RE: Handeling Rude Doms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity



Message

VaguelyCurious -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 2:15:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Domin8tingUrDrmz

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
quote:

chuckles.  I tried.  I couldn't say it with a straight face.

Being Twuly Dominant, that which I do not care to hear does not exist for me. So I cannot hear your feebly quiet mutterings, woman. [8D][8D][8D]


If'n you couldn't hear it, then how come you responded to it? hmmm?  [:D]


Do not question the ways of Twue Domination.

quote:

Too bad you aren't stateside, or I'm not wherever you are - you'd be fun to pal around with.


Well let me know if you ever take a trip to the fun side of the pond, 'k?

quote:

Edited cuz the SToooopiD quote box is NOT submitting to my authoritai!


That's because you aren't dominant enough with it-see how I can make the quotes box into my little bitch? :-P



stella41b -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 3:00:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJC69

Some of you have flat out missed the point of what I was writing. The profiles have given little to no information about themselves and some have read similiar to the one I will post here. So I have politely ask a few questions trying to find out a little more information to see if there was some common ground to base future correspondences on.

"Willing girl seeks to be trained and owned. she is definitely not here seeking money for any reason. she can relocate at her own expense." End of Profile.



I disagree that some of us have missed the point. What we might have done is failed to come round to your way of thinking and and nodding our heads like those animal effigies you stick in the rear windscreen of your car as we post in full agreement of what you are saying.

However bearing in mind that you'll probably misinterpret my attempts at humour (as I made the mistake of believing that you would appreciate a little self-effacing humour) as rudeness I will try again but this time totally straight and serious.

The principle is still the same - personal freedom, and certainly when I signed up to the site I didn't read anything telling me that I was obliged to respond to anyone and everyone who sent me unsolicited c-mails. There was nothing also informing me that I had to fill out my profile in a certain way or include certain information other than in the boxes with the options at the top of the profile.

But my point is exactly the same as before - for the simple fact you regard those who don't reply as rude isn't really because they are rude but because you are calling them on an obligation which doesn't exist and holding them responsible for not fulfilling your expectations of receiving a reply.

Here's some unsolicited advice, take it or leave it as you wish, but when you get to the stage of thinking that it's everybody else who has the problem maybe it's time to reexamine the way you think and what you expect from other people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJC69

I find many of the threads on here to be highly out of line and quite rude and really it is uncalled for. Gives a new member a very bad taste in his mouth for the people who make up this community. I don't feel my question was that inflammatory to receive such nasty comments and emails that I have gotten. It was a simple question asked out of curiosity to see if maybe I was doing something wrong.

No I don't think since I am a Dom that entitles me to anything but I do believe in common courtesy, being polite and respectful towards people which I see many now in this community have no idea what that means.



So okay, bearing in mind what I have posted above now try to read your words which I am quoting here directly from what you have written - can you see what I'm trying to point out here? These are your words, they originated from your keyboard, you own them.

Can you not see that your underlying message is just the same 'It's not me that has the problem, it's other people.'?

Am I calling you an arrogant bastard who needs to get his fucking head out of his ass and get over himself? No, I'm not, because that would be rude and disrespectful and highly offensive. And I personally don't do rude and disrespectful without a lot of provocation.

But that doesn't stop me putting it to you that you are misusing the words rude and disrespectful (among others) to include those of us who don't share your perspective and your opinion or who don't in some way meet or fulfill your expectations.

Therefore I'm asking you, very politely, to pause for a moment and reconsider the opinions you have expressed and the reasoning you have employed which led you to form such opinions.



dreamerdreaming -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 3:27:48 AM)

Good morning!

[:)]


Edited to add: Wow. I'm sensing a lot of hostility from you, MasterJC69. [8|]



Wolf2Bear -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 4:48:21 AM)

You are so wise VC...[sm=cute.gif]

I even picked up on that and I'm Canadian!!!! 



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 4:54:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolf2Bear

You are so wise VC...[sm=cute.gif]

I even picked up on that and I'm Canadian!!!! 



