Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Deer Hunting UK.

The town of Windsor, location of Windsor castle, has a wonderful set of antlers on its crest  along with the royal lions and fleur-de-lys.  A nice connection with the royals. 

 

Not to mention that the word "royal" is used to denote as stag with antlers of 12 or more branches -- representing a royal stag.  

 

And then, of course, there is the whole cuckold issue.

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Deer Hunting UK.

Well, there it is, the royal deer.   Thanks.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Deer Hunting UK.

[ Edited ]

Yes, you read me correctly RTA.  The 'royal' significance is (1) because all deers and stags were once hunted on land belonging to or having been granted by royalty, as the extract explains.  And yes, (2)  stags over two years old begin to grow branching antlers and more points or 'tines' are added each time a new set of antlers is grown, until there are twelve tines, at which stage they are called 'royal antlers' (great pic here!).

 

 

Windsor Great Park , in Berkshire was once a huge deer park/forest dating back to William the Conquerer, which is the significance of the antlers on their coat of arms and on the Berkshire coat of arms.  These are not coats of arms belonging to the Queen. Permission to use/bear 'royal' coats of arms (using fleur de lys etc) are granted by kings and queens at various times to both dignatories and cities/towns.  Here is the Queen's Coat of Arms - no antlers.  (You can also buy coats of arms through the College of Heraldry, like this one.)   

 

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote:

 

 

Those statements seem contradictary.   Antlers are the most noticable representation of the deer, and there were antlers from the chase hanging in many of the castles.  Certainly deer and therefore antlers are more significant to the crown than most other animals -- cows or pigs or hedgehogs.

 


Uh, as far as I read that comment from Choisya, she was speaking of the crown as in the actual object, a diadem, rather than the Crown as in the head of the U.K.  So it would be hard for antlers to be “more significant to the crown” that she was speaking of, as that is an inanimate object.  But I certainly could have read Choisya’s intention incorrectly.  

 

Either way, I don’t think the statement contradictory.  She wasn't speaking of pigs being more or less important to the Crown (if that's how we read the phrasing).  She merely said that she was unaware of any particular significance attached to antlers in relation to the crown, regardless of any other animal.


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-28-2008 03:06 PM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Deer Hunting UK.


Choisya wrote:

Yes, you read me correctly RTA.  The 'royal' significance is (1) because all deers and stags were once hunted on land belonging to or having been granted by royalty, as the extract explains.  And yes, (2)  stags over two years old begin to grow branching antlers and more points or 'tines' are added each time a new set of antlers is grown, until there are twelve tines, at which stage they are called 'royal antlers' (great pic here!).

 

 

Windsor Great Park , in Berkshire, where Windsor Castle is situated, was once a huge deer park/forest dating back to William the Conquerer, which is the significance of the antlers on their coat of arms and on the Berkshire coat of arms.  These are not coats of arms belonging to the Queen. Permission to use/bear 'royal' coats of arms are granted by kings and queens at various times to both dignatories and cities/towns.  Here is the Queen's Coat of Arms - no antlers.  (You can also buy coats of arms through the College of Heraldry, like this one.)   

 

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote:

 

 

Those statements seem contradictary.   Antlers are the most noticable representation of the deer, and there were antlers from the chase hanging in many of the castles.  Certainly deer and therefore antlers are more significant to the crown than most other animals -- cows or pigs or hedgehogs.

 


Uh, as far as I read that comment from Choisya, she was speaking of the crown as in the actual object, a diadem, rather than the Crown as in the head of the U.K.  So it would be hard for antlers to be “more significant to the crown” that she was speaking of, as that is an inanimate object.  But I certainly could have read Choisya’s intention incorrectly.  

 

Either way, I don’t think the statement contradictory.  She wasn't speaking of pigs being more or less important to the Crown (if that's how we read the phrasing).  She merely said that she was unaware of any particular significance attached to antlers in relation to the crown, regardless of any other animal.


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-28-2008 02:49 PM
Message Edited by Choisya on 09-28-2008 03:02 PM


I think this is why I was a little confused about the queen's identification with the deer.  Deer hunting is such a way of life for royalty that I thought it odd that she would suddenly identify with the deer.  I guess it was dramatic license.

 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Deer Hunting UK.

[ Edited ]

I think RTA's analysis was a good one T, the fact that she, like the stag shown in the film with 'royal' antlers, felt hunted.  I agree that it was rather sentimentalised because the Queen, of course, is a keen huntswoman herself and presumably, had there not been a 'crisis' over Diana, would have been hunting that stag herself:smileysad:.

