Life sure is getting silly....

[layoutshooter]

What I was talking about was book banning etc. It always starts out small and grows if it is allowed too. I would bet that few of those kids would happen upon that entry. Unless they are boys, goofing off, trying to look up words that they think that they know the meaning of. Of course, no boys in my day ever did that at that age!! Like even that is new. I guess many adults don't remember their childhood very well.

I have no problem bringing in muskrat paws. I used to go outside at lunch, catch as many snakes and field mice as I could, and release them in class. I always did that just prior to math class!!

Then, after Mr. Kullman figured out that I, and most likely several others were involved, got out the college dictionary and handed out pages based on the number of mice and snakes released!!

My fingers have permanent dents in them!!! A small price to pay for the benefits gained. As much as I hated doing them it sparked my interest in reading. I even read the entire college dictionary the summer between 6th and 7th grade, and Britannica junior version the summer between 7th and 8th grade. He was one of the 3 or 4 teachers that stand out in my mind as being a real TEACHER. Facts were not as important as the process of learning. He taught us to learn. A great man. I wish he were alive so I could tell him that.

 

[RLENT]

I have no problem bringing in muskrat paws.

We used to make them clench (or the tails wiggle) by pulling on the tendons sticking out from above the ankle or the end of the tail ... would absolutely gross-out the girls

The deal with the turtle was Mrs. Calhoun (my 8th grade home room teacher) would, if you were late on a paper, let you turn it in late and still give you credit - if you did it within so many days after the original turn-in date, or before she asked for it a second time.

You had to turn it in by placing it under a glass turtle she kept on her desk. We swapped the glass one out for the real thing ... which by that time was fairly ripe, when she was out of the classroom.

Needless to say, she didn't much appreciate it at all. It was all rather unfortunate, since she was fairly fond of me .....

 

[layoutshooter]

LOL!!! Grossing out girls was great fun!! My that brings back wonderful memories!!

Do you know how long it takes earthworms to get ripe after you place them in the nun's desk drawer? LOL!!! Me and Rick O'Neal put a bunch of dead worms in Sister Mary James bottom desk drawer on a Friday just before we went home for the weekend. It was late May and warm for Michigan. You would not believe what it smelled like on Monday morning!! We never got caught for that one!!!


AH, nothing like boys being boys. Now, if a boy does stuff like that, they put them into therapy and feed them ritilin. Oh the stunts we pulled!! Did wonders for our imaginations and planning skills as well!! You just don't pull off a "skunk juice" attack without a lot of planning!!!

 

[greg334]

The problem isn't censorship, it is the problem with the schools not focusing on teaching and worrying about stupid and trivial things. But banning books has been done for decades in schools, I have (had? don't know where it is) a copy of the Detroit public school board minutes from 1914 and it has a lengthly discussion about what books to ban - then it was a morality issue not a political correctness issue.

So what's the difference between banning a book in a public school and editing it so not to offend someone?

I think banning is a far better thing to do than to butcher a book so not to offend anyone.

Layout have you read the edited version of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?

or how about Brave New World?

Or the one that every high school kid who wants to be a writer should read For Whom the Bell Tolls?

The Great Gatsby is also one that has been edited, how could that be?

 

[layoutshooter]

No Greg, I have not read any of the "politically correct" versions of Huck Finn. I don't think that I want to.

I was lucky, my childhood was very much a "Huck Finn" life. Fishing, hunting, swimming and making forts and rafts. I got almost killed a half a dozen times, got sooooo dirty that the only white you could see on me was my eyes and roamed the entire section of the county.

 

[cheri1122]

Yeah, an now we medicate our kids for acting like kids when they fidget in school.
That statement is one of the most ignorant I've seen, even here. There isn't a shred of truth in it, just the usual glib & superficial 'labeling' that some substitute for actual knowledge of a subject.
If you don't conform these days you are in trouble. That goes double for young boys. Don't even try to act like a real boy should, throwing rocks, boyhood scuffles, shooting spit balls.
A "real boy" SHOULD act like that? I disagree - it's just the kind of behavior parents and teachers teach is uncivilized. NO ONE should act that way, and excusing it because 'boys will be boys' just sets progress back - more ignorance.
Man, we expect them to act like little girls
Would you care to elaborate on how 'little girls' act? More stereotypes you can trot out?
and then wonder where all the real men have gone.

Who's wondering? And what exactly defines "real men"?

 

[jaminjim]

Who's wondering? And what exactly defines "real men"?

I guess 'men' is the plural for 'man'. If you have to ask what a "real man" is, could it be you never knew one? To me there is a difference between a grown male and a man.

Just like the difference between a female and a lady.

 

[layoutshooter]

Who's wondering? And what exactly defines "real men"?

