Talk:Eleanor Roosevelt: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:23, 3 June 2005

Revision as of 07:35, 4 June 2005

Line 14:

: My statement does speak for itself, and I have absouletly no earthly idea what a NPOV is. I do know though that bisexuality and homosexuality are basically the same concept. They both involve sexual relationships with members of the same sex. In my religion, there is no difference. Nowhere have you proven beyond any reasonable doubt that these two ladies had a romantic relationship. All you have been able to say is that there is enough evidence to substantiate a relationship between these women, yet you don't seem to be able to provide any reliable proof of this claim. This is the same concept of a rumor or heresay. Any fool knows that unless you read something that is clean cut and not poetically written as Mrs. Roosevelt often did, you cannot assume they maintained a relationship unless a third party can confirm this to be true. When we read poetry, we always look beyond what we read for a deeper, fuller meaning. There is no special standard rather the truth. It's a similar concept to looking at a person and assuming they are gay with no hard core evidence. None of my statements contradict themselves as nowhere have I stated that I even had an inkling that Mrs. Roosevelt was a lesbian. Whatever the case of Mrs. Roosevelt's sexuality, it was wrong if she was bisexual as you are for yours. I feel like once again that you use Mrs. Roosevelt's assumed sexuality as a security blanket to justify your own psychopath sexual ideas. Honestly, the idea of Eleanor Roosevelt's sexuality provides absolutely no relevance to the paragraph at all or no relevance to anyones knowledge as we know she's been dead close to forty-three years. To state this is very much slanderous and gossip. This shows how ignorant of a person you are and how out of touch with reality you are and anyone else who chooses to continue to assume that Eleanor Roosevelt was bisexual. Good luck in getting me to stop deleting this paragraph and making yourself look more ignorant in continuing to publish slanderous material. As with there being no relevant reason to publish this type of material on Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, there is no need at all for you to know who I am. I will truly pray for someone like you who so desperately needs it. You need Jesus in your life, not a man. Thank You. Case closed. Debi Ann 05:15, June 2, 2005

::NPOV means Neutral Point of View, one of the fundamentals of editing an article here. Your personal attacks are not only impolite (surprising for someone who preaches Jesus) but they are inappropriate to this discussion. The standard is not to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but to provide reasonable documentation; that this relationship is confirmed by ER's biographer and again by a childhood friend should be more than enough. Your opionion that ERs bisexuality (and mine) are "wrong" is not only irrelevent, it makes your continuing deletion of this fact more than suspect. I suggest strongly that you read the guidelines for editing articles and for maintaining a Neutral Point of View. [[User:Jliberty|Jliberty]] 10:26, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

: I did not attack you, rather point out the fact that you seem to have some sort of insecurity with your own sexuality and use Eleanor Roosevelt's assumed sexuality to justify your own. I will once again say that it is wrong if either you are her are or were bisexual. That is not an attack, rather the truth as is also stated in the Bible. In order to publish material to cause one to wonder about another persons sexual orientation should be factual and provide proof relevant to the statement being issued. I've read statements from ER's biographer and most of her statements are based on personal opinions rather than factual knowledge. ER's biographer in a sense created a scenario to make the relationship possible. People, "friends" included will say or do anything to make themselves look good or to cut down another person due to his or her level of fame and fortune. You still seem to not understand that you should provide proof of this relationship. To make a claim that someone is bisexual is nothing to be taken lightly and should be backed with evidence. If ER was alive today, I'm one-hundred percent sure that no one would confront her about her sexuality. Another point I failed to mention is the fact that ER was so distraught to learn her husband cheated on her and was even more upset to learn he was with the woman at his death. It is highly unlikely for someone such as ER to hold a double standard such as this. The woman had more respect for the institution of marriage to commit an act such as this. The last deletion of the paragraph was not made by me, but the person who took her off of the gay and lesbian category. I truly feel you should refer to the bottom of this page before you consider posting this irrelevant trash again.

== Gay Icon Project ==