Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Naked or not?


dirac

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what I think about this topic, so it's good to read this thread.. Right now, I am leaning towards the position expressed in Alastair Macaulay's NY Times piece, linked by dirac above. (Thanks, dirac.) Especially the following:

[When tights are removed from ballet, the art itself is changed. Ballet, the genre that once recaptured the ideal quality of nudity, becomes instead, in these modern examples, the art of nakedness. This could prove a valuable new departure, but it’s worth considering its implications. The look of the bare leg drastically changes the entire aesthetics of the form. Muscular details of thigh, knee, calf become suddenly distracting. The leg becomes real, the arabesque not.

Perhaps I was exposed to too much well-intentioned, but clumsily executed, naked dance -- and, frankly, too many less-than-beautiful bodies -- in the downtown NYC dance scene of the 60s and 70shuh.pngspeechless-smiley-003.gif Naked bodies definitely have their place on stage. But for me, nakedness when put in a spotlight is inevitably about literalism. It expresses a value system of "warts and all."

Ballet, on the other hand, is most effective when it idealizes the body and the body's ability to express feeling and music through movement. For me, this is what is most characteristic of classical ballet, and of classical dancing of all kinds. I don't just mean "looking pretty." Classical ballet is an art that focuses our eye on physical essentials while avoiding the distractions of too many competing details.

In this sense, if one exposes all the body parts and surface markings, it is just as bad as loading the dancers with costumes with far too many decorations.

Link to post

A few paragraphs ago, I was talking about dancers showing us the cracks between their buttocks or deconstructing anal sex. So isn’t it trivial to talk of a ballerina merely baring her thighs and calves? Well, no.

Well, yes. I do have some trouble equating a dry hump onstage with barelegged ladies. Danseurs have occasionally gone without tights, as Macaulay notes, without posing a threat to the essence of the art form. I don't much care for the pointes-without-tights look, but it could be because I just don't see it that frequently (not that I'm complaining). As I remember Croce's original the-arabeseque-is-real quote in context, she was not talking so much about the idealization of the ballerina's body but her body presented as an abstraction, which isn't the same thing. What's so horrid about being reminded from time to time of the fleshly humanity of a female dancer by the removal of tights?

Link to post

Thanks, dirac, for pointing out the differences between "naked" and "without tights." For me, the choice has a lot to to do with the piece itself. A bare-legged Aurora or Giselle, or (more extremely) a Prince in Speedos, work against the the story, music, feeling, and historical context of the piece. With neoclassicism and contemporary works, the situation is different,

... [Croce] was not talking so much about the idealization of the ballerina's body but her body presented as an abstraction, which isn't the same thing.
An interesting point, if I understand it correctly. It's funny how conversations like this often hinge on what we mean by our key vocabulary. Croce was fond of making sweeping pronouncements that sometimes depended, when you thought about, on highly personal, and ofdten unexplained, definitions.

"Abstraction" seems pretty clear, though I'm having trouble imagining what Croce could have meant in this context. A stripping away of non-essentials?

As for "idealization," too often it is used to suggest de-sexualization or prettiness -- the opposite of "real." I prefer to think of it as a kind of meta-realism. A way of experiencing physical reality in terms of larger (possibly "higher") meanings and values. Beauty and even sexuality can and do transcend the physical surfaces of the human body.

Link to post

What's so horrid about being reminded from time to time of the fleshly humanity of a female dancer by the removal of tights?

Nothing, in my opinion, but physical attractiveness can momentarily distract me from the actual choreography.

bart wrote:

As for "idealization," too often it is used to suggest de-sexualization or prettiness -- the opposite of "real." I prefer to think of it as a kind of meta-realism. A way of experiencing physical reality in terms of larger (possibly "higher") meanings and values. Beauty and even sexuality can and do transcend the physical surfaces of the human body.

Very nicely put, as usual. "A way of experiencing physical reality in terms of larger (possibly "higher") meanings and values" is not a bad way of defining a lot of ballet in general, although the experience isn't always conscious.

This

features bits of Symphony in 3 Movements and Duo Concertant danced barelegged, beginning at the 48 second mark.
Link to post

This

features bits of Symphony in 3 Movements and Duo Concertant danced barelegged, beginning at the 48 second mark.

