RE: Profile in Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

LadyPact -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 1:23:13 AM)

With all of the patience that I can muster, OP, while this side discussion of commas, definitions and whatnot, I would like to address your original.

Seriously, if this gal wanted to contact you, she would have.

In my personal opinion (and I have more than a few on the subject) in creating this post, you have crossed the line between being "stalker-like" and an actual stalker. If you are soliciting information from third parties because this screen name disappeared from the radar, you are already kind of f"cking up.

I wish you a wonderful day.



MariaB -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 3:43:25 AM)

@crumpets
@Anyways. This post was not meant to be a battle ground.

'Anyways' in this particular case, implies that your little speech was irrelevant and I'm fairly certain this is why you jumped in and pointed out his grammatical error. It was a deliberate connotation with a sting in its tail.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 9:40:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
comma-infested style

I burst out laughing when I read that comment about a 'comma-infested' style!
I love conversing with intelligent people!

Your observations are different than those of the rest.
The rest wouldn't even notice something as base as the comma, let alone the difference between autocratic and aristocratic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Autocratic, not aristocratic. [:D]


On this one, you're too far above me for me to get the joke.

An aristocracy is one where power is held in the hands of the upper class.
An autocratic rule, on the other hand, is where the power is held by extremely few people, often as few as a single dictator.

Given that my "P" personality wiring implies I'm a person who allows anyone else to do or say whatever they want, the last thing you can accuse me of is autocratic statements. You can certainly safely accuse me of aristocratic elements; however, I was really only pointing out sheer ignorance on the part of the users of the highly deprecated word "anyways".

It's not just a word. It's ignorance.
Luckily, ignorance can be cured.
Stupidity can't.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 9:48:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2
He doesn't care what you say about him as long as you're talking about him [sm=hyper.gif]


Actually, you are close, but, off by only a few miles.
I don't care what you say, as long as it is intelligent discourse.

You'll note that I drop off threads when the conversation drifts into endless ignorance and bigotry, which, it turns out, almost all threads devolve into.

For example, start ANY thread that includes the words "femdom" and "money" and it will devolve into the same findomme thread that we've seen thousands of. I don't partake (anymore) in those threads, simply because there are no new ideas. In general, the ranters are the guys who pay the dommes who supply the service (or not).

Likewise, start any thread on "femdom" and "male perspective" and it will again devolve in a predictable manner, this time into a rant by the dommes against the malesubs who just want wanking material, and who are unrealistic do-me subs, etc. These threads, I no longer participate in either.

I only provide my perspective, after understanding everyone else's perspective. Often "my" perspective is different. I see things others don't see. I mention them.

When I mention things that others don't see, I don't expect them to agree. I never try to turn anyone. It's not gonna happen anyway. I simply explain my point of view, and I counter theirs, if necessary.

In general, the ones who post back are of two types. The vast majority are members of the uneducated rabble, who, if they were the only ones who wrote back, would debase the thread to the point of uselessness.

However, there are a few intelligent posters - from whom I can learn a lot.
So, I remain, in the hopes of edification.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 9:51:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
adopt some affectation of speech

Since when is correct diction an "affectation"?



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 9:56:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact
if this gal wanted to contact you, she would have.


The net, to the OP, is that the OP should let sleeping dogs lie where they lay.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 9:58:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB
you jumped in and pointed out his grammatical error. It was a deliberate connotation with a sting in its tail.


The OP is a budding narcissist who is not only illiterate but he then crafted a profile that doesn't fit the implied mold in the least, and, afterward, he narcissistically exhibits entirely nonsensical behavior which presumes the person he is stalking actually cares one whit about him (or his profile), when, clearly, she cares not.



dcnovice -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 10:05:52 PM)

quote:

Did you even read the reference you provided?

Yes.


quote:

If you had read it, you might have noticed the very first word, indicating it's considered an "archaic" form of "anywise".
Worse yet, the second definition starts with "chiefly dialect", which should give you a hint about the use of the word.

I saw all that, none of which contradicts my point that the word anyways dates back to the 13th century.


quote:

Since you apparently missed both hints, I'll explain the situation to you:
It means only illiterate people use the word, unless they're actually smart but want to appear ignorant.

