While I'm pretty sure Slate's okay with me archiving Fray posts to this blog, I'm not clear about copyrighted articles written for Slate, itself. Here is a link to Jeremy Stahl's pieces at Slate.
Showing posts with label freditors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freditors. Show all posts
27 September 2011
Jeremy Stahl
While I'm pretty sure Slate's okay with me archiving Fray posts to this blog, I'm not clear about copyrighted articles written for Slate, itself. Here is a link to Jeremy Stahl's pieces at Slate.
03 April 2010
Jeremy, Please Stop Emailing Me.
Jeremy, Please Stop Emailing Me.
by topazz
04/03/2010, 10:41 PM #
You don't need to keep asking my opinion on everything, if you won't take it on the most important thing. You know what I'm talking about. And to answer your question, 4times a week is normal, I guess. Slightly leaning towards overdoing it though.
Don't listen to her, Jer.
by Archaeopteryx
04/04/2010, 6:55 AM
When I was your age, it was easily four times a day. I slowed down when I needed glasses.
by topazz
04/03/2010, 10:41 PM #
You don't need to keep asking my opinion on everything, if you won't take it on the most important thing. You know what I'm talking about. And to answer your question, 4times a week is normal, I guess. Slightly leaning towards overdoing it though.
Don't listen to her, Jer.
by Archaeopteryx
04/04/2010, 6:55 AM
When I was your age, it was easily four times a day. I slowed down when I needed glasses.
06 June 2008
19 June 2007
04 June 2007
11 May 2007
04 August 2006
01 March 2006
A Color-Coded Guide to Flushing & Banning
Subject: A Color-Coded Guide to Flushing & Banning
From: Freditor_G
Date: Mar 1 2006 6:07PM
Many of you have complained, and a smaller number have applauded, the recent increase in editorial vigilance on certain boards. For the sake of those users who can make use of it, we offer the following clarification regarding levels of review:
Code Blue – Examples: Bloghdad [fray.slate.com] and KFS [fray.slate.com].
For those of you who insist upon using Slate's Fray as a real-time chatboard, these boards will receive the scantest level of editorial review. As long as you don't generate complaints that must be responded to, you will be left alone. When we do receive complaints, action will be taken. If we receive too many complaints, then you'll get upgraded to...
Code Yellow - Examples: Today's Papers [fray.slate.com] and Ballot Box [fray.slate.com].
These boards have heavy activity and have a broad topical scope. However, they are also leading sources of misconduct complaints. They will be policed, frequently, for call-outs, flame-baits, eom's, spamming, and inflammatory titles. With a little caution, you should be able to avoid deletion of your posts.
Code Orange - Default Level
These boards have topics and/or affiliated front-page articles, which their users generally tend to stick to. Because they are not significant burdens on the editors' time, they can be left alone, with occasional check-ins for inappropriate conduct.
Code Red - Examples: Politics [fray.slate.com] and War Stories [fray.slate.com]
These boards have been out-of-control for too long. Because they are linked to popular Slate features, they are leading sources of complaints from the general public in addition to the quarrels and feuds that generate floods of spam for the editor to deal with. The editor's primary responsibility – of highlighting good posts and appending the best to the relevant article – has been made impossible by a continuous stream of irrelevant and off-topic chatter. The hammer has therefore come down. Until these boards reach a level where they can be left unsupervised for a few hours, they will be patrolled vigorously and off-topic posts will be flushed at the editors' discretion.
General Principle - Before you submit that post, ask yourself one simple question – "is this the kind of post that Slate would willingly pay somebody to read?" If it isn't, you're wasting the editor's time, and therefore you're wasting Slate's money. Such a post can be deleted at any time, from any board, at the editor's discretion. Deletion alone is not necessarily an indicator of misconduct.
War Against the Editors - We welcome your feedback and criticism, so long as it is placed in the proper forum. However, a pattern of conduct calculated to frustrate the editors in the carrying-out of their duties will lead to a ban. So, if you're planning to write that doozy of a take-down and quadruple post it to War Stories, or to lead a spam brigade into some otherwise sleepy Fray, you are indicating to the editors that you cannot be trusted as a participant of this board. If you can't be trusted not to interfere with our jobs and to respect both the policies and needs of Slate, your presence here is unwelcome and will not be tolerated.
