Dr Snakeman said:
I'm kind of bored, so I think I'll give my own unsolicited, third-party opinion on this exchange: What the hell are you two talking about?
First, there was an advice column telling someone who is the textbook definition of an "attention-whore" to cut it out if she wanted to find someone. Solid advice, if I may say so.
But then one of you got really cranky about something, and it all just devolved into chaos. There was something about 'leftovers', then a weird video with a sock puppet, and some religion-bashing right out of left field.
Crazy opinions, I can handle; you come to expect that from any online community. But I really wish that forum posts were written a bit more clearly. It would make things far less confusing.
I wish I knew, doctor. I have a hard enough time following my train of thought when I'm sober, when I wrote that last post I was stoned as an adulterer in Baghdad and had just watched a video with sock puppets in. I was a Francis Bacon portrait and some Roger McGough poetry away from insanity. Not the best frame of mind to be in when you're trying to make a coherent point.
To try to summarise as best I can. I posted saying that the first girl in this article sounded like my type and that she didn't need to change, because too many girls are being peer pressured into being less interesting as it is. A bunch of other people shared my sentiments. Then another dude came into the thread and said how he expected this type of thing from the escapist forum, implying that this behaviour is pretty creepy. I didn't think he was wrong exactly, but I was still a little stung that I'd been lumped in with the creepy 'one eyelash and a voodoo spell away from my ideal woman' crowd. So my next post tried to explain my position - then I got really stoned and sock puppets happened. I can't be blamed for anything that happened after that.
Cranky though? I never intended to be. Sorry if I came across as legitimately upset in these posts. I totally wasn't - honestly I thought me describing myself as offended/outraged gave my post a little levity to show I wasn't totally serious. That was a sarcastic slash, man. I was actually in a great mood when I wrote that first post. I was trying to say 'take me off your sex offender's register' in a relatively light hearted way.
I normally don't mind leaving drugged up posts on the escapist, I've done it before but usually nobody notices or cares enough to call me up on it. This time though - curse your boredom, Dr Snakeman!
I hope that clears everything up. I kinda feel like I just gave a disposition to a court so I'll close by making fun of someone's grammar.
Lukeje said:
gallaetha_matt said:
Also, finish your sentence.
'I can lump people in the the same group, however, when they do indeed fall within my purview [hah, I can use big words also!] of expectations.'
What do you do to people that fall within your purview of expectations? Do you eat their leftovers?
The sentence is complete. He lumps them in the same group.
Ah, here we are.
I know he meant to say that he lumps people together in the same group. He literally says that already. What confused me about the sentence is the 'however' and the 'when' that implies that there's a bit that got missed off the end.
But then I'm the guy who made a long, rambling post while stoned. I'm pretty sure you could call up hundreds of my own grammatical errors and dissect them. Hell, I'd go back and start us all off if I wasn't so afraid of things that I wrote while under the influence. That's like my Dorian Gray portrait, if I look at it I'll discover just how terrible I really am. I can't afford to lose the sweet self-delusion that I've built up over the years.
Nothing further, your honour!