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

[_Droopy]

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.

They were pointed jabs at aspects of her beliefs and past that I found repugnant, and yes, I should not have done so.

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

Glad I could be of assisstance.

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."

You lied, and have lied, not about the existence of the comments themselves, but about their status as innuendos, which implied a kind of flirtatous intention, and about my having a history of making such comments in this forum, which you have now downgraded to "repeated" (about a half dozen) comments in perhaps two threads several years old. I have no such "history" of making such comments to woman here over time.

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 that is a lie, and that is apparantly you.

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.

You see, beastie, I can read you like a book and I understand the tactics you are using. Overwrought language such as "the sexualized insults she endured at your hands" is just a part of the polemical character assassination game you play so well. This is the same game played agains Will as his few really inappropriate comments were turned into claims of mysogyny. Truth be told, I endured plenty back from Moniker and Moniker did have a history of sexual talk and commentary, some of it at a fair level of explicitness, so who was the endurer and who was the enduree is open to question.

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:

Who cares what you think?

[_beastie]

You lied, and have lied, not about the existence of the comments themselves, but about their status as innuendos, which implied a kind of flirtatous intention, and about my having a history of making such comments in this forum, which you have now downgraded to "repeated" (about a half dozen) comments in perhaps two threads several years old. I have no such "history" of making such comments to woman here over time.

Frankly, this is bizarre. Your contention isn't over whether or not you made the comments, whether or not the comments were sexualized, or whether or not the comments were insults. You admit all of the above. Your only contention is whether your statements were innuendo or outright, blatant sexualized insults.

And yet you still call me a liar over it. Bizarre.

And that is a lie, and that is apparantly you.

What the heck? It's a quote from Moniker. Whether or not "it's a lie" is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder. Look at your behavior right on this thread. Look at the names you've called me and others. You are rude, and you do insult. Whether or not this means you need help is obviously a subjective judgment.

You see, beastie, I can read you like a book and I understand the tactics you are using. Overwrought language such as "the sexualized insults she endured at your hands" is just a part of the polemical character assassination game you play so well. This is the same game played agains Will as his few really inappropriate comments were turned into claims of mysogyny. Truth be told, I endured plenty back from Moniker and Moniker did have a history of sexual talk and commentary, some of it at a fair level of explicitness, so who was the endurer and who was the enduree is open to question.

Your comments were insults. Your comments were sexualized. Which of these statements do you dispute?

Who cares what you think?

Yeah, those steps suck anyway.

[_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.

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].

Yes, I should avoid them, and since those are the only such comments I ever made regarding a female in this, or any other forum, I have.

I know that creatures such as yourself are stone blind, and use the heat sensors in your forked tongues to seek out the infrared signatures of their prey.

This laptop does run rather warm. Ahh, now I get it!

[_Droopy]

Frankly, this is bizarre. Your contention isn't over whether or not you made the comments, whether or not the comments were sexualized, or whether or not the comments were insults. You admit all of the above. Your only contention is whether your statements were innuendo or outright, blatant sexualized insults.

And yet you still call me a liar over it. Bizarre.

Reading comprehension problems? My problem is your claim that I have a posting history here of such comments. That's the lie, and its the lie you know to be a lie.

What the heck? It's a quote from Moniker. Whether or not "it's a lie" is quite obviously in the eye of the beholder. Look at your behavior right on this thread. Look at the names you've called me and others. You are rude, and you do insult. Whether or not this means you need help is obviously a subjective judgment.

Dig in your heels, and double down. Its all folks like you and Scratch have.


Your comments were insults. Your comments were sexualized. Which of these statements do you dispute?

Yawn...

[_beastie]

Reading comprehension problems? My problem is your claim that I have a posting history here of such comments. That's the lie, and its the lie you know to be a lie.

You're accusing me of reading comprehension problems? This was the statement you were responding to:

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.

I have already explained my stance on this statement, which is a quote from Moniker. I do not know it's a lie. You are rude and demeaning to men and women on this website. Whether or not that means you have psychological issues is a subjective judgment.

Eventually, even you will probably get the drift here.

Perhaps.

Your comments were insults. Your comments were sexualized. They were sexualized insults. That is the drift.

[_Droopy]

I notice that you continue to dodge the main issue, which is your lie that I have a posting history of sexual innuendo aimed at female posters.

I understand why.

