missing girl special needs

First topic message reminder :

The girl missing from her hotel in Malaya has been found dead in Jungle. Report said she was naked when found. Why the fuck did they have to say that,it's bad enough she's dead without that , her poor Parents .

Les, I’ll answer your points if I may:

*If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

I’ll always say something. I can’t help it. It never causes bad feeling, perhaps because people actually crave honesty? I don’t know. But it’s never caused me a problem.


*Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

They aren’t my friend unless I can be honest with them so I’d say “jeez I don’t like that top/trousers on you” likewise I tell my friends when they look beautiful. Always.

*If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

I’d probably laugh then say “Sorry, not laughing at your loss but you gotta admit that’s funny”.

*If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

I would. But I’d be very gentle about it and not harp on about it....but I’d still say it. Can’t help it.


We are all different but that doesn’t mean your way is better than mine or vice versa.

eddie wrote:Les, I’ll answer your points if I may:

*If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

I’ll always say something. I can’t help it. It never causes bad feeling, perhaps because people actually crave honesty? I don’t know. But it’s never caused me a problem.


*Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

They aren’t my friend unless I can be honest with them so I’d say “jeez I don’t like that top/trousers on you” likewise I tell my friends when they look beautiful. Always.

*If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

I’d probably laugh then say “Sorry, not laughing at your loss but you gotta admit that’s funny”.

*If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

I would. But I’d be very gentle about it and not harp on about it....but I’d still say it.  Can’t help it.


We are all different but that doesn’t mean your way is better than mine or vice versa.

you've got more control than me then

i remember years ago a neighbour knocking on our house in winter time and came in and was upset cos her cat had drowned in the water butt outside and it got frozen over and when they fished it out it was covered in ice.  it was all very sad until she sort of put her arms out in a strange position and then froze and said ''like that he was'', she looked so funny that i spluttered with laughter and couldn't stop.  she was upset and my parents were furious with me but unfortunately i have very little self control and if something suddenly strikes me as funny i will just burst out laughing no matter what the circumstances

also i have a mental filter which is in bad working order.  i do tend to say things as soon as it's popped into my head without thinking about it first

all my kids have said to me  ''FFS! mum, you've got a filter, try using it sometimes''

I don't agree with this 'no filter' rubbish its just an excuse for ignorant behaviour, are you really saying you can't control yourself or don't know social right from wrong.

Vintage wrote:I don't agree with this 'no filter' rubbish its just an excuse for ignorant behaviour, are you really saying you can't control yourself or don't know social right from wrong.

a bit of both i think

Vintage wrote:I don't agree with this 'no filter' rubbish its just an excuse for ignorant behaviour, are you really saying you can't control yourself or don't know social right from wrong.

No! Not at all! My job is customer relations, my bosses chose me for this job. I’m charming and yet have an honesty that seems to work for me.
People like honesty more than you realise - in my experience - I often get told that my honesty is “refreshing”. Besides that, I don’t much care for fake bullshit. I’m never outright rude, but I can tell you that work colleagues, friends and customers often tell me that they find my brand of open- speech refreshing and welcome.

I guess you all have this opinion that I go around hurting people. I don’t. I just give them my honest opinion and always get thanked for it. Perhaps many people are bored of hearing platitudes?

An honest opinion if asked for is fine. People who insult and offend people because they 'have no filter' is another matter and shouldn't be surprised if they end up with no front teeth.

Vintage wrote:An honest opinion if asked for is fine. People who insult and offend people because they 'have no filter' is another matter and shouldn't be surprised if they end up with no front teeth.

You’re taking about going round just insulting people for the sake of it. I don’t think we are talking about the same thing?

If people are offended by my honest opinion if we are having a discussion, then too bad. Or if someone asks my opinion then gets offended, again, too bad. Don’t ask.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, let me just say that my first thought when people said she wasn't sexually assaulted was of course she wasn't, look at her face.

I didn't say that, because obviously that's in really bad taste. It's far, far, FAR worse than what eddie said.

So am I better for just thinking that and not saying it? Or is it not the thought that counts?

We all think things but don't say them, very often. It isn't noble or wise to utter every thought that comes to mind - the world wouldn't function if we did.

But isn't that just saying that the world runs on lies?

And how is that working out for everyone?

Not on lies, no.

The fact you two are equating 'not saying every thought that comes to mind' as lying, says there is a big misunderstanding here as to what literally everyone else sees but you two don't (though perhaps you actually do tbh).

If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

There is a time and place for certain things to be said is my point. That doesn't mean lying, lying is saying the OPPOSITE of the truth. This is about keeping certain things to yourself and having consideration.

I wasn't really talking about blurting out the first thing that pops into your head -- it's fine to hold onto the truth until a good time arrives to deliver it.

But far too often, the truth goes unsaid, and I think that leads to far more problems than it solves.

What if an American president got a call from the leaders of Israel and Palestine, asking him to negotiate a peace between them, and he instead said, "Sorry, no. Any lasting peace between the two of you can't involve a third party -- and as you're all adults, you should be ashamed you had to ask someone else to fix your problem"?

I think the problem might finally get fixed that way. It might at least make them think about their own responsibility for the conflict.

Your first sentence pretty much sums the problem people had that started this disagreement

No one is saying the truth is never worth hearing. But it certainly isn't always going to have good outcomes stating it regardless.

Good outcomes? What’s a “good outcome”, Les???

Is a “good outcome” having the masses agree with you or just being “you”, regardless?

