Message to Bob

Message to Bob

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 15th, 2006, 7:35 pm #1

Bob, you have been given plenty of time to state your views and have done so to the point they have become tiresome. I have yet to see one person here agreed with you or who has been persuaded by your repeated tirades on esthetics and body freedom (or lack there-of).

I think it's time for you to recognize you are accomplishing nothing but creating dissension and hostility. Since you don't like our views I suggest you find a forum more to your liking where women wear bras and keep their breasts covered at all times and people who do not meet your standards of beauty are not permitted to impose their imperfections upon the public.

-Nat
Quote
Like
Share

Chris
Chris

February 15th, 2006, 8:02 pm #2

I have to say I would side for Bob on this. I don't agree with what he says in most cases, but that does not mean he does not have the right to say it. I actually find he strenghthens our argument[1} alot of the time by giving us something to argue and consolidate our opinions against. Who needs a devil's advicote when we have the devil himself (not intended to imply I consider Bob to be the devil, before I get accused of slander).

Perhapse Bob has been a bit to personal in some of his arguemnts, but he is not the only one to have ever done so, and many continue posting with just a warning, or no comment at all.

As for repeating himself, most of the arguments on this board are repeats. There is only so much that can be said on the topic. So long as we continue to argue one way I think he should have the right to dissagree.

Unless Bob breakes the basic rules of the board in terms of conduct, I think it should be up to him to stay or go. Just so long as he is aware he will not get many agreeing with him here.

-chris

[1] I use the term argument in the academic sense of a theory in this post, not as a fight.
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 16th, 2006, 1:19 am #3

BFF was not created to argue about breast freedom but to support women in their efforts to achieve it. Bob's constant opposition is only subverting this goal. Indeed in the six months that Bob has been here with his anti-breast harangues a number of female posters have left. I've never seen a time when we have so little female participation as now- and what has changed except for Bob and the negative atmosphere he creates.

And you think this is a good thing?
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

February 16th, 2006, 1:41 am #4

Bob, you have been given plenty of time to state your views and have done so to the point they have become tiresome. I have yet to see one person here agreed with you or who has been persuaded by your repeated tirades on esthetics and body freedom (or lack there-of).

I think it's time for you to recognize you are accomplishing nothing but creating dissension and hostility. Since you don't like our views I suggest you find a forum more to your liking where women wear bras and keep their breasts covered at all times and people who do not meet your standards of beauty are not permitted to impose their imperfections upon the public.

-Nat
Nat, there is a value to this debate . . a potential value, at the least. The benefit I would hope for is that we would all decide to seek a compromise position that we could live with. As things stand now, all I see is members here who insist on their position and nothing else. If they don't get what the want, they go kicking and screaming all the more, like spoiled children who insist on their way.

Such inflexibility could hurt your cause more than help. Look at the gay marriage issue. The environment was ripe for gay couples to obtain increased legal protections via marriage-like civil unions. Polls clearly showed that the average American, far from being the "hater" depicted by gay leadership, favored legal protections for homosexuals, including offering marriage-like employer benefits. Rather than accept this compromise, gay leaders decided to push all the harder for legalization of gay marriage . . . to attack and defeat laws that stood in their way. This forced-choice was brought by gay leadership . . exploited by the so-called "religious right" . . . and resulted in several states passing ammendments to the state constitutions that not only banned gay marriage but any marriage-like arrangements. The electorate saw that their only choice was to do nothing and see their state laws banning gay marriage eventually overturned . . . or enact a constitutional ammendment banning all such unions. Homosexual couples were the big losers, because their leadership (self-appointed that it was) refused compromise and made the situation unnecessarily adversarial.

And so I think it could be with the issues here. By pushing too hard for public exhibition of breasts or other body parts that have historically been covered, I think there could be an unforeseen (by you, not by me) public backlash. I could foresee that such backlash could affect men as well as women. If, for example, Courts ruled that states and municipalities could not "discriminate between male and female bodies", the reluctant response could be to require men to wear tops too . . at the beach, while working in the yard, etc. No, we don't have enough jails to house all the potential offenders, but levy heavy fines on male (or female) offenders and they might think twice before doing it again. This wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers and courts inflicted punishments upon men for the stated purpose of making things "more equal" for women.

You might doubt that this could happen, but weren't gay leaders SO SURE that the public response to their push for gay marriage would be indifference or regretful acquiesence? The public does care about such things and can be roused to action by opportunistic leadership. If there indeed has been a resurgence of the "religious right", how do you think that occurred? I think it was the direct result of moderate-thinking people being pushed into that camp by the actions of foolish activitists.

