The Apology

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:29:29 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jim N wrote:
Try this:

http://ourdigitalmags.com/publicatio...&i=667760&p=16

If anyone finds this old ad offensive they must be having a really hard time coping with day to day "stuff"

Jim
That ad actually reflects reality. I have had many a conversation answering the question posed in the ad, mostly to other guys. Somebody's gain is turned up WAY TOO HIGH!

Tom
Tongue firmly planted in cheek " could this not be another QAnon theory? Yes "He" has turned the country on its head.

On Tuesday, 20 October 2020 12:25:47 UTC-4, joel!!!!@yahoo,com wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:29:29 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:21:25 PM UTC-7, Jim N wrote:
Try this:

http://ourdigitalmags.com/publicatio...&i=667760&p=16

If anyone finds this old ad offensive they must be having a really hard time coping with day to day "stuff"

Jim
That ad actually reflects reality. I have had many a conversation answering the question posed in the ad, mostly to other guys. Somebody's gain is turned up WAY TOO HIGH!

Tom
Tongue firmly planted in cheek " could this not be another QAnon theory? Yes "He" has turned the country on its head.

There's gonna be whiplash when this political correctness finally swings the other way.

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:21:25 PM UTC-5, Jim N wrote:
Try this:

http://ourdigitalmags.com/publicatio...&i=667760&p=16

If anyone finds this old ad offensive they must be having a really hard time coping with day to day "stuff"


Anybody got a link to the actual complaint?

I'm offended by the people that are offended by by the people that are offended by the SSF ad. Now you can be offended by my offence.

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 9:09:27 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I'm offended by the people that are offended by by the people that are offended by the SSF ad. Now you can be offended by my offence.
So is that the triple dog dare?

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 6:11:19 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Recently there was an apology issued from the SSA and the SSF and Editor for a so called offensive interpretation of the depiction of a historical portrayal of a young lady and a glider pilot on a previous edition of Soaring magazine. After reading the complaints from the women associated with the WSPA I decided it is now time to voice the other side of the story.
That depiction reminded me of the 1970's when I met my wife at the Kendall Gliderport in Miami . I was flying my Std. Cirrus and she was a student pilot for gliders. So to say that that depiction was sexist is completely ridiculous. The SSA should have never apologized because of an orchestrated attack on the publication , Editor, and the SSF.
The complainants are without merit, totally offbase and have a directive in place that only undermines the overall objective of the SSA, SSF, and Editor. You would think that this bunch of misfits, have no understanding of how this is an inclusive activity and not directed by any one gender.
Ladies, listen up, much has been done by the SSA and others to support women in the sport of flying gliders. Let me take a moment and share a story with you about compassion and inclusion.
During the past year we has a lady member whom became sick from a serious stage of cancer, a few of us at our club took notice and understood the severity of the situation and made it possible for this lady to achieve her goal of becoming a CFIG. We made sure that this was done at no cost, and guess what, she completed her CFIG even while on chemotherapy.
Sorry that you think the SSA must apologize for your mis-interpretation and misguided effort . I think that the lack of cognizance is appalling. Bob Youngblood
At this time I would like to request that there NO further post to this thread. We have all made our points, expressed our perceptions and personal attacks. I do not look at this as a winning or losing debate and at times I saw unfortunate post from people whom I have a lot of respect for, I hope they feel the same about me.
May I ask each one of you to throw the pen and paper down take a deep breathe say to ourselves that we have something in common. Enjoy your life, continue the wonderful adventure of sailplane flying and most of all stay healthy. My final words on this subject. If you wish to opine do so privately. Bob Youngblood, Vero Beach, Florida.

(BUMP)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just before I posted, this deplorable thread was roughly 30 views (out of 6500) from moving into 6th place on the most-viewed-discussions-on-RAS rankings for 2020! As the U.S. presidential election just demonstrated, every vote (view) counts. And unlike that election, we can keep voting as many times as we want.

Tantalyzingly, it's only a few hundred views away from Top 5 status. So keep clicking.

Chip Bearden
JB

On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 8:38:53 AM UTC-8, Chip Bearden wrote:
(BUMP)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. Just before I posted, this deplorable thread was roughly 30 views (out of 6500) from moving into 6th place on the most-viewed-discussions-on-RAS rankings for 2020! As the U.S. presidential election just demonstrated, every vote (view) counts. And unlike that election, we can keep voting as many times as we want.

Tantalyzingly, it's only a few hundred views away from Top 5 status. So keep clicking.

Chip Bearden
JB

It's deplorable all right: you called my wife a liar and STILL haven't apologized.

Tom

On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 6:40:32 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
It's deplorable all right: you called my wife a liar and STILL haven't apologized.

Tom

This discussion is full of remarks that beg for an apology, none of which has been forthcoming. So I'll go first. Some context:

[Tom] I showed [the ad] to my wife and she thought it was cute, and others here have noted a similar reaction.

[Chip] Tell the truth, Tom. What's your answer to "honey, does this dress make my butt look big?" Yeah, I thought so. This is what focus groups are for.

[Tom] And, then, you insulted my wife by implying that she was being dishonest. I think you owe her an apology.

I think I implied--by using a humorous-but-admittedly sexist analogy that many men in relationships with women are familiar with--that your wife might well have told you what you wanted to hear to be diplomatic or to protect your ego or to avoid an animated discussion.

But I don't know her so if my use of humor hurt or offended her, then I apologize.

Now it's your turn, dude.

I suggest you start by apologizing to Mike Westbrook and Hugh Grandstaff for saying they were the only ones who had used the phrase "childless corporate whores". That was factually untrue and you owe those guys an apology.

If we can close this out with apologies on both sides, however small, MAYBE then we can feel like we made some progress. Otherwise, this embarrassment is now the 6th-most-viewed RAS discussion of 2020 with a good chance of making the top 5. The mind boggles.

Chip Bearden
JB

On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 7:04:47 PM UTC-5, Chip Bearden wrote:
On Friday, November 6, 2020 at 6:40:32 PM UTC-5, 2G wrote:
It's deplorable all right: you called my wife a liar and STILL haven't apologized.

Tom

This discussion is full of remarks that beg for an apology, none of which has been forthcoming. So I'll go first. Some context:

[Tom] I showed [the ad] to my wife and she thought it was cute, and others here have noted a similar reaction.

[Chip] Tell the truth, Tom. What's your answer to "honey, does this dress make my butt look big?" Yeah, I thought so. This is what focus groups are for.

[Tom] And, then, you insulted my wife by implying that she was being dishonest. I think you owe her an apology.

I think I implied--by using a humorous-but-admittedly sexist analogy that many men in relationships with women are familiar with--that your wife might well have told you what you wanted to hear to be diplomatic or to protect your ego or to avoid an animated discussion.

But I don't know her so if my use of humor hurt or offended her, then I apologize.

Now it's your turn, dude.

I suggest you start by apologizing to Mike Westbrook and Hugh Grandstaff for saying they were the only ones who had used the phrase "childless corporate whores". That was factually untrue and you owe those guys an apology.

If we can close this out with apologies on both sides, however small, MAYBE then we can feel like we made some progress. Otherwise, this embarrassment is now the 6th-most-viewed RAS discussion of 2020 with a good chance of making the top 5. The mind boggles.

Chip Bearden
JB

Thanks for leading JB. I knew you had that contest id for a reason (private joke).