Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPhil
Anyway, can I ask that this thread not repeat the last 13 pages. We get it. We get it. Whatever it is, we get it. Is there a newer point to make that can be presented in a manner that actually generates (friendly or unfriendly) discussion?
|
I can't help it; I'm going to try one more time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honorgal
And I'm going to assume that you are being deliberately obtuse by mischaracterizing what I'm saying (figuratively or not) that there's "nothing to see here so stop talking about it." The media and activists keep insisting there is a crisis, ad nauseum. (ie, the reaction to Miss USA). The federal government is reacting to "the crisis" in typical fashion....more nonsensical regulations, more beauracrats, more sensitivity training, more money spent on fluff that drives up the cost of tuition. Does one have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to that?
|
No, one doesn't have to have a hidden agenda to react negatively to things one perceives are wrong or misguided. But the way you express your negative reaction—the constant (and dismissive) references to unnamed but obviously sinister "activists" and "feminists," the random link-dropping, the mantra-like refrain that "they" claim there is a "crisis" supported by things like reference to an article about the Miss USA situation, where none of "them" actually make that claim—all suggest someone who is not objective and who has an agenda that if not hidden is at least personal or part of some other agenda.
But I'll bite: Exactly how is the federal government reacting with more "nonsensical regulations" and more beauracrats? Specifics, please.
Threaded Mode
