liberal. I based my views above from an article written in a far-left German magazine.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

Just supposing... that Putin ...could influence the outcome of the trial, and the court reached it's own decisions.

If Putin couldn't influence the courts do you suppose for one moment he would ever have been interested in being elected President or Prime Minister? In succesfully blurring the distinction between the two roles he has shown just how committed he is to democracy.

The whole Pussy Riot trial begins and ends with Putin's ego, and he has allied himself with some in the church to that end. His KGB training shows through.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Scarlet:

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Buttz:
Please leave it, because I already know what the consensus on this board is about such things.
More on point Mark Betts, is the consensus on this board that when Josephine calls you to Hell you have crossed a clearly demarcated line of decency.
I've no interest in this particular hell call, one way or the other. But you can count me right out of that purported "consensus"...
Add me to the list. I am dearly allergic to being incorporated without having given consent.

Consensus, conschmensus: You two can sue my rhetorical ass.

Never having been accused of sucking up to the in-crowd, my point stands.

Mark Betts still ought to step back.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?

The work can be risky in a variety of ways: our clients may have hepatitis, HIV, and assorted other transmissable ills that we don't always know about (and yes, bodily fluids come with the territory, though we do issue gloves, masks, and other paraphrenalia to protect staff).

Clients' disabilities, frustrations, and/or medications can sometimes make their behavior unpredictable and occasionally violent. The work entails risk of injury and illness, and, if working with folks who need assistance transferring from chairs to bed or cars to walkers, etc., can wear staff down physically over time.

Out of concern for the well-being of their children, should I advise these women to seek work elsewhere?

Or should I perhaps -- having informed them of the risks they run and trained them to handle these -- assume they're adults capable of making their own responsible decisions and Plan B arrangements?

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.

I think it´s actually hilarious when people compare protesters like this to Jesus, or even Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

To not agree with the sentence is one thing, but to act as if they are martyrs or had done a great act of love to humanity is just incredibly naive.

Anyway, their goal to make their protest visible has been achieved.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Who compared anybody to any of the people you are listing?

The hyperbole sword cuts both ways, you know.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Who compared anybody to any of the people you are listing?

In fairness, I did mention Gandhi and Jesus in the same sentence as Pussy Riot up in the depths of Purg.

I was responding to Mark's argument that the only plausible reason for Pussy Riot to have protested in a way which would lead them to being arrested was that they selfishly wished to become famous.

My point was not that Pussy Riot were Gandhi-like or Jesus-like, except in the narrow sense that they are all people who have been arrested for non-violent protest. (Actually out of the three, Jesus is the one who was the most violent in a place of worship. But then again, I suppose he was justly punished by the authorities for the offence he gave.)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Who compared anybody to any of the people you are listing?

Its kind of weird. There is almost genuinely no dialogue on any of the three or four threads here kicked off by the Pussy Riot protest and trial.

"Berwickshire" is obviously c0oming from some sort of pre-determined political position, his or her posts vary from political statements of some kind of party line to free-association rants (I think I've written enough of both kinds of text in the last forty years or so to recognise them when I see them). Without other evidence I would assume the vile things Berwickshire has written were quite deliberate and intended to make readers angry.

Mark Betts looks like a sadder case. Unlike Berwickshire he doesn't seem to be on a crusade, and he posts sense on other topics, but on this one he doesn't seem to engage with what others say at all, even to disagree with it. Its as if he doesn't read the posts he replies to or else genuinely doesn't understand what anyone else is saying to him. So there is no argument, no replying to points, just repeated missing the point. And he gives the impression that the really doesn't know how insulting he has been.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

The main thing they have in common is a sympathy with authoritarianism (not necessarily to say totalitarianism) in both politics and religion. Mark's been very consistent about this over time, and Berwickshire is new but pretty explicit--he misses those old Eastern European dictatorships. The "Kinder, Kirche, Kuche" bit is just a corollary.

Posted by Demas (# 24) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Without other evidence I would assume the vile things Berwickshire has written were quite deliberate and intended to make readers angry.

Yes, there's a nasty gleeful tone to them.

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
I think it´s actually hilarious when people compare protesters like this to Jesus, or even Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

To not agree with the sentence is one thing, but to act as if they are martyrs or had done a great act of love to humanity is just incredibly naive.

Anyway, their goal to make their protest visible has been achieved.

Two things:

Firstly, it is entirely possible to say that Pussy Riot are acting in the tradition of these historical figures without saying that they are comparable in stature to them. Only time will tell us that.

Secondly, I'm pretty sure I remember that each of Jesus, Gandhi and King attracted a certain amount of negative comment at the time they were alive and engaging in subversive action, some of it no doubt in the form of sneering at their irrelevance in the great sweep of history. In fact, there were probably some in the crowd gathered around the cross who said 'well, he was asking for that, wasn't he, so really, he got what he deserved'...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Without other evidence I would assume the vile things Berwickshire has written were quite deliberate and intended to make readers angry.

He's not engaging with people here at all. I imagine he's found all the web debates he can on this topic and is posting exactly the same on them too.

Anyone who calls people 'vermin' is unlikely to engage in any worthwhile discussion with others imo.

He won't be here long.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Actually, I agree with the sexist gobshite on that point. Putin did get a large share of the vote, and even if one takes probably dodginess into account he would still have won. (Not to make out that Putin is any good, but the opposition in Russia includes racist leaders, something not often reported in the west.)

Just to be clear here, I'm no liberal. I based my views above from an article written in a far-left German magazine.

Thankyou Rosa Winkel. I need make no further comment.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Anyone who calls people 'vermin' is unlikely to engage in any worthwhile discussion with others imo.

He won't be here long.

I agree that such terminology is unwise, especially on here. But hey, this is supposed to be MY Hell thread!

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Whiny little sexist bastard, aren't you?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Anyone who calls people 'vermin' is unlikely to engage in any worthwhile discussion with others imo.

He won't be here long.
I agree that such terminology is unwise, especially on here. But hey, this is supposed to be MY Hell thread!

Ooops - sorry!

I think you are misguided Mark Betts - but I wouldn't have called you to hell.

I see you as an adolescent who will learn better.

I think the Berk will get his own hell call if he stays around ... but, as I said, that's very unlikely. Looks like a one topic crusader type to me.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would be inclined to think a woman who participates in a protest like that cares very much about her children-- and what kind of world they grow up in.
I think it´s actually hilarious when people compare protesters like this to Jesus, or even Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

To not agree with the sentence is one thing, but to act as if they are martyrs or had done a great act of love to humanity is just incredibly naive.

Anyway, their goal to make their protest visible has been achieved.

My point exactly - why do I need to engage Ken, when others can see my point very clearly, while the likes of you have to view everything through liberal-revolutionary spectacles? What's the point in trying to explain to someone who is so blind and biassed that they are incapable of percieving that they might just be wrong?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of concern for the well-being of their children, should I advise these women to seek work elsewhere?

Absolutely. Making sandwiches in the school canteen is the only sensible option.

Have I missed Mark's response to this post?...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?

I hope you treat them well, and ensure they have adequate care for their children. They are not out trying to seek fame and publicity, and risking arrest which would seperate them from their offspring, are they?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Mark Betts genuinely believes this stuff about women staying at home with the kids. It's kind of 19th century, but these views still have traction today, see sections of the Tory party. Yes, Kinder, Kirche, Kuche, is about it. (Sorry about the umlaut).

Berwickshire - I smell something living under a bridge. Do not feed.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

The arcane division of threads escapes me and this discussion seems to be straying back to the main theme. As I understood it, the purpose of the present Holy Inquisition was arraign a heretic on a charge of a heinous offence against the sacred canons established by all the holy martyrs, saints and prophets of feminism, to invite the pious faithful to vent their outrage and call the heretic to recant. Thanks to one of those lucky procedural breaks, Sub-Prefect Josephine of the Holy Office has decide to shut her pious ears to a second heretic, so that is bound to raise the average level of comprehension among the tribunal somewhat.

Post-Soviet society in the Slavonic lands operates at a level where men do the simple work and get the beetroot in and the women prepare the soup, the vastly more complex undertaking if it is to be done well. Just about the only thing Socialism has bequeathed to the west is the code of Political Correctness. The post-Socialist world considers itself well shot of it and so people cheerfully indulge in such naughtiness as Armenian or Jewish comments – Pussy Riot along with the rest of them. The fundamental charge here is that the heretic did utter the word “mother” when Political Correctness requires “parent” and so, two pages and eighty posts latter, here we are.

As it happens in the real world all three criminals were women and from a society which has its own expectations about gender roles for parents at home or, indeed, in the way they behave in church. For Russians the fact that a hooligan is a mother is the strongest possible grounds for leniency: here inequality works in favour of the perpetrators. Given that the popular Russian view is that these young punks ought to be home with their families, I am not sure that they would think our heresy hunters have much of a case.

Non placet.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Whilst agreeing with the OP and its subsequent supporters, I do have one slight quibble with the way certain parties in The Meedjah™ and Pussy Riot's celeb supporters have portrayed them: some (but not much admittedly) has been made of the motherhood aspect as if this should be some kind of mitigation in sentencing; surely to be consistent the issue of parenthood, if at applies at all in a case, should apply equally to accused fathers as well as accused mothers?

A minor niggle, but I raise it for the usual Hellions to pore over and tear to shreds as they see fit...

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...[snip]...What's the point in trying to explain to someone who is so blind and biassed that they are incapable of percieving that they might just be wrong?

...mote...beam...

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Just about the only thing Socialism has bequeathed to the west is the code of Political Correctness.

No. Right-wingers in the west who felt grumpy about having to refer politely to people of a different colour, gender, creed or sexual orientation (etc) labelled this movement "political correctness"; others began using the label somewhat ironically, and then it was picked up by people who didn't know any better. However, I suspect that you know as well as I do what a huge gap there is between the modern western PC and the old Soviet version. Indeed, one of the things that makes you so dislikeable as a poster is not so much your root opinions as your willingness to twist any which way you can to score points. For example, the continuing anti-semitism slur on Pussy Riot, which seems to turn on a less-than-obvious interpretation of one line that might be a reference to Felix Dzherzhinsky.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
the likes of you have to view everything through liberal-revolutionary spectacles?

Shit! So that's my problem! Anybody know where they sell these? Can I get them in my prescription?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Were such things here as we do speak about?
Or have we eaten on the insane root
That takes the reason prisoner?

It would be easier to argue with you if you made any actual points. Ranting about Josephine is all good and well, but beside the point. You have attacked the "superficial clique" here in more than one post.

For some reason you believe we behave more like a Gemeinschaft when we are much closer to a Gesellschaft.

Either you came to the Ship with prejudices already in place, or you make judgements on the basis of little or no evidence. Neither alternative speaks well of your cognitive prowess.

If you came here to make a point, perhaps you should try to make your point using reason instead of sarcasm and mostly irrelevant cultural references.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?
I hope you treat them well, and ensure they have adequate care for their children.

Now, I'm confused. Suddenly it's the employer's job to ensure the children have adequate care?

I really get the impression that you think mothers are fundamentally incapable of making arrangements themselves for their children's care.

First there's the vague suggestion that Pussy Riot couldn't organise their child's welfare without being there themselves, and now it sounds as if employers have to organise their mommy-employees because the mommy-employees couldn't possibly manage this task themselves.

I can see the big boss man standing at the door and saying "now Mary, did you remember to drop Joey off at the creche on your way here?" and then Mary giggles and says "oopsie!"

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Now, I'm confused. Suddenly it's the employer's job to ensure the children have adequate care?

I really get the impression that you think mothers are fundamentally incapable of making arrangements themselves for their children's care.

First there's the vague suggestion that Pussy Riot couldn't organise their child's welfare without being there themselves, and now it sounds as if employers have to organise their mommy-employees because the mommy-employees couldn't possibly manage this task themselves.

I can see the big boss man standing at the door and saying "now Mary, did you remember to drop Joey off at the creche on your way here?" and then Mary giggles and says "oopsie!"

OK, I'm very sorry to have caused so much offence. Before I say anything else perhaps I should get it approved by yourself first, seeing as you are so much cleverer than I am. Maybe it's best if you just tell me what to say and I'll say it, then I won't offend anyone will I?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?
I hope you treat them well, and ensure they have adequate care for their children.
Now, I'm confused. Suddenly it's the employer's job to ensure the children have adequate care?

I really get the impression that you think mothers are fundamentally incapable of making arrangements themselves for their children's care.

Of course. Not just that, but the dozy mares are always going off and recklessly having accidents which make it impossible for them to properly care for their children, as is their duty. That's why their employers need to take good care of them, in case they accidentally brutally stab themselves with a butter knife.

You think I'm making this up? Why do you think so many people think it's so important to protect sharp corners of tables, cover electrical sockets, stop doors from closing suddenly on fingers and so on, just as soon as they have children? It isn't for the sake of the baby - they bounce. It's so that their mother can't get out of her rightful duty to care for the little buggers by having a terrible accident. Frankly, it's more than a touch irresponsible that they don't all live in padded cells, but that's namby-pamby liberalism gone mad for you.

