Re: Response to ( annilid worm reference deleted) Buffalo.

[_Droopy]

Just so everyone knows, there is solid empirical evidence in favor of the "forbidden fruit" theory - that an objects attractiveness to subjects increases when it is labeled as forbidden. If I recall, there's even a good case for when that phenomenon tends to take hold in human development. It's one of the challenges of creating warning labels for things. (e.g. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/bs96.pdf) Put a skull and cross-bones on a pack of cigarettes and you've made them more appealing. It's a problem.

Droopy just dismisses this with thought-terminating labels and no argument. It's a shame for his own point of view. If it were the case that porn was one of the worst plagues visited upon humanity and it was a good idea to get people to avoid it, then it would be in his interest to deal with the pitfalls of the forbidden fruit effect intelligently.

Note to Delusion: try reading my posts and digesting my arguments and points before posting. That which I have dismissed is Buffalo's wild inferential leaps from his source to the Church and religion in general, not the principle itself. The "forbidden fruit" concept is a justifiable one, but it has none of the dynamic force Buffalo has attributed to it, except for certain types or kinds of psychologies, and especially, as I pointed out, the adolescent mind, for which "The more you say I can't the more I'll do it" mindset is widely regarded as indicative of adolescent immaturity.

[_beastie]

I've asked you for CFRs repeatedly to back up this charge, and, as of yet, not a one. I wonder why that might be, beastie?

Are you serious? Did you even bother to read the statements Moniker collected on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=157878#p157878

Or do you just close your eyes and wait for it to go away?

I have no idea why I would have ever called her "hef," as Hugh Hefner is a male. In any case, there was only one case in which I used a sexual reference with Moniker, and it was not an innuendo (which implies a kind of flirting) but an insult, for which I immediately apologized, and which she accepted.

LOL. Proof positive you've never even bothered to read the link I've repeatedly provided for you - in fact, I've provided this link EACH TIME you accuse me of lying about your sexual innuendos.

Right on the linked thread, you repeated your claim that you made ONE comment about her being a stripper, for which you immediately apologized and which she accepted. Her response to that was:

When did you apologize to me? What insinuation are you referring to? I can't recall allll of them!
You may need to check out what psychological issues you have that you repeatedly make remarks that are rude and demeaning to women (and men) on this website.

And RIGHT ON THAT thread she quotes you calling her "hef."

Moniker, quoting droopy/coggins

Well I'll tell you Hef, its called love, respect, and concern for the happiness and fulfillment of the other. its called communication Hef, something many moderns, with their fifty percent divorce rates, know how to do with their sexual organs but not with their hearts or minds.

droopy

I was throwing aspersions upon the trailerpark..er...this place, based primarily, interestingly enough, not only on the extremely rough, vulgar, sexual, and blasphemous language that has characterized it since its inception, but on the preoccupation with - sexual innuendo - by a number of its key posters.

No need to shoot the bearer of the news.

LOL. So dragging a 20 dollar bill through a trailer park has nothing to do with prostitution?

Here's droopy's song to Moniker.

Who's that rolling on the floor
With a centerfold plastered to the door
Well its her again, posting here some more
Well she'll be luscious tonight if she can
'Least were not talkin' 'bout the Priesthood ban

I'm talkin' 'bout

Moniker, wearin' us out
Monkier, she writhes about
Moniker she's a wild thing

I burnt my cupcakes!

Gotta take it all in stride
Its not the usual case of pride
But what she don't understand
Mormons take a stand
Gonna need a shot of IBC
When Dr. Kinsey is finished with me

I'm talkin' 'bout

Monkier, your a real stray cat
Moniker don't know where your at
Moniker such a liberal child

Don't lick those cupcakes!

Oh, no sexual innuendo in there. Not one bit.

[_Buffalo]

Just so everyone knows, there is solid empirical evidence in favor of the "forbidden fruit" theory - that an objects attractiveness to subjects increases when it is labeled as forbidden. If I recall, there's even a good case for when that phenomenon tends to take hold in human development. It's one of the challenges of creating warning labels for things. (e.g. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/bs96.pdf) Put a skull and cross-bones on a pack of cigarettes and you've made them more appealing. It's a problem.

