Princess Anne is fighting to save her 11-year marriage to Commodore Tim Laurence
Angela
increasing concern at Buckingham Palace.
Senior palace sources fear the 52-year-old princess and her husband,
Commodore Tim Laurence, are now leading virtually separate lives
after drifting apart.
Anne, who has become closer than ever to the Queen since the deaths
of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, has had several heart-to-
hearts with her mother about her relationship.
But the Queen has made it clear she will not countenance a divorce
from 48-year-old former courtier Laurence, despite being sympathetic
to Anne's predicament. Close sources say that although the couple
appear together at family gatherings, they spend most of their
private time apart. They say the situation has deteriorated further
in recent months.
Anne has told the Queen and Prince Philip of her fears for her
marriage on a number of occasions. But it has been made clear to both
her and Laurence that a formal separation will not be allowed - even
on a trial basis. "It is simple," said a palace source. "Her Majesty
has made it clear to both of them that they must work at the
relationship.
"Yes, the marriage is not in a good way. But they both know they will
have to put on a show in public for the sake of the family. The Queen
will not tolerate another divorce in the family."
The Princess Royal and her husband are fiercely loyal to the Crown
and have promised that they will not do anything to harm the
monarchy.
Senior sources insist no other parties are involved and that the
couple have simply drifted apart. But the Royal Navy officer, a
former equerry to the Queen, is also thought to be irritated at the
way he has been treated as an outcast by the family. He is understood
to be aggrieved at some senior royals, particularly Prince Charles,
still treating him as "staff ".
A source said: "Tim has had a very difficult time being accepted,
both by the family and by the senior palace courtiers ... he has been
in a nowin situation."
Laurence missed several key royal gatherings recently, raising fears
about the marriage. The couple were both at Windsor-over Easter and
are expected to attend Royal Ascot together next month but a palace
source said: "It is no secret that the marriage has been virtually
over for some time."
Anne's children, Zara and Peter Phillips, are known to be concerned.
Although they have always remained close to their father, Captain
Mark Phillips, both are also very fond of their stepfather.
One family friend said: "It is obviously very upsetting for Zara in
particular but she is offering as much support to both of them as
possible." Royal sources say Anne has thrown herself into work. She
has rarely appeared on official engagements with Laurence, who has
pursued his Royal Navy career.
One source said: "The princess has always kept her working and
private lives completely separate, and will continue to do so."
At one time it looked as though Anne had found contentment in
marriage at last. She and Laurence met in 1983 when he joined the
royal yacht Britannia.
In 1986 he joined the Buckingham Palace staff. Anne was nearly 40 and
her relationship with first husband Phillips was effectively over.
She divorced in April 1992 and re-married the same year.
Their marriage suffered as they threw themselves into work. Anne has
taken on many royal duties that would normally be shouldered by
Prince Charles's wife, and after his Navy career Laurence continues
to work in Whitehall.
Trouble has dogged the marriages of the 77-year-old Queen's elder
children. Prince Charles's marriage to Diana was soured by their
affairs while Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson divorced after 10
years.
Loreen
>publication and author's name precede the article.]
>
>-SC
I thought you gave up this "Source Cop" pretense when you made it clear a few
weeks ago that you only demand sources from some people while you let others
get away with "I read it somewhere; YOU find the source!"
>^..^<
Sacha
owned...@aol.comnospam wrote on 10/5/03 10:00 pm:
Most people who quote direct from newspapers, as the OP clearly did, give
the paper which is their source. Other can then verify that online, if they
wish to do so.
As far as I can see that's all that is being asked for - which paper? Is
that a problem for you?
Sacha
Tara O.
news:b9jnpf$3sd$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> Source, please. [It's best if the URL, name and date of
> publication and author's name precede the article.]
DRM originally posted this (titled: Pr. Charles snobby to Anne's husband )
on 4-27-03. No link was given but DRM sourced the Sunday People.
--
Tara
Inge Jones
says...
months ago. No idea which newspaper now though.
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
"Inge Jones" <in...@drealm.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.192788333...@text.giganews.com...
Today's (Saturday's) Times has a short article about the Princess Royal's
marriage going through difficulties.
Gossip?
The Times?
Who knows.......
--
Rudolf - Nottingham UK - www.voguehouse.co.uk
Loreen
>>>publication and author's name precede the article.]
>>>
>
>> I thought you gave up this "Source Cop" pretense when you made it clear
>a few > weeks ago that you only demand sources from some people while you
>let others > get away with "I read it somewhere; YOU find the source!"
>>>^..^<
>
>YOU find the source," or any of its permutations, and not asking
>for the source. I don't read the newsgroup every day, nor do I read
>most peoples' posts (including yours). I read posts mostly by topic
>and, today there were two posts with interesting topics that did not
>have sources. When I read a post and there is no source and nobody
>has asked for the source, I will ask for it, regardless of who posted
>it.
>
>I don't appreciate your trying to make me into someone I am not
>in order to fuel your feuds with others on this newsgroup (one
>reason I stopped reading your posts, BTW).
>
>A.
Uh, YOU are the one who named yourself the "Source Cop." If you're going to
assume that role, you need to demand sources from all, not just a chosen few.
>^..^<
Jean Sue Libkind
owned...@aol.comnospam wrote on 5/10/03 7:45 PM:
>> I don't remember *reading* any post that said: "I read it somewhere;
>> YOU find the source," or any of its permutations, and not asking
>> for the source. I don't read the newsgroup every day, nor do I read
>> most peoples' posts (including yours). I read posts mostly by topic
>> and, today there were two posts with interesting topics that did not
>> have sources. When I read a post and there is no source and nobody
>> has asked for the source, I will ask for it, regardless of who posted
>> it.
>>
>> I don't appreciate your trying to make me into someone I am not
>> in order to fuel your feuds with others on this newsgroup (one
>> reason I stopped reading your posts, BTW).
>>
>> A.
>
> Uh, YOU are the one who named yourself the "Source Cop." If you're going to
> assume that role, you need to demand sources from all, not just a chosen few.
>> ^..^<
And, to quote others among your friends, who are you to tell A. what she
must and must not do. If you are going to demand consistency, so am I.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
kool...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/10/03 3:07 PM:
> Senior palace sources fear the 52-year-old princess and her husband,
> Commodore Tim Laurence, are now leading virtually separate lives
> after drifting apart.
>
> Anne, who has become closer than ever to the Queen since the deaths
> of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, has had several heart-to-
> hearts with her mother about her relationship.
>
> But the Queen has made it clear she will not countenance a divorce
> from 48-year-old former courtier Laurence, despite being sympathetic
> to Anne's predicament. Close sources say that although the couple
> appear together at family gatherings, they spend most of their
> private time apart. They say the situation has deteriorated further
> in recent months.
This all sounds like one of those times many marriages go through while the
children leave home and everyone re-adjusts. Add to that the extra burdens
on Anne post of the Queen Mum and Margaret and it all makes sense. I suspect
that, if they stick it out, it will all come right in the end.
js
quondam
Nobody "gets away" with that. It should be obvious -- even to you -- that a link to a story is
best, saying where it comes from yet providing no link is less good, and saying "I read it
somewhere" is least helpful.
Sometimes people actually come forward with a source for the thing somebody read
somewhere.
In any case, a post where somebody remembers reading something someplace hasn't nearly
the credibility of a link. You seem to be trying to discourage people from supplying
verifiable information, or at least you are giving the impression that it doesn't matter very
much. -- Q
Kelly
> on this newsgroup are not facile with the Times search functions.
>
> A.
It's the same link as for the Marina Mowatt article I posted.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-675798,00.html
The Times
10 May 2003
I think the author is Laura Peek. She authored the Marina piece that comes
just before this one. But it's not listed.
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Andy
"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030510170047...@mb-m28.aol.com...
> >Source, please. [It's best if the URL, name and date of
> >publication and author's name precede the article.]
Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
their home.
Loreen
and...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20030510170047...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> >Source, please. [It's best if the URL, name and date of
>> >publication and author's name precede the article.]
>
>Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
>their home.
