"Of all the feminists I know (not many — there aren’t many left!), none would think that Paul was harder on the women."
Yet, others have said that feminists are ubiquitous. So, which is it?
Perhaps the difference in beliefs has to do with how one defines feminism.
It seems that many feminists look to create a sort of "big tent" of feminism by telling both men and women that they are feminists if they believe in the equality of women.
The number of women (and men for that matter) who identify themselves as feminists goes from 24% to 65% (and from 24% to 58% for men) when the definition "A FEMINIST IS SOMEONE WHO BELIEVES IN SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC EQUALITY OF THE SEXES" is given.
That sounds reasonable, doesn't it? After all, in Galatians 3:28, Paul said that men and women both have equal standing before God as His children. So, why don't all Christians identify as feminists? Why don't all reasonable people identify as feminists? Why don't more people identify as a feminist when a definition is not given?
I suppose the reason why most people do not identify as feminist (only 14% of men and 24% of women) is because the term "feminist" means more than the dictionary definition of "equality of the sexes" to most people.
So, is Catwoman right? Are there not many feminists around anymore?
Perhaps it is that even though many women today do not consider themselves feminists, they still are influenced by feminist ideology.
The same survey gives some insight into how many women hold feminist ideology to be true.
-69% of women believe the women's movement has made their life better, including 75% of women 18-35, 80% of women 36-44, 70% of women 45-64, and 47% of women 65 and older.
-48% of women think there is still a need for a strong woman's movement.
-According to to an online poll done by Working Woman magazine and the National Committee on Pay Equity, 83% of the respondents believe that the so called "wage gap" is a big problem in the work place.
According to another survey:
63% of those surveyed (Males [N=461], Females [N=542], Democrats [N=361], Republicans [N=301], Independents [N=341]) think women are treated unfairly in the workplace and in politics. 34% think women are treated unfairly in the home.
So, it would appear that even though most women would not automatically call themselves a feminist, that many women still hold feminist ideology.
82 comments:
Yes, and the larger matter here is not so much the representation of feminists in the general population, but rather their representation in key areas of life: corporate world, government, academia, seminaries.
During my tour of duty at Southern, the overwhelming majority of the professors were either feminists or sympathized with them. That climate has changed, but not because feminism is on the outs in academic, but rather due to a concerted effort to purge Southern Seminary of feminism and liberal theology.
The point that Catwoman completely missed is that while you almost never see anyone attempt to minimize the bluntness of Paul's admonitions to men, you will see liberals and conservatives alike attempt to mitigate the force of Paul's admonitions to women.
(The feminist theologians--being theologically liberal--often attempt to undermine the Pauline corpus altogether. Even as they do that, they are even harder on men that Paul ever was.)
That makes a pretty strong case that Paul--in terms of sheer bluntness--is much tougher on the women. Combined with the higher volumen of admonitions to the men, that makes a very strong case that Paul was no respecter of sexes.
Hi Amir,
Very true, Paul was no respector of persons.
It seems to me that feminist ideology is so accepted that many people cannot recognize it for what it is.
A feminist believe in the equality of women, DESPITE all evidence to the contrary. That is very different from "equal standing before God". Nor is it "equal standing before the law". I have never heard of a Feminist demanding REAL equality before the law.
Hi Roci,
It seems that feminists cannot understand that men and women can be equal in terms of value as a human being and yet not be the same. So they couch their arguments toward "equality" when that isn't what they really mean at all.
"The point that Catwoman completely missed is that while you almost never see anyone attempt to minimize the bluntness of Paul's admonitions to men, you will see liberals and conservatives alike attempt to mitigate the force of Paul's admonitions to women."
It's called mitigating the zealots who are fascinated by the idea that they should have a wife who should submit to them.
Catwoman says: It's called mitigating the zealots who are fascinated by the idea that they should have a wife who should submit to them.Obviously, Catwoman has the ca(r)t before the horse.
All men ought not necessarily have a wife at all, as all men are not necessarily cut out for marriage.
All married men--irrespective of what kind of wives they have--are obligated to love her as Christ loved the Church.
After all, the failure of the wife to fulfill her duty does not constitute a license for the husband to abandon his.
Similarly, all women ought not necessarily have a husband at all, as all women are not cut out for marriage.
All married women--irrespective of what kind of husbands they have--are obligated to submit to their husbands as to the Lord.
After all, the failure of the husband to fulfill his duty does not constitute a license for the wife to abandon hers.
Well said Amir
"All men/women ought not necessarily have a wife/husband at all, as all men are not necessarily cut out for marriage."
"Not all are 'cut out for marriage'" is a phrase I would like to see extinct. It sounds elitist, as if you must 'make the cut', so to speak. Fine, if you want to say that some people would be happier to skip marriage rather than live within the demands of it. Besides, I'm not sure what this has to do with church leaders who "mitigate the force of Paul's admonitions to women".
"The failure of the husband to fulfill his duty does not constitute a license for the wife to abandon hers."
The need for a bit of pastorly mitigation comes in (especially for religious folks) not where people slack off and "abandon their duty" so to speak, but where people overfunction in one area so that they can "loanshark" the compliance of their spouse in another area.
If pastors err on the side of caution when it comes to the preaching to the entire congregation the "submission" part of Paul's teachings, it's most likely to mitigate the potential for overapplication, lest it come back on them. I'm sure that over time, pastors have seen husbands who might pull the submission card in order to get their own way, and blame their wives for the problems in the marriage as if her disagreement is "not submitting". Or wives who go along with things for years, without speaking up, and then end up with stress-related physical and mental health issues. Can a wife similarly take advantage a husband who is "overloving" her? I'm sure it happens, but the husbands have the executive powers to not overindulge their wives.
Teaching that any particular kind of person should submit to another contains an added level of risk. There's always going to be potential for abuse of power in those situations. So understandably, church leaders try to find ways of communicating these concepts so that people don't go overboard, ie. the Eggerich "women respect, men love" model, which seems to me a bit simplistic since both need both, which is the most common criticism about it.
And I think "respect" is a better starting place for dealing with the issues that characteristically come up between husbands and wives, because it is over respect issues, not "submission" issues where the real battles in marriage are lost and won. Besides, many church leaders will talk about submission but their own marriages in reality most resemble partnership with division of labor and leadership by areas of expertise.
And for these reasons it just seems a bit nescient and peevish when single men fret when leaders like Driscoll give married men given an extra helping of admonition. Other than the few usual suspects around here, I don't hear a lot of men, married or otherwise, complaining about that.
Catwoman says:
"Not all are 'cut out for marriage'" is a phrase I would like to see extinct. It sounds elitist, as if you must 'make the cut', so to speak. Fine, if you want to say that some people would be happier to skip marriage rather than live within the demands of it.So you think abusive people should be married?
