Comments on: Blustery Loon Talks Up The New Agenda

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:20:37 +0000

slythwolf,

Come on don’t go away. I wasn’t calling you an idiot, just having a sense of humor about the whole thing. I apologize.

By: Dawn C

Dawn C — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:21:59 +0000

loon (1)
“diving bird” (esp. the Great Northern Diver), 1634, from a Scand. source (cf. Norw. lom, from O.N. lomr).

loon (2)
“crazy person,” c.1450, lowen “rascal,” of uncertain origin, perhaps related to Du. loen “stupid person.”

loon
noun
1. a worthless lazy fellow
2. large somewhat primitive fish-eating diving bird of the northern hemisphere having webbed feet placed far back; related to the grebes
3. a person with confused ideas; incapable of serious thought [syn: addle-head]

By: slythwolf

slythwolf — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:52:29 +0000

I didn’t realize one could denigrate someone by calling him a blustery water fowl–I thought in this sort of context “loon” was always short for “lunatic”. But what do I know? Obviously I’m just an idiot who’s never seen a dictionary. I won’t be commenting here again.

By: Cynthia Ruccia

Cynthia Ruccia — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:17:57 +0000

I’m just laughing my head off!!!! You know, they always say that if they pronounce your name right, it doesn’t matter what they say about you. Rush, with his HUGE listenership just gave us the best publicity plug we’ve gotten. I say—–bring it on Rush!!!! Keep it going!!!!We’re waiting for the next installment!!!!

By: Kitkat

Kitkat — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:57:45 +0000

This is very interesting. The other day I was thinking of a man that was annoying to me and in my mind I thought “he is such a p___” . . .and I caught myself. What did that mean? Why was that word sometimes used to refer to a woman’s private parts used to refer to a weak man . . . meaning women are weak?

I share this only to say that this terminology is woven into our behavior so much so that it can be difficult recognize . . . now, I am really paying attention.

By: Dawn C

Dawn C — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:25:20 +0000

Tomboys, if I wanted to censor you, I simply wouldn’t publish your comments.

What I did was asked you to look at the etymology of the terms you’re using, and evaluate—for yourself—whether or not you want to use terms that are fundamentally misogynist (as in your use of “bitch”, here).

Whether you take my suggestion or not is up to you.

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:19:20 +0000

Can’t we all just get along?

By: Tomboys

Tomboys — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:12:31 +0000

Well Dawn C. I was using the word about Rush as pacific-cali suggested we do on another post. But I understand that you would like to censor me so I will refrain from leaving anymore comments.

By: Dawn C

Dawn C — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:37:37 +0000

I appreciate your sentiments about the word “bitch”, Tomboys, but if you consider what it means to “be someone’s bitch”, I think you’ll see that this is a context that is specifically used to demean woman qua woman, as something inferior, subjugated, dominated, controlled, etc. It’s like calling a man a “pussy”—a term that references a woman’s genitalia in order to demean her in a way that specifically implies inferiority, weakness, etc. These terms, when used to imply feminine traits in men (i.e. homophobia), frame being female as a weakness. I’d prefer not to read them on this blog.

By: Tomboys

Tomboys — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:13:35 +0000

How can anyone in their right mind take this man seriously? I think the best way to deal with the Rush’s of the world is to not acknowledge their existence. I mean come-on. Anyone who whines about other people the way he does is just trying to stir up trouble. So let the little bitch puff on his cigar as he tries to get the lace panties he is wearing to stop bunching up.