Announcement

The high-street.org domain name has expired, and will be going away soon. Please make sure your links and bookmarks point to the new domain, https://cruelery.com/.

#1 2008-10-28 16:50:53

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 … htm?csp=34

God Bless America
Land of the Scum
Stand beside her
And rape her
Then deny it all and look dumb.

Offline

 

#2 2008-10-28 17:00:58

Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

Offline

 

#3 2008-10-28 17:15:50

disregard

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-10-28 17:18:46)

Offline

 

#4 2008-10-28 17:15:56

MSG Tripps wrote:

Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

After all, boys will be boys, and I heard that sometimes in the military that girls will be boys, but don't tell.

Offline

 

#5 2008-10-28 17:18:58

The involved troops are not forgiven, all should be brought up on proceedings under UCMJ.

That said; the real problem is a command structure that has allowed this to occur, from the fucking CINC on down.

Offline

 

#6 2008-10-28 17:26:58

MSG Tripps wrote:

Gee....  Stuck in a Muslim region hot zone with Federally mandated gender integrated troops [except Combat Arms {still, I hope}].

Who could have foreseen any problem with this scenario?

I'm not sure - those reasons seem as implausabile as my assertion that the lowering fo the recruiting standards has had a negative impact on good discipline and morale.

Offline

 

#7 2008-10-28 17:30:03

Emmeran wrote:

I'm not sure - those reasons seem as implausabile as my assertion that the lowering fo the recruiting standards has had a negative impact on good discipline and morale.

It is that outstanding civilian [top of] chain of command again.

Offline

 

#8 2008-10-28 17:34:07

I agree with the lower recruiting standards reasoning.

Look at the shit that goes on. Rape, murdering entire families, degrading Muslim men and women and lets not forget the cock monkey that threw the puppy a few months ago. Wonder why the rest of the world hates us?? I think its pretty fucking clear.

Offline

 

#9 2008-10-28 17:36:17

MSG Tripps wrote:

It is that outstanding civilian [top of] chain of command again.

You are correct - it all comes from the top.

Offline

 

#10 2008-10-28 17:38:27

Bigcat wrote:

Look at the shit that goes on.

Bigcat, unless you are there [have been there, etc] you are not qualified to render judgment on this.

Offline

 

#11 2008-10-28 17:43:18

MSG Tripps wrote:

Bigcat wrote:

Look at the shit that goes on.

Bigcat, unless you are there [have been there, etc] you are not qualified to render judgment on this.

I in fact was in the first Gulf War. and have as much right to render judgement as you or anyone else. Fuck yerself.

Offline

 

#12 2008-10-28 17:52:29

What should I fuck myself?  All infractions "over there" will be dealt with under the UCMJ which you [and I] have absolutly nothing do to with anymore.

Bigcat wrote:

in the first Gulf War

Way to support your Bros, pal.  You sound like every other ignorant fuck in this country.
What were you in, the Air Force?

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-10-28 17:53:17)

Offline

 

#13 2008-10-28 18:01:47

Army. Why don't you go enlist today? Go help out your "Bro's" instead of waving your gun in front of your computer. I served, I'm out, If I don't like some of the shit that happens,I fought for the right to say it. I'm not "dealing with infractions" .


I'm sure the troops are huddled together tonight reading from High Street and because of a few derogatory comments have lost the will to go on.

Offline

 

#14 2008-10-28 18:06:20

Bigcat wrote:

Why don't you go enlist today?

21 1/2 years service and 58 years old, but I would if I were allowed.

Your Platoon SGT had his work cut out with you, didn't he?

Offline

 

#15 2008-10-28 18:10:33

That is worthy of respect.

No, I served with pride for 11yrs and 8 months.

I'm only saying that the things that happen now didn't happen then. I don't like the direction it has taken and I think some of these guys (and girls) should be ashamed. If you're gonna be a dirty rapist fucker, stay home

Offline

 

#16 2008-10-28 18:14:47

Bigcat wrote:

I'm only saying that the things that happen now didn't happen then.

