From: Holly (dlvdisc@geekbabe.com)
Date: Wed Aug 04 2010 - 10:49:06 CDT
Wow... lots of exercise today... stretching the truth, jumping to
conclusions, and so on.
> ok, I need to rephrase more directly since this
> isn't being understood correctly.
How about taking ownership of your statements instead of constantly
trying to spin them?
> As Annie stated, the person wearing the gown
> at Bahama Breeze is a closed issue. Everyone
> enjoyed themselves. For some, they commented
> and concerned about not enjoying the event as
> much as others because of what one person wore
> and how it was way outside the guidelines.
Everyone enjoyed the event but some not as much because of what ONE
person was wearing? You can't have it both ways. And you keep saying
what she was wearing was "way outside the guidelines." Really? Do you
know what the dress notes in the LFM said about the dress for the
function? It said. "Nice casual to dressy." A gown such as she was
wearing certainly was dressy and therefore within the guidelines.
> This was discussed and ended. The problem is
> when someone affects the enjoyment of a event
> because of the behavior or dress of someone else.
If it has been discussed and ended, then why does it keep being brought
up? And with all due respect, I disagree with your statement of the
problem. The problem is not the dress of someone else. The problem is
the observer of the dress of someone else.
> I personally agree that she looked good, she looked
> very nice and beautiful in that gown. I have no
> problems with that.
And yet here we are continuing to discuss it.
> Again, that wasn't the issue of the comments. The
> issue focused on was, was that gown appropriate to
> wear at that event. It wasn't. Question answered.
> It has nothing to do with being hypercritical. The
> comments questions why it was allowed, and that
> too was answered. End of issue.
I disagree. As stated above, the dress in question was within the
guideline published for the event and therefore was appropriate.
> But it has since turned into being critical of what that
> person was wearing, basically attacking those that
> made those comments, mis-understanding what they
> had commented on as being hypercritical of what
> someone else was wearing. Also now it has been added to
> this discussion, about setting criteria for some that
> they should consider NOT attending DLV, if you were
> affected by what that person wore.
Would you be so kind to show us where there was even a suggestion that
criteria be established for people not come to DLV? Since this comment
is being directed at me, I will respond. Here is exactly what I said,
"To those who feel they have to be critical of others choices, perhaps
you need to learn how to be happier and more confident in yourselves.
If you can't, then maybe DLV is not the right fit for you." I said it
and I stand by it. If anyone can't be accepting and tolerant of others
differences, then DLV probobly is not a good place for them to be. You
are going to see people do things that maybe you would not do yourself.
Why would anyone go to someplace knowing that they are going to be
uncomfortable? Of course, that determination must be made by each
individual. But in no case does that give anyone the right to cloud up
and rain over someone else.
> Yes what one wears can be fun to that person wearing
> it, and those that accept it, but what of those that
> have the right to think differently, and it negatively
> affects them? Your responses is to tell them to stay away.
And your response is what? Have them conform to your negativity?
> What if these others start dressing differently because of
> this initial person, and what they wear now offends
> others including the one that wore the gown. It will
> landslide and affect more and more people.
Wow. Wow. Speculation run ramput. As much as Chicken Little
proclaimed that the sky was falling, it didn't happen. Nor is what you
are suggesting even plausable.
> Now addressing Bob...
I'll let Bob speak for himself. He is quite capable of speaking up for
himself.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 18 2010 - 10:16:16 CST