I like that look on Fairchild and on the female corps. The subtle movement of muscles and tendons, along with the shifts in light and shadow, fit the music and the choreography quite well. on the other hand , the distraction of the busy white-on-black NYC Ballet tee shirts on the men confirm my feeling that "too much is too much." But the women's naked legs -- wonderful.

Somehow, I found myself thinking of several beautifully drawn charts of muscle groups on a male torso, displayed on the walls of my gym.

The SVConcerto clip with Hyltin clapping.gif and Fairchild has the feel of a performance that might have been given when Balanchine was around. This demonstrates to me that, tights or no tights, it's what you do with the body that counts most.

Link to post

Nudity in ballet-no thank you, especially in classical/romantic ballets, but preferably in none. One of the things I love about ballet is the aura of romance and glamour in the older ballets, and nudity destroys that. Besides, most of the heroines in the older ballets are supposed to be young girls, virginal and/or ethereal, and nudity would shatter that aura. Also, I think nudity is incompatible with the artifice of classical ballet. And finally, call me a prude-nudity is for painting and sculpture, when done tastefully.

Link to post

According to National Geographic “The earliest fossils of recognizably modern Homo sapiens appear in the fossil record at Omo Kibish in Ethiopia, around 200,000 years ago.”  Studies on the DNA of clothing lice indicates that humans first started wearing clothing between 83,000 and 170,000 year ago.  So, based on this, modern humans did not wear clothes during at least the first 30,000 years of their existence and possibly for more than the first 117,000 years of their existence.  Now, humans are social animals.  Banding together givers a great advantage for human survival and for the passing along of genes that encourage this banding together.  During the time when humans did not wear clothes, those born with a predisposition to view the naked human body in a negative way (unattractively) would be less likely to join with other humans and would be less likely to survive and pass along their genes, so it seems that humans would not have a predisposition to view the naked human body as being unattractive or ugly.  On the other hand those individuals who were born with a predisposition to view the naked human body in a positive way (attractively) would be more likely to survive and pass along the gene for a predisposition to find the naked human body attractive or even beautiful.  So, it seems to me that humans are not born with a predisposition to view the naked body of other humans, male or female in a negative way and are likely to be born with a predisposition to view the naked body of other humans, male and female, in a positive way, meaning to find the naked body attractive.  Further, it does not seem that young children are displeased by viewing the naked human body and that they do not feel uncomfortable about being seen naked.  However, many people now do have negative feelings about seeing a nude person and have negative feelings about being seen nude.  The explanation for this is that humans can be greatly influenced by cultural norms.  Thus, in a society where people are “taught,” implicitly or explicitly, that there is something wrong with nudity (wanting to be seen nude or wanting to see someone else nude) people will tend to grow up with negative feelings toward nudity, particularly public nudity.

It seems that there are three broad reasons to wear clothes.  First, is for protection of the body or for support or for health reasons.  Second, is for decoration of the body or for the showing of status and third is for “modesty” or “decency.”  I put the words modesty and decency in quotes because what is considered modest or decent is determined by social norms.  We can see that what is considered modest or decent has changed drastically over the past couple of centuries, particularly in regard to women’s clothing.  In a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity, which we are heading toward, nudity in ballet would be just another “costume.”  The only reasons for wearing a “garment” would be for protection or support or for decoration or the showing of status, although at times the nude body would not need decoration.  Nudity would not be anymore distracting than the wearing of a costume and no one would worry about children seeing nudity and no one would be upset by being seen nude.

Tom,

Link to post
On 8/17/2020 at 9:20 AM, Tom47 said:

In a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity, which we are heading toward, nudity in ballet would be just another “costume.”  The only reasons for wearing a “garment” would be for protection or support or for decoration or the showing of status, although at times the nude body would not need decoration.  Nudity would not be anymore distracting than the wearing of a costume and no one would worry about children seeing nudity and no one would be upset by being seen nude.

 

Tom,

I read your post with interest...What strikes me though is that ballet (classical ballet--not dance in general) emerged in a court society in which nudity was definitely neither a norm nor an ideal nor an acceptable social alternative so that even it were true that "we" are heading in that direction, ballet itself as an art form would be substantially changed if nudity were considered just another costume. And at a certain point it might no longer be ballet. It might be dance; it might be great art; and it might even be something ballet companies included in their repertories now and then just as they now include Martha Graham or Paul Taylor. But not ballet. (And yes....these distinctions seem important to me.)

