Two for Tuesday

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-07-2013
Two for Tuesday
914
Tue, 03-12-2013 - 3:29pm

1. What's for dinner?

2. What is one thing that you are looking forward to?

Pages

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 4:51am
"It's difficult to avert your eyes from a train wreck. I think I like the fake outrage best." ---------- Yes, the outrage gives me a chuckle every time. She inadvertently posted access to pictures which showed that she had gone internet surfing to track down another poster here (who presumably had annoyed her or something) and had found and kept a picture of this poster, along with some personal info. That was the beginning of "Duck Dynasty Feud," or whatever you may want to call it. Nobody would have had any interest in her IRL identity (except to wonder if she was for real, Max Chandler-style) had she not shown a fervent interest in the private, IRL lives of others.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 9:12am

rollmops2009 wrote:
Yes, the outrage gives me a chuckle every time. She inadvertently posted access to pictures which showed that she had gone internet surfing to track down another poster here (who presumably had annoyed her or something) and had found and kept a picture of this poster, along with some personal info. That was the beginning of "Duck Dynasty Feud," or whatever you may want to call it. Nobody would have had any interest in her IRL identity (except to wonder if she was for real, Max Chandler-style) had she not shown a fervent interest in the private, IRL lives of others.

Whoa. I had no idea. That's f'd up. 

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 10:29am
"Whoa. I had no idea. That's f'd up." -------- Indeed! That was before the whole debacle involving friending the children and presumed (in error) associates of other posters under an assumed name and crowing about what one can find in google. Mistake.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 10:35am

An assumed name? Is that who Kim Michaelson is?

Thanks for the backstory, btw. This is all so (clinically) fascinating.

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 10:39am
"An assumed name? Is that who Kim Michaelson is?" -------- Yes, exactly. Max Chandler was way more entertaining though, although nobody was ever able to decide if she was real or someone with a fabulous imagination and no life.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 11:03am

I don't recall Max Chandler. Must have been during another board hiatus for me. I've been here kind of off and on. I think I stopped reading the board on a daily type basis when the format changed years ago. I can't figure out why iVillage hasn't remedied the poor formatting. At one point in time, this was THE place for online discussion. I don't even know if there's an equivalent to what iV was currently.  

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 11:16am
Max Chandler was eons ago, back in the pre-village, Parentsoup days. It is hard to describe Max, but she has lived on as a message board legend. She was skinny, kept a perfect house, always wore full make-up to greet her dh, never spent time outside, did not eat any veggies (to many allergies) and kept her son in a stroller till he was 5.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 12:28pm

I arrived here post-Parentsoup, though I recall that there was also a SAH v. WOH board still in existence there while this one was up and running. 

I may have been around during the Max Chandler era, for some reason the poster just isn't sticking out to me. There were so many posters back then and while today's level of ridiculousness would be difficult to top, I do recall some intense discussions about silly things, like lined shorts and, was it snow pants? Snow boots? Some kind of snow gear, anyway. I remember too there were a small collection of working moms who felt that SAHMs should be house servants because they dared to opt out of contributing to the GDP, and placed inordinate amounts of stress on their dhs, citing workplace conversations (predominantly male, of course) where husbands routinely sat around in the break room complaining about their lousy wives who did nothing all day and who refused to work. 

I remember when the occasional hyper vigilant SAHM would arrive here with long posts about how god intended for women to stay at home and serve their families. I remember sitting back and watching the wave of angry posts that would follow those introductions, shaking my head, waiting impatiently for the SAHM to defend herself against this pack of highly educated, debate-seasoned women. Generally those OP would make a few subsequent posts, which were greeted the same way, and then they'd move on for a little while, but most never really returned. Ahhh. The good old days. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2013
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 12:32pm

just_another_marla wrote:
<p>I arrived here post-Parentsoup, though I recall that there was also a SAH v. WOH board still in existence there while this one was up and running. </p><p>I may have been around during the Max Chandler era, for some reason the poster just isn't sticking out to me. There were so many posters back then and while today's level of ridiculousness would be difficult to top, I do recall some intense discussions about silly things, like lined shorts and, was it snow pants? Snow boots? Some kind of snow gear, anyway. I remember too there were a small collection of working moms who felt that SAHMs should be house servants because they dared to opt out of contributing to the GDP, and placed inordinate amounts of stress on their dhs, citing workplace conversations (predominantly male, of course) where husbands routinely sat around in the break room complaining about their lousy wives who did nothing all day and who refused to work. </p><p>I remember when the occasional hyper vigilant SAHM would arrive here with long posts about how god intended for women to stay at home and serve their families. I remember sitting back and watching the wave of angry posts that would follow those introductions, shaking my head, waiting impatiently for the SAHM to defend herself against this pack of highly educated, debate-seasoned women. Generally those OP would make a few subsequent posts, which were greeted the same way, and then they'd move on for a little while, but most never really returned. Ahhh. The good old days. </p>

HA! The GDP discussions. I had forgotten all about those. I think I may have been much more fun to debate when I only had a six week old newborn and knew it all...Laughing

Seriously though, I've met some of those "women should stay home because God wants them to" moms in a bible study. I just can't do a literal interpretation of scripture...

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-22-2009
Sat, 03-16-2013 - 1:17pm

>Seriously though, I've met some of those "women should stay home because God wants them to" moms in a bible study. I just can't do a literal interpretation of scripture...</p>[/quote]

I do not know if "women should stay home because God wants them to"  would even fall under a literal interpretation of scripture because I do not think it states that in the Bible.  

Pages