Bart the Lover

Valithor wrote: Hear, hear! Everyone hold hands now...we'll skip and kiss to Utopia! Tra-la-la... Hang on. My neighbour smells. Can I hold hands with someone else? Only kidding, Valithor. I agree in principle that we should all kiss more, but personally I'm a bit too reserved for that. I agree on educating children--homosexuality is a fact of life. No more, no less. It's only as difficult as you make it. Besides, while they're kissing, they can't be singing! Regards, Bart the Lover

What is a griddle? Is it like a big frying pan? Drunken Monkey wrote: Don't they go all soggy?! That reminds me...(adopts Homer voice) Mmmm...paaancakes

Warp Spider wrote: Don't be a silly billy. How can dying not be bad? How on earth have you survived to adulthood? What's an elderly lady supposed to do? Hit them with her handbag?

People! My advice was specifically aimed at Ben. It was not meant as a guide for everyone, everywhere. I fully appreciate that laws on the carrying of weapons and on self-defence differ around the world. So I won't bother taking issue with the (perfectly reasonable) queries raised by Warp Spider relating to these matters. It's sufficient to say I fully stand by my previous post. This also applies to the third quoted part of my post ('The problem with your thinking...'). Again, this is specifically aimed at Ben. Re the escalation thing: I remember reading this (gas station encounter), Warp Spider, and coming out in a cold sweat! I should really have responded to it then, but I was wringing my hands over the pour water over burning oil advice. I get what you are saying about taking control away from the attackers, and I accept it may work with some people. But it seems a very risky strategy. In your example, supposing the guy said, 'Go ahead'? You could hardly have burnt everyone (and possibly yourself) to a smoking crisp. Even if you survived, you'd spend the rest of your life in jail, and most likely kill innocent bystanders. I feel I should also voice my disapproval of a (horrible) death sentence meted out to anyone, even if they are violent muggers. And it would be other people dealing with it, rather than you-- firefighters in particular. Maybe you need this even more than Ben, so I repeat it: take care of yourself--and others. And don't blow up any gas stations, for God's sake! Regards, Bart the Lover

Kamidake wrote: I have. There is no 'arm yourself'. It's that simple. Sorry if I sound curt.

Ben wrote: Please tell me this isn't true. What if you are stopped by the police? If they search you, you will be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. You may be sent to a Young Offenders Institute, where you will be faced with dangerous people every day of the week. If you get into a fight, and you produce your knife, it may be taken off you and used against you. You may die. Or say you use the knife on them (and what's the point of having a knife if you are not willing to use it) and they die. That's murder. The court might not care that 'he started it'. They will see: a young man who carries a knife. A young man who gets into fights. And a young man who is willing to kill during a confrontation. If you are convicted of murder, that's an automatic life sentence. The problem with your thinking (I live in a rough area, I should arm myself) is that it just feeds the violence. Other young people are thinking the same thing. They aren't necessarily muggers or out-and-out thugs. They are just like you. So you are all walking around armed to the teeth to protect yourself from one another. It's madness. Don't participate in establishing, or perpetuating, a burgeoning weapons culture. Once it takes root, it is extremely difficult to shift. I'm very glad your confrontation ended with you in one piece. But I think the lesson is: be fit enough to run away. And don't escalate a potentially dodgy situation by laughing? At least, not when outnumbered eight to three. Take care of yourself. Regards, Bart the Lover p.s. I realise you were joking about 'the lesson'.

wrestlingkaratechamp17: Please don't hit your teacher. You'll get in serious trouble. If I hit everyone who annoyed me there would be blackeyes everywhere. Try not to go in expecting to hate him. I agree with the first part of Warp Spider's post. I had similar experiences--everyone would say so-and-so was horrible, but when I was taught by them, I often liked the teacher in question. I've noticed very direct teachers are disliked, which I always preferred. I like to know where I stand. Maybe this man's methods won't be to your liking--but it doesn't mean you can't learn from him. He may be disliked simply because he can't be cajoled into favouritism or wheedled into allowing extra time for homework. Find out for yourself. Maybe the girl who cried was frequently late. Maybe she had been warned repeatedly. Perhaps she deserved a dressing down. We all have to abide by rules and learning there are consequences for breaking them is no bad thing. However, for all I know this girl was experiencing some kind of life crisis and the ticking off pushed her over the edge. The important thing is you can't tell by listening to rumour. We can't always avoid people we don't like. We have to get along with all sorts of people. Try it. By the way, are all high schools in urban America as big as yours? Six thousand sounds enormous! How do you have assemblies? Good luck in school. Regards, Bart the Lover p.s. I tried to write a 'colourful' word for 'dressing down' but it was censored. Boo, hiss.

What is considered political? Just party politics, or political issues? If the latter, wouldn't that exclude an awful lot of debate? Can I ask which discussions in particular have prompted this ban? Regards, Bart the Lover

mikS wrote: I do understand. I just disagree. It's not the same thing. And who are you to call me ignorant?

