Jack and oisleep have a thrilling exchange

64 posts / 0 new
Last post
oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:25
Jack and oisleep have a thrilling exchange

Split from moderating for the next week. - Jack

Jack wrote:
(Grace) was saying (revol68)'s not her boyfriend, not that he's not banned was how I read it...

get in there then my son, what you waiting for

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 15:24

take it she's knocked you back in the past then, perhaps a drunken advance that went too far?

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 15:41

as you please

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 15:49

i bet you were

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 15:55

why do revol68 and grace have, and let's be honest here, frankly cringe enducing tributes to each other in their taglines

i was prepared to let that pass previously under the mistaken belief they were courting, but words fail me now i'm afraid

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:04

me too (but minus the dickhead)

((not literally of course))

but why does she reciprocate? are you jealous?

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:08
Jack wrote:

Because she likes being ravished?

twisted

(that's the closest smiley i could find to getting the horn)

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:17

i'm not that tall

everyone like's my scottish accent

i'm cute and non threatening

i don't mind going shopping with girls, girls clothes are much more interesting than guy's stuff anyway, it's always a reasonable experience, especially trying to work out if something is a belt, skirt, vest, top, pants etc... .some of it just looks like a piece of cloth, how do they know which bit should go where, and what should be tied to what and when (and why confused )

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:19

i bet she does

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:23

i ain't finished yet

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:29

well i'm at work, no need for the ing tho

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:33

aren't we all

trick is to get work done quickly that boss thinks should take a while, then fanny around on here whilst time catches up with what you've already done

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:39

get your work dudes to slow down then

could be your first real practical experience of work place organisation!

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:45

do you do your telephone interviews naked, just because you can like

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:47

nout to be ashamed about, if a man can't tackle out in his own home where an earth can he

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 16:59

too many tourists

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 17:08

there's no tourists in my flat though

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 19:36

yeah i thought that was the case, doesn't change things tho

(you still naked?)

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 14 2005 19:39
jack wrote:
At least revol is openly rude/abusive.
jack wrote:
It's not a good thing, what the fuck are you talking about? Where did I say that?

using the term least implies a certain salvation on one's part (in this instance revol68), whence compared to the other (in this instance random) the inference is that revol's behaviour is better/more good than random's

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jul 17 2005 13:40

sorry to interrupt your chat.

jack, youre being an arsehole. angry what the fuck have i done that you think im a nasty piece of work? i dont give people shit for no reason, i dont pretend i know more than anyone else, i dont depersonalise everything. the worse ive done here is insult revol occasionally, and thats usually after trying to hold back through post after post of his abuse. i also accused lucy of being a bully, and i dont take that back either. however hardly proof of just how horrible i am.

your big evidence of me being a git so far is that i reckon this place is unsafe for any conversation about real personal issues, and that i believe that politics has to be based on personal experience. ive seen rape redefined here into the usual stereotypical "real rape" versus "asking for it" brackets. ive been insulted and had well nasty things said to and about me when i tried to talk about it. you all even had to open a seperate forum for newbies, yourselves acknowledging the lack of safety and the maliciousness on the usual forums. i wasnt alone in thinking that this place isnt particularly friendly or conducive to real community feeling, i wasnt the only person who used the word unsafe.

and ive never sent anyone here nasty insulting little pms, the online equivalent of secretly pinching someone hard. ive had them from revol and one other. its cowardly and nasty.

i dont know what your problem is jack. id be interested to hear it but i wont ask again, going round in circles. you dont know me and youre just making shit up, and i dont appreciate it.

Thora
Offline
Joined: 17-06-04
Jul 17 2005 18:38
random wrote:
ive seen rape redefined here into the usual stereotypical "real rape" versus "asking for it" brackets.

Really? When? As has often been the case with your post's random, that's rubbish. I don't remember anyone suggesting there are any circumstances where rape victims were "asking for it" roll eyes

oisleep's picture
oisleep
Offline
Joined: 20-04-05
Jul 17 2005 18:48
Jack wrote:

The point was this - Random said revol was a nasty piece of work, and due to this, should have been banned ages ago. If that is the criteria on which someone is banned, then Random would be just as banned.

yeah Random said revol was a nasty piece of work and should be banned, you came back and said that was rich coming from random, ergo she was also a nasty piece of work, and when asked for an example of why this was so, you failed to give any (as you couldn't be "bothered" to look through her 200 posts)

(and when you say "random would be just as banned", do you mean like for a week like revol got?)

roll eyes

macmaitiu
Offline
Joined: 18-06-05
Jul 17 2005 20:15

These forums have seriously gone to the dogs. red n black star

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Jul 18 2005 14:19
Quote:
i reckon this place is unsafe for any conversation about real personal issues, and that i believe that politics has to be based on personal experience. ive seen rape redefined here into the usual stereotypical "real rape" versus "asking for it" brackets. ive been insulted and had well nasty things said to and about me when i tried to talk about it

firstly, please random, don't say people here have polarised rape into "real rape" and "asking for it". its not true.

also, i have never, ever been able to work out what your definition of "unsafe" actually is given the context. on internet forums people disagree with each other, sometimes quite heatedly. its a mixed bag of people with loads of different viewpoints interacting in a relatively artificial way because internet forums are an artificial environment. unless people have met each other, all we know about people is what they write. this means that most of us are basing our opinions about each other on an extremely narrow perception. because of all this, libcom isn't i'm sure the optimal environment for people who have been seriously hurt by bad experiences to seek unqualified support for their viewpoint because they are likely to have to deal with people disagreeing with a view that is deeply emotionally personal to them and that is distressing. i can only imagine that this is what you mean by "unsafe".

however, where people are able to talk about their experiences in a political context and be able to deal with the fact that because it happened to them, they don't totally own all knowledge relating to that issue its a different issue. i have said things about my families experience of peodaphillia (which i still can't spell). i have never felt "unsafe" on libcom for any reason. people have said things around that issue that i disagree with deeply, but thats the purpose of the forum. its not there for people to feel sorry for me or to think i'm right just because this was my families experience and i'd hate it if people did.

