|
On August 15 2017 06:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:29 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. what? the west dislikes consent? yeah rape culture is still a thing but damn I dunno if you can characterize half the planet like that. You think all people drink to try and rape people? The west includes women (FYI) The west fetishizes many things--consent and lack thereof among them. As such, people often act or play with the idea of not giving consent before sex (such as getting drunk and then having sex) because of how much it is fetishized by the west as titilating. Hence also why confusion occurs where people fuck others and assume the lack of consent was implied consent.
yeah of course I didn't mention genders or anything.
why do you think its a more common fetish in the west than east?
and I believe consenting adults are allowed to exercise their fetishes even if the fetish is playing with the idea of not giving consent.
not sure how that leads to the conclusion that lack of consent is consent or how you can imply that goes for like half the planet.
|
On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:34 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Discussion of course. New ways to see things, old ways to see things, different ways to see things. Have perspectives from belligerent, xenophobic, academic, simplistic, American, non-American, everyone. To discuss is it's own catharsis, and to find new ways to think of the same subjects is its own pleasure.
Why do you guys post here? If you are looking at new ways to see things why do you always think you are right no matter how ridiculous whatever you have written is? As for getting upset being meaningless, then why are always so angry at me. Trolling magpie is like a onion so many layers, all make you wanna cry xD There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better. Rolf, I'm pretty sure when end your posts calling me names you are angry. I know you have trouble relating to others, but think of it like this. How you feel when you read my posts is how everyone else feels reading yours! Also, I'm not sure that all these people commenting back to you are my friends, but we are all laughing at you and I feel great. Thanks for asking! I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past? No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's. I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality. Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process. Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post. Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way. I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk. Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks.
I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up.
|
|
|
Canada11355 Posts
If you woke up one morning and discovered you had superhuman strength (let's say the ability to lift the average car over your head with ease) how would you monetize this power? What aspects of your life right now would you change?
|
On August 15 2017 06:52 Fecalfeast wrote:
If you woke up one morning and discovered you had superhuman strength (let's say the ability to lift the average car over your head with ease) how would you monetize this power? What aspects of your life right now would you change?
I'm unsure if I would actually change much of anything... it's not like we have prestige of strength be something that helps in the long term. I'd probably do a lot more carpentry work during the weekends at the most, now that it's easier to move heavy equipment and supplies through the house.
|
On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 05:52 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
There isn't anger JimmiC. Don't take commentary on your posting style as anger. It's just observation. If you feel it sounds angry, just get your friends to come over and laugh at it; I'm sure that will make you feel better. Rolf, I'm pretty sure when end your posts calling me names you are angry. I know you have trouble relating to others, but think of it like this. How you feel when you read my posts is how everyone else feels reading yours! Also, I'm not sure that all these people commenting back to you are my friends, but we are all laughing at you and I feel great. Thanks for asking! I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past? No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's. I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality. Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process. Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post. Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way. I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk. Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks. I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up. If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss.
I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm?
|
|
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:02 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 05:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
I'm not making fun of you. You've been saying you do this since you disagreed with my statement that lack of consent is rape. If you feel that this stance is disparaging to you, why did you state it so often in the past? No, you said that once someone had a drink they could no longer give consent, I said what if both drank was it a double rape and so on and so forth. You have since called me a sexist, rapist, xenophobe, moron, racist and so on. Because poisoning a well is your go too. It is super funny how as many have pointed out, u back yourself into a corner with a stupid statement, follow it up with strawman, move the goal posts then when this is exhausted you head straight to poisoning the well. You spatter in some other fallacies from time to time, but these are your goto's. I'm just surprised you feel so high in mighty with the morale high ground when the only reason your not in jail on child porn charges was a technicality. Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process. Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post. Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way. I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk. Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks. I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up. If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss. I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm? Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it.
Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word?
So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here?
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. That's strange. I thought you view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding is mundane and simplistic.
But here you are insulting and trying to shut down discourse of others. Wherein, you show yourself, as being the one truly disinterested in discourse.
I can't be the only one finding it mildly amusing that you claim to have an open mind, yet seems intent on telling everybody else to shut up and trying to drown out everybody else's posts by sheer volume. I have gone days without responding, only to pick up the continuing conversation, whilst you yourself continue to insist that everybody is wrong, you hold the one truth, and spew your verbal diarrhoea everywhere.
|
Do you think the terran robot girl in BW that you see when you click on buildings is a pure robot or some kind of cyborg slave similar to the arco flagellants in warhammer 40k?