You're shifting goalposts now. The question I addressed wasn't whether anyways was the best choice of word or one I'd pick myself as a professional wordsmith. It was whether anyways is a word. You said flatly that it wasn't; you were wrong.


quote:

Either way, we are what we write.

Very true, and this delightful little chat has been most illuminating.

'Nuff said.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/9/2015 11:11:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
none of which contradicts my point that the word anyways dates back to the 13th century.

The "N" word goes back a long way also; does that mean it's proper (Am) English just because it's old?

Probably more appropriately, the word "ain't" probably goes back a long time; does that make it proper (Am) English?
My point is that the age of the word has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it's not longer accepted as proper (Am) English.
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
It was whether anyways is a word. You said flatly that it wasn't; you were wrong.

Ooooooh. OK. I get your argument. <long dormant synapses fire, one last time...>
Ain't is a word. Yous is a word (as in "yous guys"). Irregardless is a word. Supposably is a word. Conversate is a word.
Heck, I'm sure we can find instances of "expresso" used as a word. Or misunderestimate. Or whole nother. Or alright.
Maybe even Ginormous will officially become standard (Am) English, over time.
Or alot. Or definately.
If we talk to enough people, we'll hear administrate, and commentate, and orientate or participator, or, my all time favorite, undoubtably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice
'Nuff said.

You sure know how to win an argument.



Kirata -> RE: Profile in Question (9/10/2015 3:34:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

adopt some affectation of speech

Since when is correct diction an "affectation"?

Since when it's not really "correct diction," obviously. Was that, supposed, to be, a hard one?

K.



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/11/2015 10:03:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Since when it's not really "correct diction," obviously. Was that, supposed, to be, a hard one?


You lost me on that one.

If I may presume, you're holding me to a strict definition of "diction", which, I guess, is fair enough given the circumstances.

DICTION:
a. obsolete : verbal description
b. choice of words especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness
c. vocal expression : enunciation
quote:


Examples of DICTION

The actor's diction was so poor I could hardly understand what he was saying.
The student's essay was full of careless diction.
He has wisely chosen to render almost all the material in what novelists and writers of creative nonfiction like to call “close third person,” approximating the diction and consciousness of his characters but retaining the freedom to wander into the bigger picture. —Thomas Mallon, New York Times Book Review, 22 Feb. 2009



Kirata -> RE: Profile in Question (9/12/2015 1:20:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Since when it's not really "correct diction," obviously. Was that, supposed, to be, a hard one?

You lost me on that one.

There are different accepted styles and practices for different categories of writing. This is a message board not a stage, and you are not composing a theatrical skit. Inserting ersatz commas into your posts as "stage directions" cueing a pause is just an affectation that you happen to fancy. I'm happy for you if you like it, but defending it as "correct" is a dog that won't hunt.

K.




crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/12/2015 7:39:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
defending it as "correct" is a dog that won't hunt.

:)

I love when a post makes me smile, but the better ones elicit a pleasing chortle.

Following your advice, I'll follow mine, which is to let sleeping non-hunting dogs lie where they last lay.



ResidentSadist -> RE: Profile in Question (9/12/2015 10:25:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crumpets


quote:

ORIGINAL: IcarusBurning
i am supremely mad at her. but she wants to explain herself quite badly, and i think its only fair that i at least hear her out. if nothing, it will allow me to achieve closure.

I doubt it's apropos to name profiles in the forums, but the mods will make that determination.
Otherwise, my advice to you is that no reply is a reply (which I just read in another thread and which I agree with).
I also think you're a bit too full of yourself - but - that's just my take on the way you wrote your "question" as I didn't even bother to look at your profile to see if that indeed is the case.

I bet you they don't because there are no mods at all now.



Spiritedsub2 -> RE: Profile in Question (9/12/2015 11:25:51 AM)

edit double post



crumpets -> RE: Profile in Question (9/12/2015 9:06:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist
there are no mods at all now.


Is that something new?
I was wondering why I wasn't censured for noting how insecure the web site was.
Is there something going on with the mods?



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0546875