Maybe my statement sounds elitist, but as someone who claims to have worked with abusers and their victims, I would have expected you to understand that statement.
And for these reasons it just seems a bit nescient and peevish when single men fret when leaders like Driscoll give married men given an extra helping of admonition. Other than the few usual suspects around here, I don't hear a lot of men, married or otherwise, complaining about that.Who is fretting? All I am saying is that we need balance here, and I even stated that the backlash of the MRA movement is equally wrong. (1) What about that is off-base? (2) What part of that makes one a "zealot" or "fascinated by the idea that they should have a wife who should submit to them"?
Or is this another one of your classic moments where I bust your proverbial chops, and then you come back and say, "Gee, aren't you being a little Nancy-glass"?
More entertainment, at your expense...
Moreover, you obviously have your head in the sand, as (a) the clergy--yes, even evangelicals--is chock full of feminists and sympathizers, even as their overall numbers in the general population are lower, and (b) even conservatives have sought to mitigate the bluntness of Paul's statements about women whereas neither liberals nor conservatives attempt to do the same about Paul's statements to men (nor should they), so this is a very strong case that there is overall balance in the Scriptures.
"So you think abusive people should be married?"
Actually, I think that it's better for two abusive people to be married to each other, than be abusive to each other in a common-law relationship, or be single and potentially abusing others in likely promiscuous situations. Ideally, people should resolve their abusiveness before getting married or having children, but life doesn't work that way. Besides, there's nothing in scripture that some people are not suited for marriage due to their abusiveness or immaturity. Marriage is a common grace.
"All I am saying is that we need balance here, and I even stated that the backlash of the MRA movement is equally wrong..(1) What about that is off-base? ."
What's off-base is the extent to which you seem to think this imbalance actually exists. And as if there aren't good reasons, like the ones I mentioned in my last post, why church leaders are careful in how they teach "wife subject" passages to the men and women in their congregations. Such erring on the side of caution does not make them "feminists" or "feminist sympathizers". You will be hard pressed to prove that the evangelical clergy is "chock full" of either.
(2) What part of that makes one a "zealot" or "fascinated by the idea that they should have a wife who should submit to them"?
For someone who has never married, "submission issues" seems to come up just a bit too often to escape wonder.
"Or is this another one of your classic moments where I bust your proverbial chops..."
Don't flatter yourself: leave it to your fellow axe-grinders to do that for you.
"...and then you come back and say, "Gee, aren't you being a little Nancy-glass"?
lol! OK, now I get it: it's the name "Nancy" that led you to believe I was making a homosexual reference, wasn't it? Do you know who Nancy Glass is? She was the unctuously sympathetic anchor of the tabloid news show "American Journal" that featured tear-jerker accounts of school busloads of children careening over cliffs, etc.
Not that tragedies like accidents and abuse aren't news deserving of sensitive treatment, but past a certain point it becomes mawkish and exploitive -- self-serving heroics.
Such erring on the side of caution does not make them "feminists" or "feminist sympathizers". You will be hard pressed to prove that the evangelical clergy is "chock full" of either.Just because someone says they are not a feminist or because they criticize aspects of feminism does not mean they don't hold feminist ideology themselves. It is so common in both the modern culture and the church that many people don't even recognize it as feminist ideology. This was the point of my post.
I don't buy the idea that there is more risk in a man misusing his wife's submission than there is when a wife does not respect or submit to her husband. Society and the church are both suffering significantly from the loss of respect for masculinity and the loss of respect of the position of men as the God ordained leaders in the home and the church.
"Society and the church are both suffering significantly from the loss of respect for masculinity and the loss of respect of the position of men as the God ordained leaders in the home and the church."
True, L.
Before getting married we were required to attend a marriage preparation course in which the priest made it clear that there had to be a leader in the household. The husband. Common sense really. There can only one captain of the ship.
Incidentally, the priest can never be replaced by a woman in our church(Catholic)It is only he who has been ordained to consecrate the bread and wine so that it becomes the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
This rule came from Christ himself. Not one of the twelve apostles were women!
There never will be women priests in the Catholic church. Much to the chagrin of a few progressive Catholics out there.
Only last year the vatican reiterated that any dissenting Bishops who ordained women as priests would, along with these women be automatically excommunicated.
What's off-base is the extent to which you seem to think this imbalance actually exists.That you aren't addressing the evidence that I have tossed into your lap says it all.
As I said, you will find no small number of scholars--conservative and liberal alike--attempting to mitigate the force of Paul's statements to and about women. We're talking the evangelical ranks here. These are no Episcopalians. They are Baptists of all stripes. They are Pentecostals. They are Evangelical Free Church. They often wear the Reform tag.
Conservatives do this because they often wish to appear to be "loving" and "enlightened", attempting to make the case that the God of Scripture is not as hard as many preachers have made Him out to be.
This is prevalent from small churches to megachurches. To deny this would be like denying gravity.
(Liberals undermine those passages for a different reason: they are trying to move beyond Scripture in terms of understanding God.)
And as if there aren't good reasons, like the ones I mentioned in my last post, why church leaders are careful in how they teach "wife subject" passages to the men and women in their congregations. Such erring on the side of caution does not make them "feminists" or "feminist sympathizers".There is never a good reason to (a) mitigate the force of a passage in Scripture, or (b) expand the force of a passage of Scripture beyond the scope in which it is covered.
As for the pastors who do either, they are often afraid of making waves. It's easier to beat on the men because the men aren't going to throw a big fit and have the pastor fired. (At least they won't unless their wives start pitching a big enough fit.)
The MRA types are a non-factor in the Church, and even the folks like myself aren't going to call for the pastor's head. We find such teachings annoying and wrong, but we'd rather bust his chops behind closed doors. Sometimes they get the message. Sometimes it takes a while before they get it. The worst ones are the men who just got out of seminary.
The women, on the other hand, tend to be the bigger activists that pastors won't come down on. Especially in churches where such women have been given key positions on committees, and whose husbands are deacons/elders, and who have other family members on such committees.
Still, such unwillingness by the pastor to provide Biblically-based balance, shows that either (a) they are feminists, (b) they are sympathetic with feminists, or (c) they lack the stones to do their jobs. By accepting their callings as elders/pastors, they are accepting the responsibility to present Scripture fairly.
I say this because more is at stake here than how the men receive it. If it were merely about that, it would a small matter. But we're dealing with (a) one's fundamental approach to Scripture, (b) one's willingness to tell the truth even when it can get one in trouble, (c) a pastor/teacher's impact on how people will approach marriage, as they absorb such teachings, and (d) how the Church reflects the truth outwardly.
I see no case where Paul or Peter are worried about what the congregation will think about their teachings. Nor did he cater to pop culture.
