Who is Wade Englund?

[_wenglund]

Hey Beastie,

It turns out you did misread Wade a bit. The "Overly dramatic, vane, gossipy, and catty..." traits were ascribed to women. The "promiscuous, unfaithful, abusive, and self-centered" traits he attached to men. He was saying that gay men tend to be all of these.

See...at least one intelligent person on this board can mostly understand what I said.

However, I need to make just one minor correction. I intentionally qualified my comments about gay men so as to prevent the mistaken accusations about stereotyping you level below. My comments were in regards to "most gay men I know."

So his post was misogynist, misanthropic, and horribly bigoted towards gays. A rare trifecta few can consistently hit.

Oh...the drama. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade only seems to have sufferance for and perhaps be attracted to himself.

It may seem that way to people, such as yourself, who take me far more seriously than I take myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

However, I need to make just one minor correction. I intentionally qualified my comments about gay men so as to prevent the mistaken accusations about stereotyping you level below. My comments were in regards to "most gay men I know."

Oh, I saw that qualifier. You gave yourself an attempted out. Unfortunately, you did so incompetently. You couched "most gay men I know" comment in an explanation for why you find gay men generally repellant. Let's quote you, "So, not only are gay men sexually un-intersting or repelling to me, some of their personality and character traits are also repelling to me." But, having seen the out, I already anticipated this and addressed in my previous post. Conveniently, you didn't quote that part.

You also forgot to give yourself that out when talking about women. So instead of you just having experience with a string of awful women you say, "...though there are some things about women, like certain personality quirks, that I find repelling." When asked what those are you say, "Overly dramatic, vane, gossipy, and catty."

Oh...the drama. LOL

You say awful things. People point that out. You're a victim of drama. Got it. I guess I sound like a bitch on the rag to you, eh? Amiright? *high five*

[_sock puppet]

Wade only seems to have sufferance for and perhaps be attracted to himself.

It may seem that way to people, such as yourself, who take me far more seriously than I take myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, Wade, unlike some other posters here and you yourself, I don't get a knee-slapping giggle out of each of your posts. The humor with which you lace your BoAbr posts is so bone-dry that it just escapes me. Sorry for that, I'll start laughing at you if you'd prefer.

[_EAllusion]

Most blacks I know are quasi-illiterate trouble makers. That's why I don't like hanging out with black people.

Hey, uh, that sounds kinda racist.

I said most blacks I know. Quit being a drama queen!

[_EAllusion]

By the way Wade, there certainly are gay men out there who are vane, catty, gossipy, unfaithful, abusive, etc. If that's all your experience with them has entailed, that's sad. You shouldn't despair too much; they're are good gay men out there.

[_stemelbow]

Wade,

if you've never been married and you have never had many interactions with gay men, I think it'd be wise to avoid generalizing about them. I take exception to the generalizations when Buffalo and SP do about LDS folks, and these two probably have plenty of interactions with LDS too. Its just not helpful or wise, and makes you appear quite ignorant.

[_Blixa]

Wade,

First of all let me say something meant to be helpful. You do have a tendency to write in an overly dense manner, often with syntactically confusing sentence structure. This does make some of your posts difficult to read, especially when they address abstract theoretical concepts. Even with 20+ years of professional experience with unskilled writers, I have trouble getting the gist of some of your posts, though you are by no means the most unintelligible writer on the board. In the case of the post in question, I, too had difficulty with the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in the phrase, "they also embrace..." I read it a couple of times before I saw that you were referring to gay men and not women. I had the sense that was what you meant, but had to double-check syntax to be sure. So I am not surprised others found it confusing. I don't think this was an effort to intentionally misread you, I think people were genuinely misled by the unclear antecedent.

That said, I think EA has done a masterful job explaining not only the meaning of your sentences, but giving an explanation of their psychological genesis. I agree with him that you managed to hit the offensiveness jackpot with your disparaging remarks on straight women, straight men, and gay men---quite the triple play.

[_sock puppet]

Wade,

First of all let me say something meant to be helpful. You do have a tendency to write in an overly dense manner, often with syntactically confusing sentence structure. This does make some of your posts difficult to read, especially when they address abstract theoretical concepts. Even with 20+ years of professional experience with unskilled writers, I have trouble getting the gist of some of your posts, though you are by no means the most unintelligible writer on the board. In the case of the post in question, I, too had difficulty with the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in the phrase, "they also embrace..." I read it a couple of times before I saw that you were referring to gay men and not women. I had the sense that was what you meant, but had to double-check syntax to be sure. So I am not surprised others found it confusing. I don't think this was an effort to intentionally misread you, I think people were genuinely misled by the unclear antecedent.

That said, I think EA has done a masterful job explaining not only the meaning of your sentences, but giving an explanation of their psychological genesis. I agree with him that you managed to hit the offensiveness jackpot with your disparaging remarks on straight women, straight men, and gay men---quite the triple play.

A trifecta, or as they might say in the performing arts context, a triple threat.

[_wenglund]

Wade,

First of all let me say something meant to be helpful. You do have a tendency to write in an overly dense manner, often with syntactically confusing sentence structure. This does make some of your posts difficult to read, especially when they address abstract theoretical concepts. Even with 20+ years of professional experience with unskilled writers, I have trouble getting the gist of some of your posts, though you are by no means the most unintelligible writer on the board. In the case of the post in question, I, too had difficulty with the antecedent of the pronoun "they" in the phrase, "they also embrace..." I read it a couple of times before I saw that you were referring to gay men and not women. I had the sense that was what you meant, but had to double-check syntax to be sure. So I am not surprised others found it confusing. I don't think this was an effort to intentionally misread you, I think people were genuinely misled by the unclear antecedent.

I completely agree with everything you said above.

That said, I think EA has done a masterful job explaining not only the meaning of your sentences, but giving an explanation of their psychological genesis. I agree with him that you managed to hit the offensiveness jackpot with your disparaging remarks on straight women, straight men, and gay men---quite the triple play.

I realized when I wrote it that it would get the selective PC juices flowing here, knowing full well how my rather matter-of-fact and intentionaly qualified comments would be warped well beyond what was intended. That is half the fun of posting here. The other half of the fun is seeing the rank hypocracy in many of the same people who have been waxing appopletic over what I said about women, men, and gay men, being rather free with or unbothered by the flood of pejoratives directed at me and my faith on this board. I can't help laughing often when participating here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-