A Lurker No More

[Will]

TT, if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time I have responded directly to one of your broadsides. There are various reasons for my disinclination to engage you, but one of them you provide yourself. To my mind you are an extremely intelligent, well-informed, and thoughtful person; therefore, when you take a swipe at me, it's usually because I've laid myself open to it.

 

In this case, however, I didn't, and I think you lowered your standards with this last volley. Or perhaps you're using buckshot today instead of bullets. At all events, I mentioned what the psychologist said (he subscribed, in fact, to no psychoanalytical theory at all) only as something that helps me to retain my patience. In the very next sentence, I believe, I implied that I didn't buy what he said. But by leaving off that sentence, you've drafted me yet again into your huge army of M4M idiots, even though this time I wasn't standing in the crowd.

 

Fire away, if you will (and you will). But in future, sharpen your aim. I'm hardly a moving target!

[Will]

Great going, Thunderbuns! Your post reminds me of a typically no-nonsense Italian compliment that I've heard in Rome but nowhere else. When a Roman really admires a man's gutsiness, s/he says "Quello, ce ha le palloni quadrate!," which, roughly translated, means "That guy has big square balls!"

[Traveller]

>I have a very high kill ratio...my daddy taught his little

>boy how to kill small and medium-sized animals at a very

>early age (though he always said use a knife if you can -

>bullets cost money). As for Muslims...to be honest, though,

>I prefer going after the women...that little breathing net

>on the burkha serves as a GREAT bullseye!

 

A handle can tell a lot about a person. A penny saved.... Of course you're right. In these times of recession, one must strive to conserve. So many times, when I could've taken the easier (and more economical) route and sliced right through that "breathing net," I've opted, instead, for the riskier 9mm at 400 yards. My rationalization, of course, was that I was helping pull us out of these times of distress by spending on bullets. Six of one.... Who knows. At least those pesky muslims are still being taken care of. (Note to Craig, never end a sentence with a preposition.)

 

>Sean/Dave has a GREAT cock. He was thick and big...I'd say

>about 8.5 inches, which, of course, translates into a

>real-live six to seven inches. And as for the failures of

>my memory...quel frommage...

 

Dammit Muriel. I was afraid of this. I can't feel anything under 12 inches. How big are his feet?

 

Later.

 

PS. Second note to Craig. Could you please translate "quel frommage" for me. I believe it means garrote muslims, but I'm not a hundred percent.

[Guest TruthTeller]

>TT, if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time I have

>responded directly to one of your broadsides.

 

It is the first time; I feel a celebratory crystal binge may be in order this weekend.

 

>In this case, however, I didn't, and I think you lowered

>your standards with this last volley. Or perhaps you're

>using buckshot today instead of bullets. At all events, I

>mentioned what the psychologist said (he subscribed, in

>fact, to no psychoanalytical theory at all) only as

>something that helps me to retain my patience. In the very

>next sentence, I believe, I implied that I didn't buy what

>he said.

 

You're right and wrong. Let me start with how you're wrong (since that's more fun). If you read what I wrote, I was actually attacking the theory that you summarized, and was not attacking you. I criticized the "idea" propounded by the psychotherapist, and only mentioned you as the person who "conveyed" the idea.

 

Having said that, I acknowledge reading the post with insufficient thoroughness, which resulted in: (1) my assuming that you did agree with that tripe even though you said you may not; and (2) reading "psychotherapist" as "psychoanalyst," which may be revealing, but also may be accounted for by the fact that the theory sounds like a lazy psychoanalyst's view.

 

>But by leaving off that sentence, you've drafted

>me yet again into your huge army of M4M idiots, even though

>this time I wasn't standing in the crowd.

 

I actually never think you're dumb (well, "never" may be too much, but not usually). If I did, I wouldn't respond, even with hostility, to your posts as much as I do. You often raise interesting views which I think merit attack, and do so in a clear and articulate manner, which facilitates a discussion of, and attack on, those views. Or, as you put it:

 

>I'm hardly a moving target!

[Will]

As this sudden wave of civility, like all waves, will likely wash right over, I'll only say that I'm sorry if I implied that you'd attacked me. It was the idea, I thought, that you don't like, and I'm not sure I like it, either.

 

But "not sure" puts us on opposing benches, I suppose. First, I do not believe that any history of psychological terror excuses someone's subsequent behavior; people are responsible for what they do, whatever their motive. But I do believe that a history of psychological terror may explain some behavior. Second, I didn't intend to speak of gay men as a group; like you, I think, I'm not persuaded that there is indeed the kind of voluntarily shared commonality that seems to me requisite for the word "community" to have any useful meaning. To the contrary, I was speaking of the behavior of some individuals. For instance, there's every reason to believe that most people who sexually molest children were molested as children themselves. That is not to say, of course, that all people who were sexually molested turn around and molest others. Nor is it to say that you can't molest children (I'm sure you'll be glad to know this) if you were not molested yourself.

 

Finally, it might amuse you to know that I've been thinking about you all day. I've been thinking about the very different ways in which you and I use language. I like the way you use words, and I like the way I use them. Unlike you, however, I don't particularly enjoy attacking positions I don't agree with. I do enjoy discussing them if, and only if, I think I have something to learn. Where I come from, even lawyers can't tell you what time of day it is without telling you a story about the last time somebody asked them that. Such take-it-or-leave-it loquaciousness lends itself to the speaker's figuring out what he means while he's in the middle of saying it. Those of us who grew up thinking that's what it means to talk tend to be a little fuzzy around the discursive edges. We're better at writing short stories than news stories, better at personal essays than legal briefs. Frankly, I envy the scalpel-sharp precision with which New York lawyers use words. By this time in my life, however, that's about as helpful as envying men with bigger dicks than mine.

 

Cheers!

[Rick Munroe]

>By this time in my

>life, however, that's about as helpful as envying men with

>bigger dicks than mine.

 

<whew> I was going through withdrawal from the lack of dick talk around here...thanks for that last-minute save, Will!

[Guest Stefano]

>

>Don't worry, Mikey. You wouldn't have to be bothered doing

>any of those things to yourself - I would be happy to

>do all of them for you. That's the kind of guy I am.

>

Really?... That is the absolute sweetest thing I think you have ever offered to do for anyone on this board...Thanks. ;-)~

>

>That's VERY brave of you to confess. When CP37089 once

>accidentally agreed with me, he said it felt like he was

>aligning himself with Osama bin Laden. That got my cock

>hard. That you "publicly spoke up to say so" only with such

>trepidation (but bravery) also really got me hot, especially

>when looking at that new (innocent yet underlyingly sleazy)

>pic of yours.

 

"innocent yet underlyingly sleazy" Man you made my year with that comment. I mean, I didn't think anyone would "get" the look I was going for. So was it a full on Viagra powered hardon or just a plain ol' porno erection?

 

Mike ;-)~