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17054694
From: Freditor_G
Date: Mar 1 2006 6:07PM
Many of you have complained, and a smaller number have applauded, the recent increase in editorial vigilance on certain boards. For the sake of those users who can make use of it, we offer the following clarification regarding levels of review:
Code Blue – Examples: Bloghdad [fray.slate.com] and KFS [fray.slate.com].
For those of you who insist upon using Slate's Fray as a real-time chatboard, these boards will receive the scantest level of editorial review. As long as you don't generate complaints that must be responded to, you will be left alone. When we do receive complaints, action will be taken. If we receive too many complaints, then you'll get upgraded to...
Code Yellow - Examples: Today's Papers [fray.slate.com] and Ballot Box [fray.slate.com].
These boards have heavy activity and have a broad topical scope. However, they are also leading sources of misconduct complaints. They will be policed, frequently, for call-outs, flame-baits, eom's, spamming, and inflammatory titles. With a little caution, you should be able to avoid deletion of your posts.
Code Orange - Default Level
These boards have topics and/or affiliated front-page articles, which their users generally tend to stick to. Because they are not significant burdens on the editors' time, they can be left alone, with occasional check-ins for inappropriate conduct.
Code Red - Examples: Politics [fray.slate.com] and War Stories [fray.slate.com]
These boards have been out-of-control for too long. Because they are linked to popular Slate features, they are leading sources of complaints from the general public in addition to the quarrels and feuds that generate floods of spam for the editor to deal with. The editor's primary responsibility – of highlighting good posts and appending the best to the relevant article – has been made impossible by a continuous stream of irrelevant and off-topic chatter. The hammer has therefore come down. Until these boards reach a level where they can be left unsupervised for a few hours, they will be patrolled vigorously and off-topic posts will be flushed at the editors' discretion.
General Principle - Before you submit that post, ask yourself one simple question – "is this the kind of post that Slate would willingly pay somebody to read?" If it isn't, you're wasting the editor's time, and therefore you're wasting Slate's money. Such a post can be deleted at any time, from any board, at the editor's discretion. Deletion alone is not necessarily an indicator of misconduct.
War Against the Editors - We welcome your feedback and criticism, so long as it is placed in the proper forum. However, a pattern of conduct calculated to frustrate the editors in the carrying-out of their duties will lead to a ban. So, if you're planning to write that doozy of a take-down and quadruple post it to War Stories, or to lead a spam brigade into some otherwise sleepy Fray, you are indicating to the editors that you cannot be trusted as a participant of this board. If you can't be trusted not to interfere with our jobs and to respect both the policies and needs of Slate, your presence here is unwelcome and will not be tolerated.
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17054694
08 June 2005
31 December 2004
I'll Be Blunt...
The day Kevin banned me, EnsleyHill (I think he was posting as IdesofMarch at the time) asked Kevin why he'd banned Catnapping. Kevin responded:
27 December 2004
05 December 2004
04 March 2004
I'll label my response preliminary...
Subject: I'll label my response preliminary...
From: Geoff
Date: Mar 30 2004 4:53PM
to pre-empt the charge of undue haste...
I agree that the "smart/dumb" dichotomy has no place, because intellect has no correlation I've observed with wisdom. I'm not quite sure the "genius/fool(or idiot)" dichotomy goes out the window with it, if we use a more archaic sense of "genius."
My recollection of the Tempo "bang" debate was two people flinging their shit at me and asking me to figure out which one had just eaten roses. I think I've once mentioned that back then I placed far greater emphasis on demonstrated malice then than I do today, and as the obviously more empathic of the two, I faulted you for knowing better than to engage in such behavior. Of course, enough time spent wading in the cesspool and such early judgments seem ludicrous.
Tempo seemed an exclusively social poster who was censorious and malicious, but she demonstrates such a colossal lack of introspection, I had no idea how one could even ask her to improve her behavior. I do still very much believe in human autonomy, and I don't believe that Tempo, however venal she may be, is yet incapable of self-recognition and thence improved behavior. I wouldn't put any money down on the proposition, but it seemed and still seems possible. If I've decisively washed my hands of her, it's because I've realized that there's a danger in her pathology that I am foolishe to involve myself with and helpless to protect others from. Tempo is a parasite. She extracts sensitive biographical information from posters then deploys it online to destroy them when they cross her. There's nothing I can do about that. As for whether I ever "ran with the pack," I can't say I feel I ever did.
