Post 29 where Otto writes:
Post 32 where Otto writes:
He’s very clearly writing that I feel being gay is shameful and disappointing. I do not feel that way. I never have and I resent any insinuations to the contrary.
Got it. You can’t find a post where Otto called you a homophobe. I hadn’t seen one, but thought perhaps I’d simply missed it. But you can’t miss what isn’t there. With that, I’m done. Not worth my time either.
So if I wrote, “If you don’t understand why the “what a shame he’s black,” sentiment is insulting I’m not sure if I can explain it to you,” you wouldn’t think I was calling you a racist?
What if I wrote, “If you don’t understand why the “what a shame he’s Jewish,” sentiment is insulting I’m not sure if I can explain it to you,” you wouldn’t think I was calling you an anti-Semite?
Really? :dubious:
He basically wrote that not only am I a homophobe but I’m too dumb to understand why I’m a homophobe.
In the spirit of the thread, Campion, you’re right - he didn’t call her a homophobe. He implied she held homophobic beliefs.
:rolleyes:
Or better, not that she held homophobic beliefs, but that her comments simply reminded him of the fact that he thinks homophobic ideas are nasty and offensive.
I don’t feel that LavenderBlue’s comment was the same as your friend’s comment at all. Basically, her comment is that she wouldn’t like to find out that one of the actors is gay, because she finds him hot and under the right circumstances wouldn’t mind chatting him up. That’s entirely different than “their kids will have a really hard time with it.”, isn’t it?
One implies that being gay is taboo in society or difficult for others to understand and accept while the other just says he’s hot enough for me, I’d take him home. (Not saying that was LavenderBlue’s meaning exactly, but that is the general sentiment behind those words.) Those aren’t the same at all.
If you roll your eyes all the way back can you manage to find your brain?
“Yeah, because you had a shot at any of them,” is not nasty. It’s not particularly funny, either. What it is is truth. With very few exceptions, it applies to every one of us on the dope. Unless you live where the actors live or work, or associate with them or run in the same social circles, or stalk them with a gun, you, as in you personally, have absolutely no shot at them. Not one. The observation had absolutely nothing to do with your personality or your looks or even your bank balance. It was not made in response to your stated desire to go to prom with the captain of your H.S. football team. That would have been snarky.
Of course you were upset, or you wouldn’t have deemed his comment “undeservedly nasty.”
The first person at fault was you, because you took an innocuous comment as a personal affront. Otto then got snippy. You took further offence. As did Otto. Both of you need to go to your rooms and grow some thicker skin.
Why would it be a disappointment if Isaiah Washington said he was gay? Eye candy is eye candy. Gay, straight, asexual, it wouldn’t matter. It’s not as if you have a shot at him, anyway.
[QUOTE=peri]
…What it is is truth. With very few exceptions, it applies to every one of us on the dope. Unless you live where the actors live or work, or associate with them or run in the same social circles, or stalk them with a gun, you, as in you personally, have absolutely no shot at them. /QUOTE]
You mean I’m NOT going to hook up with Angelina now that she and Brad are on the outs?
DREAM CRUSHER
Are we a little down on ourself today?
Seriously though, I disagree, or maybe I agree in a sense, but truth can stilll be an insult if carelessly applied. It may well have been (probably) true, but it was still delivered as a smart-ass insult, even if intended as a joke – a poor one.
I love you guys.
Otto too?
But we’re all television stars and you don’t have a shot at any of us.
:d
damned capitals