>
Just a note, I didn't write that which you attributed to me above.
I think it's perfectly legitimate in a *gossip* forum to post what one has
heard or read without being required to search for sources to post as though
one were a PhD candidate defending a dissertation.
Of course, if a URL for such a source is readily available and easy to share, I
would encourage your doing so if only to keep the self-appointed AGR Proof
Police at bay.
>^..^<
Jean Sue Libkind
and...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/11/03 7:50 AM:
> Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
> their home.
Aren't you one of those people who was aghast that Charles supposedly does
not treat Tim well?
Pot ... kettle ... black
js
Andy
"Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote in message
news:BAE3ECC4.11280%jea...@bookschlepper.com...
Its my 1st day in here so please dont be so aghast.
>
> js
>
Sacha
owned...@aol.comnospam wrote on 11/5/03 3:22 pm:
Being misquoted is so nasty, isn't it?
--
Sacha
Andy
"Sacha" <sa...@garden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BAE4496D.613F%sa...@garden506.fsnet.co.uk...
She has been accidentally misquoted whereas you have been called a
deliberate liar on many occasions.
> --
>
> Sacha
>
julian
So in other words, you're only consistent when it suits your side,
which is exactly Loreen's point here. Thanks for underlining it.
Loreen
>> >> news:20030510170047...@mb-m28.aol.com...
>> >>>> Source, please. [It's best if the URL, name and date of
>> >>>> publication and author's name precede the article.]
>> >>
>> >> Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
>> >> their home.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Just a note, I didn't write that which you attributed to me above.
>> >
>> > I think it's perfectly legitimate in a *gossip* forum to post what one
>has
>> > heard or read without being required to search for sources to post as
>though
>> > one were a PhD candidate defending a dissertation.
>> >
>> > Of course, if a URL for such a source is readily available and easy to
>share,
>> > I
>> > would encourage your doing so if only to keep the self-appointed AGR
>Proof
>> > Police at bay.
>> >> ^..^<
>>
>> Being misquoted is so nasty, isn't it?
>
>She has been accidentally misquoted whereas you have been called a
>deliberate liar on many occasions.
And, of course, I recognize that you simply made a mistake. We certainly all
make them, though some of us are more willing than others to admit it.
>^..^<
Loreen
>> >> YOU find the source," or any of its permutations, and not asking
>> >> for the source. I don't read the newsgroup every day, nor do I read
>> >> most peoples' posts (including yours). I read posts mostly by topic
>> >> and, today there were two posts with interesting topics that did not
>> >> have sources. When I read a post and there is no source and nobody
>> >> has asked for the source, I will ask for it, regardless of who posted
>> >> it.
>> >>
>> >> I don't appreciate your trying to make me into someone I am not
>> >> in order to fuel your feuds with others on this newsgroup (one
>> >> reason I stopped reading your posts, BTW).
>> >>
>> >> A.
>> >
>> > Uh, YOU are the one who named yourself the "Source Cop." If you're going
>to
>> > assume that role, you need to demand sources from all, not just a chosen
>few.
>> >> ^..^<
>>
>> And, to quote others among your friends, who are you to tell A. what she
>> must and must not do. If you are going to demand consistency, so am I.
>>
>> js
>
>So in other words, you're only consistent when it suits your side,
>which is exactly Loreen's point here. Thanks for underlining it.
>
Nutshell.
>^..^<
quondam
>
> "Jean Sue Libkind" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote in message
> news:BAE3ECC4.11280%jea...@bookschlepper.com..
> > and...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/11/03 7:50 AM:
> >
> > > Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
> > > their home.
> >
> > Aren't you one of those people who was aghast that Charles supposedly does
> > not treat Tim well?
> >
> > Pot ... kettle ... black
>
> Its my 1st day in here so please dont be so aghast.
This is your first day as "Andy," yes, but as the unpleasant, upper-case averse KeithSmith11,
you've been posting here for ages. -- Q
>
> >
> > js
> >
quondam
>
> and...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> >news:20030510170047...@mb-m28.aol.com..
> >> >publication and author's name precede the article.]
> >
> >Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
> >their home.
> >
>
> Just a note, I didn't write that which you attributed to me above.
>
> I think it's perfectly legitimate in a *gossip* forum to post what one has
> heard or read without being required to search for sources to post as though
> one were a PhD candidate defending a dissertation.
I think that if it's sensational or defamatory, people *should* defend it. The idea is to
discourage people from muddying the waters by putting made-up baloney into the annals. I
agree that it's fine to say "I think I read it someplace," because that statement alone gives the
posted statement a lesser degree of credence than a source or a link.
>
> Of course, if a URL for such a source is readily available and easy to share, I
> would encourage your doing so if only to keep the self-appointed AGR Proof
> Police at bay.
> >^..^<
Derogatory statements made without proof teeter at the edge of being slander. IMO, it's
better to avoid that, even in a gossip newsgroup. -- Q
Andy
"quondam" <quo...@quondam.com> wrote in message
news:3EBEA0...@quondam.com...
I apologise, i meant in this thread. I am not averse to the upper classes at
all, i am averse to the constant ass licking by some working class people in
here though.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > js
> > >
julian
> Loreen wrote:
> >
> > and...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Loreen" <owned...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> > >news:20030510170047...@mb-m28.aol.com..
> > >> >Source, please. [It's best if the URL, name and date of
> > >> >publication and author's name precede the article.]
> > >
> > >Todays Sunday People is claiming that Tim Nice But Dim has moved out of
> > >their home.
> > >
> >
> > Just a note, I didn't write that which you attributed to me above.
> >
> > I think it's perfectly legitimate in a *gossip* forum to post what one has
> > heard or read without being required to search for sources to post as though
> > one were a PhD candidate defending a dissertation.
>
> I think that if it's sensational or defamatory, people *should* defend it.
An assertion that's meaningless because what you consider sensational
or defamatory may seem a perfectly measured assessment to the person
that makes it, and vice versa. So no, there is no rule about having
to defend anything, whether you like that reality or not.
The idea is to
> discourage people from muddying the waters by putting made-up baloney into the annals.
Everyone seems to imagine they seem to have a crystal clear view
through any waters, so that seems like another bogus concern.
I
> agree that it's fine to say "I think I read it someplace," because that statement alone gives the
> posted statement a lesser degree of credence than a source or a link.
>
> >
> > Of course, if a URL for such a source is readily available and easy to share, I
> > would encourage your doing so if only to keep the self-appointed AGR Proof
> > Police at bay.
> > >^..^<
>
> Derogatory statements made without proof teeter at the edge of being slander. IMO, it's
> better to avoid that, even in a gossip newsgroup. -- Q
The law doesn't recognise your definition of teetering as requiring
proof of any statement on a gossip newsgroup. Someone can try it out,
but they'll get nowhere. Malicious harrassment, on the other hand, is
easy to pursue because it's the result of people having pursued
groundless action out of malice.
G-B
Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
========
You could well be right, Jean Sue. I wonder which members of the family *have*
given him some trouble settling in - if any. And I imagine that the Pss would
be pretty head strong in a relationship!
Gioff
Sacha
juli...@hotmail.com wrote on 12/5/03 7:04 am:
This is a royal gossip group. It isn't a 'come here and make things up and
try to force people to swallow them' group. That's what one or two people
have done - one in particular - and that's why people get asked if they can
source what they write sometimes.
It may also be that the person asking is interested in the subject under
discussion, would like to read it online for themselves and then follow up
other links on the same theme.
--
Sacha
NewNom
>This is a royal gossip group. It isn't a 'come here and make things up and
>try to force people to swallow them' group. That's what one or two people
>have done - one in particular - and that's why people get asked if they can
>source what they write sometimes.
>It may also be that the person asking is interested in the subject under
>discussion, would like to read it online for themselves and then follow up
>other links on the same theme.