 

BTW, it is chained unicorn which is featured on the royal coat of arms, not a deer, and that symbolises Scotland, because Scotland was once a 'dangerous beast'!

 

 

 


Timbuktu1 wrote:


Choisya wrote:

Yes, you read me correctly RTA.  The 'royal' significance is (1) because all deers and stags were once hunted on land belonging to or having been granted by royalty, as the extract explains.  And yes, (2)  stags over two years old begin to grow branching antlers and more points or 'tines' are added each time a new set of antlers is grown, until there are twelve tines, at which stage they are called 'royal antlers' (great pic here!).

 

 

Windsor Great Park , in Berkshire, where Windsor Castle is situated, was once a huge deer park/forest dating back to William the Conquerer, which is the significance of the antlers on their coat of arms and on the Berkshire coat of arms.  These are not coats of arms belonging to the Queen. Permission to use/bear 'royal' coats of arms are granted by kings and queens at various times to both dignatories and cities/towns.  Here is the Queen's Coat of Arms - no antlers.  (You can also buy coats of arms through the College of Heraldry, like this one.)   

 

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote:

 

 

Those statements seem contradictary.   Antlers are the most noticable representation of the deer, and there were antlers from the chase hanging in many of the castles.  Certainly deer and therefore antlers are more significant to the crown than most other animals -- cows or pigs or hedgehogs.

 


Uh, as far as I read that comment from Choisya, she was speaking of the crown as in the actual object, a diadem, rather than the Crown as in the head of the U.K.  So it would be hard for antlers to be “more significant to the crown” that she was speaking of, as that is an inanimate object.  But I certainly could have read Choisya’s intention incorrectly.  

 

Either way, I don’t think the statement contradictory.  She wasn't speaking of pigs being more or less important to the Crown (if that's how we read the phrasing).  She merely said that she was unaware of any particular significance attached to antlers in relation to the crown, regardless of any other animal.



I think this is why I was a little confused about the queen's identification with the deer.  Deer hunting is such a way of life for royalty that I thought it odd that she would suddenly identify with the deer.  I guess it was dramatic license.


 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 09-28-2008 03:42 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern" : Royal Swans UK.

Folks may also like to know that mute swans are also 'royal' and have been owned by the monarch since the 12thC.  Ownership rights have since been relaxed but an ancient ceremony called 'swan-upping', which claims cygnets for the crown, takes place on the River Thames every year.

RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

For a moment of levity, I thought I’d link a favorite clip of mine, in the event that others have not seen it. 
Author
ConnieAnnKirk
Posts: 5,472
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

[ Edited ]

RTA wrote:
For a moment of levity, I thought I’d link a favorite clip of mine, in the event that others have not seen it. 

 

Funny, RTA!  :smileyvery-happy:  Thanks for posting!

 

~ConnieK

Message Edited by ConnieK on 09-29-2008 02:06 PM
~ConnieAnnKirk




[CAK's books , website.]
Scribe
Laurel
Posts: 5,747
Registered: ‎10-29-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

Great! :smileyhappy: Anyone can use a good editor.

 


RTA wrote:
For a moment of levity, I thought I’d link a favorite clip of mine, in the event that others have not seen it. 

 

 

"Truth must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for fiction is the creation of the human mind, and therefore is congenial to it." ~~G.K. Chesterton
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: OT (Off-Topic) Chatroom: "The Boar's Head Tavern"

Good fun - thanks RTA!:smileyhappy:.

 


Laurel wrote:

Great! :smileyhappy: Anyone can use a good editor.

 


RTA wrote:
For a moment of levity, I thought I’d link a favorite clip of mine, in the event that others have not seen it. 

 

 


 

Author
ConnieAnnKirk
Posts: 5,472
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

This message has been moved to a more appropriate location. This helps to keep our boards organized.

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

All I'm contending is that there is no universal, objective idea of acceptable and unacceptable.

 

Precisely.  Anything goes.  Just as I said you had said.

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote: That’s a vast difference from saying that some things done to Shakespeare are unacceptable to you.

 

That which is done with Shakespeare that I don't appreciate is, largely, unacceptable to me.  All I'm contending is that there is no universal, objective idea of acceptable and unacceptable.  That which is unacceptable to you, with regard to art, is unacceptable to you, and to others that think like you, alone--it doesn't mean that is is unacceptable, generally.  That's where our differences lie, Everyman. 

 

Everyman wrote: Until you identify specific things done to S not just that you don't personally appreciate but that that are flatly unacceptable, that are illegitimate, that are simply wrong, I believe it is accurate to represent your positition as "anything goes." 