[_beastie]

I notice that you continue to dodge the main issue, which is your lie that I have a posting history of sexual innuendo aimed at female posters.

I understand why.

Oh, for heaven's sake. You're calling me a liar over the use of the word INNUENDO. And I already dealt with this above, but just for you, will repeat myself one more time.

You have a history of sexualized insults with some female posters. You ADMIT that you made these insults, and they CLEARLY were sexualized. Your response is to justify the insults while admitting they were bad form.

So I'm at a complete loss as to what you think I'm lying about, but I can see there is clearly no point in trying to figure it out.

[_moksha]

I do suppose I should remind all here that I've never, here or anywhere else, made the claim that I am a porn addict.

Good. That stuff is best kept private. Not everyone in life is able to turn off their sexual impulses, but sometimes looking at pictures keeps them off the streets.

[_beastie]

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.

What the heck, I’m on break and have some time to waste, so I’ll try to reason with you.

Why does pirate’s avatar “cry out for comment”, and what sort of comment does it cry out for? You’re insinuating that it cries out for some sort of sexualized comment, of course, but of what nature? I’ll focus on what sort of comment Paul might have made, versus you, since I don’t recall Schmo making a lot of sexualized comments, and PP was heavily criticized for his comments toward Moniker, as you were. Paul might have engaged in sexual banter as a response to the avatar. Sexual banter is far different than the type of response we could expect from you. Your response would be more on the lines of making statements that insinuate sexual promiscuity. You’re an intelligent person, despite your blinding bias, so I’ll assume you can see the difference between the two. And here’s why your type of comments would trigger negative responses.

It is very normal for young females and males to make displays of sexuality. When their bodies are sexually mature, but their minds and emotions are not, young people often experiment with their sexual power, sometimes being unaware of possible responses to that experimentation. This is why young people often dress in a manner that the older generation views as provocative. Tsk, tsk, the older generation always tuts, where are the morals? Yet the fact is usually that the older generation pushed cultural limits in the same way that the younger generation now does, and engaged in the same sort of experimentation with sexual power. They just don’t remember doing so, or viewed their cultural symbols of having done so as “tamer’. I guarantee THEIR older generation didn’t view it as tamer.

If you take a walk in the local mall, and see a group of young women wearing short shorts and low-cut t-shirts, some of the older generation think “sluts.” The insinuation is, of course, that the young women must be sexually promiscuous in order to dress in that manner. Yet, in reality, there isn’t a direct correlation between manner of dress and sexual promiscuity in young people. It is just as likely that the provocatively dressed young woman is a virgin. They are experimenting with their new-found sexual power, without fully understanding the reactions of others.

The additional element that some older folks don’t appreciate is cultural symbols that vary from generation to generation. My own children, who are close in age to pirate, would regard her avatar as reminiscent of cartoon anime, which is very popular among their age group. The females are typically portrayed with large breasts, big eyes, and provocative attire. If they were to see a young female posting with that avatar, they would not interpret it as a symbol of sexual promiscuity, but rather as an allusion to a familiar cultural symbol.

Young people are going to experiment in the same way that older people once did, and older people need to allow them to do so without engaging in unduly judgmental reactions. Or, even worse, without interpreting the experimentation of the young as an invitation for some old creepy person to respond sexually to them.

Now, in regards to Moniker, you obviously still feel justified in insulting her in a sexualized way, even if it was below your “standards”. (interesting standards, by the way, which allow you to call people names like reptilian liars) Yes, Moniker and other females on this site are comfortable discussing human sexuality. But that does not mean that those same females are sexually promiscuous or dirty in some way. It just means that they accept human sexuality as healthy, and that includes female sexuality. But I suspect that makes you very uncomfortable, and you deal with that discomfort by attacking.

Why it makes you so uncomfortable is something you have to figure out on your own.

[_Molok]

What exactly is so wrong about making non flirtacious "sexualized insults" to someone who is widely known for speaking openly and frankly about sexual topics? Do any of ou seriously think Paul O, for example, would give a good goddamn if someone made "sexualized insults" to him? Of course not. The idea is laughable.

I never knew Moniker, so if I have any of these details wrong, please correct me. She apparently talked about working as a stripper, anal sex, and other sexual topics regularly (incidentally, isn't this also the rather unhinged person who was banned from here some time ago?) And Droopy made a song parody about here, essentially labelled her a slut, and worst of all, referred to her as Hef. How can you live with yourself Droopy?