Comments on: You Make The Call: Holiday Party Edition

By: former_drinker

former_drinker — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:56:29 +0000

as a current temple recommend holder yet former drinker i must say it’s no big deal to go to a party without alcohol. it will be more confusing to non-mormon guests if you serve alcohol because they’ll know it goes against your beliefs. plus, you’ll have better conversations and more genuine fun if no one at the party is tipsy or drunk. and afterward all the drinkers can go get wasted if they want. best party ever!

By: Kathryn Soper

Kathryn Soper — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:30:31 +0000

Thomas, I’m so relieved. I feared moving to Utah had ruined you already.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:15:43 +0000

I recommend that no one watches this, but at 10:05 it becomes wicked relevant:

http://www.guba.com/watch/2000909661

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:59:27 +0000

Healthy kidneys and the cure for hiccoughs — let’s party on.

By: Thomas Parkin

Thomas Parkin — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:45:13 +0000

Kathy,

Oh, I am a believer. Aliens, egg shaped homes, seventh level vibrations, the government poisoning us with exhaust fumes from jets, frogs turning into princes, negative ion generators, getting clear, golden plates, the airing of grievances, young girls falling in love with vampires, the CIA is after me … I believe in all that stuff.

By the way, ever listen to Coast to Coast? It’s a talk radio show, I think used to be hosted by a guy named Art Bell. It seems to come on local talk radio about 10PM … in the past I’ve only heard it very late at night as I was driving cross country. I can usually handle about ten minutes. Everything seems so rational. At five minutes I’m usually laughing, at seven minutes a kind of cognitive dissonance sets in … and at ten minutes, the radio goes off or I’m going to have a problem with my sanity. ~

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:37:11 +0000

teancum, sorry — your assumptions about both her comment and my response are incorrect. Shall we move on?

Ardis — your party will banish urinary tract infections to the netherworld. I’m in.

By: teancum

teancum — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:05:08 +0000

Steve: So you interpreted Kathy’s comment as a simple question about whether the host should prohibit some, based upon religious affiliation, from drinking at a party where alcohol was served? I do not know her, but assume that almost everyone would think that goes beyond the pale. I interpreted her comment more broadly, highlighting the fact that decisions about whose drinking has moral implications and whose does not may not always be easy. A reasonable way to avoid involvement in the whole issue is not to serve alcohol. Taken in that light, your response to her comment seemed to suggest that her concerns about who was and who was not drinking were intolerant or judgmental. If I read her comments and your response too broadly, I am profoundly sorry. I have clearly caused you some angst, which was not my intent.

And, I am really not offended by anything said in this thread. Honestly, all I am saying is that, if someone is nice enough to host the office party in their home, it would be kind of rude and ungrateful to fault them for doing so in a way that makes them comfortable (and yes, I know that is not what the poll said). Perhaps some will not love the party, in which case they should volunteer to host it the next year. That’s all.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:45:48 +0000

243: The party is hypothetical, Steve. The views, so far as I can tell, are real.

If I’ve misunderstood that, I apologize and amend my own stated views: at my parties, everyone will be forced to drink cranberry juice. You can mix in whatever you please, from vodka to hot chocolate, but the cranberry juice is mandatory. Also, you will have to drink while standing on your head.

By: Kathryn Soper

Kathryn Soper — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:41:38 +0000

Thomas, I thought you were a believer.

They are coming. And with galactic-strength intoxicating drinks in hand.

By: MCQ

MCQ — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:28:42 +0000

And BTW teancum, the whack-job, lame-ass comment was intended to be funny. Sorry if you got offended, but maybe you should not take things so seriously. When someone makes an obviously over-the-top comment, sometimes that means it is intended to provoke hilarity, rather than offense. The problem is that having to explain that drains all the fun out of it.