>
>--
>
>Sacha
IMO, the best argument for sources is so the group can gauge the reliability of
the story. For example, I read that William is angry because he found out that
the palace is keeping a list of names of suitable brides for him. He's sworn
that he will only marry for love, even if it's a shop assistant.The only royal
he's even remotely interested in is Charlotte Casiraghi. This is all true - I
did read such
a story just last week. But I read it in The Globe, one of the U.S. supermarket
tabloids. Saying that puts the story on a whole different footing than if it
came from a regular paper.
Even though it's a gossip group, the likelihood or unlikelihood of stories
being true is of interest.
As someone else mentioned, a URL for a current story can be handy because many
people like to read the original. A paraphrase can give a different impression.
Naturally, URLs are not possible when it's a case of recollecting something
from a book or old article.
Peggy
Inge Jones
new...@aol.comnospam says...
> Even though it's a gossip group, the likelihood or unlikelihood of stories
> being true is of interest.
And indeed, food for gossip in itself (-:
Jean Sue Libkind
and...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/12/03 1:25 AM:
>
> I apologise, i meant in this thread. I am not averse to the upper classes at
> all, i am averse to the constant ass licking by some working class people in
> here though.
Define "working class"
js
yaffaDina
Bearing in mind that I'm a foreigner here: I think the working class in
the States is called middle class.
yD
His Jadedness Andy
>the States is called middle class.
>yD
>
According to Andy's Definitive Daffynitions (publication date="soon")
working class=does unskilled manual labor
Working Class=performs low level white collar jobs
middle class=midlevel white collar jobs
Middle Class=upper level white collar jobs.
Professional = Senior level Management.
"May your Morn be bright and sunny, your Noon be warm and clear, your Dusk be
calm and tranquil and your Night without a fear"
His Jadedness, Andy
Known Descendants of Queen Victoria Message Board
http://members3.boardhost.com/KDQV/
Jean Sue Libkind
at agh...@aol.commonMkt wrote on 5/12/03 2:21 PM:
> According to Andy's Definitive Daffynitions (publication date="soon")
>
> working class=does unskilled manual labor
> Working Class=performs low level white collar jobs
> middle class=midlevel white collar jobs
> Middle Class=upper level white collar jobs.
> Professional = Senior level Management.
>
Then I daresay few of us at AGR are working class, as was alleged.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
and...@hotmail.com wrote on 5/11/03 12:33 PM:
> Its my 1st day in here so please dont be so aghast.
>
Changing your account name does not erase my memory.
I'm a wily old crone.
js
yaffaDina
Now, who is it? PK again?
yD :(
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 13/5/03 2:00 pm:
No, it's Keith11 or whatever he called himself last time.
--
Sacha
yaffaDina
How do you *know* these things?
Why do you care? Don't read the posts of someone who is saying things
you don't care for. Saves a lot of unpleasantness, not just for you but
for everyone else who gets this sort of stuff from people they normally
read.
yD
Loreen
>Why do you care? Don't read the posts of someone who is saying things
>you don't care for. Saves a lot of unpleasantness, not just for you but
>for everyone else who gets this sort of stuff from people they normally
>read.
>yD
What a novel idea!
>^..^<
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 13/5/03 2:55 pm:
How do I know? Do you have eyes? Can you not recognise certain styles of
posting? You asked who he is and I'm telling you. I read his first couple
of posts because he posted under a different name and it was possible he was
a newbie. If that isn't enough for you, how about that in this instance, he
immediately referred to an old quarrel he had with me when he posted as
Keith?
Perhaps you could read all the relevant posts before you start jumping on
people, Annie? I know it can be hard when one has been out of the group for
a day or three but you do this quite often and it's not my fault if I've
seen an old post he's referenced and you haven't.
--
Sacha
yaffaDina
Yes, I have eyes. No, I did not recognize the styles of drm or whoever
you think this time is someone else.
> You asked who he is and I'm telling you. I read his first couple
> of posts because he posted under a different name and it was possible he was
> a newbie. If that isn't enough for you, how about that in this instance, he
> immediately referred to an old quarrel he had with me when he posted as
> Keith?
> Perhaps you could read all the relevant posts before you start jumping on
> people, Annie? I know it can be hard when one has been out of the group for
> a day or three but you do this quite often and it's not my fault if I've
> seen an old post he's referenced and you haven't.
It's so consistent with you Sacha that it's beyond boring.
yD
>
> --
>
> Sacha
Jean Sue Libkind
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 5/13/03 9:55 AM:
> How do you *know* these things?
> Why do you care? Don't read the posts of someone who is saying things
> you don't care for. Saves a lot of unpleasantness, not just for you but
> for everyone else who gets this sort of stuff from people they normally
> read.
> yD
It is impossible to block people who keep changing their names. I thought
this dude was a newbie, too, until he showed his true colors.
It is annoying enough that some people are so off the wall I have to go to
the trouble of blocking them (kind of like making me walk on the other side
of the street to avoid the village idiot) only to have them pop up under
another guise necessitating another block.
js
Life is too short to deal with idiots.
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 13/5/03 8:21 pm:
I didn't say this was drm. Perhaps you could read what is written. I have
told you that it is Keith and I have told you why I *know* that it is Keith.
And I am not alone in that, Annie.
Will you PLEASE, at *least*, read what is written and not what you think
you've seen or want to see. Without wishing to start WW3 over this, I don't
think that is much to ask. You simply DO NOT always read a thread before
you sound off and even *then* you don't reply to what is actually said!
Anything you say beyond this reflects that but you are blaming me for you
not reading a thread.
>
>> You asked who he is and I'm telling you. I read his first couple
>> of posts because he posted under a different name and it was possible he was
>> a newbie. If that isn't enough for you, how about that in this instance, he
>> immediately referred to an old quarrel he had with me when he posted as
>> Keith?
>> Perhaps you could read all the relevant posts before you start jumping on
>> people, Annie? I know it can be hard when one has been out of the group for
>> a day or three but you do this quite often and it's not my fault if I've
>> seen an old post he's referenced and you haven't.
>
> It's so consistent with you Sacha that it's beyond boring.
> yD
Annie, believe me, I'd rather be 'boring' to you than accept that you can't
read and respond to a thread.
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
quondam
Sorry, Annie, but this is not coming out of thin air. Possibly you don't remember, but for
months, the poster in question literally followed Sacha into every thread of the newsgroup
yelling insults. Surely, *you* would not welcome his return if it had been done to you.
It wouldn't have come up, except that this person announced it was his first day on the
newsgroup. In any case, he has admitted to being the same person -- possibly you missed
that post as well. If you need further proof, go to:
http://www.google.com/groups?q=keith.smith11+author:andy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-
8&scoring=d&selm=FnSra.2236%24ig6.837%40newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net&rnum=1
or
--Q
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sacha
yaffaDina1
> in article 3EC0F96F...@netscape.net, yaffaDina at.... snipped ... >
Life is too short to deal with idiots.
Which is, perhaps, a good reason *not* to read or respond to every
post or poster every day. Not only for one's own peace of mind but
for that of others who come for gossip and chat not arguments and
hostility.
yD
yaffaDina1
Once Sacha & Keith got into their quarrel I stopped reading.
>
> It wouldn't have come up, except that this person announced it was his first day on the
> newsgroup. In any case, he has admitted to being the same person -- possibly you missed
> that post as well.
Again -- once I saw the old quarrel revisited, I stopped reading and
now I have to *defend* myself for not reading this kind of nonsense!!!
All that's happening is that I'm now involved in a quarrel that is
nothing to do with me, which I'm not interested in -- and criticised
for that and for not knowing every pointless detail of the quarrel
--- most of which has been said before anyway -- only widening the
quarrel to include me and as many others as possible imho. I am not
here to quarrel. Criticise yes, but only on my views. That's what
I'm here for. "I think this..."
"well, I think the opposite..."
"here's why I think ..."
"here's why I disagree..."
Nothing wrong with that imo.
But it is startling to list the people who no longer post simply
because of the quarrels and bad feeling regardless of who or what they
agree or disagree with. I could go on about the off topic posts --
but I don't. What I do instead is gasp shock horror not read them. I
don't try to stop anyone else posting about whatever they want. A few
weeks back another ng was totally diverted by posts on the war, some I
joined in, some I didn't. There were a couple of complaints about it,
and some on topic posts but by and large the off topic posts stopped
because not enough attention was given to them by regulars. Again, I
just do not understand why people want to give these people what they
want: attention, diversion and dissention.