Paul tore into the women pretty hard, gave men a pretty long list of duties, and gave the entire Church no small number of pep talks.
Even then, Paul did not do this to every Church in his letters. The Colossians, for example, had other issues (some false teachers creeping in) in spite of being an otherwise sound church. The Galatians had salvation-by-works and prejudice issues.
The Corinthians had issues with flagrant immorality, contentiousness in the Body, women asserting themselves in roles to which they were not called, men sleeping at the leadership wheel, and husbands and wives with submission/leadership issues. The Ephesians had similar issues.
You will be hard pressed to prove that the evangelical clergy is "chock full" of either. Actually, the case is very strong. As I pointed out, the feminists and their sympathizers--even with the positive changes at places like Southern--dominate the academic world in the seminaries.
And the promoters of headship theology--for all their good intentions--are just pawns for the feminists.
Motte Brown of Boundless, for example, is no feminist. On the other hand, he plays into their hand with his brand of teaching.
You forget who you are dealing with. I am not Anakin, nor am I Triton or MarkyMark.
I am a former headship theology Kool-Aid drinker myself. I used to teach it. I have had the chance to see--from the front row--what happens with such corrosive teachings.
For someone who has never married, "submission issues" seems to come up just a bit too often to escape wonder. I deal with issues as they come up. Moreover, you seem to forget that as I discuss submission, I also discuss the man's responsibilities, too. And most of the time, I give equal time to the matter.
And a lot of it comes down to the person I'm dealing with at the time. If I'm dealing with a man (woman) who is bitching one-sided, I'll bust his (her) butt about his (her) responsibilities.
If I'm speaking to a men's group or class, I won't even address wifely submission issues. Why? It's irrelevant in that context. This is because the man's duty is not contingent on his wife fulfilling hers.
Ditto for the women. If I'm speaking to one of their classes, I would not even bring up husbandly leadership issues. Why? It's irrelevant in that context. This is because the woman's duty is not contingent on her husband fulfilling his.
Don't flatter yourself: leave it to your fellow axe-grinders to do that for you.Fellow axe-grinders? Bah. Don't make me laugh too hard.
lol! OK, now I get it: it's the name "Nancy" that led you to believe I was making a homosexual reference, wasn't it? Do you know who Nancy Glass is? She was the unctuously sympathetic anchor of the tabloid news show "American Journal" that featured tear-jerker accounts of school busloads of children careening over cliffs, etc.Well excuse me honey. I don't watch television.
Not that tragedies like accidents and abuse aren't news deserving of sensitive treatment, but past a certain point it becomes mawkish and exploitive -- self-serving heroics.I've already listed the reasons that I cover such matters. If you wish to call that "self-serving heroics", then you are just showing what a mocker you are.
Go back to your own vomit.
Amir,
I said: "You will be hard pressed to prove that the evangelical clergy is "chock full" of either."
And you said: "Actually, the case is very strong. As I pointed out, the feminists and their sympathizers--even with the positive changes at places like Southern--dominate the academic world in the seminaries."
Well, we're waiting. Where's your proof?
Disgusting comments about vomit will not dissuade me from calling you on your gratuitious heroics when you indulge in them.
Catwoman:
You have some serious gall.
First, you toss an unwarranted and unprovoked insult--suggesting that I am "fascinated" with sex criminals, in response to a post that dealt with a sex assault/murder case that involved a Sunday School teacher at a church.
That you refuse to own your backhanded assault--which really was uncalled for--is why I am telling you to go back to your own vomit. You have established a track record as a mocker, and that is why you get very little respect.
That I mistook your "Nancy Glass" comment should not be surprising, given that you compared me to a "Nancy Boy"--which is a homosexual reference--on another blog.
When I was in 10th grade, a very popular physics teacher in my high school was busted for child molestation. He had hundreds of victims. Even had photos of his exploits. The bastard is a free man today.
A year after he was busted, I was in the hospital for minor surgery. Turned out, the other patient in my room was a classmate of mine, who had been out of school for about a year. He was one of that teacher's victims. He had slit his wrists, in the latest of several suicide attempts.
So pardon me when I take offense at your "fascinated" comment.
As for feminists in the evangelical world, do you even know what an evangelical is? Do you have it defined?
If you think it's just PCA Presbyterians and Southern Baptists, you would be quite mistaken. But even among those groups--especially the latter--there is much damage to be undone.
When you start including other Baptist groups--such as American Baptists and Northern Baptists and even the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship--you start losing ground. All of those are "evangelical" and VERY supportive of feminism.
When you start including Wesleyans and their derivatives, it gets even murkier. Some are very conservative, but their seminaries are very liberal. Those denominations are in serious danger of going the direction of the PCUSA.
When you start including the "Emergent Church" and the Sojourners, then you start getting even more problems. They have already fallen off the cliff.
When you start including Lutherans and Methodists, you start having even more issues. Another case of a split among clergy--lots of them identifying with feminists--and a very liberal leadership, and ultra-liberal seminaries.
Ever been to Baylor? Ever been to Fuller Theological Seminary? Both are otherwise mainstream and evangelical. And chock full of feminists. They are full of Southern Baptist liberals who defected when the Convention was taken over by the conservatives.
Ever been to Golden Gate Theological Seminary? Ever been to Midwestern Baptist? Both are still recovering from feminism--in spite of fine work by the Convention to clean them out--as they are behind Southern Seminary in this area.
How about Beeson Divinity School? How about Anderson Seminary?
I'm familiar with those schools. Beeson and Anderson--the latter in my former stomping grounds--are steeped in feminism. Anderson's theology department can't even decide when life begins.
To deny the feminist influence in the evangelical world is like denying gravity. Even professors at those schools who are not feminists are (a) under serious pressure to kowtow to demands of feminists on the campus and/or (b) finding themselves accomodating feminism in their writings because of the larger influence of feminism on the scholarship in their field.
What I'm getting at is that the feminist influence is very heavy in those schools. That's where the pastors study and get their degrees. That's where denominational leaders get their educations. From there, they go on to fine liberal seminaries in Europe for fellowships and sabbaticals and postdoc work.
And I've just rattled off some of the most prominent seminaries of some very high-profile "evangelical" denominations.
And what do I mean by feminist influence?
(a) siding with the women--without question--in cases of alleged abuse
(b) supporting abortion
(c) supporting inclusive language in Biblical translation
(d) supporting the watering down of references to God as "Father", (e) undermining Biblical Creationism
(f) supporting women clergy under the pretext of equality
(g) the accommodation of homosexuality in the Church.
If feminists were nonexistent--or irrelevant--in the evangelical world, then why are such issues so contentious in the evangelical world today?