Do tell...What is a “good outcome”?

eddie wrote:Good outcomes? What’s a “good outcome”, Les???

Is a “good outcome” having the masses agree with you or just being “you”, regardless?

Do tell...What is a “good outcome”?

Not making someone unnecessarily feel bad just because I think I HAD to say what I thought - is the least of them bad outcomes. It can vary, obviously. I think vintage mentioned broken teeth.

Also, you seem to think people are deliberately censoring themselves ('clenching' I think you said to Cass above) or lying or being dishonest or prudish or whatever.

That isn't the case. For most of us it's just a natural reaction not to say certain things at certain times and it has no impact on our lives whatsoever. We just know in the moment 'now is not the time'.

You bring up your personal experience above of being honest, which is nice for you. But your experience here ought to tell you that there are times it is not going to be taken well - instead you dismissed just about the entire forum on account of everyone but you having no sense of humour, being clenched up, being nampy pamy, being too easily offended, being dishonest etc.

Eddie, would you have made that joke directly to Nora's parents?

Eddie, I think Les summed it up.

What is bizarre is that you are blaming others for not having the same sense of humour as you, like you're proud of having a "dark" sense of humour, and you're proud of saying awful things. That's up to you but as you have found out, that doesn't mean that everyone else will admire you for it.

People have been very honest with you - something you like - and told you that they think what you said was horrible. Instead of accepting that, you are blaming them for not liking what you said. Well they don't have to admire your "sense of humour", and they don't have to respect you for it.

As for Gelico's lack of self control, well it's just weird.

*If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

I’d probably laugh then say “Sorry, not laughing at your loss but you gotta admit that’s funny”.

Really? You would expect them to laugh?

Raggamuffin wrote:Eddie, I think Les summed it up.

What is bizarre is that you are blaming others for not having the same sense of humour as you, like you're proud of having a "dark" sense of humour, and you're proud of saying awful things. That's up to you but as you have found out, that doesn't mean that everyone else will admire you for it.

People have been very honest with you - something you like - and told you that they think what you said was horrible. Instead of accepting that, you are blaming them for not liking what you said. Well they don't have to admire your "sense of humour", and they don't have to respect you for it.

As for Gelico's lack of self control, well it's just weird.

Erm I never started the blame game, did I? I made a joke and people blamed me. I simply defended myself. I don’t particularly care what you or others find funny, or what offends you all, why would I?
We are all different and on our own journey. My life works for me.
And...
I’m actually bored of this topic now, truth be told.

May the young girl rest in peace.

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, let me just say that my first thought when people said she wasn't sexually assaulted was of course she wasn't, look at her face.

I didn't say that, because obviously that's in really bad taste. It's far, far, FAR worse than what eddie said.

So am I better for just thinking that and not saying it? Or is it not the thought that counts?

We all think things but don't say them, very often. It isn't noble or wise to utter every thought that comes to mind - the world wouldn't function if we did.

But isn't that just saying that the world runs on lies?

And how is that working out for everyone?

Not on lies, no.

The fact you two are equating 'not saying every thought that comes to mind' as lying, says there is a big misunderstanding here as to what literally everyone else sees but you two don't (though perhaps you actually do tbh).

If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

There is a time and place for certain things to be said is my point. That doesn't mean lying, lying is saying the OPPOSITE of the truth. This is about keeping certain things to yourself and having consideration.

I wasn't really talking about blurting out the first thing that pops into your head -- it's fine to hold onto the truth until a good time arrives to deliver it.

But far too often, the truth goes unsaid, and I think that leads to far more problems than it solves.

What if an American president got a call from the leaders of Israel and Palestine, asking him to negotiate a peace between them, and he instead said, "Sorry, no. Any lasting peace between the two of you can't involve a third party -- and as you're all adults, you should be ashamed you had to ask someone else to fix your problem"?

I think the problem might finally get fixed that way. It might at least make them think about their own responsibility for the conflict.

Your first sentence pretty much sums the problem people had that started this disagreement

No one is saying the truth is never worth hearing. But it certainly isn't always going to have good outcomes stating it regardless.

If you don't say exactly what you think, you're going to leave someone with the wrong impression. To me, the best outcome one can hope for in communication is to be understood.

There's nothing inherently harsh about the truth. There's certainly nothing inherently comforting about well-meant lies.

If people take someone telling them the truth as an insult, they're either humiliated -- when they should be humble enough to accept a little criticism -- or they're not strong enough to say, "That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it and I'm not bothered by it."

May this girl get justice...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

May this girl get justice...!

Seems a strange thing to say when we don't know if an injustice was done!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, let me just say that my first thought when people said she wasn't sexually assaulted was of course she wasn't, look at her face.

I didn't say that, because obviously that's in really bad taste. It's far, far, FAR worse than what eddie said.

So am I better for just thinking that and not saying it? Or is it not the thought that counts?

We all think things but don't say them, very often. It isn't noble or wise to utter every thought that comes to mind - the world wouldn't function if we did.

But isn't that just saying that the world runs on lies?

And how is that working out for everyone?

Not on lies, no.

The fact you two are equating 'not saying every thought that comes to mind' as lying, says there is a big misunderstanding here as to what literally everyone else sees but you two don't (though perhaps you actually do tbh).

If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

There is a time and place for certain things to be said is my point. That doesn't mean lying, lying is saying the OPPOSITE of the truth. This is about keeping certain things to yourself and having consideration.

I wasn't really talking about blurting out the first thing that pops into your head -- it's fine to hold onto the truth until a good time arrives to deliver it.

