Women (and men) who Run with Wolves

<More obviously over-emotional erroneous opinions - in a numerical list, yet!>

unfounded opinion

Saying a thing doesn't make it true.

I feel flattered, if slightly bemused, that someone who is not really affected by my posts takes time to respond.

You make similar mistakes to Love, of course, and some which are your own, including a failure to comprehend that it was *your own words* which suggested that the unintelligent should not be using the forums. Perhaps you should read them again and, once illuminated, berate yourself for your stance.

Pep (I don't criticise people for a lack of intelligence; find me an example if you can)

but contrary to popular opinion, I don't feel the need to troll everyone I disagree with.

Pep (Just the dumb ones)

That's usually where the sarcasm and/or poor assumptions are. That's why.

Then there's the 11-point diatribe on your supposed entire raison d'être for posting. Distilled down, it's mainly "to berate, belittle, browbeat those I deem 'dumb' in order to (haha) 'improve' them".

I do not see it that way, I see it as an afterthought

it is all how it is interpreted

Quite often it's the punchline. Like "Just the dumb ones)".

don;t know why you just do not ignore him if it bothers you so much

if you do not reply then he has nothing to reply to...

or is it that you both want to get the last word in?

I know how that feels, been there, done that, decided that it is not worth the stress

so now if I see something someone says that I dislike, most of the time I just ignore it

sure there are times I will reply... we are all human after all heh

but to keep it going like you two have is just not healthy

In case it disappears (his posts have been known to spontaneously combust for some reason), here it is quoted:

/327/cf/298062/16.html#post2261733/327/cf/298062/16.html#post2261733

You see Pep, I am not making stuff up about you. These are your own words.

But just so Rha doesn't have the last word.

Shall we find out?

But beforehand, I should explain that I have been using this style for over fifteen years in bulletin boards and forums, although I am not a ghost . . . although I have known people copy it - which I consider flattery. It began when, for various reasons - line speed, software inadequacies etc - I could not effectively edit the main body of the post but I wanted to add something I later thought of. I also use "slashies" when I am not posting as Pep, a similar style borrowed from a very poular news aggregation site whose name always eludes me, but sounds vaguely rude.

But just so Rha doesn't have the last word.

I think the modern interest in furs could only have stemmed from people being bombarded with thousands of hours of suggestive images, and deep acculturisation during a youthful, formative time.

Paedophilia involves actual children. Everyone here is over 18.

Pep (or should be assumed as such)

Sign up for SL is free. I don't recall any disclaimer that must be 18 or over to sign up and start SL? Is there one?

Until you have to age verify to get an account, everyone here is not necessarily over 18.

Until there's widespread cases of cats walking on keyboards logging into second life, it's pretty safe to assume everyone here is human.

I don't find your posts annoying, personally. In fact, I find it hard to categorize any significant emotional response to them at all. Well, beyond pity, I suppose, but I can't say for sure *I* feel it.

I disagree with your claims not to "instigate". In most threads I see you post in, you post SOLELY to instigate, and usually, it falls well into the realm of the "universally accepted" definition of trolling (that even you, yourself, posted, to boot). Off-topic, inflammatory, and quite inane. The "Resident Answers" excuse is rather poor attempt at a (very) flat dodge.



That's true, you said:



My only mistake was giving you more credit than necessary. Still, the point stands, if corrected. Quite a use of POSTGRADUATE work from Cambridge. I am sure you make your family proud.

As for the "redundancy", you yourself said "the real one, not the upstart", so I sallied forth on your own "redundancy".



Unintelligent people don't spend time in forums, because there are precious few of them, and they have a hard time feeding themselves, let alone operating computers.

As for those whom "Pep" Daniels considers unintelligent, well, I can't say, since that probably comprises the bulk of humanity outside of him (I presume you're a "him"; please do correct me if I am wrong, and then follow it up with your dissertation on the proper use of English pronouns to represent gender-neutral references). Plus, chances are, I am included in that group as well, so why would my "unintelligent" opinion mean anything to you?

I find the vast majority of people present in forums intelligent and worth listening to. Not everyone communicates perfectly, even in the best and most formal of situations (no, really!), so I can be mostly forgiving of faux pas, slip ups, and other mistypes/misspeaks. Sometimes I do press people on stuff they say, offering corrections or simply rebuttals or outright refutations. That's part and parcel of communicating. However, I would NEVER deign to use it as a litmus for judgment of that person's personality, let alone their intelligence. It's an awful small statistical sample to use for either. However, if that's all the evidence you need to become the Great Judge of Intelligence, by all means, please carry on.

marry me?

eta: if You are the Baloo i think you are *HUGSZZ*

if not, take the hug anyway.

And, I'll ask the question that is on some of our minds - is it legal/illegal, morally okay or immoral to have sex with a myth-creature liek a minotaur or centaur? And ONLY in sl can you ask that kinda question!

Talk about lack of reading comprehension.

TRY going back and showing me where I suggested any such stupidity.

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.

Judgmental, critical, of? "dumb ones"

Then there's the 11-point diatribe on your supposed entire raison d'être for posting. Distilled down, it's mainly "to berate, belittle, browbeat those I deem 'dumb' in order to (haha) 'improve' them".

Yes, I can see how your approach works wonders with most people you've treated as being in the "dumb" category.

I like how you have copied a bit of my style here - just putting a dash between phrases.

/me is flattered



and if you are not copying and flattering me, just pretend you are

Well, he does have a rather "structured" view of his interaction with others. Maybe he also has the wherewithal to live by his own rules from the "other" end.

I doubt it, though; empathy doesn't seem to be his long suit. :-/

Empathy is the capacity to recognize or understand another's state of mind or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to "put oneself into another's shoes", or in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another being within oneself.

Empathy does not necessarily imply compassion, or empathic concern

because this capacity can be present in context of compassionate or cruel behavior.

"Most" people don't have the problems with my approach