Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

Announcements Posted on
Complete this short survey for a chance to win an iPad mini! 22-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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..
    Ahh well, welcome to the JW experience then.

    If I had extended the so-called character assassination to encompass pie's entire character then yes, but I didn't. It's all congruent and deliciously applicable to what she actually wrote. So nerr.

    The very style of writing oozes of ill-placed arrogance. This is a point of opinion, on which we will indeed agree to disagree.

    Once again you're attempting to defend what has already happened with idle proclamations of how it isn't so. What matters is the fact of what was written, and the conclusions drawn from that, both literal and tone and all that other lovely analysis. Yes, I am open to the possibility that my conclusions are not the reality BUT the conclusions are nevertheless correct as far as the words written go. And that cannot be changed.

    You wish you thought this was just mud slinging. What next? Am I a cat........

    ......... In a hat?
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    I am open to the possibility that my conclusions are not the reality BUT the conclusions are nevertheless correct as far as the words written go
    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)
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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 the initial incriminating post was lacking in the emoticon department and profound in its brevity.

    Taken the time to establish a yada yada... er, no. As if anyone can be bummed to do that. Instead, I've a better idea: why doesn't pie simply write as if the reader will actually take what she says on face value and not expect that they will read too far beyond what has been written? It would be ludicrous to put one's take on a post on hold until they've romped about trying to ascertain an unreasonable extent of clarity about the poster. But, more importantly, it would alleviate the poster of their responsibility to not write things that can easily be seen as arrogant. It's that simple.

    Fairly damning, yes? Fair enough.

    *Vanishes in a puff of logic* :cool:
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Back on topic.. no I'd rather die than go anywhere near my ex.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Pretty sure the initial incriminating post was lacking in the emoticon department and profound in its brevity
    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)

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Taken the time to establish a yada yada... er, no. As if anyone can be bummed to do that
    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

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    why doesn't pie simply write as if the reader will actually take what she says on face value and not expect that they will read too far beyond what has been written?
    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

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    It would be ludicrous to put one's take on a post on hold until they've romped about trying to ascertain an unreasonable extent of clarity about the poster
    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

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    But, more importantly, it would alleviate the poster of their responsibility to not write things that can easily be seen as arrogant. It's that simple
    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
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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
    Again, you're re-contextualising what was actually written in order to suit yourself. 'Strong feelings' were not the words used. 'Still in love with me' were: an unneccessarily dramatic way of putting things. The fact that you have yet to quote this directly, and have attempted to use synonyms with different nuances, tells me that you see what I'm getting at.

    First bolded bit self-contradicted by second bolded bit (i.e. you accuse me of being ill-informed whilst at the same time agreeing that I cannot be reasonably expected to sniff out every possible fact. Obviously we draw the line between necessary level of information and unreasonable level of sniffing in different places). As I have already said, I'm open to the possibility that my conclusions are wrong in relation to the reality but NOT WRONG IN RELATION TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN, a distinction you have so far been unable to grasp.

    You differentiate yourself from pie in third bolded bit, by demonstrating an ability to admit that you've come across a certain way, however unintentionally. That is crucial. All pie had to say, if she were bothered (which I doubt she is, but I'm enjoying battling it out with you nonetheless, hydra person), is 'oh okay, I GET how it sounds like that but it's not the tone I intended to take' - and that would've been enough, just that basic acknowledgement. Enough for me, anyway. As it was, it's the insisting that no it doesn't sound like that, when it does, that dropped her in the firing line.

    As for group attacking, that's not my responsibility. It is not my dirt that other people agree with me and I find myself in the majority. I say what I want to say regardless. Besides, it's not 'ganging up' as much as it is basic cause and effect. It is deserved. Nothing that I've seen from other people (and I haven't fine-tooth-combed it) has been unreasonable/outside of the boundaries of what MAY be possible of someone choosing to write like that... EXCEPT for someone who said something about pie 'breaking people's hearts' as if for leisure. I don't really agree with that, as there's nothing in pie's writing to imply that she is manipulative... just boastful, which is the thrust of my argument.

