Tolerance: Allowing people to be who and what they are.

[hunarcy]

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?

He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people. He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ignorant
Black people were happy being oppressed.

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

I also grew up working and playing side by side with black people who were still mired in segregation. And they WERE happy people. And they did sing while they worked, and good naturedly teased me, and I also never heard any bitterness or complaints any more than the white folks complained. To me they were loving, happy, caring people and I loved them.

It was later--after I became a young adult--that I ran across any angry, depressed, unhappy black people. That was a whole different ball game.

So who are you to say that Phil Robertson's experience was any different than what he described? And how is he being intolerant by describing it, not that he doesn't have the right to his opinion however intolerant it looks to us.

 

[Asclepias]

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".? The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right? And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.

I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.

I still fail to see the black friend correlation. It just sounds like the guy was simply a racist from the beginning to me. He inherently felt he was superior and his "friend" merely reinforced that. I don't feel superior in my views. I feel they are what they are. They are on the side of equality. Where is the racist thoughts and mindset on the side of equality?

 

[Mac1958]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

 

[Asclepias]

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?

He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people. He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.

No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times. No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.

 

[Asclepias]

That would have been ignorant if that was what he said.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person," Robertson is quoted in GQ. "Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

He never said Blacks were happy being oppressed.

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

I also grew up working and playing side by side with black people who were still mired in segregation. And they WERE happy people. And they did sing while they worked, and good naturedly teased me, and I also never heard any bitterness or complaints any more than the white folks complained. To me they were loving, happy, caring people and I loved them.

It was later--after I became a young adult--that I ran across any angry, depressed, unhappy black people. That was a whole different ball game.

So who are you to say that Phil Robertson's experience was any different than what he described? And how is he being intolerant by describing it, not that he doesn't have the right to his opinion however intolerant it looks to us.

Could it be that what you saw was a bursting of the dam so to speak? The result of centuries of pent up anger?

 

[hunarcy]

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

So, you are tolerant until you aren't tolerant and then you become a censor, but you don't see how it "having a black friend so I cant be racist".? The people who had a "black friend" were fine with their friend, but when they encountered a Black they didn't agree with, they felt fully justified to punish that Black person because he was "uppity", right? And you feel perfectly fine tolerating anything that's said except that which you deem intolerant, then you feel fully justified to use any means to punish that person for having a different idea.

I feel you have the most excellent hopes for all of us and our society, but in my opinion, the way you want to go about it will not lead to the society you hope to achieve.

I still fail to see the black friend correlation. It just sounds like the guy was simply a racist from the beginning to me. He inherently felt he was superior and his "friend" merely reinforced that. I don't feel superior in my views. I feel they are what they are. They are on the side of equality. Where is the racist thoughts and mindset on the side of equality?

You are tolerant...until you are intolerant. Doesn't that mean that you are really intolerant because you feel your position is superior to people who don't agree with you? That would be the parallel.

I don't mean to say you shouldn't feel your position is superior, just that you shouldn't use that belief to stifle someone else's ideas. Denouncing stupidity is good, but censoring it is not.

 

[R.D.]

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

What is it you don't understand?

Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.

 

[BillyZane]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few.

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.

 

[Asclepias]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

I get exactly what you are saying. I just disagree. I asked you that question because I wanted to see what benefit you thought these ideas brought. What you are going to find regardless of which path we choose as a society this is going to get repetitive. I believe my method deals with it faster than yours. The ideas will keep coming back as long as we have a us against them mentality. That mentality is hardwired into us as humans and the very reason we have become the dominant species on earth.

 

[R.D.]

The intolerant ideas are only a subset of the different ideas. For example I believe the way to true wealth is being an business owner. Some people may think its by working for someone else. I dont agree but it does not make their idea intolerant.

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

Then you lose. You can't be both. I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance. What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.

 

[Asclepias]

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few.

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.

That is simply false beyond belief.

 

[hunarcy]

Those were my words or I would have quoted them. I bolded the ignorant ones.

You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?

He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people. He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.

No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times. No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.

As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups. I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed. I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.

 

[Asclepias]

Ok, but what you seem to be trying to do is say "I'm tolerant, sometimes." But, that doesn't absolve you from being intolerant other times. To me, it's an offshoot of the "I have a black friend so I can't be a racist" argument and that ultimately fails.

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

Then you lose. You can't be both. I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance. What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.

Lose what? I didn't know I was in a contest. Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.

 

[Asclepias]

What is it you don't understand?

Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.

I assure you I am. Is that your frustrated response because at least one other person had no problem with understanding what i said?

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Plasma, you want to be able to punish people for daring to voice their opinions.

I have no such goals, and I think such behavior is counterproductive.

I'd rather keep lines of communication open, so that we can try to fix our problems.

I believe in tolerance for and diversity of opinion. You don't have to.

We're not going to agree.

.

I think the removal or punishment of expression of ideas from society that are intolerant to the rights of other people to exist and enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else is beneficial. There is no room in a progressive society for racism, sexism, bigotry etc. Maybe you can point out the benefit of such ideas?

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

It looks to me like there is no interest in solving problems or achieving tolerance when it comes to the PC activists. All they are interested in is advocating for THEIR group, THEIR cause, THEIR point of view and they do appear to be more than willing to physically and/or materially punish anybody who doesn't toe the line that THEY say is the tolerant, correct, open minded, acceptable attitude, speech, belief, opinion. They can't see what an oxymoron it is to say that their opinion is tolerant and somebody else's opinion is not.

