Chinese anti-black racism

[Metaphor]

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

Because you called it a demotion and haven't explained how it was a demotion. Have you seen the movie? Based on how each role was played in the movie verses the imagery (which is based on the movie) how do you consider it a demotion?

No. I watched one hour of the original Star Wars at a friend's insistence and I was bored and turned it off. I have no interest* in the franchise except as it reflects popular taste.

*I take that back. I would pay good money to get a 4K restoration of the Star Wars Holiday Special, because let me tell you if the franchise had more Bea Arthur doing musical numbers in alien cantinas I might have become a fan.

Then my best suggestion is to STFU about it.

Why? I am not making any comment about how big or small Finn's role in any of the movies was, but on his relative demotion between the US poster and the Chinese one.

 

[Gospel]

Anti-black Chinese racism is well known, though the racism is hardly limited to black people, including and perhaps especially any kind of Asian that isn't their exact ethnicity. "All Asian people hate all other kinds of Asian people and that's just a fact" is how an Asian friend put it to me.

This I agree with. Not that you insinuated such (you didn't at all) but I'd like to add that I wouldn't characterize all of the Chinese like that. Though it is hard not to being that their government seems to dislike the Wu-Tang Clan rap group.

 

[Toni]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned.

Off topic, but Uncle Arthur is shown to have a girlfriend in a later-season episode but you are correct he was coded gay in the series.

Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

Oy gevalt. 12% of regular cast members play an LGBT character. That is about double (depending on the estimate) the people identifying as LGBT in the US population.

Now, I knew LGBT characters were overrepresented on US television based on my personal experience of US television but the GLAAD survey linked is the actuarial evidence. We can quibble about my use of the word 'saturated', but I will revise it down to 'vastly over-represented'.

 

[excreationist]

Oy gevalt. 12% of regular cast members play an LGBT character. That is about double (depending on the estimate) the people identifying as LGBT in the US population.

Now, I knew LGBT characters were overrepresented on US television based on my personal experience of US television but the GLAAD survey linked is the actuarial evidence. We can quibble about my use of the word 'saturated', but I will revise it down to 'vastly over-represented'.

BTW in the Australian soap Neighbours (which had its final episode last night), the main characters include a married gay couple who have adopted a baby and a main transgender character (who is an actual transgender) who got married on the show.

Georgie Stone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jarhyn]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

There is no evidence that Toni 'misunderstood' what I wrote, except her claim that she misunderstood it after I called her out.

I wrote:

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies.

I didn't even put a comma after 'characters'.

Toni responded:

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

Which is not a claim I made, and Toni had to jettison half my sentence to construct that straw man from the claim I actually did make.

I am willing to defend claims I make, but I'm not willing to defend claims I did not make.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

There is no evidence that Toni 'misunderstood' what I wrote...

You mean other than the words in her post... which meant she misread your intended point. I misread it too. You could have written it better, as people have a tendency to take the beginning of a sentence with more importance than the following part.

Compared to American cinema, American television is saturated with LGBT characters. No one will be confused there.

...except her claim that she misunderstood it after I called her out.

Yeah, you called her out for effectively lying about what you said. Way to have a conversation.

I realize you hold Toni to be on a pedestal, but she is capable of making mistakes.

 

[Metaphor]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

There is no evidence that Toni 'misunderstood' what I wrote...

You mean other than the words in her post... which meant she misread your intended point. I misread it too. You could have written it better, as people have a tendency to take the beginning of a sentence with more importance than the following part.

Compared to American cinema, American television is saturated with LGBT characters. No one will be confused there.

So, despite writing a perfectly coherent and valid sentence in English, it was my fault.

...except her claim that she misunderstood it after I called her out.

Yeah, you called her out for effectively lying about what you said. Way to have a conversation.

I realize you hold Toni to be on a pedestal, but she is capable of making mistakes.

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

 

[Toni]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

No, I responded to the part of what you wrote that surprised me and interested me. There was no attempt to alter your meaning. I just had not really thought about representation of gay characters on television, aside from the recognition that yes, they are now openly LGBTQ and not merely coded.

There was zero attempt to misrepresent you or your words.

Off topic, but Uncle Arthur is shown to have a girlfriend in a later-season episode but you are correct he was coded gay in the series.

As a kid, I didn't watch that much television and less the older I got. I stopped watching Bewitched altogether after they changed Darrins.

