Gay Nashville

[BrandonTO416]

^Why should the thread be shut down because one guy is trolling the argument? I'm a moderator at another forum and I'd never limit conversation to absolutely no politics or religion at all.

 

fieldmarshallj is off his rocker and we all know it, he's lashing out at everyone who doesn't hold his opinion as being a Marxist. There's nothing to sit down over coffee for on that, its just wrong to act like a 2 year old baby who screams a word he doesn't understand - Marxism - as everything he opposes. He's calling Haslam - a conservative politician - a far leftist. I mean the guy is not able to think cognitively about politics. Worse off, he's imposing his opinion in a topic he knows he shouldn't be in since he knows few agrees with him.

 

If the real problem can't be addressed, why punish the entire group? fieldmarshall is coming into a topic he knows he disagrees with to try and stir up controversy, so why not address the individual who has come in here with the intent on having this topic shut down?

[BrandonTO416]

On topic... I don't think Tennessee is nearly as right wing nor as socially conservative as the politics of the state suggest.

 

Source: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html

 

Only 52.2% of Tennesseans above the age of 18 who are eligible to vote bothered voting in the 2012 election. This is among the lowest turnouts of all 50 states, and in an election only a 5% advantage can mean a 10 point swing in the polls, which can change things significantly. What that means in practicality is the more people vote, the less conservative the vote tends to be. So, you get these voices that are staunchly anti-gay that really don't represent the population at large.

 

If anything, people who disagree with the Republican point of view in Tennessee are given horrible options. Look at the anti-gay Democratic candidate who ran against Corker... Fewer people are going to want to vote with those kinds of options. I wouldn't have voted Democrat or Republican on that ticket last election if I were still on the voter rolls down there.

 

On the whole, at least Tennessee Republicans at the Governor and US Senate level have the ability to back down on these social issues and moderate a bit. No, they aren't liberal, but they can certainly moderate a bit and tame down the flame against equal rights.

 

Over time things will improve politically, and if the Supreme Court strikes down DOMA and these anti-gay constitutional bans, at least the state level nonsense is largely over. Once the ruling comes out - if its the right way - the states can't reauthorize unconstitutional ban again. 

 

EDIT: And on the issue of constitutional amendments, lets not forget that California voted down gay marriage just moments before public opinion started to really sway on the issue. This blue vs red state nonsense has to end. Human rights should never, ever be put up for a vote. It doesn't matter how supposedly liberal or supposedly conservative a state gets, the federal government has a responsibility to step in and state everyone is a citizen that is to be treated equally under the law.

 

Blue states or red states don't matter, its an irrelevant discussion really. Even Tennessee where its marginally more conservative socially than the national average, gay rights are not all bad. Most Tennesseans already have polled for years that they don't want gay men and women to face discrimination in housing, the work place, etc. Marriage is still a work in progress at the state level with opinion polls, but even in Tennessee its swinging in the right direction in favor of equality.

 

Being anti-gay isn't going to win votes in Tennessee, saying you're for low taxes will get votes. I don't find this inherently bad, and I'm a moderate liberal. Low taxes are a great thing.

[BrandonTO416]

And hopefully this bit of humor can take the sting out of this discussion. This is the best way to set it straight, pun not intended:

 

[Guest 5th & Main Urbanite]

HEY GUYS,.

 

THE DISCUSSION ON THIS THREAD IS STARTING TO VERGE ON SOMETHING WE HAVE AVOIDED HERE FOR A LONG TIME. LET’S CUT THE POLITICS, RELGION, MORAL VALUES, ETC. THIS IS A HOT BUTTON ISSUE RIGHT NOW AND I DO NOT WANT THINGS TO GET OUT OF HAND. BE CIVIL TO ONE ANOTHER AS SEVERAL OF YOU KNOW ONE ANOTHER. IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE THE ISSUES, THEN DO IT BY PRIVATE EMAILS SO OTHERS WILL NOT TAKE SOME COMENTS THE WRONG WAY.

 

YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN GREAT AND I KNOW YOU CAN SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE OVER A CUP OF COFFEE AND TALK THINGS THROUGH.

 

I WILL NOT CLOSE THE THREAD YET TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO POLICE YOURSELVES AND DONT TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY. ITS JUST AS MODERATORS, WE CANNOT LET THINGS GET OUT OF HAND.

