LlazarusLlong

animebitch wrote: i am a genuinely sweet caring loving person Maybe your problem is not so much racism, or more accurately, unverifiable fake skin colouring, but that you are sending out extremely mixed messages, given your avatar name . . .

It happens a lot to people who haven't read Coby's post below. It's a sort of punishment for starting new threads when there is a completely satisfactory one already.

bebejee wrote: I have had male friends tells me quite openly they escorted using female alts, which was a revelation in itself, and that they earned qutet handsomely, but keeping my own expeirences in mind I find it really hard to believe them. Men are much more successful at being escorts, since they know what men want. And it is fairly obvious that women don't have a clue about that.

LondieMonroe wrote: Your response was really not necessary. The fact that you can sit and take the time to criticize something another person wants is ridiculous. It may not be something you like but it's something I like. I never asked for someone else to like it, I simply asked for help finding it. If you're not willing to help then you didn't need to post anything. This is the General Discussion forum. You are not the forum police so you don't get to tell people what they can or can't do here, and the intent of the forum is not to answer questions, but to engender discussion of issues of interest to participants.If you don't understand or like that then you should be more careful where you initiate threads. This one should obviously have been located in the Your Avatar section which even a cursory look by a non-lazy person of diminished cognitive capabilities could have determined pretty quickly. In the meantime I repeat my opinion that you have execrable taste and invite others to comment on it.

That's probably because you have no received items. LL is saving you space by not forcing you to have an empty box when you don't need it. Either that or somebody has stolen it.

Why would you want that hair? It looks terrible! It is only suitable for a pre-teener who can't read the words, just looks at the pictures in one of those over-priced girl magazines funded by makers of training bras. And who apparently thinks it's cool to repeat letters in words, use typewriter fonts of non-standard sizes, unnecessary excessive punctuation and demonstrate a poor grasp grammar.

LaskyaClaren wrote: It's surely not the definition that is invalid, but rather the judgements that we make about who can be said to fit it. There are undoubtedly people who do what is described here; we just can't possibly prove it. Nah, that's like suggesting that the definition of pink is whatever people wearing rose-tinted glasses can see, is valid.

I'll stop now and let someone else have a turn, otherwise there will be more complaints that we are holding a private dialogue. Although in a public place where everyone is able to interrupt.

LaskyaClaren wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: tl;dr Oh, but you will. You will. As you have claimed to do in the past, I have not read it, although I have read it so I can work out whether I should read it or not. Also, don't believe everything you read on the internet, as someone I has said in the past.

LaskyaClaren wrote: And for many of those people, the account that I am referencing is the "alt," and this my "main." That isn't necessarily helpful . . .

LaskyaClaren wrote: The definition of "trolling" that I've given above (from the Oxford English Dictionary; the Urban Dictionary says something similar) places the emphasis upon intent. A "troll" is someone who intends to provoke a firestorm. The reasons why they might wish to do so undoubtedly vary, but the key is that it is not the content, nor even the tone, that differentiates the troll from the merely incompetent or controversial, but rather the deliberate design to provoke hostility and outrage. That was, in my case, certainly not my own motivation. Notwithstanding my comments above, I will offer my focused insight on this particular paragraph. It is that it is, as you have suggested albeit in a weak fashion, IMPOSSIBLE to determine accurately anybody's intent. Not just online, but in real life. So the definition is inadequate. I won't even go into the question of whether a distinction should be made about the same post being considered trolling in an ANSWERS forum, but as a justifiable attempt to persuade participants to offer opinions in a General Discussion forum - mainly because the ToS (as interpreted by moderating automata) does not differentiate diferent contexts.

I have a feeling that you are going to confuse readers. Not just because you use long words and complex sentences, as well as the odd complex concept - sometimes very odd. But because your "I" is ambiguous. Many will not know who the "I" is. Particularly since you complicate your "identity" by saying that you have been unjustly called an alt. When the avatar posting this IS an alt. Maybe you would like to reread and represent your minithesis in a more cogent fashion?

tl;dr

Derek Torvalar wrote: Jeesus, what is this, the Coast Guard? That reminds me of the time that I was supposed to be going away from home on a business trip for a week, but it got cancelled at the last minute and when I rang my wife she must have been role playing or something, because before I actually could say anything she said "Is that you darling? The coast is clear" which I also thought was a bit peculiar as she doesn't call me darling.

Mornanai wrote: My query would be, is this type "Mafia" based on the "old world style" or "alleged new world style" of Mafia? The difference?? "Old World" Mafia had hitmen as well as their fingers in all the cookie jars. The 'New World' Mafia allegedly doesn't do hits anymore unless it is an extreme case. I think it's probably "old world style" by now . . . . . . given that the thread is four years old.