Buffett and Colbert wrote:I find it amusing how you accuse us of sexism. I'd make a counter-argument, but I find it hard to concentrate with Ronald Reagan staring at my face.
Gorbachev had the same problem.
Advertisement

by Galloisms Computer » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:34 am
Buffett and Colbert wrote:I find it amusing how you accuse us of sexism. I'd make a counter-argument, but I find it hard to concentrate with Ronald Reagan staring at my face.

by Bottle » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:34 am
United Dependencies wrote:Thirded but I don't see what is so scary.

by Minnas » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:35 am
Hiddenrun wrote:Bottle wrote:
But hey, don't take my word for it. Feel free to keep thinking that you know women's minds better than the women themselves. Divorce lawyers need work just like everyone else these days.
Ah. I see. It offends your feminist sensibilities to have someone point out that your body aches for a child, even though your mind rebels.
Nowhere have I said it's wrong to overcome your biological urges. It's amusing however when some of you claim to be so special as to not have those urges at all. Veritable superwomen.

by Hiddenrun » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:35 am

by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:35 am
Megaloria wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:
I find it amusing how you accuse us of sexism. I'd make a counter-argument, but I find it hard to concentrate with Ronald Reagan staring at my face.
When you gaze into the abyss, etc...

You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

by Smunkeeville » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:35 am
Bottle wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Thirded but I don't see what is so scary.
The way people talk makes me feel like a feminist version of Ozzy Osbourne, who bites off the testicles of the bat instead of biting off the head.


by United Dependencies » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:35 am
Bottle wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Thirded but I don't see what is so scary.
The way people talk makes me feel like a feminist version of Ozzy Osbourne, who bites off the testicles of the bat instead of biting off the head.
Alien Space Bats wrote:2012: The Year We Lost Contact (with Reality).
Cannot think of a name wrote:Obamacult wrote:Maybe there is an economically sound and rational reason why there are no longer high paying jobs for qualified accountants, assembly line workers, glass blowers, blacksmiths, tanners, etc.
Maybe dragons took their jobs. Maybe unicorns only hid their jobs because unicorns are dicks. Maybe 'jobs' is only an illusion created by a drug addled infant pachyderm. Fuck dude, if we're in 'maybe' land, don't hold back.

by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:37 am
Hiddenrun wrote:In any case, I do apologize, as I had earlier stated I would bow out of this thread. Certain posters took that opportunity to come back, hours later, and flame me. I shouldn't have stooped to replying to such obvious baiting. I apologize for letting my annoyance interfere with my promise, good day.
Bye! 
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.

by Bottle » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:39 am
Minnas wrote:Hahahahaha! You're telling this Bottle. Well, Bottle, for example, has stated that as woman, time and time again, she doesn't want to have children. So you're telling Bottle that she knows shit about herself and that, since you hold all the knowledge in the world, she indeed wants a kid?
Yo Bottle, you don't know anything about yourself, according to the stellar rants of Hiddenrun. What do you think about that?

by Minnas » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:39 am
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:I'm not talking about my boyfriend's problems since I don't think I have one.
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:At this moment, it's best if he doesn't consider me anything of his because I am unfit.

by Tiesabre » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:40 am
United Dependencies wrote:Bottle wrote:United Dependencies wrote:Thirded but I don't see what is so scary.
The way people talk makes me feel like a feminist version of Ozzy Osbourne, who bites off the testicles of the bat instead of biting off the head.
Ah yes I see.
Now I too am scared.

by Bottle » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:40 am
Minnas wrote:How old are you, Hiddenrun? 10? Re-read the parts you bolded and tell me, do you understand, really understand, what that person is saying? Read in between the lines, you obnoxious poster.

by North Suran » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:41 am
Galloisms Computer wrote:Buffett and Colbert wrote:I find it amusing how you accuse us of sexism. I'd make a counter-argument, but I find it hard to concentrate with Ronald Reagan staring at my face.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas

by Minnas » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:42 am
Bottle wrote:Minnas wrote:How old are you, Hiddenrun? 10? Re-read the parts you bolded and tell me, do you understand, really understand, what that person is saying? Read in between the lines, you obnoxious poster.
Sadly, I think I've run him off, so it's unlikely he'll be responding.

by Megaloria » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:44 am
Bottle wrote:Minnas wrote:Hahahahaha! You're telling this Bottle. Well, Bottle, for example, has stated that as woman, time and time again, she doesn't want to have children. So you're telling Bottle that she knows shit about herself and that, since you hold all the knowledge in the world, she indeed wants a kid?
Yo Bottle, you don't know anything about yourself, according to the stellar rants of Hiddenrun. What do you think about that?
I think it's the same spiel I've heard from dozens of dudely dudes over the years. This case isn't even one of the more entertaining ones...my favorite was when I declined to set up a second date with a guy due to lack of chemistry between us, and he informed me that the real reason I wouldn't go out with him again must be because my "biological clock" was ticking and all I cared about was getting pregnant.
I was 19.

by Smunkeeville » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:55 am
Megaloria wrote:Bottle wrote:Minnas wrote:Hahahahaha! You're telling this Bottle. Well, Bottle, for example, has stated that as woman, time and time again, she doesn't want to have children. So you're telling Bottle that she knows shit about herself and that, since you hold all the knowledge in the world, she indeed wants a kid?
Yo Bottle, you don't know anything about yourself, according to the stellar rants of Hiddenrun. What do you think about that?
I think it's the same spiel I've heard from dozens of dudely dudes over the years. This case isn't even one of the more entertaining ones...my favorite was when I declined to set up a second date with a guy due to lack of chemistry between us, and he informed me that the real reason I wouldn't go out with him again must be because my "biological clock" was ticking and all I cared about was getting pregnant.
I was 19.
Why would NOT going out with someone imply a need to get pregnant? I would think the opposite would be the case. Anyway, good on you for avoiding contact with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.