(I know she's a robot in SC2 but maybe the SC1 designers had a different vision)
|
On August 15 2017 06:38 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 06:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:29 ComaDose wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. what? the west dislikes consent? yeah rape culture is still a thing but damn I dunno if you can characterize half the planet like that. You think all people drink to try and rape people? The west includes women (FYI) The west fetishizes many things--consent and lack thereof among them. As such, people often act or play with the idea of not giving consent before sex (such as getting drunk and then having sex) because of how much it is fetishized by the west as titilating. Hence also why confusion occurs where people fuck others and assume the lack of consent was implied consent. yeah of course I didn't mention genders or anything. why do you think its a more common fetish in the west than east? and I believe consenting adults are allowed to exercise their fetishes even if the fetish is playing with the idea of not giving consent. not sure how that leads to the conclusion that lack of consent is consent or how you can imply that goes for like half the planet.
At what point did I state that the problem is half the planet?
The fetish community places great importance in Vincent, going so far as to have everything from safe words to an already made script to dictate what the plan of action is in the engagement. As a community, because they are aware of the difficulties of communication at the heat of the moment, they understand the importance of pre-communicating expectations and logistics.
The west has issues with even just bringing up the topic of requiring clear concent prior to engaging in sex. People such as yourself get fairly riled up about it. This is not a male/female issue, but a western issue.
The east has their own issues. But being that I've lived in the US for the past two decades, it would be it would be unfair of me to pretend to have a good understanding of eastern practices of nonverbal communication.
However, cultures I am both entrenched in, studied, and have peers in--that I can discuss.
Now, just so we are in understanding, do you believe that there is misogyny, rape culture, and a history of violence against women in western culture? If you don't believe these things to be true then we might never come to an agreement, if you do believe these things to be true--then is it not possible that these historical truths could affect how humans within that cultural zeitgheist would behave with each other such that it perpetuates these historical truths?
|
On August 15 2017 07:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 04:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
First you have to define every word in that sentence. Then you have to evolve and adapt every single word. Only then can we acheive true enlightment. To answer your question, look to the changer of ways, that way the path is to follow, and so the opening occurs, the fluidity is expanded. If you are disinterested in discourse it is easy enough to simply stop speaking. If your goal is to ridicule you could simply keep it at PMs and not clutter the thread. I can be disinterested in your comments regardless, but you could at least keep your illogical comments away from the main site. That's strange. I thought you view that being cognizant and curious about why things are perceived truths is fruitful to the evolution of human understanding. That being willing to think about why we think about things in certain ways leads to a deeper understanding of ourselves. Being unwilling to accept the fluidity of human perception and understanding is mundane and simplistic. But here you are insulting and trying to shut down discourse of others. Wherein, you show yourself, as being the one truly disinterested in discourse. I can't be the only one finding it mildly amusing that you claim to have an open mind, yet seems intent on telling everybody else to shut up and trying to drown out everybody else's posts by sheer volume. I have gone days without responding, only to pick up the continuing conversation, whilst you yourself continue to insist that everybody is wrong, you hold the one truth, and spew your verbal diarrhoea everywhere.
Defining the core topic of a discussion is not only important--but is the starting point of all dialogue. Until the both of you know what the topic being discussed is, there will always be empass.
You are convoluting that convention by asking for definitions of base sentences at their core. And as much as linguistic phenomena's interaction with grammatic architecture interests me as a subject matter, deflecting the conversation away from its core topic in an attempt to feel intellectually superior is not only in poor taste, but does nothing to move dialogue forward.
Hence why I asked that if your goal is to simply change topics without ever sticking to the subject at hand, please do so in PM so as to prevent your structureless dialogue from disrupting this thread with incoherencies. That is the opposite of silencing you by the way--unless people asking you to speak in private is what you would consider censorship.
Another thing--how does asking people what they mean count as holding myself as the one truth? If I held myself to one truth I would simply be telling you what I think is true without asking for clarification, testing new argumentations, or even trying to restructure the argument as new data comes into being. That's the point of discussion--to ask questions, to ask people to look at the words they use, the truths they hold infallible and asking them why it is they think that way. It requires re-exploring things assumed to be true and actually looking at it again, not with your biased history of conclusion, but with new eyes.
|
On August 15 2017 07:37 KungKras wrote:
Do you think the terran robot girl in BW that you see when you click on buildings is a pure robot or some kind of cyborg slave similar to the arco flagellants in warhammer 40k?
(I know she's a robot in SC2 but maybe the SC1 designers had a different vision)
100% thought she was a cyborg. Truly missed her presence.
As much as I enjoyed SC2's individual mission maps (their designs were great) the world building was much more lacking due to the increased specificity of the mission briefings mixed with the intense abstraction of the sense of time.
BW's abstraction of the mission briefings meant you had to piece together who you were, and where you are, and how much time has passed based on the exposition provided. The exposition then allowed your imagination to sync the current and prior missions together to form a narrative arc.
The choice burdened system of SC2 made it feel that you were just wandering around taking your time instead of actually progressing through a narrative arc.
