Would you have Sex with your Ex if they offered it???

Just stating a fact. He is still in love with me. And my previous ex, from whom I've been apart for more than a year, is still sending me flowers. Problem?

You are exempt from the recent declaration of ignoring quotes on this thread, as you've only just joined the fray, but all I'm going to say is that the "Problem?" was aimed at the poster who had quoted me, and evidently did have a problem with what I said. I agree that it's not the best thing in the world that a guy I have had no contact with for more than a year is still sending me flowers, but when I no longer have any contact details for him there's not a lot I can do.

Absolutely not, it makes me sick to think I ever even slept with him! haha.

(given your sig) should we call the cops!?

'When in Rome'

Bandwagon ftw.

She was merely clarifying why she wouldn't go there with her ex's That a guy gets hung up on a girl says nothing about how a girl rates herself

You make one or two points that are good in principal but it's rather unfortunate that you have been hasty and, as such, they have been entirely misdirected in this instance

Can confirm this to be the case

Can also confirm, rather ironically, that she is genuinely one of the most humble and thoughtful people you could ever wish to meet

Clearly some of you have got the wrong end of the aforementioned 'stick' ~ and now have poop on your hands as a consequence

Did you completely miss the post I was answering when I mentioned the queue? Granted, it was a bit of an in-joke with the person I was responding to, but he made the inference that there was no-one around for me now (knowing full well as he said so that that is not the case), to which I replied that in fact there were several. It wasn't completely out of the blue, as you seem to think.


I could sit here and come up with a list of things I have to offer the world and the people around me, and chances are someone is still going to take offence at what I have written and take it upon themselves to shoot me down, because OBVIOUSLY they have me completely sussed as a person based on a couple of posts on a student forum.

Aye you have, unfortunately you've interpreted a bit of banter/an 'in' joke between friends as her being seriously arrogant

Seriously as in 'in all seriousness' e.g. straight faced arrogance

That's flirty banter, and not serious trust me! hehe

Seriously as in 'in all seriousness' e.g. straight faced arrogance

She was being playful and making a mockery of the charge, hence the winky face, and suggesting that if she was going to be called up on anything it should at least be something that presents as arrogant if taken seriously (rather than some flimsy connection between stating that ex partners were still hung up on her and an inflated sense of self world). Capeesh?

(I updated the above reply)

I hope to God you're not reading law

It didn't present as that 'thing' in all seriousness, at worst it presented as a bit of flirty banter, which hardly warranted personal attacks, nor your acerbic comments when all she'd then done is attempted to defend herself in a light hearted manner. I'm not all that keen on the type of girl you've confused her with but I would never bare such antipathy, unless perhaps I had a major axe to grind..

You don't accept that you, and several other posters, were mistaken to assume certain things and that you both individually, and collectively, acted improperly. Ok. Well I've said my piece now so all we can do is agree to disagree and I shall hope that reason/humility win through in the end of their own accord

Flattered that you're so taken with my disjointed 'style' I had to revisit it as I realised I had misremembered what she'd written, went back and had a look, and then changed my comment accordingly. So solly , not used to dealing with quick-fire eager beavers pouncing on my posts with such immediacy

Hardly a sound basis for a character assassination really is it?

Wise to leave that one well alone, any arrogance extricated from that'n must be imputed and you know what they say about assumpion..

This is the truth. There is no hint that these facts have anything to do with her personal charms

Again this is rather ironic as she doesn't think in such terms, if you knew her/or even checked her post, you'd get a very different 'wiff', perhaps your detectives nose was a little off, at any rate I've a feeling it would certainly be put to more constructive uses than this mud slinging..