Intellect and empathy are both traits, both of which can be used creatively or destructively, upon ourselves and upon others. You seem to possess a good deal of both, but I have yet to see you wield either in a manner that I'd find admirable. I feel your frustration, but too often it seems you choose your targets based upon their obvious insecurities rather than their redressable failings. Most of us have a scabrous sense of self-regard, and you can demand that others pick at it and cause them pain, or you can insist that they clothe themselves with habits of civility which, if nothing else, are designed to mitigate the social cost of our human shortcomings.
Humans are innately as they are. Haut or Tempo aren't going to change. But even if Haut remains a pompous idiot, there's no harm in encouraging him not to act as one. Even if Tempo is an evil bitch there's no harm in encouraging her not to act as one. If scorn and derision are the only tools at hand, then I'm not afraid to use them. Either my vision is flawed, or it is solitary, and they can write me off as the lonely voice of delusion, or it is not, and the chorus of calumny that they face should at least inspire them to conceal their shortcomings, which is as good as destroying them... The only way I change my behavior is from learning I'm thought an asshole (or whatever else), so I call others assholes when their behavior needs changing. I'm one brick in the wall, if you will. But picking apart GodOfWine's sense of masculinity or slamming Laurie the way you did... or callously echoing REW_OEM's words... I couldn't find much to justify such behaviors... they weren't criticisms of any specific behavior, they weren't criticisms which, if conceded, would have any salutary benefits for their objects. The alternative to our innate shortcomings is non-existence. All we can control is our behavior.
Our actions in this forum aren't much. Sure, the social dynamic that develops here is as valid as any other society. Sure, we can't hold ourselves to standards higher than our natures can bear. But if you elicit consistent criticism for your wanton cruelty it is because you appear wantonly cruel. Interestingly, you bring it into the sphere of autonomy when you say:
In fact, I suspect you could tell the people of Hauteur's universe what they wanted to hear better than Hauteur ever could if you put your mind to it.
What if we DO live in his universe? What is the relation between what we feel we could do and what we choose to do? If we choose NOT to do something and follow up on that choice, what profit is left in the awareness of that former distinction between our capacity and our intent?
I dunno. Consistency of vision and consistency of action probably aren't my forte. What was it? "Mostly manic?"
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=10358384
that's right. he wasn't the freditor when he wrote this...
From: Geoff
Date: Mar 30 2004 4:53PM
to pre-empt the charge of undue haste...
I agree that the "smart/dumb" dichotomy has no place, because intellect has no correlation I've observed with wisdom. I'm not quite sure the "genius/fool(or idiot)" dichotomy goes out the window with it, if we use a more archaic sense of "genius."
My recollection of the Tempo "bang" debate was two people flinging their shit at me and asking me to figure out which one had just eaten roses. I think I've once mentioned that back then I placed far greater emphasis on demonstrated malice then than I do today, and as the obviously more empathic of the two, I faulted you for knowing better than to engage in such behavior. Of course, enough time spent wading in the cesspool and such early judgments seem ludicrous.
Tempo seemed an exclusively social poster who was censorious and malicious, but she demonstrates such a colossal lack of introspection, I had no idea how one could even ask her to improve her behavior. I do still very much believe in human autonomy, and I don't believe that Tempo, however venal she may be, is yet incapable of self-recognition and thence improved behavior. I wouldn't put any money down on the proposition, but it seemed and still seems possible. If I've decisively washed my hands of her, it's because I've realized that there's a danger in her pathology that I am foolishe to involve myself with and helpless to protect others from. Tempo is a parasite. She extracts sensitive biographical information from posters then deploys it online to destroy them when they cross her. There's nothing I can do about that. As for whether I ever "ran with the pack," I can't say I feel I ever did.
Intellect and empathy are both traits, both of which can be used creatively or destructively, upon ourselves and upon others. You seem to possess a good deal of both, but I have yet to see you wield either in a manner that I'd find admirable. I feel your frustration, but too often it seems you choose your targets based upon their obvious insecurities rather than their redressable failings. Most of us have a scabrous sense of self-regard, and you can demand that others pick at it and cause them pain, or you can insist that they clothe themselves with habits of civility which, if nothing else, are designed to mitigate the social cost of our human shortcomings.