Quote:
i also accused lucy of being a bully, and i dont take that back either

i am not a bully.

<edited twice because i was still thinking about what i was writing>

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jul 18 2005 14:25

random, you have behaved pretty disgracefully on here before. To pretend that you haven't been brought up on this by loads of different people isd a bit weird.

You know it (whether you think you did anything wrong or not). You also know there are quite a few people on this thread who know it as well.

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jul 18 2005 14:48
Quote:
random, you have behaved pretty disgracefully on here before. To pretend that you haven't been brought up on this by loads of different people isd a bit weird.

when, pingtiao? please do tell. ive never had even the vaguest suggestion of bad behaviour from any admins, never been told to calm down or whatever. i have had personal insults, and i have been dismissed or insulted on almost every thread ive posted on, since femuk. all i need to do is show up and say hi and revol and his followers jump straight on the bully bandwagon.

lucy, ive been into what unsafe means several times, im not going into it again now. i have seen the old "real rape" myths bandied about here, including on femuk, where it was one of the main reasons we left, as in the statement i put up at the time. it has happened since and i believe i made a complaint about you specifically regarding it, and you apologised.

cant be bothered arguing with the same old people about the same old things. youre talking bollocks and refusing to substantiate your claims, preferring the old cliquey gang up instead. whoopee doo for you, how grown up. how honest.

what a waste of time this all is.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jul 18 2005 15:06

Sorry, are you saying that at no time in the past have lots of people called you intellectually dishonest?

lucy82
Offline
Joined: 31-05-04
Jul 18 2005 15:06
Quote:
ucy, ive been into what unsafe means several times, im not going into it again now. i have seen the old "real rape" myths bandied about here, including on femuk, where it was one of the main reasons we left, as in the statement i put up at the time. it has happened since and i believe i made a complaint about you specifically regarding it, and you apologised.

for fucks sake random. you are doing it again. twisting up debates we've had in the past to insinuate something i really take exception too. i've answered your point in a calm and thoughtful way because i was seriously trying to work out what you were thinking and in response you say you had to complain about me defining rape as "real rape" and "asking for it" and that I apologised for it... thats even worse than calling me a bully.

quite categorically, i would like to state that i have never said that some women are "real" rape victims and some women "ask for it" and i would thank you to keep your pathetic insinuations to yourself. is there anyone on this board who has read my posts on various matters who can seriously believe that i would say such a thing?

as for apologising, i don't know what planet your on. what i did say at the end of a massive debate about rape and the concept of victimhood was that perhaps because of the subject matter my somewhat vigerous way of debating when i get annoyed was inappropriate. why do you feel it necessary to twist up what people say?

anyway, i'm not answering you again. get on with it. i've hardly any internet access anyway so feel free to say whatever made up shit you can come up with. i think many people on lib com do remember the way you have behaved in the past and so i don't think i have to defend myself.

i had forgotten you were so unpleasant.

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jul 19 2005 10:21
Quote:
quite categorically, i would like to state that i have never said that some women are "real" rape victims and some women "ask for it"

simply, bollocks, lucy. you made the distinction between what you considered "real rape" (your actual words from what i remember) and what you considered just "bad sex" (also your actual words i believe?). you never used the specific words "asking for it" and i never said you did. i know youre a chronic post editor from previous experience so i wont bother to look through the discussion. whats good for one etc..

Quote:
i had forgotten you were so unpleasant.

likewise.

Quote:
i think many people on lib com

yeh the same old bunch, revol and his copycats, all the usual suspects. mob rules eh.

Quote:
feel free to say whatever made up shit you can come up with

dont agree here. id prefer a bit of honesty myself.

Quote:
Sorry, are you saying that at no time in the past have lots of people called you intellectually dishonest?

not to my recollection, no.

pingtiao's picture
pingtiao
Offline
Joined: 9-10-03
Jul 19 2005 10:26

My post previous to that one said

Quote:
random, you have behaved pretty disgracefully on here before. To pretend that you haven't been brought up on this by loads of different people isd a bit weird.

You know it (whether you think you did anything wrong or not). You also know there are quite a few people on this thread who know it as well.

Now, you clearly do know that people at least think you behaved badly, as you refer in your above posts to being hounded by a mob. Now, whether you agree with what they say or not, to deny that this has ever happened in one post, and then to refer to it in another is a little silly, don't you think?

You have been roundly criticised (with no-one backing you up as I remember) for intellectual dishonesty before. For the sake of your self esteem I wouldn't court it again.

random
Offline
Joined: 7-01-04
Jul 19 2005 10:44
Quote:
You have been roundly criticised (with no-one backing you up as I remember) for intellectual dishonesty before.

wtf do you mean by intellectual dishonesty? i dont recall ever hearing that before and dont know what you mean.

Quote:
For the sake of your self esteem I wouldn't court it again.

ooh get you.

this is pointless pingtiao. none of you back up what you say. the rule seems to be that the clique here can say whatever they want . you deny this group exists but we all know different. look here now, to defend revol we have jack, to defend jack we have you, lucy is always there to help, and thora is always next to lucy. zobag is on holiday too i assume or she'd be here too. what happened to alexa, is she one of these under yet another pseudonym? you do all rule this place like a very bitchy little clique, and woe betide anyone who doesnt toe your line. its pathetic.

to say goodbye at your level of operation:

see ya, wouldnt want to be ya.

roll eyes