Jump to content

RudolphFarquhar

Resident
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RudolphFarquhar

  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 how you see it being played out? **********Rudi**********
  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 this thread that I can agree with, now that I understand which field you're coming from. You mean you have EVENTUALLY realised the logic of objection which I have repeatedly posted? Are you slow or what? JaedenDelanaire wrote: Psychology may be your profression, Mr. Southampton Psychology is not my profression, nor even my profession - although when I was younger I used to tell interested girlies at parties, just after explaining that my star sign was Arachnid, the forgotten thirteenth sign, that I was a lay psychologist . . . And where did you get Southampton from? Because Spurs beat them the other day? **********Rudi**********
  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 communications (inwards and outwards) failings of which she is blithely unaware, refuses to accept, and refuses to take action to correct. Your own posts suggest that you might have some degree of comprehension, but your continuing errors in presenting your views (it's it's not its) minimise the extent to which you might have credibility; you apparently care so little about your readers that you are reluctant to take the time to use freely available tools to correct what even you must acknowledge is a poor standard of written English. **********Rudi********** It would be rather childish of me to argue with someone who also makes errors in his post so I am choosing not to. I know the difference between them. I just didn't at the apostrophe in. Like you do sometimes. Happy Holidays Or Merry Christmas if you do celebrate. .. For example: You misspelled MINIMIZE.. Its not Minimise.. But I am not going to harp on you about it. After all you are superior right? LOL You talk ******** and don't realise it. That's realise - like minimise - with an "s" not a "z" because (and that's because with an "s" not a "z" as well) the word has a Latin, rather than a Greek root, and Latin had no "z" other than for loan-words (think the diacritical transformation of foreign words in English, like naive) which is a subject that even the OED gets wrong, so you and the rest of the USA are in good company - but it doesn't make me wrong. Neither does my apparent inconsistency in apostrophising its as it's from time to time because it's a different ******* word!!! You are in no position whatsoever to make any sort of accurate criticism of my English, and that you do so is evidence of your own ignorance. Please continue to do so, and humiliate yourself further in the eyes of the more literate of the participants here, while also drawing out those semi-literates in your support so we can laugh at them too. **********Rudi**********
  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'm admittedly a touch more sensitive about others ragging on polyamory than most. Well, maybe you should stay away from public forums where you are going to have your hyper-emotional lack of logic shredded. **********Rudi**********
  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 capable of having enriching sexual relationships with more than one person at a time. It has nothing to do with one person not being good enough. A considerably larger proportion of the population are incapable of enjoying a satisfactory sexual relationship with any number of persons, from one to infinity. [Note: the key word in that sentence is "relationship"; immature, self-centred morons can have sex and enjoy it; in fact, I would suggest that they are in the majority.] JaedenDelanaire wrote: It has nothing to do with one person not being good enough. On the contrary, it has everything to do with one person not being good enough, that person being yourself. **********Rudi**********
  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 comment, since my first foray into online RPing consisted of using all male characters as a RL chick--and I've met the majority of all my bestest SL friends while they were in an avatar of a gender not the same as their RL gender--regardless of knowing that up front or much later in confidence. On second thought, I can comment: I'm baffled there seems to be a difficulty at all. But for those of you for who it does matter, come one come all. In case you have missed the point, rather than pretending not to, to avoid further embarrassment, I have highlighted the ridiculous element of your question. I ask again: "What is the point of this discussion when you can not be assured of their RL gender, whatever apparent disclosure they might make?" **********Rudi**********
  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 outright, but the biggest is your desire to stick around in a thread when your only contribution was to nit pick at the chosen wording of a question, one which you haven't bothered to answer for yourself. Your continued presence is undesirable, yet here you are. The gnat on the fruit of my labors. Ah, more internet psychology. Or balderdash, as it is known to we experts. I have answered the nonsensical question several times, but you seem disinclined to acknowledge my analysis. In particular you might consider taking your own medicine and ask - as I pointed out in a previous post - how you can determine the actual real life gender and orientation of the person at the end of the keyboard. Which rather destroys the whole point of the question. And who are YOU to decide unilaterally whether my presence is undesirable or not? You may have a personal feeling, perhaps one of incipient humiliation since my logic has rather destroyed the point of the thread, but others are likely to be entertained by the exposure of your pointless posturing. JaedenDelanaire wrote: Perhaps we should skype and watch the Grinch Christmas special today. Your wife never needs know, unless your heart should grow a size bigger. My private inbox is open to you. Is the Grinch some kind of American cultural artefact attempting to compensate for an inability of the population to concentrate long enough to read a Dickens novel? Scrooge was a wuss. Skype or IM you? Why on earth would I want to deprive the unpaying public from getting their jollies by restricting my deconstruction of your nonsensical thesis? **********Rudi**********
