Parents should ask babies consent to change nappy.

First topic message reminder :

So says a raving self appointed child expert lunatic. And No....this isn't a joke.
This woman is advising others on how to rear children, she was speaking on Australia's ABC taxpayer funded national  TV station.
In her view, and it's one she advises new parents on, they should ask their babies permission before they change their babies nappy....she does recognise baby cant answer, (so I suppose that's something)  

http://metro.co.uk/2018/05/10/expert-claims-parents-ask-babies-permission-changing-nappies-7536453/.

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:Still waiting Sly, how you think, me responding to liars, allows to defend theM?

You are full of shit and dishonest and I will never trust you ever again

With Eddie, she speaks her mind, you are a coward Sly

I did nothing wrong and Rags and Vintage looked to start. The debate was over. They jumped in with the most prejudiced views ever but hey. Stand in their courner love, I do not care. As you are nothing to me

How nasty Didge. You've insulted Vin and now Syl. Her name is Syl btw, not Sly.  Where has she called you names and Vin was saying the thread was over because she felt you ruined it, I do too.

You would argue in an empty room  now give me a red you're dishing them out like sweets

He was on a roll insulting everyone a couple of days ago, not surprisingly people (including me) logged off and found somewhere to post where they didn't have to wade through realms of shite in order to find a thread that hadn't been dragged down by the resident despot.

Don't worry about it Mags,,,,,he says a lot more about himself than anyone else when he has these all too frequent meltdowns.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

It's also grossly irresponsible for people to produce excessive numbers of children in an already grossly overpopulated world; (this planet could comfortably feed 6 billion people if resources were better managed and food and water distributed fairly and equitably, without the current chronic "free market" wastage;  it is straining at the seams trying to feed 7-and-half billion now;  and yet the global population is expected to pass 10 billion within a few decades  !),

Two bubs could replace the parents, three could be passed off as an accident;  four or more these days is pure selfishness on the parents' part..

People who don't have children --  whether through choice, necessity, or inability --  are clearly far more environmentally responsible and better for this world's health,  than either those selfish and destructive "breeding cow" welfare-mums;  or the sociopathic parents pumping out children for some imaginary racial, personal or religious reasons..

Posted to get the thread back on track

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:Btw these ''childless, PC mad''  women, through their taxes, pay for the  rent, food, health, education, etc  of the kids of mums who stay at home looking after their huge brood of kids.

So to disrespect these taxpaying women or call them 'selfish' is absolutely PERVERSE, under the circs - take note Didge  & co. 

cathy Newman alert

My view throughout this has been on the word child free and how its certainly a very poor choice of words

I never made any such perceived view on whether they pay tax, rent, etc

So the above was again completely irrelevant

The term child free is a poor choice of word, for the many reasons that I stated

Like I said, its gives the perceived view, there is something wrong with having children..

To be free of children.

Its a poor word and why I stated as such

Posted to get the thread back on track

You think its a poor choice of words - others don't, get over it, people are allowed to disagree with you. It's the whole point of this, wouldn't be much point chatting /discussing something if we all agreed all the time. Its also not for you to decide the reason why people, not just women, are childless/childfree. There are many reasons besides being selfish or not wanting the responsibility, what's even wrong with not wanting the responsibility anyway.

Vintage wrote:You think its a poor choice of words - others don't, get over it, people are allowed to disagree with you. It's the whole point of this, wouldn't be much point chatting /discussing something if we all agreed all the time. Its also not for you to decide the reason why people, not just women, are childless/childfree. There are many reasons besides being selfish or not wanting the responsibility, what's even wrong with not wanting the responsibility anyway.

So again, I am not allowed a view, based on some more posters being in disagrement

This is a debate forum, which means I can express my views, 

I am very much allowed to express views on other people

Just as you do daily

Nobody says you cannot, but you seem to think you can with me, simple because you disagre with what I say

So you are the issue here and actually looking to start

Now, you can of course address my point on why I think the wording is wrong or you can ignore it and instead look again to talk about me

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:

A group of media-based women writers who did not want kids got together and decided to describe theselves as that.
They did not insist on being called that and it's not an official classification. That's why you've never heard of it.

"Childfree" puts a positive and gloriously assertive spin on the status of women for whom this is a lifestyle choice.
Seen women in their midtwenties complaining bitterly that their doctors refuse their request to ''sterilise' them.

