Shut up, BigTurd. You still are.
Are you evaluating Skald’s OP in isolation, or as a part of his larger body of work?
If the thread had been started by a new poster, or by an established poster without a history of problems, I can see your points. But reading the OP in light of the poster’s prior history, I mean, come on.
You know, I don’t even thinking about misogyny when I read his posts - which I mostly avoid, tbh. But when I do, I think, ‘creepy angry guy with a weird fetish for sex related hypotheticals seeking attention’. Which is a shame, because despite obviously loving the sound of his own voice, he writes reasonably well.
But hey, maybe you’re right and maybe I’m wrong about him being a tiresome twat with a penchant for creating some implausible hypothetical situation that’s vaguely inappropriate. But now that he’s topic banned, perhaps his content will improve and I’ll find him interesting. Or maybe he’ll take his favorite toy and stomp off home. Let’s see.
I don’t usually +1 something, but…
+1. Stop treating us as if the only reason we could be angry is to manipulate you big strong men.
I have to say that I just love this definition that popped up in Google:
Any time since his last major flounce should be fair game, IMO. So, around the time he started getting sarcastic with his sig and thread OPs.
(oh dear, now I might be called shrill, or harpy or evvvvil woman with an ax to grind, because BigT doesn’t understand. )
lo·quac·i·ty (noun): garrulity, verbosity, volubility, logorrhea.
:smack:
Now don’t start that again!
If, as you suggest, Skald is not actually a creepy, fetishizing loser who continuously squicks people out with his made up stories of sexual conquest, then why do you consider a topic ban against sex to be “the worst consequence for him”. Seems to me that you actually do understand what kind of character Skald really is, which is why you see the topic ban as such a horrible punishment for him. Otherwise, you would have viewed the ban as harmless or even “frivolous”. Instead, you consider it to be the worst possible punishment.
He mentioned sex with his girlfriend in passing. It’s not remotely like the bizarre humiliation fantasies he was warned over. Seems a little on the hair trigger side to get all worked up about it. Has expecto seen a bunch more examples recently? Because otherwise, it sure looks like she’s on high alert to grind her axe.
In a thread about “public” displays of affection. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of a non sequitur? Is it normal for someone to actually just mention sex “in passing” like that? I think you’re focusing too much on the quantity of sex or level of sexual detail in his post rather than on the fact that it had fuck-all to do with the actual topic. Just throwing in mentions of sex “in passing”, for no reason whatsoever, is exactly the issue people are having. A thread about sex is one thing. A thread about pizza toppings which just happens to mention sex with his girlfriend “in passing” is a bit squicky.
What are your favorite pizza toppings? I ordered two medium meat lovers pizzas yesterday because I don’t like vegetables. And, I won’t mention how much my very real girlfriend also loves the meat. Know what I’m saying? So, yea anyway, sausage, pepperoni, beef and anchovies are the best toppings. I don’t know how anyone could get just a plain cheese pizza. What kind of pizza do you like?
He’s mad because no one would buy him a lunch box.
Another moron weighs in. :rolleyes:
Sort of a non sequitur, until you realize that it makes “social distancing” with his girlfriend completely useless which was sort of the point of the thread.
“Toppings, you say? My gay lover and I both enjoy a good topping.”
Yes, that is a perfectly normal conversational gambit among strangers.
So why even ask about that?
Gee, even though I’m totally having sex, should I pretend I’m not so people don’t ask me why I’m not practicng social distancing? How about you- if you are totally having sex, do you pretend you’re not? This is only relevant if you’re totally having sex, though, like I am, after cleaning the whole house of course because safety first!
In (social); isolation, it might not raise an eyebrow. But with context, it comes across as trying to push the boundaries.
So are you sleeping in a separate bedroom from your significant other? I don’t get what you are confused about. His thread was basically “do you limit PDAs because of the pressure to “social distance” even though it’s meaningless?”.
The entire PDA/sex thing was unnecessary to begin with.
If you are out with your children or parents or other family members, do you avoid all physical contact with them? Do you maintain a distance of 2m from them? Take separate cars?
There was no real need to bring physical intimacy into the equation to begin with. It was a creepy way of pulling an old act with just enough of a veneer of reasonableness in a lame attempt at line avoidance.
He just makes those long posts because he has nothing else to do. He’s loquacious of bored.
I see what Hugh did there.