bcspace wrote:So you're saying the female physiology itself is instrinsically misogynistic?
No. Not at all. I question your statement that capriciousness is a female trait. I joked when I referenced misogynistic. That was definitely overplayed earlier.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote: I just have to laugh each time you come over to defend Will, when everyone knows his behavior has not been very good. Most of the real apologists know to stay away or risk losing all credibility as you have. I have yet to see you instead of defend him at least admit he does not always behave well. I know some apologists like yourself feel a need to defend everything instead of trying to get to the truth. Unfortunate.
What is all the more funny is your wrongfully conflating my chiding the rank hypocrisy of MD posters, with me somehow defending Will (which I have yet to do). Take a couple of hours to ponder these two things, and perhaps you just might discover the obvious difference.
Please consider this a charitable acceptance in advance for when you rightly apologize for jumping rashly to this false judgment.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Kevin Graham wrote:Well let's face it, Will being blocked from publication due to the part of the apostate concerns, is quite an embarrassing thing for them to handle right now. With Pahoran as moderator, it is little wonder this information is kept beyond the realm of open discussion.
You are lying as usual, Magdalena.
For the facts about my fictitious moderator status, see here.
wenglund wrote: What is all the more funny is your wrongfully conflating my chiding the rank hypocrisy of MD posters, with me somehow defending Will (which I have yet to do). Take a couple of hours to ponder these two things, and perhaps you just might discover the obvious difference.
Please consider this a charitable acceptance in advance for when you rightly apologize for jumping rashly to this false judgment.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
LOL If only it was a false judgement. I have yet to see you chide Will, and you always like to come here in regards to people talking about Wills behavior and chide others. You may need some time as well to ponder and see why this is defending him. Your own hypocrisy is well evident.
Buffalo wrote: Wade's crush on Will is kind of cute. And I wouldn't think of denying a 50 + year old celibate man his harmless internet fantasies.
When someone intentionally creates an internet fantasy for them self, like pretending they are a buffalo (now there's an unusual fetish), it doesn't seem much of a stretch for them to go on to make up and project internet fantasies onto others. Case in point.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
Themis wrote: LOL If only it was a false judgement. I have yet to see you chide Will, and you always like to come here in regards to people talking about Wills behavior and chide others. You may need some time as well to ponder and see why this is defending him. Your own hypocrisy is well evident.
I didn't hold out much hope of you getting it even after a couple of hours pondering (knee-jerk judgementalists tend to be impervious to critical feedback), and so I am not disappointed that you didn't. But, it was worth a try--not that any of this matter much one way or the other.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
"Why should I care about being consistent?" --Mister Scratch (MD, '08)
wenglund wrote: I didn't hold out much hope of you getting it even after a couple of hours pondering (knee-jerk judgementalists tend to be impervious to critical feedback), and so I am not disappointed that you didn't. But, it was worth a try--not that any of this matter much one way or the other.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Personally I have not paid much of the discussion about Will, and I can take critical feedback's if you ever come up with some constructive ones. I won't hold my breath. You clearly do defend Will by coming into threads about him and attack others and not chide Will over anything. Whats funny is that all this time you can't even see your own hypocrisy over the years of attacking others, but then we are all evil apostates and worthy of such disdain from the like of you. lol
Buffalo wrote: Wade's crush on Will is kind of cute. And I wouldn't think of denying a 50 + year old celibate man his harmless internet fantasies.
When someone intentionally creates an internet fantasy for them self, like pretending they are a buffalo (now there's an unusual fetish), it doesn't seem much of a stretch for them to go on to make up and project internet fantasies onto others. Case in point.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Pretending to be straight is less of a stretch than pretending to be a Buffalo. You have me at an advantage, sir! My fantasy is less plausible by far!
A keychain for your key. May you someday find the man-lock of your dreams:
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Pretending to be straight is less of a stretch than pretending to be a Buffalo. You have me at an advantage, sir! My fantasy is less plausible by far!
A keychain for your key. May you someday find the man-lock of your dreams:
I await the advent of the solemn, po-faced school-marms of MDB to scold you for your vulgarity.
Alternatively, I await the day when one of them starts a thread dedicated to protesting your vulgarities.
But wait; the target of your vileness is (1) a man, and (2) a Mormon. So that's two reasons why he doesn't count.