Oh, and yes, I reserve my right to post and respond to whoever I want.
yD
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 14/5/03 4:37 pm:
> quondam <quo...@quondam.com> wrote in message
> news:<3EC190...@quondam.com>...
>> yaffaDina wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Sorry, Annie, but this is not coming out of thin air. Possibly you don't
>> remember, but for
>> months, the poster in question literally followed Sacha into every thread of
>> the newsgroup
>> yelling insults. Surely, *you* would not welcome his return if it had been
>> done to you.
>
> Once Sacha & Keith got into their quarrel I stopped reading.
Oh Annie, this is absolutely outrageous! You've stirred up a huge hornet's
nest because you asked a question, I answered it, you don't like my answer
and now you're telling us you didn't even read what led up to the entire
issue. You really are simply unbelievable!
>
>>
>> It wouldn't have come up, except that this person announced it was his first
>> day on the
>> newsgroup. In any case, he has admitted to being the same person --
>> possibly you missed
>> that post as well.
>
> Again -- once I saw the old quarrel revisited, I stopped reading and
> now I have to *defend* myself for not reading this kind of nonsense!!!
If you don't know anything about the issue, just don't say anything. You
asked who 'Andy' is; I told you; you said how do you know; I told you that
and you went off on one! NOT reading threads properly but jumping into them
and saying something which is meaningless is entirely consistent with you,
if you wish to trade insults with me. The difference is that I gave you the
benefit of the doubt at least and thought you'd merely overlooked a post or
three. Now you boast happily that you didn't even *try* to read the posts
before you started pronouncing upon them. You're discrediting yourself with
every word you write and now it's my fault because YOU haven't understood
what's going on because you haven't bothered to find out.
<snip>
> Again, I
> just do not understand why people want to give these people what they
> want: attention, diversion and dissention.
YOU don't understand it? YOU who encourage every blasted troll to set a
foot in the water here by telling them how clever and funny they are; who
tells one of them to 'come over here' and I'll *SHOW* you what c*&t and F@%k
are? Not 'tell' but 'show'? That YOU? YOU don't understand why 'these
people' give them what they want? These people??? YOU are one of the
*worst* of these people.
> Oh, and yes, I reserve my right to post and respond to whoever I want.
> yD
Damned right but that doesn't seem to be stopping you telling the rest of us
what to do. And not for the first time, either.
<snip>
Jean Sue Libkind
Do not start with me, ye of diminutive stature.
js
yaffaDina1
> in article bd357a98.03051...@posting.google.com, yaffaDina1 at
> yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 14/5/03 4:37 pm:
>
> > quondam <quo...@quondam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3EC190...@quondam.com>...
> >> yaffaDina wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> >>
> >> Sorry, Annie, but this is not coming out of thin air. Possibly you don't
> >> remember, but for
> >> months, the poster in question literally followed Sacha into every thread of
> >> the newsgroup
> >> yelling insults. Surely, *you* would not welcome his return if it had been
> >> done to you.
> >
> > Once Sacha & Keith got into their quarrel I stopped reading.
>
> Oh Annie, this is absolutely outrageous! You've stirred up a huge hornet's
> nest because you asked a question, I answered it, you don't like my answer
> and now you're telling us you didn't even read what led up to the entire
> issue. You really are simply unbelievable!
Unbelievable that I don't read, or finish a post that is repetitious
and quarrelsome? Well, the idea that I am the only one who does so is
incredible. Gee, what about all those killfiles people talk about? Do
you think they are really reading those posters?
> >>
> >> It wouldn't have come up, except that this person announced it was his first
> >> day on the
> >> newsgroup. In any case, he has admitted to being the same person --
> >> possibly you missed
> >> that post as well.
> >
> > Again -- once I saw the old quarrel revisited, I stopped reading and
> > now I have to *defend* myself for not reading this kind of nonsense!!!
>
> If you don't know anything about the issue, just don't say anything.
That is not what I said.
You
> asked who 'Andy' is; I told you; you said how do you know; I told you that
> and you went off on one!
Not quite in that order, Sacha.
NOT reading threads properly but jumping into them
> and saying something which is meaningless is entirely consistent with you,
> if you wish to trade insults with me.
The principle of quarrelling in the same words with the same people
and putting it all out in public is what I am objecting to.
The difference is that I gave you the
> benefit of the doubt at least and thought you'd merely overlooked a post or
> three. Now you boast
Hardly a boast, Sacha. It was a statement in a post where I also said
I am forced to defend myself. Boast! My dear girl!
happily that you didn't even *try* to read the posts
No -- I said I started to read your back & forth posts with Keith but
stopped when I realised that it was the same old same old. I consider
that to be sensible.
> before you started pronouncing upon them. You're discrediting yourself with
> every word you write and now it's my fault because YOU haven't understood
> what's going on because you haven't bothered to find out.
Huh?
>
> <snip>
>
> > Again, I
> > just do not understand why people want to give these people what they
> > want: attention, diversion and dissention.
>
> YOU don't understand it? YOU who encourage every blasted troll
Oh no. Not all of them. Just the amusing ones. Like Phil. Not
Keith once I realised he was only interested in baiting you.
to set a
> foot in the water here by telling them how clever and funny they are; who
> tells one of them to 'come over here' and I'll *SHOW* you what c*&t and F@%k
> are? Not 'tell' but 'show'? That YOU?
Yep! That me. The post was to Phil whom I like and it was made in
the full and certain knowledge that it will never happen. A bit of
whimsy, appreciated by some.
YOU don't understand why 'these
> people' give them what they want? These people??? YOU are one of the
> *worst* of these people.
Am I now considered a troll? Now *that's amusing.
> > Oh, and yes, I reserve my right to post and respond to whoever I want.
> > yD
>
> Damned right but that doesn't seem to be stopping you telling the rest of us
> what to do. And not for the first time, either.
But not forcing even one person to stop posting, Sacha. Not a one.
How many do you think believe *you* are responsible for them no longer
posting. I know that some people think trolls cause dissention and
stop posting because they can and do take over ngs. By that
definitiion *I* am not the troll in this conversation.
yD
>
>
> <snip>
Sacha
yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 14/5/03 10:32 pm:
Would you *please* do me the courtesy of looking at the things 'Andy' has
said to or about me since he came to this group: now that you know 'Andy' is
also 'Keith' and that he himself has given that away.
>
> The difference is that I gave you the
>> benefit of the doubt at least and thought you'd merely overlooked a post or
>> three. Now you boast
>
> Hardly a boast, Sacha. It was a statement in a post where I also said
> I am forced to defend myself. Boast! My dear girl!
Defend yourself from what? Who asked YOU to butt in on a situation of
which, by your own admission, you know nothing. You do that and that's your
look out.
>
> happily that you didn't even *try* to read the posts
>
>
> No -- I said I started to read your back & forth posts with Keith but
> stopped when I realised that it was the same old same old. I consider
> that to be sensible.
>
>> before you started pronouncing upon them. You're discrediting yourself with
>> every word you write and now it's my fault because YOU haven't understood
>> what's going on because you haven't bothered to find out.
>
> Huh?
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Again, I
>>> just do not understand why people want to give these people what they
>>> want: attention, diversion and dissention.
>>
>> YOU don't understand it? YOU who encourage every blasted troll
>
> Oh no. Not all of them. Just the amusing ones. Like Phil. Not
> Keith once I realised he was only interested in baiting you.
>
> to set a
>> foot in the water here by telling them how clever and funny they are; who
>> tells one of them to 'come over here' and I'll *SHOW* you what c*&t and F@%k
>> are? Not 'tell' but 'show'? That YOU?
>
> Yep! That me. The post was to Phil whom I like and it was made in
> the full and certain knowledge that it will never happen. A bit of
> whimsy, appreciated by some.
