Thanks for the dance / baby?

Young dr. Freud
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 2:41 am

Postby Young dr. Freud » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:22 pm

Lizzy,

Yes! Leonard and Anjani are coming to Berlin....only they are not going to do a Thanks For the Dance waltz. Once the eventees surround them in a suffocating circle Leonard and Anjani will jump up and down on a bed a la Because of a Few Songs. Won't that be something.


YdF
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm

Lz, I seriously think that you don't understand "my English" because I was not trained in the complete bitch (and I mean it as mean can be) education that you have.

OK, rejoice you did win in manipulating me. I was wondering "how come Lz is not attacking my post in her usual ferocious manner when she thinks she is attacked"? And you know my good nature. I mean, my normal nature, and you know a normal person would care not to hurt another one. You probably had your trill to saw me go into the trap. But I don't care, because, 1) you did not hurt me. Not even a scratch I have. 2) It gives me more knowledge about your tactics.

Laurie, dear, getting lost is one of my favority thing. Getting lost, you put the hand on a sign copy of a book you like, and more interesting things.

I'm sorry, but nature can be binded (and very effectively) in so many ways by culture.

As you are not argumenting seriously at all, just like YdF, I let you two discussed the matter as you want. I'll discussed seriously only when serious matter is bring here, who ever does bring it, OK?

But because I want to procrastinate a little bit more, I'll just stress to you that if a culture is able to kill its baby girls (as YdF himself said it) it prooves that this mother/child link is not almighty like you two are claiming.

Bang. Your theory just hit the floor. Just like that. Out of a implacable logic. And because of one statement of Ydf against.. against what he does not really know in fact. Work harder, Ydf.

And you too Laurie. Make a serious search and you can talk seriously about that. Or get lost. It will probably be much more fun for you.

So.

I quit now. Cheers little girls, try to let some hairs here and there on the head of your vis-à-vis. 8)
LaurieAK
Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:00 am

Postby LaurieAK » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:13 pm

sorry Tc. I just don't have the heart to google for stories about dead children. So I will go on believing you to be shooting blanks unless you state fact about this phenom as opposed to your current seriously flawed: This Must = This equations. Something hit the floor, but it was not what you describe....

L
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25340
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:24 pm

It's not the word, so much as it's you and the concept of that single word, Laurie :wink: .


~ Lizzy
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25340
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:40 pm

In fact, Tc, I was choosing to [attempt to] engage with you regarding the content of your post. You've thrown more smoke, though, and done nothing to 'break it down' with regard to what you meant re: your original comment about its being me, not the dance [or whatever :roll: ], when I interjected between your and Anne-Marie's postings.

Don't get me started on your normal nature, Tc.

~ Lizzy
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25340
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:44 pm

Hi YdF ~

Yours is the fun one to answer :D . I guess you're forgetting the size of a typical ballroom floor, particularly in olde Germany, where I would expect them to be rather huge, heralding from the times when ballrooms were fully utilized for their original purpose. There would be no suffocating circle in such a place... at least as my mind had it imagined :wink: .

Yes :lol: ~ That would be something 8) ... to see :lol: . As they seem to bring out the happy child in each other, that may not be such an imaginary scenario, except for our being privy to it :wink: .


~ Lizzy
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:27 am

LaurieAK wrote:sorry Tc. I just don't have the heart to google for stories about dead children. So I will go on believing you to be shooting blanks unless you state fact about this phenom as opposed to your current seriously flawed: This Must = This equations. Something hit the floor, but it was not what you describe....

L
Now you are so lost that it seems you are talking about a completely different discussion. Or person.

"Something hit the floor, but it was not what you describe...." In your case, it was probably your common sense that you heard, for sure.

Lz, i wonder how many lies you can create per second. It is amazing. Anyway, I'm sure you could enter the Guinness Book only with the lies I read in the few (part of) posts of you that I read about me or about other people, including you PMs. Like you know I did stop to read it, mainly (or entirely), for a long time now, as I don't know if you are sick or if you are evil. I think that you have a manipulative personality and don't like to deal with people like you and I hate to witness other people being fooled by your lies.

To the 3 of you, here (I include Ydf, and Lz) :

I repeat : I refuse to enter into a serious discussion with anybody who shows such a hostile dishonest attitude toward my posts.

I repeat again, violence will not do the job of intelligence.

So you can shoot any cheap shots that you want, you only show how low your game is and how much you do not have knowledge about what you are talking about.

