Little Things

[Fast Gunn]

Well, now that is the right attitude that should be intuitive.

. . . The hobby is supposed to be all about a fantasy, but too many artificial obstacles can ruin the fun time before it even begins!

Originally Posted by Camille Fox

I said it once and I'll say it again: for some, we have what's called the "pumpkin vagina". At the strike of midnight, it resets, don't you guys know? I am a virgin on my first appt of the day.


Wait. That really should be an upcharge.




All jokes aside, you are ALWAYS my first appointment, lover.



Camille

[MaxiMilyen]

This is still a "thing"?

Wow!

Carry on.....

LOL

[papadee]

Just to let you know.... for every request, there is an opposite & equal request.

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1136182

[Fast Gunn]

Yes, it is still a thing.

Learning all the little quirks that women have in "their pretty little heads" is a lifetime endeavor.

It is a quest.

. . . A long and arduous quest.

Originally Posted by MaxiMilyen

This is still a "thing"?

Wow!

Carry on.....

LOL

[Guest021817-2]

^^^ yep... F(a)G is on it...

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Yes, it is still a thing.

Learning all the little quirks that women have in "their pretty little heads" is a lifetime endeavor.

It is a quest.

. . . A long and arduous quest.

It is so interesting to read your posts sometimes.

I truly don't know if you are that arrogant or that stupid or that intentionally insulting. I think that should be the next poll someone puts up.

[JustCause]

Originally Posted by Old-T

It is so interesting to read your posts sometimes.

I truly don't know if you are that arrogant or that stupid or that intentionally insulting. I think that should be the next poll someone puts up.

OK, look, FG may be the Son of Sam for all I know but how the hell did you get arrogance out of that post"? And don't reference earlier posts please. My question is specifically directed at your criticism of his last post. Seems he didn't say one word that any man in the world hasn't said hundreds of times in a locker room somewhere.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[inspector farquar]

Everyone should have an advocate.

[JustCause]

Originally Posted by inspector farquar

Everyone should have an advocate.

No sir. Just an honest question. One for which, by the way, I only faintly expect a non-emotionally driven response. It seems to me that those most inclined to such thought as the latter seem furthest removed from logical abilities. In other words, they've become so enamored with being assholes that they'll jump on any horse and ride it regardless of the direction.

Maybe FG was being what Old-T said and maybe Old-T isn't what I said. If so, he won't mind defending himself logically. Can he, I will gladly retreat with apology.

So I ask again. Mr. Old-T, would you explain what there was about Gun's post that was 'arrogant, stupid, or insulting?'

[LovethaCougar]

Holy Shit, I'm Falling In Love With You Ladies!!!! Y'all are Supersonic Cool!!

[inspector farquar]

Originally Posted by LovethaCougar

Holy Shit, I'm Falling In Love With You Ladies!!!! Y'all are Supersonic Cool!!

Advocate needed.

[Old-T]

It seems you are changing your question a bit.

First you focus on:

Originally Posted by JustCause

OK, look, FG may be the Son of Sam for all I know but how the hell did you get arrogance out of that post"? And don't reference earlier posts please. My question is specifically directed at your criticism of his last post. Seems he didn't say one word that any man in the world hasn't said hundreds of times in a locker room somewhere.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Then you broaden the question: “

Originally Posted by JustCause

No sir. Just an honest question. One for which, by the way, I only faintly expect a non-emotionally driven response. It seems to me that those most inclined to such thought as the latter seem furthest removed from logical abilities. In other words, they've become so enamored with being assholes that they'll jump on any horse and ride it regardless of the direction.

Maybe FG was being what Old-T said and maybe Old-T isn't what I said. If so, he won't mind defending himself logically. Can he, I will gladly retreat with apology.

So I ask again. Mr. Old-T, would you explain what there was about Gun's post that was 'arrogant, stupid, or insulting?'

So while I should really be off to work already I will sip another cup of coffee and reply to your posts. I will address several of your points.

1. You may choose to see this board, and this thread, as a disconnected collection of individual comments. That is your right of course. Personally, I do not view it the same way. I tend to look for patterns in a person’s thoughts and replies. I do it with them in general—especially when it is someone like FG who unfortunately brings up very similar misogynist views in post after post. I certainly do it within the context of a single thread. In this thread, for example, FG has almost 50 posts, and putting them together like a jig-saw puzzle you see a much clearer picture than looking at one piece at a time. So I reject your position that I am only allowed to comment on the most recent FG post in a thread—I comment on the whole tableau of what he has expressed. I am not in any way saying that you need do the same. If you see better value focusing post by post, please do so. Just don’t tell me I am wrong for the way I see things and choose to comment. Therefore my “arrogant, stupid, insulting” comment is indeed about FG’s collection of words on this thread. I will not try to explain my comment only in light of post #379.

