The Vilification of Sex

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 04:02am

Darth Wong wrote:
verilon wrote:That is the question. Maybve we should ask Wong? *points up a few posts*
You're still not answering my question. Why are you reacting defensively to patkelly's account of abuse at a Catholic school? And please, don't tell us you were just trying to politely inform us that catholic sexual abuse did not literally hit the world's entire population; it was a sarcastic remark, and you were reacting defensively.

I know. So was mine. I also DIDN'T know that you were referring to me specifically. I should use smilies more....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 04:12am

verilon wrote:I know. So was mine. I also DIDN'T know that you were referring to me specifically. I should use smilies more....

Well, I just found it ironic that you would make snide remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 04:13am

Darth Wong wrote:
verilon wrote:I know. So was mine. I also DIDN'T know that you were referring to me specifically. I should use smilies more....
Well, I just found it ironic that you would make snide remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.

It wasn't a snide remark. It was sarcastic.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 04:15am

verilon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Well, I just found it ironic that you would make snide remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.
It wasn't a snide remark. It was sarcastic.

OK, it's ironic that you would make sarcastic remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2002-11-16 04:15am

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Actually, she would be number 6 billion and something. You don't give a fuck about anyone besides yourself or people to whom you feel you directly owe something.
Damn right. And I don't feel sympathy for someone on a guilt trip about
how this or that or this fucked their life up irrevocably...

This reminds me of my old Health Class in HS, where I bitched out some
stupid junkie addict.

I got the impression she got over it, and isn't on a guilt trip at all.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 04:19am

Darth Wong wrote:
verilon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Well, I just found it ironic that you would make snide remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.
It wasn't a snide remark. It was sarcastic.
OK, it's ironic that you would make sarcastic remarks in response to an account of personal sexual abuse, right after complaining that a relatively harmless "pissing in the holy water" joke was extremely offensive.

After the fact that I basically IGNORED that part of the original post. Who are you to say whether I really did get offended? Maybe I am trying to "lighten the fuck up." Open your eyes.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 04:23am

So when someone says they were sexually abused, you should "lighten the fuck up", but when someone makes a joke about Catholics, it's OK to be offended. Gotcha.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 04:30am

Darth Wong wrote:So when someone says they were sexually abused, you should "lighten the fuck up", but when someone makes a joke about Catholics, it's OK to be offended. Gotcha.

No, I am trying to lighten up, gimme a break. Two different circumstances. Honestly, I think you have something personal against me, but I couldn't begin to place it. ANd it wasn't in reference to the sexual abuse, it was in reference to the joke you made about the 6 billion people. As I said, I should definitely use smilies more.

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-11-16 02:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:I find it fascinating that people would react defensively to someone who says she was abused at a Catholic School. Does institutional loyalty extend to pedophiles?

Apparently, in the Catholic Church it does.

Antediluvian · Post by **Antediluvian** » 2002-11-16 02:24pm

Oh, and welcome to SD.net, patkelly.

I think you'll like it here.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2002-11-16 02:25pm

patkelly wrote:Thank you. What a nice welcome.

How long before the honeymoon period is over?

Until we get bored with poking you. Usually about the time you get about fifty posts.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2002-11-16 03:17pm

*poke*

I've never done that before. I feel all tingly inside...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-11-16 06:50pm

Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-16 06:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

You're not. Personally I don't think I'll ever poke new comers to the board. I just don't see any point to it. And besides, newcomers are frequently intelligent and deserve our support. Many of them will go on to earn our respect. I see no reason to abuse them.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-16 06:52pm

Darth Wong wrote:Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

NO! Mike Wong, a pervert... we never would have guessed.

Post by **Kuja** » 2002-11-16 06:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

Maybe?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-11-16 06:53pm

While I'm not sure that being sexually abused by a priest is something I should look forward to, I agree with most of the rest of the article.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 06:54pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

Wong is thinking of Rebecca, lol....asses.....heehee....

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-16 11:14pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

I wasn't aware there was any doubt

.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-16 11:49pm

Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.

Not by the standards of this board.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-16 11:51pm

neoolong wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.
Not by the standards of this board.

This board has standards? Where?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2002-11-16 11:51pm

neoolong wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.
Not by the standards of this board.

Since when do we have standards?

Oh, wait...the EF Trolls and DarkStar. Never mind, I forgot about those since they were before my time. I barely remember RayCav.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-11-16 11:53pm

The Dark wrote:
neoolong wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.
Not by the standards of this board.
Since when do we have standards?

Oh, wait...the EF Trolls and DarkStar. Never mind, I forgot about those since they were before my time. I barely remember RayCav.

You don't *want* to remember RayCav...

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-17 12:21am

data_link wrote:
neoolong wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Somehow, the term "poking" (which was brought here from SB.com and was never my idea) takes on a different meaning when it's used on a female.

Or maybe I'm just a pervert.
Not by the standards of this board.
This board has standards? Where?

We have standards on sex. Basically, as long as it doesn't involve animals and dead people, it's alright.

(That's for the quasi norms here.)

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2002-11-17 01:12am

I greet you, new person.

Instead of the imported "poke" from Spacebattles, the smiley shall be my welcome thingy...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Vilification of Sex

Re: The Vilification of Sex