EnviroLink Forum
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/

somebody owes somebody else a huge apology.
http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1893
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:32 pm ]
Post subject: 

oinks wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Quote:
BTW, "petals", should be, "petaphiles", I know I typed both those worse so can't say what happened.


There's no sexual implication with "Petaphile"- the definition is "one who greatly admires all things related to and involving PETA", similar to someone who is an anglophile, who admires England and all things English.
Hope that helps.


Well yes, Oinks, if you take the word quite literally and ignore the context, the obvious intention to be insulting and the obvious similarity to, "paedophiles".




"PETA" + phile. Why wouldn't you take it literally? You, of ALL people?

You're looking for insult where there is none.



Kinda a teflonic moment which Sandra never adjusted to. :lol: :wink:

Author:  Sandra John [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:37 am ]
Post subject: 

oinks wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Quote:
BTW, "petals", should be, "petaphiles", I know I typed both those worse so can't say what happened.


There's no sexual implication with "Petaphile"- the definition is "one who greatly admires all things related to and involving PETA", similar to someone who is an anglophile, who admires England and all things English.
Hope that helps.


Well yes, Oinks, if you take the word quite literally and ignore the context, the obvious intention to be insulting and the obvious similarity to, "paedophiles".


PETA" + phile. Why wouldn't you take it literally? You, of ALL people?


I think I just told you why I wouldn't take it quite literally Oinks viz: the obviously hostile attitude and frequent use of insulting comments(not infrequently including sexual references) of the Poster who uses this term.

Quote:
You're looking for insult where there is none.


How do you know what I am looking for Oinks? It may be that I have seen insult where none was intended but that is a different matter. As to me, "of all people": what is the point of that remark? I take semantic seriously and I certainly don't insist on the literal meaning of words just to slide out of a connotation I've been relying on. I don't rely on them without specifying my meaning either.

Quote:
Kinda a teflonic moment which Sandra never adjusted to. :lol: :wink:


So, what does, "Petafile", mean Donnie? You coined this word I believe. Does it mean, as you've said elsewhere, someone who, "files", a lot of material on the internet in support of PETA? Or, does it mean a "lover of PETA", as Oinks suggests? If the first please be advised that people don't, "file", information on the internet they, "post", it. If the latter, please be advised that, in that case, the spelling should be, "PETAphile".

In any case I still say there is insult in the usage. At the very least it suggests that anyone who supports PETA is an unthinking, over emotional follower and not an independent minded person.

Author:  Donnie Mac Leod [ Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:56 am ]
Post subject: 

Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Quote:
BTW, "petals", should be, "petaphiles", I know I typed both those worse so can't say what happened.


There's no sexual implication with "Petaphile"- the definition is "one who greatly admires all things related to and involving PETA", similar to someone who is an anglophile, who admires England and all things English.
Hope that helps.


Well yes, Oinks, if you take the word quite literally and ignore the context, the obvious intention to be insulting and the obvious similarity to, "paedophiles".


PETA" + phile. Why wouldn't you take it literally? You, of ALL people?


I think I just told you why I wouldn't take it quite literally Oinks viz: the obviously hostile attitude and frequent use of insulting comments(not infrequently including sexual references) of the Poster who uses this term.

Quote:
You're looking for insult where there is none.


How do you know what I am looking for Oinks? It may be that I have seen insult where none was intended but that is a different matter. As to me, "of all people": what is the point of that remark? I take semantic seriously and I certainly don't insist on the literal meaning of words just to slide out of a connotation I've been relying on. I don't rely on them without specifying my meaning either.

Quote:
Kinda a teflonic moment which Sandra never adjusted to. :lol: :wink:


So, what does, "Petafile", mean Donnie? You coined this word I believe. Does it mean, as you've said elsewhere, someone who, "files", a lot of material on the internet in support of PETA? Or, does it mean a "lover of PETA", as Oinks suggests? If the first please be advised that people don't, "file", information on the internet they, "post", it. If the latter, please be advised that, in that case, the spelling should be, "PETAphile".

In any case I still say there is insult in the usage. At the very least it suggests that anyone who supports PETA is an unthinking, over emotional follower and not an independent minded person.





In other words you want to pretend their is sexual connotations in the usage and ignore the real purpose in describing PETAFILES. That is your problem Sandra. Not mine and you just gave some good adjectives to add to its use. Funny how you got bent out of shape over PETAfile and completely missed the links being made between serial killers , child molesters , and hunters. In fact you requested Ranka apologize to me for the link she made in her article and then proceeded to agree with her on the ecofeminst papers. You might think you are wearing a coat as thick as buffalo ro be but yours is as transparent as a shear nightie Sandra. When you finished telling Ranka how to apologize for her poor taste ,I was more insulted by your agreement with her original statements. PETAfiles are not necessarily child molesters but they certainly can be accused of preying on the minds of children with the ignorant school yard campaigns they have taken part in.