Unless we allow people to be bigoted--that is BE bigoted, not act out bigotry--there will always be bigotry because you can't denounce bigotry without demonstrating it toward the bigot that you condemn. And so much of it is really relative.

Who is the more bigoted? The man who denounces and approves physical and/or material punishment against a Don Imus or somebody else who makes a politically incorrect joke or observation about a black person--a man who claims to be pure as the driven snow re his attitudes toward black people--but who seeks out non-black friends, colleagues, associates, and venues and sees black people as victims who can't make it on their own without 'Whitey's' help?

Or the guy who is open and honest that he sees black people as inferior to whites or dumb as rocks or just different, but who hires black people and treats them as well as any other employees, who goes out of his way to help a black person in trouble, who offers a black neighbor a ride, who contributes to a scholarship fund for a young black person to go to college, or who steps in and defends a black person who is being threatened or abused? We're talking Archie Bunker type prejudice here.

There is the kind of intolerance that actively hurts people--intends to hurt people. And then their is the kind of intolerance that hurts nobody--that is nothing more than an attitude or opinion or belief.

I think intelligent people make the distinction between these two things and will push back against that which is truly harmful and be tolerant of that which is not.

 

[hunarcy]

Your question makes it absolutely clear that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

But, since I rarely get straight answers here, I want to be sure to answer yours: I see no benefit of ideas such as racism, sexism, bigotry, etc.

Now, to get more serious, I would like to see all of the above gone, as well. And it's my opinion that the best way to do that is organically, by changing hearts and minds with reason, maturity, civility and patience - not with threats, punishment and intolerance.

Further, the only way I can identify the hearts and minds that I want to change is if they can speak freely. Then it's my opportunity to communicate with them. I'll win some, I'll lose some, but I know that punishing and intimidating them might somehow feed my ego, but it would also exacerbate their animosities. That is clearly counterproductive.

I sincerely don't know why this is so difficult to grasp. My guess is that it has to do with something I mentioned before on this thread - narcissism. Some people just have a need to tell others what to do, what not to do, how to live, and most importantly, what offends them. For these people, it seems clear that actually solving problems is secondary, at best.

We want the same end result. I'd just prefer to reach it with freedom of expression, civility, maturity, reason, diversity of opinion and tolerance. And humility.

.

Why are you against the expression of ANY ideas?

In fact, I would argue that allowing the expression of ideas can lower the number of incidents we have where ACTIONS are taken.

How many people are just venting that they hate them queers and ******* but do nothing more than vent? How many of them would take action against those they hate if they couldn't legally express their opinions?

Probably quite a few.

Words don't hurt anyone. I don't care how hateful, ignorant, or uncaring they are , words will never EVER hurt anyone.

The very creation of our nation was at that time considered a vulgar, hateful , ignorant opinion. I mean how dare those colonials express the idea that they had the right to denounce the King of England.

Etc, etc.

That is simply false beyond belief.

Words only hurt if you CHOOSE to be hurt by them. But, the younger you are, the harder that lesson is to learn, so while you have a point, it's not "false beyond belief".

 

[R.D.]

You are correct. I am tolerant until I encounter intolerance. I have no moral dilemma with that stance. I don't see how it relates to "having a black friend so I cant be racist".

Then you lose. You can't be both. I am tolerant of your obvious intolerance. What you express is situational tolerance or situation ethics...which makes you intolerant with favoritism tendencies towards those who share your intolerant views.

Lose what? I didn't know I was in a contest. Yes I can be both. Its called transisitoning. I can be tolerant of one idea and then be intolerant of a intolerant idea. This is not a hard concept to grasp nor is it a all or nothing proposition.

No it's not. And no you can't. By your own definition you lack tolerance, period. Your trying to bully others to your superior intolerant viewpoints is nothing short of sophomoric in its complete lack of self awareness.

 

[Asclepias]

You're saying they were not singing and happy; that at the time, he was looking at silent morose people and pretended they were singing and happy?

He said that the Blacks he knew were godly and happy people. He never said they were pleased with their circumstances or didn't wish for better, which WOULD have been ignorant.

No. I'm saying he was ignorant of what was really going on. I'm Black and have heard the stories from both sides of my family and countless other families as well as to the conditions at those times. No one was happy with the situation. It was ignorant of him to assume that and lends credibility to the thought that Black people were happy being oppressed. If you can follow the pattern its the same thought pattern that leads to Blacks being happy they were rescued from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I havent even started on the gay bashing.

As his comments show, he was merely talking about his life as he remembered it but he was a kid and was probably sheltered from the ugliest stuff by both groups. I don't believe that anyone would conclude he was saying Blacks were happy being oppressed. I have never heard the argument that Blacks were happy being "rescued" from Africa and were happy to be slaves. I would have to laugh in the face of anyone who seriously stated that.

He is an adult now and a successful businessman. He should have known better and the reality and impact of his words. Lots of people concluded exactly what I did from his comments. I agree its is funny to hear people say stuff like that but it stops being funny when you understand that was the rationale used to resolve the conflict between being a Christian and participating in a slave owning culture.

 

[R.D.]

What is it you don't understand?

Your example leads one to wonder if you're dealing with a full deck.

I assure you I am. Is that your frustrated response because at least one other person had no problem with understanding what i said?

I understood what you meant too. It was dumb nonetheless