Empress of Groovy

Just breathe everyone, and remember that what Paul thinks that anyone should or should not do is of no consequence.

You know what? I was willing to listen to you (although not agree with you on all points) until you wrote this. I may have disagreed, but thought you were coming over as an fairly intelligent and rational chap who felt strongly about this issue.
Did you ever stop to think that some, if not MOST, of the people who complain about the objectification of the female sex on this board are not doing it out of jealousy but disgust with the concept of objectification? Sexism runs rampant in certain sub-fora on this site, and only the most egregious examples get shut down because of the very "plausible deniability" you denounce. It's all in good fun, oh, we're all chaps here, etc etc. The vilest examples make men look like bullies, idiots and thugs. By all means, praise your wife to the stars -- women LOVE to hear men praising women. Really. REALLY! What many of us -- both women and the men you claim are attacking you for your choice of spouse -- do not like to hear is how all other women are tramps, slatternly, inconsiderate, ballbusting, etc etc forever and ever amen.
I have never come across you, have no idea what you have posted about your wife, and I won't go looking for your posts. Your comment about the desirability of fifty-year-old women was also rather tacky (and believe me, I have many, many years to go until I reach that milestone). I know you will certainly care not a fig for my opinion, but I feel inserting your comment here has done you a great disservice.

It's important to listen to the terms they use. Marlea is right. That the issue is being expedited within the MP's office doesn't mean that the US embassy will expedite your case, or even do anything with it aside from check the dates and numbers, given that it's within a normal processing time. The "resolution" referred to likely means that the MP's office expects to have an answer for you--which may just be that you have to sit tight.
With USCIS cases, there are specific criteria for expediting cases, and what other entities can do (MPs, members of congress, etc.) is typically limited to alerting CIS to a situation or, if a case is outside normal processing time, which is determined by CIS, making an inquiry to make sure the case hasn't fallen through the cracks.
From what I know about US immigration, the functionaries at the embassy aren't going to start scrambling to approve a case on a normal timeline, barring an emergency (and the list of what CIS considers an emergency is rather short), no matter what mucky-muck's office is inquiring on his behalf.

I don't know about you losers, but on my desk sits a bright yellow phone with no buttons or dials. It's a direct line to No. 1, and he always answers on the first ring.

Settle down, settle down. I'm just here to clarify a few things here:
1) There is a difference between a packet being "logged" and "eligible for interview". The former means the packet is in the system, the latter means everything's been checked as being good to go, they're just waiting to give you a date. Do I think Julian's MP caused any change in the status from one to the other? Nope. And before anyone says "Oh, but you filed over 3 years ago!" believe me, the terminology hasn't changed.
2) There have been a number of people in the past who have done strange things to speed up interview dates (TimsDaisy springs to mind) where the explanation given never really made sense. People accepted it and moved on. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances that people don't want to talk about or share. As much as it pains me to say it, in most circumstances we just take it as read that this or that certain event or hiccup occurred. We don't expect proof every time someone farts and they think it might have helped the process. In the interests of better forum interaction, we should all -- ALL -- calm down.
3) Rob has just as much right to post in the UK forum as he does to post in any other forum or sub-forum. He has friends who post here (hell, I've posted in the Canada forum too) and if you disagree with him, disagree with the contents of his posts, not the flag on his profile. If he had a Union Jack/Saltire/George Cross/Welsh Dragon next to his name, would you be so upset?
Now, I'm only an organiser and I have no real clout in this forum. But I HATE threads getting shut down. HATE IT. And I know people are reporting this thread not for baiting, or bad language, or racism, or sexist content, but because they do not like the OP and his fiancee. The mods aren't going to get that -- they don't have the time to monitor these threads so closely. It wouldn't be the first time that a thread got shut down when it didn't need to be. Go ahead and hate me, but here's my advice: it's an effing internet forum. Put your big girl pants on and get over it. Ignore the people you don't like (do you KNOW how many times a day I control myself from reporting Gary for borderline misogynistic BS?) when what they're saying doesn't directly affect you. This thread would not have gotten out of control if people knew how to just ignore all the bombast within.
I prefer the UK forum to be a lovely garden of fluffy bunnies and Mint Aeros. Let's all just take a time out and have a drink, okay? I'm having two.

It's important to listen to the terms they use. Marlea is right. That the issue is being expedited within the MP's office doesn't mean that the US embassy will expedite your case, or even do anything with it aside from check the dates and numbers, given that it's within a normal processing time. The "resolution" referred to likely means that the MP's office expects to have an answer for you--which may just be that you have to sit tight.
With USCIS cases, there are specific criteria for expediting cases, and what other entities can do (MPs, members of congress, etc.) is typically limited to alerting CIS to a situation or, if a case is outside normal processing time, which is determined by CIS, making an inquiry to make sure the case hasn't fallen through the cracks.
From what I know about US immigration, the functionaries at the embassy aren't going to start scrambling to approve a case on a normal timeline, barring an emergency (and the list of what CIS considers an emergency is rather short), no matter what mucky-muck's office is inquiring on his behalf.

