Sushibitch

Dec 19, 2012

Any accusations of intentional misogyny lands on my shoulders.

You started the thread, but that doesn't mean you're responsible for the comments of other commenters.

user458

Dec 19, 2012

OT, amp's track record speaks for itself. Also, he's admitted that he looks like a less attractive Mr. Bean.

mintcandy

Dec 20, 2012

You started the thread, but that doesn't mean you're responsible for the comments of other commenters.

Agreed.

RuralRouter

Dec 20, 2012

Octobertens,

 

The people who hang out in these forums most likely do so because they like the status quo,(of OKC) or are at least comfortable with it.  If there were any real discontent with the way it works, most would have gone elsewhere already, so I'm not sure who the constituency for some substantial change would really be.

 

OctoberTens

Dec 20, 2012

Rural,

It was explained throughout the thread that the proposed rules were a thought experiment. I was not then or now seeking to build a consensus or to gather support for any petition of any sort. In hindsight, the proposed rules were a thought to improve efficiency by mechanizing a largely unorganized system. 

If readers misconstrued my intent or experienced any anxiety regarding the status quo, such anxiety was unmerited. I never possessed authority, power, nor desire to alter their experience.

I had a question and I asked the question. I received --- much appreciated --- feedback. In all, I am satisfied with the development of the thread. I found it to be an informative exercise.

There is and was never any threat, on my part, to implement any change to the operations here or otherwise alter the status quo.

 

amp-here

Dec 20, 2012

In hindsight, the proposed rules were a thought to improve efficiency by mechanizing a largely unorganized system.

 

   Oh man...figures.  Suggestions for improvement will be shot on site (intentional misspelling).  Hence we have many people on this site who are die hard fans of the status quo and supposed experts and supposedly also not on here for casual sex (which would make some sense if they were "single on purpose"), yet are single.

OT, amp's track record speaks for itself. Also, he's admitted that he looks like a less attractive Mr. Bean.

   BTW, "user"/kid...if you're really stupid enough to think I'm like Mr Bean (or ever said I am), attack me IRL and explain to your friends how "Mr. Bean" is a 6 foot tall well built man who graciously threw you over his fence into a ditch.  And please don't call me "son" like you always do...honestly, I would be on suicide watch if I found out I was related to you.

 

Any accusations of intentional misogyny lands on my shoulders.

   Man (October), I'm sorry...you are apparently so intimidated by usual forum trolls that you're crying uncle.  Sigh...I actually thought you were on the right track, minus that your ideas tried to address the right points in the wrong (too extreme) ways.  As I have said before, these guys hate alternatives...

   Anyhow, anyone who can read can figure out my comments address the dating scene in general, and are not specific to men or women.  Minus one point about women denying that they have one of the same insecurity issues men do: that they refuse to recognize that men may send them fluffy messages when they are only barely interested...in the same way women send men fluffy/not-serious/even-mocking messages if they are not really interested, but are simply bored.  If you're crazy enough to think saying women often deny having an issue they have in common with men makes me a misogynist, fine, but don't jam unsaid-unrelated things as words in my words.  

  Also, If you ever were offered a one-night-stand from such a woman (most guys who aren't horridly ugly or socially dead have faced this at some time or another), you'd know this sort of thing happens, whether you like it or not.

mintcandy

Dec 20, 2012

If you're crazy enough to think saying women often deny having an issue they have in common with men makes someone a misogynist.

No, I'm saying that it's not cool to date someone unattractive for the express intent of gaining experience to date attractive people, regardless of their gender.

Nor is it cool to encourage this behavior by limiting the amount of messages individuals can receive due to some outlandish theory that spamming unattractive individuals is an attempt to "improve" on who they date.

These are gender neutral statements, by the way.

OctoberTens

Dec 20, 2012

Amp,

I take no issue with what you've said, save one point. 

How does claiming accountability for encouraging a discussion equate to intimidation? If anything, I would perceive such a claim as creating clear lines for conflict resolution. To provide detractors a clear and reasonable target seems contrary to capitulation, in my experience (as limited as it may be).

Certainly, I do not hold myself wholly at fault for wanton or errant quips; however, I unashamedly acknowledge that not only did I "start the ball rolling" I also pushed it along. In doing so and in my own failure to recognize dehumanizing assumptions involved, I may have unintentionally misguided others too also ignore the dehumanizing elements. I believe recognizing my errors is not weakness but strength.

That being said, my own conclusion is that this thought experiment is not decided. The greatest confounding issue was that responses to the proposal may be unreliable because of responders' personal bias. Relatedly, I believe you are correct: the numbers used were excessive.

user458

Dec 20, 2012

Son, I'd wreck you worse than the woman whose dog you ran over wrecked you.

Post a comment