2. I find it very odd that you expect a “non-emotional” reply to a completely emotional thread topic. Remember where this started: “the amount of venom certain ladies have toward any customer who even dares to request her first appointment of the day.” When someone starts a conversation by saying that a group of people are venomous, and they are such because he doesn’t think they are being reasonable—well, the whole concept of a non-emotional conversation was blown to hell by the original construct of the statement. But if you mean you expect a non-hostile reply from me, why that is reasonable. I do not recall having been hostile to you on here. I actually have agreed with a number of your posts in other threads. I wasn’t even “hostile” to FG. Condescending and ridiculing, yes, but trust me, that was FAR from my hostile mode. I reserve hostility for much more serious topics—or for some of the psychopaths on the Political forum. I don’t really view FG as dangerous to anyone but himself, so I do not expend the emotional cost of being “hostile” towards him. Or you. Or most anyone on this forum (though I admit there have been a few isolated exceptions in the past). I am actually smiling as I write this, so if you read it as hostile I am telling you you are misinterpreting. “Hostile” is not the same as “emotional”. Emotions include humor, lust, concern, friendship, and even the locker room banter and jabbing as you yourself refer to in a positive way in post # 382. So no, my comment is unlikely to be “non-emotional”, though it will not be hostile towards you.

3. I had to address these two items first, because I am a gestalt kind of personality—always looking for the pattern and not so much the individual instantiations. But now more directly to your point. In essence, arrogant, stupid, and insulting are three of the possible underlying intentions behind FG’s comments. He is essentially saying—over and over—that women are foolish, stupid, delusional, etc. if they take offense to “little things”, and he specifically says a guy asking for the first appointment of the day is a “little thing”. In other words, he is setting himself up as the adjudicator of what a lady should or should not consider “little”. Personally I may disagree with someone else’s priorities (“little” vs “not-little”) but I recognize that they are the keeper of their own opinions. FG clearly does not—he thinks HE is the keeper of right-thought in a highly personal subject matter. And after having multiple people explain to him that no, they do not assign over to him the right to their opinions, he continues to ridicule them with his “Learning all the little quirks that women have in "their pretty little heads" and his “artificial obstacles” kinds of comments. He is STILL arguing that if someone disagrees with his value judgment, then they are wrong.

One can make megalomaniac comments like that because they are arrogant (i.e. they truly believe they are a superior moral and intellectual being), or because they are stupid (i.e. they truly can’t even comprehend that different people see preference and emotional issues differently), or because they are insulting (i.e. they understand the issue, they know their position is wrong, but they consciously use it as a tool to belittle). Probably several other potential causes as well. But since I can only go on the comments he posted, and all three of those states (arrogant, stupid, and insulting) could result in the same typed comment, I asked which it was in this case.

As to your point about “he didn't say one word that any man in the world hasn't said hundreds of times in a locker room somewhere”, I truly don’t see the relevance.

But let me ask a question of you: do you agree with FG’s perspective, that men in general—or he specifically—does have sufficient enlightenment that he should be judge of what a lady does or does not find insulting?

[MaxiMilyen]

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Yes, it is still a thing.

Learning all the little quirks that women have in "their pretty little heads" is a lifetime endeavor.

It is a quest.

. . . A long and arduous quest.

You've used the word learn, yet you use phrases that indicate you do not. Not to be mean, but I'm curious, so I'm going to ask......Has learning or even simply using common sense, ever seemed to be an issue for you?

[inspector farquar]

Nicely said, Old-T. Should I need an advocate I may send you a post.

[JustCause]

Originally Posted by Old-T

But let me ask a question of you: do you agree with FG’s perspective, that men in general—or he specifically—does have sufficient enlightenment that he should be judge of what a lady does or does not find insulting?

I do not. And thank you for your explanation. In sum, your remarks were made on the macro of his board persona meaning that the individual post may or may not stand on its own merits or lack thereof. My question was on the micro intent of the post. I clearly see your perspective and I am grateful for the time you took to make it.