Scott-
#1. The closest you came was this… “So I post something about a weird occurence that may or may not have involved (cover your eyes) gay sex… <snip> Did I once mention sex in my OP? No. It may have been implied, but never mentioned.” (Page 1)
Now I can see where that might have meant sex, as in sexual intercourse, but at the time, I took the comment to mean you tried to keep the sexuality of both parties out of it.
If I was wrong, than I was wrong. In this thread, as with many others, I’m not looking first at who wrote the thing, nor am, or was, I tring to make a connection between whether you or he was gay or anything like that. I initially (Because it wasn’t obvious in the OP) thought this had to do with het sex.
#2. Stranger things have happened around here. There’s been any number of times I’ve thought a poster was male, only to learn later on they were female, and vice versa. But I admit, it wasn’t until I went back and read your name and then re-read the post that it was clearer that this was about two guys, and not some other combination.
The point is that from my perspective, the OP itself wasn’t clear on what the details were. Combine that with number one, and I assumed this was done on purpose (Don’t ask me why I think, or thought, that way, it just is/was (Confusing enough for ya yet?)).
Combine that with number three below, and it might make more sense.
#3. The whole ‘chyck’ thing, guy thing, people taking shit, someone not saying something while you slept, and to be honest with you, I got confused pretty fast. Originally, I thought the ‘chyck’ was clearing shit out, not the other way around.
Again, retention of the specific details did allude me for a bit, originally, but it wasn’t like you made it easy to understand (Sorry, but it’s true).
Given that, heading into PunditLisa’s post I wasn’t a bit surprised to see what she had written, again, because it was gender/sexuality-wise nuetral. But even after I understood the details, her comment alone didn’t seem all that offensive to me, it seemed pretty sincere and nothing out of the ordinary for here, or the real world.
#4. That’s the one thing I got right in the original post.
#5. Good lord. You expect me to remember, or find, your very first post around here introducing yourself? That makes about as much sense as Esprix insinuating that I need to search your posts before I comment, just to make sure I’m up to speed and fully aware of any situation that led to this blow-up.
Sorry, I haven’t done that for anyone else, and I’m not about to now, especially with the board running like shit.
Had something triggered a previous thread, or someone would have mentioned your ongoing irritation with people telling you to be carefull early on, maybe this would have died out earlier (Kind of what I proposed earlier in my post above, page two).
That I didn’t check your previous posts before posting, or went back to your very first post around here where you explained yourself, hardly is a means for you to tell me I’m way off base here, I doubt others do that.
And I really wonder why any of that would have justified your going after PunditLisa the way you did, especially when the details, or her motivations for those comments, were far from clear.
You read what you wanted to read into that line and acted accordingly. It’s how you acted that bothered me then, and quite frankly, bothers me now. Unless you knew she meant those comments gratuitously, or with malice, than I think you owe her an apology.
This has to be about the saddest thing I’ve ever read on this board. This is from a doper who tried to help (inappropriatly?) by posting links to more information. Granted it was off target, stirred up the emotions again, but she thought she was trying to help for Christ’s sake. The straight dope is all about providing more information right?