|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 10/25/07 18:02
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:17:38
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
>> dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
>> _carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean.
>
> Then why do you *pretend* to know nothing about this arrogant
> man's attitude and remarks to me? Now that I explain some things
> to you, you suddenly show some knowledge. Funny that? You never
> gave a bloody clue before. You asked as if all innocent why *I*
> am picking on *him*? Do you see anything of bad faith in this? Do
> you know what I am saying? How smart are you? Are you very smart?
> But pretending an innocence?
If I was smart I'd be rich. If I were rich I'd be on a tropical island
somewhere right now sipping margueritas, not on a newsgroup.
Your questions indicate that you seem to find rf offensive, or at least
the "tone" of his posts. Okay, so be it. But who is to referee this
falling-out between country-mates or even determine the relevant
"rightness" of one over the other? Certainly not me, the innocent
ingenue in matters of personal textual discord. In fact, the thought has
occured to me that perhaps a romantic attachment is sprouting and you
both are not-so-unplainly displaying your consternation in regard to the
ironic dilemma. In the past I've learned not to come between 2
lovebirds, feuding or otherwise. That just makes one a worm to both.
>> Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic
>> remarks about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except
>> that the Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of
>> way so don't let it upset you.
>>
>
> Why the hell do you think Officer Bud White has not actually done
> you in completely? Because I know you have just taken some wrong
> turns, got into a bit of bad company obviously, you have kow
> towed to some awful role models and like that but you will be
> most relieved to hear that you are not essentially bad.
I know I'm not bad. Sometimes I'm a badass, but that just makes me more
loveable in my goodass moods.
> Look I *am* in a very bad mood, it *is* true. I don't appreciate
> anyone *asterisking* his way in put-downs of or lecturing of me
> or making snide remarks about men another thread. It is really
> simple. If he was polite, he would get it back in the same
> coinage.
I understand and sympathize, but does your mood dictate the very nature
and character of your responses to the point where they could be
diametrically opposed to one another? If this is true, then you are
wrong. Such a tenet underlies my predilection for logical discourse,
too. -Logical, not perfect.
> I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
> from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
> Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
> Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
> Martian be left out of a line up like this?
Notice that all those people are dead. Remember, "The Meek Shall Inherit
the Earth". Of all religious dogmas, that is probably my favorite and
also probably most-true.
>> In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have
>> been a little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems
>> women want them all to be pansies
>
> This is just more pure crap in your mind. No woman on God's earth
> wants men to be pansies. Where you get these silly ideas I do not
> know. I lie! I do know, they make you feel better about yourself.
Well, "guys are guys" is (and was meant to be) crap, but I really believe
women wish to effeminate men except when they're horny. They want to
control them outside of the times they want them uncontrolled like
Amazons with Pygmy slaves or something. But I'll tell ya, babe, that
ain't gonna happen with me nor, I think, with most men. (However, the
attitude does not preclude a bit of pretense for personally productive
purposes, of course.)
> You schmuck!
Now there. I've validated your epithet most succinctly.
>>(except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
>> some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
>> them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
>> should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf
>> wasn't a trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to
>> expect that and handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a
>> needless fuss over basically nothing. Containment is something which
>> makes them desirable (-besides the usual equipment, of course.)
>>
>
> Look, this crap seems to me to be as offensive to any decent
> fellers as to any women. You are simply not getting it are you?
> You are ignorant about your own manly history, mate. Go and see
> some American westerns. You will see plenty of examples of good
> American male role models there. In fact, mostly, the male heroes
> are touchingly impressive in their respect for females. You are
> following the wrong models.
Movie star roles and role-models are hardly reality. Better to ask what
the _real_ star is like behind the curtain of fame, and from my
experience, most rich people are blatant pricks. Even the nice ones
often maintain an inner belief of superiority, so as role-models, they
actually suck.
If you are suggesting that the "character" in the films be the role-
model, that's almost as bad because they're static and trite and, since
they are unreal, totally unable to deal with real-life situations in the
act of occurence. It's like modelling yourself after a puppet.
> Boji, I have always had this faith in your improvement. Please do
> not disappoint me.
On my upper left arm I have a tattoo which says "Born to Disappoint". To
make matters worse, the one of my right arm says "See Left Arm".
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|