VanillaSkyGirl

Thank you for being considerate. I do understand and agree on a more general level with what you were trying to explain. Yes, I agree with that statement. I had wanted to go beyond this knowledge to promote deeper discussion within this thread. Thank you for your response.

Hello! I was in my post and still am in total agreement with you that Chris is a nice guy, who deserves to have nice things written about him. I am in agreement with many of his viewpoints, especially in the way that he posts them, and we (Chris and I) have always posted positively to each other. I just want to clarify that I NEVER inferred that you should send him a Private Message, instead of creating a thread about him. Chris Meunkel wrote that himself. I had asked you specifically why you began this thread in Speaker's Corner? I thought that it was obvious that I had asked this because this thread belongs in BONFIRE instead. At least, I would hope that this is a thread in which there are no disagreement and only positive feedback towards Chris. I am not sure what you are referring to specifically by "argue with the angry horde", but it's best to remember that not everyone is hostile about every topic.

I gave up S&M a long time ago! Whoa...TMI! I'm going back to Speaker's Corner where I belong! (I can hardly believe that I've been posting there, lately. HA! )

Are they that confusing? Not to me! Is this a ruse in order to get Adam to post more pictures?

Meunkel is a great guy, but why is this thread in Speaker's Corner?

Funny you should say that because all my trips to the Ladies room are simply to "powder my nose".

That concept has never escaped me. I went to private, Catholic schools from 1-12 grade, studied religion every school day and had biblical concepts taught at home and in church. Although, I currently do not agree with man-made religion (and see myself as spiritual, not religious), even to this day, much of my moral values are directly derivative from having been raised with religion and God in my life. This doesn't mean that I cannot make my point in conversation with a non-religious person without directly involving religion or the Bible. People can say and quote whatever and whomever they wish, but I question why they feel the need to constantly bring their religious viewpoints into conversations where it may not be necessary. It just doesn't seem effective, nor inclusive to people who do not share the same viewpoints. It makes me think that a person quoting the Bible to an athiest is a little lacking in tact and social skills, since they know that the other may not be in agreement with those points of view. It's like constantly referring to colors and visual aesthetics to someone who cannot see. The blind person may struggle to understand the concept out of politeness, but it would be so much effective to communicate with the blind person by talking and keeping the visual references out of the conversation. Now, if the blind person is asking what something looks like, then you can bring up visual aesthetics without seeming like an insensitive person. Otherwise, the visual concepts do not need to be discussed at all. To a blind person, all the other senses may be more important and heightened instead, so why not focus on those senses instead of on the one which is irrelevant to him/her? By the way, this may be a strange comparison. For the record, in no way am I saying that by not having religion in one's life, one is blind...in case, anyone tries to read more into my comparison than what I intended to write. First, it's not a poll question. It's a discussion thread. Second, in reference to what you wrote, no. That is definitely putting words into my mouth or using your own subjective interpretation of what my original, specific question was asking, in order to answer it in a more simplistic manner. The original question is more specific/complex than what you wrote and falls into a gray area because religion is involved. I do not agree with changing my question or anyone's questions, in order to answer it more effectively with a black/white cure-all answer. You have rationalized your own answer by changing the original thought behind my question.

I think that you all are talking in "single" people code because I have no idea what any of you is talking about! GEEZ!!!

No, which is an added bonus in many of our books! (Sunny, I'll introduce ya! ) He does all sorts of cool things, though, like study in Brazil, etc. Oh, he sounds WONDERFUL!!! Hope Sunny and him hit it off.

That's silly. Unless you don't have dress/formal shoes, and, then, I would understand. It's nice when a man dresses up, sometimes!

LOVE THAT!!!

Well, if Spencer is not around, and you and I ever get lost in Cabrini Green, it would be GREAT to have Steve around. This guy looks like he could even kick Candyman's scary bum!!! Whoa, I went to the website link that you attached. Oh my gosh... (Sounds like good times, Val! ) Actually, it's really cool that you know him, Val. I've saved the link and will try to keep up with the competition via the website. (I don't really watch television too much.) Of course, I hope that he wins! (Or won...if it's over) Kind-of neat that people work so hard physically to be a part of this. It's impressive when someone has that kind of discipline. Thanks for the post, Val!

Thank you, Tom. Your post confirmed what I remember having been taught in school.

HEY! I like new shoes too...... I seem to remember (from prior posts and discussion) that we seem to have the same taste in shoes, too!

If and when people are able to discuss things without getting petty, without degradation, without arrogance or name-calling, that is definitely taking the high road, imo. *** know that my views on average, fall well to the left of center, yet I don't consider myself to be an extremist. Catch 22? No, there is nothing wrong with leaning more towards one of the political parties, than the others. It is only normal, and how "extreme" others see you also depends on their own political viewpoints. I would probably agree with you on many topics, even though I lean slightly the other way. I try to be very open-minded, like a student, when it comes to politics. I don't think that makes me a traitor or confused or lacking political savy, as much as open-minded. (I hope.) Also, just to make things clear, I was not calling you, in particular, an "extremist". Yet, when I read what you wrote, it seemed to come across with an obvious bias and reminded me of other times when I had heard or read derogatory things written (not from you, in particular) from both sides. I thought that I should clarify my earlier post.

Oh Bill... (Well, at you least you practice safe sex. )

For the females...if thoughts of new gear excites you more than thoughts of new shoes!

Thanks Rosa. Not sure I can compete with Fish though... He looks AWESOME in his picture, but I've met you and know that you look GREAT, too!

I think that Frenchy (Nick) would be a great model.

Hmmm... *** The way it's sometimes used now has some parallels with negro and n***er. Wow. I am not trying to point a finger at anyone. Personally, I am not on either extreme...more in the middle with a slight nod or slant to one side. Yet, it seems to me that BOTH sides, the extreme right and the extreme left, use that "derisive tone" (one as much as the other) when speaking of the other side. Degrading tones and connotations are equally bad coming from either direction. Oddly enough, most people don't see this within themselves as much as from their opposing parties.

***Tell ya what...once I'm back on my feet, we should get together and bake Frenchy a batch together. LOLOL! Well, maybe not, but we really need to get together for dinner soon, in any event. Evelyn ~ Michele and I have talked about this in the past. How about dinner for the three of us?

Once a year "everyone" makes a pilgrimage I'd have to agree with that statement.

Yes....everyone knows how homophobic I am. That's right, you prefer those slutty, little sheep, right Clay?

Hi. I've read and heard several times over the years that some americans refer to liberals as something negative. Why is that? What is negative about being liberal. First, Rehmwa and I were being playful when Rehmwa "insulted" me. Calling me a liberal was funny to me only because I do NOT consider myself a "liberal", nor do I consider myself a true "conservative". I think that I am more of a moderate, but I could just call myself a "liberal conservative" and lmao! I think that "liberals" can be viewed as extremists, just like "conservatives" can be viewed as extremists in the other direction. There are certain stereotypes that either political parties may have towards one another, which is why to some people either one of these labels can be viewed as "negative" by one another. The fact is, it is neither more positive, nor negative to be a part of either political party. Each political party is just different, and it differs within political and sometimes personal viewpoints and ideals. One is not the "good" and one is not the "bad". That would be ridiculous because each person within each political party is unique, and there can be people that are morally good or bad in either group. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be associated with either of the extreme stereotypes. I do not like when people generalize and believe that all people of this party do this or do that. Personally, I have my own ideas and thoughts, and I don't like to be lumped in with others based purely on my political viewpoints.

I had been meaning to tell you all day that I just LOVE your new avatar, Andrea. You're both so pretty!