But far too often, the truth goes unsaid, and I think that leads to far more problems than it solves.

What if an American president got a call from the leaders of Israel and Palestine, asking him to negotiate a peace between them, and he instead said, "Sorry, no. Any lasting peace between the two of you can't involve a third party -- and as you're all adults, you should be ashamed you had to ask someone else to fix your problem"?

I think the problem might finally get fixed that way. It might at least make them think about their own responsibility for the conflict.

Your first sentence pretty much sums the problem people had that started this disagreement

No one is saying the truth is never worth hearing. But it certainly isn't always going to have good outcomes stating it regardless.

If you don't say exactly what you think, you're going to leave someone with the wrong impression. To me, the best outcome one can hope for in communication is to be understood.

There's nothing inherently harsh about the truth. There's certainly nothing inherently comforting about well-meant lies.

If people take someone telling them the truth as an insult, they're either humiliated -- when they should be humble enough to accept a little criticism -- or they're not strong enough to say, "That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it and I'm not bothered by it."

What would have been the best/worst possible outcome of not making an (in the opinion of all but 3 people on this forum) ill-timed joke following a girl's death?

Raggamuffin wrote:Eddie, I think Les summed it up.

What is bizarre is that you are blaming others for not having the same sense of humour as you, like you're proud of having a "dark" sense of humour, and you're proud of saying awful things. That's up to you but as you have found out, that doesn't mean that everyone else will admire you for it.

People have been very honest with you - something you like - and told you that they think what you said was horrible. Instead of accepting that, you are blaming them for not liking what you said. Well they don't have to admire your "sense of humour", and they don't have to respect you for it.

As for Gelico's lack of self control, well it's just weird.

yeah, well i am a bit dark and i've always been weird, i never claimed any social niceties

but i still manage to connect with some great people.   i don't go around intending to hurt people or piss them off but sometimes it happens. and if on the rare occasion i'm on a downer and i snap at someone or make some shitty, snarky unwarranted remark, i own it and i apologise and i'm honest and just say, 'sorry i'm really feeling shitty today and i just took it out on you and you didnt deserve that', and it breaks down the barriers because people in general know exactly how that feels to have a shitty day and snap at someone - and seem to appreciate genuine honesty.


the same goes for some thoughtless, unintentionally offensive remark that i should have maybe thoght more about before expressing verbally.

in any case the people i have in my life love me because/despite my weirdery and i love being me so each to their own and all that

Gels, I think, like me, you have an honesty that’s just quite different to most people.

eddie wrote:Gels, I think, like me, you have an honesty that’s just quite different to most people.  

maybe, but don't you find that if you open up to folk and are genuinely honest, it seems to relax them it they too go beyond the surface and open up right back.

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, let me just say that my first thought when people said she wasn't sexually assaulted was of course she wasn't, look at her face.

I didn't say that, because obviously that's in really bad taste. It's far, far, FAR worse than what eddie said.

So am I better for just thinking that and not saying it? Or is it not the thought that counts?

We all think things but don't say them, very often. It isn't noble or wise to utter every thought that comes to mind - the world wouldn't function if we did.

But isn't that just saying that the world runs on lies?

And how is that working out for everyone?

Not on lies, no.

The fact you two are equating 'not saying every thought that comes to mind' as lying, says there is a big misunderstanding here as to what literally everyone else sees but you two don't (though perhaps you actually do tbh).

If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

There is a time and place for certain things to be said is my point. That doesn't mean lying, lying is saying the OPPOSITE of the truth. This is about keeping certain things to yourself and having consideration.

I wasn't really talking about blurting out the first thing that pops into your head -- it's fine to hold onto the truth until a good time arrives to deliver it.

But far too often, the truth goes unsaid, and I think that leads to far more problems than it solves.

What if an American president got a call from the leaders of Israel and Palestine, asking him to negotiate a peace between them, and he instead said, "Sorry, no. Any lasting peace between the two of you can't involve a third party -- and as you're all adults, you should be ashamed you had to ask someone else to fix your problem"?

I think the problem might finally get fixed that way. It might at least make them think about their own responsibility for the conflict.

Your first sentence pretty much sums the problem people had that started this disagreement

No one is saying the truth is never worth hearing. But it certainly isn't always going to have good outcomes stating it regardless.

If you don't say exactly what you think, you're going to leave someone with the wrong impression. To me, the best outcome one can hope for in communication is to be understood.

There's nothing inherently harsh about the truth. There's certainly nothing inherently comforting about well-meant lies.

If people take someone telling them the truth as an insult, they're either humiliated -- when they should be humble enough to accept a little criticism -- or they're not strong enough to say, "That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it and I'm not bothered by it."

What would have been the best/worst possible outcome of not making an (in the opinion of all but 3 people on this forum) ill-timed joke following a girl's death?

The best outcome would be what has happened -- it's offended some people, who then were asked to come up with a succinct and convincing reason they were justified in being offended, and failed to do so. It provoked thought, searching and debate.

The worst outcome would be for the joke to be ignored, because then nobody would have thought about the joke, jokes like it, and whether people in general say things offend them simply as an act of parroting others who've said they were offended by similar jokes, or whether they could actually pin down and define exactly why such jokes are supposedly offensive.

Eddie said she doesn't think Nora is a nice name, and that she feels bad for this girl and those who cared about her. Knowing that, you have to see that "maybe she killed herself because her parents named her Nora" was intended as a joke, and not in earnest.