That is, I suspect certain ideals and norms are baked into the ballet cake -- you can push them, prod them, revise and reform them--indeed have to do so to keep the art alive--but at a certain point you are no longer eating cake.  (For example when movement no longer stands in any relation to turn out whatsoever, not even a negative relation.) So I think I agree with critics cited above who see ballet as a stylization of the human body that extends it in certain ways and am skeptical that nudity could be merely another ballet costume.   But I suppose it will be choreographers whose work finally decides the matter not my speculations!

(The above goes along with your premise, but honestly I'm also not convinced we know which way these things are headed socially.)

Link to post

My major point is that “In a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity. . . The only reason for wearing a ‘garment’ would be for protection or support for or for decoration or the showing of status, although at times the nude body would not need decoration.  Nudity would not be any more distracting than the wearing of a costume and no one would worry about children seeing nudity and no one would be upset by being seen nude.”  When I wrote “nudity in ballet would just be another ‘costume’” I recognize that there are times when certain items (toe-shoes or dance-belts for example) would be used to enable the dancer to perform certain movements.  My point here is that wearing these items would not be dictated by “modesty” or “decency.”

I’m not an expert on ballet, but it is my understanding that what differentiates ballet from other forms of dance is the movements of the body, particularly the various steps and not what the dancer is wearing or not wearing.  Over the history of ballet costumes have changed and yet it is still ballet.  I’ve seen a version of “Dance of the Hours” performed by Letizia Giuliani and Angel Corella.  For most of her dance Letizia Giuliani only wore a thong (G-string) and toe-shoes.  I do not see her dance to be any less ballet than if she was wearing a tutu, with a top and tights.  Even if she were not wearing a thong, I would still feel that she was dancing ballet and “Dance of the Hours” is a ballet.  Since ballet existed long before toe dancing started the wearing of toe shoes would not be required to make a dance ballet.  Another version of “Dance of the Hours” on Youtube was danced by Letizia Giuliani and Alessandro Riga.  In this case the male dancer Alessandro Riga only wore a thong (dance belt) and dance slippers.  Again, I would not consider his dance to be any less ballet than if he wore tights. 

While I can’t be sure that we will ever get to a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity, I feel it is clear that we are heading toward such a society.  This is based on changes in people’s behavior, particularly the behavior of women, including the reduction in the amount of clothing women are willing to wear.

Tom,

Link to post
1 hour ago, Tom47 said:

I’m not an expert on ballet, but it is my understanding that what differentiates ballet from other forms of dance is the movements of the body, particularly the various steps and not what the dancer is wearing or not wearing.  Over the history of ballet costumes have changed and yet it is still ballet.

There are physical formalities when it comes to ballet, but not all ballet is the same.  Even if the audiences accepted nudity as a social norm, and it was not a point of the presentational aspect, which it would be now, Sleeping Beauty without some form of classical tutu is not the same as nude Sleeping Beauty, because it is a narrative ballet set in a specific time period.  And the costumes and sets, and the way a ballerina bends from the waist over her skirt in true style performances, is part of the point, just like a bata or a Flamenco skirt is critical in some Flamenco choreography.

We have argued about how the change from old classical tutus to current pancake tutus has changed the intent of the choreography in a classical ballet like Sleeping Beauty:  modern-day extensions are difficult or irrelevant in a traditional tutu, not to mention changing and dropping the choreography to suit the tastes of the audiences.

Balanchine stripped his ballets down to leotards to support his physicality and style in his modern, neoclassical ballets for a reason: it supported the style and physicality of his choreographic intent.

It can be an exercise to strip down any ballet to the steps to see what they look like without adornment or context.  What you see can be ballet, but it's not necessarily the same ballet.

Link to post

Modesty aside, clothing serves primarily as a protective barrier for dancers. Slides along the floor, for example, can be excruciatingly painful on bare skin. Floor burn is a real thing, and it isn't pretty. As far as I'm concerned, any choreographer who expects dancers to dance naked is a jerk.

Link to post
On 9/3/2020 at 3:07 PM, Tom47 said:

While I can’t be sure that we will ever get to a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity, I feel it is clear that we are heading toward such a society.  This is based on changes in people’s behavior, particularly the behavior of women, including the reduction in the amount of clothing women are willing to wear.

