She's baaaacccckkkk!! (For better or for worse!)


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: She's baaaacccckkkk!! (For better or for worse!)

Postby Pego » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:21 am

mal wrote:Accomodation has been made to the extent that mediocrity is the new norm.


I fail to see how respect for others=mediocrity.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: She's baaaacccckkkk!! (For better or for worse!)

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:23 am

preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:
aaronk wrote:She's . . . sexy.

So I'm still the prude (out-of-touch, misguided, etc.) here, but as long as she's still a teenager, I don't feel that's an appropriate adjective, especially for someone in an athletic context. Your mileage may vary.

Way too sanctimonious, again. :?

if aaronk want's to call her sexy than he should be able to, but he might have to do it on the Things not T&F as not to run afoul of the meandering "lines" of this board.

This may be your reality, but you also could have made it up to justify your point.

I assume you're addressing this to the moderator of the board, Garry Hill, since it was his decision to tell aaronk that if he does it again, he's banned.
You seem oblivious to the reality of THIS forum. Your reality is not the only one.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: She's baaaacccckkkk!! (For better or for worse!)

Postby preston » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:33 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:
Marlow wrote:
aaronk wrote:She's . . . sexy.

So I'm still the prude (out-of-touch, misguided, etc.) here, but as long as she's still a teenager, I don't feel that's an appropriate adjective, especially for someone in an athletic context. Your mileage may vary.

Way too sanctimonious, again. :?

if aaronk want's to call her sexy than he should be able to, but he might have to do it on the Things not T&F as not to run afoul of the meandering "lines" of this board.

This may be your reality, but you also could have made it up to justify your point.

I assume you're addressing this to the moderator of the board, Garry Hill, since it was his decision to tell aaronk that if he does it again, he's banned.
You seem oblivious to the reality of THIS forum. Your reality is not the only one.

Marlow, it's incredibly bad form to purposely misquote someone to seemingly make your pointlessness unpointless. You do it all the time and I wish you would stop. All comments about reality were directed towards mal. Also, that first bit ... if you want to go back and read it ... was addressed to you. I'm sure gh is perfectly capable of determining what is being DIRECTED towards him and what is not. You could learn alot from him.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: She's baaaacccckkkk!! (For better or for worse!)

Postby gh » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:47 am

Bottom line is this: it has been board policy from day 1 (and will be at least until the end of the Mayan Calendar :mrgreen: ) that sexist comments are not allowed. Judging women athletes by their pulchritude falls into that category.

Note that I said athletes: there is indeed a "double standard" in operation here. If you wanna go over on the Things Not Track forum and note that Jennifer Aniston gives you a terminal hard-on, that's your business. Women whose profession is being in the public eye know/want that kind of analysis to come with the territory.

Doing the same for athletes is off the table because they're (by and large) out there to be judged on their athletic skills, and that's how we'll judge them.

Thus endeth today's lesson.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], bushop, Google [Bot], Jackaloupe, pickle47 and 10 guests