Jump to content

My land lady is ok with perving?


JennyGully
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1497 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, 00TK said:

I sent her a PM asking if we could talk about it. She said no, and then proceeded to respond in here.

No.

I said that you're bringing it back then you want to extend my reply as a refusal to talk in IMs with you.

There's a difference between "no, it's you who's bringing it back" and "i don't want to talk in IMs with you" and I'm sure I'm not the only one who can read the difference... except you apparently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Your intentions were made crystal clear by your continued responses. 

Okay so me continuing to respond determines my intentions, and not my actual words. Got it.

I told her to talk to me in PM, she doesn’t want to PM, what do you want me to do? Lol.

7 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

1. You dusted off my comment here in this public thread then sent me an IM. Not the reverse way.

2. You're not allowed to attached private IMs in a public thread.

3. I confirm that you're the one to bring it back, not me.

4. I said here and in private messages that I'm not angry which you keep to ignore and withdraw totally, showing clearly how you do not want a talk.

 

1. Yeah, I did! Never said I didn’t. The point where I ask you to PM me is really clear.

2. I removed it, sorry. Someone was trying to make me out to be a liar though.

3. Yeah I know I brought it back. I wanted to talk about it!

4. If I don’t want to talk....why am I talking?

if you aren’t saying “I don’t want to PM” by saying “no” when I ask to PM then why aren’t you saying anything to my PM? Hahaha.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2017 at 7:19 AM, JennyGully said:

So I liked this beach hut and waited almost 6 months to rent it. I left my current house which I had land in because the owner kindly sold me a piece for this beach hut because I loved the view so much. I rent it for a month. 2weeks pass by . yesterday this Swedish dude passes by my house says hi Jenny. We have a decent convo. Then he sits next to me and poses on top of me a few times I get up. I tell him I have a bf very nicely. He says thank you it was nice speaking to you. I go inside my hut with the door shut. He proceeds to stand here for 20 minutes as I change. He tells me well I can see thru your door and you look nice. I could not eject him cuz its  Not my land so I blocked him.  My landlady after I told her this found nothing wrong. Was I wrong or was she?

i have to say you were wrong i myself love watching  voyuering  its something i love alot

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 00TK said:

why am I talking?

Good question.

Here's the negative judgements you threw at everyone or some of us before my comment you're dusting off today :

  • heartless
  • rude 
  • hate 

Yep, for me you clearly sound so full of love I confirm.

Edited by Morgan Rosenstar
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, 00TK said:

also you said “no” to my claim that she felt violated but:

Right I confirm that you didn't read the OP :

"Hahahahahah 

I just wanted to know if she was right or I was wrong in the discussion there were no hard feelings I should have worded my topic different.

I am pretty high right now"

Edited by Morgan Rosenstar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

Good question.

Here's the negative judgements you threw at everyone or some of us before my comment you're dusting off today :

  • heartless
  • rude 
  • hate 

Yep, for me you clearly sound so full of love I confirm.

Ok, I'm coming in now.

 

@Morgan Rosenstar

  • His use of the word 'heartless' was in his first post, and he apologised for it almost immediately, so that ought not to have been brought up again.
  • He used the word 'rude' in his first post, and again in his second post. It's a word we all use, and it's usually correct. It's not a bad word to use when it applies.
  • He used the word 'hate' in his first post, and he apologised almost immediately, so it ought not to have been brought up again.

He was angry that the OP had been treated in the way that she had been. It was perfectly understandable. I sometimes get annoyed when people auto-jump on OPs without any reasonable cause. I'm sure that many people here do.

His posts do not merit the flack he is receiving, especially from your direction. He initially made a mistake. He withdrew it and apologised almost immediately, and that should have been that. It's time to stop now.

 

@00TK

You made a mistake with your first post, and you withdrew it and apologised almost immediately. For that, you have my respect.

Resurrecting this thread was another mistake. It had faded into the past and out of people's minds. You should stop posting in it now. People have formed their views, right or wrong, and the way it has been going, there is nothing you can do to change their minds. Everybody believes they have the correct view, and yet the views are different, so some must be wrong, and that's the way it will stay regardless of how much is posted. So it's best to stop now, and let the thread fade away again.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

that ought not to have been brought up again.

Right, I didn't brought it up today.

 

10 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

he apologised for it

No. He restricted his generalization down to a more relative affirmation but never apologised about calling some of the forumers as heartless.

12 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

when it applies.

And this is the context where it's applied : I think it's rude to tell someone that "thats just the way things are"

14 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

He used the word 'hate' in his first post, and he apologised almost immediately

No, he didn't apologised that he hates the forums nor I see anything loving in that.

15 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It was perfectly understandable.

which is another of his mistakes since the OP herself warned that this was not the way she wanted to word this topic.