Oy gevalt. 12% of regular cast members play an LGBT character. That is about double (depending on the estimate) the people identifying as LGBT in the US population.

Now, I knew LGBT characters were overrepresented on US television based on my personal experience of US television but the GLAAD survey linked is the actuarial evidence. We can quibble about my use of the word 'saturated', but I will revise it down to 'vastly over-represented'.

Again, this isn't something I track or pay a lot of attention to. I watch some television and admit to a rather fierce addiction to HGTV but I'm working on it.

 

[Toni]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

I didn't really misunderstand your claim (acknowledge that you later suggested a better wording): I was just sidetracked/interested in the idea of something I had not really paid much attention to.

Jimmy Higgins has a good point: Not only in this particular thread but in many others, you react in the extreme if I don't respond in the way that you feel you have a right to dictate I respond. In this case, I only responded to the part of your post that I found surprising and asked about just that part. I wasn't trying to do any kind of gotcha or anything else. What you wrote peaked my curiosity.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious. It distracts from actual communication and clarification of what is being said or meant. By either of us.

 

[Metaphor]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

No, I responded to the part of what you wrote that surprised me and interested me.

Oy vey. There is no 'part of what I wrote'. What you excised changed the meaning of what was left.

"ALDI charges a fortune for fruits and vegetables compared to a farmer's market" does not imply "ALDI charges a fortune for fruits and vegetables". A comparative fortune is not the same thing as a standalone fortune.

"Joe Biden is a spring chicken compared to Dianne Feinstein" does not mean Joe Biden is a spring chicken.

There was no attempt to alter your meaning.

Nevertheless, your formulation did alter the meaning.

 

[Toni]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

To be honest, no snark intended, but you often come across as angry or outraged when you write posts. I can understand why he wrote that you were 'so mad.'

 

[Metaphor]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

I didn't really misunderstand your claim (acknowledge that you later suggested a better wording):

I didn't suggest 'better wording', Jimmy Higgins did. And you are now claiming that in fact you didn't misunderstand at all: that I somehow actually claimed 'American television is saturated with LGBT characters'. I did not make that claim.

I was just sidetracked/interested in the idea of something I had not really paid much attention to.

Jimmy Higgins has a good point: Not only in this particular thread but in many others, you react in the extreme if I don't respond in the way that you feel you have a right to dictate I respond. In this case, I only responded to the part of your post that I found surprising

The 'part' of my post you found 'surprising' was not some part you can sever from the rest of the sentence, as I've explained in post 54.

and asked about just that part. I wasn't trying to do any kind of gotcha or anything else. What you wrote peaked my curiosity.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of

No, I think it is common courtesy that you reply to what I've actually claimed, not what you have mistakenly think I claimed.

and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious. It distracts from actual communication and clarification of what is being said or meant. By either of us.

No.

Honestly Toni, if you cannot see why your reformulation of my statement was wrong and misrepresented it, I cannot see how we can hope to have any productive conversation whatever.

 

[Metaphor]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

To be honest, no snark intended, but you often come across as angry or outraged when you write posts. I can understand why he wrote that you were 'so mad.'

Nevertheless, upon reading the words I actually wrote, there is simply no room to make the claim I was 'mad' about LGBT characters on television. It seems just another post that Jarhyn has used to fling accusations and baseless speculations at me, then never respond to any correction.

It's entirely possible I'm on his 'ignore' list, so he does not see what I write but feels compelled to respond to second-hand interpretations of it, which is bad. It's also entirely possible I'm not on his 'ignore' list, he can see what I write and could have responded directly, but chooses to speculate and write about me as if I were not in the same conversation, which is worse.

 

[Toni]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

Toni has high animosity towards me, and has openly accused me of things she has no evidence for (like I want women to be strippers so they won't be competition for me in my office job). It is not any kind of stretch to imagine somebody who openly accuses me of having psychotic, demented ideas about women in the labour market could also straw man a claim I made.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

I didn't really misunderstand your claim (acknowledge that you later suggested a better wording):

I didn't suggest 'better wording', Jimmy Higgins did. And you are now claiming that in fact you didn't misunderstand at all: that I somehow actually claimed 'American television is saturated with LGBT characters'. I did not make that claim.

I was just sidetracked/interested in the idea of something I had not really paid much attention to.

