Broken trust, opportunity, or both?

[esedkudiln]

Erm, yes, indeed.

(final hint: I didn't bring up the terminology thing)

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

Unfortunately, the OP isn't the only one reacting as though they're threatened by terminology here, which is part of the problem.

Personally, I'm more threatened by a LACK of (common) terminology.

But will it keep me awake tonight? Hopefully it will, at least long enough to get through the new episode of Top Chef.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by esedkudiln

Erm, yes, indeed.

(final hint: I didn't bring up the terminology thing)

Erm, yes, indeed you DID!!! Mono simply asked for more clarification on certain points,

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

So if I am clear you are in an open relatiosnship, not a polyamorous one? Or are you in a mix? Meeting a stranger and having sex that night is not a typical polyamorous relationship.

Take care
Mono

and you went off on a Wiki-fest. And you admitted to being snarky! This is getting ridiculous, but:

Originally Posted by esedkudiln

Hi Mono, thanks for your comment. I've learnt that debating definitional issues in lifestyle and sexual preferences isn't a terribly productive way of engaging in conversation, but this is what wikipedia has to say about it:

and

Now, if you mean to say that open relationships don't fit your idea of polyamory, then that's something different. You then have to decide for yourself whether or not to consider me "at your level".

Sorry for being snarky here.

[Ceoli]

Oh, this is getting ridiculous. He was replying to Mono's post saying that his relationship wasn't a typical polyamorous relationship. It's a fair reply. Seriously....I'm really flabbergasted by the replies I see here. Maybe we should just start a definition thread to hash this out.

[esedkudiln]

Originally Posted by YGirl

Mono simply asked for more clarification on certain points

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

Meeting a stranger and having sex that night is not a typical polyamorous relationship.

I interpret that not as a question for clarification, but as a statement about definitions. Besides, it only refers to one part of my post.

I did say that perhaps I should have ignored that first message, but any attempt I've made to calm down this discussion since then seems only to have had the opposite effect.

And when we then both say there is no common terminology, we don't agree?

By the way, one definition of snarky (to be precise, the second one on Urban Dictionary) is:

A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.

Indeed. It is.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by Ceoli

Oh, this is getting ridiculous. He was replying to Mono's post saying that his relationship wasn't a typical polyamorous relationship. It's a fair reply. Seriously....I'm really flabbergasted by the replies I see here. Maybe we should just start a definition thread to hash this out.

That has been tried and it didn't work out.

But since it is mentioned above, I would like to point out that Mono said it wasn't a TYPICAL polyamorous relationship. While I have been arguing that terminology is a GOOD thing, the rest of you have been arguing "Do we have the right to tell the OP that his relationship "is" or "is not" poly". That stemmed from Mono's response in search of clarification. If you READ Mono's POST, the word "typical" qualifies that statement.

Mono says it's not a TYPICAL poly relationship. He did not say "You DO NOT HAVE a poly relationship." That's when the OP got all "Maybe I'm not on YOUR LEVEL, snark snark," and started with the Wiki definitions. Then he says he's not the one who started discussing terminology. Of course this is his thread, so he can throw out anything for discussion, but if someone else chooses to run with it, it's somehow not acceptable?

I swear, sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by esedkudiln

I interpret that not as a question for clarification, but as a statement about definitions. Besides, it only refers to one part of my post.

I did say that perhaps I should have ignored that first message, but any attempt I've made to calm down this discussion since then seems only to have had the opposite effect.

And when we then both say there is no common terminology, we don't agree?

By the way, one definition of snarky (to be precise, the second one on Urban Dictionary) is:

Quote:
A witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude.

You sure have an odd way of complimenting someone.

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by YGirl

I swear, sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference.

What's up there isn't at issue. How what's up there is getting interpreted is what's at issue. I interpret what happened on this thread very differently than you do. I could hash it out in detail in a blow by blow with quotes and all about how I see it differently, but it wouldn't accomplish a damned thing. Minds have already been made up.

[esedkudiln]

YGirl, I think we should stop this conversation, because frankly I don't like your one-sided accusations ('sometimes people don't realize that what was written by others is STILL UP THERE for reference') combined with what would be considered rudeness in some parts of the world (like putting words in my mouth, disregarding your very own statement that 'what was written by others etc.'). And there seems to be plenty you don't like about me.

You seem to feel attacked and you have all the right in the world to feel attacked; all I can say is that I didn't attack you, any other poster or the whole community for that matter.

I am generally a very patient person but there are limits, especially with people who only hear what they want to hear, believe their views are the only right ones and think it's their god-given right to lash out at anybody they disagree with. It's your turn to grow up, girl.

[MonoVCPHG]

This thread has turned into a perfect example of why using the word Polyamory is not the best way to try to explain my relationship to those unfamiliar with non-monogamous dynamics. They immediately Google it and get such a wide variety of opinions it means nothing anymore. People understand the terms swinging and open relationship much easier, but that is not what I am in.

I prefer to stick to "I'm in a loving relationship with multiple people involved". That way all the other things like swinging and casual sex aren't included in what I am talking about. I need a way to distinguish my relationship with clarity for the benefit of my family and friends. Poly is not it. Too bad..it has a catchy tune don't ya think