Day after day, we see these modern, "liberated" mothers walking down the street, where they could be run over by a car, or beaten and left for dead by a mugger, or abducted by aliens. And when that happens, what will become of the children? Won't someone please think of the children????

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe it's best if you just tell me what to say and I'll say it, then I won't offend anyone will I?

If you lack the motivation or intellect to engage with the consequences of what you say and discuss the implications in a coherent way then perhaps it would be best to get prior advice.

[ 20. August 2012, 11:33: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If you're not prepared to own your own words, that's entirely your problem.

EDIT: Snap!

[ 20. August 2012, 11:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Berwickshire opined

quote:
Non placet

Please note that this is an English language board and that foreign languages are not permitted unless provided with a translation in the same post. This is a gentle reminder. Repeated offenders have been known to be banned.

PeteC
Hellhost

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like! [Big Grin]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Does not follow. Are you trying?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

Yes, he is. Very.

Posted by Berwickshire (# 15761) on :

Hell’s bells. If the best line in intimidation is to pick up on this sort of thing people really are getting stuck. I know some folks are happier with Anglo-Saxon grunts but “Non placet” has been around long enough to be English – Oxford Movement and all that. I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English but it is in English dictionaries. Despite its original form the phrase is English enough to be treated as a regular English noun and forms it plural by adding “s”. It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

Posted by moron (# 206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I am not sure that they would think our heresy hunters have much of a case.

But they are ours, and cute to boot.

[Axe murder]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Hell’s bells. If the best line in intimidation is to pick up on this sort of thing people really are getting stuck. I know some folks are happier with Anglo-Saxon grunts but “Non placet” has been around long enough to be English – Oxford Movement and all that. I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English but it is in English dictionaries. Despite its original form the phrase is English enough to be treated as a regular English noun and forms it plural by adding “s”. It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

Oh dear. A tip for newbies. When someone has HOST written in nice bold letters at the bottom of their post, that is an official ruling from the people that run the Ship.

Such a ruling is not part of the general Hell conversational free-for-all. If you must argue with it, go and do it in Styx. PeteC is not 'setting himself up as the oracle' here, PeteC is a duly appointed host who has just warned you about breaking Ship's rules.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does not follow. Are you trying?

But you don't seem to understand the context of the thread in the first place.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

The gap between total abandonment of children and what YOU seem to think Parents Must Do is wide indeed, and covers an extremely large part of the population in many countries including yours and mine.

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Anyone who calls people 'vermin' is unlikely to engage in any worthwhile discussion with others imo.

He won't be here long.
I agree that such terminology is unwise, especially on here.

This is so weaselly. I.e. he has no problems in declaring other people to be vermin apart from the risk that "liberal-revolutionaries" might get you if you do. Playing the victim card whilst actually agreeing with Berwickshire's spittle-flecked rants. He manages to be a tool and gutless at the same time.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
Hell’s bells. If the best line in intimidation is to pick up on this sort of thing people really are getting stuck. I know some folks are happier with Anglo-Saxon grunts but “Non placet” has been around long enough to be English – Oxford Movement and all that. I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English but it is in English dictionaries. Despite its original form the phrase is English enough to be treated as a regular English noun and forms it plural by adding “s”. It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

Take it to the Styx, n00b. I will not discuss it here.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
I don’t know who is going to set himself up as the oracle as to what is or is not English

Round here that would be the Hosts. Which means when Pete tells you to knock off the foreign language shit, you knock it off.

If you have any further arguments about this Hostly ruling then make them in The Styx where they belong. And note that while Pete's warning was friendly, this one isn't.

Marvin
Hellhost

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

The curse of crosspost strikes again. Such is life.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you don't seem to understand the context of the thread in the first place.

Your evidence for that being what? (Needs to be more than simply non-agreement with you, by the way).

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This is so weaselly. I.e. he has no problems in declaring other people to be vermin apart from the risk that "liberal-revolutionaries" might get you if you do. Playing the victim card whilst actually agreeing with Berwickshire's spittle-flecked rants. He manages to be a tool and gutless at the same time.

I don't agree with everything Berwickshire writes, and I doubt if he would agree with everything I write. It's known as discernment, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you Pre-cambrian.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

You sure don't Betsy.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But you don't seem to understand the context of the thread in the first place.
Your evidence for that being what? (Needs to be more than simply non-agreement with you, by the way).

You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

I've tried to explain, but you and your liberal clique are so sure you were right in the first place that I feel I have wasted my time. You ask me to explain myself, then when I do you're not interested.

[ 20. August 2012, 12:49: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

I'm sorry Mark. I suspect that somewhere or another you make this distinction and I have missed it. My bad.

Please be kind enough to take the time to help me understand the distinction.

Thank you in advance,

Tortuf

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

I've tried to explain, but you and your liberal clique are so sure you were right in the first place that I feel I have wasted my time. You ask me to explain myself, then when I do you're not interested.

I haven't particularly discussed that concept, but even were I to have I think you fall into the category of arguing that I don't understand simply because I disagree with you.

Disinterest in what you say cannot be inferred from lack of agreement either.

Also the only reason that posters here currently appear a clique to you is that you have got something so profoundly wrong it unites a large percentage of posters on this thread. You'll observe on this thread and elsewhere that the ship is not especially prone to consensus.

[ 20. August 2012, 12:56: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You'll observe on this thread and elsewhere that the ship is not especially prone to consensus.

On the contrary, I have found many on the ship are, including down here - they tend to be the ones who dominate threads. If the consensus was the same in other media and different forums worldwide then I might think it was just me, but this is not the case.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.
I'm sorry Mark. I suspect that somewhere or another you make this distinction and I have missed it. My bad.

Please be kind enough to take the time to help me understand the distinction.

Thank you in advance,

Tortuf

OK, no problem [Smile]

Just read this thread again from start to finish, and if you still can't see the distinction do it again.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You'll observe on this thread and elsewhere that the ship is not especially prone to consensus.
On the contrary, I have found many on the ship are, including down here - they tend to be the ones who dominate threads.

Yeah, that's me. Utterly full of agreement with other posters. Never have heated arguments with any of the others.

I'd point you to the hell call I issued not so long ago, but the hosts around here like doing regular clean ups.

[ 20. August 2012, 13:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
This is so weaselly. I.e. he has no problems in declaring other people to be vermin apart from the risk that "liberal-revolutionaries" might get you if you do. Playing the victim card whilst actually agreeing with Berwickshire's spittle-flecked rants. He manages to be a tool and gutless at the same time.
I don't agree with everything Berwickshire writes, and I doubt if he would agree with everything I write. It's known as discernment, but you wouldn't know anything about that would you Pre-cambrian.

I have discerned, Mark Betts, that you are a petty authoritarian conservative with all the paranoia of a Daily Mail letters page. I have also discerned that whenever you are challenged on something you have written you then go off on a tangent in order to avoid the issue. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to your being too stupid to understand words, rather than to dishonesty.

Cue the next bit of puerile nose-thumbing.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!

Mark, do you really not understand why what you said was offensive?

Do you understand that it was offensive?

You don't really think that people are just picking on you because you're conservative and they're liberal, do you?

These are not rhetorical questions, intended as some sort of slam. They're genuine questions.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Well Mark, I hope you meant to just blow me off. Because if you were genuine with your comment, you did not address, or explain the distinction.

It seems you place no value on what the members of Pussy Riot did. That is fine. You disagree with their point of view, or their methods, or both, I assume. What you are missing is that either they were making a political statement, or they were attempting to advance their careers, or both. In the even they were attempting to advance their careers you distinction is inapt.

In the event they were making a political statement you must mean that women should not be making political statements, even though you never said that specifically. That is the only logical conclusion. Logical here meaning in the formal sense.

Is that what you are saying? Women should not leave their children behind to make a political statement?

Read what you write before you demand that others read what you wrote.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Out of curiosity, Mark Betts, what's your opinion of the two single moms on my staff?
I hope you treat them well, and ensure they have adequate care for their children. They are not out trying to seek fame and publicity, and risking arrest which would seperate them from their offspring, are they?

Things may be different where you live, Mark Betts, but in my state, employment law specifically forbids me to enquire about (much less take responsibility for) the child-care arrangements of potential hires when I interview them.

And no, these two women are not seeking fame and publicity. What evidence can you offer that fame and publicity were the primary goals of Pussy Riot?

And no, my staffers do not risk arrest in the normal conduct of our work. They do routinely risk disability, life-threatening illness, and assault, including rape. Any of these possible outcomes could compromise care of their kids. Should I fire them or not?

[ 20. August 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children. Leaving aside the glaring privilege that leads you to assume that it's the sole responsibility of women to take their children into account:

How do you define "may be arrested" in this context? Should arrest be forseeable, a likely outcome, or a theoretical possibility?

Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?

What is your position on women whose very jobs involve unsocial hours, or are genuinely dangerous? Surely, if ability to care for their children is the only measure, they're at least as deserving of your scorn?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I have discerned, Mark Betts, that you are a petty authoritarian conservative with all the paranoia of a Daily Mail letters page. I have also discerned that whenever you are challenged on something you have written you then go off on a tangent in order to avoid the issue. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by attributing it to your being too stupid to understand words, rather than to dishonesty.

Cue the next bit of puerile nose-thumbing.

I have never read such utter garbage in my whole life. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a petty authoritarian conservative with all the paranoia of a Daily Mail letters page? I suppose you consider "going off on a tangent" to be when someone doesn't agree with everything you say.

I have never used the term "vermin" in my posts and don't intend to, but that didn't stop you accusing me of it. Why do I have to answer to that?

Disgusted, of Tunbridge Wells.

[ 20. August 2012, 13:36: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Apparently you don't even know where you live...

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Berwickshire:
It is bound to be familiar to graduates of either of the universities. Or am I missing the real agenda?

And this wank believes there are only two universities in the world, both apparently situated in perfidious Albion.

[ 20. August 2012, 13:41: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apparently you don't even know where you live...

Nor the paper. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is so Daily Telegraph.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.
You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children. Leaving aside the glaring privilege that leads you to assume that it's the sole responsibility of women to take their children into account:

How do you define "may be arrested" in this context? Should arrest be forseeable, a likely outcome, or a theoretical possibility?

Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?

What is your position on women whose very jobs involve unsocial hours, or are genuinely dangerous? Surely, if ability to care for their children is the only measure, they're at least as deserving of your scorn?

You don't seem capable of discerning the difference either. Here's some advice for you.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

To: Shipmates.

re: Betts, M

DNFTT.

Message ends.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I don't think he's a troll. I think he's just unable to engage with people who disagree with his dogmatic statements in any other way.

This leaves him with puerile blow-offs that he thinks maintain his dignity whenever challenged in a way he can't handle.

It is rather juvenile, but he may grow up.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children.

Sorry, I must have missed something - I wasn't aware that there were any fathers in Pussy Riot when they stormed the Cathedral.

quote:
Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?

Since when was it a "legitimate" protest? Obviously you're not well read enough to know the difference, but I can assure you that Pussy Riot did.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I'm curious: Is it possible that Mark Betts is on far more intimate terms with Pussy Riot than he's previously let on? He seems privy to so much of their thought process, values, and goals.

C'mon, mate: how do you know what you claim to know about these women?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm curious: Is it possible that Mark Betts is on far more intimate terms with Pussy Riot than he's previously let on? He seems privy to so much of their thought process, values, and goals.

C'mon, mate: how do you know what you claim to know about these women?

All three women made lengthy closing statements before the verdict. Check out this post and click on the link, read them in full, and you will most probably know them better than I do.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Mark, thanks for the above link which took me to this post of yours.

Well-educated people are quite capable of naive immature pranks. I'm sure you are reflective enough to understand the consequences of such and that, dear Mr Betts is why you were called here!

Lord, are we permitted to employ a length of 4" by 2", just to gain the attention of the deliberately dull?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

So Mark, I wonder if you can post from the links you provided the statements you think show Pussy Riot's intentions as being solely for the purpose of generating self-serving commercial success?

The women's statements are quite lengthy, and I'll admit to having scanned some portions. But the following remarks strike me (YMMV) as statements of genuine plitical protest (Hope these are brief enough to steer clear of potential copyright issues):

Yekaterina (sorry, forgot to add her patronymic)

Compared to the judicial machine, we are nobodies, and we have lost. On the other hand, we have won. The whole world now sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, the world sees Russia differently than the way Putin tries to present it at his daily international meetings.

Maria Alyokhina

The current government will have occasion to feel shame and embarrassment because of [this] for a long time to come. At each stage it has embodied a travesty of justice. As it turned out, our performance, at first a small and somewhat absurd act, snowballed into an enormous catastrophe.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova

By and large, the three members of Pussy Riot are not the ones on trial here. If we were, this event would hardly be so significant. This is a trial of the entire political system of the Russian Federation, which, to its great misfortune, enjoys quoting its own cruelty toward the individual, its indifference toward human honor and dignity, repeating all of the worst moments of Russian history.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Since when was it a "legitimate" protest?