Tom,

I think (young) women are, in some contexts, implicitly and sometimes explicitly encouraged to wear less and less (by advertising for example) for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with thinking nothing is "wrong" with nudity.  That is, women's fashions sometimes have less to do with freer, less repressed or neurotic views of the body than with the  commodification and hyper-sexualization of women's bodies.  The latter is entirely complicit with puritanical views of nudity, and definitely not a benign "let it all hang out" emancipation from body or gender hang ups.  Of course, I am speaking primarily about the United States...other societies may reflect other norms etc.

Link to post

Nudity is viewed differently by different societies.  I think English speaking people are less happy about it than some others.  Continental Europe has a very different view.   Like the time I was delighted to discover I had a huge top floor terrace in a hotel in Greece, less than thrilled to discover a naked man stretched out next door.  In Britain that is indecent exposure and a criminal offence.  We didn't stay long in a room where we were forced to keep both doors and curtains closed.

I have occasionally seen nudity in dance, but usually fail to appreciate the choreographers point.  I'm strictly in the same camp as Robert Helpmann when it comes to dance nudity.

 

Link to post

Helene, I agree with you, “Sleeping Beauty without some form of classical tutu is not the same as nude Sleeping Beauty,” But as I see it both would be ballet. But, then, as I pointed out I am not an expert on ballet.

Volcanohunter, I already have stated that protection and support of the body is a reason to wear clothes. My major point is “In a society where people are not thought that there is something wrong with nudity. . . The only reason for wearing a ‘garment’ would be for protection or support or for decoration or the showing of status, although at times the nude body would not need decoration.  Nudity would not be any more distracting than the wearing of a costume and no one would worry about children seeing nudity and no one would be upset of being seen nude.”  However, in the case of Letizia Giuliani that I cited, I saw no danger to her even if she only wore toe shoes.

Drew, I believe if women felt it was wrong to wear so little at the beach, they would not do it.  It may very well be that many women feel more comfortable wearing less.  (What do women think of this?)  Further, there is the “free the nipple” campaign that is being pushed by women and that argues that is it unjust for women to be denied the freedom of going without a top anywhere that men are allowed to go without a top.  That is it is wrong not to allow women to without a top.  In New York State women can go to any public beach wearing only a tiny thong.  This came about because it was women arguing that it was wrong to force a woman to cover her top where men are not forced to.  It is not just women.  On many beaches during the 1930's men were required to cover their top.  This also changed.  The bottom line is that for what ever reason women, over time and at least until the 1970's men, have been willing and even in some cases demanded to be allowed to wear less and less, which is movement toward full nudity.

Mashinka, your statement that “Nudity is viewed differently by different societies” is my point.  I feel that many in the English-speaking world sees it as something wrong and therefore in many cases as something objectionable.   One exception is the case of nude, young, thin women, sometimes light skinned women.  That exception may still be felt to be wrong, but not as objectionable.  A person brought up in a society where nudity is not seen as something wrong may be happy or indifferent to having a terrace where a naked man could be viewed.  For a number of years, a Dutch women who lived in Austria (Esther Gabriel) had a website entitled “Naked Men/Happy Women.”  In a society that I described there would not have to be a point to having nudity  in dance.

Tom,

Link to post

My first glimpse of nudity in performance was at an event that featured a Surrealist program many years ago at Schoenberg Hall at UCLA. A group of 12 nude men and women quietly bicycled out onto the stage, circled about, and then bicyled off, all with the upmost gravity. It was shocking and bracing at the same time. And that's kind of where I associate nudity on stage – with the sixties, with Dionysus 69 and the Living Theater, where it meant something politically and culturally. Now in ballet and in theater I don't think it has much meaning, other than perhaps a kind of stand-in for personal freedom or as a symbol of perceived societal hypocracy. But it would be one-note, it couldn't be developed choreographically (or at least without being at the expense of all the other elements).

Also in dance, let alone ballet, I think it would be distracting because of the different ways the newly freed parts of dancers' bodies would behave. Clothes do focus one's attention on the choreography. In a certain way practice clothes are more nude than nakedness is nude. 

There's also the fact that our bodies age differently and older dancers would have more lines and different contours than younger ones. Would dancers then be separated by what their bodies were doing in time, older dancers in the corps, etc?

