13 Mar 07, 3:22 PM
super_loulou
UK(EC), 6 yrs
 |
Well in a way her leaving is no loss - after all we already have far too many people who post threads solely so people can agree with them!
She asked for views then threw a hissy when they were expressed - spot the deliberate mistake? I really don't understand how when one expresses that they wouldn't have found the memo offensive that means they want said memo from the author! How childish.
Oh and it's PSYCHO!! Thanks. *~Daddy's happy little girl~*
Edited 13 Mar 07, 3:23 PM by super_loulou
|
13 Mar 07, 3:44 PM
crazym
UK, 8 yrs
 |
bohnanza wrote:
Just because one person says one thing and a hundred express another, does not mean the one person's view is any less valid.
|
I have to disagree with you on this. It doesn't _always_ mean that one person's view is any less valid but a lot of the time it really does. In Science, for example, where one person claims that the living things in the world were created by an "intelligent designer" and 100 scientists say that it wasn't it's generally accepted that you can class the lone person's views as "less valid". Democracy works in a similar way.
bohnanza wrote:
Had they named someone, everyone who has read this thread, not just the few who have bothered to post, would have a skewed view of somone's character.
|
I agree completely with you on this.
|
13 Mar 07, 4:12 PM
DDDDom
6 yrs
|
crazym wrote:
bohnanza wrote:
Just because one person says one thing and a hundred express another, does not mean the one person's view is any less valid.
|
I have to disagree with you on this. It doesn't _always_ mean that one person's view is any less valid but a lot of the time it really does. In Science, for example, where one person claims that the living things in the world were created by an "intelligent designer" and 100 scientists say that it wasn't it's generally accepted that you can class the lone person's views as "less valid". Democracy works in a similar way.
bohnanza wrote:
Had they named someone, everyone who has read this thread, not just the few who have bothered to post, would have a skewed view of somone's character.
|
I agree completely with you on this.
|
Erm quick cut from science to democracy - why don't you substitute religion for science there and then cut to democracy with the same logic - sorry doesn't work for me... Edited 13 Mar 07, 4:13 PM by DDDDom
|
13 Mar 07, 4:27 PM
tightlybound
UK, 5 yrs |
crazym wrote:
bohnanza wrote:
Just because one person says one thing and a hundred express another, does not mean the one person's view is any less valid.
|
I have to disagree with you on this. It doesn't _always_ mean that one person's view is any less valid but a lot of the time it really does. In Science, for example, where one person claims that the living things in the world were created by an "intelligent designer" and 100 scientists say that it wasn't it's generally accepted that you can class the lone person's views as "less valid". Democracy works in a similar way.
|
Actually I think it means that their view is, at the time of expression, in the minority. |
13 Mar 07, 5:56 PM
rodm99
UK(CB), 7 yrs
|
tightlybound wrote:
crazym wrote:
bohnanza wrote:
Just because one person says one thing and a hundred express another, does not mean the one person's view is any less valid.
|
I have to disagree with you on this. It doesn't _always_ mean that one person's view is any less valid but a lot of the time it really does. In Science, for example, where one person claims that the living things in the world were created by an "intelligent designer" and 100 scientists say that it wasn't it's generally accepted that you can class the lone person's views as "less valid". Democracy works in a similar way.
|
Actually I think it means that their view is, at the time of expression, in the minority.
|
Science isn't a numbers game - the 100 also have tens of thousands of controlled and replicated experiments and observations to support their arguments, and that's why we accept their case, not just that they're more numerous. The reason we reject the 'intelligent design' people is that to date they've failed to produce one falsifiable hypothesis in support of their case... Edited 13 Mar 07, 5:59 PM by rodm99
|
13 Mar 07, 6:57 PM
Slavebinder
UK(PE), 6 yrs
|
brummie_girl wrote:
Hi,
I am an experienced sub but, after a long relationship ended sadly, I created a new profile on this site.
Any female who has advertised will be aware that many male respondents will ask about her likes and dislikes. She will then learn that - spookily enough - her male respondents have exactly the same interests.
I therefore decided that I would allow the Doms to do the running. There were a few who - rather crossly - considered themselves above that. There are a few who come over as very pleasant. Unfortunately, there were also a couple who should not be allowed out!
The 'code' on here does not allow such people to be named. I believe that to be wrong in extreme cases.
Your thoughts on that would be appreciated.
To set the scene here is a response from what I consider to be an extreme case:
It's just a case of different strokes for diferent folks - I exepct most of his memo was in fact just fantasy but it's understandable how it may have scared you.
A lot of what that person described to you is the reason the Spanner Trust was set up and is advertised on here.
As mentioned people have different limits and when a Dominant asks you what you like - then no surprise - that's how we get a basic idea of your limits and where that line is. You have to remember everyone who is into extreme NDSM isn't a Psycho - that's just judgemental - after all Bloodbitch and Bob Flanigan would never be described as Psychopathic. And a lot of people into serious body modifcation would probably take offence at that term.
Of course if you tell someone what you're into and they say that's what I like as well, then it means one of two things: They either do have the same interests or they really would like to chat with you some more and are interested.
If I were you, I'd go back to the old way, it's a lot easier. You unfortunately chose an extreme player this time but unless he's stalking you then naming and shaming is very unfair to someone who was just honest enough to share his interests and fantasies when someone showed an interest. |
|
|
13 Mar 07, 7:05 PM
StrictlyFunX
UK(SO), 5 yrs
|
Yes, I'm with the general opinion: While none of what he suggests would "float my boat," at least he has said in advance what he is into. If you are not, then tell him.
And I'm unsure about the "naming and shaming" for all sorts of reasons - not least the fact that "wrong-doing" is often subjective. As here. |
13 Mar 07, 7:31 PM
crazym
UK, 8 yrs
|
rodm99 wrote:
Science isn't a numbers game
|
I don't think it's a "numbers game" but I do think that "numbers" feature quite a lot in science.
Indeed you go on to help me by quoting some numbers...
rodm99 wrote:
- the 100 also have tens of thousands of controlled and replicated experiments and observations to support their arguments, and that's why we accept their case, not just that they're more numerous. The reason we reject the 'intelligent design' people is that to date they've failed to produce one falsifiable hypothesis in support of their case...
|
So we support the case for evolution on the basis of tens of thousands of experiments. Because, quite rightly, the presence of such large numbers of independent experiments proves it.
[edited to remove an extraneous "so"] Edited 13 Mar 07, 7:33 PM by crazym
|
13 Mar 07, 7:33 PM
crazym
UK, 8 yrs
|
tightlybound wrote:
Actually I think it means that their view is, at the time of expression, in the minority.
|
Actually (which is a horrid way to begin a sentence) it can mean both. |
13 Mar 07, 7:38 PM
tightlybound
UK, 5 yrs |
I want to post to reflect the opinion of what is obviously the silent minority.
Firstly, this guy is more than just extreme. It's not just about his thoughts and fantasies, it's the fact that he has chosen to articulate them in an unsolicited manner on a public forum. In my view this shows, at best, a lack of judgement and possibly much worse. The combination of this lack of judgement and extreme fantasies is what is worrying.
Secondly, much of what is being described is illegal, even amongst consenting adults. IC, in whatever collective term you want to describe it, is a public forum and we should be wary of condoning his actions.
I think we should all collectively take a step back here and reflect on the reality of the situation rather than his right to express his views.
|
