Quote:OK, here you go again and inserting more complications that did not exist on what took place. This occurred in the early 70's. Almost 50 years past, that is a half century ago. Back then we still had boys and girls bathrooms, period
This statement
"depending on what the person looked like, outward appearance would surface in determining gender. But considering the person could be transgender. Outward appearance is not always an accurate determination. But that was not part of the exercise. Unless the person was in fact a male that they had wearing a dress. Which further enforces the true nature of the experiment. To see which people think for them selves.
"
was in response to this reply
if you were in that classroom, you would expect for that guy to pull down his pants down to prove to you he was male.
FYI even in the 70 transgender existed. People just did not make it known. But even before that there where a lot of women that lived their life as men so that would not be limited by the restrictions placed on women.
Here again you see what you want and ignore the point being made. Where you see complications, I consider all the possibilities. Where you take things as a given. To me for something to be true there has to be a why. Like I said. You assume gender based on what you see. for me I would need to eliminate the alternatives. Where you define gender by a person genitalia. I realize gender also has a mental component.
(04-11-2018, 03:18 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:OK, here you go again and inserting more complications that did not exist on what took place. This occurred in the early 70's. Almost 50 years past, that is a half century ago. Back then we still had boys and girls bathrooms, period
This statement
"depending on what the person looked like, outward appearance would surface in determining gender. But considering the person could be transgender. Outward appearance is not always an accurate determination. But that was not part of the exercise. Unless the person was in fact a male that they had wearing a dress. Which further enforces the true nature of the experiment. To see which people think for them selves.
"
was in response to this reply
if you were in that classroom, you would expect for that guy to pull down his pants down to prove to you he was male.
FYI even in the 70 transgender existed. People just did not make it known. But even before that there where a lot of women that lived their life as men so that would not be limited by the restrictions placed on women.
Here again you see what you want and ignore the point being made. Where you see complications, I consider all the possibilities. Where you take things as a given. To me for something to be true there has to be a why. Like I said. You assume gender based on what you see. for me I would need to eliminate the alternatives. Where you define gender by a person genitalia. I realize gender also has a mental component.
Yea, I know transgenders existed, the point is, the exercise wasn't on what was the sex of the intruder. The point of the exercise was to explore how we perceived a situation and to discuss what effected our interpretation of what we all saw. Once the intruder came back in wearing blue jeans, the teacher would confront one of the students that saw a different color and explore why they saw the different color.
Not to argue that blue jeans aren't blue jeans, CAPISCE?
This is the whole point of arguing with your opinions and a few others. I bet if you were in that class and reported "IT" was wearing "RED JEANS", you would be claiming "IT" must have switched pants when "IT" came back in the classroom, to discuss the dependencies. My statement on "pulling down the pants" was sarcasm on you and you fell for it head on.
We all saw the same thing, we reported it differently. But as usual, you go off on a transgender tangent to left field and ignore the whole purpose of the exercise. So what is there was a transgender that walked in the class. Just as what matters what the "writers intent" was on Grimm. What counts is what we saw on the screen and how we interpret it and what we can refer to, to back up what we saw. Your "writers intent' is just your sub-conscience warning the rest of us that a whole lot of BS is about to spew out of your postings.
How we interpret what we see on the screen is influenced by our own experiences and bias, not by being clairvoyant to be able to perceive "writers intent". Well, at least for most of us unfortunate common souls whom lack your ESP abilities.
Now please, I do not wish to explore if we are all capable of some level of ESP. The ESP reference is just more "SARCASM". Oh wait, "March Madness" just passed. Maybe i meant ESPN!
Quote:The point you are missing is, your writers perspective, in my world, does not give you or others the license to change or make up facts. As much as you have the right to express your perspective, I have the right to point out what I consider false or question your claims to prove what we saw backed up with references to the actual show, instead of your reliability to prove it with touchy-feelings goblly-gook.