Since when was it not?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The women's statements are quite lengthy, and I'll admit to having scanned some portions. But the following remarks strike me (YMMV) as statements of genuine plitical protest (Hope these are brief enough to steer clear of potential copyright issues):

Yekaterina (sorry, forgot to add her patronymic)

Compared to the judicial machine, we are nobodies, and we have lost. On the other hand, we have won. The whole world now sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, the world sees Russia differently than the way Putin tries to present it at his daily international meetings.

Maria Alyokhina

The current government will have occasion to feel shame and embarrassment because of [this] for a long time to come. At each stage it has embodied a travesty of justice. As it turned out, our performance, at first a small and somewhat absurd act, snowballed into an enormous catastrophe.

Nadezhda Tolokonnikova

By and large, the three members of Pussy Riot are not the ones on trial here. If we were, this event would hardly be so significant. This is a trial of the entire political system of the Russian Federation, which, to its great misfortune, enjoys quoting its own cruelty toward the individual, its indifference toward human honor and dignity, repeating all of the worst moments of Russian history.

How long have they had to prepare these statements? About 6 months or just under, I believe. Of course, lawyers and others would make them look like genuine political protest, why would they compose statements which made out that they only stormed the Cathedral for publicity and fame?

I'm glad you took the time to skim through them, but you also have to read between the lines and discern what's really going on. It seems the judge did this - result: 2 years.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?

What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

Then STFU about Russian pop singers.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.
Then STFU about Russian pop singers.

Why? Who's employees were they? Troll.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

I am asking you because you have argued on this thread that women who place themselves at risk obviously care little about their children.

Since mothers who work -- at policing, at soldiering, in heavy industries, as medical and security personnel, as performers (esp. when they achieve significant fame) -- routinely place themselves at significant risk, should employers (A) fire employed mothers and/or (B) refuse to hire mothers who apply for risky jobs, in order to reduce the chances that these mothers' children might end up neglected?

I'm simply trying to suss out the principle, assuming there is one, behind the argument you've made.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.
I am asking you because you have argued on this thread that women who place themselves at risk obviously care little about their children.

Since mothers who work -- at policing, at soldiering, in heavy industries, as medical and security personnel, as performers (esp. when they achieve significant fame) -- routinely place themselves at significant risk, should employers (A) fire employed mothers and/or (B) refuse to hire mothers who apply for risky jobs, in order to reduce the chances that these mothers' children might end up neglected?

I'm simply trying to suss out the principle, assuming there is one, behind the argument you've made.

My argument was never intended to include working women, regardless of how risky their work is. That is a matter between them and their employers (within the law) and written in their employment contract.

These women, as far as we can tell, worked for no-one when they stormed the Cathedral. However, I am wondering who they really did represent - the Communist Party?

If they represented no-one in particular then that strengthens my belief that they did it for their own publicity and fame. That seems to me to be a selfish act, as regards their children.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

In case you missed it the first time, Mark:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!
Mark, do you really not understand why what you said was offensive?

Do you understand that it was offensive?

You don't really think that people are just picking on you because you're conservative and they're liberal, do you?

These are not rhetorical questions, intended as some sort of slam. They're genuine questions.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How long have they had to prepare these statements? About 6 months or just under, I believe.

How is this question relevant to the issue of whether the "punk prayer" was an act of genuine political protest or a self-serving effort to generate fame and sell CDs?

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Of course, lawyers and others would make them look like genuine political protest, <snip>

Oh. So now they're not only self-serving attention-whores, they're also so stupid as to be incapable of developing their own statements?

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
<snip> . . .

why would they compose statements which made out that they only stormed the Cathedral for publicity and fame?

Yet not so stupid as to reveal their true intentions if they did indeed write their own statements . . . make up your mind.

And I confess to finding your image of 5 skinny young musicians "storming" a cathedral hilarious.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm glad you took the time to skim through them, but you also have to read between the lines and discern what's really going on.

Oh, those deceitful daughters of Eve: they never say what they really mean, do they? We all know that "No" really means "Yes" if we press our case a little harder, don't we?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

FTR, I'm pretty conservative (and disapprove of the method of Pussy Riot's protest even if I share some of their concerns about the nexus between Putin and the ROC) and I found it sexist, misogynistic and offensive.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

You know, Mark, when you first arrived on the Ship, I thought you were an arrogant, clueless waste of pixels with all the wit, intelligence and social skills of a particularly dim puppy, bounding all over the boards dispensing your wisdom (or what passes for it) like so much canine drool.

Then, after you were on the receiving end of a healthy amount of righteous arse-kicking, I thought you'd changed a bit. Maybe the penny had dropped. Maybe your previous behaviour had been a socially inept way of trying to fit in. Maybe you actually had something relevant and productive to say. Looks like I was wrong.

Sadly, your style of argument still appears to be bare assertions pulled out of your arse, backed up with cries of "Yuh-huh", "Nuh-uh" and occasionally (for variety) "I know you are, but what am I?" I don't know whether you think you're being convincing, clever or witty, but you're not. At all. You're being childish and rather pathetic.

I doubt I'm alone in mentally putting you on my "ignore" list at this point, because you're acting like a total leotard. If you want anyone to listen to what you have to say, go and find a clue, sit down and think honestly about why everyone always seems to be so down on you in particular, before you embarrass yourself any further.

Of course, it's quite possible, judging from your posts, that you're incapable of embarrassment, in which case we can just have ourselves a good old-fashioned flaming.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In case you missed it the first time, Mark:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know! Why don't we all (mothers and fathers) just not bother about our children at all. Let's just hand them all over to the state to take care of, then we can go out and do what the hell we like!
Mark, do you really not understand why what you said was offensive?

Do you understand that it was offensive?

You don't really think that people are just picking on you because you're conservative and they're liberal, do you?

These are not rhetorical questions, intended as some sort of slam. They're genuine questions.

Well, Josephine, I've lost count of the times I've explained that I wasn't talking in the context of working women. The thread was never about working women's rights was it? How many times do I have to explain it?

It is in the context of illegal and offensive protests which could result in arrest and possibly imprisonment. How much clearer do you want me to be?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Ah. Is "self-employment" a different fish-kettle from "employment," in your view? Self-employment can, in itself, be fairly risky, in an economic sense. Should parents be barred from self-employment?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I doubt I'm alone in mentally putting you on my "ignore" list at this point, because you're acting like a total leotard.

So do it then, and we'll both be happy.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Well, that's me buggered then!

[cp with Mark Betts]

[ 20. August 2012, 15:28: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Ah. Is "self-employment" a different fish-kettle from "employment," in your view? Self-employment can, in itself, be fairly risky, in an economic sense. Should parents be barred from self-employment?

Now you're just being stupid. You know very well that I'm not talking about "employment" in any legitimate sense.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

So criminal employment, then? Drugs mules, gang lackeys, that sort of thing?

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
You know very well that I'm not talking about "employment" in any legitimate sense.

Eh? Pussy Riot are self-employed musicians surely?

[tangent] can't believe I'm tearing myself away from the test match for this [/tangent]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You don't seem capable of discerning the difference either. Here's some advice for you.

Now listen here, arsehole.

This little trick is THE worst refuge of uptight pricks who think that the world revolves around them. If people didn't understand what you meant, there's a high probability that the problem is with your expression, not with their reading. In which case, telling them to just read it again will achieve fuck all.

You want to be understood, it's your bloody job to see to it that you're understood. Otherwise, you deserve every bit of invective thrown at you for being an archaic misogynist who prefers his women barefoot and pregnant.

Got that?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
You've stated that you think it a Bad Thing for women to be "going out to cause trouble" (while remaining very quiet about men doing the same) because they may be arrested and therefore be unable to care for their children.
Sorry, I must have missed something - I wasn't aware that there were any fathers in Pussy Riot when they stormed the Cathedral.

quote:
Where does legitimate protest meet "going out to cause trouble"? I'm sure you can't really be saying that no mother should ever participate in a demonstration or rally (for example), so what are you saying?
Since when was it a "legitimate" protest? Obviously you're not well read enough to know the difference, but I can assure you that Pussy Riot did.

And THIS just shows YOUR failure to be able to read and exercise comprehension skills, because it's bloody obvious that these questions were asking you about the general principle, not the particular case. Or do you think that these 3 women are the first people in the entire universe to go and engage in controversial political protest?

[ 20. August 2012, 15:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
So criminal employment, then? Drugs mules, gang lackeys, that sort of thing?

It is possible that they were hired, or put up to it by some political activist group, yes, such as a modern day version of "The Union for the Liberation of the Working Class." But these payments wouldn't have gone through the books in the normal way.

But even so, I don't think so.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Ah. Is "self-employment" a different fish-kettle from "employment," in your view? Self-employment can, in itself, be fairly risky, in an economic sense. Should parents be barred from self-employment?
Now you're just being stupid. You know very well that I'm not talking about "employment" in any legitimate sense.

In fact, I do not know what you're talking about, especially when it comes tagged with that label you keep using -- "legitimate." Further, I suspect that you don't know either -- that you are messing about here with concepts you haven't bothered to examine with a modicum of intellecutal honesty.

You want me to read "between the lines" of political statements by members of Pussy Riot, and "discern" what they really mean (always, it seems, with results that diverge about 180 degrees from what they've said or written). You may call that "discernment;" I call it "bad faith."

Have you no idea that people here are reading between your lines, and coming up with "discernments" of their own -- about your "true" beliefs or intentions? And yet, rather than explain or defend these, you simply shift to new ground.

That's the point of the questions here: to check whether you understand the implications of what you're saying, to check on their internal consistency, and to provide opportunities for revision when you find they don't square up.

What is "legitimate" employment, in your view? Can protest ever be "legitimate," in your view?

Note that I make a sizable assumption here, in that "legitimate" does not necessarily equate to "something I agree with."

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.

And yet again, the paternalism shines through. The employer has to decide what's best for these employees.

You know what? Your choice of wording is becoming consistent enough to make me conclude it's no accident.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've lost count of the times I've explained that I wasn't talking in the context of working women. The thread was never about working women's rights was it? How many times do I have to explain it?

No, you're right, it isn't about the rights of women to work. But thank you for that, because you managed to answer my question anyway. You don't have a clue why what you said was so offensive.

Let me see if I can explain it so you can understand.

Women, until what counts as recently in historical terms, were considered chattel, property, an inferior sort of human being. It was widely believed by men that women were entirely unable to make their own decisions, because women existed primarily (or exclusively) to provide legitimate heirs to men. It was their job, their purpose, to give birth to children, and then to take care of them. Anything that interfered with that was considered inappropriate, or immoral, or just plain wrong.

That attitude has not entirely gone away. Women still suffer from it. Not just in employment, but in many other ways, women have their choices limited by the expectation that their proper role is to take care of the children. Limiting the choices of other people based on your own prejudices is quite simply wrong. Even if we're not talking about choices in employment, but choices in entertainment, it's wrong. It is just as wrong for a theater to allow only white patrons as it is for the theater to hire only white ushers. And limiting the choices of women, or minorities, or others, in areas that do not pertain to work has the effect of limiting their choices in employment. So even if the only thing you care about is equal access to employment, the opinion that you stated has the effect of limiting that as well.

Your statement that the women in Pussy Riot should have been home with their children is patriarchal, patronizing, ignorant, and misogynistic. It assumes that you know better than they do what they want or need, and what is best for them and for their family. The view expressed by your statement is harmful to all women.

quote:
It is in the context of illegal and offensive protests which could result in arrest and possibly imprisonment. How much clearer do you want me to be?

But haven't you said that Pussy Riot intended the protest to further their careers? If that's the case, and if you believe that women (excluse me, parents) should be free to work at jobs that carry risks that might cause them to be separated from their children, then your statement that they should have been home with their children would not apply. Using your reasoning, as I understand it, if this was a publicity stunt intended for commercial gain, then this was an employment-related action for the women in Pussy Riot, making the risk appropriate. If I am understanding you right (and I may not be), it's only it was purely a political protest, a hobby, something that they did for fun, that your concern for their children would take precedence over their right to advance their career.

So ... do you yet understand why people are upset with you? Why even other conservatives on the Ship are taking you to task?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And THIS just shows YOUR failure to be able to read and exercise comprehension skills, because it's bloody obvious that these questions were asking you about the general principle, not the particular case. Or do you think that these 3 women are the first people in the entire universe to go and engage in controversial political protest?

