notlocal

AOL

#21 Dec 5, 2012
Good is Life wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure you was one of the people doing it. Were YOU?
"I'm sure you WERE (not was) one of the people doing it. Were YOU?"

No. You hunch or thought is completely wrong. I only post as myself. Although there have been a few ficticious posts using 'notlocal'. But the idiots forget to change their locations. And the regulars on here are pretty used to my cadence, albeit I've only been on this forum since about September.

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#22 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
That would be 'you're'. as in you are, not YOUR as to infer possession.
Frankly, I don't look that closely at the poster's name, but read the post and respond.
I told you the LIG/GIL confused me, but no matter who made the remark, I would have responded the same. If you had not read Kemoshbe's (no, I will never take the time to learn how to spell it), remark and were not agreeing with it, I apologize.


I apologize too.
fake made up name

Columbus, OH

#23 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
At least I don't hide unde a fake, made-up name.
So you're saying "notlocal" is not a fake, made-up name?
not really me

Columbus, OH

#24 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me really add to your fun...my Dad died three months after my surgery of an inoperable maligant brain tumor. He was 54. There were over 1,000 people at his funeral. The cancers were not related.
So what's your point?

“Hey, Sarge!”

Since: Dec 10

The Milky Way

#25 Dec 5, 2012
Good is Life wrote:
<quoted text>I apologize too.
Stay salty when you can!
Yo.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#26 Dec 5, 2012
OK, let me get this straight.

Schools have been teaching about families directly or indirectly since way before I entered kindergarten (those nice little "housekeeping" play areas; Christmas, Mother's and Father's Day gifts in art class; how family structure lays groundwork for community structure; basic genetics--offspring carry the traits of both parents; if sex education is included it relates to procreation and care for offspring in families). Now, so long as all of the portrayed families had a mommy and daddy of matching color and a marriage license, no questions were asked.

Now, on the other hand, people start to notice that not only does this exclude a large number of real life specimens of FAMILY, but also communicates to all the students whose families don't match up that they somehow don't belong--and figure out that there is a far more honest and accurate (not to mention less damaging) portrayal needed. And suddenly there is a concern that this is INDOCTRINATION?

Maybe we should take this approach to all courses of study. This being Ohio, science classes should limit themselves to examples of buckeye trees in all units dealing with trees. Prime numbers are hard to understand. Young children shouldn't be forced to confront such difficult issues. Let's just eliminate them when we teach counting or math facts. And teaching our American history of slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights encourages divisiveness. Take it out of the curriculum (actually, there are states already moving in that direction).

Let's take out anything that might make anyone uncomfortable--snip, snip, snip. The Smother's Brothers got in trouble with network censors ages ago for describing exactly such an approach to what comedy they could air. I recall their phrase--all that snipping would leave behind a beautiful doily for the brain.

“Hi-Yo Silver! Away!”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#27 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't even know what that remark means or why YOUR is in all caps.
My husband is very happy with my relationship with his four children and six grandchildren.
My seven nieces and nephews, two of whom are older than I am, adore me, as do their 13 children.
And most of my friend's children call me 'Aunt.'
Ovarian cancer at age 19 hindered me from reproducing. Much to the delight of you and Kemoshabe, I'm sure. Have a friggin party. Celebrate your selves.
Well, time to eat crow. I am sorry for my remark to you. That surely was a horrible thing to go through at that age, and it was stupid and insensitive for me to make that cruel remark.

People have picked on my wife, so I know how what I wrote made you feel. I do apologize.

“Hi-Yo Silver! Away!”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#28 Dec 5, 2012
I would say all education has always and will always contain a hefty percentage of indoctrination, whether it be how parents raise a child, to what is taught in school about country, and in church about morals. All of these have a vested interest in continuing the existing cultural model. Hence conscientious parents teach and expect certain standards of behavior, schools teach about the history of the country and society in a way that emphasizes the good aspects, and downplays or ignores the bad aspects, and churches of course teach in a way than ensures the survival of the congregation and the sect. So there has always been some level of indoctrination in order to keep order, as it were.