Yes {they} did.  What is different now is media and some stupid fucking idea that some how war can be made to appear as PC.

Last edited by MSG Tripps (2008-10-28 18:15:34)

Offline

 

#17 2008-10-28 18:31:19

When we took the surrendering prisoners, we didn't stuff underwear in thier mouths and let women troops potograph thier dicks, ect. Yes, the media plays a big roll in it but they were there with us too.

Offline

 

#18 2008-10-28 19:27:41

We had a war (well a Fire-Ex anyway) - they have to deal with an occupation.

Walk a mile in their boots brother...

Offline

 

#19 2008-10-28 21:22:53

they never speak about the male soldiers that were harrassed

Offline

 

#20 2008-10-28 21:52:02

sierrabravo wrote:

they never speak about the male soldiers that were harrassed

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.) 

As for  rape (the soldiers' socially acceptable release), it's one of the spoils of war, and probably always will be. Female troops, on the other hand, are an historical rarity. With another hundred years' perspective, it may be decided that soldiers with vaginas should be kept farther from the front, to protect them from friendly-fuck-fire. Note that 15% represents only the number of women with reported PTSD. The real statistics on rape and harassment will probably never be known, and I imagine, given the intense propaganda you live with in the US, that they're under-reported.

Offline

 

#21 2008-10-28 22:12:12

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.) 

As for  rape (the soldiers' socially acceptable release), it's one of the spoils of war, and probably always will be. Female troops, on the other hand, are an historical rarity. With another hundred years' perspective, it may be decided that soldiers with vaginas should be kept farther from the front, to protect them from friendly-fuck-fire. Note that 15% represents only the number of women with reported PTSD. The real statistics on rape and harassment will probably never be known, and I imagine, given the intense propaganda you live with in the US, that they're under-reported.

My experience leads me to believe that the norm is each female finding a suitable mate, who then protects her until she gets knocked up - I'm not willing to look up the official statistics but more than half the women in our unit went home that way.  Including the married ones.

On the other hand - Despite your delirious fantasy's I've not seen or heard of a single male homosexual incident while in field (and only a rare few in garrison).  Everyone is just to close together, to accounted for and too damn busy.

Maybe in the Air Force but it's definitely not the Marine Corps way.

Last edited by Emmeran (2008-10-28 22:12:46)

Offline

 

#22 2008-10-28 22:33:21

Women in camo turn me on...  I know a couple of gals in the National Guard and they wouldn't even catch my eye in civilian clothes...  Dress them up in MARPAT/ACU though and I fantasize about them roughing me up a bit....  It's hot....

Offline

 

#23 2008-10-28 23:06:27

Emmeran wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.) 

As for  rape (the soldiers' socially acceptable release), it's one of the spoils of war, and probably always will be. Female troops, on the other hand, are an historical rarity. With another hundred years' perspective, it may be decided that soldiers with vaginas should be kept farther from the front, to protect them from friendly-fuck-fire. Note that 15% represents only the number of women with reported PTSD. The real statistics on rape and harassment will probably never be known, and I imagine, given the intense propaganda you live with in the US, that they're under-reported.

My experience leads me to believe that the norm is each female finding a suitable mate, who then protects her until she gets knocked up - I'm not willing to look up the official statistics but more than half the women in our unit went home that way.  Including the married ones.

On the other hand - Despite your delirious fantasy's I've not seen or heard of a single male homosexual incident while in field (and only a rare few in garrison).  Everyone is just to close together, to accounted for and too damn busy.

Maybe in the Air Force but it's definitely not the Marine Corps way.

You misunderstand, Em. Even the Greeks largely looked down on butt-fucking. The homosexual behaviours I'm talking about are more subtle, and more essential than that. They're implicit in the willingness of men to band together in cooperative units that (traditionally) eschew the company of women and pursue a course of violence. Homosexual behaviours have been linked to the need for groups of testosterone-driven apes to work together - they are more necessary than ever within an all-male sub-society, and they're practically explicit in the sub/dom nature of the military hierarchy. The stuff you guys did to each other after reveille is a related matter, but not the one I was talking about.