So, my seemingly-hostile to all of you is really meant to help in a way. No, I don't agree with you on these issues, but I am much more typical of the sentiments of John Q. Public. If you can learn from the folly of others, you would see that a soft approach to trying to move closer to your goals . . if not achieve them . . . is much better than starting an all-or-nothing, kicking/screaming fight and arousing the largely-dormant opposition.



Quote
Share

Joined: February 2nd, 2006, 7:51 pm

February 16th, 2006, 1:44 am #5

BFF was not created to argue about breast freedom but to support women in their efforts to achieve it. Bob's constant opposition is only subverting this goal. Indeed in the six months that Bob has been here with his anti-breast harangues a number of female posters have left. I've never seen a time when we have so little female participation as now- and what has changed except for Bob and the negative atmosphere he creates.

And you think this is a good thing?
With you Nat. I believe this forum to be a place for women to come and ask questions about breast freedom issues having to do with everything from bra wearing risks to equality at the beach. It is a place to share stories and experiences or to get brave about something we might want to try.

This place is not for people like Bob to come and try to talk us out of anything. Sure, someone might have a devil's advocate sound to their questions for clarification purposes, but to constantly tell us how 'wrong' we are is completely against this forums goal.

As I see it, Melissa and I are the only gals left here, and there used to be bunches of us. i used to tell stories of driving my car...well...you know. But I don't dare talk about anything like that here anymore for fear of being lectured by Bob. And Nat, you wanted a picture of me on my bike sometime. I don't want to post any kind of picture of myself any more, even with all my winter bike kit on.

Sorry Bob, but I think you should chill!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 2nd, 2006, 7:51 pm

February 16th, 2006, 1:46 am #6

Nat, there is a value to this debate . . a potential value, at the least. The benefit I would hope for is that we would all decide to seek a compromise position that we could live with. As things stand now, all I see is members here who insist on their position and nothing else. If they don't get what the want, they go kicking and screaming all the more, like spoiled children who insist on their way.

Such inflexibility could hurt your cause more than help. Look at the gay marriage issue. The environment was ripe for gay couples to obtain increased legal protections via marriage-like civil unions. Polls clearly showed that the average American, far from being the "hater" depicted by gay leadership, favored legal protections for homosexuals, including offering marriage-like employer benefits. Rather than accept this compromise, gay leaders decided to push all the harder for legalization of gay marriage . . . to attack and defeat laws that stood in their way. This forced-choice was brought by gay leadership . . exploited by the so-called "religious right" . . . and resulted in several states passing ammendments to the state constitutions that not only banned gay marriage but any marriage-like arrangements. The electorate saw that their only choice was to do nothing and see their state laws banning gay marriage eventually overturned . . . or enact a constitutional ammendment banning all such unions. Homosexual couples were the big losers, because their leadership (self-appointed that it was) refused compromise and made the situation unnecessarily adversarial.

And so I think it could be with the issues here. By pushing too hard for public exhibition of breasts or other body parts that have historically been covered, I think there could be an unforeseen (by you, not by me) public backlash. I could foresee that such backlash could affect men as well as women. If, for example, Courts ruled that states and municipalities could not "discriminate between male and female bodies", the reluctant response could be to require men to wear tops too . . at the beach, while working in the yard, etc. No, we don't have enough jails to house all the potential offenders, but levy heavy fines on male (or female) offenders and they might think twice before doing it again. This wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers and courts inflicted punishments upon men for the stated purpose of making things "more equal" for women.

You might doubt that this could happen, but weren't gay leaders SO SURE that the public response to their push for gay marriage would be indifference or regretful acquiesence? The public does care about such things and can be roused to action by opportunistic leadership. If there indeed has been a resurgence of the "religious right", how do you think that occurred? I think it was the direct result of moderate-thinking people being pushed into that camp by the actions of foolish activitists.

So, my seemingly-hostile to all of you is really meant to help in a way. No, I don't agree with you on these issues, but I am much more typical of the sentiments of John Q. Public. If you can learn from the folly of others, you would see that a soft approach to trying to move closer to your goals . . if not achieve them . . . is much better than starting an all-or-nothing, kicking/screaming fight and arousing the largely-dormant opposition.


Bob! I only got as far as your second sentence...Why should we women compromise anything?
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

February 16th, 2006, 2:14 am #7

With you Nat. I believe this forum to be a place for women to come and ask questions about breast freedom issues having to do with everything from bra wearing risks to equality at the beach. It is a place to share stories and experiences or to get brave about something we might want to try.

This place is not for people like Bob to come and try to talk us out of anything. Sure, someone might have a devil's advocate sound to their questions for clarification purposes, but to constantly tell us how 'wrong' we are is completely against this forums goal.

As I see it, Melissa and I are the only gals left here, and there used to be bunches of us. i used to tell stories of driving my car...well...you know. But I don't dare talk about anything like that here anymore for fear of being lectured by Bob. And Nat, you wanted a picture of me on my bike sometime. I don't want to post any kind of picture of myself any more, even with all my winter bike kit on.

