Domitianus

I think this may be the bizarrest post I have ever seen on EDF! I suggest Azul post a picture as evidence of his claims.

And the Good Reverend Doctor Paisley gave us "Never! Never! Never!"

My point is folks that Thatcher seemed to view that the nominalisation called 'community' or 'society' had grown out of control and become like a cuckoo attempting to push people out of the nest in order to sustain itself. We see much the same thing happening again under Gordon Brown unfortunately. Government is becoming larger and more intrusive into people's lives. Much of Brown's "miraculous" job creation were jobs in government - i.e: obstructive, NOT wealth generating and paid for by taxes. Rather than the state serving the people, a state is being created that is a burden and a drain on the people. I believe Thatcher recognised the danger of this lack of balance (I agree there can be an appropriate balance) and wished to redress it more in favour of the individual. Without individuals there can be no community or state. Individuals, however, can pretty effectively exist with minimal state. Whether or not she went about it in the right way or succeeded in what she attempted is a different debate. I am simply pointing out what may actually have been a very people-oriented and humane perspective underlying what has come to be a very misrepresented remark. Re an 'underclass'. There have always been those who find it difficult to fit into or prosper under any particular system. It certainly wasn't an invention of Margaret Thatcher. I suspect she believed that you did not empower any such people by legislating them into a state of perpetual dependence on hand-outs (any more than Nestle help third world countries by giving out free milk formula until mothers' own milk resources dry up!) On the contrary I suspect she believed that such people could be maximally empowered by creating a society that encouraged and rewarded individual initiative, rather than taxing it into oblivion and making people feel guilty if they succeeded. Again, whether or not she succeeded, is another debate. My point in this posting is that many people assume her suspicion about "community" to have been deeply inhuman and socially fragmenting, whereas I believe she wanted to focus attention back to the welfare and opportunity of those who make up "communities" - namely, individuals. Empower and strengthen individuals and you empower and strengthen the communities they create for themselves. Often, I am afraid, it doesn't happen when the process is reversed.

Margaret Thatcher's comment about there being no such thing as community but only individuals is absolutely spot on and so UTTERLY misunderstood by so many people. I believe her point was that the ultimate goal of any civilised society was success and happiness of the individuals within it and a respect for the right of such individuals to pursue their own happiness and success. To subjugate the right of individual happiness to some notion of "community" (constructed to perpetuate its own existence at the expense of the individuals who constitute it) was something that Thatcher (quite rightly in my view) viewed as a profound evil. A "community" is an artificial construct, devised to serve its members, but which can often take on its own existence and be preserved despite the fact that it no longer serves, but rather leeches on, the individuals who make it up. Of course, some people cannot survive WITHOUT the community and therefore demand that it be maintained so they can feed off it while it feeds off others who do not wish to be part of it. Sound like vampirism? Well done. If you want to see an example of "community" being considered more important than "individuals" look at Communist USSR where individual happiness, well-being, success and indeed life, were seen as being completely expendable in the attempt to perpetuate some vague, nebulous 'community' that people could only attempt to reify and make tangible by appeals to such propaganda concepts as "the Motherland" etc. Any member of the USSR who looked behind the curtain to catch a glimpse of "Mother's" knickers would, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, have realised there was nothing there and that they were sacrificing their life and potential in service of a mere word that had no tangible existence. Any community that ceases to serve the individual needs of its individual members should be dismantled or reconstituted immediately.

Perhaps we should go back to the concept of selling indulgences as well - that was a nice racket! Mind you, the RC church doesn't exactly need the money, their coffers are absolutely bursting (can't remember the sum quoted in In God's Name but it was huge). Heaven forbid that they should actually liquidate some of their wealth and use it for charitable purposes - that sort of thing would be Christian and humane (not often the same thing!) And speaking of In God's Name - let's not forget the Vatican's links with organised crime and the murder and subsequent cover-up of John Paul I.