This very topic is why I resigned as moderator back in August 2012 when the political thread got out of hand. My way of dealing with the situation was simply deleting threads and that did not work either. The only solution really is to get rid of the coffee house completely and make this strictly a built environment site as it should be. This is for all Urban Planet, not Political Planet or Religious Planet,  and the ONLY discussion should be architecture, city planning and the like. I regret I even joined in on this thread, because somehow I feel I may be blamed for encouraging FMDJ by responding to him and trying to illicit  an academic and intellectual discussion about Gay Marriage and other issues as well. I know my Atheism and Democratic Socialism is a bit left for this forum, and my inclination to discuss Leon Trotsky and Guy Debord is probably not well suited for the coffee house either.

 

Ron, you have a challenging job as moderator and that is why I suggested Timmay143 take my moderator position because I never knew what was appropriate discussion without upsetting someone. One reason I left the forum for 7 months was to take a break because I always seemed to get some sort of reprimand from someone just like FMDJ. In other words, I feel the more I write, the more open  I am to criticism.

 

Again, I suggest the elimination of the Coffee House and save those discussions for the forum meets.

 

I will see everyone in the built environment threads.

 

Respectfully, 

 

John

 

p.s. Davy, please join us at a forum meet sometimes again soon. I miss you waxing nostalgic for Classical Architecture. You and Newtowner, (wherever he went to) were the true promoters of relevant architecture pre-WW2.

[BnaBreaker]

I wouldn't want to be a moderator myself, because I'm sure it has to be difficult to determine which side to come down upon on certain issues.  So for that reason, I'm thankful for anyone who comes forward to fill that role and fine with whatever policy is made with regards to the discussion of politics and the like.

 

In my personal opinion, however, the rational course of action would be to ban talk of anything but urban design related issues in the main forum, and in coffee talk, let grown adult men and women (not that there are any women here, but just for arguments sake lol) have conversations about whatever they want.  I mean isn't that what coffee talk is for in the first place?  It obviously isn't just this message board that has this 'zero discussion of religion and politics' policy, but in general, I just don't understand the reasoning behind conversations about either subject being banned.  I mean, honestly, what is the purpose?  Because people might get a little riled up and have a spirited, impassioned debate?  So what?  I mean, if people start making verbal threats to people's safety or something, then fine, but what's inherently wrong with a heated debate?  

 

More specific to this particular topic, and this isn't meant as a criticism of smeagolsfree at all because he's a very fair moderator and he's just doing his job, but I personally don't understand why this topic needed to be moderated in the first place.  It had been rolling along on it's own for weeks.  It's just an internet conversation, after all.  The most heated things can get is at the level that they have already been at, and people have generally been able to regulate themselves.  It's not like anybody is going to come to blows over this or something.  Why are people so afraid of heated discussions about things?  It makes no sense to me.  When grown adults refrain from discussing anything that matters because they're afraid that someone might disagree with them, it just comes across as silly to me.  But anyway, that's just my two cents. 

[fieldmarshaldj]

^Why should the thread be shut down because one guy is trolling the argument? I'm a moderator at another forum and I'd never limit conversation to absolutely no politics or religion at all.

 

fieldmarshallj is off his rocker and we all know it, he's lashing out at everyone who doesn't hold his opinion as being a Marxist. There's nothing to sit down over coffee for on that, its just wrong to act like a 2 year old baby who screams a word he doesn't understand - Marxism - as everything he opposes. He's calling Haslam - a conservative politician - a far leftist. I mean the guy is not able to think cognitively about politics. Worse off, he's imposing his opinion in a topic he knows he shouldn't be in since he knows few agrees with him.

 

If the real problem can't be addressed, why punish the entire group? fieldmarshall is coming into a topic he knows he disagrees with to try and stir up controversy, so why not address the individual who has come in here with the intent on having this topic shut down?

 

Let's set the record straight, Brandon. I responded to this thread because I was disgusted by the attack on an elected official I hold in high esteem, that being State Sen. Stacy Campfield. I did not believe the comments should be left without being addressed, and I did so. The discussion got predictably heated from there. I have never at any point hid my political views in my 8 years on and off on this website: I'm a Conservative. After a brief period of time, the discussion in the thread ended...

