LINK Lonesome Dove: "I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." (Woodrow McCall)
I confess that I am guilty too. But I try. Every time I logon, I try to keep it civil. I fail occasionally, but I try hard not to.
Posted on 05/09/2024 4:25:51 AM PDT by del griffith
Tom Selleck is worried he will no longer be able to afford his plush 63-acre ranch once “Blue Bloods” comes to an end this winter.
The beloved actor, 79, has been starring in the popular CBS crime drama as the fictional New York City Police Commissioner Frank Reagan since 2010.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Somebody may be pulling the reporter’s leg.
Tom Selleck reverse mortgage jokes and pranks write themselves.
Going forward, I will give you some friendly advice, because I suspect you need it.
If you want to make an insulting statement that a post is "ridiculous", you should either explain in the response to a post in which you characterize a statement as "ridiculous", or when asked by the person you intentionally or unintentionally insult for clarification, defend your assertion.
This is known as "rational discourse".
If you don't do one, and outright refuse to do the other, you may come across to people as one of the following:
<
I don't know what category you might fall into, and I am not saying you fall into any of them because you have not deigned to respond in a rational way other than continual insults. And this is not the first time I have noticed it in your posts.
But having been a paying member here for many years, I know many people feel the same way I described above about people who have responded to a polite and rational query for an explanation as you did.
Again, all in the form of "Friendly advice" to someone who is an ostensible conservative on what is generally a conservative forum, where the give and take of ideas in the form of rational and polite discourse is encouraged, as contrasted with the way that the Left engages in discourse, which is neither rational nor polite.
And in case you think I am saying this to you in the form of a lecture rather than "rational discourse" about a specific issue, I will readily acknowledge your skill of perception, because I am layering it on pretty thickly since you don't leave any option by your refusal to stand by and explain your insulting posts.
He has been married to Jillie Mack since 1987 and have one daughter who was in the show jumping circuit which is expensive. That said, I have been by his ranch entrance numerous times and you can’t see much from the street.
You may have a very good point.
What kind of a statement is this?
Borders on the “kinda stupid “ kind of statement.
I don’t think that’s Selleck’s case though, he must have some money somewhere, unless he spends more than he makes which is hard for me to imagine, but many stars go over their heads, and especially athletes.
Wow. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone put someone in their place like that in a long, long time. Well said.
Honestly, I despise doing it. But what I despise even more is someone who is nasty, irrational, abrasive, and abusive, and won’t even take the time to explain what it is they may have taken issue with.
I really like this website. I’m coming up on my 20th anniversary soon as well as my hundred thousandth post. The majority of that as a The majority of that as a monthly paying customer to use Jim Robinson‘s website.
What I found out here on Free Republic is that any time you make a statement, you have to be prepared to justify and explain it.
We do have a modicum of free speech here (within the bounds of a private website run and owned by Jim Robinson who I have had the privilege to meet in person a few times) but with that freedom comes responsibility to be prepared to engage in rational discourse and defend your speech in a semi-public forum.
Everyone has a bad day. I’ve had plenty of mine, And this is a personal failing of mine that I can tend to be hotheaded. Which for me isn’t good because when I get angry, I can become irrational and pig-headed.
But I always try to apologize in a public way when I insult somebody, which I occasionally have done it a mean, spirited way. In all my years share, can count less than one hand people that I simply avoid and don’t talk to.
I can’t help it if someone drinks when they’re posting, is bipolar, or just a fundamentally mean person, and I try to take human variability into account, but someone who does it on a regular basis shouldn’t be allowed unlimited license to do so.
I certainly don’t want to tolerate it.
A lot of times it does. I get them from Costco.
The other poster is unwilling or unable to explain what is so offensive about my post at #8. Do you see it the same way, and if so, would you be kind enough to explain it to me?
I am certainly willing to concede it is possible I may have stated something in a way that someone thinks is an attack on conservatism, though I am unable to see what it is.
I have said things before that I did not realize could be taken in a completely different way, and perhaps this is one of those statements.
What am I missing?
He can come live with me. 😉
LINK Lonesome Dove: "I hate rude behavior in a man. I won't tolerate it." (Woodrow McCall)
I confess that I am guilty too. But I try. Every time I logon, I try to keep it civil. I fail occasionally, but I try hard not to.
I was in Hawaii recently. We passed the ranch he had there while going Magnum. No one said why he disposed of it. If I remember, it was on Maui.
Everyone has a bad day, maybe a bad week or more. But everyday the sun comes up and it’s a new day. Someone who’s had ups and downs knows this and learns to deal with it. It’s called maturity. Yet then again there are those who just never learn, never grow. If I had pity, I would give them that, but I cannot tolerate a first and angry strike unprovoked.
The tone of the statement, which unfortunately is never given in writing such, infers that being conservative somehow lends itself to an expectation that conservatives have traditionally been poor handers of money.
More honestly and less insinuating would be the statement that “Many people (regardless of political persuasion) are poor in their handling of money.”
Certainly many here would agree that liberals and marxists are poor with handling their own money, while being generous with others’.
I don’t doubt your sincerity.
I asked a polite question, you explained, and we can proceed.
I may (and in this specific case, do disagree) with your perception of my statement because a core belief of mine is the exact opposite-I believe it isn't even a contest in which Leftists and Conservatives inhabit the same universe simply because we look at money differently than they do.
But if we have this kind of exchange, at least I understand which specific concept or statement is in question and can counter with a polite clarification.
I simply fail to see why that kind of exchange would be so difficult.
In this case, someone might reasonably ask why I should introduce the statement about conservatives at all, and I would say that in the free flow of discussion, it was in response to a specific poster upthread who mentioned Conservatives in California, and him being an actor, to me his politics were unknown...which I regard as a positive thing in general from Hollywood. But as I said, if he were a conservative, that wouldn't make him immune to poor money management because as you also said, anyone can be prone to poor money management. The obverse (in my case, unstated) side of that is that non-Conservatives, especially of the kind that inhabit Hollywood, don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to economic policy or money management.
One can rationally make the case I didn't spell something out explicitly enough in the give ebb and flow of ideas in a thread where one reads a post by one person and responds to another by expanding on a salient point made by someone else in the thread, but I would then ask how often is that actually explicitly done unless one is pointing out a specific statement?
And someone could respond "You should be more explicit because..." which in this case, would be in response to an absolutely polite question.
And so on.
And in the end, you may STILL disagree, but that is likely the worst outcome. And that isn't so bad.
And that is what was at issue in this case: The exchange never became real discourse where two people could agree or disagree on substance.
This negativity and bad blood could be avoided it people actually engaged in discussion rather than getting their rocks off by calling something "ridiculous", "stupid" or simply resorting to an ad hominem attack which is all too common from all sides, particularly on Ukraine threads where, depending on a given stance, one is either a "Putin Stooge" or a "Globo-Homo Supporter".
I really hate seeing that kind of thing, but there it is.
In any case, I thank you, I mean it, and here's why:
The answer you gave is what should have followed my explanatory response to the other person's question at #13 where I was asked "What kind of statement is this?"which I believe I answered rationally, politely, and to the point, ending with "What did you think I meant?".
That would be an example of how to engage in civil discourse.
Succinctly, i agree.
He is worth $45 million. If he sells the 63 acres he would have $100 million +.
Heh, well...succinctly is not my thing...:)
Yes but...... he can lease 50 or a hundred acres and generate some income. Selleck probably cannot
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.