LostThePlot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > annaj Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Have checked....the 19th century American > > practice of men spoiling for a fight by > balancing > > a chip of wood on there shoulder and > challenging > > others to knock it off*. > > Surely it will require some form of restraining > mechanism, or it might just fall off of its own > accord... Shoulders not being very good at keeping > things up by the poorly designed sloping attitude. As is evidenced by the existence of the epaulette?

annaj Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cazzyr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ok, > > > > Night Dom. One question...Adoption? ? Where'd > you > > get that from? > > > > Caz > > Good point. > Dom, I for one thought you were doing really well > (if a little heated) apart from this glaring and > repeated error. > I'm just an ignorant hetty, but even I know that > gay ladies still have lady bits and all you need > to do is woosh a bit of sperm up there (that's a > techinical, medical description obviously). > Nice to see you post about something you actually > care about though, is this the real Domitianus at > last? > > I think I always thought of is as a slightly > soggy, fat, potato chip. Definitely something > you'd flick off not fill in. Without wishing to reignite this discussion since we have all now pured oil on troubled waters - the reason I referred to adoption was due to my knowing a gay couple (blokes) who have adopted a child and I automatically defaulted to this assumption when the issue of gay/lesbian parents was raised. I am happy to stand corrected on this minor point and let's all kove forward.

cazzyr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dom.... > > Out with anger... in with love ... and remember to > breathe Fair enough. We both got heated here and prolly had all our buttons pushed so let's make the peace. I have as long as I can remember stood up for individual rights and freedom of sexuality and have got a lot of flak (and a few punches) for it (even though I was not gay myself). Consequently I get a little bit touchy when I perceive people making allegations of homophobia where it genuinely is not warranted. There is enough of it about for it not to be useful to identify it where it doesn't exist. I can appreciate that your decisions about adopting a child must have brought a lot of flak your way and maybe you have had to become tough and alert for such prejudice as a result. Equally, there are others who are alert and react badly to being accused of prejudice that they don't possess and have the bruises to show they stood up against it. Anyway, off to bed. This post may well have been overtaken by another tirade at my expense by the time I hit the "Post Message" button but I will breathe deeply and try to remain calm. Night all.

cazzyr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Isn't he Scruffy Mummy! A real charmer. > Pollyfilla. Domi Anus you'd need a B and Q > warehouse to fill yours. Instead of trying to single me out Cazzy, I suggest you go back through this thread and actually identify the number of people who objected to your baseless allegations of homophobia. There were quite a few. I may have been the most offended and therefore the most vocal so it is easy to try to suggest that I am on my own but I think you will find that you put quite a few noses out of joint. As I observed, however, as a lesbian adopter you are always the victim, eh? Always someone out to have a go at you, eh? What reasonable person can blame you if you lash out at innocent people first, eh? How dare anyone actually pull you up on it, eh? (Yes, that is sarcasm!) You might actually find that the world is a lot more supportive than you imagine if you didn't feel the need to hallucinate homophobia behind every comment and alienate people in the process.

mightyroar Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > indeed. > > Can I point out at this point that the opinions of > Dom > do not represent the attitude of the EDF community > as a whole. Which opinions exactly MightyRoar? My objection to other posters being unjustly accused of homophobia? My objection to someone trying to prevent heterosexuals joining in a discussion on gay/lesbian adoption? My statement of my own support for a gay couple who had adopted a child? My pointing out that toilet-humour comments about my username are rather childish? My objection to people taking a confrontational and divisive attitude to posters who try to engage in a public discussion on a public discussion board? I am really keen to know.

Scruffy Mummy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Oohh... Dom - you are such the expert on winning > friends and influencing people! I think we are all entitled sometimes to a bit of righteous indignation when someone starts to throw around allegations of prejudice when they are completely unjustified. It doesn't matter what group/background one comes from - even "minority groups" can utter offensive comments to which others are entitled to react with irritation. If a heterosexual had started insulting a gay/lesbian individual on this board I doubt if anyone would have objected to them being put in their place but if the person bandying around the baseless allegations is part of a lesbian couple that have adopted, they get special treatment and are allowed to smear others willy-nilly? Of course they are. I quite understand.

cazzyr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > However I do love your surname Domiti Anus. It > suits you. Hilarious Cazzy. Really smart. I think I have got the measure of you already and it is not impressive. I suggest you get some Pollyfilla and fill i that chip on your shoulder.

