|
sissymaidlola -> RE: Welcome to CollarMe (2/28/2005 8:40:18 AM)
|
[:o]Hi Mistress M,
Thanks for Your response, Ma'am. sissy Apologizes for the delay in responding to it but for some reason the feature of CollarMe that is meant to notify one of a new post against one of your own isn't working for sissy on this thread. In fact, sissy has the inverse problem on another thread where he receives notifications of posts that have absolutely nothing to do with his own. Does anyone else have either of these problems ? sissy Has a similar problem with his PM email notification, too, but that is much less of an inconvenience unless one is away from one's PC for any length of time. Anyway, sissy doesn't want to beat a dead (or possibly only dying) horse here, but there were a couple of points in Your response, Ma'am, that sissy feels he needs to respond to in order to set the record straight.
quote:
Yes you did put a smily face at the beginning of your post, but that could have been a pychotic"you bitches deserve what you get smile", not a isn't this evil/mysogynistic rant funny... I'm not suggesting I believe that about you, I'm just showing you the other side of the coin (or maybe it's me).
Point taken, Ma'am. The emoticons can be used ironically just like words. However, we are getting into the realms of some serious "plausible miscomprehension" again here. There were a lot more clues to the reader to the humor in sissy's post than simply the use of the laughing emoticon up front. sissy Only happened to mention the laughing emoticon in his lead in to that other post because it was a pretty clear and universal indicator of intent. He could also have anally listed all the other clues to humor, too, but one was enough to make his point. Granted, the emoticon could not have registered in the reader's mind, or it could have been dismissed as being "psychotic" (to use Your own terminology) or whatever. So, yes, You have given a couple of valid possible (rather than probable) reasons for how the emoticon could be interpreted otherwise than it should have been, Ma'am.
But even granted such a misinterpretation, that still leaves all the other clues to humor embedded throughout the post. And, yes any single one of those, by itself, could also have been open to misinterpretation, too. But for someone to say they read the whole piece and thought it was serious, that really defies statistical credibility. Anybody, can accidentally run a red light ... that's not necessarily drunk or reckless driving. But running a dozen red lights ? As a defense lawyer, You could argue that the same accidental oversight happened at each individual stop light (which is effectively what You are doing here, Ma'am) and that the jury should only give the defendant points on his license. But You know what, Ma'am, no reasonable jury will buy that argument and they will agree with the prosecution that the driver that ran twelve red lights in succession was as drunk as a skunk. sissy Does not want to deconstruct this issue any further, Ma'am. Interpretations of emoticons notwithstanding, any claim by Lady Angelika that She thought sissy's initial post was serious is totally disingenuous and You well know it, Ma'am. BTW, since that post was so full of "vicious, unfounded attacks" and "baseless accusations" against Her, and generally causing so much grief here, sissy pulled it last night. So that should be the end the matter.
quote:
I accepted it as meant satirically after your post stating it was... The little smily face I forgot about as soon as I began reading the post; plus remember plenty of people smile before they do something insane, right?
No, not true, Ma'am. A few statistically insignificant number of people (psychotics) might smile before doing something insane, NOT plenty. You are stretching credibility again, Ma'am.
quote:
You were responding to her post in a way that screams "we hate women like you", you sissify us, than want a strong man to come out is the message understood IF the POST wasn't understood as satirical (which it was not).
You've stymied sissy with the parenthetical double negatives there, Ma'am <giggles>, so sissy may not be interpreting what You are saying correctly. But the bottom line is that the premise that the Feminist movement emasculated men so much that we've all been turned into mincing sissies is just too absurd or funny to be true. THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF THE HUMOR OF THE PIECE. Dropping sissy maid lola's voice for a moment here. "sissy maid lola" is my alter ego, as it were, there is also a very healthy alpha male side to me. So clearly, even this little sissy hasn't been totally emasculated by the Feminists. Let's get real here.
quote:
Now that was needlessly mean and condescending to other people on the board, and though you are smart, being unnecessarily evil is uncalled for, and won't get you respect. You've called people morons/minions why? You're the smartest person at collarme? NO One has monopoly on knowledge, do they?...
"Unnecessarily evil" ???? Really, Ma'am ? Adolf Hitler and (debatably) Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are "evil" ? Do you really think sissy is up there with all of those characters, Ma'am ? Maybe sissy isn't wearing enough petticoats if his evil alpha male side is still coming through that strongly, Ma'am ? Clearly, sissy needs to work on that flaw in his character. Maybe if he halved his genocide rate this month and promises not to use the "N word" more than twice an hour ...
But seriously, that point deserves a longer, less sarcastic response. But sissy said at the outset that he wanted to respond to only a couple of points, and this is a fourth point for this post. So he'll forego that pleasure for now, but sissy reserves the right to revisit it at a later time.
Respectfrilly Yours,
sissy maid lola
[image]local://upfiles/21203/7550AAD373274EA8911F0BC3852D002C.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