Why would anyone class themselves as child free, as if that makes it seem like its a desease to have a child?

If people wish to not have children, good luck to them, but such a statement to say child free, is basically a very poor statement.

Would you say "black free"?

"Jew Free"?

And why only the status of women?

It seems such a view, is as about as sexist as it gets with lifestyle

Seems to me that this group of women, have hate issues, that got together and made such a view.

Why did they need to make such a view in the first place?

Nobody is judging them for not having children, so why are they pre judging a view that to be free of children is some how great?

Its like placing a sign on someones head and saying that because you have children, you are not free and they are a burden.

I wonder if any of them told their parents that very same thing?

Here is my first reponse to this

happy for you to counter it Vintage

Over to you

It isn’t selfish to not have children but even if people perceive it as such? So what? What’s wrong with being a little selfish every now and then, if it makes you happy and harms no one?

eddie wrote:It isn’t selfish to not have children but even if people perceive it as such? So what? What’s wrong with being a little selfish every now and then, if it makes you happy and harms no one?

Agreed its not selfish, but it could very well be down to not wanting responsibility, as raising children, is a great responsibility

Because we each start out in life, reliant on a state to educate and look ater us medically

Imagine if the state took the same view, to be selfish themselves to any of us growing up?

Can you see why such a view would be wrong?

Do you think it would be okay to be a little selfish, in regards to having food on the table, or where some place having a i-phone more inportant than this?

Didge, you know very well from other forums how I believe you can have an opinion, the problem is the way you try to put people down if they dare to not agree with you, calling them names, calling into question their mental capacity, you don't seem to understand the game at all. You aren't here to educate or judge others opinion in the way you do.
You may well be passionate about things that interest you and it can be a lively and fast moving debate but you are becoming obssessive in the need to have your points accepted, why do you need so much recognition  and affirmation?.

People can call themselves childfree if they choose, they are not all hatefilled harridans as you seem to suggest.

Vintage wrote:Didge, you know very well from other forums how I believe you can have an opinion, the problem is the way you try to put people down if they dare to not agree with you, calling them names, calling into question their mental capacity, you don't seem to understand the game at all. You aren't here to educate or judge others opinion in the way you do.
You may well be passionate about things that interest you and it can be a lively and fast moving debate but you are becoming obssessive in the need to have your points accepted, why do you need so much recognition  and affirmation?.

People can call themselves childfree if they choose, they are not all hatefilled harridans as you seem to suggest.

So you decided to instead talk about me and not my points on why I think such a word is poor

Oh well

eddie wrote:It isn’t selfish to not have children but even if people perceive it as such? So what? What’s wrong with being a little selfish every now and then, if it makes you happy and harms no one?

I think it's a damn site more selfish to have kids you cant afford or have little interest in tbh.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:It isn’t selfish to not have children but even if people perceive it as such? So what? What’s wrong with being a little selfish every now and then, if it makes you happy and harms no one?

I think it's a damn site more selfish to have kids you cant afford or have little interest in tbh.

My parents could not afford to have many children and yet they had 11 and we never went without food on the table

Were they sellfish, based on Catholic beliefs?

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Didge, you know very well from other forums how I believe you can have an opinion, the problem is the way you try to put people down if they dare to not agree with you, calling them names, calling into question their mental capacity, you don't seem to understand the game at all. You aren't here to educate or judge others opinion in the way you do.
You may well be passionate about things that interest you and it can be a lively and fast moving debate but you are becoming obssessive in the need to have your points accepted, why do you need so much recognition  and affirmation?.

People can call themselves childfree if they choose, they are not all hatefilled harridans as you seem to suggest.

So you decided to instead talk about me and not my points on why I think such a word is poor

Oh well

we all saw your points on why you think childfree is a poor word

so far you have said they have hate issues, that they are gutless and you would never employ them on the presumption that they would only put in minimum effort. not judgemental at all

so not everyone agrees with you, it shouldn't be such a big deal. it's only opinions after all


some might equally say that homosexuals deciding to call themselves gay is ''piss poor'' as it implies that anyone who isn't homosexual must be miserable

i mean FFS! didge, lighten up, eh?