Domitianus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > cazzyr Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Lozzyloz. Apology accepted. Thanks for your > last > > comment. > > > > Domitanius. You are exactly the reason why > > minority events/groups need to exist!!!! > > > You are talking offensive claptrap here Cazzy. > How dare you imply what you appear to be > implying!!!! You initiated this whole dispute by > making allegations of homophobia against someone > who simply made well meant enquiries (LozzyLoz) > and I pointed out that your responses were > reactionary, offensive and simply alienated people > who wished to actually be supportive. Your last > post simply continues in exactly the same vein! > > If you have an issue with people from other > orientations expressing interest and curiosity > about your lifestyle, and feel the need to label > such expressions as "homophobia", you obviously > have a serious problem interacting with people > outside your own "minority group". If that is the > case, you might be better off restricting your > comments to a "minority group" audience of > like-minded people who need to believe that anyone > who is not gay/lesbian is automatically > homophobic. > > Your reactions in a short space of time have been, > frankly, absurd, hyper-sensitive and offensive and > I suspect that just about every > friend/colleague/associate of mine who is > gay/lesbian (and there are plenty) would actually > be embarrassed by your comments and at pains to > point out that they do not represent the attitude > of the gay/lesbian community as a whole. Let me just elaborate a little. How do you expect people to feel/react when you accuse them of homophobia based on no evidence whatsoever and infer that you object to anyone but gay/lesbian parents taking an interest/responding to a post on a public forum? Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people is it?

cazzyr Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Lozzyloz. Apology accepted. Thanks for your last > comment. > > Domitanius. You are exactly the reason why > minority events/groups need to exist!!!! You are talking offensive claptrap here Cazzy. How dare you imply what you appear to be implying!!!! You initiated this whole dispute by making allegations of homophobia against someone who simply made well meant enquiries (LozzyLoz) and I pointed out that your responses were reactionary, offensive and simply alienated people who wished to actually be supportive. Your last post simply continues in exactly the same vein! If you have an issue with people from other orientations expressing interest and curiosity about your lifestyle, and feel the need to label such expressions as "homophobia", you obviously have a serious problem interacting with people outside your own "minority group". If that is the case, you might be better off restricting your comments to a "minority group" audience of like-minded people who need to believe that anyone who is not gay/lesbian is automatically homophobic. Your reactions in a short space of time have been, frankly, absurd, hyper-sensitive and offensive and I suspect that just about every friend/colleague/associate of mine who is gay/lesbian (and there are plenty) would actually be embarrassed by your comments and at pains to point out that they do not represent the attitude of the gay/lesbian community as a whole.

Irritates me a little less when it is a bloke but still bugs the hell out of me.

Am I the only person who thinks this is the ugliest, commonest thing a girl can do (I am quite happy to see a girl swilling pints etc)? This drives me utterly nuts. If I am sitting opposite a woman on the bus who is chomping away on gum with her gob open I feel like I want to strangle her!!!! I had the misfortune to sit opposite two such women on the same seat of the bus recently and I wanted to get a mirror, hold it in front of their faces and say "Do you realise what you look like when you do that?" It has the ability to make even the classiest sexiest girl look cheap. Yes, it is sexist, classist etc. I don't give a s**t!!! It drives me nuts with irritation. Any comments?

No.

I think Cazzy's response was preposterous and reactionary in the extreme. Get a f***ing life woman! It seems that in your world view if non gay/lesbians make assumptions without checking their facts - they are indulging in stereotypes. If they politely ask questions to try and understand you lifestyle and experiences - they are homophobic. What a load of BS! You are creating a no-win situation for other people. If you want your post only to be read by gay/lesbian parents post it on a gay/lesbian message board. This is an inclusive discussion board. Can I emphasise the words "inclusive" and "discussion"? Wind your neck in and stop thinking the world is against you!!!! And before you ask, I have a gay colleague who has adopted a child with his partner and who has been very appreciative of my supportive curiosity. I suspect he finds it indicative of someone who actually wants to understand his perspective rather than just indulge in assumptions or prejudice.

If the problem is simply slats falling through (I have had similar experiences of ending up crumpled through the middle of a bed in Ibiza) then either gluing them or screwing them into place might be the simple answer. For heavens sake get written permission from the landlord first though.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Write a self-obsessed article about the sheer > ghastliness of your life because you can't afford > a large designer handbag. > Send it the Evening Standard under the name Verity > Allspice. They seem to like that sort of thing. > Collect cheque. > Trebles all round. I think we have a demarcation issue here! Is being a spoilt, self-centered, bubble-head, label-freak not DM's job?

