I don’t know much about BDSM but wouldn’t the ones wearing the Jackboots be the ones to be doing the spanking and Whipping and making us write bad checks?
Jim
Unless they were topping from the bottom…
(ahem)
I propose a test. Jim you go into the Mod lounge, and if you return beat to hell, then we will have to rethink BinaryDrones objectives. Be sure to take ass-less chaps!
Not at all, Jim, I don’t dislike anybody here. I just think it’s funny how Finn can’t ever seem to filter himself, even at the risk of HUGE Alanis-esque irony.
Also, Hama’s burn was terrific.
Friend Finn’s expertise in matters of perv is well established. We should be guided by his advice.
Woulnd’t they just be chaps?
In any event, take pictures. I am sure that we can sell them!
Here, have an old riding crop of mine.
What? Back in the day, I almost took riding lessons–horseback lessons, silly!
Bareback riding? Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. 
I think that ended about four pages ago.
:eek:
:eek:
I don’t remember volunteering. Was I late to the meeting or something?
Jim
Seem’s you know a tad bit more then I do on the subject of chaps.
Not that I am implying anything 
Well it was going to be voted on based on board contribution, but then I looked at my post count and yours. Well rules changed.
I’ll make you volunteer! Say it! Say you’ll do it! Who daddy is? That’s right, and no safe-word for you!
Dude.
I have acknowledged from the beginning that this has been about judgment and parsing. What part of that don’t you understand?
And no, that’s not what you’ve been about: you jumped into this calling my parsing of Maureen’s crypto-post a strawman, which is to suggest that I did NOT in fact interpret it the way I said I did; I just pretended to in order to offer a false argument. Your initial foray into this seems, to me, to be about discounting the “possibility” that I might have parsed Maureen’s post differently than you. THAT’S the position I’ve said you’ve refused to back down from, the position that I was dishonest in my characterization of Maureen’s code, rather than (as now I hope I’ve convinced is the fact) that I reached a different, but arguably equally valid given then paucity of sense in Maureen’s oblique post, conclusion.
Don’t worry, as I was recently told, it is quality not quantity. I post way too much. Poor hamsters.
Not my kink, hell I don’t know if I have a kink. I might be too boring.
Jim
Still giggling over here over page 7. I like the convo about Jim and chaps alot more than anything on EC et al.
What Exit --better do as binary says. Who knows what’ll happen if you don’t. :eek:
Sorry, must preview more. Jimmy, you and I can be boring together.
Well, I’m no Evil Captor, but I do my best.
Now we’re talkin’ !
And where, exactly, was the irony here? Or anywhere else, for that matter?
You’ve also agreed with one of exy’s lies that is, lo and behold, designed to start yet another fight. Who would’ve thunk it.
Do you really think that “And there’s certainly no rule here about posting while stupid. Doesn’t change tha fact that you did it.” signifies the end of a pissing match? That’s a burying of the hatchet? Or it’s another insult designed to fuel the pissing match? In other words, exy is again shown to be a liar who enjoys making things up in order to moan about being a victim and start another fight.
Mmm hmmm. And yet, nothing I’ve said was wrong, and it did indeed stop a pissing match. Operation Ripper responded to my post, said that he agreed, and that he’d drop his part in the spat.
That someone then chose to snipe at me and to make up nonsense-insults really doesn’t bother me, at all. Especially since I was not only correct in everything I’ve said, but by his continued behavior of lying in order to start fights, exy has proven me right in this very thread.
Ah well.
So I got whooshed? :smack:
You missed the point. I’m saying that this appears to be, based on available evidence, a banning because X number of people complained about “offensive” behavior. And I’m saying that’s a dangerous precedent. You aren’t necessarily a prude trying to stop the expression of sexual thought, but what about the other complainants?
As for the idea that his banning was due to hijacking, irrespective of the content of his posts - I don’t find that credible, because people regularly “hijack” threads, and it’s not even usually a bad thing. Your mileage may vary.