Oh, of course. There's just *dozens* of people here who appreciate the
trolls and their vicious 'whimsy'. Someone emailed me a few days ago that
Phil has posted someone else's full address and even their telephone number
here. That's really 'whimsical', isn't it? So 'amusing'.
>
> YOU don't understand why 'these
>> people' give them what they want? These people??? YOU are one of the
>> *worst* of these people.
>
>
> Am I now considered a troll? Now *that's amusing.
>
>>> Oh, and yes, I reserve my right to post and respond to whoever I want.
>>> yD
>>
>> Damned right but that doesn't seem to be stopping you telling the rest of us
>> what to do. And not for the first time, either.
>
> But not forcing even one person to stop posting, Sacha. Not a one.
> How many do you think believe *you* are responsible for them no longer
> posting. I know that some people think trolls cause dissention and
> stop posting because they can and do take over ngs. By that
> definitiion *I* am not the troll in this conversation.
> yD
>>
>>
>> <snip>
You show me one person who has stopped posting because they have been asked
to provide a source for their posts or claims and I'll show you someone who
*knows* they lie. In fact, I rarely ask for sources because I accept that
people sometimes read things and forget exactly where. The only person I
simply cannot trust in that regard is PK because she misinforms quite
deliberately and knows very well that she's doing it.
And yes, your shouting and stamping at me IS outrageous, given your lack of
knowledge of the situation.
If you don't follow threads, that is your privilege but in this instance,
it's also your stumbling block. I don't follow all of them myself but nor
do I ask a question and then take to task the person that answers me, when I
haven't a clue what I'm on about. And that is just what you've done.
What you do with the trolls is selfish, IMO but as you keep telling us this
is a newsgroup and you're here to have FUN, who can gainsay you? You think
Phil is funny? Well, each to their own, I suppose.
quondam
It wasn't really a quarrel. She began to ignore him quite early on, but he continued
following her from thread to thread, yipping at her, for months.
Everybody has that right, and certainly we couldn't stop you even if we wanted to. But I
think you'll agree that people like Keith shouldn't be encouraged, and that people who
encourage him, or his kind of behavior diminish the group. -- Q
yaffaDina1
Ouch! No good telling you that small girls (me) are loved tall girls
(you) are only admired, I suppose :)
yD
Jonas Silverman
> yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 14/5/03 4:37 pm:
<snip>
> YOU don't understand it? YOU who encourage every blasted troll to set a
> foot in the water here by telling them how clever and funny they are; who
> tells one of them to 'come over here' and I'll *SHOW* you what c*&t and F@%k
> are? Not 'tell' but 'show'? That YOU? YOU don't understand why 'these
> people' give them what they want? These people??? YOU are one of the
> *worst* of these people.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with the Lass admitting in public shes a
whore an a tart. So what if she invites people to see her bits? Some
people might like getting floppy, smelly, seconds, thirds or more from
her c^nt . Hey at least its free of charge. Nothing worse than a case
of the moldy dick though. As long as she ain't a hypocrite that's
cool. Wonder what she does when the dentist tells her open wide, which
lips does she open first-prolly the c^nt? Glad the Lass aint in my
area. This bird gives new meaning to the term whore house. Hey
babe, why not change your name from yD to STD?
julian
What's that proof of? I don't see you referenced anywhere in that
link. Who is the group you keep referring to? No one seems to
acknowledge its existence other than yourself and the clique (which is
what I think you're referring to) you appear to follow. Diminish in
whose eyes, and by whose definition?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Sacha
Jean Sue Libkind
>> Do not start with me, ye of diminutive stature.
>>
>> js
>
> Ouch! No good telling you that small girls (me) are loved tall girls
> (you) are only admired, I suppose :)
> yD
To most people, I still qualify as short (5'3")....
yaffaDina
Ah well -- most people are not loveable girls like what I am. You have
no idea how many people I make happy with a "hey, you're tall could you
reach me this..." Often the first time these people have been called
"tall." Oh btw js before you go, could you reach me this .... :) I
have an old school friend who uses it to other people and to date I am
the only person who considers her tall.
yD
G-B
yaffaDina wrote:
=======
Well, Queen Victoria didn't exactly have Elle McPherson's stature but she was
anything but a 'short' person. Mind you, she did have an army of people
reaching things for her I suppose :)
Gioff
Holly W.
I will trade you--I get very tired of being asked to get things for
other people and would love to be short enough to have to ask folks to
get things for me (not to mention that I'd also love to have the
experience of actually having to have pants and skirts hemmed!).;)
Sorry, I get the opposite--"oh, you're tall enough to reach that for
me.." all the time!!
Susan Cohen
"Holly W." <Holl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95c48218.03052...@posting.google.com...
> I get very tired of being asked to get things for
> other people and would love to be short enough to have to ask folks to
> get things for me (not to mention that I'd also love to have the
> experience of actually having to have pants and skirts hemmed!).;)
>
> Sorry, I get the opposite--"oh, you're tall enough to reach that for
> me.." all the time!!
I'm the opposite - I love being able to get things for people.
My mother & I used to compare notes on how many times we were asked to get
things for people :-)
SusanC
RCLOVELY
>things for people :-)
>
On the other hand, three of us average women were trying to get merchandise off
the top shelf of a counter when a very nice tall lady offered to get it for us.
I don't know her, but I love her.
RC
Holly W.
So did my mom and I! But I'd love to have the experience of actually
having to get something shortened--usually I'm crossing my fingers and
hoping that the skirts, slacks, etc are long enough. I'm 5'9"--too
short for tall sizes for the most part (except jeans) and too tall for
some of the "average" length things.
yaffaDina
>
> yaffaDina <yaffa...@netscape.netSPAM> wrote in message news:<3EC90E47...@netscape.netSPAM>...
> > Jean Sue Libkind wrote:
> > >
> > > in article bd357a98.03051...@posting.google.com, yaffaDina1 at
> > > yaffa...@netscape.net wrote on 5/16/03 7:32 AM:
> > >
> > > >> Do not start with me, ye of diminutive stature.
> > > >>
> > > >> js
> > > >
> > > > Ouch! No good telling you that small girls (me) are loved tall girls
> > > > (you) are only admired, I suppose :)
> > > > yD
> > >
> > > To most people, I still qualify as short (5'3")....
> >
> > Ah well -- most people are not loveable girls like what I am. You have
> > no idea how many people I make happy with a "hey, you're tall could you
> > reach me this..." Often the first time these people have been called
> > "tall." Oh btw js before you go, could you reach me this .... :) I
> > have an old school friend who uses it to other people and to date I am
> > the only person who considers her tall.
> > yD
>
> I will trade you--I get very tired of being asked to get things for
> other people
Oh, don't say that! Now I'll *never* ask anyone over 5'3" to reach
something for me! For some reason 5'3" people seem to like it :) it's
the surprise and novelty of it, I suppose.
> and would love to be short enough to have to ask folks to
> get things for me (not to mention that I'd also love to have the
> experience of actually having to have pants and skirts hemmed!).;)
No that's sick! I suppose it's okay as a one-off thing, but as a
must-do, believe me, you don't want it! And just imagine in a changing
room needing a vivid imagination to see sleeves shorter, waistlines at
the waist, hems (especially on pants) where they are supposed to be. I
wear something I've bought to show anyone, "are you sure it's the right
size?" And insisting that yes it is the right size, it's me that ain't!
:)
> Sorry, I get the opposite--"oh, you're tall enough to reach that for
> me.." all the time!!
Well, I'll stick to making the day for those taller enough than me to
reach me something :)
yD
Jean Sue Libkind
>> From Holly--
>> Sorry, I get the opposite--"oh, you're tall enough to reach that for
>> me.." all the time!!
>
> Well, I'll stick to making the day for those taller enough than me to
> reach me something :)
> yD
It is good to be tall at a parade.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
Holl...@yahoo.com wrote on 5/20/03 6:36 PM:
> I'm 5'9"--too
> short for tall sizes for the most part (except jeans) and too tall for
> some of the "average" length things.
