RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother?

RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:33:08 PM)
Sent you a msg on the other side. We are having trouble having a meeting of the minds. I recommend we take a break. We might be able to clear things up if we sat down F2F, but its just not going to happen on a MB. Sometimes the medium just leads to divisiveness.

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:36:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHValentine quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: MsHValentine How is the word: "ape" over the line? I need more info please. It has been a common slur against black people since before the Civil War. You were insulting a black poster, whose username, forum avatar, profile description and photo all make his ethnic background clear. Not rocket science. I've noticed you have elected yourself as the community mother hen here and there on more than one occasion, lecturing people on their posting styles, what and how they say things, etc. Consider this an official request to stop using this technique to make you look superior. Not that he needs anyone to defend his words, but RedMagic has proven time and again that he is one of the most reasonable, rational, and sensible posters in the forum. In my years on the forums, I have never seen Red attempt to make himself look superior. If he appears superior to anyone, it's probably deserved. Attacking him when he often goes out of his way to point out a newer posters mistakes and offer *helpful* suggestions for improvement is not the way to win friends and influence people around here. While you have every right to post as you see fit, it would be best if you dialed back the attitude in this particular instance. If you keep going down this road, you're more likely to shoot yourself in the foot than anything else. Please take these words in the spirit of helpfulness they're intended.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsHValentine I've noticed you have elected yourself as the community mother hen here and there on more than one occasion, lecturing people on their posting styles, what and how they say things, etc. Consider this an official request to stop using this technique to make you look superior. You are welcome to hide my posts, of course. I do have a "superior" understanding of the Terms of Service of the site relative to a lot of people who post here. That says nothing about who is "better" as a person. If you're unwilling to recognize that your use of a term was considered racially insensitive (or worse) by one of the few regular black posters here, then that says to me that you're not moving with the spirit of this (and other recent) threads, which is to talk about things that are positive, and not get stuck in the mud of arguing and insulting. Please try to look at the big picture, instead of personalizing this on me. I won't post further about this topic, on this thread.

QueenRah -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:38:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I am not bitter, and no, that is not what I said. Could it just be that someone who "has it so good" who acts like they "have it so hard" just pisses other people off? Could it be that such behavior is unseemly? Ok, fine: I misconstrued your comments about how everyone has difficulties and the mention of loneliness in your profile and I misunderstood you. I apologise for that. In terms of pissing people off, the notion that a person's success in a relationship means that all other problems in their life vanish is nonsense. The OP feels she has a problem. She started a thread to discuss how to deal with it. Being successful doesn't negate her entitlement to attempt to solve the difficulties she has with collarme. <snipped> So, VaguelyCurious, have you figured our "boy wonder" out, yet? QR

pyroaquatic -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:41:30 PM)
I concur with this not-lame post; RedMagic1 amongst others seem to genuinely want to help people.... and it does not matter what/who they are. When I first started on these forums there were quite a few individuals that assisted me. Laugh. It may be the only thing that can save us now.

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 12:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I'm not going to chase back through the thread to see exactly who said what to whom. I usually do. I'm anal like that. [;)] quote: ("What's your problem? I called that white guy the n-word. I wasn't talking to you at all." That shit doesn't fly with me.) I would never presume to tell you it should. My point (which may or may not have been made well) is that, if you're going to call her out for her post, at least do it for the right reasons. quote: Misandry and misogyny are both A-OK to engage in, by the way. Meh. Not going to argue the point, but also not sure I agree. Unless this was intended as sarcasm, then yeah, I completely agree. quote: And.... so is being logical and civil, and taking the high road! Thanks again, Syl, for your work on the FAQ's. I am really looking forward to this. I also think the content of this thread was great. I'm sorry I missed it before. No argument there. Thanks for your support of the FAQ. I just hope we can talk the mods into pinning it for us so it doesn't get buried under pages of threads.