16 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

His posts do not merit the flack he is receiving, especially from your direction.

He's receiving no flack from me... On the other hand I recommend you read how he's judging me repeatedly while all I'm doing is to deny that I'm angry, that I'm the one who's bringing back this comment, that I don't want to talk in IMs with him and all other false affirmations he's puting on me, etc...

21 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

He withdrew it and apologised almost immediately

No, he did not withdrew it. It's not even what I'm asking him. I'm not even asking him anything except to stop claiming that I said this or that when I did not said it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were the one who made it personal, Morgan, when you said "Yes, you're so full of love. I can't wait to see you giving all this love to an updated/meshed family." back on page 2. I don't know why he resurrected it after all this time, but all he did was reply to what you'd said to him.

 

19 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

No. He restricted his generalization down to a more relative affirmation but never apologised about calling some of the forumers as heartless.

Some of the forumers are heartless sometimes, or sometimes appear to be.

Don't you think you've both already said all that you've got to say, and anything more will just be chewing the same old bone? He hasn't said that you are heartless, or that he hates you (hating the forum is perfectly acceptable, btw), or even that you are rude (although many of us are from to time). He revised his op so that nobody could know who he thinks are heartless and who he thinks are not, so you can let it go without leaving a false statement about you as the last word.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

You were the one who made it personal, Morgan, when you said "Yes, you're so full of love. I can't wait to see you giving all this love to an updated/meshed family." back on page 2. I don't know why he resurrected it after all this time, but all he did was reply to what you'd said to him.

Right I agree that he's been smart to retract his judgements as anymous lashes who's targeting noone. Feel free to consider that I'm not that smart(a**) than him but I'll continue to reply personally to this or that person when I've something to say.

53 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Don't you think you've both already said all that you've got to say

No, your count is not right. I explained where my comment back at that day came from, was based from, he explained nothing. He may or may not like or dislike where my reply back at that day were coming from, it makes no difference. This is why. Not only he did explained nothing but I repeat : he apologised nothing however he does have your respect... Hmmm ok?

57 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

He hasn't said that you are heartless, or that he hates you (hating the forum is perfectly acceptable, btw)

At it seems you like to defend him so much then you're welcomed to tell me how is his statements are full of love (that you contest against my comment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

At it seems you like to defend him so much then you're welcomed to tell me how is his statements are full of love (that you contest against my comment).

Statements don't have to be "full of love". Precious few statements in this forum, including yours and mine, could be described that way.

I'm just trying stop a fruitless and pointless continuation of this discussion. That's all. I was recently in a similar thread, except that the other person kept insisting that I am something that I'm not. I didn't want to leave the last public word as being that I am that something. I wanted the last word to say that I am not that something, so I continued in it. The result was that we were both suspended, both from here and from SL itself. Very wrongly, in my strong opinion, but that's what happened. The suspensions were nominal (very short) but they shouldn't have happened. It didn't matter who was in the right and who was in the wrong, or that there was no flaming, or anything similar from either side. We both went. This one-to-one 'discussion' between you two has a lot of similarities and, since you haven't personally been accused of anything, you don't have anything to defend, so it would be wise to opt out now. Imo, of course.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

This one-to-one 'discussion' between you two has a lot of similarities and, since you haven't personally been accused of anything, you don't have anything to defend, so it would be wise to opt out now. Imo, of course.

No, right now I'm talking with you and I don't mind to explain why I said this but this is it. What was the context when I posted this comment, Phil?

I believe the context was simpler than that. The OP started this topic because of a recent SL experience that she wanted to share and have feedbacks on. Then, after few replies, she corrected the topic as it was not the way she wanted to word it. I believe that most posters here reacted and adjusted their replies accordingly... except one who jumped in, lashed out his anger without reading anything that had been already said here. Wow, what's that? So one poster -yes that's me- reacted to this out of context reaction. But I repeat : I see no anonymous heartless posts here and i don't see how to explain that, on SL things are working like this and not like that, is being rude either. I don't associate anger with a loving attitude either. I can't prevent people to judge positively or negatively nor it has to stop me to say what I want to say, it'll only change the way I'm saying it if I feel it can get too far.

Anything else you want to know about me? Aha wait, let's go back in topic then. I don't really have a sense of SL privacy. When my friends are telling me that they kickban at sight whoever enters their parcel, I'm just puzzled. I'm so the opposite that my parcel is open for all to visit, there's even the surl in my picks. I don't judge people on their avatars either because like everyone here -i think so?- I've been a noob with a noob avie so for me it's no proof that a noob avie equals someone uninteresting to meet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 00TK jumps into the forums with a flaming post. 

