Jump to content

RudolphFarquhar

Resident
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About RudolphFarquhar

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. JaedenDelanaire wrote: to an illiterate cashier who gets by on her 9 to 5, silly conversations like this are merely an amusing point to ponder over. I'm glad it's you not me who is superciliously demeaning the great unwashed mass of forumites. **********Rudi**********
  2. A: I'm really a bloke in RL and I'm a bloke in SL too. Wanna have sex? B: I'm really a girl in RL and I'm a girl in SL. Yes please. A: Actually I'm a girl in RL just playing a bloke in SL. Do you still wanna have sex? B: Yes please, because I'm actually a lesbian in RL but I was trying out being hetero in SL. A: Erm, well, to be honest, I am a bloke in RL, and I have always wanted to have sex with a lesbian, so is it still on? B: Well, to tell the truth, I am a homosexual man in RL, so you being a bloke is quite good really. A:Ewww, I could never have sex with another man . . . Is that
  3. JaedenDelanaire wrote: RudolphFarquhar wrote: JaedenDelanaire wrote: You're assuming that most people need assurance beyond basic disclosure and occasionally voice verification (which is laughably easy to fake) to begin making their first impressions. They don't. I'm not assuming it. I agree that people are that naively stupid. I am saying that revising your OP, to acknowledge the idiocy of believing everything that you are told online, would render the question you pose as redundantly nonsensical. **********Rudi********** This is possibly the only thing you've stated in th
  4. JaedenDelanaire wrote: The argument is that discrimination begins when there is a disclosure made that the avatar's gender is not the same as the real life gender, not whether or not they're being truthful. Which merely puts into more severe focus, and exacerbates the idiocy of believing what you are told online. You should be asking, are you stupid enough to believe something when you were stupid enough to believe the reverse in the first place? **********Rudi**********
  5. JaedenDelanaire wrote: You're assuming that most people need assurance beyond basic disclosure and occasionally voice verification (which is laughably easy to fake) to begin making their first impressions. They don't. I'm not assuming it. I agree that people are that naively stupid. I am saying that revising your OP, to acknowledge the idiocy of believing everything that you are told online, would render the question you pose as redundantly nonsensical. **********Rudi**********
  6. Sephina Frostbite wrote: RudolphFarquhar wrote: Sephina Frostbite wrote: Its called context clues. Doesn't take a genius to understand her. Yes she might have a few words off but its not horribly written. If I want to make sense of a mystery I'll read a Sherlock Holmes story. In the forums I expect posters to make some sort of attempt to avoid insulting others with errors that force you to have to guess what might be the correct meaning of the words. She says she has been banned from multiple sims inworld - well, I'm not surprised, as her posts suggest that she has severe communi
  7. JaedenDelanaire wrote: I claim complete and total ignorance. Claim accepted. **********Rudi**********
  8. Magic Dres! At this season I would also like to point out that "good will to all men" is not a sexist comment and in fact, is a misquotation of Luke 2: 1-14 which actually says: "peace to men of good will". So, as is usual in the bible, mean people are specifically excluded from passing through the eye of a needle - another mistranslation, of course. It's just as well my exhortation regarding scepticism in believing what you read online can be quite beneficially extended to include the bible, the koran and several other players to be nominated later. **********Rudi**********
  9. JaedenDelanaire wrote: monogamy is a predominately Christian forced idealism. ******** it is! You're mixing monogamy up with marriage, and even then, while Christianity is a major player in the "take over your head and make you feel bad about feeling good" movements, all of the other organisations that believe their faults are the consequence of an omnipresent yet invisible being's long-term plan have some sort of mechanism for encouraging males to make formal commitments to the care of progeny, which is all the female half of the species really care about. JaedenDelanaire wrote: I
  10. JaedenDelanaire wrote: RudolphFarquhar wrote: Suggestions? My Dad told me long ago that if one isn't enough, two certainly isn't - and as for three, you might wish to consult Robert Silverberg's "Two At Once". **********Rudi********** That's...An incredibly prejudiced remark. I'll tell my Dad you thought that. I'm sure he'll break down in tears and might possibly consider committing suicide, given the extent to which your opinion is of value to him By the way, have you read "Two At Once" or are you commenting in complete ignorance? JaedenDelanaire wrote: A good many people are ca
  11. JaedenDelanaire wrote: Q: If an RPer plays a gender other than his/her own in real life, does it affect their desirability as an RP candidate, and if so, why? If the word gender fails to apply to your avatar in SL and you'd still like to answer the question, simply substitute gender for whatever you feel is appropriate. Yes, furries, its and trans, it's your night to shine. A friend of mine noted that there was a distinct difficulty in getting people to play with their heterosexual RP characters of the opposite gender when they were upfront about their RL gender. I cannot comme
  12. JaedenDelanaire wrote: Rudi. Sweetheart. My little pumpkin muffin. Why are you justifying your statement with anecdote? This is the internet, silly boy. How am I ever to belieeeeb you? As I repeatedly advise people, you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. That doesn't mean it isn't true of course. JaedenDelanaire wrote: I fully support those who can't help but to seek and partake in confrontation, but to devote yourself to antagonizing others is not the behavior of a healthy individual. As for your passive aggression, there are several traits I could list o
  13. JaedenDelanaire wrote: My dear, dear (and most certainly confrontational and passive aggressive) Rudi, that's eight in a row! Are you going to grace me with a ninth? I shall wait anxiously. But on the note of passive aggressiveness, I'm curious how many psychologists you've had the privilege of meeting to make the conclusion of how they manage their practices? I wonder if I should turn this into a cheap shot at your mental health while I'm at it. Feel free to try. I have considerable experience of trick cyclists, none of whom I would even recommend as a last meal for Hannibal Lector.
  14. Unswervingly. **********Rudi**********
  15. Sephina Frostbite wrote: Its called context clues. Doesn't take a genius to understand her. Yes she might have a few words off but its not horribly written. If I want to make sense of a mystery I'll read a Sherlock Holmes story. In the forums I expect posters to make some sort of attempt to avoid insulting others with errors that force you to have to guess what might be the correct meaning of the words. She says she has been banned from multiple sims inworld - well, I'm not surprised, as her posts suggest that she has severe communications (inwards and outwards) failings of which she is
×
×
  • Create New...