Oh lighten up Cherii, little boys act like Huck Finn, or at least they should. If you are not aware that males and females are different, in thinking, acting, responses to life you have a lot to learn about human beings!!!

Boys are boys, girls are girls, men are men and women are women. It is desgined to work that way!!!

I won't even try to explain the difference between a "real man" and what we see a lot off out there today. I bet it would be a waste of time.!!!

 

[cheri1122]

I guess 'men' is the plural for 'man'. If you have to ask what a "real man" is, could it be you never knew one? To me there is a difference between a grown male and a man.

Just like the difference between a female and a lady.

What I asked was what LOS defines as a 'real man', as he made the statement.
But since you asked me -
I know some: men who don't consider themselves superior because they're stronger physically [the dog is that, too]
Men who have no problem admitting that some women are actually smarter than they are, or better at math, or whatever, and actually appreciating it, rather than feeling threatened by it.
Men who don't patronize women, or belittle them.

And FWIW, no REAL man would ever, under any conceivable circumstances, refer to himself as 'naughty' in public. A grown male who does so, [chortling in glee at having insulted a woman for the benefit of his buddies] is puerile.
Sadly, I know more of that kind, than real men. Even sadder is the way EO has become their territory, driving away many whose intelligence, creativity, and sharp wit was a joy to read. Now it's becoming so much drivel: repetitive, boring, useless CB level chatter with almost none of the snap, crackle, and pop EO used to have. Far too many posts by those who have little to offer [but are compelled to offer it over & over & over], too many conversations between members that hold little interest for the rest, and just waaaay too much sophomoric 'humor'.
And JJ - you are, IMO, one of the good guys. But if the calvary doesn't show up soon, you're outnumbered, and EO is doomed.
I already miss it.

 

[flattop40]

And JJ - you are, IMO, one of the good guys. But if the calvary doesn't show up soon, you're outnumbered, and EO is doomed.
I already miss it.

Thats too funny. Take a look at this thread (Another Record Broken On This Board Yesterday) and tell me if Lawrence or Dreamer are worried about shutting it down due to the lack of participation.

 

[layoutshooter]

Let's see, Bill Clinton treated women like pigs, was he a "real Man"? Not in my book. Yet he was a 'hero" to the so called "woman's movement"

A real man is not a Bill Clinton and has NOTHING to do with physical strength. It has everything to do with living up to the responsibilities that he takes upon himself. Keeping oaths that he accepts. If he chooses to have a family he puts that happiness and safety for that family above that of his own.

A real man looks for a mate that will work with him, agree with his moral code. A man and wife must work together, not compete. The stupidity that some call the "battle of the sexes" is silly. Men and women are different, designed to compliment each other, not to try to "out do" each other.

Men are not "better" than women, as women are not "better" than men. Their differences, which are great, have a purpose, to promote the teamwork needed to insure the family succeeds and their offspring are given every chance at life.

A "real Man" chooses a "real Woman" to marry. He treats her as a "woman" his primary function is to insure HER happiness. Same for a "real woman". Her primary function is to insure HIS happiness. A man and woman must base a marriage on more than love. Similar life goals, moral codes and child rearing theories are just as or more important.

Old Fashioned? Out of sync? Nope. A "real man" does NOT follow the crowd, base his moral code or core values on the whims of sociaty. He leads and lives his life, to the best of his ability, to that code.

There are MANY real men out there, more than you think, maybe you just don't know where to find them.

My wife and I met in church. We knew that we had similar moral codes. We made our life work. A good marriage is NOT an accident, it is HARD work. Divorce was NEVER an option. When times get tough, we pull together, not argue over it. A "real Man" relies on his wife for strength and support. As a real Woman" does from her husband.


You can try and tell me I am wrong, not up with the times etc. It won't work. The tried and true methods work, they work far better than so called "modern" ideas. I can prove it. It will be 37 years come June. OUR life has been a rousing success. Not by "modern thinking" We don't have a lot of "stuff" no big mini-castle, no fancy cars. We judge success by "real values". The most important being a happy life TOGETHER as a TEAM. Anything else is failure.

I KNOW what a "REAL MAN" is. I LIVE that life. I strive to improve everyday as living "right" is a life's work,not something that happens and is done.

 

[highway star]

Gee Cheri, you seem to be saying "sophomoric humor" like it's a bad thing.

No doubt, there are clearly some posts counts that are hugely inflated with idle, private conversation kind of chit-chat.

 

[flattop40]

Let's see, Bill Clinton treated women like pigs, was he a "real Man"? Not in my book. Yet he was a 'hero" to the so called "woman's movement"

A real man is not a Bill Clinton and has NOTHING to do with physical strength. It has everything to do with living up to the responsibilities that he takes upon himself. Keeping oaths that he accepts. If he chooses to have a family he puts that happiness and safety for that family above that of his own.