Great. Now, if you think that you have "win" because I don't fight and that you are exhibiting the most violent and anti-social behaviours, it is up to you. You fool only yourselves and you look like fools. Go on. I don't care, really. It is a free world. I just want to warn you : I will not read and, therefore, answer to any further provocation.

Anyway, thanks for the fight, it was a necessary time lost. 8) I could have take a more intelligent and sensitive discussion (or even fight) but ey! One is not suppose to be critical about a gift, at least openly. Put I am an open book.
LaurieAK
Posts: 1338
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 2:00 am

Postby LaurieAK » Sat Jun 24, 2006 2:35 am

Tc~

I'd seriously (seriously) like to know what culture and what time frame chose to not be attached to their children and were discouraged to mourn them upon death.

Simple.

If you don't answer. I will know it is because you cannot. Simple.

goin back out to play in the dirt....
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:35 pm

Here Ydf, Simon and Laurie, have this from me, but that's all :

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philos ... aries.html

http://www.regroupement.net/22oct2004enfantFamille.pdf

For any further comment, please see with Davideo, if he is willing to discuss with you. This guy understood everything of what I was saying, and he may want to comment. I don't. As far as I am concerned, I close the file right now So see you in any other subject. Cheers! :D
User avatar
linda_lakeside
Posts: 3857
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea..

Postby linda_lakeside » Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:25 pm

Hmmm. Interesting. The more things change, the more they remain the same. 8)
User avatar
Bobbie
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 1:37 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia USA

Postby Bobbie » Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:40 am

I did a search... "cultural differences in mourning the death of a child", and came up with more hits than I had the time to read.. not all of them relevant.

http://www.tneel.uic.edu/tneel-ss/demo/ ... tline1.asp

http://www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/death-1.html

I find this to be a fascinating thread, and here's how I see it - not that how I see it amounts to a whole heck of a lot. Nowhere in Tcocolati's post was it stated that mothers "in another century" (read... "in another century" - did not mourn their dead infants and children ... but rather, "mothers were expected not to complain." Presumably because life had to go on, and it was survival of the fittest in it's most raw and brutal form, even to, and including, death. There were other mouths to feed, other needs to be met, and life was difficult enough as it was, without a mourning mother who couldn't cope enough to take care of her living children (or husband... ) - even as harsh as that sounds, and not based in the reality of any of us here. Based on the little I know about this subject, Tchoc seems to have said it right... pregnancies came unplanned and unwanted, year after year, and yes, the cold fact is, many children died in their first year, weeks, or less. As a mother who loves her two sons like crazy, (ages 26 and 23) I can understand that it would be less painful to lose a child at birth (f you are expecting the possibility of losing a child at all, which many were) or in the first few days of life, rather than later on, before having a chance to become irreversibly in love and attached - even as sad as it all is. For instance, I can imagine a prairie mom realizing that she is pregnant "again", with several white crosses already bearing the names of her dead children from one ailment or another - feeling a macabre relief at the death of the infant she would probably never have a chance to become attached to anyway. Not to mention that we can only really relate to our own culture, and how we would react as individuals to such a thing. I know I would mourn every day all the way to my grave.. but someone else? ... we can't speak for that. We've all heard the horror story headlines - children sold to slavery, young girls given in marriage to an old man for the benefit of a dowry, children brutalized and abused till they die, children killed because they aren't the "right" gender - just a few examples amongst many, of how parents can, and do, abandon their children, spiritually, emotionally, and physically. So yes.. I think Tchoc is very reasonable in stating:

Quote:
"In another century, when pregancy and parenthood were not planned and children arrived like another year and child mortality rate was so high, people were not attached to their children (only adults were considering to have a value of some sort) and it was very bad behaviour for a mother to be sad for the death of a baby or a child. Mothers were expected not to complain about the loss at all."

And while I'm here already.. signed in and everything. Since I don't sign in that often... here is what I think about the dance.

If I ever found out that Leonard and Anjani, surrounded by a circle of breathless fans, danced a ballroom dance for the sole purpose of fan enjoyment, I'd think they were making a spectacle of themselves and everyone else had gone 'round the bend! But then again, I've never been one to chase ambulances, or gawk at car accidents.

Bobbie
YdF

Postby YdF » Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:45 am

Tchoc is not reasonable. She is wrong.

Her quotation's from Aire's book on childhood has nothing to do with her half-assed argument. There is no mention of parents NOT being attached to their children or mothers not being allowed to complain about the loss AT ALL. Or ONLY ADULTS having value.