MY failure? Are you serious?
How can you possibly determine whether a protest was legal or illegal without looking at the particular case. Loaded questions which already presume the protest was legitimate don't even deserve an answer.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And THIS just shows YOUR failure to be able to read and exercise comprehension skills, because it's bloody obvious that these questions were asking you about the general principle, not the particular case. Or do you think that these 3 women are the first people in the entire universe to go and engage in controversial political protest?
MY failure? Are you serious?
How can you possibly determine whether a protest was legal or illegal without looking at the particular case. Loaded questions which already presume the protest was legitimate don't even deserve an answer.

Yes, your failure. Whether or not the protest was legitimate is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the ideas that you have been called here to defend.

The issue is whether mothers (excuse me, parents) are free to live their own lives according to their own choices, values, desires, and needs, even if you don't approve.

If that's what you believe -- that other people should only ever make choices you approve of, and that the state is free to limit the choices of other competent adults to suit your standards -- then say so. I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, and to assume that you didn't really believe that, or hadn't thought through the implications of what you were saying, or were otherwise miscommunicating. But maybe there is no miscommunication. I really don't want to think that, though.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And THIS just shows YOUR failure to be able to read and exercise comprehension skills, because it's bloody obvious that these questions were asking you about the general principle, not the particular case. Or do you think that these 3 women are the first people in the entire universe to go and engage in controversial political protest?
MY failure? Are you serious?
How can you possibly determine whether a protest was legal or illegal without looking at the particular case. Loaded questions which already presume the protest was legitimate don't even deserve an answer.

Oh for fuck's sake, LEARN TO READ! The question was about where the boundary was. Because there's got to BE a boundary unless the answer is "mothers can never be involved in any kind of protest or rally". And if you can't articulate any kind of principle about where the boundary is, you can't assess individual cases in any meaningful way.

You just jump 7 steps ahead and answer the questions about the particular case, though. That's really working for you. [Roll Eyes]

Yes. Yes I'm serious. You're a complete waste of space about 90% of the time, frankly.

EDIT: Josephine gave you the polite version. Josephine is fundamentally a lot nicer than many Shipmates. Josephine's the one who called you to Hell. Draw your own conclusions.

[ 20. August 2012, 15:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
BTW, I'm still awaiting your advice about the two single mothers who place themselves at so much risk while working at our company. To fire, or not to fire?
What are you asking me for? They are your employees, so you do what you think is best for them.
And yet again, the paternalism shines through. The employer has to decide what's best for these employees.

You know what? Your choice of wording is becoming consistent enough to make me conclude it's no accident.

You're quite WRONG on this occasion orfeo. Do you know why? Because Porridge asked me what HE/SHE should do with his/her employees who were mothers. So the question was loaded to begin with, do you not see?

So if you want to accuse anyone of paternalism, start with Porridge.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

[brick wall]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You're quite WRONG on this occasion orfeo. Do you know why? Because Porridge asked me what HE/SHE should do with his/her employees who were mothers. So the question was loaded to begin with, do you not see?

So if you want to accuse anyone of paternalism, start with Porridge.

It wasn't a loaded question, Mark. It was a leading question. It appears to have been intended to lead you to understand, or at least to think about, the implications of the views that you have expressed.

Try doing that for a few minutes. Not defending your views, but thinking about them, and thinking about the implications of them. Please.

[ 20. August 2012, 16:08: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I've lost count of the times I've explained that I wasn't talking in the context of working women. The thread was never about working women's rights was it? How many times do I have to explain it?

No, you're right, it isn't about the rights of women to work. But thank you for that, because you managed to answer my question anyway. You don't have a clue why what you said was so offensive.

Let me see if I can explain it so you can understand.

Women, until what counts as recently in historical terms, were considered chattel, property, an inferior sort of human being. It was widely believed by men that women were entirely unable to make their own decisions, because women existed primarily (or exclusively) to provide legitimate heirs to men. It was their job, their purpose, to give birth to children, and then to take care of them. Anything that interfered with that was considered inappropriate, or immoral, or just plain wrong.

That attitude has not entirely gone away. Women still suffer from it. Not just in employment, but in many other ways, women have their choices limited by the expectation that their proper role is to take care of the children. Limiting the choices of other people based on your own prejudices is quite simply wrong. Even if we're not talking about choices in employment, but choices in entertainment, it's wrong. It is just as wrong for a theater to allow only white patrons as it is for the theater to hire only white ushers. And limiting the choices of women, or minorities, or others, in areas that do not pertain to work has the effect of limiting their choices in employment. So even if the only thing you care about is equal access to employment, the opinion that you stated has the effect of limiting that as well.

Your statement that the women in Pussy Riot should have been home with their children is patriarchal, patronizing, ignorant, and misogynistic. It assumes that you know better than they do what they want or need, and what is best for them and for their family. The view expressed by your statement is harmful to all women.

quote:
It is in the context of illegal and offensive protests which could result in arrest and possibly imprisonment. How much clearer do you want me to be?
But haven't you said that Pussy Riot intended the protest to further their careers? If that's the case, and if you believe that women (excluse me, parents) should be free to work at jobs that carry risks that might cause them to be separated from their children, then your statement that they should have been home with their children would not apply. Using your reasoning, as I understand it, if this was a publicity stunt intended for commercial gain, then this was an employment-related action for the women in Pussy Riot, making the risk appropriate. If I am understanding you right (and I may not be), it's only it was purely a political protest, a hobby, something that they did for fun, that your concern for their children would take precedence over their right to advance their career.

So ... do you yet understand why people are upset with you? Why even other conservatives on the Ship are taking you to task?

You won't like me saying this, but it is a somewhat biassed account isn't it? Is that the only way we are to understand history? I'm not saying there is no truth in it, but it is full of feminist propoganda. If that was really how the world had been until our recent "enlightenment" I have to wonder how the human race survived at all for thousands of years.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You seem to have no concept of the difference between the women (who happen to be mothers) going out to cause trouble, possibly leading to their arrest, and working mothers.

Personally, I think anyone - mother or not - going out deliberately to cause trouble is likely to make trouble for themselves. However, trouble comes in many shapes. Eg, the trouble consequent to the actions of protestors who may, or may not, have a valid point to make depending on which side of the fence you're on. Or the trouble caused by people who have no interest in human rights and the cohesion of society and create mindless damage and random harm to others for no reason other than they feel like it.

The difference between these two types of trouble-makers is surely obvious. And sometimes it seems to be a matter of personal perspective which type one would class the likes of the Pussy Riot incident. IMO, the band members are not mindless trouble-makers, and I don't see how their actions in this episode could be considered as realistically harmful to society.

An insult to a certain section of society, yes. Hurtful to sensibilities; I'm quite sure I would have been horrified if I had been there either as worshipper or visitor. And yes, it was a wrong thing - I think - as an intrusion into holy space. And wrong legally perhaps. But wrong method, does not necessarily mean wrong agenda. And not all wrongness is fairly met with harshly judicial and ecclesiastical response.

Then add to that the complex dynamics of how the legitimacy of a protest is qualified and by whom. Who has the right - the power, and the backing to impose that power - to say 'you are permitted to complain about this and this, but not that'. And then add the extra layer of how the protest is delivered. 'You may complain, but not in that way.' And finally, the repercussions: 'you broke the rules, here is your punishment.'

I have no doubt they ought to receive judicial censure for their actions. I'd assume they're at least intelligent enough to know that that would happen. But I can't follow any rationale here that demonstrates it's appropriate for these women to be gaoled for two years.

quote:
I've tried to explain, but you and your liberal clique are so sure you were right in the first place that I feel I have wasted my time. You ask me to explain myself, then when I do you're not interested.

Do you really think it is only (your idea of) 'liberals' who think that what happened with Pussy Riot is overkill? I see this as an issue of appropriate judicial response; rather than socio-political. I don't want to come to the conclusion that liberals are more interested in justice than non-liberals. I don't believe that to be true, actually. But if you insist on labelling in that way - which frankly is a digression and hardly relevant - that's the impression you're giving.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Can anyone out there find a redeeming feature in Mark Betts? He is incapable of reasoned debate, shown neatly in looking for some basis (eg, feminist propaganda) for any argument rather than discussing the facts (eg women being granted the vote, no longer being regarded as chattels etc), and ratchets up the temperature which, as I may have mentoned, facilitates this style.

It's a neat trick, but hardly a redeeming feature.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You won't like me saying this, but it is a somewhat biassed account isn't it? Is that the only way we are to understand history? I'm not saying there is no truth in it, but it is full of feminist propoganda. If that was really how the world had been until our recent "enlightenment" I have to wonder how the human race survived at all for thousands of years.

Let's come back to the key points, okay? I was hoping that a bit of history would help clarify things, but I guess not. Let's back up and start over with something simple.

Should women (excuse me, parents) be free to work at jobs that carry risks that might cause them to be separated from their children? (Note: This is not intended as a rhetorical trap. I'm trying to get some mutual understanding. The answer to the qustion can be a simple yes or no, but it doesn't have to be. "Under conditions A, B, or C, yes, but under X, Y, or Z, no" would be perfectly okay.)

Should women (or parents) be free to engage in non-employment-related activities (hobbies, recreation, etc.) that might cause them to be separated from their children? (Same caveats as above.)

Should adults be free to make their own choices and to live by their own standards, even if you don't approve of them? Why, or why not, or under what circumstances?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You won't like me saying this, but it is a somewhat biassed account isn't it? Is that the only way we are to understand history? I'm not saying there is no truth in it, but it is full of feminist propoganda. If that was really how the world had been until our recent "enlightenment" I have to wonder how the human race survived at all for thousands of years.

Which bit is an exaggeration? One only has to look at the recent past in Europe, when women could not vote, were paid less for the same work, and when allegations of rape were frequently dismissed.

Describing what Josephine wrote as feminist propaganda seems terribly misjudged to me. Would you care to support that?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Let's come back to the key points, okay? I was hoping that a bit of history would help clarify things, but I guess not. Let's back up and start over with something simple.

Should women (excuse me, parents) be free to work at jobs that carry risks that might cause them to be separated from their children? (Note: This is not intended as a rhetorical trap. I'm trying to get some mutual understanding. The answer to the qustion can be a simple yes or no, but it doesn't have to be. "Under conditions A, B, or C, yes, but under X, Y, or Z, no" would be perfectly okay.)

Should women (or parents) be free to engage in non-employment-related activities (hobbies, recreation, etc.) that might cause them to be separated from their children? (Same caveats as above.)

Should adults be free to make their own choices and to live by their own standards, even if you don't approve of them? Why, or why not, or under what circumstances?

I won't answer any of your questions, because not one of them really relates to what Pussy Riot did in the Cathedral. Other's can answer them however they like, it doesn't matter to me.

Pussy Riot storming the Cathedral had nothing whatsoever to do with everyday employment, regardless of whether the employee(s) are male or female.
neither can what the women did be construed as "hobbies, recreational activities etc."
"Making your own choices and living by your own standards" normally concerns "alternative lifestyles". The question of legality comes into it, but not what Pussy Riot did. That wasn't a lifestyle, it was what the courts construed as "hooligansim."

My reference to the women looking after their children, as I have repeatedly said, was not with respect to any of the things you have listed. The problem seems to be when people choose to imply meanings which were never there in the first place.

I can account for what I said, and if I unwittingly caused offence I am sorry. What I can't account for is when other people wrongly presume I am implying things which I never intended to.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You won't like me saying this, but it is a somewhat biassed account isn't it? Is that the only way we are to understand history? I'm not saying there is no truth in it, but it is full of feminist propoganda. If that was really how the world had been until our recent "enlightenment" I have to wonder how the human race survived at all for thousands of years.
Which bit is an exaggeration? One only has to look at the recent past in Europe, when women could not vote, were paid less for the same work, and when allegations of rape were frequently dismissed.

Describing what Josephine wrote as feminist propaganda seems terribly misjudged to me. Would you care to support that?

Maybe, but you'll have to open up another thread. I'd rather talk about what Pussy Riot did, with respect to childcare, which is what this thread is about (as far as I am aware).

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe, but you'll have to open up another thread. I'd rather talk about what Pussy Riot did, with respect to childcare, which is what this thread is about (as far as I am aware).

No, that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about you. It is about what you said: that mothers, or parents generally, are obliged not to take risks that could separate them from their children.

It is not about Pussy Riot. Pussy Riot is the context in which you made your statement. But that's not the subject of this thread. The fact that I asked you twice on the Purg thread whether you wanted to carry on the conversation about your remarks in Purg or in Hell indicates that I did not consider this conversation to be on the same topic as the Purg thread; if it had been, there would be no need of a separate thread. I didn't want to derail that thread to talk about you.

This thread is about your opinions as they relate to women's choices.

Do you understand now?

[ 20. August 2012, 17:03: Message edited by: Josephine ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Do you really think it is only (your idea of) 'liberals' who think that what happened with Pussy Riot is overkill? I see this as an issue of appropriate judicial response; rather than socio-political. I don't want to come to the conclusion that liberals are more interested in justice than non-liberals. I don't believe that to be true, actually. But if you insist on labelling in that way - which frankly is a digression and hardly relevant - that's the impression you're giving.

