just ignore and let this one die

You appeared to be speaking for all "slaves/subs/pets" in that thread.

Some are indeed as you describe. Others are driven by their own conscience first and foremost. IMHO, those who are true to themselves first make them better submissives. YMMV. If that makes me a fool in your eyes, I'm OK with that.

No, your profile is quite clear on why you have this irrational dislike: somebody who didn't put their own conscience first hurt you.



No, you just wont shut up about it.

http://www.highpointgames.com/ I learn something new everyday. Unfortunately I think I'm forgetting things at a slightly faster rate. It recently took my husband and I a day and a half to remember Dionne Warwick's name. Well he thought of it first - or he looked it up - who knows how much longer my little file clerks would have had to search the memory banks before bringing it up to my conscious mind. Actually maybe I'm not losing memories so much as having a harder time retrieving them... it's annoying.

It's a lot like farkel.

Wibbers Seven. Glad you had a good time in Jamaica.
Yes there is a greedy table down in the grass below the hangout and that other game from the same maker is on the back porch.

Uhm.. what the fark is farkel?

Of course I am speaking of (NOT for) all slaves/subs/pets. If they put their own conscience first then they are not even trustworthy as a slave/sub/pet. It's Catch22. If their Mistresses/Dommes can't trust them then how can anyone else? And if their first allegiance is to their Mistresses/Dommes then no-one else can trust them.

Pep (Entirely rational; no emotion involved - which is probably why you can't comprehend it, thereby making yourself look foolish.)

You are making an assumption about what constitutes trust between the dominant and the submissive. You are making assumptions about what a dominant would require of their submissive. You are full of assumptions... back to my original observation: you talk lot about things you apparently don't understand.

I'm not interested in this discussion with you beyond pointing out that your attempts to use it to discredit my arguments in other discussions (as trying to make it appear that I have a personal reason to attack you regardless of what you say) is obvious and transparent. And does more to discredit you.

Come on people - just a little bit more Pep and we can get this thread up to 100,000 posts!

Of course. I should have recognized Oryx!

I'm going to have to come back and play tomorrow. It's past my bedtime.

In the absence of coherent published contractual descriptions held and enforced by third parties between what you call dominants and submissives it is entirely reasonable to assume that the first allegiance of a submissive is to their dominant. As a consequence, they are intrinsically untrustworthy. It's pretty simple, and however you wish to explain it otherwise you can't get away from the basic situation: a third party can NEVER trust a sub.

But you HAVE already stated that you have personal reasons to attack me regardless of what I say; in fact, in your over-emotional paranoia you have stated that you are prepared to attack me *without* me saying anything, even! That I have discerned underlying reasons for your pathetic posting campaign, ie your obvious discomfort at my exposure of the untrustworthiness of subs, and your concern that your pet finds me amusing (despite your tirades that it is despicable to express any public appreciation of my wit) is apparently disturbing your ability to argue coherently, to keep promises voluntarily made, or to observe the unwritten rules of the Undying Thread by not initiating (and encouraging support for) antagonistic posts.

Pep (I don't start things but I finish them; perhaps you are not sufficiently in control of your senses to realise that? )

I do in fact have a reason to attack you - your utter disreregard for the feelings and emotions of other people in this forum. The fact that you will trample all over them without a thought in order to gain the attention you so desperately crave.

I said I don't need to wait until you insult someone to play with you, and I really don't. There are plenty in the bank.

Your silly misconceptions about BDSM doesn't remotely enter into it. I don't care what you think beyond being mildly amused that you have constructed a cute little argument based on at least one false premise, and clearly love it too much to let it go.



Mmmhmm. You know, you say that lot (see my posts about you being nothing more than a parrot, particularly of yourself), yet nothing ever seems to get finished. It's nothing more than bravado on a forum. Well done!

The rest of your post is your continued attempts to make things true by saying them repeatedly. And another attempt to use Lexxi against me. Very repetitive and boring. One day you'll do something actually new and different, and we'll all fall down in shock.