(laughs). The pot calling the kettle black. I recall a thread speculating that Juliette was a prostitute/prostituted herself based on a conversation about her college days and the fact she was living with Nick. There was nothing, absolutely nothing in that claim, yet said poster as usual got mad, blustered, and sputtered aimlessly because others were questioning that tripe.
Juliette is a character who everyone here has speculated about with little to no proof. Most were were respected for their opinions, like most people do here. But, like I said before, there are others here who love to bully and single out targets. As such, they are incapable of actually participating intelligently in a debate so they continually pick and pretend to have some high moral standard to stand behind.
dicappatore the experiment was not to validate that each of us perceive things in different ways. It was to show that some of use perceive things as we want them to be and that becomes our reality. Remember their was only one right answer. There are many reason why some people perceive things in different ways. Currently this is being called an alternate reality.
Take the discussion about my reply to your sarcastic comment of me going left field on the talk about the experiment. You only saw my answer as opposition to your perspective. You pointed out the statements but ignored the idea being presented. Now where did I equate the transgender to the experiment. But you choose to select statement to show a connection. That is exactly what the experiment was trying to show you. How perceived notions can become ones reality. I am only saying clear you mind and see things as they are not as you want them.
(04-12-2018, 01:44 PM)syscrash Wrote: [ -> ]dicappatore the experiment was not to validate that each of us perceive things in different ways. It was to show that some of use perceive things as we want them to be and that becomes our reality. Remember their was only one right answer. There are many reason why some people perceive things in different ways. Currently this is being called an alternate reality.
Take the discussion about my reply to your sarcastic comment of me going left field on the talk about the experiment. You only saw my answer as opposition to your perspective. You pointed out the statements but ignored the idea being presented. Now where did I equate the transgender to the experiment. But you choose to select statement to show a connection. That is exactly what the experiment was trying to show you. How perceived notions can become ones reality. I am only saying clear you mind and see things as they are not as you want them.
Well,As I recall, no one in that class was confused on the sex of the intruder. They either claimed it was male or female and nothing in between.
(04-12-2018, 04:26 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The point you are missing is, your writers perspective, in my world, does not give you or others the license to change or make up facts. As much as you have the right to express your perspective, I have the right to point out what I consider false or question your claims to prove what we saw backed up with references to the actual show, instead of your reliability to prove it with touchy-feelings goblly-gook.
(laughs). The pot calling the kettle black. I recall a thread speculating that Juliette was a prostitute/prostituted herself based on a conversation about her college days and the fact she was living with Nick. There was nothing, absolutely nothing in that claim, yet said poster as usual got mad, blustered, and sputtered aimlessly because others were questioning that tripe.
Juliette is a character who everyone here has speculated about with little to no proof. Most were were respected for their opinions, like most people do here. But, like I said before, there are others here who love to bully and single out targets. As such, they are incapable of actually participating intelligently in a debate so they continually pick and pretend to have some high moral standard to stand behind.
Yea keep laughing at my opinion of her prostituting herself. While you are at it, keep laughing at the supermarket scene I referenced to that I made up. Keep laughing at the scene in the coffee shop reminiscing about their college days with her roommate Alicia or her own references of her grandmother scolding her about hanging out with young boys with back seats.
While your at it, keep laughing at the scenes i created in my delusional mind when she shags Sean and then tops it off with Ken shagging. You remember that scene I created when she jumps on Kens lap, in the house Nick owned, in the bed She slept in with him and tells Ken:
Juliette; If I'm gonna be working with the Royal Family, you need to have a very clear understanding of just how valuable I can be.
Just before she spreads her legs. Yea, I guess I created that scene too.
You might disagree with my summation of her constitution, as a few others did but can you point out which scene I referenced to as my creation in my delusional mind? All I can say is. Just substitute my references to the EverReady Batteries in this commercial link below. Robert Conrad says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUSnEmgNvNM
Yea, I dare you to point out wich scene is from my "Fan Creations". I DARE YOU!:
Now, I won't bother doing the research for you on all the crap you made up. Maybe you aren't capable of even recalling the times you were so eager to place your foot in your mouth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtNm9CgA6U
Anyone reading these post can recall, in more than one occasion what you claimed as facts to be false or question other's references, again and again, in more than one occasion.