It's important to listen to the terms they use. Marlea is right. That the issue is being expedited within the MP's office doesn't mean that the US embassy will expedite your case, or even do anything with it aside from check the dates and numbers, given that it's within a normal processing time. The "resolution" referred to likely means that the MP's office expects to have an answer for you--which may just be that you have to sit tight.
With USCIS cases, there are specific criteria for expediting cases, and what other entities can do (MPs, members of congress, etc.) is typically limited to alerting CIS to a situation or, if a case is outside normal processing time, which is determined by CIS, making an inquiry to make sure the case hasn't fallen through the cracks.
From what I know about US immigration, the functionaries at the embassy aren't going to start scrambling to approve a case on a normal timeline, barring an emergency (and the list of what CIS considers an emergency is rather short), no matter what mucky-muck's office is inquiring on his behalf.

It's important to listen to the terms they use. Marlea is right. That the issue is being expedited within the MP's office doesn't mean that the US embassy will expedite your case, or even do anything with it aside from check the dates and numbers, given that it's within a normal processing time. The "resolution" referred to likely means that the MP's office expects to have an answer for you--which may just be that you have to sit tight.
With USCIS cases, there are specific criteria for expediting cases, and what other entities can do (MPs, members of congress, etc.) is typically limited to alerting CIS to a situation or, if a case is outside normal processing time, which is determined by CIS, making an inquiry to make sure the case hasn't fallen through the cracks.
From what I know about US immigration, the functionaries at the embassy aren't going to start scrambling to approve a case on a normal timeline, barring an emergency (and the list of what CIS considers an emergency is rather short), no matter what mucky-muck's office is inquiring on his behalf.

It's important to listen to the terms they use. Marlea is right. That the issue is being expedited within the MP's office doesn't mean that the US embassy will expedite your case, or even do anything with it aside from check the dates and numbers, given that it's within a normal processing time. The "resolution" referred to likely means that the MP's office expects to have an answer for you--which may just be that you have to sit tight.
With USCIS cases, there are specific criteria for expediting cases, and what other entities can do (MPs, members of congress, etc.) is typically limited to alerting CIS to a situation or, if a case is outside normal processing time, which is determined by CIS, making an inquiry to make sure the case hasn't fallen through the cracks.
From what I know about US immigration, the functionaries at the embassy aren't going to start scrambling to approve a case on a normal timeline, barring an emergency (and the list of what CIS considers an emergency is rather short), no matter what mucky-muck's office is inquiring on his behalf.

"expedited within the MP's office" does not equal expedited in the US Embassy.

I don't know about you losers, but on my desk sits a bright yellow phone with no buttons or dials. It's a direct line to No. 1, and he always answers on the first ring.

I don't know about you losers, but on my desk sits a bright yellow phone with no buttons or dials. It's a direct line to No. 1, and he always answers on the first ring.

I don't know about you losers, but on my desk sits a bright yellow phone with no buttons or dials. It's a direct line to No. 1, and he always answers on the first ring.

I don't know about you losers, but on my desk sits a bright yellow phone with no buttons or dials. It's a direct line to No. 1, and he always answers on the first ring.

People who don't use Facebook wear it like some badge of honor. Talk about narcissism.

Hi Everyone!
So after 30 some odd hours of induced labor, with contractions every minute to minute and a half, with NO DILATION whatsoever, I finally had a C-section today.
We welcomed Nicholas Cedric into this world this morning @ 11:30. He weighed 7 lbs 5 oz and was 21.5 inches long.
He is gorgeous! But way more importantly, he is healthy!!!!
Quick pic for the non fbers:
Thanks everyone, once again you are all awesome

No BY, not simply hateful - racist. Referring to a Hispanic posters family as "bowl cut Inca" IS racist, sneering at someone's hispanic SO and suggesting that they are sub-par IS racist, stating that that blacks and hispanic citizens should have fewer civil rights than everyone else IS racist, claiming that blacks in the US have the social problems they do because they can't run a piss up in a brewery and look at Africa for proof IS racist.
We can go back and forth on this - but I'm not going to apologise to you for calling out what are, to me (and to others - including the moderators) clear examples of racism. If you're offended by this - then you should re-examine your own words and your own attitude. Yet rather than do that you invent this fanciful story that not only are you right and everyone else is wrong but the "everyone else" is somehow in cahoots with each other to bait you and get you suspended. That's simply ridiculous.
As I said, if you aren't prepared to accept responsibility for your own part in creating these situations - then I don't see what you are expecting to achieve. You might get a few newbies to side with you who haven't had the benefit of experience to know what you're like, but you aren't going to fool many others.