 

Until you demonstrate to what objective principles you apply to decide what is “unacceptable,” “illegitimate” or “simply wrong,” then your statements regarding legitimacy are nothing more than your personal opinions, regardless of what you believe otherwise. 

 

Prove me wrong.  Show me the objective standards to which you are applying.  That’s all I’ve asked for in this whole discussion.  You show me the objectivity of your position, and there might be a discussion to be had about a universal standard of legitimacy.  Until then, all we’re discussing is our personal opinions, despite your fantasies otherwise.

 

Everyman wrote: BTW, I find it amusing that you are so adamant about people not interpreting your language, not looking for nuances that they find in it, objecting to the illegitimatcy of certain interpretations of your posts, but you don't extend the same right  to Shakespeare.   It's hypocritical, but not surprising. 

 

Other members have already explained to you the error in this conclusion, when you drew it a few weeks ago; I’ll leave you to find their posts.

 

In the meantime, since you lodged an accusation of hypocrisy, I think it’s hypocritical for a person to proclaim undying respect for Shakespeare and his work, but to find little time or inclination to actually discuss the work—all the while continuing to find time to judge others for their interpretations.  But I guess the above explains the inability to actually discuss various interpretations of Shakespeare’s work—if you think that looking for nuances in languages is the same as absolutely, and with clear intent, misrepresenting a plainly stated position, then you probably would have very little to say about Shakespeare’s heavily nuanced writing.  Actually, I find it bewildering that anyone would even want to read Shakespeare with the intention of only drawing the most obvious reading.  Certainly the scripts are more complex than that.  So much would be lost in such an approach to Shakespeare's work. 
Message Edited by RTA on 09-29-2008 01:36 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

[ Edited ]

Everyman wrote:

 

Precisely.  Anything goes.  Just as I said you had said.

 

 


Your idea of precision is obtuse indeed.

 

No, anything does not go for me, as I’ve already said.  Just as anything does not, evidently, go for you.  In fact, as far as I’ve read in your position, you prefer actors to read the lines as virtual automatons rather than, in any way, interpreting the piece.  That's different than any other position on Shakespeare I've encountered before.  

 

All very different from claiming that there are objective standards to which one can apply.  Standards that you seem to want to claim exist, but to this day have been unable to demonstrate where or what they are. 

 

Should I assume, since you haven’t demonstrated otherwise, that you now agree that those objective standards only existed in your imagination? 

 

Message Edited by RTA on 09-29-2008 04:40 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

In fact, as far as I’ve read in your position, you prefer actors to read the lines as virtual automatons rather than, in any way, interpreting the piece.

 

Now that's truly a Laughing out Loud line.

 

You, who are so defensive about an accurate statement of your position, tell such an outright lie about my position.  Never have I made a single post about how an actor should deliver a line, other than that they should use Shakespeare's language and not say "Hey up there, Julie, how's it hangin' babe?"

 

Your desperation to try to misrepresent me as a ploy to try to divert attention from my accurately represnting you is pitiful. 

 

You say that your  position is "anything does not go for me, as I’ve already said."  But no, you've never said that.  You've said there are things you personally don't approve of, but you've never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare.   In fact, you have said multiple times that everything is subjective, which means simply that anything does go.  

 

I don't understand why you're so unwilling to admit what you have said over and over.

 

Nor do I understand why you have to tell what you know are lies about my position.

 

Very sad.


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote:

 

Precisely.  Anything goes.  Just as I said you had said.

 

 


Your idea of precision is obtuse indeed.

 

No, anything does not go for me, as I’ve already said.  Just as anything does not, evidently, go for you.  In fact, as far as I’ve read in your position, you prefer actors to read the lines as virtual automatons rather than, in any way, interpreting the piece.  That's different than any other position on Shakespeare I've encountered before.  

 

All very different from claiming that there are objective standards to which one can apply.  Standards that you seem to want to claim exist, but to this day have been unable to demonstrate where or what they are. 

 

Should I assume, since you haven’t demonstrated otherwise, that you now agree that those objective standards only existed in your imagination? 

 

Message Edited by RTA on 09-29-2008 04:40 PM

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

Everyman wrote: Never have I made a single post about how an actor should deliver a line, other than that they should use Shakespeare's language and not say "Hey up there, Julie, how's it hangin' babe?"

 

Oh, I think it was in another thread, you had mentioned some amateur theater company who produced Shakespeare “without interpreting” or “without interpretation,” something like that.  I had assumed that you meant the actors weren’t interpreting their lines, just essentially reading them.  I had referenced your statement in an earlier post, and you didn't seem to take offense to my reading of your statement then.  In fact, if memory serves, I used the exact same phrase "like automatons," in that previous post.  So, then, to clarify, you do think that interpretation is valid when staging theater?  And, if so, then where does our difference in opinion lie, exactly?  I thought you were against interpreting the script for the stage.