Humans are innately as they are. Haut or Tempo aren't going to change. But even if Haut remains a pompous idiot, there's no harm in encouraging him not to act as one. Even if Tempo is an evil bitch there's no harm in encouraging her not to act as one. If scorn and derision are the only tools at hand, then I'm not afraid to use them. Either my vision is flawed, or it is solitary, and they can write me off as the lonely voice of delusion, or it is not, and the chorus of calumny that they face should at least inspire them to conceal their shortcomings, which is as good as destroying them... The only way I change my behavior is from learning I'm thought an asshole (or whatever else), so I call others assholes when their behavior needs changing. I'm one brick in the wall, if you will. But picking apart GodOfWine's sense of masculinity or slamming Laurie the way you did... or callously echoing REW_OEM's words... I couldn't find much to justify such behaviors... they weren't criticisms of any specific behavior, they weren't criticisms which, if conceded, would have any salutary benefits for their objects. The alternative to our innate shortcomings is non-existence. All we can control is our behavior.
Our actions in this forum aren't much. Sure, the social dynamic that develops here is as valid as any other society. Sure, we can't hold ourselves to standards higher than our natures can bear. But if you elicit consistent criticism for your wanton cruelty it is because you appear wantonly cruel. Interestingly, you bring it into the sphere of autonomy when you say:
In fact, I suspect you could tell the people of Hauteur's universe what they wanted to hear better than Hauteur ever could if you put your mind to it.
What if we DO live in his universe? What is the relation between what we feel we could do and what we choose to do? If we choose NOT to do something and follow up on that choice, what profit is left in the awareness of that former distinction between our capacity and our intent?
I dunno. Consistency of vision and consistency of action probably aren't my forte. What was it? "Mostly manic?"
http://fray.slate.com/?id=3936&m=10358384
that's right. he wasn't the freditor when he wrote this...
04 August 2003
04 May 2003
28 April 2003
27 April 2003
04 August 2002
09 November 2001
To Dilettante:checks and stars
Subject: To Dilettante:checks and stars
From: Fray Editor
Date: Nov 9 2001 4:03 PM
I posted this below to a long thread on checks and stars, started by Dilettante (it is checkmarked), but then thought other readers might be interested.
I think checks were introduced almost exactly a year ago, and the first stars arrived in January. I always say that I hope a checkmark implies a good post, but the lack of a checkmark does NOT imply a bad post: I just cant read them all.
You have all worked out quite a lot about my reading habits, and I will try to tell you some more. I cannot read all the posts, and I cannot check every Fray every day, or even close to every day. My main job is to look for great posts that I can feature under the articles, so I tend to concentrate most on the articles that Slate is promoting on its main banner, above the full table of contents.
This means that some very good Frays get less attention than others: Todays Papers, Dear Prudie, and Poem almost never have excerpts under the articles, because their format just doesnt lend itself to that. I do try to visit the active Frays, which these are, but I am not looking for excerpts (although occasionally Ill use one in Best of The Fray.) Frame Game would get regular attention because they are great articles which tend to produce excellent, usable comments. I am the only person who hands out the checks and stars: however, William Saletan does read his own Fray and often sends me recommendations--and he knows who his good posters are.
It is true that I rely on the stars presence to provide something to come up on Fray Editors Picks, and I am very grateful to them for their input.
About getting a star: I always have a list of people Im looking at for stars. I notice a name a few times, and then start looking out for it, and checking the MBTU when a good post comes up.
Moira Redmond
Fray Editor
Slate
From: Fray Editor
Date: Nov 9 2001 4:03 PM
I posted this below to a long thread on checks and stars, started by Dilettante (it is checkmarked), but then thought other readers might be interested.
I think checks were introduced almost exactly a year ago, and the first stars arrived in January. I always say that I hope a checkmark implies a good post, but the lack of a checkmark does NOT imply a bad post: I just cant read them all.
You have all worked out quite a lot about my reading habits, and I will try to tell you some more. I cannot read all the posts, and I cannot check every Fray every day, or even close to every day. My main job is to look for great posts that I can feature under the articles, so I tend to concentrate most on the articles that Slate is promoting on its main banner, above the full table of contents.
This means that some very good Frays get less attention than others: Todays Papers, Dear Prudie, and Poem almost never have excerpts under the articles, because their format just doesnt lend itself to that. I do try to visit the active Frays, which these are, but I am not looking for excerpts (although occasionally Ill use one in Best of The Fray.) Frame Game would get regular attention because they are great articles which tend to produce excellent, usable comments. I am the only person who hands out the checks and stars: however, William Saletan does read his own Fray and often sends me recommendations--and he knows who his good posters are.
It is true that I rely on the stars presence to provide something to come up on Fray Editors Picks, and I am very grateful to them for their input.
