 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: No, Mark Betts, I am not going to leave it
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
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."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
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]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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]](frown.gif) ) 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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[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]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Mark,
Come again when you can't stay so long.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Cat
Shipmate
# 9104
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Weird and sweary.
Posts: 1844 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[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 ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Troll.
Stop! I can't breathe!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Mark--
Good friggin' grief. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Did it ever occur to you that you might be *mistaken*? Or, even, I don't know...WRONG???
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0
|
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