...and then YOU appeared out of the blue, a non-Nashville poster, and decided to (almost two weeks after discussion ceased) to launch an attack personally against me. I submit, Brandon, you were the one trolling a concluded discussion. You've taken nothing but ugly, ignorant and cheap shots against me, and continue to do so. You don't know me. I've at least met some of the others here that I disagree with face to face. I didn't just pop on here last week. If I wanted to, I could bring over a LOT of people to support my stance and we could have a nice and ugly flamewar. I choose not to do that, because it is unproductive and would go a long way into destroying this (Nashville) forum. I'm not the only person on UP that holds such views, but many on my side are sick of being personally attacked for their values and choose not to participate in such discussions since folks like you cannot engage in a civil debate.

In any event, I leave it up to the mods to decide whether "Coffee House" should be deleted (or rather kept closed and archived) altogether. If I recall correctly, I was one of those urging the then-moderator Rural King back in 2006 to create this forum with the hopes we'd be able to discuss other topics not strictly related to the built environment. As of late, virtually the lone activity in this subforum is this thread.

So, to our moderator, Smeagolsfree, perhaps the happy medium here would just be to close this thread, as it is simply an unproductive discussion.

[dmillsphoto]

Boy am I glad I stayed the hell out of this conversation. A lot of respect gained for some, and a lot of new insight into others. 

Suffice it to say, I'm glad I didn't look into this thread earlier. 

[ariesjow]

Even though we're essentially talking in circles now, I actually think the thread has been fairly civil considering the subject matter. It could certainly be more civil but it could also be much worse. I'm glad I opted not to post very much in this one because I am admittedly very hot-headed when it comes to the politics of this particular subject.

Looking back at the thread, it seemed fairly innocuous at first. What we could try to do is steer the thread back to a more general discussion of issues that affect gay and lesbian people in Nashville. The bill that sparked the most intense discussion is currently dead. I also think we have a good feel for where most of the participants of the thread stand on the subject at this juncture.

Fieldmarshalldj, I also wanted to apologize for implying that you are xenophobic if you feel that's wholly inaccurate. It certainly didn't move the discussion to a better place. I must say that occasionally you post something that makes me sort of cringe with discomfort. It's not really your politics either, but how you say certain things. I'm not suggesting that you turn into some uber-PC person scared to type your honest opinions, but I did want you to be conscious of how your posts occasionally read to me.

[BnaBreaker]

Well, when this thread began, it was essentially nothing more than a place where people could discuss events, restaurants, nightclubs etc. that are geared towards our homosexual brothers and sisters in Nashville.  It would have likely remained a rather innocent, low-key discussion if a particular someone could have simply acted with a little self restraint and didn't make the concsious decision to enter a thread called "Gay Nashville" just so he could express his exuberant support for anti-gay politics and politicians.  I have no problem taking responsibility for my part in stoking the fires of this debate.  But I think the precise point at which this thread began to go south is pretty clear, and I think it's understandable that those who have many gay friends and loved ones, or who are gay themselves, would want to answer back. 

[samsonh]

I think the thread has been rather civil considering the topic at hand. If I took offense at being labeled a Soviet I would be angry though, lol.

 

I however will not apologize for trying to root out intolerance. I think if you allow people to believe their intolerant views are valid you might as well be the one that has intolerant views. I am glad at the overall reaction of this message board, which is not too unsurprising considering most people in favor of progressive city planning are most likely liberal for a variety of reasons. I hope our city and state continues to evolve into a more welcoming place for all people. Diversity is fantastic and imo creates a stronger and more versatile community. I know that when I travel the places I like the most are the ones that are more diverse.

[smeagolsfree]

 

Just a refresher on the rules and I think everyone one of us has probably broken at least one or two of them either because we forgot or got caught up in the moment.

 

You guys have not gotten too out of hand but it is our responsibility (Timmay and Smeagols) to make sure nothing gets out of hand too quickly. We are not here to make anyone angry and  we just want everyone to be civil. Many times it is very hard to convey thoughts through the written word, because of the way a person can interpret things.

 

I think the intent of this thread is for other gay and gay friendly members and or visitors to find out about things for that community. Granted the rules may have changed in here since the I started posting, LOL, but all I am asking is just no name calling, bashing of any individual on either side of the political, religious, gender, sexuality side of the fence one may be on. Now if you come to a forum meet no such rules exists and we have some rather fun exchanges.