If we are just talking about a fair punishment, I would have thought 6 months would have been enough, so maybe (with my western bias) it was overkill.

However, the thread has gone way past discussing this, trying to make out the Russian Orthodox Church is evil, in bed with Mr Putin, and that Pussy Riot are living martyrs and modern day "Holy Fools".

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
I won't answer any of your questions

Ain't that the truth.

I wonder whether this whole thing with you, Mark Betts, would have blown up as it did if Pussy Riot had done what they did in any of a Roman Catholic Church; an Anglican Church; A Methodist or Baptist Chapel; a school hall used as a place of worship by a Free Evangelical church; a Friends Meeting House; a Town Hall... I wonder. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

It's genuinely heartwarming to see people of differing viewpoints all able to agree that when someone makes a "women should get back in the kitchen" post they are being an arse hole.

Kudos to the ship.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Since you were keen on appreciating context let me remind you. This was the OP

This thread is about dealing with the sexism implicit in your statement on the Pussy riot thread.

To be honest, I don't hold out much hope. Your previous modes of engagment have included ignoring questions, reasserting yourself irrespective of the discussion, juvenile one-line blow-offs and now the idea that you can state what the thread is or isn't about.

What are you hoping to achieve with this? Personally I post here because I enjoy getting alternative points of view, being challenged to clarify and justify what I think, and because I learn things.

Some people like to think they might persuade others of their point of view, and I have to admit I find that satisfying if I think it has happened but I think of that as being an unhealthy primary motivation.

And sometimes I change my mind, and sometimes I learn something about myself.

What are you hoping for here?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe, but you'll have to open up another thread. I'd rather talk about what Pussy Riot did, with respect to childcare, which is what this thread is about (as far as I am aware).
No, that is not what this thread is about.

This thread is about you. It is about what you said: that mothers, or parents generally, are obliged not to take risks that could separate them from their children.

It is not about Pussy Riot. Pussy Riot is the context in which you made your statement. But that's not the subject of this thread. The fact that I asked you twice on the Purg thread whether you wanted to carry on the conversation about your remarks in Purg or in Hell indicates that I did not consider this conversation to be on the same topic as the Purg thread; if it had been, there would be no need of a separate thread. I didn't want to derail that thread to talk about you.

This thread is about your opinions as they relate to women's choices.

Do you understand now?

Yes, but I never intended what I said to imply views on equal rights for women, working women taking risks, nor their right to vote - these are things which you imagined yourself and stirred everyone else up with.

I do not want to discuss your imagined implications any more because, as I have said so many times, they are wrong. I am sorry if I said something which was wrongly understood, but I can do no more.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Does is it occur to you that you might need to explain why we are wrong in thinking those to be the obvious implications of your sentiments, rather than simply assert that isn't the case?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I do not want to discuss your imagined implications any more because, as I have said so many times, they are wrong. I am sorry if I said something which was wrongly understood, but I can do no more.

If you were wrongly understood, Mark, then, for crying out loud, say what you meant! That's why I opened a follow-up thread -- I want you to understand why what you said (not what you meant, but what you said) was hateful and hurtful, and I want to understand what you meant, so that I don't have to think that you intended to say hateful, hurtful things.

The implications of your words are not imagined. They may not have been deliberate. I hope they weren't. But if you don't want people drawing the inferences that they have drawn, you need to repudiate the incorrect inferences, and say clearly what you meant. "I didn't mean that!" doesn't carry much weight if you won't say what you did mean.

I don't believe that you are incapable of saying what you mean, which is what you seem to be asking me to do. Please don't insist that I believe it, because if you are incapable of saying what you mean, there is no point in anyone having a conversation with you, ever.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Since you were keen on appreciating context let me remind you. This was the OP

This thread is about dealing with the sexism implicit in your statement on the Pussy riot thread.

To be honest, I don't hold out much hope. Your previous modes of engagment have included ignoring questions, reasserting yourself irrespective of the discussion, juvenile one-line blow-offs and now the idea that you can state what the thread is or isn't about.

What are you hoping to achieve with this? Personally I post here because I enjoy getting alternative points of view, being challenged to clarify and justify what I think, and because I learn things.

Some people like to think they might persuade others of their point of view, and I have to admit I find that satisfying if I think it has happened but I think of that as being an unhealthy primary motivation.

And sometimes I change my mind, and sometimes I learn something about myself.

What are you hoping for here?

What am I hoping for? As far as this thread is concerned, I wish I'd never commented at all now. I never wanted Josephine to open this thread, and maybe it would be best to just let it die it's own death.

In other threads I guess I am hoping for much the same as you, but I don't have hours and hours to spend all day reading long posts and long articles as some seem to. I mean no disrespect, because we all live different lives, but that is why I cannot give long researched answers to every question I am asked.

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere, so I'm leaving it now. Have fun! [Smile]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In other threads I guess I am hoping for much the same as you, but I don't have hours and hours to spend all day reading long posts and long articles as some seem to. I mean no disrespect, because we all live different lives, but that is why I cannot give long researched answers to every question I am asked.

If time is a pressure yet you hope for genuine fruitful engagement on threads, then I suggest posting less, and with more consideration. Post on things where you do have the time to read the articles required and consider your responses.

Because your current approach, with unresearched answers and knee-jerk responses, isn't really generating useful activity in anyone else, and isn't leading to any fulfilment of the aims I posted above which you agree with.

I hope you can see that. You might think that is all our fault for being a liberal clique, but if you are going to get what you want out of this liberal clique you need to change styles.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, this thread is going nowhere, so I'm leaving it now. Have fun!

I am genuinely very sorry that this is your response, Mark. I had thought better of you.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

It is possible that they were hired, or put up to it by some political activist group, yes, such as a modern day version of "The Union for the Liberation of the Working Class." But these payments wouldn't have gone through the books in the normal way.

"hired, or put up to it by some political activist group..." ???? So they cannot actually be the political activists themselves? Why? Because they are women? You think that only men are the real thing politically and women just get dragged along to meetings by their boyfriends? You seem to be blind to them as possible actors in these events, with their own political and personal autonomy,

Same gotes for your reaction to those closing statements (which really are worth reading by the way) - you seem to assume that the words must be put into their mouths by the men behind all this, whoiever they are. Obvously these are long-considered statements, and probably have input from all sorts of people. Just read them. Really, try reading them and understanding them. Because you obviously haven't. Its a failure to read again. A bit like your failure to read what Josephine and Mousethief and Orfeo and others posted here.

It shows in this:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How long have they had to prepare these statements? About 6 months or just under, I believe. Of course, lawyers and others would make them look like genuine political protest, why would they compose statements which made out that they only stormed the Cathedral for publicity and fame?

"Lawyers and others"? OK, there may be problems of translation here, but that stuff does not look like lawyer language. It does not look at all like lawyer language. It looks like the language of a rather old-fashioned sort of academic far left political writing. With a heavy dose of Biblical and Christian and specifically Orthodox reference that you would be very unlikely to get in similar writing in Britain. Exactly what you might expect from them if they were what they have always claimed to be, some intellectuals, students, ascademics, involved in protest theatre and performance art.

I suppose what I'm saying is that the annoying things about this thread and the other one is not so much that you don't like what they did or who they are or what they stand for politically - most people probably don't. Most people certainly don't. The world is not run by or on behalf of libertarian-socialist feminists and unfortunately probably never will be (Sorry about that Ursula and Marge and Joanna [Frown]

) The annoying thing is that you seem to want to deny them the autonomy to be the thing that you don't like.

And the other, more personally annoying thing, is that you consistently misread what everyone else is saying and so you end uyp arguing against a straw man all the time, an opponent you made up yourself. I mean seriously. Mousethief did not compare you to Nazis, the argument on the other thread was not about Orthodox rules about who can approach the altar; many, probably most, of the Christians posting here are not theological liberals (and at least some are not political liberals either, you seem to have annoyed a couple of died-in-the-wool Tories and maybe a US Republican or so); I do not hate all churches other than evangelical ones; Orfeo and Porridge were not trying to have an argument with you about employment law; Josephine is not persecuting you; Berwickshire was not talking sense; the majority of posters here do not think Pussy Riot are some kind of updated version of the Holy Martyrs; and you do not seem to be reading or understanding or engaging with what they are saying.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And while we're at it, can we decide which our liberal-revolutionary clique is going to be?

I mean are we to be liberals, or revolutionaries?

Its important! Greenbelt is next week. Many of us will be there. Do we take little portable camping stools as usual and sit outside the Tiny Tea Tent and renew our subscriptions to Third Way and the Church Times? Or do we take the makings of some Molotov cocktails and storm GCHQ? Which is it to be?

[ 20. August 2012, 18:58: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think he's a troll. I think he's just unable to engage with people who disagree with his dogmatic statements in any other way.

This leaves him with puerile blow-offs that he thinks maintain his dignity whenever challenged in a way he can't handle.

It is rather juvenile, but he may grow up.

I agree with this.

That berk character, on the other hand, is someone who presents her/himself as an expert on Russia, while, as I said earlier, presenting views that are miles away from what Russians are actually doing and saying. Many people (of all political persuasions) misunderstand Russia and unconsciously rely on projections. This berk character knows fuck all about what life in Russia is like and his/her views reveals more about her/his prejudices and general arrogant gobshitery than any concern for people in Russia.

The berk comes across as being older than Mark, and therefore (as I, like mdijon attribute his gobshite behaviour to his age) for me qualifies as one of the most bilious self-aggrandising nasty twats that we've seen here.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[tangent given this thread *isn't* about Pussy Riot]
It horrifies me that anyone thinks a 6 month prison sentence is an appropriate response to a few minutes protest in a church involving no violence.
[/tangent given this thread *isn't about Pussy Riot]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Mark,

Come again when you can't stay so long.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[tangent given this thread *isn't* about Pussy Riot]
It horrifies me that anyone thinks a 6 month prison sentence is an appropriate response to a few minutes protest in a church involving no violence.
[/tangent given this thread *isn't about Pussy Riot]

But it's so different in Russia. You don't understand the context, you see. And one of the security guards was off for months afterwards. And anyway look what happened to Charlie Gilmour. In fact given that you are part of a liberal clique with revolutionary spectacles there's no point explaining it to you because you won't understand. And they were in front of the altar. And women. And don't start the feminist propaganda, that won't work anyway. And you won't understand.

No time to write more now, I'm off. Have fun.

Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

Anyway, this thread is going nowhere, so I'm leaving it now. Have fun!

Does this count as a flounce, coz I had a bet with myself..... and it was way faster.

Mark Betts, if you do look back in, the thread was simply not going your way. You didn't have the intellectual honesty to own up, and instead attempted to shift the argument. When that also failed, you marched off: the online equivalent of 'aye, yer maw'.

I have three bits of advice:
1. Stop doing that thing with the bold - it's really tiresome;
2. For the love of God, learn what an apostrophe is for.
3. Spend 5 minutes of your scarce time finding out about
how low level prejudice acts as the gateway to grave abuse. Scroll down the page and read about the pyramid of hate, here indicated for racism, but equally applicable to sexism.

[ 20. August 2012, 19:43: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

It's simple. Anything mark Betts approves of is safe for parents to do. Anything he doesn't approve of, is far to dangerous for mothers to be allowed.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

quote:
Do we take little portable camping stools as usual and sit outside the Tiny Tea Tent and renew our subscriptions to Third Way and the Church Times?

Naturally. Can almost taste the Chai latte.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

[tangent given this thread *isn't* about Pussy Riot]
Here is the kind of child neglect that would get you going on for two years in jail in the UK.
[/tangent given this thread *isn't about Pussy Riot]

[ 20. August 2012, 20:38: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Cue the next bit of puerile nose-thumbing.
I have never read such utter garbage in my whole life.

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Troll.

Stop! I can't breathe!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Does is it occur to you that you might need to explain why we are wrong in thinking those to be the obvious implications of your sentiments, rather than simply assert that isn't the case?

Ooh. OOH! I know the answer to this one! Can I answer it? Can I? Huh? Huh? Can I?

Seeing as how the most logical person to answer it won't.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can anyone out there find a redeeming feature in Mark Betts?

Oh, yes. If he apologized for talking out his arse and acknowledged people, especially women, are allowed to have opinions that disagree with his, that would be a redeeming feature.

Wait, he didn't do that.

Yet.

(But I am a Christian and believe anyone who asks forgiveness can be redeemed. Silly, yes, but us Christians are a silly, silly people.)

[Edited to change a gender pronoun because the Batty Betts does believe in equality of the sexes as long as they submit to his rules]

[ 21. August 2012, 03:02: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Mark--

Good friggin' grief. [Mad]

Did it ever occur to you that you might be *mistaken*? Or, even, I don't know...WRONG???

Posted by AmyBo (# 15040) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You won't like me saying this, but it is a somewhat biassed account isn't it? Is that the only way we are to understand history? I'm not saying there is no truth in it, but it is full of feminist propoganda. If that was really how the world had been until our recent "enlightenment" I have to wonder how the human race survived at all for thousands of years.