Droopy just dismisses this with thought-terminating labels and no argument. It's a shame for his own point of view. If it were the case that porn was one of the worst plagues visited upon humanity and it was a good idea to get people to avoid it, then it would be in his interest to deal with the pitfalls of the forbidden fruit effect intelligently.

Note to Delusion: try reading my posts and digesting my arguments and points before posting. That which I have dismissed is Buffalo's wild inferential leaps from his source to the Church and religion in general, not the principle itself. The "forbidden fruit" concept is a justifiable one, but it has none of the dynamic force Buffalo has attributed to it, except for certain types or kinds of psychologies, and especially, as I pointed out, the adolescent mind, for which "The more you say I can't the more I'll do it" mindset is widely regarded as indicative of adolescent immaturity.

You did dismiss the principle itself - apparently before you had looked at it more carefully.

[_Tarski]

Pornography is evil, among the most evil, dark, and debasing practice, business, and culture within the modern global milieu, and a head-first dive into moral relativism dressed up as pop psych semantic dissembling in an attempt to escape your own freedom and responsibility to choose is, in a word, disgusting.

Yes but the chicks are hot!

[_Droopy]

LOL. Proof positive you've never even bothered to read the link I've repeatedly provided for you - in fact, I've provided this link EACH TIME you accuse me of lying about your sexual innuendos.

They're not innuendos. They were snarky and ad hominem references to her own posting style and history. Bad form? Yes. Sexual innuendo? Here's the defininition of "innuendo:

an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation b : the use of such allusions <resorting to innuendo

Looking at all of my comments on this old thread, I see no innuendo whatever. I do see strongly worded, snarky digs aimed at her, but no innuendo. My words here appear to be pretty straight forward.

Moniker spoke incessantly and in detail regarding sexual themes on various posts at that time, including forms of sexual practice. It was, like Paul Osborne, a consistent theme with her. Her claim that I called her a "stupid slut" is one of her own lies, quite in the ballpark with Jack and Scratch, and present company.

The hef remarks seem very odd (and I was probably drunk of my butt when I did this stuff), but they too, are not "innuendos" but barbs aimed at her for her extreme libertine social views, which were well known at the time and upon which we argued heatedly.

I apologized to her for the quip about her past as a stripper and dancing for drooling construction workers.

The "horny froth" comment was, again, not an innuendo, but a pointed reference, as I used to often do with Paul, to her own sex preoccupied liberal mind.

The quip about sex in the derriere was, again, not an innuendo but a pointed reference to her continual sexual banter on that and other similar subjects.

The statement about the strip clubs being "top loaded" with certain kinds of men doesn't appear to make your case at all, so I"m not sure why its there. Its nothing but an observation.

The statement about lefties and cultural libertines being drawn to threads about sex and sexual themes is, again, not remotely an innuendo, nor was it aimed at Moniker personally, but at her, Some Schmo, harmony (with her obsessive preoccupation with the sex life of Joseph Smith) and Coffecat, who had distinguished herself in this forum at that time as a big fan of pornography.

The fact that this was one of another, and perhaps more homosexual marriage threads, is indicative of both the sparks flying and the heat generated by the debate.

You lose, Beastie, and in so doing have exposed yourself, yet again, as fundamentally reptilian in nature.

In all frankness, I would absolutely not do that song again. In all further frankness, I was drinking myself into oblivion almost on a nightly basis back in 2008, and some of this, in all likelihood, represents that fact.

You may need to check out what psychological issues you have that you repeatedly make remarks that are rude and demeaning to women (and men) on this website.

Repeatedly? I count five, perhaps six instances here, since this board's inception.

Crawl on your belly, beastie, but crawl away from me.

[_Doctor Scratch]

They're not innuendos. They were snarky and ad hominem references to her own posting style and history. Bad form? Yes. Sexual innuendo? Here's the defininition of "innuendo:

an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation b : the use of such allusions <resorting to innuendo

The latter portion of this definition fits with what you were doing, Loran. You were clearly making references to things that were designed to attack Moniker's character. Sure: you might not have directly called her a "stupid slut," but that long litany of your comments is powerful evidence that this is what you thought/meant. Sometimes you don't have to exactly spell out what you're thinking. This was especially the case in this instance. In fact, you were shown to be quite a pig, Droopy.