 

I don't think I have been too unfair with anyone here and try to get along with everyone.

 

Lets try and get the thread back on track.

 

 

Do not create posts to antagonize other forumers. Doing so will result in the post being deleted, and as a minimum an immediate suspension.

• No line by line rebuttal posts containing multiple quotes
• Do not bash cities, states, countries or regions
• Do not create childish boosterism posts. i.e. "my city is better than yours"
• No one word replies or posts as they add nothing to the discussion
• Do not argue with anyone on the staff. If you have any questions, concerns, or feel as if you were unjustly punished, please PM the moderator involved or send an e-mail to us if you are unable to PM the moderator involved. Making a public scene of it not only won't help the situation, but will look very bad on your part, as well...possibly resulting in disciplinary action up to and including a permanent ban.
• Anything else that leads to a fight with another forumer

Flaming/bashing/threatening one person or a group of people

[Guest]

WARNING*******

 

(This post tangential to the current topic so feel free to start another thread if you think it best)


Ha, just returned from vaca and missed all the action...

I do have a serious question for all (gay/straight, Dem/Rep). 

Do you support polygamy and polyandry? Why or why not? I am not equating this to gay marriage, but if the bedrock principal is 'personal liberty between consenting adults' what is the argument against? And, if polygamy and polyandry are legalized, based on a consistent application of any new law allowing gay marriage, what does this portend for society? 

How would it affect tax policy? Benefits and inheritance? Legal obligations? Parenting and custody?

A good read on the matter, but unconvincing to me, and I have very strong libertarian sympathies.

http://reason.com/archives/2006/04/03/one-man-many-wives-big-problem

[BnaBreaker]

If you're asking what could be done when writing a gay marriage law that could prevent polygamists from using it as justification for the legalization of polygamy, my answer would be that I suppose all you'd need to do is simply throw the word "two" in there in front of the word "consenting". 

 

If you're asking me what, from an ethical standpoint, the difference between gay marriage and polygamy is to me, I would tell you that homosexuals are born the way they are, and as such, shouldn't be excluded from enjoying the same marital benefits that people who are born heterosexual enjoy.  Wanting to be married to nine women at the same time is nothing more than a choice that one makes on religious grounds.  To be completely honest with you, I, personally, wouldn't really care if polygamy was legalized.  But as far as your question is concerned, I think there is a clear difference between the nature of the two relationships. 

[samsonh]

Agreed with bna breaker. IMO I wish any tax benefits or consequences of marriage would go away. If people want to get married to nine people, then go ahead. It doesn't affect me, and I don't care. You would think this would be the conservative "government out of my life" philosophy. But it is not, because government out of our lives is not what they want. They want to tell people what to do.

[Guest]

@BNA, I hear what you are saying but I believe your logic is flawed.

 

By what right can society limit marriage to one person marrying another person? What is the legal principal? If marriage is a 'civil right' (as it is being argued before the supreme court) then why must it be limited to a subjective one man/women to one man/women? Maybe I am born bi-sexual. Now my 'civil rights' are being violated because I want to have a husband and a wife.

Another avenue this opens is incestuous marriages. Should they not be made legal? If a mother/father and a son/daughter are old enough to give consent should they not be allowed to marry? 

No, it seems to me that this is an all or nothing proposition. Either society has a right to set standards for marriage, in which case it should be a state by state issue, or it is a 'civil right' in which case any two or more consenting adults (related or not) should be allowed to marry.

@samsohn, trying to say that conservatives just want to 'tell people what to do' is a very hard argument for you to make using the issue of gay marriage.  As you know, the vast majority of the electorate, of all political persuasions, has historically defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Up until the last few years, the issue has been a non-starter in all but the most liberal of states.  The case before the supreme court is a great example of an extremely liberal state (CA) voting against the issue as recently as 2008. Even Obama, our most liberal president, just came out in support of the issue less than a year ago.

 

[BnaBreaker]

@BNA, I hear what you are saying but I believe your logic is flawed.

 

By what right can society limit marriage to one person marrying another person? What is the legal principal? If marriage is a 'civil right' (as it is being argued before the supreme court) then why must it be limited to a subjective one man/women to one man/women? Maybe I am born bi-sexual. Now my 'civil rights' are being violated because I want to have a husband and a wife.