Promise Keepers, for all its good intentions, made a serious mistake in attempting to accommodate feminism. Early in their inception, they promoted the notion that feminism would not have infiltrated society if men had really Biblical men.
Sadly, that falls on its face, as perfect initiation provides no guarantee of perfect response.
After all, Jesus is the perfect groom for the Church, but we are still a very fallen people whose sanctification is ever in progress.
"That I mistook your "Nancy Glass" comment should not be surprising, given that you compared me to a "Nancy Boy"--which is a homosexual reference--on another blog."
I have NEVER compared you or anyone else to a "nancy boy" on this or any other blog. A quick google of "nancy glass" would have made it clear that she's an actual person, even if her show went off the air years ago. I'll deal with the rest of your post at lunch.
As for feminists in the evangelical world, do you even know what an evangelical is? Do you have it defined?...And I've just rattled off some of the most prominent seminaries of some very high-profile "evangelical" denominations."
Right, and that's all you've done.
Look, your original point was about the way some preachers, Driscoll in particular, "mitigate the force of Paul's admonitions to women" as compared to what they dish out to men.
Liberal evangelicals (ie. Campolo, etc.) soften BOTH "husbands lead" AND "wive submit" -- liberals soften everything for everybody so there it's a moot point.
Conservative evangelicals who preach "wives submit" are the only ones who give husbands a strong "headship theology" treatment, and even then, other than Doug Wilson and maybe his fan Motte, taking the starting point of the husband being "responsible" for the wife, where else is there a significant imbalance?? WHERE'S THE FIRE????
No one's complaining but you and a handful of commiserators in this obscure corner of the blogosphere.
No one's complaining but you and a handful of commiserators in this obscure corner of the blogosphere.Then why do you bother, Catwoman? If you really think it is an obscure issue why are you bothering with it?
Hey, I didn't come over here until you mentioned my handle.
Catwoman says: I have NEVER compared you or anyone else to a "nancy boy" on this or any other blog.
Sure you did. On Anakin's blog. You tried to hide behind "Anonymous", and said the following, in the midst of a quite entertaining rant in which you made a complete ass of yourself:
"So stop protesting like a Nancy boy and get a grip."
As for my pointing out of the feminist influence in the evangelical world, all I did was (a) point out some of the most influential evangelical seminaries, (b) discuss major issues that feminists and their sympathizers in the evangelical world are waging against conservatives, and (c) discuss the fact that even many seminaries that have had major housecleanings--such as Golden Gate--are still recovering.
As for the Baptist world, it may be another generation before several crops of evangelical preachers--educated by feminists at said seminaries--are weeded out of the pastoral gene pool. I could take you into any number of such churches in Kentucky and you can see the impact for yourself.
What you are failing to see is the difference between what goes on in the circles with which you are familiar, and what goes on in medium-sized obscure evangelical churches that don't make the news.
And yes, the seminaries are a major culprit in this.
As for liberal evangelicals softening the Scriptures for both sides, what you have done is fail to address both the rationale and the resultant effect of such teaching, neither of which are moot.
By softening the Scriptures for both husbands and wives, they are (a) elevating the wife to a position that is not Biblical, (b) subordinating the husband to a position that is not Biblical, and (c) committing a major affront to the relationship between Christ and the Church. The end-result is a Church that looks more like the world.
To say that such folks are nonexistent in the evangelical world would be quite foolish.
As I said, they are in the churches that don't make the news, but their effects show up in poll after poll, which reflects the disastrous state of those who claim to be "born again".
"Sure you did. On Anakin's blog. You tried to hide behind "Anonymous", and said the following, in the midst of a quite entertaining rant in which you made a complete ass of yourself:
"So stop protesting like a Nancy boy and get a grip."
In this case, it's you making an ass out of yourself, since that was absolutely, positively OBVIOUSLY one of my posts, but someone (probably "Darla Jean") doing a parody of one. BTW- this isn't the only time you have gone off half-cocked at an impostor doing a parody, Amir.
"What you are failing to see is the difference between what goes on in the circles with which you are familiar, and what goes on in medium-sized obscure evangelical churches that don't make the news...As I said, they are in the churches that don't make the news, but their effects show up in poll after poll, which reflects the disastrous state of those who claim to be "born again".
And so this proves...what?? I'm not saying that such folks are nonexistent in the evangelical world. I'm sure they exist, just as much those who take a backward approach to "wives submit". I just don't see the point in getting worked up about worst case scenarios.
"As for liberal evangelicals softening the Scriptures for both sides, what you have done is fail to address both the rationale and the resultant effect of such teaching, neither of which are moot."
Go ahead take them on, Amir. Especially if you're so longing for a cause to which you can lend your heroics. But please, spare us the whinging on how conservative evangelical "headship" theologians are oh-so hard on men. Everyone understands that as soon as you preaching "wives submit", the stake in the husband's leadership responsibilities goes way up. Even so, you have not demonstrated that there is a significant number of said theologians that are truly burdening husbands with charges to "pamper" their wives.
There's no crying in baseball -- likewise for complementarianism.
OOPS. More bad proofreading. I meant to type:
"In this case, it's you making an ass out of yourself, since that was absolutely, positively OBVIOUSLY **NOT** one of my posts, but someone (probably "Darla Jean") doing a parody of one. BTW- this isn't the only time you have gone off half-cocked at an impostor doing a parody, Amir."
And on this I can swear, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, on the written word of God.
So be it.
Hey, I didn't come over here until you mentioned my handle.That doesn't seem to fit as the reason you commented here since you didn't address a single point I made in the post.
So, you have yet to answer the question; Why do you bother if it is such an obscure issue?
Catwoman,
1. The rant Amir referred to was by someone who said they were gortexgrrl.
2. Anakin suggested gortexgrrl use the name/URL function and linked the Catwoman video.
3. You responded to Anakin using the name "Catwoman".
And now you are saying that was not you? If that was not you why assume the Name Anakin suggested for that individual?
Catwoman:
(1) Like that great philosopher, Ronald Reagan, said, "There you go again..."
I've already established that I am not in the MRA camp or the MGTOW camp.
I simply post from time to time regarding issues that interest me. I blog often regarding politics and economics and financial issues. I blog about any number of current events. I blog about sports. I blog about culture wars within denominations.
Yes, I smack feminists from time to time. Yes, I blog about the sorry state of children/youth ministry.
(Oh, and I'm not on the sidelines: I'm in my Church working in those areas making a difference.)
Yes, I smack headshippers from time to time.
(I'm entitled to do that, given that I was once one of their Kool-Aid drinkers.)
As for the Biblical instructions to husbands and wives, I made a very reasoned case for a balanced approach. No whining to it; no obsession with one side versus another; no promotion of a backlash, and in fact I advised against a backlash.
