[Shawnski]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
How so? Seriously, tell me in detail why my original posts had no point. I used words that had double meanings to point out how ridiculous it was to use them and then claim it means something else. You can't just say that someone has no point and then not make a case. That is a big cop out. You might as well not even respond at all.[/b]

Quite simply, if you read your own words, you will see that your "meaning" was quite evident...

I think Harper is gay.
I also think Harper likes to put roosters in his donkey.

In both cases, it was obvious the me exactly what you were communicating. I am sure you were quite clear on what I was communicating too. Thus your point is moot.

Originally posted by Shawnski+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Shawnski)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Grow some testicles and admit your "point" is moot. And I would be interested in the response to the changing of meaning of the word "marriage" as currently proposed by the Liberals vis-a-vis, your lack of respect to the "sensitivity to the historical meaning" of words.....[/b]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction
Again, you are totally changing the subject and it just shows that you have no legs to stand on in this conversation. I'm not talking about preserving definitions of words. I'm talking about sexist remarks. It has nothing to do with the definition of the words not changing. What in God's green Earth does the definition of marriage have to do with calling someone a whore or a slut? You say that I have no point yet you can't even stay on topic for more than 3 consecutive posts.

Not changing the subject what so ever. It is totally relevant here. I was pointing out that you are clinging to a historical meaning of a word in defense of your arguement, yet you are one whom has no qualms when changing of another word (i.e. marriage) meets your political position.

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction
So what now? You're going to single handedly change the word so that it reflects both genders equally? Whether you like it or not, the word is a lot stronger and more mean spirited when it is applied to a female. You can't change that just by ssaying that you don't like it.

Funny, just this morning I was watching Christie Blatchford on CBC Sunday saying that "... the gerderization of words is so 90's. People should get over it." (paraphrased) She went on to say she herself called Stronach a "political whore" in her articles, and stands by the comment. SHE said it. Female columnist. I dug around to find one of such articles, and here is one of them that may go even farther than using the word "whore".

"If this isn't politically slatternly behaviour, what on earth is?"

"Slatternly" MEANS "sluttish", there is no mistaking her usage. SHE is saying what many have said here.

She also made reference to a Brian Mulroney quote when Bryce Mackasey, a former Liberal cabinet minister and hanger-on, was named an ambassador:
"Let's face it, there's no whore, like an old whore." She commented that it is the actions of "selling oneself" that is being referenced.

Originally posted by Shawnski
Kinda sounds similar to the NHLPA only wanting "upward linkage".

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@
WTF!? Seriously, you will have explain that connection.[/quote]

I am getting used to having to explain things to you. I will type slowly so you can understand. The "upward linkage" reference is clearly in response to how you only want a certain result when it is to your advantage. I.E., You want us all to respect the historical meaning and political importance to the use of the words "whore" or "slut", but you for one don't respect the historical meaning and political importance of the use of the word "marriage".

FA, I have made myself clear in my combination of words, their context, and their meaning. If you have another word, or combination of words that I should have used to describe the political prostitution that Stonauch committed, I would be pleased to be enlighteded

<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction
The only thing you have made clear is that you are sexist and have no tact or respect for women.[/quote]

That is laughable. I would have said the same thing if it was Peter Mackay that crossed the floor for a cabinet position and not Stronach.

M&M&M had it right. You are just a leftist leaning attention whore. I have no idea what gender you are. I don't care. It makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever.

Have a nice day.