It does appear that we can’t even agree on humor, I have no doubt we would disagree on music, I am sure we disagree on the basic relationships of everything in the world.
Again it is really from where and how you perceive things isn’t it. Talk about jumping to conclusions and generalizing WOW!
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>[B]Snowbird, some of those things you said about Native Americans honestly should have been kept to yourself. The other contradictions you provide confuse me to no end.
You bemoan ‘A’ shows and their stranglehold on the pocketstrings of equestrian society, then you whine about not being able to show off your wealth from fear of being robbed of your fur and pearls?[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I’m so sorry, I did not know that you were the standard for proper attitudes, isn’t it weird I thought that it was possible to express personal opinions from a personal perspective without having my knuckles cracked by the teacher. I do apologize for my lack understanding.
I guess it is true that if you wish to be treated with kindness you need to agree with all the proposed positions. It’s really strange you know, because I thought that freedom meant the right to have any opinion or choices not just the party line. But, I guess to you freedom is simply the right to agree with you.
I just think if I post enough and try to explain enough perhaps even you will be able some day to understand my euphonisms and attitudes.
As to the AA Shows well, I do think it should be possible to make evaluations predicated on an over-all welfare without being accused of prejudice. Your words are “a stranglehold on pocketbooks”; mine are a monopoly because 10 rings is really 3 shows in one. In another day anyone who ran more than four rings would have been considered pretty tacky.
I do admit that I dearly, loved the 3 ring shows where we all sat around and were friends and had glorious tailgate parties. Since most people still in this sport were raised there, I would hope that the new generation could enjoy the same experiences. Just my opinion of course and I didn’t realize that idea was a taboo. That is why I choose my route through this world.
As to whining, I never said I had either a fancy car or furs and jewelry. Your conclusion is based on the fact that you don’t know me at all. In reality I have never felt any need to accumulate the trimmings of apparel or toys. And, never been impressed by them.
My generation is the one who tried to save women from stiletto heels, waist cinchers, girdles, wonder bars (trust me they’re not new) and stereo types where women were required to have cleavage.
We were the generation that put you all into blue jeans so that there was no difference between the rich and the poor by appearance at least. With that philosophy I find no need for furs and jewelry myself but I can sympathize with those to whom it is important are afraid to show them.
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Not that Bush is any less of a person, but why is he made into more because he’s a ‘nice guy?’ For goodness sakes, you didn’t elect him for his compassion and puppy-dog eyes, you elected him because you believed that he would perform well in national emergencies and under great stress. Charisma, personality, down-to-earth-ness, people skills…they are nice, but a bonus, not the real requirements for the job.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Now this concept I really don’t understand! I really always thought that good character, (nice guy), compassion (nice guy) were requirements for someone that we all could trust and depend on. On what basis do we judge intelligence, is it purely on IQ scores and SAT scores or what college someone attended. I’d be really curious to know what exactly was Bill Clinton’s IQ and what is George Bush’s IQ. It’s funny I’ve never heard that mentioned anywhere.
So are you saying we need to judge someone based on what criteria? And what is the basis for your conclusion that Bill Clinton is brilliant?
Lighten up Kellybird it’s a long perilous life we all live and so far we are entitled to make our judgments for the quality of that life. As to the use of the word “dummie”, it was a exageration of a concept which obviously you didn’t understand, at least not in that context.
It was an effort to describe the fact that we are not all created equal (in a light hearted way), and there are other ways to make those with more, feel responsible for those with less, on a individual level. And, if it is done on that individual level there is no reason for Big Brother to sponsor special programs.
These students each had a private tutor at no cost to anyone and with the benefit that the tutor learns to be a responsible member of a community and has all the pleasure and gratification of feeling that they accomplished something really worthwhile when the student they tutored got better grades. They had the opportunity to get to know someone who they otherwise might have overlooked if they were isolated in their own room away from the mainstream.
[This message was edited by Snowbird on Oct. 06, 2001 at 01:47 PM.]