  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. My brother is a medical psychologist, and I have to suffer his professional colleagues socially. They, in turn, clamber over each other to avoid sitting next to me at social events, as apparently I ask them questions which they find difficult to answer, which for those with a God Complex (which seems to afflict all doctors) is extremely embarrassing. My wife is a fully qualified mental health nurse, and her best friend is a forensic psychologist, and when they get together a recurrent topic is that of sectioning me, which together they should be able to accomplish fairly simply. The only problem is that without flashing their credentials nobody would believe they were anything but two of the three mad witches escaped from The Scottish Play, their joint ability to present a spoken argument resting on them being able to wave their arms around like demented mediterraneans while shrieking and hooting in an over-emotional manner. My cricket captain at college, who was subsequently an extremely successful international Test cricket captain, was famous (or should that be infamous) for his ability to use his professional psychotherapeutic experience in managing conflicting bombastic egos the size of New Zealand. His management of me, in those early days of his journey to fame, was limited to the occasional encouragement to "do what you like"; perhaps his disinclination to influence me was affected by his young son's hero-worship of my trojan efforts on the cricket field. And then there was that day I spent being "evaluated" by an occupational psychologist for a fairly menial role within a pompous governmental project; they probably wanted a fall guy they could blame if their hot air burst the balloon. After several different individual and team tests (all of which I aced, principally because I'd done my research) the psychologist told me I was completely unsuited to the job, partly because my reasoning tests had indicated I was in the top 99.99% percentile, but more to the point, she felt that the results of the psychometrics and group activities suggested I was unmanageable, to which she added, very unprofessionally: "And I feel sorry for your wife". Oh, and my son wants to be a psychologist too; his initial university experience in the field, however, seems to be limited to following pigeons around trash cans attempting to learn about animal foraging behaviour, oblivious to the invidious parallels with his social involvement with "academic" idiots who mindlessly throw alcohol down their necks, and pizza on the floor. I'll agree with "confrontational" (this is a discussion forum; what else would you be if you are not to role-play a doormat) but I will await your attempt to justify the "passive aggressive" label with interest. Nobody with anything more than a passing acquaintance with me would modify their impression of my overt aggressive attitude with the imprecise dilution that "passive" implies. I don't include (nor have the tiniest smidgeon of respect for) those online "experts" - such as yourself, it seems - who continually brand me an unempathic psycho- or sociopath, as psychologists, of course. **********Rudi**********
  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 blithely unaware, refuses to accept, and refuses to take action to correct. Your own posts suggest that you might have some degree of comprehension, but your continuing errors in presenting your views (it's it's not its) minimise the extent to which you might have credibility; you apparently care so little about your readers that you are reluctant to take the time to use freely available tools to correct what even you must acknowledge is a poor standard of written English. **********Rudi**********
  16. Marybeth Cooperstone wrote: Someone with a furry avi disagreed with me on another tread in another section and pointed out that just because he was a furry does not mean he is a roleplayer. Yeah, he's actually a werewolf in rl . . . **********Rudi**********
  17. Marybeth Cooperstone wrote: in every other way SL is the same as their RL. Yeah, right. They can fly and teleport in rl . . . And never eat or defecate . . . **********Rudi**********
  18. "Your"? "Devert"? "Nosense"? Who's the fool? **********Rudi**********
  19. Sephina Frostbite wrote: I could see that being upseting. You had no right however it is public information and you broke no laws. Just one of trust. If this was done to be I would be very upset however its something I would get over quickly especially if the friendship was a good one. In the furture if someone wants to keep sl, sl then you should respect that. Yes you can look them up however how is that being respectful of there wishes and how is that showing you are being a good friend. Wish you the best. If you expect trust and respect in an anonymous virtual world then you are ingenuous to the extreme. And deserve to be disappointed. As you surely will be. ***********Rudi**********
  20. Divad73 wrote: But I screwed things up by being honest about googling their profile pic. That's a bad mistake! Google takes too long, and doesn't find all the matches - Tin Eye is much more efficient. **********Rudi**********
  21. Perrie Juran wrote: You may think that, but you have said it like a Martian. **********Rudi********** Hey, leave us out of this. Our communication skills are not THAT bad. Oooops, I meant to say, like A Martin. That's Anthony Martin, who was bottom of my kindergarten class. **********Rudi**********
  22. Sephina Frostbite wrote: What you wrote is very clear. You see, my contention is proved; Sephina has demonstrated at length that she doesn't have the first clue, so if SHE understands you then you must be completely incoherent. **********Rudi**********
  23. Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: I can read and type English fine, Why don't you then? Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: that has been made clear. Where? Or as you might type it: Were? Or perhaps: Wear? Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: And you yourself know that to be true. Hmmm, your psychic powers are, I am afraid, not working very well today. Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: You can make up as many things as you want. Luckily, since I am actually watching a very important football match, I don't need to; your incompetence is clearly evident. Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: And flat out lie like you have now, to avoid the fact that I am correct. Erm, as I have pointed out, your English is appalling; your opinions might have some substance if they were expressed in a coherent manner, but as it is, it's impossible to tell. Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: It won't change anything. Are you referring to your misguided and risible insistence that you are making sense? Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: What I say is grounded in fact. You may think that, but you have said it like a Martian. **********Rudi********** ETA I think your performance in this thread explains why you have been "wrongfully banned" from so many sims . . .
  24. Nagumi Yazimoto wrote: The fact is, many of these posts where meant to offend TC. This goes along with the "I am an A-hole or the B word" ETC nonsense that is trendy among people online. It just involves them going out the way to offend insult someone because they are "brutality honest" (only online, of course). There where posters that that stated the issue with celebrity avis in world without pretending to be someone they are not however, and it's their statements that should matter. If, as appears more than likely, your comprehension of English is as abysmal as your writing of it, then your opinion is less than worthless. You probably can't tell the difference between an insult and a compliment, and sarcasm will be completely wasted on you. I am surprised you spend any time participating in English language forums, as they must be confusing and annoying to you, particularly when your ignorance becomes the focus of discussion, as now, when you have raised the subject. **********Rudi**********
  25. Roswenthe Aluveaux wrote: Not everybody uses a pseudonym. There are people using their real names. I suppose Roswenthe is a common name on the planet Pindar. Or is it how they pronounce Michelle there? **********Rudi**********
×
×
  • Create New...