Women (and men) who Run with Wolves

Lack of common scense probably.

Actually you are much more a FRED. Kinda "Look at me I am so bright" but still Fred Glum.
Pep is like a toothpaste - shinky sparkle glitter waterlistic. Definitely NOT you, Fred.

So then you are being deliberately obtuse then. Not suprising.

Sorry - That was cruel of me. I apoligise.
Sorry people - I was a bit miffed. My apoligies.
I go offline and get my breath back.
Taht's teh trouble with sl - its gets rl sometimes.
Once more I apologise to forum and teh moderators.
Jig Chippewa.

If that was your goal, your means are completely wrong. As it is, you're just full of shit.

And you wonder why I suffer such ennui at your posts?

Pep (Why don't you read some of Lil's back catalogue of posts; her insults are much more entertaining than yours and it might give you some ideas)

Ah! Is *that* what you mean when you talk about "inputs"? A concise, well reasoned and succinctly presented summary of your intellectual arguments to date.

Pep (My son is even more succinct when he has run out of arguments; he just calls me "Poohead"!)

We have found the problem - inputs w/out outputs.

See what I mean, Jig. I really LOLd at that.

Pep (For the avoidance of doubt, Lil is not, and never has been, Pep's alt)

OMG - what a really really horrid nightmarish thought. I actually shuddered at that.

By full of shit, I mean that your goal is not to improve the forum posting quality at all. You are not trying to, through a method only you think is intelligent, "encourage others to present their comments in a more useful manner." In fact, you are a bully and a troll. You have found a nice little sandbox in which to play - at the expense of others. Nothing more. Certainly nothing altruistic.

If you really wanted to improve the post quality of this forum, your first step would be to remove yourself and never return.

And with that, I'm done. You aren't worth risking getting suspended over. But if you ever see me reply, 'FOYT", that stands for something-or-other "-off you troll."

You must be proud that he has surpassed you already.

What is particularly amazing is that someone who's done "postdoctoral work" in IT at *the* Cambridge University in the UK has this kind of time to spend trolling forums.

1) Was the postdoctoral work related to seeing how people react to being trolled in online communities?
2) Does *the* Cambridge University give degrees for that kind of research?
3) Was it another case of "don't believe anything you hear on the intarwebs"?

No matter which way you slice it, it's tragic.

OK, you have obviously run out of argument, senseless or otherwise, and have made up your mind about me irrespective of any intelligent analysis, presumably because of your original over-emotional reaction to my entirely reasonable lack of desire to have anything to do with anyone inworld involved in dom/sub relationships, which of course is my prerogative.

Pep (Say hello to Lexxi for me; it must annoy you considerably that she finds me amusing)

Not at all. She's quite capable of making up her own mind about people. She doesn't want, nor need, me to do it for her.

Oh, and nice rationalization on your part. If you think anything I've said in this thread is related to your particular predjudice, you are very much mistaken.

Though I am amused that you would bring Lexxi into it. She, being a sub, is exactly the person whom you claim you can't trust in the slightest, and want nothing to do with.

As I keep pointing out, I don't "troll" by the universally accepted (outside the understanding of less informed denizens of these forums it appears) definition, if you would care to check. My posts may be annoying to those who are unable to express themselves effectively, but I do not instigate, merely respond. The title of this forum is "Resident Answers"; I am a Resident and I offer Answers.

And you yourself are demonstrating yet again the inability of quite a few participants here to actually read accurately, as I have never claimed to carry out post-doctoral work, despite your attempt to reinforce your delusion by the use of inverted commas. You have also redundantly referred to *the* Cambridge University as being in the UK.

As far as your judgment is concerned, perhaps you could explain how unintelligent you think people should be to spend time in the forums?

Pep (Although your questions don't seem relevant to anything particularly, the answers are no, no and no.)

Of course not . . .

Paradoxical, isn't it? Perhaps she finds in me the humour that is obviously missing from her relationship with you?

Pep (I thought you were done two posts back, by the way; don't let me keep you)

I didn't say I was done responding to you. Having trouble with the written word, perhaps?

Oh, nice edit. I doubt she'd be interested in you. She's not one for being abused and belittled constantly.

I might be forgiven my interpretation perhaps?

Pep (Perhaps it is in code?)

You are forgiven.

Because that is not what most dom/sub relationships are about, as I constantly read.

Pep (She seems to prefer my words to yours in her sig currently . . . )

You are a sad sad person.

Pretty cheerful at the moment actually. How about you?

Pep (So you are wrong yet again. Are you done yet?)