I mostly lurk, but GodDAMN asshole you are a shitstain.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Good grief, Bettsy, good grief. You have people coming out of the wainscotting to rail against you. A couple of things:

1.

As has been said to you before, when you're in a hole, stop digging. You've been royally trashed in this thread. If you don't have it in you to apologise, just shut the fuck up. With all due respect, you have not thus far displayed the intellectual capacity to rigorously defend some of your statements, so you might consider not running off at the mouth all of the time. Come to terms with the ethos on this board that no matter how much you wriggle, they won't let go. Casually tossed off (and tossing off does seem to be a speciality of yours) remarks which go down OK in the office don't work here.

2.

quote:
Wisdom and intelligence aren't the same thing. If I had to choose between being intelligent and being wise, wisdom would win every time - though far be it from me to presume that I am either

Whatever happened to that? You are displaying little which could be called wisdom.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Good grief, Bettsy, good grief. You have people coming out of the wainscotting to rail against you. A couple of things:

2.
quote:
Wisdom and intelligence aren't the same thing. If I had to choose between being intelligent and being wise, wisdom would win every time - though far be it from me to presume that I am either
Whatever happened to that? You are displaying little which could be called wisdom.

We've established he has lost the spade he used to dig himself into this hole. Now he is trying, in vain, to excuse his lack of intelligence.

Personaly, I'm worried about his lack of humility, but I don't do that well myself.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
It's genuinely heartwarming to see people of differing viewpoints all able to agree that when someone makes a "women should get back in the kitchen" post they are being an arse hole.

Kudos to the ship.

This kinda jumped out at me. Well said.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Personaly, I'm worried about his lack of humility, but I don't do that well myself.

Archbishop Akinola, is that you? [Biased]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I find that Mark embarrasses me with his humility.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Has Mark genuinely flounced this time or is it just another temper tantrum stomp off?

And ignoring Josephine is such colossal error on his part...

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

He is annoying. He does not read for context or completeness. Picks out a tiny part to address. Much like arguing with a child who thinks they are clever.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

He is posting as of 8/22 on other threads. As his reading comprehension is so poor when he attempts it, I'm not sure there's much point in posting on a thread he's abandoned, and therefore may not be reading at all. But then, I've been wrong before.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Mark Betts, on the thread about the British government excluding some American preacher or other from the country:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I feel that we in America owe all our love of freedom and due process to our British heritage. It is disappointing and distressing to see the Mother Country now throwing it all away with even greater enthusiasm than we are doing so ourselves. Can't you see, about six inches down the road in front of you, what a double-edged sword it is to let some bureaucrat in the government define "the public good" and limit your freedom of assocation accordingly?
I can see that Alogon. In fact, despite what I have said, it has been in the back of my mind - who else will our nanny-state government decide is not "in the public good" in months or years to come?

WTF is going on here?

Has his computer been hacked and taken over by someone of opposite views entirely?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Oh, ken, now you're being silly. It all depends on who's on the receiving end of governmental actions. Assaultive male preachers should be given free reign. Noisy female pop stars need to be sat on, hard.

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Personaly, I'm worried about his lack of humility, but I don't do that well myself.
Archbishop Akinola, is that you?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Can I nominate Mark Betts for the position of Ship's Mitt Romney? He doesn't actually, that I can see, have any basic principles at the core.

YMMV; I am open to being corrected. Can someone see the ghost of an actual principle he believes in and consistently sticks to?

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
Can I nominate Mark Betts for the position of Ship's Mitt Romney? He doesn't actually, that I can see, have any basic principles at the core.

YMMV; I am open to being corrected. Can someone see the ghost of an actual principle he believes in and consistently sticks to?

This is deeply unfair to Senator Romney, who I believe has deep principles. We just aren't allowed to know what they are. [Big Grin]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
This is deeply unfair to Senator Romney, who I believe has deep principles. We just aren't allowed to know what they are.

He'll release them when he releases his tax returns.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Mark has topped his prior displays of arrogance and ignorance by questioning mousethief's knowledge of Orthodxy and his church attendance with the inference that he knows far more than mousethief. I've reread the Purg thread and he's had the correction and counsel of 3 people who have earned the respect here on the ship for their knowledge of Orthodoxy and the words and actions to back up their faith and others with extensive knowledge of church history, only to have snide remarks thrown their way prompting this hell call. Now the open attack on mousethief from a relative newby both to the ship and Orthodoxy takes the arrogance to new heights. And I salute Josephine for her usual reply with class.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
And I salute Josephine for her usual reply with class.

Yep. Putting "Before the services start." on a separate line was ALL class. [Overused]

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
And I salute Josephine for her usual reply with class.
Yep. Putting "Before the services start." on a separate line was ALL class.

Agreed! I can't wait for the next new thread he opens to avoid answering the current three...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
I can't wait for the next new thread he opens to avoid answering the current three...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Eventually we'll get "Pussy Riot: The Next Generation".

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Featuring Patrick Stewart?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Under a balaclava, so it doesn't really matter.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Oh it does.

Patrick Stewart can easily shine through a baklava.

Tho I still think Pyxe and leo would look great in mini skirts.

[ 27. August 2012, 12:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Patrick Stewart is cool.

Mark Betts, on the other hand, is a plonker.

PeteC invited me here to say so.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Does Mark have the decency admit he was wrong? Does he apologize to mousethief for pretty much snidely questioning his Orthodox faith? Of course not, it's mousethief's pride that's the problem, not Mark's lack of knowledge on the issue in question.

quote:
You can be as condescending as you like, everyone knows you have been Orthodox longer than I have, but you shouldn't forget the worst sin of them all - pride.

I suggest Mark Betts take a good long look in the mirror on the issue of pride and arrogance.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

In his defense, it's hard to see in front of your face when you've got your head up your ass.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh it does.

Patrick Stewart can easily shine through a baklava.

Tho I still think Pyxe and leo would look great in mini skirts.

Agreed on Patrick Stewart. But did you really have to present the image of Leo and Pyxe in miniskirts??

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I very rarely visit the Nether Regions of the Ship but I would like to formally second Gamaliel's motion:

This House Believes that Mark Betts is a Plonker.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Patrick Stewart can easily shine through a baklava.

Good filo pastry has a sort of translucent quality, admittedly.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

In the Purg thread after both Josephine and mousethief made their posts proving Mark in error on both Orthodoxy but mousethief's position and attendance in his church there was this prediction:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee on 8/26 :
Shall we start a sweepstake on how long it takes for him to redefine his comment so he's not 'wrong'?

Mark has just posted that we all missed the point he was trying to make and he was right after all. The dude is nothing but predictable.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Tee hee. I think it's adorable how Mark just keeps shoving his foot in every time he opens his mouth. Please, O epic Mansplainer, mansplain some more to us!

Also, Josephine and Mousetheif, the reno on your church looks lovely. Admittedly, I haven't been up to visit in a while, but I do like that shade of blue.

[ 27. August 2012, 15:02: Message edited by: Spiffy ]

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

I see that he's posted in Styx about how awful it is that the Ship is being sunk by all these reactionary liberals... all the while ignoring the fact that liberals and conservatives CAN get along here (and in the world at large) if both sides can argue/discuss things in a reasoned and thoughtful manner.... ohhhh, wait! He's not thoughtful or reasonable.... that would definitely be a handicap. Silly little fucktard, maybe he'll grow out of it someday.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The5thMary:
I see that he's posted in Styx about how awful it is that the Ship is being sunk by all these reactionary liberals... all the while ignoring the fact that liberals and conservatives CAN get along here (and in the world at large) if both sides can argue/discuss things in a reasoned and thoughtful manner.... ohhhh, wait! He's not thoughtful or reasonable.... that would definitely be a handicap. Silly little fucktard, maybe he'll grow out of it someday.

I bet the view is spectacular from atop his cross.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Where's Rook?

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
And I salute Josephine for her usual reply with class.
Yep. Putting "Before the services start." on a separate line was ALL class.
Agreed! I can't wait for the next new thread he opens to avoid answering the current three...

The 4th thread! It's happened in The Styx [Killing me]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
And I salute Josephine for her usual reply with class.
Yep. Putting "Before the services start." on a separate line was ALL class.
Agreed! I can't wait for the next new thread he opens to avoid answering the current three...
The 4th thread! It's happened in The Styx

And that makes both of your predictions spot on. And Mark totally predictable. It comes down to the fact that he Always.Has.To.Be Rght.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Haydee For The Win. Although I must say it didn't exactly require the deluxe model crystal ball. [Biased]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
Does Mark have the decency admit he was wrong? Does he apologize to mousethief for pretty much snidely questioning his Orthodox faith?

mousethief answered Mark's insinuative question - comprehensively. I haven't seen Mark's acknowledgement that his attempted dig at mousethief's Orthodox credentials was wrong as well as ungracious. No doubt it's all part of the 'Liberal Consensus' of which I am but a lowly slave with no thoughts of my own; but I find it difficult to continue hoping for the best for Mark, when he can't even back-pedal on a simple but obvious mistake like that.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

Just as well, the deluxe one is out of my price range [Big Grin]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Haydee For The Win. Although I must say it didn't exactly require the deluxe model crystal ball.

It maintains Mark Betts' record of not engaging in existing debate when the going gets tough, but starting a new one (in the wrong place too!).

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

"Liberal Consensus" seems to be defined in the Bettsy Dictionary Of Modern English as "not bowing down to my obvious correct assertations because I have a penis and I'm waving it about on the Internets."

I wonder if he's running for political office this election season.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, Mark has just backed down on the Mousethief thing, although he's left himself wriggle-room by saying that there is a legitimate place for pointing out another's faults.

Yes, there is. Which is what we're doing here, Mark. However Hellish it may same it may scourge you and you'll thank us for it ...

Well, perhaps not ...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I like how he said he "flounced" his Hell call, as if that's a good thing? And "Lalalalalaa (I'm not listening)"? Isn't there a minimum age thing for the ship? Perhaps that's the problem here. He's acting like he's about 13. Maybe 12.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

I think we're getting into the territory of bespoke vocabulary.

Betts (n) A haughty flounce, removing oneself from the appalling prospect of being wrong without acknowledging that the possibility exists.

Betts (vb.) (1) to hold fast to the self-evident truth of one's own correctness in the face of all available evidence.

(2) To remove oneself from any and all evidence of one's own error, however blatant.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like how he said he "flounced" his Hell call, as if that's a good thing? And "Lalalalalaa (I'm not listening)"? Isn't there a minimum age thing for the ship? Perhaps that's the problem here. He's acting like he's about 13. Maybe 12.

I was thinking that earlier as it would explain the "I know everything and everyone else is wrong" attitude.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like how he said he "flounced" his Hell call, as if that's a good thing? And "Lalalalalaa (I'm not listening)"? Isn't there a minimum age thing for the ship? Perhaps that's the problem here. He's acting like he's about 13. Maybe 12.

I think that the problem is there's no reliable emotional age verification system. Which is good, since I'd be tossed right out.

Now, as I'm home sick from work, I'm going to watch some more My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Pardon the potential double post but I hadn't traveled back up to Purg to see that the lalalalalala was a) a direct quote from Bettsy, and b) directed at a comment I made.

I'd call him a tool, but he's not useful. I'd call him a dick, but those are fun sometimes. I'd call him a wanker, but that goes without saying. I'm going to settle on Self-Appointed Admiral of the Douchecanoe Navy.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Mark in your Styx OP you accuse some H&As in joining in the lambasting of you for being of a different tradition or because they are more liberal than you are or something, though you avoid being specific, as you do in most of your posts.

Yes, I am proudly theologically and politically at the left end of the spectrum but my comments re your behaviour here have nothing at all to do with our political or theological differences. If I did that I would, quite rightly, be called to Hell on my own account. There are many Shipmates who have different views from my own and that is good and right and proper. I respect them regardless of my possible disagreement with their views. It appears that some of them respect me.

My difficulty with you is not in the least about what you believe - it is about how you behave. This is an internet discussion board, it is generally a friendly sort of place; our opinions of one another are, perforce, based mainly on how we perceive one another over this strange electronic medium and that is governed by how we behave in community. Over the years a few people have arrived and behaved badly had their unreasonable behaviour pointed out to them and then flounced - others have arrived, behaved badly, had their unreasonable behaviour pointed out to them, taken it to heart and changed to become valued members of our little community - a very few have arrived, behaved badly, had their behaviour pointed out to them and not changed at all and this has, sadly, led to Admins eventually becoming officially involved, because to them is given the responsibility of keeping our good Ship afloat.

Your choices are before you, I pray you choose wisely.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Grasshopper. [Cool]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I think chances run pretty high that Mark Betts is not reading this thread. Composing well-meant lessons and advice to him here, in an effort to secure his berth, is probably a waste of time and talent.