Ben: maybe I have been unfair on you. If you feel I am getting at you, or subjecting you to ridicule, then I am truly sorry. That was not my intention. Perhaps I am a very petty person, but what irked me about your post was your use of the word 'babe'. To me, this isn't just saying a woman is very attractive, it's reducing her to her looks only. In other words, treating her as though her face were the sum total of her being. This, together with the phrases I picked out (which I do think were somewhat ambiguous, but I accept your explanation) led me to think unfavourably of you. This is the problem with internet communication. It's so easy to misconstrue what we say to one another. I don't know you, and I only have words on a screen to go by. I have to respond to something! Sometimes I will get it wrong--I'm human. You wrote: I honestly don't believe I do this, and again, I am sorry if I come across this way. Could you give me examples? I didn't think our paths had crossed that much, unless you are talking about my posting history. If I don't follow what a poster has written, I may ask for clarification, so I can respond better to them. If they write something I disagree with, I may say so. This is exactly how I wish to be treated. Maybe my style does appear a bit fault-finding. I just enjoy debate. Sometimes I get carried away. Sincerely, Bart the Lover

Warp Spider wrote: Eeek! Never pour water on a chip pan fire! The water sinks to the bottom, turns to steam and turns the whole thing into a massive fireball. Do this and you have a high probability of dying. Yes, it would. You may be killed, or permanently injured.

Ben wrote: And At the risk of repeating myself, no-one owns anyone. People are not objects. It is this kind of thinking that leads both sexes to believe they have rights over others, and hurt them (or someone else) if they try to leave. ShaolinBlade wrote: I gather that was aimed at me! I didn't mean to delve into your psychology. I was just concerned that your reactions seemed so out of proportion--it made me wonder how you would react to a genuine threat to your relationship. I have no knowledge of Texas, or of Connecticut. I'll have to judge by what you and Sens55 have said. I don't really see what you can do, other than ignore it. Taking issue with a particular man wouldn't help in general, as you have already stated. I'm sorry I can't be of further help. Rising Soldier wrote: Sens55's post would contradict this. Evidently it is cultural, not instinctive. Even if you had the instinctive desire to look at an attractive woman, it is still your conscious decision to act on it. Regards, Bart the Lover

Ben: Firstly, I'm sorry I used the word laughable. That was too harsh. You wrote: Ummm...if it's the only reason, how can there be other related topics?! I'm not trying to trip you up, or poke fun at your writing. I just not clear what you are saying here. I always the thought the motivation for women-only classes were quite varied. Religion, worries about getting hurt, or not wanting to be in proximity to strange men after an assault. However, these are just guesses. I haven't conducted surveys, or read research. You don't explain how you know it's because 'they'll never be able to compete with men'. I would have thought that was a minor consideration, if it featured at all. It is also unfounded, unless you believe brute force in itself makes you a good martial artist. Also, I never said anything about women-only classes. I passed no judgement. Nor did I say men should not have access to men-only classes. To be honest, I've never thought about it. I would point out, though, that I think it is wrong to draw a direct comparison between the two. Historically, men-only endeavours have been used to hamper women's involvment in politics, sport, business etc. Sometimes women had to set up their own classes or societies simply to get on in life. I realise things are different now, at least in Europe and North America (but not perfect). But the sensitivity remains. It doesn't make people hypocrites, just cautious. I've noticed many people on these boards saying similar things. Personally, I think it's a pity to exclude someone who might be compatible because it might interfere with your training. Seems a bit ascetic to me! But obviously that's your right. It seems extreme to want a men-only class on this basis, though. Regards, Bart the Lover

from the ground up: My point with the Scottish/Chinese sounding girl was that evidently people are idiosyncratic in their speech patterns. Generally, they will sound like their peers, but not always. You wrote: If I remember correctly, the girl was born and brought up in Scotland. She picked up the Chinese accent because her parents spoke English with a Chinese accent. Perhaps whitemanwithchineseaccent's father did speak English around his. Maybe he is guessing where his accent came from. I don't suppose it matters much to him. This is the core of our disagreement! I maintain that it is possible (though not likely) for someone to speak much more like their parents. People are unpredictable. Some emigrants change accents to fit their adopted country very quickly. Some never change. Others merge the two accents (like Loyd Grossman), or switch between accents, like Sheena Easton (you may not have heard of her, depending on your age!). My point is: if you are exposed to your parents' accented English early in life (and maybe you don't attend nursery school, or playgroup) you might not change once you go to school. While I don't know anyone like this, I have known people whose accent came from merging the local and their parents' accent. So they were on the continuum, as it were. Warp Spider wrote: This is a good point, but it doesn't apply here because whitemanwithchineseaccent's father is from Thailand. So he has at least heard of it, even if maybe his father doesn't really talk about it (for all we know). Surely he wouldn't use the uninformed term used by his peers? wrestlingkaratechamp17 wrote: For a second after I read this, I thought...What? Then I realised this refered to the thread topic! Regards, Bart the Lover