Introducing family arrangements that are not "traditional" may make some people feel threatened, but the fact is there are now, and have been for some years, children of homosexual parents (whether adopted or surrogate) to whom that arrangement is normal. As society moves toward acceptance of same-sex families, these matters will be addressed in multiple forums.
notlocal

AOL

#31 Dec 5, 2012
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, time to eat crow. I am sorry for my remark to you. That surely was a horrible thing to go through at that age, and it was stupid and insensitive for me to make that cruel remark.
People have picked on my wife, so I know how what I wrote made you feel. I do apologize.
Thank you for being so gallant. There's no way you could have known, and I'm sorry for over-reacting. Bet your wife has had a lot of great kids in her life too.:-) Starting with you?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#32 Dec 5, 2012
Kemosahbe wrote:
<quoted text>
...People have picked on my wife, so I know how what I wrote made you feel. I do apologize.
I thought your disabled wife was a fictional creation.
You've created multiple fictional characters on Topix, and then expect everyone to keep the facts straight...or to take you seriously?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#33 Dec 5, 2012
Karl wrote:
<quoted text>
And if society moves toward acceptance of polyandry...
(Note, if you like gay marriage, you are a hypocrite if you don't like polyandry, why because if the love of two men deserves a state recognition, then the love of two men and one woman does as well)
I've never met a Leftist who could follow their own argument to its logical conclusion, and then defend it.
notlocal

AOL

#34 Dec 5, 2012
Kemosahbe wrote:
I would say all education has always and will always contain a hefty percentage of indoctrination, whether it be how parents raise a child, to what is taught in school about country, and in church about morals. All of these have a vested interest in continuing the existing cultural model. Hence conscientious parents teach and expect certain standards of behavior, schools teach about the history of the country and society in a way that emphasizes the good aspects, and downplays or ignores the bad aspects, and churches of course teach in a way than ensures the survival of the congregation and the sect. So there has always been some level of indoctrination in order to keep order, as it were.
Introducing family arrangements that are not "traditional" may make some people feel threatened, but the fact is there are now, and have been for some years, children of homosexual parents (whether adopted or surrogate) to whom that arrangement is normal. As society moves toward acceptance of same-sex families, these matters will be addressed in multiple forums.
I have three cousins and several friends who are gay. And, of course, I love them, two more than the other to be honest. The one I do not like is in a 'normal' hetrosexual marriage, with children, and thinks he's in the closet. Ha.
I prefer the the family, as a whole, introduce the kids to that situation and explain it without bias or romanticize it. Why confuse them when they are too young?
Yes, the church is going to become involved at some point, but not early in the child's life.
As ar as I'm concerned, the school's and government need to stay out of it.
Paents know their kids best and there is no sense in piling all this knowledge on them when they have not asked or been exposed to it.
When they are, yes, you explain different kinds of families and don't make a big deal about it.
It's been my experience with kids that sometimes to much information leads to experimentation.

PC activists
prevented Christmas play about Charlie Brown, done by a church group, to be held in the auditorium of a nearby public school because it had a Christmas tree and some carols in it. Now that's really teaching acceptance and tolerance, isn't it?

“animis opibusque parati”