You had no way of knowing whether she was being deadly serious or not - indeed the smilies and general tonality would indicate that she wasn't, particularly to anyone who had taken the time to establish what her nominal tone/attitude is (before launching into what was, yes, a fairly damning critique of her character)

Pretty sure I remember hearing "I've based my argument more or less solely on the queue comment", and I've dealt with how any supposition why, in her original post, she would feel the need to explain that she wouldn't go back there with her ex's was because they still had strong feelings is just that - a supposition (and an unsubstantiated, slanted, and hence dubious one at that)

If I were being remotely sensible/responsible in my OP I'd have said the same (my ex has/may continue to find it difficult to shake residual feelings for me so it'd probably be a bad idea to go there really)

Hence mud slinging. Ill informed, slapdash, anonymous, internet vitriol. We let ourselves down when we engage in it, still more when we don't hold our hand up in retrospect

We must all take responsibility for the way in which we air our thoughts and feelings, however light hearted or serious. Indeed, given that this is the internet, a place that encourages complete strangers to get excited (when let's face it, most of us wouldn't be so quick tempered/firey tongued in polite company) one must expect some degree of criticality for sure. To suggest, however, that one must write with absolute seriousness in every post on a student forum for fear of being jumped upon in an ugly manner is a little far fetched however

For sure, but there's a difference between voicing concern / constructive criticism / teasing, and going after someone/being so caustic and judgmental; when it's a group attacking it's that bit worse

I have some sympathy here as, partly thanks to silliness/tongue in cheek comments, in threads I tend to come across as, at best, highly self assured and a bit of a douche, at worst, extremely arrogant, a bit better when talking one to one with people, and probably a great deal better in person (or so I'm told). Not everyone takes themselves/things too seriously, again particularly online; ok maybe sometimes perhaps we should be more serious, and doubtless characters like me in particular, if we care about looking like wallies (I don't really), but there's no need to be nasty about it eh, even if we do have an axe to grind, we can be better than that

Honestly I wasn't; I didn't want to misquote and she'd removed the post. 'Still in love with me' is an expression of strong feelings is it not? Can we not split hairs?

I suppose being as you have had little experience of me and my capabilities/conduct where proper argumentation is concerned you cannot be expected to give me too much credit..

I often flag others for misrepresentation, and assure that you that I would not deliberately go about it myself when I see it as a cheap/deflective tactic, criticise others for it, and know only too well how easy it is to spot

I honestly don't see how I've referred to it as pertinent, the nuts of the bolts of the issue are what matter here. The message concerning the words upon which my comments are based remains the same, however we paraphrase them, and the facts of the matter remain the same re: point addressed in my last PM concerning contextual suppositions relating to 'drama' and 'boastfulness'

One can be ill informed but still be open to criticism for making rash judgements + issuing related statements without being in possession of all of the facts/seeking to quiz/investigate to better ascertain the facts. No contradiction there

If you genuinely believe this then please see the following for reference:



I'm sure if she didn't feel as got-at she might have done, she's a pretty humble, and if anything overly apologetic/conflict averse person. I wouldn't expect anyone to hold their hand up when they haven't, in fact, done anything particularly wrong though. The only person I'd expect to do that is.. ..he died for our sins, so she wouldn't have to

She said she couldn't especially appreciate how she, as you put it: "did indeed come across as quite boastful" ~ (the bolded makes it sound far too categorical). That is not to say that she could not conceive of a way in which she might have come across as quite boastful to those 1) Supposing that her OP came from an overly dramatic/queen-of-me place; and/or 2) Taking her totally seriously in subsequent posts

Would you feel the same way about stoning someone? Or about carbon footprints?

Ethics reach a higher level than plausible deniability re: individual actions vs. their wider, contextual, ramifications; you seem both smart, and decent, enough to realise that, and to take it on board

She was also told to shut up in quite an aggressive and derogatory manner by the guy who was banned

Oh dear. I don't need to score points, nor would I cheapen myself/castrate myself/devalue my soul by doing so; for me this is an ethical matter

I smite dragons whether fair maidens thank me for it or not

(the 'dragons' are metaphorical you understand although perhaps not in the case of tartan, she certainly behaved like a reptilian beast with a sore head breathing fire!)

Uneccessarily? We are not the arbiters of what is necessary, on this, reasonably un-gagged forum

I acknowledge that she left herself open to criticism by posting something which could be interpreted as queen-of-me, and probably (unwittingly) stoked the flames with her lighthearted reposts

The antipathy in some of the subsequent rhetoric was not justifiable however, and I stand by the notion that one cannot not substantiate claims on a persons character with such little information, let alone when said information is far from cut and dry either way

As I alluded to in my original response, I don't do queues anyway so don't you worry about such things