Jimmy Higgins has a good point: Not only in this particular thread but in many others, you react in the extreme if I don't respond in the way that you feel you have a right to dictate I respond. In this case, I only responded to the part of your post that I found surprising

The 'part' of my post you found 'surprising' was not some part you can sever from the rest of the sentence, as I've explained in post 54.

and asked about just that part. I wasn't trying to do any kind of gotcha or anything else. What you wrote peaked my curiosity.

I don't have any particular animosity towards you, except that your habit of reacting so extremely whenever I fail to meet whatever expectation you think you have a right to demand and reply using only words that you approve of

No, I think it is common courtesy that you reply to what I've actually claimed, not what you have mistakenly think I claimed.

and only to exactly what you want me to address is ....a bit tedious. It distracts from actual communication and clarification of what is being said or meant. By either of us.

No.

Honestly Toni, if you cannot see why your reformulation of my statement was wrong and misrepresented it, I cannot see how we can hope to have any productive conversation whatever.

I DON'T see what I did as wrong. THAT was the part that I found interesting/was curious about. I'm not picky about use of saturation or over representation. Literally, the only reason I responded to that post AT ALL was that you wrote something about LGBTQ characters being over represented (paraphrasing here), something I had neither noticed nor thought about. So I asked a question. I really don't understand that I did something so offensive. Certainly nothing offensive was intended in the least.

Sometimes IRL and sometimes on internet forums, people will paraphrase someone else's statement. It's a way of reflecting what they thought was intended by that statement or of highlighting a different take on a particular statement. Occasionally, it's an attempt at humor to to point out the absurdity of something.

That is not the same thing as disrespect or dishonesty or any of the other things you routinely accuse me of. Try not to leap to the worst possible conclusions. If I misunderstood, just tell me and perhaps try to clarify. Sometimes I misunderstand you. You misunderstand me quite often.

 

[Toni]

On the right is the original - on the right side is "Finn" - a black character

Anyway. The black Character is still there. Who they actually removed was Chewbacca.

You're right!!! Well it was a YouTube video who said that Finn was removed so I believed them....

Finn's original level of prominence was reduced in the Chinese poster compared the original American poster, and it was indeed to cater to Chinese audiences.

In your eyes that's the case. In my eyes the Chinese version seems more symmetrical. If they did it for the reasons you claim how do you explain Chewie getting the and not the Finn?

Why would that need to be something to be 'explained' in conjunction with Finn's demotion? I don't know why they removed Chewbacca.

American television is saturated with 'queer' characters compared to American blockbuster movies. Ever wondered why that is? Because American blockbuster movies need to be marketed all over the world, especially China.

Is American television saturated with queer characters?

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

I hadn’t noticed that to be especially true.

I'm surprised you failed to notice. Did you watch television in the 1980s or 1990s? Do you watch it now?

Record number of LGBT characters on US TV, study says

A report by GLAAD has found there's been growing "LGBTQ representation on television".

www.bbc.com

A new report has found LGBT representation on US TV is at a high, with nearly 12% of regular characters who are LGBT, up 2.8% from last year.

No. You dishonestly are accusing me of being required to respond entirely to the totality of whatever you write in exactly the form you prefer, retroactively, in some cases, in order to have a reason to rage explode.

I asked an honest question because it honestly had not occurred to me that US television is 'saturated' by gay characters. You mentioned it--yes in reference to American movies but that wasn't the part that I was curious about. It wasn't intended as a gotcha or anything else. I had never heard anyone even vaguely suggest that there were too many gay characters these days on tv or anything similar. So, any statement about LGBT representation saturating television caught my attention.

Someone who was actually interested in honest conversation would respond by either re-stating that in their opinion/according to this source/or data (link) supports OR by saying: I was only speaking in reference with tv compared with films.

I watch some television but honestly, very little in the 80's or 90's. Or earlier. I have a fairly narrow focus on what I like to watch and what I'm willing to allocate time to watch. In the last couple of years, I've watched more television than I ever have in my life but that's a pandemic thing, not a TV has gotten to be so interesting thing.