    There's being nasty and there's drawing fair and reasonable conclusions from the fact of what has been written. Again we draw the lines in different places. Or maybe the same places but for situations where you have a bum-kissing agenda. Want to prove me wrong? Then ADMIT that the original writing - hell, BOTH the queue AND the ex comments - were written in a way that was unneccessarily boastful, whether deliberately or not!

    It's just that doing that might ruin your own position in the queue, so I don't expect much other than more Tetris antics.
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Again, you're re-contextualising what was actually written in order to suit yourself
    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? :confused: Can we not split hairs?

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    The fact that you have yet to quote this directly, and have attempted to use synonyms with different nuances, tells me that you see what I'm getting at
    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'

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    First bolded bit self-contradicted by second bolded bit (i.e. you accuse me of being ill-informed whilst at the same time agreeing that I cannot be reasonably expected to sniff out every possible fact
    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 :holmes:

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    NOT WRONG IN RELATION TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN, a distinction you have so far been unable to grasp
    If you genuinely believe this then please see the following for reference:

    Spoiler:
    Show
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    It would be ludicrous to put one's take on a post on hold until they've romped about trying to ascertain an unreasonable extent of clarity about the poster
    For sure
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    At no stage have I contested how things looked or how things might have been perceived by a reasonable individual


    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    'oh okay, I GET how it sounds like that but it's not the tone I intended to take' - and that would've been enough, just that basic acknowledgement
    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.. :2euk48l: ..he died for our sins, so she wouldn't have to

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    it's the insisting that no it doesn't sound like that, when it does, that dropped her in the firing line
    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

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    As for group attacking, that's not my responsibility
    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

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    EXCEPT for someone who said something about pie 'breaking people's hearts' as if for leisure
    She was also told to shut up in quite an aggressive and derogatory manner by the guy who was banned

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Or maybe the same places but for situations where you have a bum-kissing agenda
    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 :horse:

    (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!)

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Want to prove me wrong? Then ADMIT that the original writing - hell, BOTH the queue AND the ex comments - were written in a way that was unneccessarily boastful, whether deliberately or not!
    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 :beard:

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    It's just that doing that might ruin your own position in the queue, so I don't expect much other than more Tetris antics
    As I alluded to in my original response, I don't do queues anyway so don't you worry about such things
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well put it this way; if I had the choice between jumping naked into piranha-infested waters smeared in bacon fat, and having sex with my ex, it would be a damn hard decision to make.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    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? :confused: 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 :holmes:

    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.. :2euk48l: ..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 :horse:

    (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 :beard:

    As I alluded to in my original response, I don't do queues anyway so don't you worry about such things
    Strong feelings and then there's L bomb. A difference worth pointing out, more than splitting hairs.

    Credit where credit's due. You're a clever cookie, but are trying too hard to use Big Words to meander around the crux. Basically you've resorted to waffling.

    Sorry but I can't take your word for that.

    No, you cannot gut someone for not having all the facts or as much personal experience as you, whilst simultaneously acknowledging that it would be unreasonable to expect the standard TSR-er such as myself to have such a level of understanding before posting. You are barking up two trees at the same time there.

    Good, then if you're not basing your argument on who pie is in reality (which you did from the beginning), then we're not against eachother on anything. You say you haven't contested how it might of looked.... that IS how it looked... and I responded accordingly, proportionately and - according to your own PM - with restraint.

    See, again, you're bringing up points that relate to your personal experience, NOT to the words written. So you STILL fail to grasp the distinction between who she may be in real life and what she chose to write. And you must stop dancing around that failing!

    As got-at, please. When you throw a ball at a wall, and it rebounds and hits you in the face, is it now the ball's fault?

    'That is not to say that she could not conceive...' That's for her to say, not you. That's what should have been said, to avoid a righteous shooting down.