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#35 Dec 5, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
OK, let me get this straight.
Schools have been teaching about families directly or indirectly since way before I entered kindergarten (those nice little "housekeeping" play areas; Christmas, Mother's and Father's Day gifts in art class; how family structure lays groundwork for community structure; basic genetics--offspring carry the traits of both parents; if sex education is included it relates to procreation and care for offspring in families). Now, so long as all of the portrayed families had a mommy and daddy of matching color and a marriage license, no questions were asked.
Now, on the other hand, people start to notice that not only does this exclude a large number of real life specimens of FAMILY, but also communicates to all the students whose families don't match up that they somehow don't belong--and figure out that there is a far more honest and accurate (not to mention less damaging) portrayal needed. And suddenly there is a concern that this is INDOCTRINATION?
Maybe we should take this approach to all courses of study. This being Ohio, science classes should limit themselves to examples of buckeye trees in all units dealing with trees. Prime numbers are hard to understand. Young children shouldn't be forced to confront such difficult issues. Let's just eliminate them when we teach counting or math facts. And teaching our American history of slavery, Jim Crow and Civil Rights encourages divisiveness. Take it out of the curriculum (actually, there are states already moving in that direction).
Let's take out anything that might make anyone uncomfortable--snip, snip, snip. The Smother's Brothers got in trouble with network censors ages ago for describing exactly such an approach to what comedy they could air. I recall their phrase--all that snipping would leave behind a beautiful doily for the brain.
Natural law and moral law dictate that normal human sexual behavior is heterosexual in nature, and the vehicle for propagation of our species.

To teach children otherwise is to lie.

"...yes, we should protect children from being taught in the schools, as early as age 7, that homosexuality is a normal human behavior and that if they think they like girls more, then they may be a lesbian, or if they think they like boys more, then they may be gay. At age 7, some kids probably like their dogs more than their classmates....should bestiality be offered as a self-identification possibility as well?

"And that is the point: there is something called reality. When feelings tell one he is, or should be, something he is not or shouldn't be -- a girl, a legless man, or Napoleon -- the sane conclusion is that you're confronted with a psychological problem, not a physical one."

-- Selwyn Duke

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#37 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for being so gallant. There's no way you could have known, and I'm sorry for over-reacting. Bet your wife has had a lot of great kids in her life too.:-) Starting with you?
He's full of sh!t, lying to you. We've known him for years as he used different names and gloated as he told us he made up the story about his wife.
notlocal

AOL

#38 Dec 5, 2012
-tip- wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought your disabled wife was a fictional creation.
You've created multiple fictional characters on Topix, and then expect everyone to keep the facts straight...or to take you seriously?
Don't, Tip. What's been said is enough. Drop it. None of us has walked in the other's shoes.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

#39 Dec 5, 2012
notlocal wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't, Tip. What's been said is enough. Drop it. None of us has walked in the other's shoes.
Tip's right. Sterling/Modern Man/The Author/Kemosahbe is a con artist.
notlocal

AOL

#40 Dec 5, 2012
fake made up name wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying "notlocal" is not a fake, made-up name?
I was the last of four children, unplanned for and they had ran out of names, toys, diapers, patience. Apparently I was conceived in FL, born in NJ and lived in DE due to my Dad's business. So they just named me 'notlocal'

“Hey, Sarge!”

Since: Dec 10

The Milky Way

#41 Dec 5, 2012
Karl wrote:
<quoted text>And if society moves toward acceptance of polyandry...

(Note, if you like gay marriage, you are a hypocrite if you don't like polyandry, why because if the love of two men deserves a state recognition, then the love of two men and one woman does as well)
Polyandry does exist as well as polygamy.
Anthro-101.
notlocal

AOL

#42 Dec 5, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>He's full of sh!t, lying to you. We've known him for years as he used different names and gloated as he told us he made up the story about his wife.
Thanks, George. Sort of suspected and I looked to see if there was a 'gotcha' attached before I replied. So that's on him and I took the high road.

“Hey, Sarge!”

Since: Dec 10

The Milky Way

#43 Dec 5, 2012
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>He's full of sh!t, lying to you. We've known him for years as he used different names and gloated as he told us he made up the story about his wife.
Rap on man!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Autopsy, toxicology report on Michael Brown 9 min BizzyBee 37
Ebola in America 6 hr Oliver Canterbury 10
Woman Behind Columbus Ebola Hoax Faces $2,800 Bill 7 hr Oliver Canterbury 4
Lawyer booked on charges he stole from guardian... 8 hr Silna 17
President Ebola 8 hr Duke for Mayor 658
Good morning BizzyBee and friends 9 hr They cannot kill ... 18
destiny Gilliam/benbrook 10 hr justagirl 15
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]