Anyhow Pep, I'm off for the night. Plus poking you on weekends rather defeats the point of being entertained while doing something unpleasant - I'm not at work.

Enjoy the last word.

Farkel is an evil dice game.

What ever you do don't play it online. LOL

Here's a quick kiss good night and then I'm off to bed.

Sleep well and pleasant dreams to one and all.

I saw another three music acts tonight (though one is same as last night). I will post just one picture.

Hi Soji! I didn't see you there- guess you spotted me - hehe

Heres another at a different venue later in the evening (and a costume change)

It SHOULD be cute, but why does it remind me of tulips at the end of a David Lynch film?

*brrrrr*

it is mildly disturbing isn't it?

Damien & Hera @ the Hangout -

Tonight at the Hangout...

Lexxi was naked and so had to be photographed with her back towards us so that I could post here, Tex, Eli are the other two players here at Greedy Greedy:


Here is the lovely Rhonda:


Here is another shot with Damien and Hera present this time:


And finally a shot of Damien and Hera:

So you *are* claiming vigilante status then, and contradicting yourself yet again? It's not that your own feelings are hurt by my accurate but unwanted deconstruction of the fallacies of "trust" in a Dom/sub relationship?

Once again, you are demonstrating quite clearly that you are happy to say one thing, then you say the opposite. I might say that was a "female" characteristic, but I will simply reiterate that it is symptomatic of an over-emotional and irrational person who presumably believes that one's current feelings at the time of posting are more important than consistency.

I have no misconceptions about BDSM. I don't even comment here on BDSM, which is a far more complex concept, and one in which I indulge in discussion only with those who are able to remove the emotion from the dialogue. In my posts here, I have been simply pointing out rationally the underlying problem that those outside any less than trivial Dom/sub relationship have in not being able to trust the sub; or are you suggesting that your relationship with Lexxi is trivial? Certainly her constant desperate pleadings for attention suggest that you are less than attentive to her.

For someone who doesn't care you seem to be spending a lot of what you claim is your valuable time in attempting, and spectacularly failing, to refute my contention.

What is that false premise? I can only see rational argument - on my side!

ROFLMAO! The reason that so many people find me amusing - to your obvious jealousy - is precisely that I am *not* predictable, nor repetitive, and I deliver a sardonically amusing view of the forum which couches a usually insightful perception of the "realities" of peoples' participation, if you are smart enough (as I am delighted to say quite a few are) to get it. Coming from someone whose idea of originality was once to post the same word 32 times in a post, I might think you were making some sort of a joke, but since you have shown no apparent sense of humour in any of your posts in living memory I'll probably have to can that suggestion.

Pep (still waiting for a rational refutation of my simple observation on untrustworthiness; perhaps you should consult someone cleverer for assistance - or perhaps you have and have found your postion untenable? )

Welcome back, Seven! So you are thinking of setting up your own blog? What a great idea. Strange, that we should think about it the same time. I “aired” the idea over at SLU and was kind of stunned that so many thought it was a good idea.

I’ve stepped a bit back, since my Internet connection is really lousy these days. There are better times to come, when fibreoptic (spellcheck?) cables are installed. I can’t explain that in English, but it’s going to give me from 10Mbit/s, that’s the cheapest version. Best of all, since it’s not the old cables where speed slow down when several users are on, I should not see the quality drop like a stone in the weekends. I can’t spend more time on SL and SL related things than I do, so I need tools that work properly.

This isn’t so pleasant to say:

I come in here and throw in a reply in some threads, reading some pages back, but I can’t really see myself becoming a regular here. It’s been awful again, and I just did what saddens me, I put Pep on my ignore list. It is more because of the pattern than because of my personal feelings. I mean that he takes too much space, even if he has some nice and thoughtful things to say, it is lost in the rest. I am pretty sure that if I had meet Pep inworld, I would have liked him a lot. I don’t think his friends lie when they say he is a good friend. But now the weight of too many posts has made it impossible to see his better sides if I should stumble across him. Be well, Pep.

I was a raccoon, so was running around on the roof before I went inside. You were saying goodbye and before I could figure out how to get inside, you had left.