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you decided to instead talk about me and not my points on why I think such a word is poor

Oh well

we all saw your points on why you think childfree is a poor word

so far you have said they have hate issues, that they are gutless and you would never employ them on the presumption that they would only put in minimum effort.   not judgemental at all

so not everyone agrees with you, it shouldn't be such a big deal.  it's only opinions after all


some might equally say that homosexuals deciding to call themselves gay is ''piss poor'' as it implies that anyone who isn't homosexual must be miserable

i mean FFS! didge, lighten up, eh?

So more points about me

Your view on homosexualty has no comparrison to the views I made around the word

Now I understand, I did go after this a tad and off debate with some other poor views, but the principle is the same

We say cancer free, because people are free of something is basically a killer

RacistWhite Supremacist would like to be Black free, as they see Black peopl as something wrong

Athiests would say, free from religion and do see religion as a bad thing

Do you see the pattern forming here?

Now forget everything else how it diverged and see the wording for itself and how it certainly is something that would view children as a bad thing to have, by stating child free

In other words, you are free of them

Now they may well not see this for what it is and subconciously be unware, its a poor way to look at this

You may disagree, but to me, I am showing how, in just about every single way of saying you are free of something. The thing you are free of, is seen to be a bad thing

Hence why to me is a poor choice of words

Okay some think it’s a poor choice of words and others do not.
Nobody is right or wrong, because it’s a personal opinion.

eddie wrote:Okay some think it’s a poor choice of words and others do not.
Nobody is right or wrong, because it’s a personal opinion.

I am trying to reason why it is a bad choice of words

I see nobody actually counter that point and would rather prefer someone actually did. Hence to actually make a a debate on something that was intrdocued and argued by another poster.

I mean we could based on how I can be, and then have some posters say Didge free. Where, again I would be the thing seen as bad and people free from.

You see in every single way when using the word free from something. The thing people are free of, is seen as a bad thing.

I simple trying to explain how that is the reality of the situation

I would like I say, rather see someone be able to discount the reasoning I made here.

Some expressions and words mean different things to different people.
Regarding the OP I think we all pretty much agreed it was a dumb thing to say.

eddie wrote:Some expressions and words mean different things to different people.
Regarding the OP I think we all pretty much agreed it was a dumb thing to say.

Well this is the point Eddie, this would have to be the first time. Where claiming to be free of something, was not claiming the thing to be free of. As being a bad thing

As to me, that would be unique and a first. (Unless, someone can show another example? Happy that someone can.)

Can you not see that?

Yes the OP was very ridiculous in what was claimed

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Some expressions and words mean different things to different people.
Regarding the OP I think we all pretty much agreed it was a dumb thing to say.

Well this is the point Eddie, this would have to be the first time. Where claiming to be free of something, was not claiming the thing to be free of. As being a bad thing

As to me, that would be unique and a first. (Unless, someone can show another example? Happy that someone can.)

Can you not see that?

Yes the OP was very ridiculous in what was claimed

didge, i get what you're saying, and to be fair, it is a valid point

however, it may be that women who cannot have children feel the loss, possibly feel a failure and use the term childfree to help them stay positive. it may be that women who choose not to have children have been judged negatively in some way and so therefore use the term childfree as a sort of fightback term.

we don't know why and although it may sound negative to some to say childfree but looking at the reality of it i suppose many people who dont have children cannot understand why people would want children. they see them as tied down forever and not free to go live different lives

but,,,,,,it's each to their own

Didge wrote:

Vintage wrote:Didge, you know very well from other forums how I believe you can have an opinion, the problem is the way you try to put people down if they dare to not agree with you, calling them names, calling into question their mental capacity, you don't seem to understand the game at all. You aren't here to educate or judge others opinion in the way you do.
You may well be passionate about things that interest you and it can be a lively and fast moving debate but you are becoming obssessive in the need to have your points accepted, why do you need so much recognition  and affirmation?.

People can call themselves childfree if they choose, they are not all hatefilled harridans as you seem to suggest.

So you decided to instead talk about me and not my points on why I think such a word is poor

Oh well

Didge, everything has been said I'm not going to go over and over the same points and into the dance of boredoom, just to boost your ego, if you are trying to drive people away, you are as usual doing a grand job.

Syl wrote:
Has anyone called women who choose not to have children selfish?

Not on here, but some friends, relatives and even complete strangers make them feel guilty for being
''selfish, self-centred types who shirk the responsibility of having kids cos their life revolves around only themself.''