About getting a star: I always have a list of people Im looking at for stars. I notice a name a few times, and then start looking out for it, and checking the MBTU when a good post comes up.
Moira Redmond
Fray Editor
Slate
26 July 2001
Marriage and its Discontents
I got no clue where this post is from. The name TexWiz is familiar, though, and there's a note from Moira...
Subject: Marriage and its Discontents
From: TEXWIZ
Date: Jul 26 2001 12:48 PM
A lot of Fraysters out there are likely painting some very unflattering personal portaits of Ms. Geller, the author of the anti-marriage book out there. I prefer to leave alone any speculation about her personal life, politics or personal inadequacies real or imagined.
i just want to say that even if her feelings are the result of careful research, personal experience and soul searching, it doesn't matter. She's wrong. Not mistaken, not misguided, or any other euphemisms intended to soften the blows of disagreement. She is just flat wrong, and for several reasons.
First, it should be said that no one is in favor of bad marriages and that many such unions do, in fact exist. But we're talking here about the intrinsic worth of the institution of marriage.
Marriage provides a framework for stability. Just as a child feels secure when they know that the parents are always there, waiting to catch them when they fall, partners in a good marriage have a peace of mind unknown to the single people. A commitment has been made and bonds have been forged that are intended to outlast sickness, financial troubles, emotional upheavals, births, deaths and home renovations, which are worse than most of the aforementioned. That such a commitment has been violated by many does not devalue the worth of commitment and marriage as an institution.
In the course of my eight year (so far) marriage, I have lost my job, lost relatives in death, been disappointed by friends, disappointed in myself and been through several home improvement projects. At no time was I alone. When I lost my job, no accusations were made, no blame placed. She just said, "we'll be alright" and we were, just as we endured the other challenges together.
Now, make no mistake, I am a strong and capable person, (as is my wife, a beautiful, capable woman who speaks four languages and works harder than anyone I know). I would have weathered these slings and arrows and taken arms against them, married or single. But I cannot imagine having to do so alone. I, in my happy marriage, am blessed with great good fortune. My good fortune kisses me each day as I leave for work and greets me with the same when I return.
I do the same for her. Were either of us lost to the other, we would be devastated. It's a risk made acceptable by the joy we have now. Ms. Geller risks nothing, but deprives herself of this joy in the mistaken notion that independence is the greatest goal. She's so wary of being oppressed that she forgets to love. I would be sad if I didn't feel so sure that I wouldn't like her much if I met her. To deny your reliance on others is to deny one of the most vital portions of your humanity.
The article neglected to mention that marriage is also vital to the raising of emotionally healthy children. This is not to say that some single parents don't do a great job, but all things considered, two parents, together, not divorced, make better parents than one woman or one man. Some may disagree, but frankly, they are just as wrong as Ms. Geller.
The real tragedy is that so many people have bought into the modern notion that divorce is not so bad. True, a bad marriage can be a remarkably excruciating experience, and sometimes, divorce is inevitable, but if marriage was not viewed as a temporary institution, maybe people would make better decisions about who to marry.
In conclusion, let me say simply that love is the greatest thing. And the greatest expression of love is to commit your life, 'til death do you part, to the person you love.
Subject: To Texwiz
From: Fray Editor
Date: Jul 26 2001 6:17 PM
Great post.
Just wanted to alert you to your appearance in Best of the Fray this week, in case you missed it.
Moira Redmond
Fray Editor
Slate
Subject: To Slate
From: Texwiz
Date: Jul 27 2001 2:34 PM
Thanks for the heads up and for the posting. I will never again question the wisdom of your editorial judgements.:-)
The length of your quote from my post on marriage and your kind words were immensely gratifying. Many of us post on the Fray because we have opinions we want to get out there, to be challenged and to think through our positions and opinions, often in the light of intense opposition.
To have one's opinion singled out from so many as worthy of consideration is an honor. This may be a rather obscure forum but when you feel as strongly as I do about marriage (and quite a few other topics), it matters that one's thoughts can be shared with others. I sincerely consider it an honor to be allowed to discourse with so many obviously intelligent, thoughtful people as I do here on the Fray.
Subject: RE: Marriage and its Discontents
From: Mangar
Date: Jul 26 2001 6:31 PM
Ah, jeez, dude, you make me want to go out and get married!
I couldn't help sharing in some of your joy while reading your post...I hope you don't mind my borrowing a little. All political ramifications aside, I'm happy for you, pure and simple. You may or may not be aware of all the effort you must have put into this relationship, but the bottom line is that it was worth it, no? Imagine the day...TEXWIZ is an inspiration!