Tchoc, just needs to admit she went too far with her "not's" and her "only's" and her "at all's". Don't hold your breath.

As for a mother's finding it easier to bear losing an infant after only a few days or at birth...I don't know…maybe...maybe not. Carrying a child for nine months and then watching it die almost immediately...sounds tough to me. No matter how many times it has happened.

YdF
Tchocolatl
Posts: 3781
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:07 pm

Postby Tchocolatl » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:20 pm

Bobbie, wow ; another person who understood "my English" 8) . But, as you (and maybe many others, are not here often, I inform who-is-interested-to-know that some people (including YdF and... oh well... they are so easy to recognized) are just plaguing me here, they don't argue seriously.

They stay sit on their bot' and they don't even think about the matter or even try to think about it and/or bringing some valuable matter to the discussion.

They bring nothing. Void. Emptyness.

Nothing else than verbal violence, lies, and tutti quanti. They could have done their own research (and/or thinking) to begin with, before attacking a statement. No. Too difficult. It is easier to destroy than to build something, everybody knows that, and don't ask me why, some people find their trill to destroy what others are doing. Well. C'est la vie.

With the additional information I generously ( :P ) provided it was even more easy for them to add something valuable to the discussion. No. Nothing again but what I am to polite to name.

Maybe they think that if they shoot the messenger to death, they have "win". Error. But they are to lousy to think further about it., either. That's great. 8)

Those kind of people are easy to tag in a negociation : their goal is to "win" over the other party and they are ready to do anything for this, at any price. They don't take anything else into consideration, they don't argue honestly, they attack by any means they can to destroy the other party, they harass until exhaution of the other party, so, usual and ordinary discussion with them is completely useless.

This is why I don't discuss with them, but I want to add to your constructive comment (and maybe, yes, some people are really and seriously interested to this discussion, after all), I'll just add that :

"Attached" does not mean that parents where not caring and loving. They were not just "attached" as (please see the definition in bold below).

Main Entry: at·tach
Pronunciation: &-'tach
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French attacher, from Old French estachier, from estache stake, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English staca stake
transitive senses
1 : to take by legal authority especially under a writ <attached the property>
2 a : to bring (oneself) into an association b : to assign temporarily
3 : to bind by personal ties (as of affection or sympathy) <was strongly attached to his family>
4 : to make fast (as by tying or gluing) <attach a label to a package>
5 : to associate especially as a property : ATTRIBUTE <attached great importance to public opinion polls>
intransitive senses : to become attached : ADHERE
synonym see FASTEN
- at·tach·able /-'ta-ch&-b&l/ adjective

They took care of their children the best they could but they were not attached - let say, as we are attached in our century, if we need to stress it - to them.

You know, a little bit like some lovers of our century who love and care very very very very much on the moment, but are not attached, (as definition number 5, maybe) to their mate as they can be in other time where the mate has a much more social importance.

Autres temps, autres moeurs - other times other customs.

Thanks for this other occasion to procrastinate. I am incurable. 8)

P.S. : hug, ev. and see you after the summertime, now (for real).

P.S. (2) and, I'm really sorry, but yes, young children had less importance than adults in those times (almost no importance at all), just like in our century, in some cultures (I let you find them by yourself) women have so much less importance than men. C'est la vie again.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25340
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Postby lizzytysh » Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:13 pm

Hi Bobbie :) ~

Yes, one always takes a risk when sharing a fantasy, or real life for that matter. I don't recall breathlessness being an aspect, but if my fantasies never become more 'round the bend than watching two admired people dancing to a song dedicated to that very thing and already recorded on film, I'll be doing well :wink: . Perhaps, I should rescind my fantasy for the comfort levels of those reading, but I'll just take responsibility for it, and remove myself from how people perceive it, and go on.

I remember how beautiful were the scenes in Leonard's short film with the two dancing in the empty ballroom. A different style of dance, but dance, nonetheless. I don't recall, at the moment, the name of the film. It's on the tape with other things. We have something in common. I've never been one to chase ambulances or gawk at car accidents, either; even if I had, however, I find comparing these rather curious.


~ Lizzy
Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:52 am
Location: Illinois, USA. Planet Earth.

Postby Kevin W.M.LastYearsMan » Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:17 pm

I just read this whole thread. If you all really get together for the Cohen meet-ups it has to get really goddamn interesting! Wow.

Kevin©

Return to “Blue Alert”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests