Current Events

TOPICS:

10/30/07

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43

 ... 441

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

16 | 17 | 18

Next

attn_Hussein_ho

attn_Hussein_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 19, 2007 04:49 PM

Zarth said:




can someone please ban this porcinist?

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

OCT 19, 2007 04:54 PM

attn_ho said:

Zarth said:



can someone please ban this porcinist?


lot's of thinking going on here!

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

OCT 19, 2007 08:44 PM

Zarth said:
Could this thread just get locked already? I mean, really.



Best thread summary ever.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

OCT 20, 2007 09:00 AM

DarkBlueMarcy said:

joker_ said:

DarkBlueMarcy said:

i think there's some confusion in the thread as to whether the woman was refused access to join the site or whether there just wasn't an option for her to choose the specific sexual orientation she wanted once she was a member.

because that certainly makes a difference.



From the article:


According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.



"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.



Read much?



be a snarky asshole much?

i wasn't referring to what the article itself says- i'm referring to the way it's being discussed between all of us. myself included.



Yeah, and God forbid you actually read up on what you're talking about.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

OCT 20, 2007 09:01 AM

mingol said:

Zarth said:
Could this thread just get locked already? I mean, really.



Best thread summary ever.

But yeah, seriously.

MarcyBeth

MarcyBeth

Ocala, FL
July 2006

OCT 20, 2007 09:34 AM

BlastProcessing said:

DarkBlueMarcy said:

joker_ said:

DarkBlueMarcy said:

i think there's some confusion in the thread as to whether the woman was refused access to join the site or whether there just wasn't an option for her to choose the specific sexual orientation she wanted once she was a member.

because that certainly makes a difference.



From the article:


According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.



"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.



Read much?



be a snarky asshole much?

i wasn't referring to what the article itself says- i'm referring to the way it's being discussed between all of us. myself included.



Yeah, and God forbid you actually read up on what you're talking about.



DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!

NO ONE IS LISTENING TO WHAT I SAID.

I was referring to the fact that many people in this thread are referring to the fact that the woman wasn't refused access to the site, that she merely wasn't able to USE it properly.

*I* read the article. I didn't say that *I* thought she wasn't banned from the site. I'm saying that this difference matters when arguing it. I really don't feel like looking back through all the pages of the thread to find the instances, but they are there. Jesus.

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

OCT 20, 2007 10:07 AM

DarkBlueMarcy said:

BlastProcessing said:

DarkBlueMarcy said:

joker_ said:

DarkBlueMarcy said:

i think there's some confusion in the thread as to whether the woman was refused access to join the site or whether there just wasn't an option for her to choose the specific sexual orientation she wanted once she was a member.

because that certainly makes a difference.



From the article:


According to the lawsuit, Carlson, who lives in the San Francisco Bay area, tried to use the site's dating services in February 2007. When she was denied access, she wrote to eHarmony saying that its anti-gay policy was discriminatory under California law but the company refused to change it.



"Such outright discrimination is hurtful and disappointing for a business open to the public in this day and age," she said.



Read much?



be a snarky asshole much?

i wasn't referring to what the article itself says- i'm referring to the way it's being discussed between all of us. myself included.



Yeah, and God forbid you actually read up on what you're talking about.



DUDE!!!!!!!!!!!

NO ONE IS LISTENING TO WHAT I SAID.

I was referring to the fact that many people in this thread are referring to the fact that the woman wasn't refused access to the site, that she merely wasn't able to USE it properly.

*I* read the article. I didn't say that *I* thought she wasn't banned from the site. I'm saying that this difference matters when arguing it. I really don't feel like looking back through all the pages of the thread to find the instances, but they are there. Jesus.



Either A) you actually said exactly that, or B) you purposely misrepresented your level of comprehension.

MarcyBeth

MarcyBeth

Ocala, FL
July 2006

OCT 20, 2007 10:48 AM

BlastProcessing said:

Either A) you actually said exactly that, or B) you purposely misrepresented your level of comprehension.



seriously man, there's no need to get this nitpicky. i was saying that i was involved in the confusion. meaning that i was involved in discussing it earlier and it was confusing as to what everyone thought had happened.

now really..... does all this pick pick picking at me really do ANYTHING to further the discussion of this topic?

if so, i can try and set aside some time to go back and forth aimlessly with you for a while. whatever

Tallboy66

Tallboy66

USA
January 2005

OCT 20, 2007 12:13 PM

I've been seeing commercials about there (eHarmony)'s rejection rate it would seem they have more issues than just her.

joker_

joker_

Windsor, CA
October 2005

OCT 20, 2007 04:57 PM

DarkBlueMarcy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Either A) you actually said exactly that, or B) you purposely misrepresented your level of comprehension.



seriously man, there's no need to get this nitpicky. i was saying that i was involved in the confusion. meaning that i was involved in discussing it earlier and it was confusing as to what everyone thought had happened.

now really..... does all this pick pick picking at me really do ANYTHING to further the discussion of this topic?

if so, i can try and set aside some time to go back and forth aimlessly with you for a while. whatever



Note, you didn't actually ask a question.

So, since it does make a difference that she was refused service, how do you feel about this now?

BlastProcessing

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN
OLD SKOOL

OCT 20, 2007 11:16 PM

DarkBlueMarcy said:

BlastProcessing said:

Either A) you actually said exactly that, or B) you purposely misrepresented your level of comprehension.



seriously man, there's no need to get this nitpicky. i was saying that i was involved in the confusion. meaning that i was involved in discussing it earlier and it was confusing as to what everyone thought had happened.

now really..... does all this pick pick picking at me really do ANYTHING to further the discussion of this topic?

if so, i can try and set aside some time to go back and forth aimlessly with you for a while. whatever



When you're the only one who seems confused about the point at hand, and you respond to a clarification of the point through a poorly-executed series of indignant backpedals, then yeah, what you say is going to be disassembled, and yeah, those disassemblies are not going to end up being in your favor. This has been explained to you before; If you don't want further repetitions of this undesirable result, it would help if you actually for once changed your modus operandi to one which involves better comprehension of the issues at hand in the discussion in question.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

16 | 17 | 18

Next