    The stoning bit is about as a relevant as a pig and an elephant and a donkey being utterly autonomous and leading separately unremarkable lives... but yes I WOULD feel the same way IF the victim somehow deserved it, which is difficult to imagine. Unlike in this case, where my input, at least, makes sense.

    Okay, well, that's not nice is it? Nout to do with me though, as I'm not singing the same choon.

    I think tartan's first response was bang on the money. No comment on the rest.

    It is as though you are generalising all the responses as being from one entity, and calling that entity TJW. I don't give a tinker's toot what other people may have said. Yes, it does sound like some of it was unreasonably antipathic, but not me and mine, and you've more or less admitted that in the PMs.

    The conclusions are only *NOT cut and dry if you try to expand them to include all of this person's being, which I haven't. But there is absolutely no escaping, by hook or by crook, that yes, it DID sound queen-of-me or whatever you want to call it, and therefore the responses that penalise pie for that ARE fair enough UNLESS they go beyond restraint, which other people did, but I didn't.

    I therefore stand by everything I've said, and actually think you're being remarkably naive about this. There exists within pie's constitution a particular drive that compelled her to write the way she did, which is anything but humble. Whether that drive is the prevalent feature in her overall personality I don't know, but wake up kiddo, because as much as you favour yourself some knightly parragon of virtue, all you've done here is serve up a ripe ego-feeding of the tallest order.

    I'm seriously gonna stop replying now and, as ever, decline to read any further response/PM because I think we're both more or less reduced to reiterating/repeating former points.

    Nice try, but you can never win, you know why? Because....

    ....
    ....
    ....
    ....
    ....






    You support Liverpool.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Probably since even though she doesn't deserve me I still love her.. FML
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Erm no.
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't....it would just give me false hope
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sweeter than a cherry pie)
    So what, I should make psychic in-jokes now? It's not my problem that you took something that was clearly said in jest TO SOMEONE ELSE totally seriously.

    No, it was not only on this point. You have been condemning me for the queue comment, and for factual statements I made about my ex boyfriends, which led to a very nasty assessment of my character. This was made by yourself and others who decided to join the bandwagon, most of whom clearly hadn't even bothered to read my comments through from the beginning. While I find the psychology of this pack mentality very interesting (it has been proven through experiments that people act far more extremely as part of a unified group than in isolation), the personal attacks soon became tiring.

    thts a mouthful


    I really don't understand why a factually correct post offended you so much, and nor do I understand how it could have been interpreted as boastful. My most recent ex boyfriend IS still in love with me. That is a simple fact, and as Foo..mp3 has pointed out, that statement says nothing about my own self-esteem. The previous ex IS still sending me flowers. This is also a simple fact, and again, says nothing about how I view myself, and if you read through the later posts I made on the subject it should be clear to you that this is a fact which concerns me, rather than boosts my ego.

    Unfortunately you seem devoid of a sense of humour, a deficiency which no doubt impeded you in this exchange. Again, as Foo.mp3 pointed out, the tone of my posts was OBVIOUSLY tongue-in-cheek and the smileys and language I used made this clear. I think you were already on too much of a war-path to see what was plain, even when the posts I made became sincere and explanatory.

    You mention I should post things which can only be taken at face value - as far as I'm concerned, "My ex is still in love with me" only reads one way. Yes, one can make inferences about it if one is so inclined, but that's true of pretty much any statement possible, and nothing surrounding the way I phrased it implied it is a situation I am proud of. I have said this already in previous posts.



    You told me you were pleased to see how I had backed down about it to another poster! I have already said to you that yes, I could see that the queue comment could come across as boastful to someone determined to take it at face value and ignore my jocular tone and emoticons. You accuse both Foo.mp3 and I of re-contextualising things, but I think that what you're doing is worse; you are ignoring the points I am making in my defence and charging on regardless, and even apparently forgetting exchanges we've already had.