If you understand all that and you're still offended, then what? Do you think that Eddie was lying about feeling bad for the girl and her loved ones? That seems like a truly bizarre conclusion to arrive at.

So I'm forced to see the only logical explanation for all these outraged reactions as moral posturing -- i.e., people aren't truly offended, because they know Eddie cares about the girl -- they're just parroting a behavior they've seen in others.

And that, frankly, is just stupid.

So if this whole Jokegate episode accomplishes one thing, I hope it's that some people realize that they don't have to say a joke is offensive just because they think that's how people are supposed to react to jokes like this.

And to that end, I'd like to ask -- does anybody here truly think less of Eddie now? Did anybody, honestly, gasp, or shed a tear, or feel any real emotion, when they read her joke?

Be honest.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Okay, let me just say that my first thought when people said she wasn't sexually assaulted was of course she wasn't, look at her face.

I didn't say that, because obviously that's in really bad taste. It's far, far, FAR worse than what eddie said.

So am I better for just thinking that and not saying it? Or is it not the thought that counts?

We all think things but don't say them, very often. It isn't noble or wise to utter every thought that comes to mind - the world wouldn't function if we did.

But isn't that just saying that the world runs on lies?

And how is that working out for everyone?

Not on lies, no.

The fact you two are equating 'not saying every thought that comes to mind' as lying, says there is a big misunderstanding here as to what literally everyone else sees but you two don't (though perhaps you actually do tbh).

If I listen to a customer tell me a story and I honestly believe they are exaggerating or lying, I'm not going to say 'rubbish' or anything to the same point, because there is no need and no good will come of it.

Likewise, if I meet a friend of a friend and think they look bad in their clothes, it isn't my place to say so.

If someone tells me of someone who died in some hilarious way, but they are deadly serious and sad, I'm not going to laugh in their face or joke on the matter, despite thinking it.

If I speak to a parent of a murdered child who says they wish hanging were brought back, despite my being opposed to the death penalty I won't bring it up THEN.

There is a time and place for certain things to be said is my point. That doesn't mean lying, lying is saying the OPPOSITE of the truth. This is about keeping certain things to yourself and having consideration.

I wasn't really talking about blurting out the first thing that pops into your head -- it's fine to hold onto the truth until a good time arrives to deliver it.

But far too often, the truth goes unsaid, and I think that leads to far more problems than it solves.

What if an American president got a call from the leaders of Israel and Palestine, asking him to negotiate a peace between them, and he instead said, "Sorry, no. Any lasting peace between the two of you can't involve a third party -- and as you're all adults, you should be ashamed you had to ask someone else to fix your problem"?

I think the problem might finally get fixed that way. It might at least make them think about their own responsibility for the conflict.

Your first sentence pretty much sums the problem people had that started this disagreement

No one is saying the truth is never worth hearing. But it certainly isn't always going to have good outcomes stating it regardless.

If you don't say exactly what you think, you're going to leave someone with the wrong impression. To me, the best outcome one can hope for in communication is to be understood.

There's nothing inherently harsh about the truth. There's certainly nothing inherently comforting about well-meant lies.

If people take someone telling them the truth as an insult, they're either humiliated -- when they should be humble enough to accept a little criticism -- or they're not strong enough to say, "That's your opinion, but I don't agree with it and I'm not bothered by it."

What would have been the best/worst possible outcome of not making an (in the opinion of all but 3 people on this forum) ill-timed joke following a girl's death?

The best outcome would be what has happened -- it's offended some people, who then were asked to come up with a succinct and convincing reason they were justified in being offended, and failed to do so. It provoked thought, searching and debate.

The worst outcome would be for the joke to be ignored, because then nobody would have thought about the joke, jokes like it, and whether people in general say things offend them simply as an act of parroting others who've said they were offended by similar jokes, or whether they could actually pin down and define exactly why such jokes are supposedly offensive.

Eddie said she doesn't think Nora is a nice name, and that she feels bad for this girl and those who cared about her. Knowing that, you have to see that "maybe she killed herself because her parents named her Nora" was intended as a joke, and not in earnest.

If you understand all that and you're still offended, then what? Do you think that Eddie was lying about feeling bad for the girl and her loved ones? That seems like a truly bizarre conclusion to arrive at.

So I'm forced to see the only logical explanation for all these outraged reactions as moral posturing -- i.e., people aren't truly offended, because they know Eddie cares about the girl -- they're just parroting a behavior they've seen in others.

And that, frankly, is just stupid.

So if this whole Jokegate episode accomplishes one thing, I hope it's that some people realize that they don't have to say a joke is offensive just because they think that's how people are supposed to react to jokes like this.

And to that end, I'd like to ask -- does anybody here truly think less of Eddie now? Did anybody, honestly, gasp, or shed a tear, or feel any real emotion, when they read her joke?

Be honest.

Most people (me at least, but also I'm guessing others) thought 'that's not a nice thing to say under the circumstances'. Which to almost anyone, it isn't.

Nobody really thought about the joke. Nobody is saying Eds is a bad person. Nobody is saying the joke was about the death or any of the other wrong suggestions you have made.

Your only logical conclusion is therefore incorrect. And here's the problem as I see it: The rest of us expressed condemnation of a bad joke, that's all. That could be taken simply as 'ok, so some people have a different sense of humour' and left alone.

INSTEAD, those who expressed that honest distaste of the joke were referred to as...