For venting, of course, this thread remains useful. Scrolling past Betts' excretions is less time-consuming, though.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think chances run pretty high that Mark Betts is not reading this thread. Composing well-meant lessons and advice to him here, in an effort to secure his berth, is probably a waste of time and talent.

For venting, of course, this thread remains useful. Scrolling past Betts' excretions is less time-consuming, though.

It's okay. People are saying mostly the same things to Mark Betts on the Styx thread but sticking to the 10Cs. Of course, he might have abandoned that thread already, too.

It's rather cute and child-like how he has faith that if he starts a new thread, this time everyone will "get it" and he'll be acknowledged as being right.

Sometimes they grow up too fast, and sometimes not fast enough.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think chances run pretty high that Mark Betts is not reading this thread. Composing well-meant lessons and advice to him here, in an effort to secure his berth, is probably a waste of time and talent.

For venting, of course, this thread remains useful. Scrolling past Betts' excretions is less time-consuming, though.

I'm pretty sure he has stopped reading the Styx thread too, as soon as he realized people weren't going to cave in and say "You're right, libruls r SO mean [Frown]

Sorry for being awful."

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think chances run pretty high that Mark Betts is not reading this thread. Composing well-meant lessons and advice to him here, in an effort to secure his berth, is probably a waste of time and talent.

For venting, of course, this thread remains useful. Scrolling past Betts' excretions is less time-consuming, though.
I'm pretty sure he has stopped reading the Styx thread too, as soon as he realized people weren't going to cave in and say "You're right, libruls r SO mean Sorry for being awful."

I expect he's reading it all and treating the unity shown by Shipmates from left, right and centre as yet another sign of the liberal consensus. We're all out of step with him, don't you get it??

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I think chances run pretty high that Mark Betts is not reading this thread. Composing well-meant lessons and advice to him here, in an effort to secure his berth, is probably a waste of time and talent.

For venting, of course, this thread remains useful. Scrolling past Betts' excretions is less time-consuming, though.
I'm pretty sure he has stopped reading the Styx thread too, as soon as he realized people weren't going to cave in and say "You're right, libruls r SO mean Sorry for being awful."
I expect he's reading it all and treating the unity shown by Shipmates from left, right and centre as yet another sign of the liberal consensus. We're all out of step with him, don't you get it??

I agree he's reading it all. It either feeds his persecution complex or he's loving the attention. He'll either flounce or continue his behavior and get banned. There is the outside chance he'll take correction to heart and change his interaction with shipmates in discussions, but sadly I doubt it. I do mean sadly because I've seen him in a few discussions where he has engaged and made a positive contribution. Not for a while, but it was there.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

Numerous people weighed in on the Styx forum in a respectful way, suggesting that maybe he's being needlessly argumentative for argument's sake. What does he do? Argue with THAT interpretation!

If Paul, Moses and John the Evangelist all came down to explain something to Mark, he'd argue with them and tell them that they clearly just don't understand.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Tho I still think Pyxe and leo would look great in mini skirts.

WTF?!

I would. He wouldn't.

[ 27. August 2012, 19:58: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

I wish to register a formal protest. This was the first thread I read in the morning after a good night's sleep. You all nearly made me choke on my breakfast with your descriptions of Greek pastry, Greek tragedy and a kind of Greek chorus.

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

It's quite an achievement in the field of stupidity for someone to somehow muddle himself up into thinking practicing Russian Orthodoxy is identical to practicing being a pillock on the internet, and that when he's being vilified for the latter, it is actually for the former.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's quite an achievement in the field of stupidity for someone to somehow muddle himself up into thinking practicing Russian Orthodoxy is identical to practicing being a pillock on the internet, and that when he's being vilified for the latter, it is actually for the former.

Although we've already seen a nearly identical phenomenon, right here on the Ship of Fools, if only you replace "Russian" with "Greek."

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I like how he said he "flounced" his Hell call, as if that's a good thing? And "Lalalalalaa (I'm not listening)"? Isn't there a minimum age thing for the ship? Perhaps that's the problem here. He's acting like he's about 13. Maybe 12.
I think that the problem is there's no reliable emotional age verification system. Which is good, since I'd be tossed right out.

Now, as I'm home sick from work, I'm going to watch some more My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.

Actually, Spiff, watching a bit of MLP might be good for Bettsy—seeing a group of ponies resolve their differences, swallow their pride, admit their mistakes, and make it up to one another could give him the right idea. Of course, I'm willing to bet that he'd find Applejack too liberal, Rarity too outspoken (and deserving of "what she got,") and Twilight in need of a talking-to from her husband.

What does it mean when a bunch of cartoon ponies have a better clue about life than a Shipmate?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

Oh, this is classic Bettsy:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
.... So let's hear the personal insults you've suffered on that thread which the Purgatory Hosts chose to overlook, in your opinion.
I think we're done with this particular incident now - I only referred to it because people insisted I give an example. The topic was supposed to be more of a general discussion, but on reflection maybe I did misunderstand the purpose of Styx threads.

Dear me, I call that pretty feeble.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Whenever Mark gets tasked with "get specific" or "answer the point," he's all done with whatever's under discussion. What really gets my goat, though, is the thinly-veiled expectation that, because he's done, the thread can now be shut down.

The rest of us are just here to ride his coat-tails.

[ 28. August 2012, 01:44: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The rest of us are just here to ride his coat-tails.

I'm not; I'm an individual.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
The 4th thread! It's happened in The Styx.

Does the Apocalypse come now, or do we have to wait for the 7th thread/seal?

[Paranoid]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

^ Best guard the gates of Heaven now. As well as those of Kerygmania.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Has he been in The Circus yet?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Has he been in The Circus yet?

I think "Taking Offense" might be just the place for him . . .

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariston:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
I think that the problem is there's no reliable emotional age verification system. Which is good, since I'd be tossed right out.

Now, as I'm home sick from work, I'm going to watch some more My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.
Actually, Spiff, watching a bit of MLP might be good for Bettsy—seeing a group of ponies resolve their differences, swallow their pride, admit their mistakes, and make it up to one another could give him the right idea. Of course, I'm willing to bet that he'd find Applejack too liberal, Rarity too outspoken (and deserving of "what she got,") and Twilight in need of a talking-to from her husband.

What does it mean when a bunch of cartoon ponies have a better clue about life than a Shipmate?

I dunno. But MLP:FiM is on Netflix now and it's time for Winter Wrap-Up!

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

[Killing me]

Passive-Aggressive Styx Thread is definitely in the house! I'm surprised it took him so long, but he seems to have "folded" right on schedule. He tends to do that when he has to back what he says up [Biased]

.

Anyway, yeah, it's remarkably stupid, and a stellar example of how to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. I grew up in a family where the political opinion tended to be fairly far right and I don't think that's "conservative" behavior ... just "jerk" behavior. My late grandfather, who was politically to the right of Barry Goldwater, would have called him some choice names. He didn't like whiners.

It's not just a "right wing" thing ... I know someone who will tell anyone who will listen that she was not ordained a deacon because she was a lesbian, when the actual truth is that she never got put forward for ordination (and lots of other gay folks did) is that she is really, really unpleasant. She tried several parishes, all with the same result. But she so wants to believe this alternate version. It's a romantic story of suffering and lets her off the hook in her own mind.

Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Has he been in The Circus yet?

I've been working on a limerick this afternoon.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

It saddens me to observe how many Old Timers are gleefully cavorting on this thread at the expense of an innocent newbie just because he's a conservative. (That he's a clueless fuckwit is purely coincidental.) Clearly, our christian mission here is a failure. We should pack up our baklava in our balaclavas and disband.

What does it take to get a Mousethief Cooler™ on this thread?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
What does it take to get a Mousethief Cooler™ on this thread?

How 'bout you and the Hellhosts singing songs from Disney movies.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I'd love that but...Disney™?! [Eek!]

Talk about copyright problems- the Mouse would roar!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Tho I still think Pyxe and leo would look great in mini skirts.
WTF?!

I would. He wouldn't.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm starting to feel dangerous pangs of sympathy and pity for Mark Betts.

(Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.)

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Tho I still think Pyxe and leo would look great in mini skirts.
WTF?!

I would. He wouldn't.

But you must admit he looked stunning in the My Little Pony outfit the other day...

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm starting to feel dangerous pangs of sympathy and pity for Mark Betts.

(Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.)

I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
It's not just a "right wing" thing ... I know someone who will tell anyone who will listen that she was not ordained a deacon because she was a lesbian, when the actual truth is that she never got put forward for ordination (and lots of other gay folks did) is that she is really, really unpleasant. She tried several parishes, all with the same result. But she so wants to believe this alternate version. It's a romantic story of suffering and lets her off the hook in her own mind.

Aargh. As a gay man this thinking drives me completely NUTS. Persecution of gays and lesbians exists. Therefore, anything bad/negative must be because I'm gay/lesbian. As if there's nothing else that might be relevant.

Christians do the same thing of course. Every single bit of negativity that comes their way is a spot of blessed persecution. Never mind that 1 Peter blows that idea out of the water.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Some cake to go with that cake you're having, Evensong?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm starting to feel dangerous pangs of sympathy and pity for Mark Betts.

(Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.)
I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.

Isn't Stupidity™ labelled as some kind of genetic disorder these days that entitles people to special allowances at work, government benefits and other such sundry things?

Poor Mark Betts. He's just the product of his genes.

It's not his responsibility he's so stupid.

He needs to be protected from those that might take advantage of his disability and treat him with harsh words.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Stop fasting Evensong. The lack of food is clearly impairing your mental faculties.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Wonderful set of cross-posts there. My comment should come after Evensong's last. And orfeo and I need to sort out the dietary advice.

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm starting to feel dangerous pangs of sympathy and pity for Mark Betts.

(Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.) (Must.Not.Stand.Up.For.The.Underdog.)
I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.
Isn't Stupidity™ labelled as some kind of genetic disorder these days that entitles people to special allowances at work, government benefits and other such sundry things?

Poor Mark Betts. He's just the product of his genes.

It's not his responsibility he's so stupid.

He needs to be protected from those that might take advantage of his disability and treat him with harsh words.

You mean a sheltered posting scheme? Part of the Big Society?

Now there's an idea. A bad one, but an idea...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.

All quips aside, I firmly believe all underdogs should be stood up for - regardless of their deserving that status or not.

I base this on two things:

1) Jesus was the undeserving underdog in the lead up to his crucifixion.

2) God still loves those that deserve underdog status. That notion must be met with solidarity.

(e.g) I abhor pedophiles. They are far from the truth and totally undeserving of God's love. They fuck lives up mightily.

Yet I was much struck by a conversation I had recently. The gist of it was that someone should be with that pedophile in jail. Someone must stand with them in trial.

Not to say they are right.

But to say God still loves them, and hopes that one day, and in some way, with some help from another loving human being - they may be redeemed.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.
All quips aside, I firmly believe all underdogs should be stood up for - regardless of their deserving that status or not.

And I am firmly of the belief that the use of the term 'underdog', just because lots of people disagree with Mark Betts and think he's a fool, is a total and utter misuse of the word.

Otherwise the following people are underdogs:

The Phelps clan
Anders Breivik
Flat Earthers
Kevin Federline's music career

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I refuse to use the term "underdog" for someone who is not in a weak position through the random vicissitudes of life, but through their own rank stupidity.
All quips aside, I firmly believe all underdogs should be stood up for - regardless of their deserving that status or not.

I base this on two things:

1) Jesus was the undeserving underdog in the lead up to his crucifixion.

2) God still loves those that deserve underdog status. That notion must be met with solidarity.

(e.g) I abhor pedophiles. They are far from the truth and totally undeserving of God's love. They fuck lives up mightily.

Yet I was much struck by a conversation I had recently. The gist of it was that someone should be with that pedophile in jail. Someone must stand with them in trial.

Not to say they are right.

But to say God still loves them, and hopes that one day, and in some way, with some help from another loving human being - they may be redeemed.

But that by no means we have to put up with the behavior/sin when their position of underdog is self inflicted. Many shipmates have gone out of their way to try and assist Mark in getting along on the ship and trying to assist in his understanding of ship culture - only to be ignored or met with snide comments. He has made himself a martyr. As I said before, this saddens me because I've seen him contribute in a positive way on some threads, but there have been many of late where he's a total jerk. It's not his opinion, it's his behavior.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

Insomniac brain tonight: missed the edit window in the last post and the first sentence should be: But we by no means have to put up with...

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Evensong, I'm with orfeo, I think, on the underdog thing - Mark Betts has chosen to behave the way he has despite lots of input from folks to try to help him. There may come a point when tough love has to step in and we have to assure him of our love but not tolerate his behaviour.

I hope, I sincerely hope, he will stick with the Ship as I think he has much to offer but unless he wants to end up with a Hell call a week until the Admins reach the end of their collective tethers he is going to have to modify his combative posting style.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

An underdog is a 'little guy' with few resources, and possibly not much talent or much hope for their cause, battling against the 'big guy' with power, resources, ability etc.