On 8/30/2017 at 4:58 PM, 00TK said:

I hate the forums, everyone is so heartless. She felt violated, she was justified in wanting to leave. Why are people defending the pervert? "There's no real privacy in SL", get a grip. Just because it's possible to perv doesn't mean it's right or that it's wrong for someone to want privacy on land they payed to rent for themself.

And you reply to someone semi-calling them out on it with... 

39 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Statements don't have to be "full of love". Precious few statements in this forum, including yours and mine, could be described that way.

But you don't reference 00TK's post as not being full of love.  They said point blank that EVERYONE is heartless in the forums. Funny,  I have seen a lot of help given, several people receiving things creators have made, gifts being freely handed out to new users, but a thread about the lack of privacy in SL (which is just a simple fact) makes them say everyone is hateful. And you think Morgan is in the wrong? You have shown time and time again that you are narrow minded and refuse to bend a Millimeter away from your stated opinion. 

Let's put this a simpler way.. 00TK's original post was off topic and should have been pulled by a mod. And then none of this would have happened. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drake. Almost immediately, 00TK retracted the statement you quoted and substituted it for something else.

 

11 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

Let's put this a simpler way.. 00TK's original post was off topic and should have been pulled by a mod. And then none of this would have happened. 

And he changed it almost immediately.

You're behind the times ;)

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Phil.. He didnt.. 

On 8/30/2017 at 4:58 PM, 00TK said:

I hate the forums, everyone is so heartless. She felt violated, she was justified in wanting to leave. Why are people defending the pervert? "There's no real privacy in SL", get a grip. Just because it's possible to perv doesn't mean it's right or that it's wrong for someone to want privacy on land they payed to rent for themself.

What he did was post ANOTHER response with different wording.  

Okay, okay. I should have said "some people" instead of everyone. It just annoyed me, some of the things people said. I think it's rude to tell someone that "thats just the way things are" when they come for help. You know?

You're only reading what you want to read.. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right. He posted again to correct what he originally posted. Since then, what he origially wrote doesn't stand.

I am reading what's in the posts, that's all. I have no reason whatsoever to be selective or to make any interpretations. I don't know either of them personally. I'm an impartial observer. I'm advising against continuing it, that's all. and I've given a reasonably detailed reason why.

We often get students coming here seeking help with their course work. They often attract auto-come-down-on-the-student posts, as though the student should have known better. Those auto-reponses annoy me, just like some responses annoyed 00TK. I sometimes write posts to them, although not filled with the anger that 00TK showed. But I do understand how someone can get annoyed at that kind of thing. It didn't apply in this case, imo, but I can understand a person thinking it did.

Anyway, I'm only trying to stop it before it goes too far and, by the looks of things, it could well be that 00TK has decided to opt out. I hope he has.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

I just had this talk with Phil about what he wants to read and how he prefers to give his respect to someone who actually never apologised

Just a quick comment. He'd said that he'd apologised in his recent posts, and I assumed he had when I wrote that. He did back down from all forumites to some forumites almost immediately though, so that's worth something :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Morgan Rosenstar said:

@Drake1 Nightfire : please don't. I just had this talk with Phil about what he wants to read and how he prefers to give his respect to someone who actually never apologised. But he's nonetheless right on one point. It's time to end this. Your posts will only generate some sterile bis repetita. Thank you.

Yes Ma'am.. Unfollowing thread so i wont respond. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Just a quick comment. He'd said that he'd apologised in his recent posts, and I assumed he had when I wrote that. He did back down from all forumites to some forumites almost immediately though, so that's worth something :)

He believes that to scale down and reaffirm his comment about heartless posters is a form of apology, just like he believes that when I said "no, I didn't brought this back today" it means that I don't want to talk in IMs with him.

13 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

It didn't apply in this case, imo

Enough said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as an impartial observer, his rephrasing post counts for me. It would have been much better if he'd written something like, "Sometimes some people can be heartless here", which I know they can. But he didn't.

I'm glad that you've decided that it's time to end it, though. It can't get anywhere, and there really are some big similarities between this thread and the thread that got me and someone else briefly suspended recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Well, as an impartial observer, his rephrasing post counts for me.(...)

I don't really see where you're an impartial observer since his rephrasing to confirm and reaffirm his out of context assumption about some heartless posters is fine for you as a form of apologies. No, it's not truely a question, don't answer but do understand that it makes no sense for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. You misunderstaood me, no doubt due to my poor wording. I meant that his rephrase counts from then on, and not his original phrase. I didn't mean that it had anything to do with apologising. My suggested alternative didn't mention apologising either.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Sorry. You misunderstaood me, no doubt due to my poor wording. I meant that his rephrase counts from then on, and not his original phrase. I didn't mean that it had anything to do with apologising. My suggested alternative didn't mention apologising either.

Thank you. I'm sure we'll disagree again on another topic, soon or late but I appreciate that it remains civil between us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1497 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...