Being dishonest
Having no sense of humour
Nampy pampy
Parroting
Clenching
Being fake
Moral posturing

This is frankly staggering from people who champion 'saying what you think' as the Holy Grail.

So people can say what they think but if it isn't the same as you they are basically lying? Is it perhaps possible people just really didn't like that joke at that time? Is it possible to express that dislike without being 'labelled' all the listed things above?

raggamuffin, did you just post about this and then delete it?

strange, i could've sworn i saw a post here by you saying about giving an honest answer

if so why did you delete it?

This thread makes me wonder why cultures invented social rules and diplomacy.
As for being honest because people tend to open up to you, people do this to me all the time but being brutally honest may make you feel good and superior but its not always the solution, if you can say the right things, which may not always be the bald truth, you can get people to ask their own questions of themselves or their situation that will help them resolve whatever is going on, other people don't want the bald truth they already know it and it can be over whelming, all these want is support albeit which is not the actual truth. Telling it like it is in all situations is just an ego trip.

Vintage wrote:This thread makes me wonder why cultures invented social rules and diplomacy.
As for being honest because people tend to open up to you, people do this to me all the time but being brutally honest may make you feel good and superior but its not always the solution, if you can say the right things, which may not always be the bald truth, you can get people to ask their own questions of themselves or their situation that will help them resolve whatever is going on, other people don't want the bald truth they already know it and it can be over whelming, all these want is support albeit which is not the actual truth. Telling it like it is in all situations is just an ego trip.

so, years ago i was a school governor for ages at the same school that my kids went to

one day a mum caught up with me and said that her son couldn't go on a trip because of lateness. she had been warned but he continued to be late and so got banned from it. she asked me if i could, as a governor, get that changed. she stated that it wasn't fair because the school was punishing her son for something that he had no control over and it shouldn't happen and he was really upset and could she appeal against that decision

the only people i would say ''FFS! get your arse out of bed earlier then and get organised''. would be family and close friends. they would expect me to say something like that. i did NOT say that to her

that being said, i didn;t faff about either. i told her straight i had no part in the decision to ban her son and that there was nothing i could do on that score. i also told her that i didnt know if she could appeal but if she did the school would simply say that you as his parent is the one who is punishing him in reality because THEY see it as your responsibility to get him to school and if he is late the school would say if was your fault that he can't go. I know that's harsh but i'm sure that's what they would say''

so in that way, i've basically told her it's her fault but put it onto the school and taken myself and my own opinion right out of the equation.

i asked her if she had more than one but it turned out he was her only child at that time. i asked her did she have to rely on bus to get here, did she come from out of the area but she didn't. she started to look a bit sheepish at that point. i then went on to express great sympathy with having to rush in the mornings. i told her i always seem to be running late for everything ( true), i know how you feel etc. i said oh, i've had to make changes and make sure absolutely everything i need and they need is sorted and ready to go. it takes some getting used to but at least it's made me on time. my kids have been late too at times and that's really embarrasing as a governor

so, i've been honest, i've told her

a) theres nothing i can do
b) it's her fault
c) she doesnt really have any valid excuses,
d) got her to think about maybe making some changes

and we got on great.

i don't know why you think i go round being ''brutally honest'' and ''feeling superior'' and wanting to hurt people

ffs! really?

Gelico, I’m no wise owl but I want to say one thing to you.

Don’t ever change.

People need some truth in a world full of lies. If you keep getting shot down for it, then realise...

it’s their problem, not yours.

Vintage wrote:This thread makes me wonder why cultures invented social rules and diplomacy.
As for being honest because people tend to open up to you, people do this to me all the time but being brutally honest may make you feel good and superior but its not always the solution, if you can say the right things, which may not always be the bald truth, you can get people to ask their own questions of themselves or their situation that will help them resolve whatever is going on, other people don't want the bald truth they already know it and it can be over whelming, all these want is support albeit which is not the actual truth. Telling it like it is in all situations is just an ego trip.

Your last sentence suggests that you think it’s better to not “tell it like it is”

Good luck. I hope it serves you well. Honestly. Because none of us know if total honesty is better than your version of honesty. So good luck and I hope it works for you.

And the world.

Well, I just hope I get through this life without deliberately causing unnecessary offence or hurt to anyone just because of the pride of declaring myself totally honest and I hope others feel the same way towards me.

Vintage wrote:Well, I just hope I get through this life without deliberately causing unnecessary offence or hurt to anyone just because of the pride of declaring myself totally honest and I hope others feel the same way towards me.

well, as i already said, each to their own

the few good friends i have and family are quite prepared to tell me a few things about myself if they think i should hear it (especially when i've asked for opinion, and sometimes even when i haven't

even if it means they cause me some temporary offence or hurt, i know perfectly well that none of them would deliberately set out to hurt me cos they're not like that so if they are giving me some brutal honesty then it's down to me to either take it on board or not

i think myself very fortunate to have such people

eddie wrote:Gelico, I’m no wise owl but I want to say one thing to you.

Don’t ever change.

People need some truth in a world full of lies. If you keep getting shot down for it, then realise...

it’s their problem, not yours.

indeed, thank you eddie

This is all very lovely and self-congratulatory, but what does it have to do with suggesting that a young girl killed herself because of her name, or that she wasn't sexually assaulted because of her face?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

What would have been the best/worst possible outcome of not making an (in the opinion of all but 3 people on this forum) ill-timed joke following a girl's death?

The best outcome would be what has happened -- it's offended some people, who then were asked to come up with a succinct and convincing reason they were justified in being offended, and failed to do so. It provoked thought, searching and debate.

