Portia de Rossi & Elisabeth Hasselbeck discuss marriage equality

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Run time: 06:06 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lNeE4QEVSw   Posted on YouTube: December 04, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 05, 2009 By DU Member: Amerigo Vespucci Views on DU: 2507

 

[DWilliamsamh]

1. IMO, Nothing to see here....not a discussion at all. (N/T)

[COLGATE4]

2. Couldn't agree more w/you

No "discussion" at all. IMO, waste of time.

[blue neen]

3. "Without the word (married), it's not equal rights."

Portia was wonderful. It was a very interesting conversation!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. Portia, rocks!

:thumbsup:

[valerief]

5. Funny how only the "profileless" are dissing the video. nt

[DWilliamsamh]

6. What do you mean "profile-less?" (N/T)

[romantico]

7. Ellen is SO Lucky

Portia is beautiful and smart and did I mention beautiful?

[DWilliamsamh]

9. Huh? WTF does this have to do w/ My question?

I think you responded to the wrong post. LOL

[1monster]

12. Check the gray intro box at the top of each post. You will see a series of icons. One of the icons

is a little inex card with a head and shoulders silhouette. When one clicks on that icon, a profile of the poster comes up.

If there is no icon like that on the gray box, the poster has disabled the profile so that there is no information, including post count over 1,000 or member start date, gender, comment, etc., available.

You don't have a profile either.

[DWilliamsamh]

13. Ah...well I assure you I don't have a profile because I never paid attention to "posting it"

I get what you are saying, but I am not sure what "having a profile" (really having a visible profile) has to do with the validity of the comment or opinion expressed.

If it makes you feel any better - I went and found the show profile radio button. I have nothing to hide. Even if it is irrelevant.


Edited to add content.

[1monster]

14. Not suggesting that you have anything to hide. You don't have to reveal anything on your profile.

In fact, if you check my profile, you will find that I filled my homeplace in as a totally fictional fantasy capital. Just for fun. Everything else is accurate, --- I think.....:shrug:

Enabling it without adding information will show only the number of posts you have and when you joined DU.

[DWilliamsamh]

15. SO AGAIN... What is your point?

How is showing your profile or not, relevant to comments on this thread? Was it just a random observation signifying nothing?

[1monster]

16. My point? You asked about profiles, indicating a lack of knowledge regarding them.

I pointed out that yours was not enabled so that you could or not, as you pleased, enable yours.

If you have been here in March of 2006, I would assume that you must have seen people referring to those without profiles before. Many disrupters do not enable their profiles. So some people are very quick to label those without profiles who voice dissenting positions as disrupter...(No, I'm not one of them).

Sorry I ruffled your feathers by trying to be helpful. Next time I won't bother to answer questions about basic features when someone asks. :crazy: :shrug:

[DWilliamsamh]

17. Ok....now that I know what your point actually was.....

"....I would assume that you must have seen people referring to those without profiles before. Many disruptor's do not enable their profiles. So some people are very quick to label those without profiles who voice dissenting positions as disrupter..."

So you were implying that those who weren't showing their profile's (which would have included me) were likely just being disruptive.

This is what I was trying to get you to actually say, instead of implying. I didn't want to respond to something I "assumed" you were saying. So now that I know what your point actually was...

1) I honestly do not remember ever seeing the connection made, by others, between "showing the profile" and "being a disrupter." Your assumption about what I have seen in my time here was incorrect, and explains why I didn't "get" what you were saying. That may be due to the fact that I don't read most threads and tend to stick to issue oriented threads and only a few threads per issue.

2) The reason I asked the initial question about what you were getting at, was because at the time you posted - the comments didn't seem particularly "dissenting" or "disrupting." For my part I was just saying there didn't seem to be much of a "discussion" between the twit Hasselbeck and Ms. de Rossi. I think of a discussion as a point counterpoint, or at least a more extended dialog. Not simply one person asking a single question, and the second answering that single question.

My feathers weren't ruffled, I was just seeking clarity. Also, I actually want to thank you for the info on showing the profile.

Peace.

Doug

[Grassy Knoll]

8. Good for her.

[BobTheSubgenius]

10. I KNOW I'm going to regret this.

*clicking >* anyway

[BobTheSubgenius]

11. Colour me surprised.

No...more than surprised. As soon as I see "Elisabeth Hasselbeck" in a post title, I expect the stupid to hurt really, really bad. She was barely even insipid, for which I'm grateful.

Portia was GREAT! Articulate, confident and 'gently' forceful. An appearance to be proud of.