okay so maybe i am a little bit immoral and selfish but...

Dammit, isn't something supposed to happen after you call people on their euro-ness?

I must've done it wrong, I'd better ask cjhsa how you call people on things right...it involves firearms, I think...

0 Replies

That's because you haven't read her history of threads. Legitimate take.

We need a puritanical voice, pull up a chair.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Also, I am glad to see nimh giving sozobe credit for being a "voice of reason".

Of course. Soz is my hero. She is like my more articulate, sensible, patient alter ego. ;-)

0 Replies

Oh, now see, I spoke too soon, he did answer me.

Nimh, consider yourself officially CALLED OUT!! Razz

0 Replies

Well, then, some of us start to make pasta..

0 Replies

cyphercat wrote:

Dammit, isn't something supposed to happen after you call people on their euro-ness?

I must've done it wrong, I'd better ask cjhsa how you call people on things right...it involves firearms, I think...

(And thanks for kind words, guys...)

Osso, I'd love some pasta or lobster bisque, whichever you've got.

Curious about what Tagged's reaction is going to be when she gets back to this...! Shocked

0 Replies

Here's a guess ... she's (assuming that is accurate) on to bigger and better things. ADD is rampant, 'ya know.

0 Replies

oh, she'll be back i'm sure. comes and goes. i'll be reading along with the rest of the readers-along ;-)

0 Replies

while we are here: pls explain euro-gentrification to me. I know what gentrification menas..just not here.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

What nonsense. You are reading way too much into this. People start threads for any random chat.

And your interpretation is better because...?

nimh wrote:

Theres no rule like, you can only post diary-type posts in the diary thread or anything. The whole forum is like a blog to anyone. Everyone posts with different intentions.

Indeed they do, but then they also have the option of not posting, or posting in such a manner that discourages comment. That they might post a topic that will inevitably draw comment in a manner that invites comment is, at least on its face, an indication that they intended to get people to comment. My speculation about tagged's motive is no less valid than your speculation about her lack of motive -- and, I dare say, a good deal more plausible. Furthermore, even blogs often have a comment feature, so saying tagged's post is the equivalent to a blog entry means very little.

nimh wrote:

Cant blame people for responding from X different angles then, too, but analysing what the poster must have been after (yes i know J_B, he didnt literally say "must") is... well, you'd easily get it wrong, specially if you never saw the person before. Let me put it that way.

And your intimate acquaintance with the poster gives you a privileged insight into her motivations? "What nonsense" indeed.

0 Replies

By the way, my hypothetical suggestion of mania in Tagged's sexual "enthusiasm" could also apply to a man exhibiting the same behavior. I would probably be wrong in both cases--not enough evidence for so strong an insinuation. But I am surprised to be let off the sexist hook so easily. Shocked

Pasta? Now we're getting sexy.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

nimh wrote:
What nonsense. You are reading way too much into this. People start threads for any random chat.

And your interpretation is better because...?

Sorry, but I wasnt the one coming in to post my interpretation of what the poster probably was all about. That was you. In response, I said she might just be talking. She might be whatever. Everyone posts with different intentions, is actually what you quoted me saying just now.

joefromchicago wrote:

And your intimate acquaintance with the poster gives you a privileged insight into her motivations? "What nonsense" indeed.

Oh get off it. Intimate acquaintance my a** - you're just making things up now. I never said anything of the sort.

If youve been reading along with someones posts for a while, you have a slightly better 'feel' for whats going on in his/her latest than if it is the very first thread you ever see of the person in question - thats hardly a bold assertion. It's a "duh" statement - or it should be.

If you take offense at even that, well - I mean - whatever. The force of vanity, I suppose. But it's silly.

0 Replies

J_B wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Oh, and I'm on this forum because J_B lured me here. That's right, I got lured!

And I hope you stick around!

May I second that?!

I think you've seen the situation exactly for what it is. Please stick around. We could use a few more voices like yours.

0 Replies

I can't believe you people are still talking about this.

0 Replies

The thread title kinda says it all.

Sometimes I miss the 1970's. Mostly I don't.

0 Replies

I hear ya, ehBeth. And you're right, the thread title is quite revealing.

And nimh, yes, people do start threads for all sorts of reasons. But since you've never been a 21 year old woman, I can tell you this. When I went around talking about my sexual exploits when I was tagged's age, I did it to brag and/or to get at least superficial approval for behavior I knew quite well was not exactly noble. I don't think I was atypical....and I don't particularly think tagged is, either.

The wisdom each of us has is limited by his/her own experience, and this is mine: tagged is going through a sexually hungry phase and needs to get it out of her system. Nothing wrong with that. I just wish she would find a way to do that that doesn't involve married men. Wives and families could be, and frequently are, irreparably damaged in the process. When someone is part of a couple, you're fu*kng with the couple.

So, tagged, to use the words of your thread title...I agree. You are being immoral and selfish. So?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Tagged baby I'm late to the thread but I say go for it girl and don't worry!!!

Years from now when your tits and ass are sagging to the floor and you cooch is all stretchy and your face all jowly and even your husband can't get off without fantasizing he's with someone else you'll have your memories. God Bless and have fun while you can.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((BEAR HUG)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

ouch, that hurts my sides. There's the first official WAY TO GO CHAMP!
..umm, kinda.

Usually, I do find Soz to be a voice of reason, but on this rare occasion I don't. I see it as somewhat of an apologistic (is that the word?) stance.
Balancing out us others - which is a good thing, too, though.

Soz, would you react that way if it was your daughter was saying that to you down the line? Just saying...

"mom, I totally nailed this married guy with a kid and I likes it. I'm gonna do it bc I likes it"
(oh well, she's young, she's living her life the way she wants to....)

?

Laughing

Y'know, has Tagged spoken much about her girlfriends here? That's the thing that popped into my mind - concequences of associates and how friendships can be rocked with stuff like this. "can't trust her around my bf" "what is she thinking?" or conversely "man, that is so cool. hahahahaha".

This isn't even about Tagged anymore, and who cares if she returns really, probably just a sound-bite in her life, ....it's just interesting to think about this stuff and see various reactions.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Sorry, but I wasnt the one coming in to post my interpretation of what the poster probably was all about.

Well, you weren't the first, I'll grant you that.

nimh wrote:

That was you. In response, I said she might just be talking. She might be whatever. Everyone posts with different intentions, is actually what you quoted me saying just now.

No, you said that I'm "reading way too much into this." You just haven't convinced me that you're right.

nimh wrote:

Oh get off it. Intimate acquaintance my a** - you're just making things up now. I never said anything of the sort.

What we have here is a failure to communicate: sarchasm.

nimh wrote:

If youve been reading along with someones posts for a while, you have a slightly better 'feel' for whats going on in his/her latest than if it is the very first thread you ever see of the person in question - thats hardly a bold assertion. It's a "duh" statement - or it should be.

Or, conversely, a disinterested observer may have a much more objective view. I remain unconvinced that your perspective is a privileged one.

nimh wrote:

If you take offense at even that, well - I mean - whatever. The force of vanity, I suppose. But it's silly.

I assure you I am not offended -- not in the least. You're a fine fellow, nimh, and I almost always agree with you on the politics threads. But in this instance I think you're wrong. Not bad or offensive, just wrong.

0 Replies

Well if the author of the thread thought about coming back here I'd be shocked...LOL.

Look what we've done to this sandbox!
Laughing

0 Replies

Yeah, the sandpies are not sensational!

http://perso.orange.fr/gismonda/images/sandpie.jpg

0 Replies

okay so maybe i am a little bit immoral and selfish but...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know