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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
attn_ho
Brooklyn, NY
February 2004
OCT 19, 2007 04:49 PM