Added: Dancers wear warmers and layers to protect them from chills in the auditorium. Working without clothes would make them even more vulnerable to colds, pulled muscles, etc

Edited by Quiggin
Link to post

Mine was the Pilobolus piece where they put down some kind of waterproof-slidy flooring and poured water on it, and the dancers slid naked across it.  At first I was distracted by thoughts of "Ow."  Not ballet, and quite exhilarating and fun once I stopped thinking "Ow."

 

Link to post

What Quiggin and Drew said.

Quote

Drew, I believe if women felt it was wrong to wear so little at the beach, they would not do it.  It may very well be that many women feel more comfortable wearing less.  (What do women think of this?) 

I'm very happy not to have to wear corsets that damage my muscles and internal organs and it's nice to be able to go to the beach and not wear outfits that get soaked and heavy in the water, but that's as far as it goes. It doesn't mean there's some kind of organic progression from corsets and crinolines to thongs and Brazilian waxes and ultimately to total nudity. And I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the days when women wore nothing in the way of knickers, which led to alleged incidents like the future James II getting a sneak preview of the charms of Arabella Churchill after she fell from a horse.

(I have been told that one aspect of nudist beaches is that you quickly become used to everyone not having anything on, and it's actually less distracting than clothing. I wouldn't know, but I'm inclined to believe that's true.)

Link to post
14 hours ago, Tom47 said:

However, in the case of Letizia Giuliani that I cited, I saw no danger to her even if she only wore toe shoes.

With all due respect, this judgment can only be made by a dancer, who could reasonably assess what could go awry during execution. That's the thing: dancers make the very difficult look easy, but sometimes things go horribly wrong, and an injury follows. It's been many years since I've watched this video of La Gioconda, so I don't remember the choreography. But I remember thinking that the nudity was entirely gratuitous, since Giuliani was the only person who was naked, and also being infuriated that Corella was wearing tights, and she was not, even though she was the one lifting her legs and by, ahem, extension exposing her crotch, and he wasn't. To my mind, the nudity added nothing to the ballet and was there only to appeal to the prurient instincts of the audience. Sadly, ballet has a long history of men attending to ogle underdressed women.

Choreography is directly influenced by what dancers wear. A dancer in sneakers will have difficulty performing multiple pirouettes. A dancer with a suede or leather sole can, but he cannot slide on the surface of the stage. A dancer in socks can slide, but his ability to jump is limited, because he can't land safely. In choosing what dancers will wear, a choreographer is already determining how they will be able to move. Ballet developed in a culture where people wear clothing. Even things like necklines and sleeves affected how dancers could raise their arms above their heads, and this imprinted itself on the style. There are cultures where people wear little or nothing, and they dance, but ballet didn't develop there.

I cannot think of any kind of class I've taken that would have been comfortable to do without clothing. Aside from the difficulty of keeping muscles warm, which Quiggin already mentioned, it would be unsanitary. A Graham class, for example, which begins with dancers sitting on the floor, would be a bacterial nightmare. Would ballet dancers stretch on the floor if they weren't wearing anything? I sincerely doubt it. And that in itself would radically alter how ballet looks. I can't imagine a situation warm enough or clean enough for nude ballet to be viable.

Link to post

Quiggin, at first I wasn't sure what you were referring to by the statement ". . . Older dancers would have more lines and different contours than younger ones. . ."  After thinking about it I thought you maybe referring to stretch marks caused by pregnancies and cellulite, neither of which I feel would be a problem, particularly for a fit dancer.  I don't think it would result in older dancers being put in the corps.  I do not feel stretch marks to be objectionable at all and I doubt that any fit dancer would have much cellulite.  If a dancer was concerned about stretch marks they could be covered by makeup.  After all dancers do use make up on their faces.  Also, it seems to me, that, particularly for a fit dancer, aging occurs first on the face.  In a society that I spoke of there would not have to be a reason for nudity only a reason not to have nudity and as I wrote that would include protection and support of the body and for health reasons.  That would also address your last point about warmers and layers.  As to being distracting that may be the case for "newly freed parts," but not for the case where people had gotten use to nudity both in ballet and in other places.  Read what dirac wrote about nudist beaches below.

Helene, thank you for your comment and your statement of ". . . Quite exhilarating and fun once I stopped thinking "Ow."