Another avenue this opens is incestuous marriages. Should they not be made legal? If a mother/father and a son/daughter are old enough to give consent should they not be allowed to marry? 

No, it seems to me that this is an all or nothing proposition. Either society has a right to set standards for marriage, in which case it should be a state by state issue, or it is a 'civil right' in which case any two or more consenting adults (related or not) should be allowed to marry.

 

 

Well, like I said, I actually have no problem personally with polygamy being legalized.  I was just making the distinction between the two.  But you do bring up an interesting point. 

 

Obviously, as long as the government is giving out benefits to married couples, the line needs to be drawn somewhere.  Currently that line is drawn at two consenting adults who were born heterosexual.  Personally, regardless of what my own subjective opinions are on concepts like Polygamy, I think that a highly reasonable place to extend that line to is to include a coupling of two consenting adults who were born homosexual in that legal definition.  The justification there being that, as I mentioned earlier, homosexuals are born that way.  I also think that one being born with a particular sexual tendancy is a clear line in the sand that eliminates the potential for any sort of 'slippery slope' scenarios that you are laying out.  I mean, allowing two homosexuals to marry is no more a pathway to legalizing incest than allowing the sale of Ibuprofen is to legalizing the sale of Heroin and PCP in grocery stores.  There just isn't a logical path there to me. 

 

However, seeing as how as we get increasingly abstract in our definitions things naturally become increasingly subjective, perhaps, in a perfect world, the best possible solution to this issue would simply be to get government out of the business of handing out benefits to married couples altogether.  There would still be marriage, obviously, but it would be merely a symbolic union (or a spiritual union if one is religious), rather than a legal agreement, and the definitions could be left up to a particular locale. 

[UTgrad09]

As far as "legal" polygamy...the biggest problem I see would pertain to property and children. I'm not going to get deep into it, but basically ask yourself what the limits would be on the number of people who could be jointly married, how things would be split in the event that just one chose to get a divorce, and whether or not parents with no biological connection to the children would have any rights to children that they helped raised. It just seems like it could be a massive legal headache.

 

I don't have any issue with someone's lifestyle...but as far as legal polygamy...I don't see the benefit. 

 

In cultures where polygamy exists, it also tends to be....very patriarchal. It doesn't exactly operate like an "equal partnership" marriage. I could be wrong, but I've never really heard anything from the side of bisexuals wanting to marry multiple partners and of different genders.

[Guest]

@BNA - I agree, the gov't should not be in the business of picking winners and losers in business or in marriage.

@UT - Just because something tends to be patricachal does not mean that it should not exist or is bad, right? Consenting adults have a 'right' to choose their partner (and maybe partners) ... is not this the principal before the court?

 

It just seems to be inevitable that, as the definition of marriage is revised, these other questions will have to be addressed ... similar to allowing the KKK or Nazis, or Black Panthers to march based on the 'right' of free speech ... and I do believe in their right to do so.

Some would want to keep marriage as it stands, some to open it up to gays, and some I am sure would like it to go even further as discussed.

 

Thanks guys - I agree that it will be a legal headache.

[samsonh]

@BNA, I hear what you are saying but I believe your logic is flawed.

 

By what right can society limit marriage to one person marrying another person? What is the legal principal? If marriage is a 'civil right' (as it is being argued before the supreme court) then why must it be limited to a subjective one man/women to one man/women? Maybe I am born bi-sexual. Now my 'civil rights' are being violated because I want to have a husband and a wife.

Another avenue this opens is incestuous marriages. Should they not be made legal? If a mother/father and a son/daughter are old enough to give consent should they not be allowed to marry? 

No, it seems to me that this is an all or nothing proposition. Either society has a right to set standards for marriage, in which case it should be a state by state issue, or it is a 'civil right' in which case any two or more consenting adults (related or not) should be allowed to marry.

@samsohn, trying to say that conservatives just want to 'tell people what to do' is a very hard argument for you to make using the issue of gay marriage.  As you know, the vast majority of the electorate, of all political persuasions, has historically defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Up until the last few years, the issue has been a non-starter in all but the most liberal of states.  The case before the supreme court is a great example of an extremely liberal state (CA) voting against the issue as recently as 2008. Even Obama, our most liberal president, just came out in support of the issue less than a year ago.