And yet your response--referring to my positions as "whining" and "crying" and "zealotry" and "fascinated by the idea that they should have a wife who should submit to them"--reveals your mockery for the underhanded tripe that it is.
As we say in Monopoly: Go directly to JAIL. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.
(2) You are now trying to disown your own comment. Fact is, after that rant, you spent a considerable amount of time attempting to be conciliatory on my own blog space.
When Anakin outed you, and compared you to Catwoman--a monicker that actually is complementary, as most of us love that type of villain--you then adopted the monicker of Catwoman. Before that, you blogged on my site under various monickers. I know this because of your IP address.
If this was an imposter, that imposter would have had to be in on not only the rant that I have attributed to you, but also the ensuing exchanges on my blog space.
I won't say it wasn't the work of an imposter, but--based on your track record and the evidence I've listed--there is reasonable room for doubt.
Quite frankly, I found the rant amusing, and took no offense. I only point it out to show that you have a precedence for taking cheap shots at people, even to the point of sexual low blows.
I was only offended at your latest exchange because it was completely unwarranted.
(Besides, the only "heroics" in this are the exploits of Recon. Quit undermining that great Special Ops cat, damn it!)
It would be one thing if you were irritated in the middle of an exchange and popped off a few shots. That's perfectly understandable, as those matters bring out the best and worst in everyone. As some great thinker once said, shit happens.
But unwarranted cheap shots, I will treat those with all the respect they deserve.
(3) Your take on feminism is pure bait and switch. You spent a gawdawful amount of time on Anakin's blog--or was that an imposter blogging from Canada (which, by the way, is where your IP address came from), who argued with your style?--attempting to defend feminism, deflecting the question of whether the paltry gains of feminism are worth the cost in human life.
Now you are trying to assert that there are no feminists in the evangelical world, even though there are no small number of them in key seminaries, as well as pastorates in evangelical denominations.
The evidence is found in the controversies that I have listed, the battles of which are in fact quite fierce. Especially in the key areas of Biblical translation, homosexuality, gender roles in clergy, marital roles, and abortion.
We don't see the wind, but we sure see the effects.
The same is true in seminaries and denominational leadership.
The average person doesn't see what goes on at those levels, but when you get a look at what happens in the churches that are in flyover country--as well as the polls that reflect the sorry state of evangelicals--you see the results.
To look at that and say there are no feminists in the evangelical world, is a strawman dismissal that has no basis in fact.
And on this I can swear, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, on the written word of GodSwear all you want, hon. But the hard evidence is not on your side.
Like I said, I found the rant entertaining. I merely pointed it out to show that I had a rational basis to contest your "nancy glass" statement.
That I do not watch television is one of my idiosyncrasies, but my observations of your comments had a rational basis in fact.
"And now you are saying that was not you? If that was not you why assume the Name Anakin suggested for that individual?"
Of course it wasn't me -- and I said as much by posting "you again, Darla Jean?". Have I ever said anything like "Since you gave me the last d*mn word here Amir, pay attention!!!", or called anyone "junior"? or "Nancy boy" or "two-bit hacks"? or said "get a grip"?
Whoever did it pieced together some factoids I had used on other posts, and embellished the rest, but I honestly didn't think anyone really thought it was me who posted that, since it was such an obvious parody.
Anakin would have my ip # and would have known it wasn't me, but played a little game as if it really was me, so I really didn't have much choice but to play along with it, figuring the smarter people would get it that he was having a little fun at my expense using the impostor's post to "frame me", so to speak. Fine, I can take it, and knew that others would probably pile on to do the same -- and if there were half-wits thinking I really would write such a blustering rant, then whatever, joke's on them, too.
Besides, I kinda like the catwoman moniker.
Anakin would have my ip # and would have known it wasn't meNot necessarily, as he uses a completely different blogging software than I do. I use Wordpress, which logs IP numbers with comments and posts.
Blogger does not have that feature. This is why Adam/PC switched to Wordpress for his new blog.
Besides, I kinda like the catwoman moniker.I do too. It makes you lovable, even though you can be annoying at times.
"You are now trying to disown your own comment. Fact is, after that rant, you spent a considerable amount of time attempting to be conciliatory on my own blog space...If this was an imposter, that imposter would have had to be in on not only the rant that I have attributed to you, but also the ensuing exchanges on my blog space."
Why would an imposter parodying me feel the need to go over to your blog and write something concilliatory to you?? He was making fun of me, not you. If anything, he'd probably figured you'd appreciate his joke.
"I won't say it wasn't the work of an imposter, but--based on your track record and the evidence I've listed--there is reasonable room for doubt...Quite frankly, I found the rant amusing, and took no offense. I only point it out to show that you have a precedence for taking cheap shots at people, even to the point of sexual low blows."
I have never made ANY sexual low blows, Amir.
But you know, I'm glad you revisited this "rant", because at the time, even though it was clear that people had either missed the parody or knew it was an impostor and were happy to have a bit of fun at my expense, I'll admit that I didn't do much to defend myself. I really didn't see much point in it. One thing I have found here, is that people are quite happy to make a villain out of someone who's view are not as far right as their own. Once you're it, you're it. And there's no point getting on the defensive.
It sure explains a lot.
Anakin would have my ip # and would have known it wasn't me, but played a little game as if it really was me, so I really didn't have much choice but to play along with it, figuring the smarter people would get it that he was having a little fun at my expense using the impostor's post to "frame me", so to speak.Curious....since when have you ever felt compelled to play along with anything Anakin said?
One thing I have found here, is that people are quite happy to make a villain out of someone who's view are not as far right as their own.We didn't make you a villain; you made yourself one. Underhanded cheap shots are a sure-fire way to get pounded.
I have very close friends whose politics would make you look like Ron Paul. I'd say they are wrong, but I wouldn't call them "villains", or vice versa.
Have I not given you respect when you have been reasonable? Debating the feminist influence in the evangelical world has been reasonable for the most part, even though--like I said--you seem to be playing the bait-and-switch game.
On the other hand, suggesting that I am "fascinated" by sex criminals, or referring to my reasoned positions as "whining", or equating a call for balance with "zealotry", reveals you for what you really are: a mocker.
Keep disowning your rant. Fact is, with the "Anonymous" tag, you had the ability to hide behind anything.
Moreover, there were key points that you made about yourself that--combined with your activity on my blog immediately after that comment was made--make a very strong correlation with that rant.
But still, you're my favorite pain in the ass.
With the catwoman monicker, you have a special place in my heart.
bearhugs....
--Amir
Why would an imposter parodying me feel the need to go over to your blog and write something concilliatory to you?Minus the rant, there was no motive for you to otherwise be conciliatory. The timing of the rant, and your activity on my blog--which occurred immediately after the rant--does tend to put you between a rock and a very hard spot.