by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:56 am
Hiddenrun wrote:I'm sure you just missed it. I don't believe for a moment that you read this and were just hoping you could claim it wasn't said.
Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

by North Suran » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:58 am
Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Hiddenrun wrote:I'm sure you just missed it. I don't believe for a moment that you read this and were just hoping you could claim it wasn't said.
I regret saying those things but it was how I felt last night. Undeniable. No one here, least of all you, have any right to judge me for this.
Neu Mitanni wrote:As for NS, his latest statement is grounded in ignorance and contrary to fact, much to the surprise of all NSGers.
Geniasis wrote:The War on Christmas

by Nanatsu no Tsuki » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:58 am
North Suran wrote:Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:Hiddenrun wrote:I'm sure you just missed it. I don't believe for a moment that you read this and were just hoping you could claim it wasn't said.
I regret saying those things but it was how I felt last night. Undeniable. No one here, least of all you, have any right to judge me for this.
But we can still judge you for the "otaku" thing, right?
Right?

Slava Ukraini
Also: THERNSY!!
Your story isn't over;֍Help save transgender people's lives֍Help for feral cats
Cat with internet access||Supposedly heartless, & a d*ck.||Is maith an t-earra an tsíocháin.||No TGsRIP: Dyakovo & Ashmoria

by Greed and Death » Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:59 am
Smunkeeville wrote:Megaloria wrote:Bottle wrote:I think it's the same spiel I've heard from dozens of dudely dudes over the years. This case isn't even one of the more entertaining ones...my favorite was when I declined to set up a second date with a guy due to lack of chemistry between us, and he informed me that the real reason I wouldn't go out with him again must be because my "biological clock" was ticking and all I cared about was getting pregnant.
I was 19.
Why would NOT going out with someone imply a need to get pregnant? I would think the opposite would be the case. Anyway, good on you for avoiding contact with someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
I like to call it Bro-logic. It's like the time that a guy dumped me because I wouldn't fuck him, and then called me a whore.

by Kryozerkia » Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:14 am

by Snafturi » Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:27 pm
Hiddenrun wrote:It seems as though you are unable to read. I pointed out that anyone who has had more than one relationship has, by definition, experienced a dysfunctional relationship. Else the relationship would not have ended. The poster I was responding to suggested that someone who has had a dysfunctional relationship could not comment therefore on any relationship. I brought up the point that it would be very odd indeed to only allow persons who have experienced perfection (ie, ONE relationship) to make such comments. Are you up to speed now?

by Bottle » Thu Jul 30, 2009 1:19 pm
Snafturi wrote:Hiddenrun wrote:It seems as though you are unable to read. I pointed out that anyone who has had more than one relationship has, by definition, experienced a dysfunctional relationship. Else the relationship would not have ended. The poster I was responding to suggested that someone who has had a dysfunctional relationship could not comment therefore on any relationship. I brought up the point that it would be very odd indeed to only allow persons who have experienced perfection (ie, ONE relationship) to make such comments. Are you up to speed now?
That's not even remotely true. Two people can have a wonderful relationship that ends for one reason or another and it could have been completely healthy and successful.

by Minnas » Thu Jul 30, 2009 2:58 pm
Bottle wrote:This actually can be linked right back to the topic I think, because the OP was basically about how perception may create reality. If relationships are perceived as only failing when they end, then that sets up a deeply sick culture for dating and sex. That creates a culture where ending a relationship is automatically a bad thing, a failure, regardless of the reasons for that ending. Because of this perception, people stay together far longer than they want to, and often far longer than is healthy for them, because they don't want to "fail" in their relationship. So because people are so determined to not have "failed" relationships, they end up remaining in genuinely failed relationships a helluva lot longer.

by Buffett and Colbert » Thu Jul 30, 2009 4:00 pm
Minnas wrote:Bottle wrote:This actually can be linked right back to the topic I think, because the OP was basically about how perception may create reality. If relationships are perceived as only failing when they end, then that sets up a deeply sick culture for dating and sex. That creates a culture where ending a relationship is automatically a bad thing, a failure, regardless of the reasons for that ending. Because of this perception, people stay together far longer than they want to, and often far longer than is healthy for them, because they don't want to "fail" in their relationship. So because people are so determined to not have "failed" relationships, they end up remaining in genuinely failed relationships a helluva lot longer.
What concerns me is that the OP may think that because her situation seems like failure, only temporary, that she is incomplete and that no one can love her or appreciate her. That destroys and nothing can be further from the truth. A woman isn't just a woman because of her capacity to create life. A woman is so much more: daughter, sister, friend, student, worker, cousin, human.
You-Gi-Owe wrote:If someone were to ask me about your online persona as a standard of your "date-ability", I'd rate you as "worth investigating further & passionate about beliefs". But, enough of the idle speculation on why you didn't score with the opposite gender.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bombe, Grinning Dragon, La Xingan Sports Association, Neu California, New haven america, Old Tyrannia, Union Hispanica de Naciones, Valyxias
Advertisement