If they had placed a time element to the campaign it would have made the forced decisions feel more impacting. Little things like making it so you could only choose X number of planets before it was too late. Or if your side missions were choices spread intermittently throughout a more rigid campaign structure would have given a sense of urgency and sacrifice whenever you had to do a side quest.
|
On August 15 2017 07:08 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Why are you changing the subject? Let's finish the discussion of your past comments towards me and then we can move forward. You started by saying the only reason men would argue that consent is needed is because those men only want to have sex. You then argued that your wife laughs at my posts and that was why you believed drunk girls could give consent. You then argued that your wife and friends read your posts, and that was why you were certain drunk girls could give consent. You then continued that argument against me over multiple topics and never once going back to making a claim of your own within those topics. So yes, I often would rather you go to your conclusions than pretend that you are making any claims about anything. It just speeds up the process.
Now, for your other topics that you brought up with your post.
Not that it's important to the discussion--but neither side can provide consent if both are drunk. The west is still a culture that dislikes consent and hence has cultural practices that encourages people to put themselves in states where they can't give consent. You seem to believe that just because a practice is done, that practice is automatically correct. I happen to believe that just because things are done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is automatically the correct way.
I don't recall the child porn accusation--can you be more specific? A quote maybe? I'm assuming you aren't just making up the accusation but I will need help with specifics. I believe it was the police that brought up the child porn accusation on you. The whole rest of your post is nonsense, but I'll be happy to discuss it (AGAIN) if you PM. I mean come on Trolling Magpie it was a day ago you gave me this advice and yet you can't take it. Tsk Tsk. Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks. I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up. If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss. I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm? Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it. Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here? I'm not accusing you of anything that was the police. As I said I'm happy to bring up my arguments to all the nonsense you wrote earlier in PM. you just keep posting here, not sure why. Thanks for sending your next message to me though PM!
I've already heard your past arguments in PM, if it's more of the same then it's fairly meaningless. And if you're disinterested in actually showing me what you're trying to imply then I guess it's best we just move on. Peace out.
|
Hey guys, I need some advice for a girl problem I have.
Michelle is really nice. Nicest girl I know. And very good looking too. She's like a 9/10 if I had to rate her, and I've never dated anybody else who looks as good as her or has the personality to match. Our sex life is great too and we just mesh together so well. There's one problem though that makes me hesitant about staying in a relationship with her. She got a great job at a nursing school up near Toronto, where her family lives, but we've lived together in North Carolina our whole lives. She applied there, not really thinking she'd get in, mostly just because her family suggested she try it anyways and see what happened. I'm not sure I'm ready to just pack up and move to Canada though, as much as I want to support her in her future career. Her husband tells her it's a great career move too, and I wouldn't want to stop her from pursuing her dream. But I just feel that it would be selfish of me to tell her she couldn't go and that could lead to feelings of resentment toward me anyways for stopping her from moving forward in her career. Any advice?
|
|
|
On August 15 2017 09:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 09:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:08 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 07:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 07:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:45 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 15 2017 06:37 JimmiC wrote:On August 15 2017 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Apologies, I thought you had brought up the topic to discuss it. I didn't realize you were just saying it to be disparaging; it's often hard to differentiate which one you're trying to do. I could see that with so many accusations of child porn coming your way it would be difficult to differentiate who they are from and about whether it was distribution, creation, sale and all the other things you have done. But PM is how you should discuss it with me, for the good of thread. Thanks. I'm unsure why you distilled the discussion for the sake of asking for this to be in PM, that's kind of weird don't your think? I'm also still unclear what you're talking about--could you provide the link? It still sounds kind of made up. If you can't follow a simple request to bring a discussion to PM, for the sake of the thread. I'm not going to bother to bring up the evidence. I mean why would I go through that trouble when you have no trouble making things up and posting them as facts with zero evidence? Why is the burden of proof different for everyone but super special you. PM me please to discuss. I had assumed that since you brought up the topic twice you wished to discuss it; was it really just to disparage me? I didn't realize that was the goal you had. Can you confirm? Disparage you? You mean like poisoning the well? I like you would never stoop so low. It's just what happened mate. But please PM me to discuss this is a 1 on on 1 convo, not everyone needs to read it. Being that it seems we are not having a discussion I am unsure it's possible to poison the well. Argumental fallacies requires for there to be an argument. Are you sure you know the meaning of the word? So, to be clear, I have no idea what you were accusing me of and you are actively unwilling to bring up the data to use as a jumping off point for discussion--is that what's happening here? I'm not accusing you of anything that was the police. As I said I'm happy to bring up my arguments to all the nonsense you wrote earlier in PM. you just keep posting here, not sure why. Thanks for sending your next message to me though PM! I've already heard your past arguments in PM, if it's more of the same then it's fairly meaningless. And if you're disinterested in actually showing me what you're trying to imply then I guess it's best we just move on. Peace out. Untrue you have never pm'd me. You have said to PM you and I have but then you never respond. Funny you say lets move on because I said that originally when you hashed up old arguments but then you just made up more stuff to try to bait me back into the discussion publicly. But again PM and I'm happy to discuss what ever you desire.
As I said, peace out dude. Don't take this so personal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