Eddie the Eagle was an under-dog, Tim Henman was an underdog. The Wyre Forest doctor over ten years ago, who became (was it?) an MP, on an independent ticket was an underdog, who actually proved he represented the underdogness of the ordinary person. Prisoners of conscience are underdogs. The Pakistani child being arrested for blasphemy is an underdog.

Mark Betts is not an underdog. He's someone with reasonable access and freedom to express valid personal views on a controversial issue, but who expresses himself, currently at least, badly and ungraciously.

Not always, though. I think he'll be a fine poster once he's found his feet here. But he's not an underdog. IMO, he's every bit as capable of stepping up to the plate as anyone else posting here. The crux is, does he want to choose to do that? I hope he stays around long enough for us to find out, in a positive way.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am firmly of the belief that the use of the term 'underdog', just because lots of people disagree with Mark Betts and think he's a fool, is a total and utter misuse of the word.

Otherwise the following people are underdogs:

The Phelps clan
Anders Breivik
Flat Earthers
Kevin Federline's music career

In my opinion, anyone that is on the receiving end of "mob mentality" or is in a minority position (for any reason) is an underdog.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am firmly of the belief that the use of the term 'underdog', just because lots of people disagree with Mark Betts and think he's a fool, is a total and utter misuse of the word.

Otherwise the following people are underdogs:

The Phelps clan
Anders Breivik
Flat Earthers
Kevin Federline's music career
In my opinion, anyone that is on the receiving end of "mob mentality" or is in a minority position (for any reason) is an underdog.

In that event Mark doesn't qualify. The vast majority of old timers have tried to help Mark, not harm him. And he has been offered correction for behavior that is destructive in a social setting.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion, anyone that is on the receiving end of "mob mentality" or is in a minority position (for any reason) is an underdog.

In my opinion you need a dictionary. Especially for the second part of that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
In that event Mark doesn't qualify. The vast majority of old timers have tried to help Mark, not harm him. And he has been offered correction for behavior that is destructive in a social setting.

That sounds nice.

And the rest of the slagging off on this thread counts as.....?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
In my opinion, anyone that is on the receiving end of "mob mentality" or is in a minority position (for any reason) is an underdog.
In my opinion you need a dictionary. Especially for the second part of that.

quote:
Definition of underdog from the Oxford Dictionary:
noun

a competitor thought to have little chance of winning a fight or contest
a person who has little status in society:

Or:

un·der·dog (ndr-dôg, -dg)
n.
1. One that is expected to lose a contest or struggle, as in sports or politics.
2. One that is at a disadvantage.

underdog [ˈʌndəˌdɒg]
n
1. the competitor least likely to win a fight or contest
2. a person in adversity or in a position of inferiority

Agrees with me I think.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Likely to lose what? The Ship isn't a sporting event or a war.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

A debate. Or even a conversation. Or popular opinion. DUH.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I am firmly of the belief that the use of the term 'underdog', just because lots of people disagree with Mark Betts and think he's a fool, is a total and utter misuse of the word.

Otherwise the following people are underdogs:

The Phelps clan
Anders Breivik
Flat Earthers
Kevin Federline's music career
In my opinion, anyone that is on the receiving end of "mob mentality" or is in a minority position (for any reason) is an underdog.

In my opinion all of the above have put themselves in whatever position they are in. All we can do is take their spade away and implore them to stop digging further. Mark Betts is now in the same position and it is his obstinacy, not a lack of charity in others, that prevents an improvement to his situation.

A true underdog is in a lowly position through no choice of their own and often despite their best efforts. I don't think Mark Betts is one of those.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A debate. Or even a conversation. Or popular opinion. DUH.

Yeah, but WHY likely to lose?

If Roger Federer starts playing with his right hand tied behind his back and an eyepatch to totally ruin his depth perception, that does NOT make him an underdog. It makes him someone totally failing to use the resources actually available to him.

This is pretty much what several of us have been trying to convey to you. An underdog is someone who is at a disadvantage through circumstance. Not someone who is incompetent.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The person likely to win a debate is the person with the best arguments and evidence. Has nothing to do with being ganged up on or not.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Besides, Evensong, to be on the side of a persecuted minority is one thing, and always to support the losing side in a debate is another. By that logic, if you ever found yourself winning an argument, you'd promptly have to turn round and start arguing the other way.

Meanwhile, over in Purg, your underdog is arguing that six months in jail is a reasonable sanction for protesting briefly in a church. You want to join him in that? You take the wheel, Bettsy can pass you the butterfly.

[ 28. August 2012, 14:20: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

At this point I'm wishing Mark would seriously engage in debate. Aside from one post of his that did get answered back in detail, he's down to one liners that either accuse me of exaggerating without explaining how or where or simply his view is better without back up or one liners that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. I want to engage with him, but he doesn't seem to know how to deal with people who disagree with him. Perhaps it's a learning curve in being with people who have varying opinions as it's quite rare in this era of hanging with and seeing only churches/people/media that agree with your opinions and world view.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think you've done astoundingly, Niteowl. You have more patience than me.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

There really is no point saying anything to Evensong, is there? Both on this and the Fasting thread it seems absolutely impossible to make even the simplest communication to her without it being undermined, insulted, dismissed, perverted and misconstrued. Whether deliberately or not, only Evensong knows.

I never thought this would happen - 'cos basically I'm an optimist - but I think my 'giving the benefit of the doubt' has just hit rock bottom.

It's tempting to think Mark Betts and Evensong are one of a kind; but actually I think Evensong really does think the Ship is a kind of toy, and it doesn't matter if she treats the other posters as cardboard cut-outs in her private puppet-show. Whereas I don't think Mark is like that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Besides, Evensong, to be on the side of a persecuted minority is one thing, and always to support the losing side in a debate is another. By that logic, if you ever found yourself winning an argument, you'd promptly have to turn round and start arguing the other way.

You could say that people incapable of arguing and supporting their position are perennial underdogs on the Ship of Fools. Small wonder Eversmug feels affinity with them.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There really is no point saying anything to Evensong, is there? Both on this and the Fasting thread it seems absolutely impossible to make even the simplest communication to her without it being undermined, insulted, dismissed, perverted and misconstrued. Whether deliberately or not, only Evensong knows. ...

actually I think Evensong really does think the Ship is a kind of toy, and it doesn't matter if she treats the other posters as cardboard cut-outs in her private puppet-show.

I think that's it - most of the time Evensong is having fun, and trying to be amusing (very trying, ha,ha). Except sometimes she is in earnest and we're supposed to be able to tell which is which. Tricky, because in either mode she can't resist cheap point scoring even when it detracts or distracts from the main argument.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There really is no point saying anything to Evensong, is there? Both on this and the Fasting thread it seems absolutely impossible to make even the simplest communication to her without it being undermined, insulted, dismissed, perverted and misconstrued. Whether deliberately or not, only Evensong knows. ...

actually I think Evensong really does think the Ship is a kind of toy, and it doesn't matter if she treats the other posters as cardboard cut-outs in her private puppet-show.

This.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

After the whole "underdog" schtick, I'm waiting for Evensong to break out in song--perhaps the Co-dependent's National Anthem, "As Long As He Needs Me".

She can play Nancy to MB's Bill Sykes if she wishes, but as I recall that didn't end particularly well.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I reckon Evensong is more like Bill Sikes evil bull terrier, Bull's Eye. Bull's Eye and Nancy were both underdogs, but one feels sympathy for Nancy.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

"Hell: The Musical"

Someone get Sir Andrew on the phone quickly!

Posted by Louise (# 30) on :

The 'underdog shtick' is Evensong's made-up rationalisation for trolling hell threads. Her 'underdogs' are actually 'overdogs' who go around marking their territory by crapping over everyone else on multiple threads on the rest of the ship. When people get fed up with all the crap and speak up about it, Evensong's always there to support the crapper over the crapped upon having any right of reply. The underdog stuff is just her way of rationalising her own anti-social behaviour and her relish at seeing other people having their enjoyment spoilt by anti-social posters.

Of course it's a game to her, she doesn't actually care about other people having their discussions and questions spoilt by Betts and his antics, so longs as she gets to feed off them and antagonise others and preen herself in Hell.

It would nice if she could just be honest about the enjoyment and kicks she gets from antagonising other people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The 'underdog shtick' is Evensong's made-up rationalisation for trolling hell threads. Her 'underdogs' are actually 'overdogs' who go around marking their territory by crapping over everyone else on multiple threads on the rest of the ship. When people get fed up with all the crap and speak up about it, Evensong's always there to support the crapper over the crapped upon having any right of reply. The underdog stuff is just her way of rationalising her own anti-social behaviour and her relish at seeing other people having their enjoyment spoilt by anti-social posters.

Of course it's a game to her, she doesn't actually care about other people having their discussions and questions spoilt by Betts and his antics, so longs as she gets to feed off them and antagonise others and preen herself in Hell.

It would nice if she could just be honest about the enjoyment and kicks she gets from antagonising other people.

God save her future parishioners.

Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :

This is some serious hostility on display here.
A difference of opinion, I can understand, but this seems almost white-hot. And from some pretty decent people, at that.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Hold on to your hats, whatever your name currently is, Moondoggie or whatever, because I agree with you. Kinda.

I don't think the underdog thing is a schtick, I think it's self-fulfilled prophecy. because I have seen times when ES can be incredibly cool, funny, charming, and caring (Y'all, she is one of a handful of people who makes a point of welcoming newbies on the newbie thread. Go check yourself, her name pops up again and again.)

But it's almost like "underdog" is safer. Sorry Evensong, I realize it's hugely pompous for me to attempt analysis this way, but I do get really frustrated at how often you seem to sabotage the cool person you can be. it does look willful and it does look like you're getting off on irritating people, but I think ending with that assessment is too easy. It's not the whole story.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Louise:

quote:
It would nice if she could just be honest about the enjoyment and kicks she gets from antagonising other people.

That would mean admitting to deliberate trolling, a ban-able offence. I don't think that is going to happen even if you are right about her.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Well, I can only speak for myself, LB. And I feel mostly extreme frustration and disappointment. I can't say I feel anything much stronger, like hatred, as I don't think I've had enough of a glimpse of what Evensong is genuinelly like to judge whether or not I'd like her! Though I'm not an admirer of her posting style!

I reckon Evensong's just not understood the Ship sufficiently to respect her fellow posters enough not to drive them doo-lally. I don't think it means she's necessarily a doofus, or doesn't have a future in ministry. It's tempting to judge any poster on their appearance on the boards! But I daresay it's not the full story.

But personally I've pretty much run out of patience with trying to make what I hope were reasonable points with Evensong, and getting dumb responses - and seeing it happen to loads of other much more capable posters; so it's probably just as well to shake the dust of my shoes, so to speak. Again, just my opinion.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Jesus was the undeserving underdog in the lead up to his crucifixion.

He wasn't really the underdog. He could have annihilated Pontius Pilate, the priests, and the Roman soldiers. He chose not to defend himself and he told his disciples not to defend him. He was in charge of the situation.

Moo

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

You know, it is possible to feel sympathy with nearly anything or anyone. It doesn't make them Underdogs, though it could make them Overcats, but I'm having trouble picturing Evensong as a Sweet Polly Purebred, picture here.

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

Laws. I haven't seen anything about Underdog in years.

Nice memory.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The person likely to win a debate is the person with the best arguments and evidence. Has nothing to do with being ganged up on or not.

You can't possibly be this naive mousethief.

If the above were true, Jesus' earthly ministry should have been a howling success.

Instead it was a spectacular failure.

But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Jesus was the undeserving underdog in the lead up to his crucifixion.
He wasn't really the underdog. He could have annihilated Pontius Pilate, the priests, and the Roman soldiers. He chose not to defend himself and he told his disciples not to defend him. He was in charge of the situation.

In the gospel of John perhaps. His passion narrative is quite serene.

"It is finished" is rather different from "My god, my god why have you forsaken me" in Mark and Matthew.

Jesus' cry of dereliction and agony in Gethsemane paint rather a different picture.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

Evensong, sweet pea. I know Jesus. Jesus is a friend of mine. And Bettsy ain't no Jesus.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Laws. I haven't seen anything about Underdog in years.

Nice memory.

OK, I am dead serious, and Alvissimo can back this up if she ever decides to grace us again-- I was totally in love with Underdog when I was, like, six or seven.

He was bested by Tintin.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The person likely to win a debate is the person with the best arguments and evidence. Has nothing to do with being ganged up on or not.
You can't possibly be this naive mousethief.

If the above were true, Jesus' earthly ministry should have been a howling success.

Instead it was a spectacular failure.

Um, Jesus' earthly ministry wasn't an internet debate. This is so obvious I'd think even you would see the difference.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Gives up.

Rolls over.

Plays dead.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Given this, and the absence of Betts - I shall put this thread out of its misery.

Doublethink
Hellhost

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0