Hugs for the wise and talented Bear, who would quite clearly pass key stage two reading comprehension (in the unlikely event that he should ever have to do so)!

(Unlike this guy...)



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 5:39:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1
Maybe you should rethink the whole "I'm a dominant" thing, because you clearly aren't.  And that's not rude, cupcake.  That's me recognizing reality when I see it.


Hey, hey, hey, Red, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. A dominant is someone who wants control in a relationship. That has nothing to do with whether or not they react angrily to us pixels.

Now, whether or not someone is a dominant who you would want your best subby little friend anywhere near involves an entirely different set of criteria...



Futuresocks -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 5:40:34 AM)

I get dommes send me blastingly rude emails sometimes. You can't reply back because they block you. The other thing I hate is not replying to emails.

I mean, fuck, if a person doesn't want you to serve them, just say "no thank you," but don't not reply at all.

The former issues, however, is worse than the latter.



Wolf2Bear -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 5:48:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Futuresocks

I mean, fuck, if a person doesn't want you to serve them, just say "no thank you," but don't not reply at all.



You're going on the assumption that all initial emails to a dominant are for the sole purpose if wanting to be in their service which is a wrong assumption to make. I write a few dominants I know and it is not to be in their service but to ask for clarification to a comment they made, to say hi and ask how things are with them, need their opinion on an issue i know they'd have an insight that I miss, or any countless reasons. It ain't no biggie if they reply a few days later or not...they may forgot to reply and I don't get my jock in an uproar either. Life's too short to worry about petty assed shit in my books.



RedMagic1 -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 5:52:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
Hey, hey, hey, Red, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. A dominant is someone who wants control in a relationship. That has nothing to do with whether or not they react angrily to us pixels.

I disagree with your disagreement, though if you'd like a full response from me, please start a thread on another area of the message boards.  My position is related to DominatingUrDreams's comment, actually.  Just because a man wants to have sex (whatever he thinks that means) does not mean that he knows how to have sex in reality.  Similarly, I consider a "dominant" to be someone who both wants control in a relationship and is capable of exercising control in a relationship.  This poster is not even capable of exercising control over himself.

As another way to look at it, would you consider someone submissive, if that person expressed great interest in, and desire for, submission, but was incapable of submitting to another in a relationship?  Most dommes wouldn't.  They call such men "fakes" or "fantasists."  I tend to avoid such words, but I agree with the sentiment that to be submissive, you have to have the capacity to actually submit, in real life.



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 5:57:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
Hey, hey, hey, Red, I'm gonna have to disagree with you here. A dominant is someone who wants control in a relationship. That has nothing to do with whether or not they react angrily to us pixels.

I disagree with your disagreement, though if you'd like a full response from me, please start a thread on another area of the message boards.  My position is related to DominatingUrDreams's comment, actually.  Just because a man wants to have sex (whatever he thinks that means) does not mean that he knows how to have sex in reality.  Similarly, I consider a "dominant" to be someone who both wants control in a relationship and is capable of exercising control in a relationship.  This poster is not even capable of exercising control over himself.

As another way to look at it, would you consider someone submissive, if that person expressed great interest in, and desire for, submission, but was incapable of submitting to another in a relationship?  Most dommes wouldn't.  They call such men "fakes" or "fantasists."  I tend to avoid such words, but I agree with the sentiment that to be submissive, you have to have the capacity to actually submit, in real life.



Can we agree to disagree, then? I don't massively want to start a new thread on this, because it's such a sensitive subject, and I don't feel strongly enough about it that I want to start a row with any angry people who might wish to join in (not you, Red-I know you're perfectly capable of debating without getting pissed off...)



RedMagic1 -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 6:00:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
Can we agree to disagree, then?

No.  We have to hold a "who can take the most spankings" contest.



VaguelyCurious -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 6:05:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
Can we agree to disagree, then?

No.  We have to hold a "who can take the most spankings" contest.