Circumstantial evidence isn't looking good.
The silver bullet: there's evidence from the comments you made on my blog, that you were in fact the person behind that rant. The IPs match, and even predate your Catwoman monicker.
You need to understand: I am getting a great laugh out of your denials.
Curious....since when have you ever felt compelled to play along with anything Anakin said?
Learner, have you ever had someone play a practical joke on you, designed to put you on the defensive such that you are compelled to say over and over "No, I didn't!" "That wasn't me!". Of course, that's the worst thing you can do, so you play along, hoping that everyone's smart enough to get the joke.
Anyways, I've stated here very clearly that I didn't post it. And like the day it went up, I'm not going to bend over backwards to convince you or explain myself. Not only do I hate explaining myself, I know you well enough to know that you will draw the conclusions you want.
Besides, there wouldn't be much in your favor as far as admitting that you might have been wrong. How embarrassing to have been that gullible to an impostor. How shameful to have such a big justification for your attitude towards me to be snatched out from underneath of you. Easier just to leave things as they are, eh?
Hi guys, I ain't buying into something I know nothing about, here. I'll leave you guys to slug it out.. Lol!
I would just like to say that I am inclined to believe what Catwoman says about an imposter doing a parody of her.
Whilst blogger cannot reveal the IP address of a commenter, it does reveal country, state, city and network name.
It would be unusual for two commenters to have all of the above in common.
Just one other thing.
Wouldn't life be a tad boring without a few pains in the *arse(*oz spelling) to liven things up and get the blood pumping?
Imagine everyone agreeing..
Much prefer a little cerebral jousting, myself.(chuckles)
"Minus the rant, there was no motive for you to otherwise be conciliatory."
When it was clear that I was being impersonated, I went to your blog to clear up one thing from the impostor's post that was truly an embellishment -- that I unilaterally blame men, when in fact I have never taken a man bashing tack on any blog. Obviously, it was in vain, since you'd all drawn your conclusions.
By the way, Amir, here's another example from Anakin's blog ("A Regrettable Ad") where you went off half-cocked at an obvious "female impersonator":
"Anonymous
You are just being overly critical, Anakin. He's just dressing himself up to be silly, you are too sensitive. Me and the rest of the church girls think you are yucky and the ad in Boundless is all in good fun.
Kuya Kevin?
Just my opinion.
November 7, 2008 10:48 AM
Amir Larijani said...
Anonymous (November 7, 2008 10:48 AM): I'd say the single Christian men in the blogosphere think you're just a bitter broad--whom we would not date if you were the only woman left on earth.
Just remember, sweet pea: respect is a two-way street.
November 7, 2008 2:52 PM
The Learner said...
...Me and the rest of the church girls think you are yucky and the ad in Boundless is all in good fun.
OK, this has to be a guy mocking what he thinks a "church girl" would say, right?"
At least that time Learner got it.
You, Amir, see what you want to see. Especially when an opportunity presents itself to play the hero. Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, play.
"I would just like to say that I am inclined to believe what Catwoman says about an imposter doing a parody of her."
Thank you, Kathy.
"Wouldn't life be a tad boring without a few pains in the *arse(*oz spelling) to liven things up and get the blood pumping?
Imagine everyone agreeing.."
Agreed here.
When it was clear that I was being impersonated, I went to your blog to clear up one thing from the impostor's post that was truly an embellishment -- that I unilaterally blame men, when in fact I have never taken a man bashing tack on any blog. Obviously, it was in vain, since you'd all drawn your conclusions.Now you are making even less sense.
If that was your intent, the content of your postings sure did not provide any clarifications. In fact, your responses at the time indicated that you owned the rant.
I still have them in the database--most posts and comments since the inception of the blog are in my database--if you wish to debate them.
Here, I pinned the rant on you:
Anonymous: To clarify…..
(1) While Learner is more polite about this than I am, you were indeed quite entertaining. That I poked a little fun at you for it should not be surprising. Trust me: I was being nice. You know I could have popped you a lot harder.
That said, I figured your comments are emblazoned in cyberspace. That is punishment enough.I even went further here:
Anonymous: I’ll apologize for suggesting that you are a “bitch”. That was over the top.
Still, your comments about me were entertaining. I was hoping you’d laugh that off, and take that as a sign that I won’t hold it over your head.Your response?
That’s fine, I’m glad you were entertained. I was entertained by you boasting. Besides, it’s far better than your innocent victim thing.Well, the most entertaining thing that was said that night was the rant. You made no effort to deny it.
Now, you are backtracking and denying.
Again, the circumstantial evidence is not on your side.
There were times when you blogged as "Anonymous"--where several others were as well--in which I responded to them as if they were you.
The difference: you were actually very quick to point out that those were not your comments whereas, with the rant, the very content of your comments on my blog--immediately after the rant--looks very incriminating.
You can sit here and tell me, "You'll draw your own conclusions" all you want, but neither Learner nor myself are irrational people. And it would be quite difficult to deny the rational basis for the conclusions.
At any rate, your denials do have a redeeming value, as--whether you are the culprit behind that entertaining rant--you are disavowing that type of activity for the future.
Kathy says:
Whilst blogger cannot reveal the IP address of a commenter, it does reveal country, state, city and network name.
It would be unusual for two commenters to have all of the above in common.True. And that very point is also what incriminates her, as she has blogged under various monikers on on blog space. Each has the same IP number, so the link is obvious.
Moreover, the comments she left on my blog only indicate her ownership of that rant. There were no attempts made to disown it at the time.
It's a case where I caught her with her pants down in the middle of a faux pas. Now she wants to run from what she said before, because it would otherwise discredit her now.
We'll let her run from it. Like I said, whether or not she did it, we have her on record with respect to that kind of cheap-shot in the future.
Besides, she may be a pain in the butt, but she's a lovable pain in the butt.
:::hitting Catwoman with a pillow:::
Whilst blogger cannot reveal the IP address of a commenter, it does reveal country, state, city and network name.
It would be unusual for two commenters to have all of the above in common.Blogger may not reveal IP addresses but there are any number of services available such as sitemeter or statcounter that will tell you the IP address of the people who visit your blog. I, a Blogger user, am quite familiar with Catwoman's IP address. So, I am aware of when she has commented here under a handle other than Catwoman.
Learner, have you ever had someone play a practical joke on you, designed to put you on the defensive such that you are compelled to say over and over "No, I didn't!" "That wasn't me!". Of course, that's the worst thing you can do, so you play along, hoping that everyone's smart enough to get the joke.LOL, Catwoman, you should know me well enough by now to know that if someone misrepresents me on the internet that I correct them. It's quite different than being in person where people know you well and are able to judge what is a joke.