I won't inundate you with psycho-babble...unless you'd like me too...but here's some easier-to-stomach bumf from an interesting old ('93) NYT article:

Catherine S. Manegold of the NYT wrote:

Psychologists point to a rich history of songs, drag shows and jokes in the military that serve to neutralize powerful feelings. As early as 1941, the psychiatrist William Menninger described the typical soldier's wartime relationship as one of "disguised and sublimated homosexuality," a theme given voice in the popular war song, "My Buddy": "I miss your voice and the touch of your hand, my buddy."

That intense companionships were both so common and so acceptable in pop culture must have alleviated some soldiers' fears about unexpected longings. With those fears neutralized and the relationships the cause of celebration, the military became a safe place for the emotional intimacy so compelling to men and women facing the chaos and terror of war.
...
Today, many senior officers see the issue in a long historical perspective. Steeped in military lore that traces homosexuality to pre-Christian history, they point to tales of homosexuality on the front lines from the Sacred Band of Thebes in 338 B.C. (where each soldier was said to be a lover of another) to such military giants as Alexander the Great, Richard the Lion-Hearted and T. E. Lawrence (popularly known as Lawrence of Arabia). Seen in that context, said a retired general, the issue becomes more a matter of management than revolution.

Offline

 

#24 2008-10-28 23:27:28

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Probably because no one wants to think about how the obvious fact that homosexual bonding behaviours lend cohesion to every army. In the past (spartans, janissaries, etc.), it was an open fact. In puritan America it's a deliberately ignored (but regretfully unclassified) secret.  It certainly messes with the gung-ho propaganda machine to imagine the troops snuggling in their fox-holes. (Not to mention their bung-holes.)

And then there's:

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/images/rohm.jpg

Last edited by AladdinSane (2008-10-28 23:27:47)

Offline

 

#25 2008-10-29 06:25:54

Hardcore edit.

Offline

 

#26 2008-10-29 09:37:11

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

The stuff you guys did to each other after reveille is a related matter, but not the one I was talking about.

After taps, not reveille. Anyway, the sad part of this story is I wager each of our former warriors here would reup in a heartbeat if they could, if their wives and kids let them, if they were still able.

I said goodbye last night to my best friend, guy I've known 40 years, redeploying to Iraq. Former marine, former patrolman, former police chief, and most recently a govt gumby with a secure state job. Same age as me, moron just turned 54, has 6 kids, two of them preschool and a 97 year old mother. I might rabbit a situation like that myself, but not to a warzone. I've lived there as a 'civilian' and it's not my idea of a good time. Yeah, I'd go back to newspapers without a second thought, if they still existed.

Here's the kicker, though. My uniformed friend? An Army Sgt, just like Dhal, an MP tasked to convoy duty with a big fat fucking target painted on his helmet every single day of his tour. This is a guy who watched Saigon fall in 1975. If I ever see him again, I doubt I'll know him this time.

I thank baby jesus every day I resisted that life.

Offline

 

#27 2008-10-29 11:09:14

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

You misunderstand, Em.
I won't inundate you with psycho-babble...unless you'd like me too...but here's some easier-to-stomach bumf from an interesting old ('93) NYT article

You are correct that I misunderstood your initial statement, but after your further exposition I still disagree with your assertion.

The theory you reference here is mirrored by hundreds of pieces of like attitude concerning male activities, the general thrust of these being that all male activity is homosexual in nature.  The flaw with these arguments as that virtually all are written from the outside perspective, usually from the point of view that discounts competition and dominance through achievement.  The liberal perspective of these theories is nearly always offset by the bio of the author; for example you don't read a writing of this sort from Clausewitz or Powell rather almost exclusively from an academic living in a white tower somewhere. 