 

 

NB,

 

I really do not care what the vast majority of the electorate thinks the definition should be. As a society we should do what is right, and what is right is not always popular. Denying people rights because you don't agree with them is just wrong.

 

I just do not understand the conservative fear behind gay marriage, and it makes no logical sense. If conservatives want the government out of our lives, then they should be for allowing gays to marry. But what is comes down to is they only want the government out of their lives when it is convenient.

[dmillsphoto]

It can always come back to the three other big civil right fights in the last hundred years - women voting, black equality, and interracial marriage. As far as polygamy is concerned - Kev brings up the perfect points - you'd have to redo the entire structure as if it were a will situation, and apply that to human life (if multiple children). I don't think gay marriage opens anything up along those lines, just like it's illogical to think it opens up marrying animals and the other nonsensical phobic arguments.

[Guest]

Well to think it is nonsensical is to not know the history of unintended consequences. See the upheaval that society experienced (legally, socially and economically) after the very rulings that you listed. And to attribute any phobic coloring to my questions is beneath the tone that has so far been set. You may not like my questions, you may not like my conclusions, but to label an argument as phobic and then dismiss it without any attempt to counter is somewhat lazy. And I say that not as an insult, but as a forum member that has read many of your past outstanding posts.

 

So, in that spirit I put it to you. How do you make the jump from my points to marrying animals and children? The only way SCOTUS can rule against Prop 8 is based on some violation of a constitutional right. Based on this thread you all (exception being FMJ) seem to support such an outcome. I am not sure it will come from this case but the tipping point seems to have been crossed in a large section of the country. I have stipulated in every example that any SCOTUS ruling would apply only to consenting adults. This is a rational assumption as currently only those persons of a certain age (determined by the states) and of sound mind (consent) can currently marry. No mention of animals .... no mention of those deemed too young to marry. I do not fear the outcome either way, and to be quite honest I think it has been a distraction for far too long. Treat everyone the same by law...simple.



 

[dmillsphoto]

I didn't label your specific argument as being homophoic. That is the general nature of the arguments against gay rights/marriage equality. I'm saying that, in general - the arguments I hear (which thankfully are few people that I actually know), are homophobic in nature, and often resort to "This will just lead to polygamy/marrying animals/objects, etc." I haven't read everyone's posts on this thread because, honestly, there's those on the right side and the wrong side. There are no unintended consequences that I have seen argued that are valid and harmful to the greater good of society by allowing same sex marriage.

 

Either way, apologies for not clearing that up the first time. Polygamy itself would be an issue with regards to legality due to, again as Kevin said, property, children, taxes and divorce. It would be like Voldemort - horcruxes everywhere. And yeah, I just went there. If you choose to live that lifestyle, great. But the complication that would ensue to the legals should keep it from being related to same-sex-marriage. It's far easier to add M+M or F+F to a document that has the same outcome as M+F. 

[UTgrad09]

To me, the difference between same sex marriage and polygamy would be one changes the definition of marriage, the other changes its concept. One, on a legal front, brings equal rights to other couples that already live in monogamous relationships and function in a similar manner to any other marriage. The other, on a legal front, brings up new challenges and questions to how marriage arrangements are even constructed. I like dmills' comparison to a will...except this would be like if no will were ever written and property had to be divided by the court, or agreed upon by the individuals. Say, if you had a household with 6 co-married individuals, and one decided to get a divorce...what would the implications be for the 5 who remained? Would they be bound to pay alimony/child support for the one who left? Or if you had a situation where the breadwinners of a certain household decided to divorce and their biological children were raised collectively by stay-at-home parents...would the stay-at-home parents have visitation rights to the children? What about legal guardianship of children...does that stay with biological parents only? Or do you have multiple extra legal guardians? What if the children were adopted? What if the relationships involved children with different sets of parents among a household (i.e. a bunch of half brothers and sisters)?

 

It is an uncomparable situation IMO to same-sex marriage.

 

From a civil rights perspective, I still think it's apples and oranges.

[Guest]

Cool. my bad. Thanks for clarifying.

[dmillsphoto]

No worries.

But this is one of the prime reasons I am glad I missed the first half. Internet allows for great miscommunication and very RARELY CAN YOU TELL WHEN SOMEONE IS ANGRY or just trying to make a point or... agree. It's emotionless. And without body language, it can get nasty.