The worst outcome would be for the joke to be ignored, because then nobody would have thought about the joke, jokes like it, and whether people in general say things offend them simply as an act of parroting others who've said they were offended by similar jokes, or whether they could actually pin down and define exactly why such jokes are supposedly offensive.

Eddie said she doesn't think Nora is a nice name, and that she feels bad for this girl and those who cared about her. Knowing that, you have to see that "maybe she killed herself because her parents named her Nora" was intended as a joke, and not in earnest.

If you understand all that and you're still offended, then what? Do you think that Eddie was lying about feeling bad for the girl and her loved ones? That seems like a truly bizarre conclusion to arrive at.

So I'm forced to see the only logical explanation for all these outraged reactions as moral posturing -- i.e., people aren't truly offended, because they know Eddie cares about the girl -- they're just parroting a behavior they've seen in others.

And that, frankly, is just stupid.

So if this whole Jokegate episode accomplishes one thing, I hope it's that some people realize that they don't have to say a joke is offensive just because they think that's how people are supposed to react to jokes like this.

And to that end, I'd like to ask -- does anybody here truly think less of Eddie now? Did anybody, honestly, gasp, or shed a tear, or feel any real emotion, when they read her joke?

Be honest.

The trouble is that you're assuming that everyone thinks like you do. You're assuming that nobody was really offended, that they just feel that they should have been. Well you're wrong.

Does a person who cares about this young girl really make a comment like that? I doubt it.

Do you really think I just sat here and didn't bat an eyelid over her comment, that I just decided to pretend I was offended? If so, you're wrong.

Do I think less of eddie? That's something I'd have to think about, and the same goes for you.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

The best outcome would be what has happened -- it's offended some people, who then were asked to come up with a succinct and convincing reason they were justified in being offended, and failed to do so. It provoked thought, searching and debate.

The worst outcome would be for the joke to be ignored, because then nobody would have thought about the joke, jokes like it, and whether people in general say things offend them simply as an act of parroting others who've said they were offended by similar jokes, or whether they could actually pin down and define exactly why such jokes are supposedly offensive.

Eddie said she doesn't think Nora is a nice name, and that she feels bad for this girl and those who cared about her. Knowing that, you have to see that "maybe she killed herself because her parents named her Nora" was intended as a joke, and not in earnest.

If you understand all that and you're still offended, then what? Do you think that Eddie was lying about feeling bad for the girl and her loved ones? That seems like a truly bizarre conclusion to arrive at.

So I'm forced to see the only logical explanation for all these outraged reactions as moral posturing -- i.e., people aren't truly offended, because they know Eddie cares about the girl -- they're just parroting a behavior they've seen in others.

And that, frankly, is just stupid.

So if this whole Jokegate episode accomplishes one thing, I hope it's that some people realize that they don't have to say a joke is offensive just because they think that's how people are supposed to react to jokes like this.

And to that end, I'd like to ask -- does anybody here truly think less of Eddie now? Did anybody, honestly, gasp, or shed a tear, or feel any real emotion, when they read her joke?

Be honest.

The trouble is that you're assuming that everyone thinks like you do. You're assuming that nobody was really offended, that they just feel that they should have been. Well you're wrong.

Does a person who cares about this young girl really make a comment like that? I doubt it.

Do you really think I just sat here and didn't bat an eyelid over her comment, that I just decided to pretend I was offended? If so, you're wrong.

Do I think less of eddie? That's something I'd have to think about, and the same goes for you.

Same here.
I have lost respect for both Ben and Eddie over this (I'm sure they will be bothered) not only for the remarks they both made which I have already commented on, but the way they have shown zero respect for the remarks of the other posters who objected.
The truth is only valid when they say it is it seems.

Raggamuffin wrote:This is all very lovely and self-congratulatory, but what does it have to do with suggesting that a young girl killed herself because of her name, or that she wasn't sexually assaulted because of her face?

raggamuffin, did you just post about this and then delete it?

strange, i could've sworn i saw a post here by you saying about giving an honest answer

if so why did you delete it?

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:This is all very lovely and self-congratulatory, but what does it have to do with suggesting that a young girl killed herself because of her name, or that she wasn't sexually assaulted because of her face?

raggamuffin, did you just post about this and then delete it?

strange, i could've sworn i saw a post here by you saying about giving an honest answer

if so why did you delete it?

You mean yesterday. Yes, I deleted a few of my own posts because the words didn't seem right.

I thought about leaving the forum, but then Ben virtually accused several of us of being fake, and I'm not going to let him get away with that.

Raggamuffin wrote:I thought about leaving the forum, but then Ben virtually accused several of us of being fake, and I'm not going to let him get away with that.

why would you leave the forum? loads of people have said shitty things on here at one time or another. is it worth leaving over because you didn't like someone elses's crass remark?

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I thought about leaving the forum, but then Ben virtually accused several of us of being fake, and I'm not going to let him get away with that.

why would you leave the forum?  loads of people have said shitty things on here at one time or another.  is it worth leaving over because you didn't like someone elses's crass remark?

You agree that it was crass then?

It's not just that - and you know it. It goes further than that. There has clearly been a mutual decline in respect between the owner and at least two of the members.

Anyone can make a crass remark, but they don't usually defend it and tell others that they're being fake or that it's their problem if they don't find it funny.

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:


why would you leave the forum?  loads of people have said shitty things on here at one time or another.  is it worth leaving over because you didn't like someone elses's crass remark?