from the ground up: thanks for clarifying your thoughts on the accent thing. I see what you are saying now. I'm sorry to be pedantic, but a regional dialect is not the same as an accent. A dialect refers to actual words and grammar used in a particular region. An accent is how those words are spoken, the rhythm and pronunciation used (I think). Two people may have the same accent, but a different dialect. I remember seeing a documentary about immigration which featured a girl who spoke in a very distinctive Scottish/Chinese hybrid accent. Two words would sound Scottish, and the next two would sound Chinese. Until I saw the documentary, I would not have thought this was even possible! I don't know anyone who does this, but that does not mean it doesn't exist. Who knows? I understand your skepticism, though. Obviously it hasn't reached my neck of the woods yet! Regards, Bart the Lover

Warp Spider wrote: I had a feeling you would say this! However, for the majority of people, I believe what I said holds true. It certainly irritates me when I am stared at. You must be either very confident or a bit daft.

from the ground up wrote: Firstly, I don't understand the distinction you are making between first tongue and mother tongue. As far as I knew, mother tongue and first (or native) tongue are synonymous. How will he not have an accent? At the very least, he'll have an accent consistent with his region. You seem to be asserting that people only have accents if they speak an unfamiliar language (unfamiliar in that you did not grow up speaking it). This means there is only one accent for English, which is clearly not the case. Maybe I'm being thick, but I can't see how else to interpret your post. My first inclination is to agree with you on the supposed generic term for the far east. It does seem a bit iffy. But I don't understand why it's getting under your skin. So what if he's pretending to be something other than what he is? What does it matter? This isn't even real life. It's the internet. Regards, Bart the Lover

Ben wrote: You want a men-only class because you get distracted? If you're so easily distracted, how do you control yourself at work/school/college? There may or may not be good reasons for a men-only class, but to exclude women for such a trivial reason is laughable.

ShaolinBlade wrote: Isn't this the key to your reactions? I think it's unlikely that every man, everywhere you go, is staring at your wife. I think most people probably look a little longer at those they find attractive (I know I do) but we don't stare. However, there will always be berks who gawp. It's annoying, but I think you should simply ignore them, or move somewhere else if it's bothering your wife. Which brings me to this: Warp Spider wrote: Do you like being stared at? No? Why not? Because it's rude and aggressive. Attractive women are not pretty pictures created for you to fix your gaze on. But back to you. I think the emotions you describe are worrying. You seem to be interpreting what are probably unthreatening admiring glances to be hostile and aggressive. Has it occured to you that they only look back because you do? Maybe they think you are staring at them. It sounds as though you spend all your time scoping the room/street for stares, which must be an uncomfortable way to live. Jealousy is close to possessiveness. Most of your post is concerned with how you feel. How dare they look at your woman? You do not own her, nor can you control her interactions with others. What would you do if she had an affair? Kill the other guy? This is the impression I'm getting. Stop worrying about other people so much. You can't control them. Just concentrate on your wife, and on her company. Regards, Bart the Lover

G95champ wrote: Wish I could do that! How long did it take you to get to that level? What kick(s) do you use when you do that? Hope you don't mind me asking you questions--I'm just interested. Any hints will be gratefully recieved! Regards, Bart the Lover

from the ground up wrote: Isn't that what he's been trying to say? That he speaks English with a Thai accent? Why is that so difficult to accept? Some people speak more like their parents than their peers, that's all. rb wrote: Beacuse the genes that control skin colour and facial characteristics don't simply mix together to produce a baby that is 'in the middle'. If a black man and a white woman have a child, that child may be white. Or it may be black. Or some other shade of skin colour. As far as the thread topic goes, I agree with the posters suggesting you look for a more effective art. If you want something you can use to defend yourself--and quickly--you might consider Muay Thai. Good luck in finding something. Regards, Bart the Lover

kchenault wrote: I agree. I didn't mean to imply that I thought Kobe was guilty. I said court was the place to determine guilt because innocence is assumed. You don't need to go to court to establish it. It is up to the state, or the Crown, to prove your guilt. I don't know if your comment was prompted by mine or not, but I thought I should clarify my words anyway.

Tibby and monkeygirl: Do you believe only unattractive men rape? Do you seriously believe that men rape only because they are unable to obtain consensual sex? If you do, then you are deluded. Tibby wrote: This question is so stupid it beggars belief. So she was asking for it? You should be an English High Court judge. Your attitude is frightening and depressing. What is a 'real' victim? And how do you know this woman isn't telling the truth? Because you've read a few newspaper articles? The place to decide guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is in court.

Another Frodo here.

Congratulations! Well done. How are you going to celebrate?