A real man looks for a mate that will work with him, agree with his moral code. A man and wife must work together, not compete. The stupidity that some call the "battle of the sexes" is silly. Men and women are different, designed to compliment each other, not to try to "out do" each other.

Men are not "better" than women, as women are not "better" than men. Their differences, which are great, have a purpose, to promote the teamwork needed to insure the family succeeds and their offspring are given every chance at life.

A "real Man" chooses a "real Woman" to marry. He treats her as a "woman" his primary function is to insure HER happiness. Same for a "real woman". Her primary function is to insure HIS happiness. A man and woman must base a marriage on more than love. Similar life goals, moral codes and child rearing theories are just as or more important.

Old Fashioned? Out of sync? Nope. A "real man" does NOT follow the crowd, base his moral code or core values on the whims of sociaty. He leads and lives his life, to the best of his ability, to that code.

There are MANY real men out there, more than you think, maybe you just don't know where to find them.

My wife and I met in church. We knew that we had similar moral codes. We made our life work. A good marriage is NOT an accident, it is HARD work. Divorce was NEVER an option. When times get tough, we pull together, not argue over it. A "real Man" relies on his wife for strength and support. As a real Woman" does from her husband.


You can try and tell me I am wrong, not up with the times etc. It won't work. The tried and true methods work, they work far better than so called "modern" ideas. I can prove it. It will be 37 years come June. OUR life has been a rousing success. Not by "modern thinking" We don't have a lot of "stuff" no big mini-castle, no fancy cars. We judge success by "real values". The most important being a happy life TOGETHER as a TEAM. Anything else is failure.

I KNOW what a "REAL MAN" is. I LIVE that life. I strive to improve everyday as living "right" is a life's work,not something that happens and is done.

Amen brother LOS. Well said.

 

[highway star]

Yep, good post Layout.

 

[cheri1122]

Much of LOS post I would agree with - but not the part about husbands & wives being responsible for each other's happiness. I believe every person must be responsible for their own, whether married or not.
I'd also disagree with the comments about being 'old fashioned', as no one even hinted that such is the case.
I am always impressed by marriages of long standing [mine was only 17 yrs, clearly I chose the wrong mate], but longstanding doesn't always mean happy, either - it could be plain old fashioned stubbornness, no?
To repeat: I know many real men, including Highway Star, but the question was what LOS considers a 'real man', not what I do.
The answer was a good one, and I appreciate the effort.

 

[highway star]

Wow, thanks Cheri!

(Insert Tim Allen grunt here)

 

[Ragman]

but not the part about husbands & wives being responsible for each other's happiness.

If not, then whats the point! Why bother at all.
My happiness is directly tied to making sure my wife is happy - doing whatever it takes.

 

[RLENT]

He treats her as a "woman" his primary function is to insure HER happiness. Same for a "real woman". Her primary function is to insure HIS happiness. A man and woman must base a marriage on more than love. Similar life goals, moral codes and child rearing theories are just as or more important.

Much of LOS post I would agree with - but not the part about husbands & wives being responsible for each other's happiness. I believe every person must be responsible for their own, whether married or not.

Both statements are not incorrect - meaning of course, that they are true - however both statements are incomplete by themselves, standing alone.

It is certainly true that one is responsible for one's own happiness, however that doesn't necessarily mean that one cannot also attempt to be responsible for another's happiness as well.

Afterall, is not one his brother's (or sister's) keeper ?

It's interesting in terms of this discussion, that each viewpoint came from the opposite gender - as it is in this discussion, so it is in Life:

One completes the other.

 

[layoutshooter]

My statement was NOT incomplete. When you put your mate first, as you should, their happiness is then most likely assured. That IS a persons primary responsibilty. It is not old fashioned, silly or sexist. It is RIGHT!!

As to picking the "wrong mate". That is possible. It has also been my experience that in very few cases when a marriage fail is it the fault of only one person. Oh, it does happen, but it is rare. In most cases, if you wish to determine who's fault it was that a marriage failed you should start by looking in the mirror.

That last bit was NOT aimed at anyone in particular, just my observations in life.

 

[cheri1122]

Two questions:
I don't have a mate - does that make me incomplete, in your opinion?
If one person's happiness depends upon another person, and the other person dies, is the first person incapable of happiness until and unless they find another person who makes them happy? I think not.
I feel happy when I have a great book to read, ok?
LOS: I picked the wrong mate, and so did he - maybe there isn't any blame involved....Imagine this: in the 35 yrs since divorcing my first husband, we never stopped being friends - we just shouldn't have been married to each other, and fortunately didn't let it wreck our lives or our regard for each other. Blame doesn't always apply, and it's interesting that you assume it does.