You agree that it was crass then?

It's not just that - and you know it.  It goes further than that. There has clearly been a mutual decline in respect between the owner and at least two of the members.

Anyone can make a crass remark, but they don't usually defend it and tell others that they're being fake or that it's their problem if they don't find it funny.

of course it was crass - i never said it wasn't and ben's was even worse.

but then everyone else got to play judge jury and executioner over it which is everyone's right of course.

how much does everyone else really care about this girl, though, raggs? how much do you care about her?

do you plan to fly out to where she went missing to see if you can find anything?
have you contacted the parents to express your sorrow?
have you set up a gofundme page for them?
are you going to sit up tonight and every night crying over it?

i suspect not.

you care enough to say 'RIP' and 'how dreadful' and just about enough to get indignant and point the finger over someone else making a crappy remark that you don't agree with

then you will forget about her and go back to strictly come dancing and your hubby and kids and grandkids and your cosy life.

does it make you a better person than eddie or ben?

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You agree that it was crass then?

It's not just that - and you know it.  It goes further than that. There has clearly been a mutual decline in respect between the owner and at least two of the members.

Anyone can make a crass remark, but they don't usually defend it and tell others that they're being fake or that it's their problem if they don't find it funny.

of course it was crass - i never said it wasn't and ben's was even worse.

but then everyone else got to play judge jury and executioner over it which is everyone's right of course.

how much does everyone else really care about this girl, though, raggs?  how much do you care about her?

do you plan to fly out to where she went missing to see if you can find anything?
have you contacted the parents to express your sorrow?
have you set up a gofundme page for them?
are you going to sit up tonight and every night crying over it?

i suspect not.

you care enough to say 'RIP' and 'how dreadful' and just about enough to get indignant and point the finger over someone else making a crappy remark that you don't agree with

then you will forget about her and go back to strictly come dancing and your hubby and kids and grandkids and your cosy life.

does it make you a better person than eddie or ben?

You don't get it do you?

I've said myself that tragedies are personal, and that the general public are not affected in the same way as family and friends, so don't preach to me.

The issue is the blurting out of the crass remark in the first place, followed by the defence of it, followed by accusations that those who object are being fake, humourless, or that it's moral posturing. As if that wasn't enough, there's this awful self-congratulation on being "honest" and the implication that others are dishonest. The lack of self awareness and respect for the reactions of others is truly awful and a bit of a shock.

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:


of course it was crass - i never said it wasn't and ben's was even worse.

but then everyone else got to play judge jury and executioner over it which is everyone's right of course.

how much does everyone else really care about this girl, though, raggs?  how much do you care about her?

do you plan to fly out to where she went missing to see if you can find anything?
have you contacted the parents to express your sorrow?
have you set up a gofundme page for them?
are you going to sit up tonight and every night crying over it?

i suspect not.

you care enough to say 'RIP' and 'how dreadful' and just about enough to get indignant and point the finger over someone else making a crappy remark that you don't agree with

then you will forget about her and go back to strictly come dancing and your hubby and kids and grandkids and your cosy life.

does it make you a better person than eddie or ben?

You don't get it do you?

I've said myself that tragedies are personal, and that the general public are not affected in the same way as family and friends, so don't preach to me.

The issue is the blurting out of the crass remark in the first place, followed by the defence of it, followed by accusations that those who object are being fake, humourless, or that it's moral posturing. As if that wasn't enough, there's this awful self-congratulation on being "honest" and the implication that others are dishonest. The lack of self awareness and respect for the reactions of others is truly awful and a bit of a shock.

yes, i know and like i said, regardless of any defence of it, everyone else was still wading in and giving their opinions and having a go which they have a right to do. we are not always going to agree on here. and there wss no congratulations on being honest it's just how i am. i tend to get very good reactions from others and also there was no intention to preach at you

do you consider yourself a better person than ben or eddie based on the fact that you wouldn't have said the things they did?

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't get it do you?

I've said myself that tragedies are personal, and that the general public are not affected in the same way as family and friends, so don't preach to me.

The issue is the blurting out of the crass remark in the first place, followed by the defence of it, followed by accusations that those who object are being fake, humourless, or that it's moral posturing. As if that wasn't enough, there's this awful self-congratulation on being "honest" and the implication that others are dishonest. The lack of self awareness and respect for the reactions of others is truly awful and a bit of a shock.

yes, i know and like i said, regardless of any defence of it, everyone else was still wading in and giving their opinions and having a go which they have a right to do.  we are not always going to agree on here. and there wss  no congratulations on being honest it's just how i am.  i tend to get very good reactions from others and also there was no intention to preach at you

do you consider yourself a better person than ben or eddie based on the fact that you wouldn't have said the things they did?

I wouldn't have even thought the things they thought. I think they were cruel, and I'm just not sure if it's posturing on their part or if they are just cruel people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:


yes, i know and like i said, regardless of any defence of it, everyone else was still wading in and giving their opinions and having a go which they have a right to do.  we are not always going to agree on here. and there wss  no congratulations on being honest it's just how i am.  i tend to get very good reactions from others and also there was no intention to preach at you

do you consider yourself a better person than ben or eddie based on the fact that you wouldn't have said the things they did?

I wouldn't have even thought the things they thought. I think they were cruel, and I'm just not sure if it's posturing on their part or if they are just cruel people.

is that a yes or a no though?

Raggamuffin wrote:

gelico wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't get it do you?

I've said myself that tragedies are personal, and that the general public are not affected in the same way as family and friends, so don't preach to me.