That sounds like a royal pain. At least, we shorties can get petite sizes or
substitute capris for long pants.
js
yaffaDina
LOL! It's true, though.
yD
>
> js
Lethal Injectn
>>According to Andy's Definitive Daffynitions (publication date="soon")
working class=does unskilled manual labor
Working Class=performs low level white collar jobs
middle class=midlevel white collar jobs
Middle Class=upper level white collar jobs.
Professional = Senior level Management.<<
I loved this!!!! So much so that I must beg your permission to relay it to
some of my co-workers (I'm an employment lawyer so it's completely up our
alley).
Lethal Injectn
>Ouch! No good telling you that small girls (me) are loved tall girls (you)
are only admired, I suppose :)
yD >>
You've reminded me of a French expression: "Tout ce qui est petit est mignonne;
tout ce qui est grands est cons...."
I used to use that a lot.
Sincerely,
The Tiny One :)
Lethal Injectn
>To most people, I still qualify as short (5'3")....
There are times when I wish I were "most people".....
;)
His Jadedness Andy
>From: lethal...@aol.com (Lethal Injectn)
Ah! We get to isssue our first Royal Warrent!!!!!!
You have our leave to relay it unto whomsoever it pleases you to do so.
Tha Jaded One
<G>
"May your Morn be bright and sunny, your Noon be warm and clear, your Dusk be
calm and tranquil and your Night without a fear"
His Jadedness, Andy
Known Descendants of Queen Victoria Message Board
http://members3.boardhost.com/KDQV/
Lethal Injectn
>>>From: lethal...@aol.com (Lethal Injectn)
>>From: agh...@aol.commonMkt
>
>>>According to Andy's Definitive Daffynitions (publication date="soon")
>
>working class=does unskilled manual labor
Working Class=performs low level white collar jobs
middle class=midlevel white collar jobs
Middle Class=upper level white collar jobs.
Professional = Senior level Management.<<
>
>
>I loved this!!!! So much so that I must beg your permission to relay it to
>some of my co-workers (I'm an employment lawyer so it's completely up our
>alley).
Ah! We get to isssue our first Royal Warrent!!!!!!
You have our leave to relay it unto whomsoever it pleases you to do so.
Tha Jaded One
<G>
===========================
Damn. I just realized *HOW* anal I am. My first thought upon reading your
post was: "How do I 'Blue Book' his comment if I want to quote it???" (I know
that will make no sense to you but, trust me, it is the sign of a seriously
disturbed individual.... <g>)
Of course, the fact that I spent 2 days writing a brief on how body odor was
NOT covered by the ADA ("Americans with Disabilities Act") probably has
something to do with it. <sigh>
I think I need a serious martini. VERY dirty, with tons of my beloved pickled
onions.
Lethal Injectn
<snipped to point>
>> (not to mention that I'd also love to have the experience of actually having
to have pants and skirts hemmed!).;)
=================
Hollie,
Trust me on this one, getting all your clothes hemmed is NOT something you'd
like to experience on a constant basis. The last pair of Levis that fit me came
from the children's section and that is just plain embarassing! lol.
While I'm on a clothing rant, will someone explain to me just *WHY* men's
dry-cleaning is cheaper than mine for almost the **exact** same items of
clothing?????
Susan Cohen
"Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030522024145...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>
> While I'm on a clothing rant, will someone explain to me just *WHY* men's
> dry-cleaning is cheaper than mine for almost the **exact** same items of
> clothing?????
For the same reason that men's clothes do not change as radically & their
shoes are better made. Women are stupid, & will put up with that crap. :-)
SusanC
>
>
Susan Cohen
Reminds me of a good English expression:
"Sour grapes."
:-P
SusanC
Holly W.
My mom and I come from a family of women under 5'3". My grandmother
would buy a size 4 petite and would have to have it both taken in and
hemmed! My aunt and my female cousins (all except one,who ended up
being 5'10") all have the same problem--which is why I was joking
about wanting to buy something that actually needed hemming.:) I've
had the un-nice experience of having to get hems lengthened or, even
worse, getting something that is the perfect length, only to have it
shrink in the dryer!
As for men's dry cleaning being cheaper than women's--I'm right there
with you! Maybe it's along the same principle that men can go into a
store, buy a suit, and get it altered right there on the premises,
usually for free. Whereas women can go into a store, buy a suit, and
then be told we have to go somewhere else to have it tailored, which
will then cost an arm and a leg!
Jean Sue Libkind
> As for men's dry cleaning being cheaper than women's--I'm right there
> with you! Maybe it's along the same principle that men can go into a
> store, buy a suit, and get it altered right there on the premises,
> usually for free. Whereas women can go into a store, buy a suit, and
> then be told we have to go somewhere else to have it tailored, which
> will then cost an arm and a leg!
Neither is fair, IMO.
But then, why aren't there more stalls in the women's rooms than the men's
and why do we always have to stand in line to pee?
js
Jean Sue Libkind
lethal...@aol.com wrote on 5/22/03 2:31 AM:
> Of course, the fact that I spent 2 days writing a brief on how body odor was
> NOT covered by the ADA ("Americans with Disabilities Act") probably has
> something to do with it. <sigh>
>
sounds like a stinky job, to me.
js
Lethal Injectn
>"Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote
>> You've reminded me of a French expression: "Tout ce qui est petit est
mignonne; tout ce qui est grands est cons...."
>>
>> I used to use that a lot.
>Reminds me of a good English expression:
>
>"Sour grapes."
:-P
>SusanC
====================
That response is typical of a giant....
<G>
Lethal Injectn
=========================
I refuse to blame our gender (and its fashion sense) for the dry-cleaning
situation. <g>
When I worked in SF, the disparity was so enormous that there was talk of
bringing a lawsuit on the basis of gender discrimination and, IIRC, thoughts of
lobbying the (state) legislature to pass a statute regulating the industry. I
wish I knew what happened to the whole thing. Either way, I'm sure it was a
woman's idea. ;)
Lethal Injectn
>Neither is fair, IMO.
>
>But then, why aren't there more stalls in the women's rooms than the men's and
why do we always have to stand in line to pee?
I have an easy answer for that one ... :P
But don't get me started on anything relating to biological functions and
differences; I have a whole list of things which are unfair when it comes to
that arena!!!!!
jflexer
was this body odor due to someone with poor hygeine or a glandular disorder?
At my first job in high school, one of the full-timers had HORRIFIC body
odor due to a glandular disorder of some sort... Nothing to be done about
it but thank heavens I didn't have to sit next to him all day...
either way - a martini is certainly in order! (when is it never NOT!?)
-J
Holly W.
I wish the women's shoe industry would wise up and realize that not
all women's feet are a B width. I love gorgeous shoes, but hate being
crunched into a too-narrow width. I have friends who also have very
narrow feet, and can't find anything to properly fit them either. And
yet every man I know can walk into a men's shoe store or department
and find the right width for them! And a pair of beautifully-made
men's shoes will cost half--or even less than half--of what a
similar-quality pair of women's shoes would cost.
I'm all for a revolt against this inequality right here and now!:)
Lethal Injectn
>>was this body odor due to someone with poor hygeine or a glandular disorder?
At my first job in high school, one of the full-timers had HORRIFIC body odor
due to a glandular disorder of some sort... Nothing to be done about it but
thank heavens I didn't have to sit next to him all day...>>
It was the result of a growing social disease called "I don't wanta worka so
let me sue-a" but in answer to your question, poor hygiene. However, even if
it had been due to glandular disorder, an employer is not under an obligation
to accommodate someone when the (alleged) disability doesn't even impact their
work, let alone have anything to do with it. This sort of lawsuit really
irritates me because it dilutes the serious situation faced by people with real
disabilities and it *certainly* wasn't what the Act was intended for.
>>either way - a martini is certainly in order! (when is it never NOT!?)>>
According to the "Sex and the City" episode I watched last night, the answer to
that would be 9 a.m. in the offices of Vogue. ;)
Lethal Injectn
>Don't you use the DOT?
>
>A
Those are industry classifications on specific occupations as opposed to Andy's
humorous take on class structures as created by capitalization.