QueenRah -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:00:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: MsHValentine How is the word: "ape" over the line? I need more info please. It has been a common slur against black people since before the Civil War. You were insulting a black poster, whose username, forum avatar, profile description and photo all make his ethnic background clear. Not rocket science. She wasn't using a racial slur and she wasn't addressing EW. She was responding to Icarus, whose behaviour was, also, less than exemplary. Turning it back around to attempt to drive home your mistaken belief that she used a racist slur, because you chose not to find out who said what to whom, just seems to be begging the issue. I have found myself responding to someone I thought had slighted me, only to reread and find the response couched in humour or addressed to someone else or about somehing else. This has prevented a lot of unnecessary difficulty and hard feelings. Generally, you are, indeed, more helpful. Perhaps we could all ask, "What did you mean by that?" when we believe someone may be saying something we don't care for. That appears to be what MsValentine has done, numerous times, in order not to engage before she has enough info. QR

MsHValentine -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:22:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 If he was involved in the conversation somehow, then I don't care exactly which post was being responded to, frankly. ("What's your problem? I called that white guy the n-word. I wasn't talking to you at all. Except that it wasn't the "n" word at all. Calling a white person an "ape" dispels your racist connotation, obviously. The only connotation is the one you're drawing. That you're so quick on the trigger there reveals more about your thinking than mine. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Please try to look at the big picture, instead of personalizing this on me. Coming from the man who doesn't want to know who said what to whom and instead projects his personal feelings out of context, I find your advice ironic. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I won't post further about this topic, on this thread. Well, of course you won't. Rather than admit you're wrong, you'll bow out "gracefully". Ciao.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:31:50 PM)
And just another one of the petty little digressions that so often happens. I think bowing out of the argument would be a very good idea MsHValentine, just as RM is. Does anyone actually remember what the original topic on this thread was? It seems to have become a big ball of who the heck knows.

EbonyWood -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:33:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QueenRah She wasn't using a racial slur and she wasn't addressing EW. She was responding to Icarus, whose behaviour was, also, less than exemplary. I haven't given a rat's ass about the racial or not argument here until seeing this. You imply in the above that my behaviour was also 'less than exemplary', whatever that means. I have no obligation to behave to you in any way that does not violate the TOS. Save the school maam attitude for the little bois that run around here. If you're referring to Red or some other poor bastard who dared venture on this thread, you need to clarify.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:39:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: QueenRah She wasn't using a racial slur and she wasn't addressing EW. She was responding to Icarus, whose behaviour was, also, less than exemplary. I haven't given a rat's ass about the racial or not argument here until seeing this. You imply in the above that my behaviour was also 'less than exemplary', whatever that means. Hun, read it again, the poster meant Icarys was less than exemplary, gosh so much misreading and misunderstanding

EbonyWood -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Hun, read it again, the poster meant Icarys was less than exemplary, gosh so much misreading and misunderstanding Actually, you should read it. 'Also' is a small word but not invisible.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:50:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Hun, read it again, the poster meant Icarys was less than exemplary, gosh so much misreading and misunderstanding Actually, you should read it. 'Also' is a small word but not invisible. I assumed that was along with Valentine. Cripes who the heck knows

QueenRah -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:52:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood I have no obligation to behave to you in any way that does not violate the TOS. No one is under any obligation to sit idly by, when you behave unpleasently to another person. So, you behave any darned way you want to and sometimes somebody's going to call you on it. It's a fact of life. Learn to deal with it. Uch. This has, indeed, digressed well out of the range of the OP. For my part, I apologise. I won't go there anymore. Pax. QR

pyroaquatic -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:52:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally And just another one of the petty little digressions that so often happens. I think bowing out of the argument would be a very good idea MsHValentine, just as RM is. Does anyone actually remember what the original topic on this thread was? It seems to have become a big ball of who the heck knows. Lame Posts about "hey youse dominants wat gitz u hawt and bothereded about EX, WHY, and ZEE?" I would prefer to have THAT than this incessant bickering. If there is an issue of personal concerns then take it into PM, rather than trying to debase others in a public format. You are only belittling yourself. I don't want to have to pull another stint like I did a few pages back.