I think of similar pieces written about sport, one written about football (posted here sometime ago) was telling in its very nature.  It made references to football terminology to being homosexual in nature; not understanding that the majority of those terms are actually quite literal and historic.  For example Touchdown refers the the historic act of touching the ball to the ground in the end zone to score in rugby; not, as the article portended, to touchdown with your cock in your buddy's end zone.  (in rugby you cannot score unless the ball is placed to the ground in the try area - quite literally "touched down")

And so I discount your theory and fart in your general direction.

Offline

 

#28 2008-10-29 11:23:11

Emmeran wrote:

The theory you reference here is mirrored by hundreds of pieces of like attitude concerning male activities, the general thrust of these being that all male activity is homosexual in nature.

Whole idea makes your skin crawl, don't it, Auntie Emmy? Make him roll over and beg, Wilbur!

Put any healthy adult human in a confined, high stress situation, they won't care where they get their nut.

Offline

 

#29 2008-10-29 13:24:52

choad wrote:

I thank baby jesus every day I resisted that life.

I was the first in my family in some 200 years to say no to it.  I had so many messed up uncles, cousins, granfathers...

Offline

 

#30 2008-10-29 14:30:19

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

The theory you reference here is mirrored by hundreds of pieces of like attitude concerning male activities, the general thrust of these being that all male activity is homosexual in nature.

Whole idea makes your skin crawl, don't it, Auntie Emmy? Make him roll over and beg, Wilbur!

Put any healthy adult human in a confined, high stress situation, they won't care where they get their nut.

Courtesy of PostSecret
https://cruelery.com/uploads/thumbs/11_fragged.jpg

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Offline

 

#31 2008-10-29 17:25:50

choad wrote:

I said goodbye last night to my best friend, guy I've known 40 years, redeploying to Iraq. Former marine, former patrolman, former police chief, and most recently a govt gumby with a secure state job.

Fuck, fuck, fuck.

My friend led off this evening's news. I can't watch this.

https://cruelery.com/img/2008.10.29.sgtstgermain.jpg


http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/17838841/?taf=bos

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Offline

 

#32 2008-10-29 17:31:24

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

Offline

 

#33 2008-10-29 22:51:54

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

Having spent nearly forty years gay and some odd bits here and there in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that sports are not inherently gay, regardless of how many metaphors or instances of wish fulfillment may be heaped upon them. They seem and, for the most part, are "normal" interactions between adult males, with nearly the same predominance of heterosexuals as one would find in the general population in any activity (except bowling). When outed, gay men in nearly any situation--where homosexuality is either taboo or heavily frowned upon--are persecuted for embarrassing the arousal of their fellows. That said, most straight men don't know the difference between one type of arousal and another, so most of these perceptions that sports, the military, and other single-sex activities are hypersexualized are started as rumors and picked up by gay men looking to score in an entirely different way.

Offline

 

#34 2008-10-30 05:58:52

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

You and Em are both wriggling like worms on a hook. This is NOT about cock-sucking and butt-sex. It's about the psycho-sexual forces that underpin militarism, and military units. I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying. Emmeran, on the other hand, has made an atypically untenable argument.

Looking to Clausewitz and Colon Poo-well for insights into psychology and social anthropology makes as much sense as asking Freud and Marvin Harris for pointers on operational art. In fact, asking someone "on the inside" of any society, military or otherwise, to comment on their own background is to invite a litany of programmed attitudes, fears and prejudices. People live in a bath of strong and weak social forces - tacit assumptions and prejudices that define our actions and attitudes. 99.9 times out of 10,000 (yeah, I know, my math's not as good as my writing), it's as hard to part people from their tacit assumptions as it is to pull a proton from the nucleus of an atom. It's clear from a social anthropological view that homosexuality arises at the gene level because it's beneficial to our ability to form social groupings. Where men live in groups, especially in military situations that require intense inter-reliance, it's thanks to those genes that we can work together.