To answer your specific question, however, I use it very rarely because it
simply isn't that helpful or necessary for my work.
Lethal Injectn
>>
I wish the women's shoe industry would wise up and realize that not all women's
feet are a B width. I love gorgeous shoes, but hate being crunched into a
too-narrow width. I have friends who also have very narrow feet, and can't
find anything to properly fit them either. And yet every man I know can walk
into a men's shoe store or department and find the right width for them! And a
pair of beautifully-made men's shoes will cost half--or even less than half--of
what a similar-quality pair of women's shoes would cost.
I'm all for a revolt against this inequality right here and now!:)>>
=================
LOL. Sign me up!! Which inequality do you want to attack first? <G>
jflexer
just for the record, if you start the war, I'm going to demand sofa's in the
men's room!! and if I cry, the cop can't give me a ticket! and... and...
-J
jflexer
> >From: "jflexer"
>
> >>was this body odor due to someone with poor hygeine or a glandular
disorder?
> At my first job in high school, one of the full-timers had HORRIFIC body
odor
> due to a glandular disorder of some sort... Nothing to be done about it
but
> thank heavens I didn't have to sit next to him all day...>>
>
> It was the result of a growing social disease called "I don't wanta worka
so
> let me sue-a" but in answer to your question, poor hygiene. However, even
if
> it had been due to glandular disorder, an employer is not under an
obligation
> to accommodate someone when the (alleged) disability doesn't even impact
their
> work, let alone have anything to do with it. This sort of lawsuit really
> irritates me because it dilutes the serious situation faced by people with
real
> disabilities and it *certainly* wasn't what the Act was intended for.
Of course not. It is a tough thing, employment law.
In Los Angeles, I've been told by two different lawyers (one a worker's
comp, the other who occasionally deals with employment cases) the common
knowledge is that if an employer is sued in the downtown courts, they will
almost certainly lose the case, regardless, because those courts are so
biased toward the employee... lots of ridiculous cases have been lost or
settled due to those courts and employers desire not to bother with trial...
if it were glandular, they couldn't term a person cause they suffer from
odor... they'd have to figure out a way to allow them to work, without
forcing co-workers tolerate the odor... correct? of course, I agree, that
in either case, is not sufficient for an employee to claim disability or
bias and sue the pants off of an employer.
If that changes, let me know... I could not shower for awhile, if I'd never
have to work and could still draw my paycheck!!
> >>either way - a martini is certainly in order! (when is it never
NOT!?)>>
>
> According to the "Sex and the City" episode I watched last night, the
answer to
> that would be 9 a.m. in the offices of Vogue. ;)
hahahah I've seen that episode!
I love the series! (yeah... like that would suprise anyone)
Lethal Injectn
>>Then, you don't handle Social Security disability/re-employment cases? Or
your state's equivalence of Workers' Compensation cases?
No. Never done a single one of either. Everyone at my firm pretty much
sub-specializes. For example,some people only handle ERISA, some only do OSHA,
while others only do NLRB or labor work, etc. etc. My work has almost
exclusively revolved around sexual harassment, the ADA, and wrongful
termination. And I'm very happy to keep it that way :)
Susan Cohen
"Holly W." <Holl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:95c48218.0305...@posting.google.com...
> "Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:<3eccd...@vienna7.his.com>...
> > "Lethal Injectn" <lethal...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030522024145...@mb-m25.aol.com...
> > >
> > > While I'm on a clothing rant, will someone explain to me just *WHY*
men's
> > > dry-cleaning is cheaper than mine for almost the **exact** same items
of
> > > clothing?????
> >
> > For the same reason that men's clothes do not change as radically &
their
> > shoes are better made. Women are stupid, & will put up with that crap.
:-)
> >
> > SusanC
> > >
> > >
>
> I wish the women's shoe industry would wise up and realize that not
> all women's feet are a B width. I love gorgeous shoes, but hate being
> crunched into a too-narrow width.
I'm on the opposite side of that, I'm a narrow shoe.
Susan Cohen
Intellectual, of course....
:-P
SusanC
>
Lethal Injectn
>>
In Los Angeles, I've been told by two different lawyers (one a worker's comp,
the other who occasionally deals with employment cases) the common
knowledge is that if an employer is sued in the downtown courts, they will
almost certainly lose the case, regardless, because those courts are so biased
toward the employee... lots of ridiculous cases have been lost or settled due
to those courts and employers desire not to bother with trial...>>
I've never practiced in LA but it was exactly that way in SF. Even ignoring the
liberal slant of the jury pool, the real problem is Calif.'s state laws. The
Ninth Circuit's... er.... interesting spin on federal law adds insult to
injury, as does the fee-shifting situation.
The resulting situation is that employees and plaintiff lawyers have a lot to
gain by sending a demand letter which essentially states "pay me a nuisance fee
or I will sue."
It's even worse when it comes to sexual harassment cases. The "he said/she
said" (or same gender equivalent of a factual dispute) makes it hard to toss
such cases out as a matter of law, either on summary judgment or earlier. So
the outcome is really limited to either trial or settlement.
Which brings us back to the blackmailing letter.....
(More than you ever wanted to know about the situation, huh? lol)
=====================
>>if it were glandular, they couldn't term a person cause they suffer from
odor... they'd have to figure out a way to allow them to work, without
forcing co-workers tolerate the odor... correct? of course, I agree, that
in either case, is not sufficient for an employee to claim disability or
bias and sue the pants off of an employer.>>
Yes, correct, one can't terminate because of a disability. However, one
California case has found that a glandular-based odor problem isn't a
"disability" within the meaning of the term.
With regard to the rest of your comments, I'm not sure if you're asking me a
specific question or not. Assuming you are (and that your question is how
employers should handle such a situation), it depends on the employee's work
performance, if the employee is asking for anything or if it's just a manager's
dilemma due to coworker complaints, and numerous other factors too.
Without actual specific facts to work with, all I can say is that employers
should act as they would with any sticky problem:
(1) don't single out the employee for negative attention in front of others
(sounds obvious, doesn't it? Well, you'd be surprised at how many managers
don't get that basic point);
(2) document, document, document; and, (3) use tact in dealing with the
employee.
>>>If that changes, let me know... I could not shower for awhile, if I'd never
have to work and could still draw my paycheck!!<<
And drink Martinis at 9 a.m.!!! ;)
Lethal Injectn
>>just for the record, if you start the war, I'm going to demand sofa's in the
men's room!! and if I cry, the cop can't give me a ticket! and... and...
-J
>>
If you people had to actually WAIT in line in the men's room, then I think you
should get a sofa too! But you don't have to wait, so you don't get one. :P
Besides, sofas are hardly the norm in the ladies' room. <sniff>
As for the getting out of a ticket because of crying, okay, whomever has
managed this trick, please raise your hand. Because I've never met a woman yet
who had success with this and I think it's just a myth.
So, what's your next argument on how women have it better?? Come on and put
your dukes up because I'm ready to take you on. <g> But before I do, maybe I
should warn you that some friends and I had a huge debate on this exact issue
just last weekend. The women won that round hands down..... hehehe.
Holly W.
Shoes first--then bathroom stalls!;)
aMAZon
I'd been told it's because men's shirts will fit on standard ironing
equipment with no particular adjustments, while women's are too small,
and must be done by hand. I don't necessarily buy that, though, because
I'm larger than average, and I have to pay extra as well.
--
aMAZon
zeszutko at nycap.rr.com
"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
His Jadedness Andy
>equipment with no particular adjustments, while women's are too small,
>and must be done by hand. I don't necessarily buy that, though, because
>I'm larger than average, and I have to pay extra as well.
>
>--
>aMAZon
>zeszutko at nycap.rr.com
>"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
Actually it is because most women's clothing is more delicate, has more makeup
stains, and in general requires more handling. <G>.
jflexer
"aMAZon" <zeszutk...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3ECD3FA8...@nycap.rr.com...
I don't disbelieve that is the "excuse" given, but how about designing
machinery that adjusts to fit the size, or has a woman's standard and a
men's standard... I mean, we're waaay past not having the ability to design
flexible machinery!