EbonyWood -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:55:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Cripes who the heck knows Hence why I asked for clarification. There's been enough misinterpretation already.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:57:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: QueenRah quote: ORIGINAL: EbonyWood I have no obligation to behave to you in any way that does not violate the TOS. No one is under any obligation to sit idly by, when you behave unpleasently to another person. So, you behave any darned way you want to and sometimes somebody's going to call you on it. It's a fact of life. Learn to deal with it. QR Well said. When someone feels attacked, they have every right to defend their point of view. Likewise, others are free to call another out on negative behavior. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, as they say.

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 1:59:36 PM)
quote: You imply in the above that my behaviour was also 'less than exemplary', whatever that means. Here, I think is a salient point about perception and how it relates to the OP's topic. I read this in a completely different way. I read it as QueenRah saying that both Icarys and MsHValentine were both behaving badly. I didn't see it as having anything to do with you at all. This goes back to the OP (witness my mad redirection skillz!) and others saying that the women who make comments on a post that essentially say "nope, I'm not into that" are actually giving the poster useful information. One thing to be learned is how words can be taken in a way other than they were intended. While a user may feel frustration that his post didn't meet with resounding success, if he takes the time to evaluate how his words came across, he may find that he made an offensive post. Alternately, as many women have already stated, by saying "no, I'm not into that" we are also saying "we find your post trollish and offensive," "we don't want to receive email from people who enjoy this," and "we don't want you to start another thread just like this or whining about getting no reply" -- all of which is useful information for those who can interpret the signals. These are just some of the reasons why we hold in contempt anyone who appears to be trying to dictate when, where, and how we post and why those who have done so have met with a considerable amount of resistance and resentment. It would be nice if men, who realistically can't fully understand our collective experience, would at least acknowledge that we might have valid reasons for what we do and try to appreciate our position. We may have to agree to disagree, but by telling us we have no right to respond in any way that suits us and that we should sit down and shut up if we don't have something nice to say, invalidates us as people and sends the message that women are, and should be, in a position of social inferiority.

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 2:00:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Lame Posts about "hey youse dominants wat gitz u hawt and bothereded about EX, WHY, and ZEE?" I would prefer to have THAT than this incessant bickering. If there is an issue of personal concerns then take it into PM, rather than trying to debase others in a public format. Ironically it is probably the incessant bickering that means this board is inundated, it is similar on IC, the prodomme board is full of silly little men asking wank based questions and the dominants rise to it every single time, It is slightly different over there in that the uality of the discussion without the wanky men leaves something to be desired anyways, here there are some very smart and interesting posters. I think that a board is as good as its thread starters, when a thought provoking post is put up people reply, when there are no interesting posts and some silly little man asking what a dominant would do to him people will continue to reply because they are bored. This thread is a great example, it is pages and pages long, it has lost all meaning and has become really confusing. Who knows who is talking to who about what and I am damn sure none of it has anything to do with BDSM or the original post. Its all personal shit, and how the hell can we be personal when we are little more than persona's on the internet. If people read posts for posts rather than inferring things about peoples character then it would flow far easier, but they don't people will answer whatever they want to regardless of what is asked, people will build up good or bad reputations, people will be irritating and frustrating, and other people will allow them to wind them up.

EbonyWood -> RE: Lame posts: "No, I'm not into that. Sorry" Why bother? (1/27/2010 2:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan quote: You imply in the above that my behaviour was also 'less than exemplary', whatever that means. Here, I think is a salient point about perception and how it relates to the OP's topic. I read this in a completely different way. I read it as QueenRah saying that both Icarys and MsHValentine were both behaving badly. I didn't see it as having anything to do with you at all. And yet cannot you acknowledge now upon rereading that it could easily have applied to me? Stating 'also', after use of my name implies the addition of myself, being one of two subjects in the comment. It's semantics to a point, but I did ask for clarification. I note I received instead another veiled comment of course, from someone who seems to always qualify her semi apology with another admonishment.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875