The issue is the blurting out of the crass remark in the first place, followed by the defence of it, followed by accusations that those who object are being fake, humourless, or that it's moral posturing. As if that wasn't enough, there's this awful self-congratulation on being "honest" and the implication that others are dishonest. The lack of self awareness and respect for the reactions of others is truly awful and a bit of a shock.

yes, i know and like i said, regardless of any defence of it, everyone else was still wading in and giving their opinions and having a go which they have a right to do.  we are not always going to agree on here. and there wss  no congratulations on being honest it's just how i am.  i tend to get very good reactions from others and also there was no intention to preach at you

do you consider yourself a better person than ben or eddie based on the fact that you wouldn't have said the things they did?

I wouldn't have even thought the things they thought. I think they were cruel, and I'm just not sure if it's posturing on their part or if they are just cruel people.

It's just our sick sense of humor, really. There was never any cruelty at the heart of what either of us said.

Sorry, but if you can't say why these jokes are offensive -- several people here tried, and each came up with a different reason -- then maybe you should just say, "I don't know why, exactly, but I didn't like that joke" and leave it at that.

Eddie and I saw all the waffling and I'll admit, we both smelled blood. We just like to probe and try to find out why people say the things they say and whether they really mean them.

At the same time, our opinions are only our opinions. Everyone's free to ignore them, free to tell us we're full of shit. That's life on a forum, after all

And let me add, I never once said that other people were wrong to have an opinion over my joke. Of course you’re entitled to have an opinion and get all huffy about it.
But I also have a right to ask you why you’re huffy. Everyone answered. What’s the big deal still?

It seems to me that some of you keep pretending that I didn’t like the fact you took me to task - that didn’t happen, did it? I merely asked you all questions...seems that got you all defensive.
Because that’s really what happened, I never once suggested that nobody should take me to task, I just made some comments about moral posturing and asked you all some questions.

Oh well. Such is life.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I wouldn't have even thought the things they thought. I think they were cruel, and I'm just not sure if it's posturing on their part or if they are just cruel people.

It's just our sick sense of humor, really. There was never any cruelty at the heart of what either of us said.

Sorry, but if you can't say why these jokes are offensive -- several people here tried, and each came up with a different reason -- then maybe you should just say, "I don't know why, exactly, but I didn't like that joke" and leave it at that.

Eddie and I saw all the waffling and I'll admit, we both smelled blood. We just like to probe and try to find out why people say the things they say and whether they really mean them.

At the same time, our opinions are only our opinions. Everyone's free to ignore them, free to tell us we're full of shit. That's life on a forum, after all

I have explained why it was offensive, you just see what you want to see.

Are you now saying that you and eddie deliberately decided to defend your cruel remarks to get a reaction? That wasn't very honest was it?

Of course you were cruel - both of you.

eddie wrote:And let me add, I never once said that other people were wrong to have an opinion over my joke. Of course you’re entitled to have an opinion and get all huffy about it.
But I also have a right to ask you why you’re huffy. Everyone answered. What’s the big deal still?

It seems to me that some of you keep pretending that I didn’t like the fact you took me to task - that didn’t happen, did it? I merely asked you all questions...seems that got you all defensive.
Because that’s really what happened, I never once suggested that nobody should take me to task, I just made some comments about moral posturing and asked you all some questions.

Oh well. Such is life.

You didn't like it, and if you're pretending that you didn't mind, you're not being honest.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:And let me add, I never once said that other people were wrong to have an opinion over my joke. Of course you’re entitled to have an opinion and get all huffy about it.
But I also have a right to ask you why you’re huffy. Everyone answered. What’s the big deal still?

It seems to me that some of you keep pretending that I didn’t like the fact you took me to task - that didn’t happen, did it? I merely asked you all questions...seems that got you all defensive.
Because that’s really what happened, I never once suggested that nobody should take me to task, I just made some comments about moral posturing and asked you all some questions.

Oh well. Such is life.

You didn't like it, and if you're pretending that you didn't mind, you're not being honest.

Erm no, I I have never minded people taking me to task. I wasn’t the one who got angry and waffly and changing my stance, was I? Why would I care if people didn’t like my humour, Rags? That’s a weird thing to think. I rarely, if ever, get angry if people don’t agree with me. I rarely if ever, get offended by people calling me names. I rarely, if ever, have a need to be agreed with.
I think you’re angry because something made you angry, it wasn’t really my joke was it?

Where did I get angry or defensive? I asked each of you questions. They may have made some people uncomfortable, perhaps.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You didn't like it, and if you're pretending that you didn't mind, you're not being honest.

Erm no, I I have never minded people taking me to task. I wasn’t the one who got angry and waffly and changing my stance, was I?  Why would I care if people didn’t like my humour, Rags? That’s a weird thing to think. I rarely, if ever, get angry if people don’t agree with me. I rarely if ever, get offended by people calling me names. I rarely, if ever, have a need to be agreed with.  
I think you’re angry because something made you angry, it wasn’t really my joke was it?

Where did I get angry or defensive? I asked each of you questions. They may have made some people uncomfortable, perhaps.  

Oh you did get defensive. You insisted that people had misunderstood your "joke", even when it was clear they hadn't. You've persisted in your own defence over and over again. Ben has waded in and tried to distract people by making an even worse remark.

Now you're trying to make out that you're fit to judge other people's reactions. I already said what's bothering me, and now you can add to those reasons another one - your utter conviction that you're here to make people question themselves.