I suspect she'll reappear toward the end of Part 2--with a new married boyfriend and grisly consequences.

shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standards?

An old friend from work just announced via Facebook update that her dad has passed on. He'd been quite ill and on a ventilator, and for the last couple of weeks, it was one of those "just a matter of time" situations. Her update says, "My brother just called. My dad passed away peacefully this evening. RIP, Daddy." (She's from the South.) Just underneath the update it says, Jeffrey McNamara likes this. Jeff is her husband.
I know this is sad, but I laugh every time I look at it. All I can think of is her husband saying something like, "Thank Christ the old coot's dead."
I thought I'd post this in the knocked-up thread because I've noticed that not only do I now get weepy at stuff that never would have affected me, but my ability to keep from laughing at things that are only marginally funny is now nonexistent.

My interpretation of Charles's comment/link was that he was basically saying to Maven, "You write stuff like this, what do you expect?" It was mean spirited and disrespectful. That it came from a mod was the worst thing about it. I think it was deleted not because it was so egregious, but because it was from a mod who showed poor judgment.

William,
As a former moderator I have held my tongue. In fact, I have not said a single thing against VJ moderation on this board until the last day or so.
I know how hard it is to please everyone and I know that it can be quite stressful at times. But, having been a mod, I actually have the benefit of seeing both sides of the coin, too. I'm always going to be the first to admit I was far from a perfect mod. However, what is currently going on is just blowing my mind, to be frank.
This current trend of making invisible every single post with a profanity is utterly ridiculous. Especially in this thread. And, it seems, is actually a little vindictive.
This is where context comes into play.
By all mean, if someone starts spewing bad language in a religious thread then make it invisible. But in a thread like this? It's a little much, don't you think?
We're all adults here and we all use profanity to a certain extent. Everyone in this thread is a big girl/boy and can cope with the odd bit of crude language. Ewok himself even said, not long ago, that profanity IS allowed within a certain context.
The current modding is OTT. You are spending time removing profanity when you should be spending time removing anti-Muslim and racist threads. This thread offends no one. And, if it does, perhaps the title UK B!tches Unite should indicate to them that they aren't in a thread which is full of pretty rainbows, prancing ponies and little kittens.
William and the rest of the modding crew, you all need to calm the hell down. I don't know what has happened to make you become all so ####### about stuff, but it isn't cool and it isn't VJ.

Absolutely. Many of the same issues are still apparent and I highly doubt they will ever go away. I recall that when it was you, LaL and I modding, we would remove offensive threads (racism etc) but ones with bad/crude language, unless they were in the upper forums, would be allowed to stay.
The lower forums are a different creature and, I believe, should be allowed some leeway when it comes to bad/crude language. You have to admit, things have been taken to the extreme over the last few days. The post that was removed earlier is a prime example of this.
And it all comes down to context once more. The posts removed from here were done so unnecessarily. The context in which they were posted was not a TOS violation. I think, deep down, you know this.
Remember, Ewok specifically came out a while ago to make a point of this, stating that some bad language, in context, is fine.
And not every report needs to be acted upon. You know, as well as I, that some VJ members just troll through the forums reporting everything and anything, especially if they have a grudge against certain members.
This is an ADULT forum. It will have ADULT themes. We don't need to be protected against bad language, for crying out loud. What we do need to get a handle on is the bigotry and racism that is popping up in OT perpetuated by a very small handful of regular posters.
Thanks for reading, William.

That's fine, but there IS a social element to this site - people have formed relationships with other members here and so you're going to get some candid lewd talk every once in a while.
Meanwhile, VJ OT has and continues to tolerate thread topics about divisive political subjects that are the primary reason for the vast majority of the personal attacks and long-running personal vendettas on this site. I think unless you're prepared to say outright that topics X,Y,Z are proscribed and shall never be discussed on VJ - it's simply laughable to take issue with scatterings of alleged "obscenity" and to imply that this is somehow making VJ a less welcoming place.
For example, a thread that makes out that Islam is responsible for 9/11 isn't welcoming in any way whatsoever - it defames muslims and alienates muslim VJers who participate in this site.
I can understand that moderating a site like this isn't an easy job and a thankless one at best - but when the application of moderation can't see the wood for the trees you end up with much the same situation that that has people laughing at film and TV censors for tolerating violence and racist content, but coming down like a tonne of bricks on swearing and sexual content. It's ridiculous!

My apologies.
I continue to be baffled by what's considered obscene and what isn't.