 

Everyman wrote: You've said there are things you personally don't approve of, but you've never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare. 

 

Yes, exactly.  And nor will I until you can demonstrate what those objective standards are.  The gauntlet is set, Everyman.  I’ve conceded the discussion, I’ll go along with it.  All you have to do is demonstrate what those objective standards are and where and how they exist.  Go for it.  I can’t wait to see the discussion that might ensue.  You know, again, assuming those standards exist somewhere other than your imagination. 
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

You are setting up a false test.  

 

My position is nuanced, but you are uninterested in nuance.  Yours is unnuanced -- anything at all goes -- so it's easy to articulate.  But life isn't that simple.  I admit to grey areas.  I always have.  You want a bright line, and one doesn't exist.

 

But there are things that are definitely on the okay side of the gray areas and things that are definitely on the not okay side of the gray areas.  And if you were interested in a serious discussion of this I would discuss those. But you're only interested in playing gotcha games, which frankly bore me silly and are a total waste of my time and everybody else's time here except, apparently, yours.  

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote: Never have I made a single post about how an actor should deliver a line, other than that they should use Shakespeare's language and not say "Hey up there, Julie, how's it hangin' babe?"

 

Oh, I think it was in another thread, you had mentioned some amateur theater company who produced Shakespeare “without interpreting” or “without interpretation,” something like that.  I had assumed that you meant the actors weren’t interpreting their lines, just essentially reading them.  I had referenced your statement in an earlier post, and you didn't seem to take offense to my reading of your statement then.  In fact, if memory serves, I used the exact same phrase "like automatons," in that previous post.  So, then, to clarify, you do think that interpretation is valid when staging theater?  And, if so, then where does our difference in opinion lie, exactly?  I thought you were against interpreting the script for the stage.

 

Everyman wrote: You've said there are things you personally don't approve of, but you've never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare. 

 

Yes, exactly.  And nor will I until you can demonstrate what those objective standards are.  The gauntlet is set, Everyman.  I’ve conceded the discussion, I’ll go along with it.  All you have to do is demonstrate what those objective standards are and where and how they exist.  Go for it.  I can’t wait to see the discussion that might ensue.  You know, again, assuming those standards exist somewhere other than your imagination. 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Gotcha games.

It would perhaps help everyone here if you could list those whom you consider worthy of discussing the play 'seriously' and 'honestly' with you - is it just RTA and I whom you see as only interested in 'gotcha' games or are there others here who you feel waste your time?   

 

 


Everyman wrote:

You are setting up a false test.  

 

My position is nuanced, but you are uninterested in nuance.  Yours is unnuanced -- anything at all goes -- so it's easy to articulate.  But life isn't that simple.  I admit to grey areas.  I always have.  You want a bright line, and one doesn't exist.

 

But there are things that are definitely on the okay side of the gray areas and things that are definitely on the not okay side of the gray areas.  And if you were interested in a serious discussion of this I would discuss those. But you're only interested in playing gotcha games, which frankly bore me silly and are a total waste of my time and everybody else's time here except, apparently, yours.  

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote: Never have I made a single post about how an actor should deliver a line, other than that they should use Shakespeare's language and not say "Hey up there, Julie, how's it hangin' babe?"

 

Oh, I think it was in another thread, you had mentioned some amateur theater company who produced Shakespeare “without interpreting” or “without interpretation,” something like that.  I had assumed that you meant the actors weren’t interpreting their lines, just essentially reading them.  I had referenced your statement in an earlier post, and you didn't seem to take offense to my reading of your statement then.  In fact, if memory serves, I used the exact same phrase "like automatons," in that previous post.  So, then, to clarify, you do think that interpretation is valid when staging theater?  And, if so, then where does our difference in opinion lie, exactly?  I thought you were against interpreting the script for the stage.

 

Everyman wrote: You've said there are things you personally don't approve of, but you've never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare. 

 

Yes, exactly.  And nor will I until you can demonstrate what those objective standards are.  The gauntlet is set, Everyman.  I’ve conceded the discussion, I’ll go along with it.  All you have to do is demonstrate what those objective standards are and where and how they exist.  Go for it.  I can’t wait to see the discussion that might ensue.  You know, again, assuming those standards exist somewhere other than your imagination. 

 

 

 

 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Gotcha games.

I cannot see that any such attempt on my part would be a "help" to anybody.


Choisya wrote:

It would perhaps help everyone here if you could list those whom you consider worthy of discussing the play 'seriously' and 'honestly' with you - is it just RTA and I whom you see as only interested in 'gotcha' games or are there others here who you feel waste your time?   