Dirac, thank you for your thoughts.  I feel your comment "I have been told that one aspect of nudist beaches is that you quickly become used to everyone not having anything on, and it's actually less distracting than clothing.  I wouldn't know, but I'm inclined to believe that's true" is important. 

Volcanohunter, I agree that ". . . This judgment can only be made by a dancer . . ." which is why I qualified my statement by writing "I saw."   So as far as either you or I know she felt there was no danger.  I've seen the ballet recently on a video and it did not seem to me that Corella was wearing tights.  If he was they were not very opaque.  While not wearing a thong he was wearing a tight bathing suit like garment and was bare chested.  Further, as I have pointed out there is what appears to be a companion performance in which the male dancer only wore a thong and Giuliani was clothed.  Also, it seems to me that in ballet men compared to women are more likely to wear very little.  Examples are the slave from "Excelsior" and Acteon (Endymion) from "Diana and Acteon."  However, this last part has nothing to do with my initial premise.  As to the rest of your comment there is nothing new since from the very beginning I have written that reasons for wearing clothes are protection of the body or for support or for health reasons or for decoration or for showing of status.  So, if you are saying that the protection or support of the body are reasons to wear clothes then you are agreeing with me in at least that aspect.  What I have claimed is that in a society where people are not taught that there is something wrong with nudity "modesty" or "decency" would not be a reason to wear clothes.  Also, I do not know what you are referring to by writing that it's balderdash - it sounds insulting.  It is true that in the vast majority of cases men have been in charge of what happens in ballet and that is why I am very interested in female chorographers such as Bronislava Nijinska.  See my topic on her biography.

To all, I have not claimed that there are no reasons to wear clothes in ballet or otherwise.  I have clearly stated a number of times that a reason for wearing "garments" would be for protect or support of the body, for health reasons or for decoration or the showing of status.  Also, I have not advocated that all ballet should be nude and I don’t expect that would happen.  I actually like ballet costumes, but I have no objections, based on "modesty" or "decency" to nudity.  If anyone writes giving protection or support of the body or health reasons as reasons for not having nudity then that writer is agreeing with me.

Tom,

Link to post

 

2 hours ago, Tom47 said:

Helene, thank you for your comment and your statement of ". . . Quite exhilarating and fun once I stopped thinking "Ow."

What was exhilarating was the sight of bodies sliding across the stage at high speed, just like figure skating is, especially live in an arena.  I've always thought the nudity was a gimmick.

If your premise is that protecting the dancers is your main consideration, the range of movement and partnering in which a ballet dancer is protected is very limited, regardless of how accepted nudity is in any given society, whether walking down the street or part of performance or ceremony, stretch marks, cellulite and all.  Even in a society where nudity was accepted in both regular and performance life, I doubt many men would go rock climbing naked.  And while protection for men is quite obvious, or Corella would have been naked, I think it is underestimated for women, especially considering how women's bodies are manipulated in most non-folk dance.

That kind of limitation of ballet movement and vocabulary might be pulled off by a genius, but, until that happens, it doesn't interest me at all

Putting on my admin hat:

Since this entire discussion is a head-on collision with our anti discussing-the-discussion policy, first, if anyone feels the discussion breaches any policy, that's what the "Report" function is for.  Unfortunately in the new software, they've obscured this in a menu that you have to open by clicking the three horizontal dots in the band above each post.  (It's where they've parked"Share" and "Edit" options as well.)  You can add a comment before reporting.  We will review the original post, and either edit or remove it, if we think there is a violation, or let it stand, if we don't.

Do not comment about it on the board.  Admins/Moderators are exempt from this when moderating for obvious reasons, but mostly because we have day jobs and vacations and private correspondence takes a lot of time when we need to make general points.

So I'll make a distinction here about responses:  If you ask for an opinion, where the response is an opinion about the idea, for example, the response to a request about what women think is "Balderdash," that doesn't violate any rule here, and whether you take it personally or find it insulting is up to you.  If the response had been, "Only an idiot would think that," that is what we'd consider an ad hominem attack that should be removed.  

The very nature of a discussion board is that anything from a short statement to an entire premise can invoke the response the writer wants, invoke a response that the writer finds unwelcome for any reason, or invoke no response.  But while you can ask, there's no obligation for anyone to respond in a way that's wanted or expected or at all or for only the person or group you're asking to respond: it's fair game for anyone.  Disappointment with the discussion is not up for discussion.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...