Besides, there wouldn't be much in your favor as far as admitting that you might have been wrong. How embarrassing to have been that gullible to an impostor. How shameful to have such a big justification for your attitude towards me to be snatched out from underneath of you. Easier just to leave things as they are, eh?I am rarely embarrassed to be wrong and certainly would not find it shameful to be wrong (it happens to me quite frequently). I had actually forgotten about the "jousting" exchange and you can rest assured that any impression I have about you has been formed from over a year of discussions with someone from your IP address. If the one comment where the individual claimed to be you, gortexgrrl, was an imposter, that wouldn't really change any of my impressions because it was just one comment among many.
You, Amir, see what you want to see. Especially when an opportunity presents itself to play the hero. Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, play.This is an example of the kind of comment that has formed my impression of you.
"Now you are making even less sense... If that was your intent, the content of your postings sure did not provide any clarifications."
By pointing out that I had never engaged in such man-bashing, I figured that anyone who would think the impostor was me (at that point, it seemed that some were thinking it was) that they would realize it wasn't me. That didn't work, what else was there to do?
"In fact, your responses at the time indicated that you owned the rant."
No, facetiously perhaps, as I explained earlier, since I figured others had gotten the joke. I will admit that I didn't go very far in defending myself once I realized people were thinking it was me. But again, what was I going to do? I would have gotten the same treatment as you're giving me now.
As for your comments about my comments, I had made a lot of comments that day on both blogs, so I thought you were commenting generally, since you often gloat that way. Since it turns out you were referring entirely to the bogus rant, it now it turns out you were gloating about nothing!
"There were times when you blogged as "Anonymous"--where several others were as well--in which I responded to them as if they were you...The difference: you were actually very quick to point out that those were not your comments whereas, with the rant, the very content of your comments on my blog--immediately after the rant--looks very incriminating."
Prior to the "rant" I had been posting under anonymous on that thread. There was a couple of other anonymous posts in that thread that weren't mine, but immediately before the interloper, it had been me. When I pointed out that those anonymous posts that weren't mine, there was less high drama in the air. As I said, once I realized that you and the others were attached to the idea that it was me, there was not much point in trying to convince you otherwise.
"You can sit here and tell me, "You'll draw your own conclusions" all you want, but neither Learner nor myself are irrational people."
Well, you're not quite as rational as you thought, are you?
"You, Amir, see what you want to see. Especially when an opportunity presents itself to play the hero. Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, play.This is an example of the kind of comment that has formed my impression of you."
A comment no different than anything you or anyone else has made.
"It's a case where I caught her with her pants down in the middle of a faux pas. Now she wants to run from what she said before, because it would otherwise discredit her now.
We'll let her run from it. Like I said, whether or not she did it, we have her on record with respect to that kind of cheap-shot in the future."
Amir, this is what I mean by heroics. "I caught her with her pants down...we'll let her run from it".
Kathy seems to believe me, I've given my word in good faith. Anyways, that's not enough for either of you. And I'm not surprised.
Well, you're not quite as rational as you thought, are you?Wow, you're acting like a hissing cat in retreat. That's what my oldest cat--Sneaky--does when Recon chases her...
Seriously...you gotta admit: there is a rational case for what we're saying.
If you did it, then the evidence is pretty darn good. If you were O.J. and this were a murder case, the glove would fit this time...
If that was the work of an imposter, it was so good that your comments afterward framed you.
At any rate, I haven't had this much fun in a long while.
"Seriously...you gotta admit: there is a rational case for what we're saying."
No. You both missed all the signs that it was an impostor. As you say, go directly to jail, do not collect $200. You got caught gloating with your pants pulled up around your neck. Fifty lashes with a wet noodle, as Ann Landers would say.
Catwoman says:
Amir, this is what I mean by heroics. "I caught her with her pants down...we'll let her run from it".Heroics??? Come on...now you're diminishing the great work of Recon, the great feline Special Operator, who is a real hero! Shame shame shame....
Seriously, I'll take back the "pants down" comment--I promise that it was not intended as malicious--but I'll still let you run from the rant.
Now cut the crap and join the pillow fight!
"Come on...now you're diminishing the great work of Recon, the great feline Special Operator, who is a real hero!"
Recon, being cat, know's he's not a hero. He admits he's in it for himself. mmmmrrroww!
Well, I'm glad you're having fun Amir. I'm kinda wishing I was still in Texas.
Catwoman, please feel free to be specific about what I have said that is not different than you saying "You, Amir, see what you want to see. Especially when an opportunity presents itself to play the hero. Those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, play." Go on, I'm curious...show me where I am wrong and lay on the shame and embarrassment.
I am guessing you feel misjudged. What impression do you assume I have about you do you think is inaccurate?
"What impression do you assume I have about you do you think is inaccurate?"
To be honest, I don't care what you think of me. Although I do find it amusing when you reveal yourself to be obviously wrong.
Well Catwoman, most Special Operators do take personal satisfaction in their work.
But considering the terrible things they have to endure--like Recon in Operation Egg Roll--the felines are still heroes...
His older sister--Sneaky--is retired. She enjoys reminiscing while she sits in my lap.
What's Operation Egg Roll?
To be honest, I don't care what you think of me.Maybe Learner cares. Would it not be proper to want to think rightly about a person? Why the hard response?
Although I do find it amusing when you reveal yourself to be obviously wrong.Now what on earth did Learner do to earn such a caustic response?
Although I do find it amusing when you reveal yourself to be obviously wrong.As I have said before, feel free to correct me any time. You seem to enjoy tossing out accusations and then refuse to answer when asked for specifics. Why is that?
Operation Egg Roll was a major Reconnaissance mission in China. Recon was the lead cat.
It was only supposed to be information gathering. Trouble is, they ended up in the Cantonese region, and were captured by a local restaurant owner who specialized in cooking cats for food.
With the help of "Silent Claws", a heroic feline who detonated a hand grenade, choosing death over becoming dinner, Recon was able to save the remaining feline troops and rescue dozens of felines marked for slaughter.
Catwoman,
Amir has made a good point that I have perhaps not been clear enough about. If I am wrong about you, or anyone, I would like to know. This is why I ask for the specifics and examples that you don't seem to want to give. I would rather understand than be "right" any day.
If you are wrongly accused of something and go to a certain amount of trouble to point out what went wrong, and someone is still asking you "show me where I am wrong and lay on the shame and embarrassment", there is no point.
Recon left some comments over here.
Catwoman,
I have not "accused" you of making that comment. I asked you questions about it and your responses following it that seem curious to me. I am not tied to that being you. I'll admit right now that I am not and cannot be certain that was you. I have already said that the particular comment in question had little effect on any impression I may have of you. You have made enough comments on this blog that I know are you from the IP address.