 

 


Everyman wrote:

You are setting up a false test.  

 

My position is nuanced, but you are uninterested in nuance.  Yours is unnuanced -- anything at all goes -- so it's easy to articulate.  But life isn't that simple.  I admit to grey areas.  I always have.  You want a bright line, and one doesn't exist.

 

But there are things that are definitely on the okay side of the gray areas and things that are definitely on the not okay side of the gray areas.  And if you were interested in a serious discussion of this I would discuss those. But you're only interested in playing gotcha games, which frankly bore me silly and are a total waste of my time and everybody else's time here except, apparently, yours.  

 


RTA wrote:

Everyman wrote: Never have I made a single post about how an actor should deliver a line, other than that they should use Shakespeare's language and not say "Hey up there, Julie, how's it hangin' babe?"

 

Oh, I think it was in another thread, you had mentioned some amateur theater company who produced Shakespeare “without interpreting” or “without interpretation,” something like that.  I had assumed that you meant the actors weren’t interpreting their lines, just essentially reading them.  I had referenced your statement in an earlier post, and you didn't seem to take offense to my reading of your statement then.  In fact, if memory serves, I used the exact same phrase "like automatons," in that previous post.  So, then, to clarify, you do think that interpretation is valid when staging theater?  And, if so, then where does our difference in opinion lie, exactly?  I thought you were against interpreting the script for the stage.

 

Everyman wrote: You've said there are things you personally don't approve of, but you've never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare. 

 

Yes, exactly.  And nor will I until you can demonstrate what those objective standards are.  The gauntlet is set, Everyman.  I’ve conceded the discussion, I’ll go along with it.  All you have to do is demonstrate what those objective standards are and where and how they exist.  Go for it.  I can’t wait to see the discussion that might ensue.  You know, again, assuming those standards exist somewhere other than your imagination. 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
RTA
Wordsmith
RTA
Posts: 920
Registered: ‎08-19-2008
0 Kudos

Re: Julius Caesar: Themes and Contemporary Relevance : Othello

Everyman wrote: You are setting up a false test. 

 

There’s no test.  You want me to make objective claims about Shakespeare.  And my point is, I can’t make objective statements about something if I don’t know what objective standards to apply.  It would be intellectually dishonest if I declared that production X is illegitimate, if I don’t know what the objective standards of legitimacy are.  You claim those standards exist.  You write: “you’ve never once said that there is anything you are willing to identify as objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare.”  And what I’m saying is that I couldn’t possibly say what is “objectively, totally wrong to do to Shakespeare” because I can’t fathom the objective standards to which I’m supposed to apply those judgments. 

 

All I’m asking is, if you insist that I make an objective judgment, you demonstrate in some way what those objective standards are.  I’m not sure what’s with all the evasion on this point, you seem to state, unequivocally, that you are able to make objective judgments about various interpretations.  If that’s the case, then demonstrating what those objective standards are should be fairly simple.  Just show me what those standards are.  Then perhaps I could join you, as you seem to want me to, in making objective judgments about others’ interpretations.

 

Everyman wrote: My position is nuanced, but you are uninterested in nuance.  Yours is unnuanced -- anything at all goes -- so it's easy to articulate.  But life isn't that simple.  I admit to grey areas.  I always have.  You want a bright line, and one doesn't exist.

 

Uhhhhhhh….weird.  Through this whole thing I’ve been arguing for nuance.  My position is that there can be no definitive test to determine what is acceptable and unacceptable; legitimate and illegitimate; real and faux.  How did my position, all of a sudden, become that which argues against nuance?  And now, all of a sudden, you’re all for nuance?  Curious.  And I’m the one playing games?

 

Everyman wrote: But there are things that are definitely on the okay side of the gray areas and things that are definitely on the not okay side of the gray areas.  And if you were interested in a serious discussion of this I would discuss those.

 

Do you mean here that you want to discuss what is “definitely on the okay side of the gray areas and things that are definitely on the not okay side of the gray areas,” according to our own perspectives, experiences and opinions?  If so, I’d love to have that conversation, that’s what I’ve been asking for all along.
Author
ConnieAnnKirk
Posts: 5,472
Registered: ‎06-14-2007
0 Kudos

Back to the Tavern........

Choisya--

 

You haven't told us yet about your whale watch excusion off the coast of Ireland.  How did it go?  :smileyhappy:

 

~ConnieK

~ConnieAnnKirk




[CAK's books , website.]
Top Kudoed Authors
Users Online
Currently online:52 members 556 guests
Please welcome our newest community members: