FC,
An observation: It might help to reduce your writing to simpler terms and easier concepts. You're dealing with a mixed audience of various perspectives and language patterns, so clarity is a must if you'd like useful thought exchanges. While I think the previous post to mine was a bit rude, I think the point is that this topic doesn't require such complexity or carefully crafted speech. Keep it simple, right?
I think Flowerchild is just trying to be nice, and not call people out on their hypocritical behavior, so what he/she is doing is trying to get people to understand why it isn't OK to label someone a Cowboy/Cowgirl and become involved in their life to the point of interfering.
I've never met any non-monogamous people in my life who didn't cross lines between involvement and into interfering (whether it was from a poly or BDSM standpoint was irrelevant as both sets definitely crossed lines into interfering) and there were times when the person in question was not a Cowboy/Cowgirl
So it's hard for me to believe that the problems with this thread are people honestly being confused, as opposed to moving the spotlight to a more convenient area to illuminate
Well, you just called some of the most respectable people on this site trolls. Good luck having future discussions if that's your perspective.
this was actually the only "semantics" problem this thread
actually had, as troll is misusing the word beyond the parameters of "language fluidity" but in FC's defense, is there a word in any language's lexicon that describes a blogger who talks the talk yet is guilty of the very behavior they openly preach against and thus fail to walk the walk?
Is there a word for not wanting to preform the tasks of a responsible adult, to want to take a day of childish fingers in the ears and "bla-bla-blah!!" all the unpleasant behavior that you don't wish to deal with, don't want others talking about it either, yet maintain the adult badge of character who doesn't need to stick their head in the sand?
troll? probably not, so I guess FC should have just hyphenated the above two paragraphs and called it a word
if anybody on the forum can't handle a discussion without resorting to shutting down the conversation -- regardless of their status -- does that mean the entire board needs to cease and desist because of one or two individuals that cannot handle the topic?
It's not wrong to not want to discuss a topic that people would rather sweep under the rug, it's just that if someone can't handle discussing it honestly then they should not. It's extremely immature to not want it discussed, then when it is join the conversation in attempt to silence one side of the fence or pretend not to understand the light being shed regarding the topic.
I understand the common tactics used to divert attention away from the unflattering points, to end the thread on a note which sounds as if the entire discussion was plagued by misunderstanding and thus ultimately voided. I am not saying it's wrong, but rather questioning if such a route is seriously the best chosen path.
Nobody can force others to engage in an adult discussion, especially about subjects that are not easy to talk about, esp when they mean taking a look at your own behavior, but there too, you can't force others to decide not to tackle the hard topics just because another person doesn't want to.
Even if the problem could be spun into a semantics, fluidity of language issue -- even
if that could be done convincingly -- is that really the best decision?
Does this argument (
http://www.polyamory.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55904) really appear to be the best route to take?
Honestly, when people post on forums such as this, many of us are
slightly, just a sliver, but only once in a great blue moon ever so
slightly less perfect than the advice we give
it really is OK to not be perfect, but obviously it's important to maintain the facade on a profile, and that is OK too.