Sorry Bob, but I think you should chill!
There could be all kinds of reasons why fewer women are posting here these days. I was absent here for about 4 weeks and there was no pick-up on female posters. It might be true that women are looking more for a support group experience than debate. Still, there are many threads started that I haven't posted to.

If a woman is obviously posing a question to other women -- the sorts of things you referred to -- I generally don't post to that. I'm not try to drive anyone away. I'm not trying to keep members from getting what they seek from the site. Sometimes I come on too strong, but I usually calm to people who wish to discuss an issue or explain something. If someone isn't interested in my input, they can just ignore it, can't they?
Quote
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 16th, 2006, 2:17 am #8

Nat, there is a value to this debate . . a potential value, at the least. The benefit I would hope for is that we would all decide to seek a compromise position that we could live with. As things stand now, all I see is members here who insist on their position and nothing else. If they don't get what the want, they go kicking and screaming all the more, like spoiled children who insist on their way.

Such inflexibility could hurt your cause more than help. Look at the gay marriage issue. The environment was ripe for gay couples to obtain increased legal protections via marriage-like civil unions. Polls clearly showed that the average American, far from being the "hater" depicted by gay leadership, favored legal protections for homosexuals, including offering marriage-like employer benefits. Rather than accept this compromise, gay leaders decided to push all the harder for legalization of gay marriage . . . to attack and defeat laws that stood in their way. This forced-choice was brought by gay leadership . . exploited by the so-called "religious right" . . . and resulted in several states passing ammendments to the state constitutions that not only banned gay marriage but any marriage-like arrangements. The electorate saw that their only choice was to do nothing and see their state laws banning gay marriage eventually overturned . . . or enact a constitutional ammendment banning all such unions. Homosexual couples were the big losers, because their leadership (self-appointed that it was) refused compromise and made the situation unnecessarily adversarial.

And so I think it could be with the issues here. By pushing too hard for public exhibition of breasts or other body parts that have historically been covered, I think there could be an unforeseen (by you, not by me) public backlash. I could foresee that such backlash could affect men as well as women. If, for example, Courts ruled that states and municipalities could not "discriminate between male and female bodies", the reluctant response could be to require men to wear tops too . . at the beach, while working in the yard, etc. No, we don't have enough jails to house all the potential offenders, but levy heavy fines on male (or female) offenders and they might think twice before doing it again. This wouldn't be the first time that lawmakers and courts inflicted punishments upon men for the stated purpose of making things "more equal" for women.

You might doubt that this could happen, but weren't gay leaders SO SURE that the public response to their push for gay marriage would be indifference or regretful acquiesence? The public does care about such things and can be roused to action by opportunistic leadership. If there indeed has been a resurgence of the "religious right", how do you think that occurred? I think it was the direct result of moderate-thinking people being pushed into that camp by the actions of foolish activitists.

So, my seemingly-hostile to all of you is really meant to help in a way. No, I don't agree with you on these issues, but I am much more typical of the sentiments of John Q. Public. If you can learn from the folly of others, you would see that a soft approach to trying to move closer to your goals . . if not achieve them . . . is much better than starting an all-or-nothing, kicking/screaming fight and arousing the largely-dormant opposition.


Bob, if you think you are being helpful by telling us that there are people opposed to our views- do you think this is something we don't know? In any case, how many times do you have to tell us this? I feel trapped in a time loop with you- arguing the same points over and over. This is not only not productive- its damn boring.

And I hardly think we are asking too much- several times you have made comments like "who wants to see bare breasts at the mall?"- this is absurd. No-one here has ever suggested women go shopping shirtless or anyplace where it is not appropriate. We are only asking for the same rights men (and many European women) have had for years.
Quote
Like
Share

Bob
Bob

February 16th, 2006, 2:20 am #9

Bob! I only got as far as your second sentence...Why should we women compromise anything?
We all compromise dear. If we're smart, we see when the losing end of win/loss is better served by semi-win/semi-win.
Quote
Share

Joined: February 2nd, 2006, 7:51 pm

February 16th, 2006, 2:50 am #10

Bob, if you think you are being helpful by telling us that there are people opposed to our views- do you think this is something we don't know? In any case, how many times do you have to tell us this? I feel trapped in a time loop with you- arguing the same points over and over. This is not only not productive- its damn boring.

And I hardly think we are asking too much- several times you have made comments like "who wants to see bare breasts at the mall?"- this is absurd. No-one here has ever suggested women go shopping shirtless or anyplace where it is not appropriate. We are only asking for the same rights men (and many European women) have had for years.
It's pointless to even ask when he comes up with arguments like having sex with children. Such nonsense! I am putting Bob on ignore.
Quote
Like
Share