Author:  Sandra John [ Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:45 am ]
Post subject: 

Donnie Macleod wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
Donnie Macleod wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Sandra John wrote:
oinks wrote:
Quote:
BTW, "petals", should be, "petaphiles", I know I typed both those worse so can't say what happened.


There's no sexual implication with "Petaphile"- the definition is "one who greatly admires all things related to and involving PETA", similar to someone who is an anglophile, who admires England and all things English.
Hope that helps.


Well yes, Oinks, if you take the word quite literally and ignore the context, the obvious intention to be insulting and the obvious similarity to, "paedophiles".


PETA" + phile. Why wouldn't you take it literally? You, of ALL people?


I think I just told you why I wouldn't take it quite literally Oinks viz: the obviously hostile attitude and frequent use of insulting comments(not infrequently including sexual references) of the Poster who uses this term.


You're looking for insult where there is none.


How do you know what I am looking for Oinks? It may be that I have seen insult where none was intended but that is a different matter. As to me, "of all people": what is the point of that remark? I take semantic seriously and I certainly don't insist on the literal meaning of words just to slide out of a connotation I've been relying on. I don't rely on them without specifying my meaning either.


Kinda a teflonic moment which Sandra never adjusted to. :lol: :wink:


So, what does, "Petafile", mean Donnie? You coined this word I believe. Does it mean, as you've said elsewhere, someone who, "files", a lot of material on the internet in support of PETA? Or, does it mean a "lover of PETA", as Oinks suggests? If the first please be advised that people don't, "file", information on the internet they, "post", it. If the latter, please be advised that, in that case, the spelling should be, "PETAphile".

In any case I still say there is insult in the usage. At the very least it suggests that anyone who supports PETA is an unthinking, over emotional follower and not an independent minded person.


In other words you want to pretend their is sexual connotations in the usage and ignore the real purpose in describing PETAFILES. That is your problem Sandra. Not mine and you just gave some good adjectives to add to its use.


No, in the same words Donnie, the above is how your epithet strikes me. If my interpretation is wrong why not explain how? You tell me, what is the "real purpose", is using the term, 'PETAFILES"?

Quote:
Funny how you got bent out of shape over PETAfile and completely missed the links being made between serial killers , child molesters , and hunters.


I didn't miss the links. It's a thesis in psychology.

Quote:
In fact you requested Ranka apologize to me for the link she made in her article and then proceeded to agree with her on the ecofeminst papers.


I asked Ranka to apologise for seeming to suggest that you were a paedophile Donnie. That's a far cry from an academic thesis suggesting a psychological link between hunting, child abuse and serial killing.

Quote:
You might think you are wearing a coat as thick as buffalo ro be but yours is as transparent as a shear nightie Sandra.


Why,"as a sheer nightie", Donnie? Why not just say you think my motives are transparent? Why, when you constantly use such images, are you surprised when people accuse you of frequent sexual / sexist innuendo?

Quote:
When you finished telling Ranka how to apologize for her poor taste ,I was more insulted by your agreement with her original statements.


How can you be so sensitive to such abstruse, indirect and only possible insults to your own self esteem and so insensitive to the insulting nature of your own language to others?

It is obvious that a link can be made between hunting non-humans and hunting humans. The only difference between the cases is in the nature of the quarry.

It is also obvious that a link can be made between sports hunting (which is hunting divorced from survival needs and undertaken with no purpose but pleasure in the hunt and that can be nothing but the serial killing of animals) and, "serial killing", (which may be seen as hunting that has been divorced from its natural object viz: animals, and displaced onto humans).

Equally obviously, there are strong inhibitions against moving from non-human to human, "game", that would prevent any such transition in the vast majority of cases. I don't think it is being seriously suggested that hunters, as a class, are more likely than others to become predators/serial killer of humans.

As I understand it the suggestion is that by tolerating purposeless violence against animals we create a climate of opinion that conduces to greater tolerance of violence against humans and/or that continued (direct or indirect) exposure to such activities may, in vulnerable people, develop a propensity for preying on humans.

I can see why this idea might be challenging to you and other hunters but I see no point in your taking it personally and no reason not to discuss it in a forum devoted to, "animal concerns".

Quote:
PETAfiles are not necessarily child molesters but they certainly can be accused of preying on the minds of children with the ignorant school yard campaigns they have taken part in.


I have seen campaign material from one PTA schoolyard campaign that certainly could be so described. There may be others. I still don't know what you men by, "Petafiles".

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/