midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
seems like a double negative.
Given that Noe masks prefaced it as mythology, which itself is just urban legend passed into antiquity, I really don't think fire breeze's purported premise for correcting NoeMasks holds up. More importantly, the only credential offered was a self proclaimed expertise on history, without a single citation to back up any of it.
If you're going to shift into the assholish practice of elitist correctionism, then citations are absolutely needed, or your carefully worded rebuttal is just that, a fabricated argument for the sake of arguing.
What blows my mind is that she accrued not a single "fuck off" from the regulars. No wonder NoeMasks feels singled out.
Is such an apology valid?
I know I offer excuses all the time.
I have a headache from grinding my teeth, for instance.
But when I'm apologizing for being condescending; at least I have the good sense to apologize for it after the fact. When I use the words "I'm sorry," I at least try to make sure I mean it.
lets see... holdon...
RIGHT THERE!
Any time an apology is followed by the word "but" it's NOT a valid apology, it's actually a justification, which makes it a passive aggressive form of attack.
to reiterate what is apparently becoming a catchphrase;
Here's a less passive aggressive form of argument;
GO FUCK YOURSELF.
I would apologize, BUT I don't care to.
By the way expert; you misspelled apologize (among other things). Get a spell checker.
This discussion is not why I returned but your self-aggrandizing piss-antery makes it much less pleasant return than I had hoped for. FB's post was a substantive rebuttal and not an attack. If you choose not to see that, then that's your problem and not hers. To say that you could have rebutted the substance of her post but you're above responding to her because of her tone leads me to call bullshit. I doubt you could rebut her with substance any better than I could out-swim Katie Ledecky.A) Among other words (you quoted it; read it) so... SINGLE? If you're so good at checking, check it yourself. Or just quote it and use the spell checker that's in most browsers.
B) As I already said; the nit picking was only intended to be a gesture towards a return volley of the same ass-hattery already offered. Fire with fire, nothing more.
Bullying & hearsay. Citations needed. If anonymity is valuable, do it without credentials.
An outsider "corrected" and declared that they were not staying for debate. It's NOT a rebuttal, it's an attack. Within a relationship; stonewalling is a well documented form of abuse. Removed from that context, it loses very little of it's offensiveness.
Again, I might have been inclined to debate the points of the post, IF there were any intellectual merits. That it was presented with such a tone negates intellectual merit. Declaring that she was not staying for debate further sabotages any intellectual merit her points may have held.
So you choose to perpetuate the argument and counter attack with reflective redirection. I already conceded that my character is less than sterling. So sure, it should tell you something.
this year? last year?
lets pour gas on the fire by borrowing a still burning line from Stella;
If you're going to make accusations I demand links to my transgressions.
actually I miss your posts a lot.
I find it odd though that *this* is what brought you out of the woodwork. It would very much imply that this childish bickering is exactly what you missed. There has been delightfully little of it this year.
Frankly, I think this has a whole lot more to do with misogyny than anything substantive.

( just HAD to correct me, didn't you!

s and