RE: A Guide to Fakes:

RE: A Guide to Fakes: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Back2theFuture -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:12:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 No, I did not misunderstand your post. You have actually just made it worse by implying that an interest in intellectual discourse and astrology cannot co-exist. Who are you to deem an interest "silly"? It is people like you that demonstrate how narrow a view most people have about intellect. I can tell you that to me, intellectual compatibility means I can communicate on many topics, serious or not, with many people in a clearly articulated manner. I find well rounded people with eclectic interests to be intriguing. If you think that being into intellectual discourse and being able to discuss philosophy one moment and then celebrity gossip the next means you are a fake, you have some serious issues. What you call fake, I call desirable. He seems to be operating on the assumption that Intellectuals do not believe in Religion. Which in many cases are true, but that doesn't mean that they can't show interest in the "mythos" of that subject or that they CHOOSE to follow a certian religion of their own free will.

GreedyTop -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:13:47 AM)
thinks I am adoring B2 quite a bunch

Back2theFuture -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:16:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GreedyTop thinks I am adoring B2 quite a bunch Careful I have weaponized adorable.....and I am more than willing to use it for terrorism.

PatrickG38 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:16:45 AM)
I do love the hating; it is absolutely fascinating. More concerning, it seems a good number of people are unaware that astrology is a pseudoscience incompatible with intellectual discourse. Sadly, I suspect there are numerous people on here who think creationism is also compatible with intellectual discourse. This was great fun. By the way IrishLass, who is hanging out with supermodels who are on collarme (that was really funny), I would say any man who demands pornographic photos thirty seconds after communicating is not serious about finding a woman in this lifestyle, but is looking for a cheap thrill. Alas snarkiness is a poor substitute for seriousness.

PatrickG38 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:19:34 AM)
He seems to be operating on the assumption that Intellectuals do not believe in Religion. Which in many cases are true, but that doesn't mean that they can't show interest in the "mythos" of that subject or that they CHOOSE to follow a certian religion of their own free will. [/quote] You could be correct, but someone who 'lives for' astrology almost certianly does not mean that the person enjoys studying it in a detached way.

crazyml -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:20:46 AM)
Oh fuck me GT, let that snarkmonster run free! Oh... and do you have a spare fuse for an ACME A1 Jackass Detector?

fallon0627 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:20:55 AM)
Sunshinemiss wrote she didn't think newbie's read the boards. Well I do and and once in a while I read something helpful, but mostly there just funny as hell. Like the fake list.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:21:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 No, I did not misunderstand your post. You have actually just made it worse by implying that an interest in intellectual discourse and astrology cannot co-exist. Who are you to deem an interest "silly"? It is people like you that demonstrate how narrow a view most people have about intellect. I can tell you that to me, intellectual compatibility means I can communicate on many topics, serious or not, with many people in a clearly articulated manner. I find well rounded people with eclectic interests to be intriguing. If you think that being into intellectual discourse and being able to discuss philosophy one moment and then celebrity gossip the next means you are a fake, you have some serious issues. What you call fake, I call desirable. i want to roll around in sexyred's brain someone with that "either, or, neither, nor" approach would be too one-dimensional for me. i love talking about high-falutin' brainy topics, but if i also can't just have a run-of-the-mill conversation with someone, then what's the point? i guess i can possibly see how the OP was shooting for humor, but it just isn't.

crazyml -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:23:27 AM)
Blimey, I'm only on page one and I'm already getting the impression that he's a bit of a community.

crazyml -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:25:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 LOL. I loved this and yes, there is a lot of truth to it. That being said I do think women who are genuine about the lifestyle and truly seeking something are a more careful about such things and how there presen themselves, but it is of course only a guide. Neverthless, as a fellow teacher, I hear you. You're definitely a dude, given your grammar and spelling in the above.

PatrickG38 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:28:23 AM)
Yes, I fully confess a few errors when speed typing and responding to a dozen or more individuals. Hey, no one is perfect.

Back2theFuture -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:30:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 astrology is a pseudoscience incompatible with intellectual discourse. Sadly, I suspect there are numerous people on here who think creationism is also compatible with intellectual discourse. This here shows you are a pseudo-intellectual(meaning not a real intellectual) You deal in absolutes which real intellectuals do not because they know that all arguments and aspects have their right to be stated and defended, not blindly denied. I would suggest you look up Richard Dawkins but I know you have some lopsided idea about him as some mindless anti religion Professor. I have actually met him(in college) and he does exactly what you claim is impossible. He examines and explores them with intellectual discourse because they and the people that study them fascinate him. What you are trying to do is exactly what Irish said. You are trying to impress your Betters but pretending to be intelligent. Alas I for one know my IQ far out shines yours and would bet a great deal of money that at least two or three others here also can make that same claim.

RedMagic1 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:30:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fallon0627 Sunshinemiss wrote she didn't think newbie's read the boards. Well I do and and once in a while I read something funny, but mostly there just funny as hell. Like the fake list. Welcome to CollarMe. [:)]

GreedyTop -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:31:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 He seems to be operating on the assumption that Intellectuals do not believe in Religion. Which in many cases are true, but that doesn't mean that they can't show interest in the "mythos" of that subject or that they CHOOSE to follow a certian religion of their own free will. You could be correct, but someone who 'lives for' astrology almost certianly does not mean that the person enjoys studying it in a detached way. yanno what? Take your pseudo-intellectualism snobbishness, and go peddle it to the fakes or whatever. I have known MANY ultra-smart/intellectual (not always the same thing) folks who have expanded their braininess by the simple credo of: " “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy”

Back2theFuture -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:31:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep i want to roll around in sexyred's brain Yeah that is totally not creepy....

sexyred1 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:32:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 No, I did not misunderstand your post. You have actually just made it worse by implying that an interest in intellectual discourse and astrology cannot co-exist. Who are you to deem an interest "silly"? It is people like you that demonstrate how narrow a view most people have about intellect. I can tell you that to me, intellectual compatibility means I can communicate on many topics, serious or not, with many people in a clearly articulated manner. I find well rounded people with eclectic interests to be intriguing. If you think that being into intellectual discourse and being able to discuss philosophy one moment and then celebrity gossip the next means you are a fake, you have some serious issues. What you call fake, I call desirable. i want to roll around in sexyred's brain someone with that "either, or, neither, nor" approach would be too one-dimensional for me. i love talking about high-falutin' brainy topics, but if i also can't just have a run-of-the-mill conversation with someone, then what's the point? i guess i can possibly see how the OP was shooting for humor, but it just isn't. You can roll around with me anytime. :) Seriously, if he was aiming for humor it would be different, but clearly the subsequent posts declaring that astrology was a pseudo science, etc. just continues to show the narrow view of intellect. I have often found that people who make claims like this are trying to hard to be seen as smart. For the record, I am an Aquarius with a major Scorpio rising sign. Which goes with my IQ. I am stylish like that.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:32:48 AM)
Well, I hate to get caught in the line of fire, but why has this thread taken such a personal turn? Just because someone posts something that ”you already know" does not mean that it should be construed as a personal attack. He is entitled to his opinion, although some of his later posts indicate that he is trying to be provocative. And it is working.

GreedyTop -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:32:54 AM)
thats it.. I now absolutely ADORE B2~~~~~~~~~~~

Back2theFuture -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:33:34 AM)
Delete

sexyred1 -> RE: A Guide to Fakes: (6/17/2011 8:33:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Back2theFuture quote: ORIGINAL: LillyBoPeep i want to roll around in sexyred's brain Yeah that is totally not creepy.... I like it. I adore flavorful language...and Lilly.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875