When I asked you to correct me I specifically asked you about the the comments you say I have made that were like the "hero" comment you made to Amir on this post, not about the comment over at Anakin's that you say was not you. I also asked you to let me know how you feel that I have misjudged you. If you are unwilling to answer there is not much I can do about that.
Lastle, if me saying "show me where I am wrong and lay on the shame and embarrassment" offended you to the point that you don't want to answer perhaps you should have not said "How embarrassing to have been that gullible to an impostor. How shameful to have such a big justification for your attitude towards me to be snatched out from underneath of you." to begin with.
As Christina said over at Anakin's once, "engage as you wish to be engaged."
Whatever. It's plain to see that you both got sucked in.
...And really don't want to admit it.
"I have not "accused" you of making that comment."
Case in point, from Amir's blog that same day:
Amir November 27th, 2008 at 20:10 | #7 Reply | Quote Learner: I did find her last response both saddening and amusing. Like I said, she’s providing entertainment at her own expense.
Learner November 27th, 2008 at 21:45 | #9 Reply | Quote Amir,
I wasn’t going to read her last comment after I saw the first line, but after I read your comment here I went back and read it. Oh my. Maybe I should change my name to “yes girl” lol. The thing I always find odd about her is that she has a very distinct writing style that is easy to pick out so probably most people know who she is, yet she continues to go by anonymous. I think you are right, Anakin probably figured her out a long time ago.
Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, I've answered enough questions about it to prove that it was an impostor. If you don't want to believe that, well then, we both know what that means. There's no point in continuing to play your game of imperious inquiry.
Catwoman, has anyone ever told you that you're cute when you're on the defensive?
Amir, this is what you get for believing in your own publicity and heroics.
Catwoman: LOL So are you saying you're not really cute?
You hiss more than my black cat does when she tangos with Recon.
Amir,
Would you post a link to the post on your blog that Catwoman is referring to? I don't remember what all was said there and I am too lazy to try to find it myself. Thanks!
Learner: I think most of the fur flew on this post.
Catwoman,
It wasn't an "accusation". There was no need for me to accuse you of anything since if it was not you it was the "imposter" who did the accusing. In the post from Amir's blog I did think that the comment at Anakin's was from you. Why would I think otherwise given what I have already said in the comments to this post. Also, given that you never corrected the "imposter's" assertion that it was you, either at Anakin's blog or at Amir's at that time or anywhere alse I am aware of until 5 months later here. So, yes, if it was an imposter I was "taken in" by them.
Given that you have commented under different names, including Anonymous, it is curious to me that you would be so worked up over what you say was an imposter now, but were so unconcerned about at the time that you didn't let anyone know it wasn't you.
Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, I've answered enough questions about it to prove that it was an impostor. If you don't want to believe that, well then, we both know what that means. There's no point in continuing to play your game of imperious inquiry.Actually, no, we both don't know what that means.
Just to be clear,
1. I have already said I have no way of knowing if that one comment at Anakin's is yours or not. It makes no difference to me because there was nothing said in that comment that gave me any different impression of you than I have from comments that I know are from your IP address.
2. If you don't want to participate in the discussion by answering questions about what you say here then don't comment here. It really is that simple.
"Given that you have commented under different names, including Anonymous, it is curious to me that you would be so worked up over what you say was an imposter now, but were so unconcerned about at the time that you didn't let anyone know it wasn't you."
None of you brought it up until now, otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered, since it was long dead and buried, for me at least. Funny you should say "worked up" when you're the one with all the questions. Here's why I don't bother with most of them -- when the answers show that you've been wrong, you go into denial mode, or ask more innane questions, or make some kind of arbitrary ruling as if some kind of offense has been committed or when all else fails, you create a distraction. Rather than asking me the wheres and whys of that, just think about it. Or better yet, post more pictures of flowers.
Catwoman: here is another example of the rigorous training that feline Special Operators must endure.
The link doesn't work, Amir. No kitteh : (
Catwoman: Here it is...
Looks like serious business. lol
Thanks for the link!
Catwoman,
None of you brought it up until nowIt seems to me that it was brought up at Amir's blog at the time, but as I have said repeatedly it doesn't matter to me since it changes lnothing for me if one comment was yours or not. And, you have said it doesn't matter to you so there really is no need to continue with that line of discussion. I would prefer to discuss the post.
Funny you should say "worked up" when you're the one with all the questions..
I'm not worked up when I ask questions. For me asking questions is how I learn and understand things. If you don't like it, don't comment here.
Here's why I don't bother with most of them -- when the answers show that you've been wrong, you go into denial mode, or ask more innane questions, or make some kind of arbitrary ruling as if some kind of offense has been committed or when all else fails, you create a distraction. Rather than asking me the wheres and whys of that, just think about it. Or better yet, post more pictures of flowers.If you think it would be a good idea for me to think about your assertions of how I discuss things you will need to give me specific examples because I don't know what you are talking about. If you choose not to do that, to quote you, "we both know what that means".
Also, please watch the snarky tone. If you don't know what I am referring to, this ia a good example, "Or better yet, post more pictures of flowers".
This is my blog, Catwoman. I'll post whatever I want to. If you don't like it, don't come here.
You seem like an intelligent woman, surely you can communicate more effectively than resorting to snark and personal jabs.
"you will need to give me specific examples because I don't know what you are talking about"
Yup, yup. Or you won't know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how many specific examples I give you, since you'll just go from question to question, disregarding the responses with the same old "I don't know what you're talking about" schtick. Seen that before.
"This is my blog, Catwoman. I'll post whatever I want to. If you don't like it, don't come here."
Whoop! Here it comes again!
You seem like an intelligent woman, surely you can communicate more effectively than resorting to snark and personal jabs.Or maybe you can't......
On second thought, there doesn't seem to be any maybe about it.
"You seem like an intelligent woman, surely you can communicate more effectively than resorting to snark and personal jabs."
So? I could say the same thing to you.
You know, maybe what I need to do is resort to your tactics. Toss out a bunch of claims about you and not reply when you asks for clarification or specifics about what I say about you. But, instead, say that I did reply and you just ignored it because you didn't like the answer.
Or I could say there is no point in answering you at all since "we all know" you have your mind made up about me. Or you'll just have more questions (imagine that!). Meanwhile I will just ignore any questions you pose that I don't want to answer or that redirect me back to the topic and acuse you of changing the subject or "creating a distraction" when you ask such questions. I should also work on being snarkier.
Nah
Yeah, you could say the same thing but then you would refuse to actually back that up with any exapmles, so why bother?
Oh, wait, I mean any examples that actually fit your accusation.
I don't think these'll work, Learner, since I don't expect to have any questions for you so direly in need of answers.
I'm done Catwoman. Please either comment on the actual post or stop commenting on this post.
You first.
Already have, your turn.
Post a Comment