A Diabolic Partner

I didn't mean that as an admonition, Ray...I thought it was a GREAT post.

And, of course, YOU are NOT trying to get attention? How silly of me to think that you might feel your nose is out of joint by not getting enough for yourself.
The insouciance by which you insist on being so modest is rather disingenuous.

Still waiting . . .

So following this model your argument (I have garnered quotes from previous posts) states:

Theorem: "Subs are intrinsically untrustworthy because their primary allegiance is to their dom." (per Pep)

Disproof 1: "She (Lexxi) doesn't have a deceitful bone in her body. That I've ever seen, anyway." Hmmm, you are making an observation rather than stating a concrete fact, and then you dilute its effect by admitting that you can't actually definitively confirm it, even though you are her dom! ROFLMAO!!!

Disproof 2: "Secondly, I have never, nor will I ever, tell her how to interact with you (or anybody else). So you can trust her." Now you are attempting to submit as "fact" a personal assertion of yours (future-proofing it, which again dilutes its credibility) that could not be confirmed even if its veracity were not extremely dubious by reason of your obvious desperate desire to make some sort of a case for your position, as well as your historic record of lying publicly in the forums. I can't find the causal link between the two sentences either; would you like to elaborate?

Can you spot the problems with your arguments?

My heart has never been broken. I came close to it once when Wales lost to New Zealand because the latter team cheated.

Pep (I *was* disappointed, horrified and angry at the amount of time I had wasted when I discovered the extent to which an apparently pleasant sub can be made to lie by her dom. )

I do have a Twitter stream actually.

Pep (So I can read what some of my less verbose friends tweet. )

Oh, I'm quite OK with you not accepting my counter example. But don't suggest that a false proof cannot be disproven by a counter example.

As for the rest, I'll let you enjoy your paranoid ramblings. BTW, I'm sure the sub simply got to know you better, and found a way to run to the hills.

In hopes of interrupting this death spiral between you two (which seems to erupt in any thread in which either of you posts), let me observe:

Pep's statement is both true and not. Subs are as trustworthy as any other person; however, they quite obviously have an overweening loyalty to their dom(s). Therefore, it is best to check with and know something of a sub's dom if you are going to get close enough to the sub to become disappointed in something they do. If a sub's dom is involved in head games, depending on that sub can indeed by a bit hazardous.

Re: Love's assertion that Lexxi is trustworthy -- I find it distasteful to see anyone's character discussed in the third person while they may be 'listening'. So, Lexxi, let me apologize in advance for making this observation: Lexxi strikes me as a compulsive truth-teller, occasionally saying things that are clearly not in her best interest, but which she cannot stop herself from speaking. And with that, I'll say nothing more ABOUT her, and beseech both of you to do the same.
But you may have broken your own heart, by expecting things of people and life which they have little reason to provide. These expectations launch you on quixotic campaigns to make others see the light.
.

Conceding defeat then? About time, too!

"One swallow does not make a summer" is not, I believe, one of Euclid's theories.

Sorry, *WHO* is the paranoid one here? ROFLMAO!!!

On the contrary, she was not happy when I broke off contact.

Pep (is surprisingly morish. )

So what happened?

*reaches for popcorn*

Actually, Jig, I don't believe Ray is trying to get attention. What he's doing is expressing exasperation.

I'm feeling a bit exasperated myself at the direction this all has gone. Not just you and Ray, but Pep and Love and Lexxi. And Rio. Sheesh. I think I'll follow Ray and go have a little lie down, before I say something I'll regret later.

I should have done that before posting in the undying thread.......

Power exchange effectively requires that a dom's primary responsibility is *for* their sub. This desire to protect the sub is a valid reason for a third party to distrust the dom in a corresponding fashion.

I like Lexxi in the forums, and feel sorry for her because it is apparent that her dom is not able to help her as much as she deserves.

Thank you for your misplaced concern.

Pep (enjoys rectifying misapprehensions caused by the ignorant. )

I would like to take this opportunity to shamelessly self promote my new blog, The Accidental Avatar. A link to said blog can be found in my signature.

We now return you to our regularly scheduled trainwreck.

/327/1f/336334/9.html#post2538875

Pep (Too late, you already did. )

IM me in world for further details.

Pep (Your place or mine? )

Yes, Pep, I agree with you: *you* should never trust subs.

After some reflection, I have come to release that it protects the subs.

Pep's claim is that he cannot trust *any* sub.



I take your point, Nika. It was a bad example to choose on my part.

However, I am just shocked that anybody could ever think of her as dishonest.

I don't even think they have Quiznos in Wales.

I don't.

Pep (It's her dom I am concerned about in that respect. )

What did I do?? Did I even post on this thread today?

Mmmmm, toasted subs. Poor Wales.

/me comforts Pep.

I don't believe he lives in Wales any longer. I could be wrong.

Lindal, you must have been thinking of someone other than Rio. Maybe me? Rio didn't say anything out of turn.

We are all trying to get attention. Some try harder, and are more conflicted about it, than others.

I don't insist on being modest. Although I am one of the most modest people on the planet.

The next time you follow me and go have a little lie down, let me know it's happening.

Was it good for you?

Seems kind of odd that many of the same people who now are going up against the op are the same ones who prior to now couldn't wait to get into her threads to either agree or to chip in with the same thing the op writes.

Same ones who a few times before also took arms against the op only to kiss her butt once things settled down. So, when is puckering-up time set to start anew?

But don't take my word for it, just wait and see how they'll salivate later on agreeing with everything the op says. Participating in all her usual threads like long lost cousins.

Bunch of hypocrites!!