Three conditions:

1) You're paying my air fair.
2) We're finding someone both
  i) sufficiently hot, and
  ii) sufficiently neutral and objective
to deliver said spankings.
3) No, that person cannot be Domiguy.



CarrieO -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 6:06:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

>snip
That profile text is telling you something. It says 'I put some words here because there was a box to write in and it looks silly if I leave it empty, but this is not an advert'. the key word there is seeks; you aren't supposed to look at her ad and go 'ohmygosh! This is the love of my life-her writing touches my soul...'.

If she's serious and interested she is going to mail you. That's a profile designed not to attract particular attention-by mailing her out of the blue you are responding to an invitation that isn't actually there. So is it really surprising that your mails are unwelcome and you don't get responses?

If you want responses, target profiles with content that you relate to. Write an interesting message, tailored to that content and how you relate to it. That's the soopersekkrit method; it's not complicated, but there really seems to be no other way.
<snip



VaguelyCurious, I hope you don't mind me snipping down your very fine post but it's the quote part above I wanted to comment on. 

I have an almost non-existent profile...in fact, it starts out with "Not necessarily looking...."....and I still get email from men, both dom (even though I don't have them ticked as what I'm looking for but I'm not opposed to meeting/talking as friends) and sub asking me to write back because they they I'd be interested in them if I took a chance. 
I'm not looking...but I am open to possibilities.  It's amazing the different ways people interprete that one word, possibilities, all before they even get a response from me.

I wrote an entry in my journal about what I look for when I read profiles and what I like when I recieve emails....I've only had a few men respond to that entry or any of the others.  I put my effort into my journal...if people want to gleem something from those little blips about me and what rolls through my mind and then comment, it shows they took the time to look beyond the end of their own noses (or needs).

Like the quote by Salvador Dali in the entry I mentioned earlier says " The first man to compare the cheeks of a young woman to a rose was obviously a poet; the first to repeat it was possibly an idiot"  Some men choose to be poets and some choose to be idiots...one shows effort, the other doesn't.  Which would be more interesting and garner a greater response?



cloudboy -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 6:52:44 AM)


New women of all stripes: dominant, submissive and (less so) switch get a lot of attention when they join CM. Everything pretty much dies down after 60 days or so.

What you are reporting is very common.

Tricks women use to get less attention include setting their age at 99, "living" in a foreign country, or labeling themselves as a "switch." "Friends only" members often apply these to their profiles to avoid come-ons.



petmonkey -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 8:49:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

There is but one way to Handel a rude Dom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Abcgpn2UTV8

Anything else would be anti-climactic.

Ron


i was thinkin' along the same lines.  From now on, let it be known (if i reply at all) rude people are getting this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP4JSVMBdZg

ETA: Hm, too much?



mnottertail -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 8:58:37 AM)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q&feature=related

Give me Valkyries or give me Gotterdammerung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a53s4jyCqqU&feature=related

or give me head.



dreamerdreaming -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 9:03:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

quote:

ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious
Can we agree to disagree, then?

No.  We have to hold a "who can take the most spankings" contest.



Three conditions:

1) You're paying my air fair.
2) We're finding someone both
i) sufficiently hot, and
ii) sufficiently neutral and objective
to deliver said spankings.
3) No, that person cannot be Domiguy.



Oh darn. [8|]



petmonkey -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 9:34:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q&feature=related

Give me Valkyries or give me Gotterdammerung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a53s4jyCqqU&feature=related

or give me head.


Here, have some Head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SNl-7lPbHM



mnottertail -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/26/2010 10:57:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: petmonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGU1P6lBW6Q&feature=related

Give me Valkyries or give me Gotterdammerung

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a53s4jyCqqU&feature=related

or give me head.


Here, have some Head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SNl-7lPbHM



I was thinking this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnAvTTaJjM



petmonkey -> RE: Handeling Rude Doms (2/27/2010 8:55:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I was thinking this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNnAvTTaJjM


my monkey mind managed to wander this way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdB4SXOUEes&feature=related



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02