Syl wrote:
I say childless....I doubt anyone would find that offensive,
unless of course they had a bloody great chip on their shoulder in the first place.

But it's not up to YOU to decide whether someone should feel offended/insulted or not. You are not the one who decides on their behalf how they should feel.
I have seen YOU take strong objection to a word which I innocently used, which  I considered a perfectly harmless word. You made an almighty humdinger of a fuss, Syl. I used the word 'underling' [as a synonym for junior staff] and you went mental.  No one accused you of having a chip on your shoulder, and no one said ''this is PC gone mad''. Instead we politely made a quiet note to never use such a word in your vicinity again. You are not the only one with feelings.

Didge wrote:Nobody is judging them for not having children

Of course they were judged, that is how it all started! They were reacting to being judged.

Didge wrote:It then means, that having a child is a bad thing.

Didge wrote:Like I said, its gives the perceived view, there is something wrong with having children.

Didge wrote:Seems to me that this group of women, have hate issues, that got together and made such a view.

Didge wrote:utterly dumb and hateful
....gutless

See ... this is EXACTLY what I meant earlier, Didge.
Posters somehow view the victim as the perpetrator, and vice versa.
You have turned the whole thing on its head, blaming the victims and exonerating the perpetrators and this is what spoils debates.

All these poor women have done is REACT, and defend themselves,
in a natural, human way, against comments they consider hurtful or belittling.
Yet here you are trying to make out it was them who started it.

I rest my case.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:
I say childless....I doubt anyone would find that offensive,
unless of course they had a bloody great chip on their shoulder in the first place.

But it's not up to YOU to decide whether someone should feel offended/insulted or not. You are not the one who decides on their behalf how they should feel.
I have seen YOU take strong objection to a word which I innocently used, which  I considered a perfectly harmless word. You made an almighty humdinger of a fuss, Syl. I used the word 'underling' [as a synonym for junior staff] and you went mental.  No one accused you of having a chip on your shoulder, and no one said ''this is PC gone mad''. Instead we politely made a quiet note to never use such a word in your vicinity again. You are not the only one with feelings.

Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:


But it's not up to YOU to decide whether someone should feel offended/insulted or not. You are not the one who decides on their behalf how they should feel.
I have seen YOU take strong objection to a word which I innocently used, which  I considered a perfectly harmless word. You made an almighty humdinger of a fuss, Syl. I used the word 'underling' [as a synonym for junior staff] and you went mental.  No one accused you of having a chip on your shoulder, and no one said ''this is PC gone mad''. Instead we politely made a quiet note to never use such a word in your vicinity again. You are not the only one with feelings.

Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

Calm your kecks.
You said the women had chips on their shoulders. Wrong. They simply have feelings.
I have never seen anyone jump up and down over the word 'underling'  just like you say you've never seen anyone object to the word 'childless'.
Same difference!!

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:
Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

Calm your kecks.
You said the women had chips on their shoulders. Wrong. They simply have feelings.
I have never seen anyone jump up and down over the word 'underling'  just like you say you've never seen anyone object to the word 'childless'.
Same difference!!

My kecks are calm, I wasnt the one in the thread  telling people which word to use and which word not to.

Incidentally, where and when did this 'underling' exchange take place? I dont even remember it.

Jules wrote:It happened a few years ago. You went mental so I'll never forget it.
You went on & on about it. I can see you still hate the word.

Right, so you brought up some random remark I made, that only you can remember... not on this thread, not on this forum, but 'a few years ago' to make a point that is actually totally unconnected with the thread subject.

Straw clutching comes to mind.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:
I say childless....I doubt anyone would find that offensive,
unless of course they had a bloody great chip on their shoulder in the first place.

But it's not up to YOU to decide whether someone should feel offended/insulted or not. You are not the one who decides on their behalf how they should feel.
I have seen YOU take strong objection to a word which I innocently used, which  I considered a perfectly harmless word. You made an almighty humdinger of a fuss, Syl. I used the word 'underling' [as a synonym for junior staff] and you went mental.  No one accused you of having a chip on your shoulder, and no one said ''this is PC gone mad''. Instead we politely made a quiet note to never use such a word in your vicinity again. You are not the only one with feelings.

Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

I bloody well wouldn’t. If she took offence she could fuck off and talk to someone else.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:It happened a few years ago. You went mental so I'll never forget it.
You went on & on about it. I can see you still hate the word.

Right, so you brought up some random remark I made, that only you can remember... not on this thread, not on this forum, but 'a few years ago' to make a point that is actually totally unconnected with the thread subject.

Straw clutching comes to mind.

Nothing random about it - If something happens people naturally remember if an identical incident that happened.
earlier. 

In this thread you equated taking offence at 'childless' with .... 'having a chip on the shoulder.'
So  I reminded you that you had unexpectedly taken great offence to a harmless word too. 
I politely found an alternative word you thought was more acceptable.
Without any drama - I didn't moan about it.


No one on forums is worth clutching at straws for, imo. Not worth it.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

I bloody well wouldn’t. If she took offence she could fuck off and talk to someone else.

You are very explosively aggressive Eddie.    For no reason. 
What if she was your boss at work? 

Did you give me the red?
I have never given anyone a red and I never will, ever. -I'd rather say what I disagree with, in words.
Polite words!

Why would anyone be to talking to someone and saying there were "childless" anyway? It's a stupid word. If one doesn't have a cat, you don't say they're "catless".

Lol Rags, that's true. I'm dogless

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:
Neither is it up to you to stomp into a thread and tell people which  words to use. The word I used ...childless, is a perfectly acceptable word.
If you dont like it tough.....were I speaking to a childless woman and she made plain she preferred the word childfree I would use that word instead.
Thats never happened, because tbh, 
the only person I have ever heard make a fuss about it is you.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

I bloody well wouldn’t. If she took offence she could fuck off and talk to someone else.

You are very explosively aggressive Eddie.    For no reason. 
What if she was your boss at work? 

Did you give me the red?
I have never given anyone a red and I never will, ever. -I'd rather say what I disagree with, in words.
Polite words!

If it was my boos at work I may not say the word “fuck” - depends which boss it is.

And no, I didn’t give you a red, I generally reply if I disagree. You should know that about me by now, Jules.

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:


But it's not up to YOU to decide whether someone should feel offended/insulted or not. You are not the one who decides on their behalf how they should feel.
I have seen YOU take strong objection to a word which I innocently used, which  I considered a perfectly harmless word. You made an almighty humdinger of a fuss, Syl. I used the word 'underling' [as a synonym for junior staff] and you went mental.  No one accused you of having a chip on your shoulder, and no one said ''this is PC gone mad''. Instead we politely made a quiet note to never use such a word in your vicinity again. You are not the only one with feelings.

To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

what's wrong with that? in the context of a work environment that's exactly the right word, isn't it?

senior staff are 'superior' to junior staff in that context

not in morals, nor courage, nor honesty nor any other way but definitely within the ranking and paygrade of the working environment

i don't get that it's a bad word to use

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:


To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

what's wrong with that?  in the context of a work environment that's exactly the right word, isn't it?

senior staff are 'superior' to junior staff in that context

not in morals, nor courage, nor honesty nor any other way but definitely within the ranking and paygrade of the working environment

i don't get that it's a bad word to use

I don't like the word much, obviously it depends on what context it's used in.

I don't ever remember having a conversation before this thread about the word used, but if it's been used in a derogatory way I may well have done.
I certainly wouldn't have gone on and on about it as Jules implied, that's not my way.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:

You are very explosively aggressive Eddie.    For no reason. 
What if she was your boss at work? 

Did you give me the red?
I have never given anyone a red and I never will, ever. -I'd rather say what I disagree with, in words.
Polite words!

If it was my boos at work I may not say the word “fuck” - depends which boss it is.

And no, I didn’t give you a red,  I generally reply if I disagree. You should know that about me by now, Jules.

I haven't given any reds out in this thread either.

Eddie, if the conversation to opt between saying childless and childfree came up (not that it ever has in my experience) but just say it did, and a woman without kids objected to one of those terms and preferred the other.....would you not humour her out of consideration?

No. I tend not to humour people and honestly? I know that if a person is that petty and pedantic I won’t be hanging around them too much.
Syl, I really don’t do boring, lifeless, petty, bog-standard people. Overly PC people make me want to be even less PC just to make sure they avoid me.