You keep claiming and crying about name calling. Why would I keep bothering to do so. You seem to do a better job at it all by yourself. Like you just did
Quote:Yea keep laughing at my opinion of her prostituting herself. While you are at it, keep laughing at the supermarket scene I referenced to that I made up. Keep laughing at the scene in the coffee shop reminiscing about their college days with her roommate Alicia or her own references of her grandmother scolding her about hanging out with young boys with back seat
I am. I think it's hilarious that you try to flout your baseless theories as fact and then quickly deflect to bullying when people don't agree with you. Real convincing there, targeting others to insult their arguments when your own hold no merit whatsoever. The pot calling the kettle black.
(04-12-2018, 08:28 PM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Yea keep laughing at my opinion of her prostituting herself. While you are at it, keep laughing at the supermarket scene I referenced to that I made up. Keep laughing at the scene in the coffee shop reminiscing about their college days with her roommate Alicia or her own references of her grandmother scolding her about hanging out with young boys with back seat
I am. I think it's hilarious that you try to flout your baseless theories as fact and then quickly deflect to bullying when people don't agree with you. Real convincing there, targeting others to insult their arguments when your own hold no merit whatsoever. The pot calling the kettle black.
your BS is the insult to these threads!
(04-13-2018, 02:45 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]your BS is the insult to these threads!
(laughs) You just keep on telling yourself over and over that your opinion equates to fact. Then go ahead, target others to make yourself seem superior. That should make you feel like a bigshot here. Of course your problem is that a few of us see right through the bullying and sputtering. We know you're no better than the rest of us, despite your protests, bolding and enlarged fonts. You don't, but a few of us do. And that really bothers you. You know how I can tell? Because you can't leave it alone. True earmarks of a bully.
I'll tell you what. Since you're so keen on daring posters here, I dare you to be civil and respectful from now on, no matter what you might personally think. You won't be able to do it.
(04-11-2018, 05:07 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ] (04-11-2018, 04:45 AM)New Guy Wrote: [ -> ]Hi Dicap,
Your comment brings to mind this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI-Y0CMGwxo
Perhaps Syscrash will explain to us the deep meaning of the lyrics.
N G
PS: AKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lw33d7K12E
He got 11 Grammy Awards!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJ53kmrF1k
WELL, I can clearly see the deep writers intent connection of the song to one or two contributors to these threads.
Hi Dicap,
Syscrash has yet to comment, so I researched "Do-Wacka-Do".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do-Wacka-Do
Quote:"(And You Had a) Do-Wacka-Do" is a song, released in 1965, by American country music artist Roger Miller. The expression "do-wacka-do" is a funny way of saying "do-like-I-do".
The song expresses envy in a humorous way. The lyrics are written like a letter to a friend or possibly a former friend ("I hear tell you're doing well, good things have come to you ...") with whom the singer would like to trade places ("I wish I had your good luck charm, and you had a do-wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do, wacka-do").
Now that is some very deep allegory. (IMO)
Do-Waka-Do!
N G
(04-13-2018, 04:06 AM)irukandji Wrote: [ -> ] (04-13-2018, 02:45 AM)dicappatore Wrote: [ -> ]your BS is the insult to these threads!
(laughs) You just keep on telling yourself over and over that your opinion equates to fact. Then go ahead, target others to make yourself seem superior. That should make you feel like a bigshot here. Of course your problem is that a few of us see right through the bullying and sputtering. We know you're no better than the rest of us, despite your protests, bolding and enlarged fonts. You don't, but a few of us do. And that really bothers you. You know how I can tell? Because you can't leave it alone. True earmarks of a bully.
I'll tell you what. Since you're so keen on daring posters here, I dare you to be civil and respectful from now on, no matter what you might personally think. You won't be able to do it.
and you will do the same is I post more of my "Grimm Weapons and paraphernalia"?