Subject: Marriage and its Discontents
From: TEXWIZ
Date: Jul 26 2001 12:48 PM
A lot of Fraysters out there are likely painting some very unflattering personal portaits of Ms. Geller, the author of the anti-marriage book out there. I prefer to leave alone any speculation about her personal life, politics or personal inadequacies real or imagined.
i just want to say that even if her feelings are the result of careful research, personal experience and soul searching, it doesn't matter. She's wrong. Not mistaken, not misguided, or any other euphemisms intended to soften the blows of disagreement. She is just flat wrong, and for several reasons.
First, it should be said that no one is in favor of bad marriages and that many such unions do, in fact exist. But we're talking here about the intrinsic worth of the institution of marriage.
Marriage provides a framework for stability. Just as a child feels secure when they know that the parents are always there, waiting to catch them when they fall, partners in a good marriage have a peace of mind unknown to the single people. A commitment has been made and bonds have been forged that are intended to outlast sickness, financial troubles, emotional upheavals, births, deaths and home renovations, which are worse than most of the aforementioned. That such a commitment has been violated by many does not devalue the worth of commitment and marriage as an institution.
In the course of my eight year (so far) marriage, I have lost my job, lost relatives in death, been disappointed by friends, disappointed in myself and been through several home improvement projects. At no time was I alone. When I lost my job, no accusations were made, no blame placed. She just said, "we'll be alright" and we were, just as we endured the other challenges together.
Now, make no mistake, I am a strong and capable person, (as is my wife, a beautiful, capable woman who speaks four languages and works harder than anyone I know). I would have weathered these slings and arrows and taken arms against them, married or single. But I cannot imagine having to do so alone. I, in my happy marriage, am blessed with great good fortune. My good fortune kisses me each day as I leave for work and greets me with the same when I return.
I do the same for her. Were either of us lost to the other, we would be devastated. It's a risk made acceptable by the joy we have now. Ms. Geller risks nothing, but deprives herself of this joy in the mistaken notion that independence is the greatest goal. She's so wary of being oppressed that she forgets to love. I would be sad if I didn't feel so sure that I wouldn't like her much if I met her. To deny your reliance on others is to deny one of the most vital portions of your humanity.
The article neglected to mention that marriage is also vital to the raising of emotionally healthy children. This is not to say that some single parents don't do a great job, but all things considered, two parents, together, not divorced, make better parents than one woman or one man. Some may disagree, but frankly, they are just as wrong as Ms. Geller.
The real tragedy is that so many people have bought into the modern notion that divorce is not so bad. True, a bad marriage can be a remarkably excruciating experience, and sometimes, divorce is inevitable, but if marriage was not viewed as a temporary institution, maybe people would make better decisions about who to marry.
In conclusion, let me say simply that love is the greatest thing. And the greatest expression of love is to commit your life, 'til death do you part, to the person you love.
Subject: To Texwiz
From: Fray Editor
Date: Jul 26 2001 6:17 PM
Great post.
Just wanted to alert you to your appearance in Best of the Fray this week, in case you missed it.
Moira Redmond
Fray Editor
Slate
Subject: To Slate
From: Texwiz
Date: Jul 27 2001 2:34 PM
Thanks for the heads up and for the posting. I will never again question the wisdom of your editorial judgements.:-)
The length of your quote from my post on marriage and your kind words were immensely gratifying. Many of us post on the Fray because we have opinions we want to get out there, to be challenged and to think through our positions and opinions, often in the light of intense opposition.
To have one's opinion singled out from so many as worthy of consideration is an honor. This may be a rather obscure forum but when you feel as strongly as I do about marriage (and quite a few other topics), it matters that one's thoughts can be shared with others. I sincerely consider it an honor to be allowed to discourse with so many obviously intelligent, thoughtful people as I do here on the Fray.
Subject: RE: Marriage and its Discontents
From: Mangar
Date: Jul 26 2001 6:31 PM
Ah, jeez, dude, you make me want to go out and get married!
I couldn't help sharing in some of your joy while reading your post...I hope you don't mind my borrowing a little. All political ramifications aside, I'm happy for you, pure and simple. You may or may not be aware of all the effort you must have put into this relationship, but the bottom line is that it was worth it, no? Imagine the day...TEXWIZ is an inspiration!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