What I would like to see people stop bleating on about as well (and I don't mean posters on this board) is that he is third in line to the throne. So bl**dy what? It's a position he holds as an accident of birth, not because he is highly qualified for the position having devoted considerable intellect, study and energy to mastering the requirements. There is an extremely long list of people in line to the throne (as we can see from that highly accurate film, King Ralph!). If number three gets "slotted" (didn't you just love the way Harry had picked up SAS jargon?) then we move number four up to number three etc etc. It's not as if there aren't hundreds of chinless wonders, each as useless as the next, who would love a crack at being the incumbent at the Palace.

If a Royal Family member joins the armed forces he/she will likely be a target of particular significance WHOEVER we are fighting. This would apply whether the enemy is the IRA, Russians, Fuzzy-Wuzzies, Argentinians or Al Quaeda. This should have been patently obvious before Harry was ever accepted into the armed forces. The military and the Palace took the gamble that Harry would be able to have a military career, with all the kudos that involved, without ever actually having to go into combat in a meaningful sense. Their bluff has now effectively been called and we can see the corner they have painted themselves into. If you have a Lieutenant (or whatever he is) who it was known many years in advance would not be able to serve as a Lieutenant in actual combat, without being a liability, he should never have been allowed to join the military. The idea that this problem was not forseeable is a nonsense. The military and the Palace put their money on black and the ball has landed on red and they all look a right bunch of tits! It is a problem entirely of their own making. Without wishing to sound unsympathetic, exactly the same principle applies to those service-men and their families who complain and sue the government when they or their loved ones get KIA or WIA. If you weren't prepared to take the risk of getting killed or wounded you shouldn't have joined the army!!! This notion that "My little Johnny would still be alive if the MOD had issued him body-armour" is such c**p! Maybe he wouldn't have died that day but he would possibly have been blown to smithereens the following day. Combat and warfare is the ultimate in disorganisation, confusion and logistics problems (no matter how well organised an army is) and until the day the Army offers written guarantees that all wars will be universally recognised as legal, will be fully resourced at every single moment and fought against an enemy armed with nothing but sticks, I suggest our service personnel (Royal or layman) accept the likelihood of injury or death!

Keef Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wasn't Terrorhawks, it was Terrahawks and it was > bloody great!!!! I used to work with a woman who looked very much like Zelda out of the Terrahawks. Unfortunately she died (I suspected of hideousness but never saw the autopsy report!) Anyone remember Goober and the Ghostchasers?

A major concern that I have is that the various impingements on civil liberties forced through in the current global political situation are NOT designed solely to protect us from current terrorist threat. Rather, they are part of the agenda of a certain type of person who intuitively wants to be able to control others and who would want to introduce such legislation WHATEVER the situation. Gordon Brown is a wonderful example of this type of control-freak who views the chance of government as an opportunity not to serve his population but as an opportunity to forge the state in the shape of his own neuroses. The idea that legislation once introduced can easily be revoked is naive IMO. The licensing laws were introduced as a transient measure during WW2 (or was it WW1?) and remained on the statute book for the rest of the century. If legislation such as ID cards, or the ability to detain people for 28 days is introduced I think there is roughly ZERO chance of it ever being repealed no matter how global dynamics change. Remember, just about every piece of legislation passed (unless it repeals previous legislation) is a restrictive not permissive of what we can do and the Labour government under Blair was notorious as one of the most legislative governments in history.

Anyone see the film 'V' that came out a couple of years ago. One brilliant line that I think came from that - "The people should not be scared of the government, the government should be afraid of the people." We have similar scare-mongering going on now about a national DNA data-base. Advocates for this are now telling us that if we had had such a database the raft of recent serial-killers (three or so who have been convicted recently) would have been caught earlier. Yes, perhaps! I don't think that justifies the intrusion on civil liberties that such a data-base would signify. What is the price of a human life, people may ask? I don't know but a national DNA data base is certainly too high in my opinion. My fundamental view is the least the government know about me, the better.