Latest Update on the Senate Health Care Bill — Monday at 4 p.m. ET. Watch Facebook Live

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,408
Registered: ‎03-04-2009

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 1 of 105 (176 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

rker321 wrote:


Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - off topic and busted by the "topic police".
That was posted in an effort share understandings with my fellow posters and it did begin with no pretense about defending O'Reilly. The words used were, "I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules".

 


 


I believe that I wrote a very clear post regarding the "new rules"  hoping that they provided the information requested. just in case that those rules were not known before.


And I believe I was quite clearly responding to the issue of another poster.



rk9152 wrote:

rker321 wrote:


Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - off topic and busted by the "topic police".
That was posted in an effort share understandings with my fellow posters and it did begin with no pretense about defending O'Reilly. The words used were, "I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules".

 


 


I believe that I wrote a very clear post regarding the "new rules"  hoping that they provided the information requested. just in case that those rules were not known before.


And I believe I was quite clearly responding to the issue of another poster.


Oh  dear!!!!!  I must have missed it. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 26,384
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 2 of 105 (178 Views)

rker321 wrote:


Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - off topic and busted by the "topic police".
That was posted in an effort share understandings with my fellow posters and it did begin with no pretense about defending O'Reilly. The words used were, "I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules".

 


 


I believe that I wrote a very clear post regarding the "new rules"  hoping that they provided the information requested. just in case that those rules were not known before.


And I believe I was quite clearly responding to the issue of another poster.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,408
Registered: ‎03-04-2009

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 3 of 105 (181 Views)


Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - off topic and busted by the "topic police".
That was posted in an effort share understandings with my fellow posters and it did begin with no pretense about defending O'Reilly. The words used were, "I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules".

 


 


I believe that I wrote a very clear post regarding the "new rules"  hoping that they provided the information requested. just in case that those rules were not known before.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 26,384
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 4 of 105 (184 Views)

alferdpacker wrote:

That's off topic -  the topic is NOT whether or not your significant other wants to be seen as attractive and gather compliments.

That has absolutely no parallel with O'Rielly's case.

O'Reilly's comments were not welcome. and he knew it - his statements cannot be believed - that he's a Republican Liar has been a firmly established and documented fact for over a decade.

O'Reilly got fired for acting unacceptably in addition to - between O'Reilly and Ailes - costing their employer $85 million.

Stupid is as stupid does...


Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa - off topic and busted by the "topic police".
That was posted in an effort share understandings with my fellow posters and it did begin with no pretense about defending O'Reilly. The words used were, "I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules".

 


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,324
Registered: ‎10-25-2011

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

[ Edited ]
Message 5 of 105 (196 Views)

pc6063 wrote:

Myexper-- I saw that interview with that young lady , and it was clear that it did upset her that he continuously called her "hot chocolate." 

 Now,  here's a test most good old boys don't want to think about. how would they feel if their wife went to work and was sexually harassed by anybody?  

You can bet that a heartbeat wouldn't go past before the man was out the door on his way down to the place of the woman's employment.

 

 It doesn't matter who did it, whether it was O'Reilly or Joe from dowm the street. What matters is that it was done, and it was wrong. 

Anyone who uses the  power that he or she has in the workplace to harass or to demean anybody,  needs to leave.

 Again I will ask,  what if one of the victims was your wife?


Excellent point! 

 

Completely debunks simple PC looking at sexual comments from that perspective!

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 23,226
Registered: ‎07-11-2013

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 6 of 105 (210 Views)

rk9152 wrote:


There were legitimate questions in there, not something to elicit insults or snark.

 

Again, if a woman chooses to look as attractive as she can, is it offensive to compliment her appearance?

 

Why would you insult my bride? It may well be she cares about her appearance and appreciates compliments.

 

That's off topic -  the topic is NOT whether or not your significant other wants to be seen as attractive and gather compliments.

That has absolutely no parallel with O'Rielly's case.

 

O'Reilly's comments were not welcome. and he knew it - his statements cannot be believed - that he's a Republican Liar has been a firmly established and documented fact for over a decade.

 

O'Reilly got fired for acting unacceptably in addition to - between O'Reilly and Ailes - costing their employer $85 million.

 

Stupid is as stupid does...

