Read 'em and Weep

[Jolly]

And what is wrong with that?

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:

And what is wrong with that?

The Craw article, as you have acknowledged, makes it a point to distinguish “needs” from “lusts.” Whether there’s anything “wrong” vis a vis the Craw article may depend on whether the wives were put in public spotlights to help meet a “need” or to help chasing after a “lust” (e.g., for power or prestige of elected offices).

[Catseye3]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

Unless they were Boadicea

Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

Unless they were Boadicea

Or Joan of Arc. Or Molly Pitcher.

You've named 3. (Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)

What do you suppose the guy/girl ratio is on the Ukraine front?

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)

They are?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

(Of which, all 3 are embellished legends, by the way.)

They are?

You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.

And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

You have a habit of citing things in your posts you haven't looked into yourself.

And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying. It's easier to take my lumps when I get caught out.

Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?

No, that's your leap.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

Are you saying that you're fine with not knowing what you're talking about?

No, that's your leap.

Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.

Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.

[Doctor Phibes]

Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.

I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

Well, if you're not, you're in luck. A great way to prevent that is to make an effort.

Thank you for that life lesson, particularly when I've said I've no wish to prevent it. At least, not for random postings that are not of do-or-die significance.

Here's an honest question: if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone take the time and effort to discuss things with you?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.

I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.

Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.

In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.

When next we get invaded.

Warring parties were often different.

Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

if you're not interested in giving a damn, why should anyone discuss things with you?

You're getting tiresome. You asked if I was fine with not knowing what I was talking about. I answered no, that that was your (inaccurate) conclusion. And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn. What part of NO are you having trouble with?

Just to put this pointless circle finally to bed, it so happens that if I find the subject at hand worth investigating, I'll do so -- and have, many times.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.

I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.

Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.

In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.

When next we get invaded.

Warring parties were often different.

Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.

Short version - I was right, and you were wrong.

Again.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Catseye3 said in Read 'em and Weep:

And here you are, accusing me of not giving a damn.

Here's why. You said:

And I'll probably continue to. Not everything is worth the effort of verifying.

If you're not going to take the time to verify your own words, then why should I listen to you?

[Aqua Letifer]

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

@Doctor-Phibes said in Read 'em and Weep:

Contemporary accounts indicated Celtic women probably fought alongside men. Obviously, it was a fucking long time ago, so we don't really know. In fact, it was pre-Christianity, which now apparently tells women to 'keep quiet' in case they become a hindrance to their man and provider.

I have to wonder how that conversation would go in the majority of cases.

Yes, they did do that. No, there's no such thing as "the Celtic amazon." They "fought alongside men" not because they were woke. That is a term that was coined and proliferated on the internet. The Celts didn't have access to the internet. Or electricity. Or stores the likes of which you can buy computers from. Or the very concept of "stores" or even the economic platform that gave rise to everything we now see and do.

In other words, you're right, it was a very long fucking time ago. And they were desperate, like every other person alive at that time. So if you could wield a hatchet, spear, pike, whatever, congratulations, you were using that thing when next we get invaded.

When next we get invaded.

Warring parties were often different.

Point remains, though: there are far, far more remains of males from times past who suffered mortal injuries in battle than women. And that's true across cultures, continents and centuries.

Short version - I was right, and you were wrong.

Again.

On yer bike.

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in Read 'em and Weep:

If you're not going to take the time to verify your own words, then why should I listen to you?

Absolutely, you shouldn't. Feel free not to.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in Read 'em and Weep:

The writer of the article is a marriage counselor.

So he says. He doesn't really sound like any counselor I've ever heard, TBH. Way too many strong opinions....