[_Droopy]

Another case in point can be looked at here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19026

Notice Imwashingmypirate's avatar. That kind of thing rather cries out for comment, and there's only one subject that could possibly come up with it.

Schmo, PP, or Paul could get away with it, but Will, myself, or some other TBM could not. Nothing vulgar. All we would have to do is reference it, and the exmo/feminist posse of moral rectitude would ride out to dispense justice.

It was the sheer hypocrisy and double standard of the Will witch hunt that made it really notable. Those few commnets I made to Moniker, years ago, were certainly not in keeping with my own standards (which is why I never repeated such comments again), but they are hardly grist for foam and froth, especially given Moniker's own ribald forays into explicit banter to which all of them, one and all, were responses.

[_beastie]

So, Droopy, your assertion that I'm a reptilian liar is based on the definition of "innuendo". You were not engaging in "innuendo" but outright sexualized insults. In your mind, you were just reciting the facts.

Thanks for the clarification. I will not use the word "innuendo" anymore.

You know, droopy, given your admission that you were probably drinking in the midst of this offensive posting, one would think you might have the good grace to not call me a reptilian liar over this accusation, but simply admit your behavior was, as you say, "bad form."

by the way, this quote was from Moniker, not me:

You may need to check out what psychological issues you have that you repeatedly make remarks that are rude and demeaning to women (and men) on this website.

Given the sexualized insults she endured at your hands, I think her remark was quite justified. The fact that you can admit you made these "bad form" comments while in the midst of a drinking binge, and yet still attack ME is problematic. It leads me to think you've skipped over some of your steps. I'm not saying that to attack your alcoholism, by the way, and commend you for overcoming your addiction. I'm just saying I don't see much evidence of this in your posting behavior:

Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-ste ... elve_Steps

[_malaise]

Another case in point can be looked at here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19026

Notice Imwashingmypirate's avatar. That kind of thing rather cries out for comment, and there's only one subject that could possibly come up with it.

Schmo, PP, or Paul could get away with it, but Will, myself, or some other TBM could not. Nothing vulgar. All we would have to do is reference it, and the exmo/feminist posse of moral rectitude would ride out to dispense justice.

lol

You sound like a small child. But mommy, all the other little boys get to stay up until 10!!!! Women have the right to let men talk about them sexually if they want to, but you should clearly avoid making vulgar comments if you know that they will make a woman uncomfortable. And really, that's just good manners.

grow up you [personal attack deleted].

[_Droopy]

They're not innuendos. They were snarky and ad hominem references to her own posting style and history. Bad form? Yes. Sexual innuendo? Here's the defininition of "innuendo:

an oblique allusion : hint, insinuation; especially : a veiled or equivocal reflection on character or reputation b : the use of such allusions <resorting to innuendo

The latter portion of this definition fits with what you were doing, Loran. You were clearly making references to things that were designed to attack Moniker's character.

Yes, like you do in every post you've ever made here. However, the definition does not, in point of fact, fit. Not one of these is an innuendo. All of them are pointed jabs aimed at Moniker, and there are a total of about six since this board came online.

Now, let's tally up your total of personal attacks, innuendos, and character assassination, and see what we get, shall we?

That's right, Scratch, those sexual references make up about 0.0003 percent of my posting history. It made up a far greater degree of Moniker's. Personal smearing makes up about 96% of yours.

Sure: you might not have directly called her a "stupid slut," but that long litany of your comments is powerful evidence that this is what you thought/meant.

Is it, Dr. Freud?

Sometimes you don't have to exactly spell out what you're thinking. This was especially the case in this instance. In fact, you were shown to be quite a pig, Droopy.

After a long, hard day burying puppies alive in your back yard in plastic trash bags, it must be nice to come in, sit dow at your keyboard, and unwind.

Try to enjoy the daylight...