    You also claim that you are drawing the only reasonable and obvious meaning from what I've written, which is, quite frankly, rubbish. You have to do an awful lot of reading between the lines to decide I was boasting about having men hung up on me. You leapt to conclusions, and down my throat, about something you made up by yourself. Yes, as I've conceded several times now, I understand why an outsider might think the "queue" comment was boastful, but I DO NOT see how saying "My ex is still in love with me" can be (reasonably, if at all) construed as arrogant, or crowing, or any of that rubbish. IT IS A STATEMENT OF FACT. As is "I am wearing a pair of jeans today." I would expect that to be taken at face value, though you could come along and decide I must be ashamed of the shape of my legs, or couldn't be bothered to shave them so felt I had to conceal them, or that I REALLY think a load of strangers online cares about what I'm wearing.
    thts quite a mouthful
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I have no idea what this thread has now become about exactly, but gonna post OT for me...

    I've done it a few times with one particular ex. Don't ask me why, because he honestly treated me like absolute ****. He called me up a while later to genuinely ask for forgiveness and apologise and all that **** and I was stupid enough to believe him. I have noone to blame but myself and I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do, but what's done is done. I thought I could separate feelings from sex, and I think when it comes to exes you definitely can't.
    • Thread Starter
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessticles)
    I have no idea what this thread has now become about exactly, but gonna post OT for me...

    I've done it a few times with one particular ex. Don't ask me why, because he honestly treated me like absolute ****. He called me up a while later to genuinely ask for forgiveness and apologise and all that **** and I was stupid enough to believe him. I have noone to blame but myself and I'm not saying it was a smart thing to do, but what's done is done. I thought I could separate feelings from sex, and I think when it comes to exes you definitely can't.
    i lost track a while back lol
    #3

    Woah. My current position... which has just gone slightly belly-up.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    trying too hard to use Big Words to meander around the crux.
    justified such a flatulant [sic] comment
    I found these two statements incongruous. You're an interesting individual.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If I ever broke up with my current girlfriend I definitely would because shes so nice and super hot i couldnt ever say no, but if i was single - my actual ex no, never in a million years
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes. But thats because none of them meant anything to me so it would be straight up fun.......then leave before you miss the last bus home
    • 25 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Credit where credit's due. You're a clever cookie, but are trying too hard to use Big Words to meander around the crux. Basically you've resorted to waffling
    I pitty those who are superfluously verbose or grandiloquent (except in jest/with a sense of irony of course ), often with the painfully transparent pseudo-intellectual aim of appearing well read/poetic etc (I can assure you I am none of the above); however, sometimes a measure of eloquence goes a long way - particularly where disputes centred around subjective criticism become protracted

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    I responded accordingly, proportionately and - according to your own PM - with restraint**
    This is where we disagree

    (Original post by Foo.mp3)
    **it was relatively, if not absolutely, restrainted
    E.g. it was restrained compared to what those who have received warning points/bans had said but not restrained in an absolute sense e.g. far from neutral/cool headed!

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    When you throw a ball at a wall, and it rebounds and hits you in the face, is it now the ball's fault?
    When you throw a ball at a wall and a group of residents assume you're an ASBO kid, rally round and **** you repeatedly over the head with a cricket bat.. is it really the thrower's fault?

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    wake up kiddo, because as much as you favour yourself some knightly parragon of virtue, all you've done here is serve up a ripe ego-feeding of the tallest order
    Heh, food for her soul I'm sure :rolleyes: I am far from perfect, and an oft mischievous, seldom politically correct, ostensive pariah - certainly not a self-anointed parragon of virtue! :pirate3:

    (doesn't mean I don't have a decent side to my twisted personality) :flutter:

    (Original post by The_Jammy_Witch)
    Nice try, but you can never win, you know why? Because you support Liverpool
    Can't be a proper fan of the Hotspur unless you can hold your hand up and accept defeat when it's staring you in the face, lettuce be reality.

    (Original post by Serano)
    Probably since even though she doesn't deserve me I still love her.. FML
    :console: Love's a bitch

    (Original post by Jessticles)
    I have no idea what this thread has now become about exactly, but gonna post OT for me...
    Yeah sorry about that.. what are we like :rolleyes:

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: May 18, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.