But referencing the 80's and 90's (and let's go back further than that) there were some obviously gay male characters whose sexual preferences were never even hinted at because sex was never hinted at. I'm thinking first of all: Uncle Arthur (portrayed by Paul Lynde an actor who was gay IRL) in the series Bewitched. As a child I had no idea but as an adult, it's fairly obvious that the character was gay but in a way that didn't actually reference his romantic life at all and in a way that allowed people who didn't care to know to not know. It wasn't that it was hidden--it just wasn't...mentioned. Lots of actors in TV shows from my childhood were gay, and lots of actors in Hollywood were and are gay. It kept a dark secret in those days because of 'morality clauses' and the McCarthy era and fears that the actor would no longer be believed as a romantic lead. Society was not quite ready for openly gay characters. But if you want to see a tiny glimmer of Hollywood recognizing that gay people did exist, you should watch Some Like It Hot, all the way to the end.

The earliest TV show I can remember when being gay was mentioned was Three's Company and that character was not gay but pretending to be. Honestly, I watched very little television when I was growing up and as a college student and a young adult, I didn't have a television-or want one, either.

I did google something like gay characters on US television and at least some of the ones they listed are definitely not gay but that's a quibble. Also a couple of shows where they mentioned that this character is gay but totally leave out their partner and another gay character on the show. There were also a LOT of shows I'd never heard of.

As for there being an increase in the number of LGBT characters on television over the last year or so: Possibly?

I also can't help but ask why Metaphor is so mad that there are LGBT characters on television.

I can't help but ask if Jarhyn's dishonest representation is because I'm on his ignore list again, and yet he can't resist responding to me indirectly, or if his prejudices overwhelm his reading abilities.

I did not say, nor did I imply, that I was 'mad' that there are LGBT characters on television.

Does Metaphor feel badly represented? Is Metaphor just mad because the gay folks are no longer conforming to Stonewall era stereotypes? Or that they have sexualities that were entirely unknown by popular culture in the 1980's?

Oh, the humanity!

Does Jarhyn actually give a fuck about the answer to any of these questions?

To be honest, no snark intended, but you often come across as angry or outraged when you write posts. I can understand why he wrote that you were 'so mad.'

Nevertheless, upon reading the words I actually wrote, there is simply no room to make the claim I was 'mad' about LGBT characters on television. It seems just another post that Jarhyn has used to fling accusations and baseless speculations at me, then never respond to any correction.

It's entirely possible I'm on his 'ignore' list, so he does not see what I write but feels compelled to respond to second-hand interpretations of it, which is bad. It's also entirely possible I'm not on his 'ignore' list, he can see what I write and could have responded directly, but chooses to speculate and write about me as if I were not in the same conversation, which is worse.

From this side of the internet, I understand Jarhyn's slightly hyperbolic characterization of you as being 'mad' about the representation of gay characters. I understand that YOU don't understand it. I wonder if you understand that you very frequently come across as being VERY OUTRAGED at.....stuff?

Side note: I always am a little shocked/surprised that so many non-Americans are so familiar with so much American TV. Especially the tv shows of the 60's-80's which were not particularly good, with the exception of I Love Lucy and some of the variety shows. Oh, and All in the Family, which I had a really hard time watching because my dad was basically a small town Archie Bunker. Funny on tv isn't necessarily fun to live with....

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No. You wrote a question that implied something I did not say.

Toni misunderstood what you said, then you accused her of being dishonest...

EDIT: You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make. I said it was saturated with queer characters compared to American blockbuster movies. However, given the below, I am willing to upgrade the claim without qualification as a comparison, because queer characters are over-represented compared to US population estimates.

...so please, get off the high horse here. Several posts wasted because you couldn't replace:
"You dishonestly asked a question based on a claim I did not make."

with

"You misunderstood what I was saying."

There is no evidence that Toni 'misunderstood' what I wrote...

You mean other than the words in her post... which meant she misread your intended point. I misread it too. You could have written it better, as people have a tendency to take the beginning of a sentence with more importance than the following part.

Compared to American cinema, American television is saturated with LGBT characters. No one will be confused there.

So, despite writing a perfectly coherent and valid sentence in English, it was my fault.

It was open to potential misinterpretation. Toni was simply wrong, you didn't need to accuse her of lying about your position. And now this thread is stuck in a pathetic Monty Python "Pay for an Argument" sketch cycle because you won't fucking drop it.

I'll accept that Toni misunderstood my claim, but I do not accept I worded my claim ambiguously.

It wasn't poorly written, but it could have been written better. Now can we move on?!