 

 

 

 


 

KAKISTOCRACY
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 26,384
Registered: ‎02-21-2014

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 7 of 105 (226 Views)

rker321 wrote:

Right here in this message board is the best example as to why and how these men used to flourish  in the past.


rk9152 wrote:

I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules. For example, if a woman goes to considerable lengths to look attractive, is it offensive for a man to point out that she looks attractive?  To actually state that just because a wome tries to be as attractive as she possibly can. if the man offers a compliment that is classy and not in any manner inappropiate ie. "Mary, you look nice today."  there is nothing bad about that. but if a man simply tells a woman in an office environment "Hey chick, you look hot today" that may be considered offensive. and of course low class.
It's in the words, the actions the look that is directed at parts of a female body, I don't think that I have to point out etiquette on any male in this message board for them not to know or feigh to know what is proper and what is not. Please!!!!! give me a break.

 

On a regular basis I look at my bride appreciatively and say, "Love ya, Babe". Am I a male chauvinist pig for the looks or the words? 
You can tell your bride whatever you want.as any husband has done for centuries. and I am sure that if "his bride" has any feeling for the husband will not find anything innaproprrate on his words. Perhaps the reaction of a bride stating that he is a chauvist pig could be because she is already looking for  an  attorney. But I am sure that you already knew that.





There were legitimate questions in there, not something to elicit insults or snark.

 

Again, if a woman chooses to look as attractive as she can, is it offensive to compliment her appearance?

 

Why would you insult my bride? It may well be she cares about her appearance and appreciates compliments.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 3,535
Registered: ‎01-24-2014

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 8 of 105 (239 Views)

Myexper-- I saw that interview with that young lady , and it was clear that it did upset her that he continuously called her "hot chocolate." 

 Now,  here's a test most good old boys don't want to think about. how would they feel if their wife went to work and was sexually harassed by anybody?  

You can bet that a heartbeat wouldn't go past before the man was out the door on his way down to the place of the woman's employment.

 

 It doesn't matter who did it, whether it was O'Reilly or Joe from dowm the street. What matters is that it was done, and it was wrong. 

Anyone who uses the  power that he or she has in the workplace to harass or to demean anybody,  needs to leave.

 Again I will ask,  what if one of the victims was your wife?


politics, cats, kids, and dogs!!
Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,324
Registered: ‎10-25-2011

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

[ Edited ]
Message 9 of 105 (249 Views)

rk9152 wrote:

Since I was not present I obviously have no idea as to anything O'Reilly said or the context but all of this does truly illustrate our our definition of terms has gone askew.

 

I saw one of his accusers on TV the other day. She complained that he once said, "Lookin' good, girl".

 

I have no idea what she looked like at the time of the comment but the woman I saw was very attractive, she was, in fact, "Lookin' good". More than that her clothes, hairstyle and makeup clearly indicated that "Lookin' good" was her intent.

 

Her other complaint was that the word "girl" had slave connotations. On the other hand, she was, I believe, an intern at the time and O'Reilly was no spring chicken. So, could the meaning not have been more innocent?

 

There were other claims made and, again, I wasn't there so I have no idea - but that particular one indicates how strange our use of the language has become in the interests of PC.


Merely "in the interests of PC"? .... Nooo .... more like in the interests of human dignity!

 

How about the black woman who accused O'Reilly of calling her "hot chocolate"?

 

Old Bill spewed out a double hitter with that brainless comment  .... sexist and racist.

 

The blatant sexism and racism in that single comment would be far beyond your diminishing of "in the interests of PC".

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 21,408
Registered: ‎03-04-2009

Re: 21ST CENTURY FOX HAS JUST ANNOUNCED THAT BILL O'REILLY IS OUT!!

Message 10 of 105 (254 Views)

Right here in this message board is the best example as to why and how these men used to flourish  in the past.


rk9152 wrote:

I hope that the women amongst us understand that it is difficult to interpret the new rules. For example, if a woman goes to considerable lengths to look attractive, is it offensive for a man to point out that she looks attractive?  To actually state that just because a wome tries to be as attractive as she possibly can. if the man offers a compliment that is classy and not in any manner inappropiate ie. "Mary, you look nice today."  there is nothing bad about that. but if a man simply tells a woman in an office environment "Hey chick, you look hot today" that may be considered offensive. and of course low class.
It's in the words, the actions the look that is directed at parts of a female body, I don't think that I have to point out etiquette on any male in this message board for them not to know or feigh to know what is proper and what is not. Please!!!!! give me a break.

 

On a regular basis I look at my bride appreciatively and say, "Love ya, Babe". Am I a male chauvinist pig for the looks or the words? 
You can tell your bride whatever you want.as any husband has done for centuries. and I am sure that if "his bride" has any feeling for the husband will not find anything innaproprrate on his words. Perhaps the reaction of a bride stating that he is a chauvist pig could be because she is already looking for  an  attorney. But I am sure that you already knew that.