A better "excuse" would be "because women's clothing are so poorly made that
they require special handling not needed by the sturder men's clothing."
I've never understood why "regular" women's clothes are so often crappy - I
can only guess that the intent is that they wear out sooner, to encourage
woman to by new fashions... bah!
Jean Sue Libkind
wrote on 5/22/03 6:04 PM:
> I've never understood why "regular" women's clothes are so often crappy - I
> can only guess that the intent is that they wear out sooner, to encourage
> woman to by new fashions... bah!
I'm not sure why, either, but it is true. Unless one pays courtier prices,
most seams, etc., are terribly made. They never would have passed Mother's
inspection, I can tell you that.
Time was when hand-made clothes were looked down on but, today, they are far
superior.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
at agh...@aol.commonMkt wrote on 5/22/03 6:02 PM:
> Actually it is because most women's clothing is more delicate, has more makeup
> stains, and in general requires more handling. <G>.
>
Given some of the professional men I see, "more makeup" is relative.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
Hah! Try finding a size 5EE shoe some time.
js
Jean Sue Libkind
wrote on 5/22/03 3:30 PM:
> just for the record, if you start the war, I'm going to demand sofa's in the
> men's room!! and if I cry, the cop can't give me a ticket! and... and...
>
> -J
OK, but in exchange, you will menstruate... with cramps.
js
Lethal Injectn
js
===============
I was keeping the big guns like that one out until later but since you've
started, let me add to your list:
1- menstruation and cramps (as you noted)
2- waxing or shaving. (Jeff, don't mention shaving because we have to deal
with much greater swathes of skin than the majority of men ever do! ) I won't
even bring up the pain factor involved with waxing certain areas.....
3- menopause
4- Nine months of pregnancy accompanied by endless vomiting, back pains and
more
5- High heels. Need I say more? lol
6- The "glass ceiling," esp. with regard to executive positions at the very top
of corporations
7- And the biggest one of them all: childbirth
I could go on but I'm starting to become depressed ;)
Lethal Injectn
>
>I'd been told it's because men's shirts will fit on standard ironing equipment
with no particular adjustments, while women's are too small,
and must be done by hand. I don't necessarily buy that, though, because I'm
larger than average, and I have to pay extra as well.
>--
>aMAZon
>zeszutko at nycap.rr.com
>"It's never too late to have a happy childhood."
>>Actually it is because most women's clothing is more delicate, has more
makeup stains, and in general requires more handling. <G>.
===============
Both these arguments would make more sense than the one I was told once, long
ago: men's shirts button differently (ie, on a different side) so it costs less
to dry clean them. I still don't understand how people can make that argument
with a straight face.
I actually Googled this issue a few moments ago and found some interesting
results. Apparently, gender-based pricing is quite an issue. If you read the
articles you will see some pretty astounding differences between the
items/service and one of the problems that is always raised is my hot-button
issue of dry-cleaning. One article noted, "[t]he price difference for
button-up cotton shirts ranged from $3.75 to $0.25 at an average of $2.05."
Then there is what Hollie noted about hemming/tailoring clothes. According to
the last article I've cited, a woman paid $40-$50 for alterations to a suit she
bought at Sak's while her husband got alterations to his suit done for free.
Anyway, the 3 articles and links are below. I hope they are of interest.
==========================
1- http://www.canoe.ca/LifewiseWorkOffice00/0508_dawn.html
This article actually raises some of the points mentioned by Jeff and Amazon
regarding size of women's clothing and machinery:
(excerpt)--- "Drycleaning equity is another place we have yet to wake up in the
West. One of the major drycleaners in Edmonton told me the charge to clean a
woman's shirt is $5.75 and a man's is $1.85, explaining that a woman's shirt is
smaller (usually) and therefore has to be hand-pressed. So why hasn't anyone
invented a smaller press when a large portion of their customers are women?"
======================
2- http://www.wa-now.org/pp/gender_pricing.html
Excerpt from that link (this one lists some pretty incredible disparities in
price and they are not limited to just one state either):
"Research has shown that every day, women pay more than men do for virtually
identical goods and services.
In a 1994 study in 5 major California cities, the California Assembly Office of
Research found that 40% of hair salons contacted charged higher prices for
women than men for basic haircuts; and that 64% of dry cleaning services
charged more to launder a woman'’s shirt than a man'’s shirt. This
California Assembly report (which was the basis for California outlawing gender
based pricing in 1995) concluded that such overcharging amounted to $1,350 a
year per woman.
In Massachusetts, the state attorney general'’s office sent surveys to dry
cleaners to determine prices for men's and women'’s shirts. The results
showed that women were being charged up to $2.50 more per item.
Two out of every three haircutters surveyed by the New York City Department of
Consumer Affairs charged women 25 percent more than men for a basic shampoo,
haircut, and blow dry, averaging $20.00 for women versus $16.00 for men.
A 1995 survey of Olympia businesses found women were paying more for the same
services at a number of establishments. Eighty - six percent of the dry
cleaners surveyed charged women more. The price difference for button-up cotton
shirts ranged from $3.75 to $0.25 at an average of $2.05. Thirty-six percent of
haircutting establishments charged women more than they charged men for a basic
short-hair haircut. The price differences for haircuts ranged from $15.00 to
$2.00, at an average of $5.58.
A 1996 survey, requested by the state legislature, of Washington State
businesses found women in a large percentage of cases were paying more for the
same services. Seventy-one percent of the dry cleaners surveyed charged more to
clean a woman'’s shirt than a ma'n’s shirt. The price difference ranged
between $0.01 and $3.45, with an average difference of $1.23. For a basic
haircut, women were charged more than men by 61 percent of the businesses
surveyed. For those businesses that charged women more than men, women paid
between $1.00 and $20.00 more, costing women on average $3.07 more than a man
for a basic haircut.
Many department stores across the country charge women for alterations, while
not charging men for similar alterations (i.e., shortening/hemming sleeves and
cuffs).
There are establishments that do not charge differently for services provided
to women and men. And there are very few establishments that charge men more
than women. So why don'’t women simply "vote with their dollars" and avoid
gender based pricing? This bill would provide all people with equal access to
services.
Asking women to "shop around", while men can receive "gender tax" free pricing
at establishments nearest their homes does not provide equality. It says that
women should have to invest their time and essentially work harder to receive
the same service as offered to men. For women who make on average seventy cents
to each man'’s dollar, gender based pricing is costly. This is not a women
versus men issue; it is a consumer issue."
===========================
3- http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/01/09/us/us.5.html
An excerpt from that article:
"N.Y.C. Joins Fight to Equalize The Cost of a Clean Shirt
NEW YORK -- Peggy Becker and her husband, Rob, both bought suits at Saks Fifth
Avenue. Ms. Becker paid $40 to $50 for alterations, while her husband's suit
was tailored for free.
"That's sort of unfair," says Ms. Becker, a lawyer. But Saks argues it needs to
charge for the service.
"The truth is it does cost more for women," says Eilene Isaacs, director of
alterations for Saks.
The debate is part of the fabric of new laws that prohibit "gender-based
pricing," by which women pay more than men do for the same services, such as
haircuts or dry cleaning. Over the next few years, it is likely to intensify as
more states move to enact "gender pricing equity" laws or to try cases under
current antidiscrimination statutes."
jflexer
you may have a point on some of these, but don't complain to me about high
heels... I know exactly why your complaining, and it aint that bad. I have
pictures that can illustrate my experience!! G!
As far as the depilitory maintenance goes, you've lost way more ground on
that in the past 10 years than you may be aware. Lots of men, regardless of
sexuality, shave, wax, electrocute, and laser huge swath's of body hair.
And if you're a man who is doing that, we've got many more swaths of much
coarser hair... (we've got hair everywhere women do, plus beards, chests,
backs...) There is no greater cosmetic pain that having your chest waxed...
as far as cramps and menstration... yeah, that's a bummer... but I give you
testicular binding and getting kicked/hit to offset that.
As far as pregnancy and childbirth... well... don't get pregnant! I'm not
planning on it... G!
-J