We know what tolerate means.

You do? Explain it to John from IL.

We know what tolerate means. You test us on the outer bounds of that concept with every single comment you offer.

Tolerate: putting up with raj’s pedantic, uber-Germanic, pseudo-intellectual rants and observations.

Tolerate.

AFAIC, Mlle. Cheney can do whatever she and her publicists want. I subscribe to the “greater fool” theory: she as a public relations artiste is separating you (not me, you) from your money.

Fauning over her and her relationship with her daddy (and the Coors family, of course) is, to me, a bit beyond the pale, but it’s your dime, not mine.

What I found interesting is that the Sueddeutscher report of her publicity tour indicated that she considered herself “married” to her partner. It’s nice that she “considers” herself “married” to her partner. But that “considered” would be fairly meaningless if push comes to shove in the legal arena. Ah, well, to channel Robin Cook, the Lives of the Rich and Famous are not the lives of we more mundane people.

….my dictionary doesn’t seem to include these morphed definitions…

But yet, by your example, you agree with my definition of tolerate . You should talk to this group regarding your hatred of the word tolerance.

This is a joke, right? Relying on a possibly-deluded web site as a basis for the definition of a word? That is about as dumb as relying on the web site that was supposedly directed toward “transgendered” people, which defined “transgendered” so broadly as to be unrecognizable. This actually came up on the NYTimes gay rights board a few years ago.

“Tolerance” is a noun that has a number of definitions, but the one that is of interest here is the one that is associated with the verb “tolerate.” Tolerate:

2 a : to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with”

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/tolerate

Since she is a professional public relations nut-case, it is quite evident that she could–with the help of her editors, of course–strike just the right tone in the book (what a 30-some-odd year old virtual nobody has to tell us in a “memoir” is beyond me), nod the right way in interviews pushing the book, and so forth. Her performances pushing the book were noted here in Germany in the Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Hilarious.

Let’s get something–um–straight. She has used her public relations skills to further the fortunes of the Coors family, which has sponsored virulently anti-gay initiatives. And she has used her public relations skills to further the Bushies’ malAdministration elections. You know, the malAdministration that is pushing to get anti-gay discrimination enshrined in the federal constitution. And her faux “vapors” regarding Kerry’s and Edwards “outing” her–after she having been a professional lesbian shilling for the Coors family–are hilarious.

But why should she care? She’s going to become very wealthy from her daddy’s shares in Halliburton. She’s substantially insulated from the anti-gay clap-trap that comes from her father’s party. Actually, one might seriously ask her why she hasn’t volunteered to serve in her daddy’s war against Iraq. She’s a perfect example of what I’ve been saying for years–people are “gay” second, third, fourth or fifth, and something else first. And that is one significant reason why gay people will, for the forseeable future in the Untied States of America, have such a difficult time achieving equal rights.

But yet, by your example, you agree with my definition of tolerate . You should talk to this group regarding your hatred of the word tolerance.

Dan

Next step, if/when you’re ready: Apologizing when you trash someone on a mistaken basis. (Bitterly trashing someone as a chocolate lover, say, when they posted their love of vanilla - I have seen you do that surprisingly often.)

Advanced step - but I know you will never get to this - Self-awareness. For example, just in #51, you complain about Matt’s alleged personal invective in a paragraph of your making personal invective on him. Weakens your case, no?

A smaller step, more manageable for you, I hope: Understanding that skipping commentors you don’t like is part of Web life, and Bruce’s comment system is not in danger of running out of numbers. LOL

Gryph (#27) — If you can’t even read our posts close enough to know WHO wrote them, why would I think you would read them closely at all to make cogent points?

Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — May 21, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - May 21, 2006

SOME of us have real jobs that do not permit us the luxury of dilly-dallying away the hours of the workday reading blogs. As such, a lot of the times I visit here its with very little time to read and write. So I sometimes make mistakes. Consider it the blogging equivilant of an accidental drive-by shooting. Sometimes I hit the wrong target, so I do apologize for my sins of the past and those I will commit in the future.

But you might consider that my experience is probably not unique among your readers. Especially those like myself that at least glance at 6-10 blogs a day. And thats in addition to 4-5 regular news sites.

As for the commenters, asking ANYONE to keep up with the sheer massive volume of Caralato’s entries is unreasonable. So I skim, and maybe hit something or not. Most of Michiganmatts I ignore, but then he makes it easy. I skip anything where he starts off with an insult, either of myself or others. Thats the majority of his posts. If he were smart, he would leave off the personal invective until the end of his. Then I might sometimes see at least a paragraph or two of whatever point he is mangling.

There were a bunch of books I’d wanted to pick up in the City–yes, you can order on Amazon, and I do, but it’s not the same as the delicious feeling of wandering through a bookstore with loads of shelves of books you can touch–but the books got cro…

Kevin, I suppose the court could push gay marriage on the citizens of the US and require it be done with all deliberate speed

Ralph,
You are confusing the definition of tolerate with tolerance. To tolerate someone is just “holding your nose” and putting up with it. Tolerance has somehow morphed into a larger meaning of complete social acceptance. It is interesting to see how the words we use and how we use them can so innocently change.

39 “to use the courts to ram gay marriage through the objections of most citizens:” Funny, the supreme court ordered desegration. Do you think that was something that was ‘rammed’ through the courts that was a mistake? I would really like to see a challenge to one of these laws hit the supreme court one day - maybe then people will realize that there’s something called “equal protection under the law” in this nation.

I would hope that in civilized socities we can have disagreement with hating.

Also, I liked the one posters clarification about simply being a good parent. I would also like to add I hate the word tolerance. “Oh look, the negro is coming to dinner, I suppose we should make room for him,” versus, “Ralph is coming to dinner.”

Democrats demanding that gays be stripped of rights IS “right and just”, in your opinion. Heck, you’ve made it clear that doing so is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” — just look at the endorsements and money that you and other leftist gays gave Clinton, Kerry, and Dean for doing it.