See how I am on here? I am exactly the same in real life. I completely own what I say, though I am subject to changing my mind as I am nearly always undecided on a topic -too may nuances and sides to consider.

eddie wrote:No. I tend not to humour people and honestly? I know that if a person is that petty and pedantic I won’t be hanging around them too much.
Syl, I really don’t do boring, lifeless, petty, bog-standard people. Overly PC people make me want to be even less PC just to make sure they avoid me.

See how I am on here? I am exactly the same in real life. I completely own what I say, though I am subject to changing my mind as I am nearly always undecided on a topic -too may nuances and sides to consider.

I know you are the same in RL as you are on here, as am I, but in a case where one word offends and there is an alternative, I would always try to use it....it's no skin off my nose.

I remember a conversation we had ages ago, I said I forget and use the word 'half caste' sometimes....I have been pulled up about it and I do try to remember, you said you use the word and iyo the people you know aren't offended by it.

Words are ever changing, what was acceptable once may not be now...if it's overly pc I would ignore it, otherwise I do try to not upset someone...though some people it seems look for any reason to get upset.

I speak how I speak and if you only ever speak honestly you’ll end up with a handful of people who are just like you, who actually like you and they’ll be around for a long time.

I can’t be doing with social scenes where I have to pretend to like everyone. I don’t.
And not everyone likes me and that’s fine.

the word isnt underlings.....Its MINIONS

eddie wrote:I speak how I speak and if you only ever speak honestly you’ll end up with a handful of people who are just like you, who actually like you and they’ll be around for a long time.

I can’t be doing with social scenes where I have to pretend to like everyone. I don’t.
And not everyone likes me and that’s fine.

You sound like my sig now.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:I speak how I speak and if you only ever speak honestly you’ll end up with a handful of people who are just like you, who actually like you and they’ll be around for a long time.

I can’t be doing with social scenes where I have to pretend to like everyone. I don’t.
And not everyone likes me and that’s fine.

You sound like my sig now.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

You sound like my sig now.

eddie wrote:No. I tend not to humour people and honestly? I know that if a person is that petty and pedantic I won’t be hanging around them too much.
Syl, I really don’t do boring, lifeless, petty, bog-standard people. Overly PC people make me want to be even less PC just to make sure they avoid me.

See how I am on here? I am exactly the same in real life. I completely own what I say, though I am subject to changing my mind as I am nearly always undecided on a topic -too may nuances and sides to consider.

I'm not overly PC.
Got too much common sense for that.

see now, i seem to be a mixture of you both then

in a social situation and someone expressed a preference for what i may consider a pc term, i would i think do what syl does and try to use that (if necessary) just for the sake of civility

that being said, i would make my escape as quickly as possible and make a firm mental note to avoid

working as a carer i meet lots of different types and i'm very chatty and tend to make it clear exactly who i am with the words ''dont you just hate all that pc guff'' very shortly after i've met someone so they know what to expect

I can be charming and graceful in certain situations, I’m not saying I go around throwing dog shit in peoples faces, but I don’t like containing myself too much.

Syl wrote:
To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

Funny you should say that! Staff higher in rank are called our ''superiors. ''  


Juniors are called underlings/ minions / lower echelons   whatever  I'd happily swap to whichever term a person prefers, without a fuss. I don't refrain from using 'underlings'  at all. Except when in your vicinity.


On the positive side - we ALL agreed that the main point of the thread [asking for consent for a nappy change] is simply ludicrous. 
It would have been a very short thread indeed ..... but for the fact that I commented on the childless description. 


That made it into a lengthy discussion. Which is good, I guess. 

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:
To call someone an underling is implying that person is inferior....or you are superior, so its just as well you now refrain from using it.

Funny you should say that! Staff higher in rank are called our ''superiors. ''  
Juniors are called underlings/ minions / lower echelons   whatever  I'd happily swap to whichever term a person prefers, without a fuss. 


On the positive side - we ALL agreed that the main point of the thread [asking for consent for a nappy change] is simply ludicrous. 
It would have been a very short thread indeed ..... but for the fact that I commented on the childless description. 


That made it into a lengthy discussion. Which is good, I guess. 

Yes, it's been a good thread....a little tetchy in places, but alls well that ends well.

Lord Foul wrote:the word isnt underlings.....Its MINIONS

Actually, the word is 'clueless'.  FGS...this is a classic semantic argument.  Just agree on a word's meaning, and move on to something substantive.