Here's the rub (but not the frottage) - the discourse on sexuality in our society has been controlled by people of a puritanical bent (aw shit, now I'm leaning on Foucault's History of Sexuality - we'll be at this for days), who exclude faggots from the perception of norm. Thus, modern armies A: defend the culture that controls the discourse that excludes homosexuality, and B: are reliant on the genes that engender homosexuality for their cohesion. The only way this can work is through the repression and denial of overt homosexual behaviours, effected by their translation into covert expressions of male intimacy.

Look - I don't really like it either. But it makes a lot of sense, and there's lots of empirical evidentiary support. Soldiers are only gay to the statistical norm, but the forces that bind a military together are fundamentally queer.

Offline

 

#35 2008-10-30 12:01:16

wilbercunt wrote:

I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying.

Thank you for noting that I didn't read nor give a fuck about what you were saying.  This isn't your thread, and every comment doesn't have to be in response to your assertions.  I was simply cutting through all the psycho babble to make an observation based on my experience.

Offline

 

#36 2008-10-30 12:15:02

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

You and Em are both wriggling like worms on a hook. This is NOT about cock-sucking and butt-sex. It's about the psycho-sexual forces that underpin militarism, and military units. I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying. Emmeran, on the other hand, has made an atypically untenable argument.

Looking to Clausewitz and Colon Poo-well for insights into psychology and social anthropology makes as much sense as asking Freud and Marvin Harris for pointers on operational art. In fact, asking someone "on the inside" of any society, military or otherwise, to comment on their own background is to invite a litany of programmed attitudes, fears and prejudices. People live in a bath of strong and weak social forces - tacit assumptions and prejudices that define our actions and attitudes. 99.9 times out of 10,000 (yeah, I know, my math's not as good as my writing), it's as hard to part people from their tacit assumptions as it is to pull a proton from the nucleus of an atom. It's clear from a social anthropological view that homosexuality arises at the gene level because it's beneficial to our ability to form social groupings. Where men live in groups, especially in military situations that require intense inter-reliance, it's thanks to those genes that we can work together.

Here's the rub (but not the frottage) - the discourse on sexuality in our society has been controlled by people of a puritanical bent (aw shit, now I'm leaning on Foucault's History of Sexuality - we'll be at this for days), who exclude faggots from the perception of norm. Thus, modern armies A: defend the culture that controls the discourse that excludes homosexuality, and B: are reliant on the genes that engender homosexuality for their cohesion. The only way this can work is through the repression and denial of overt homosexual behaviours, effected by their translation into covert expressions of male intimacy.

Look - I don't really like it either. But it makes a lot of sense, and there's lots of empirical evidentiary support. Soldiers are only gay to the statistical norm, but the forces that bind a military together are fundamentally queer.

Uncle

I'm just too damn hungover to focus on what you're saying so I'll just go ahead and concede the point on this one.

Offline

 

#37 2008-10-30 13:45:18

Emmeran wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Having spent four years in the military and most of my youth in athletic endeavors, I have come to the conclusion that there is a certain type of macho gay man that is drawn to these situations.  They look and, for the most part, act "normal".  So, when they are outed, they make perfect poster children for those who would claim that normal men congregate for sexual purposes.  Again, in my experience, this could not be further from the truth.

You and Em are both wriggling like worms on a hook. This is NOT about cock-sucking and butt-sex. It's about the psycho-sexual forces that underpin militarism, and military units. I'll ignore Phreddy's posting, because it's obvious he didn't read (or didn't understand) what I was saying. Emmeran, on the other hand, has made an atypically untenable argument.

Looking to Clausewitz and Colon Poo-well for insights into psychology and social anthropology makes as much sense as asking Freud and Marvin Harris for pointers on operational art. In fact, asking someone "on the inside" of any society, military or otherwise, to comment on their own background is to invite a litany of programmed attitudes, fears and prejudices. People live in a bath of strong and weak social forces - tacit assumptions and prejudices that define our actions and attitudes. 99.9 times out of 10,000 (yeah, I know, my math's not as good as my writing), it's as hard to part people from their tacit assumptions as it is to pull a proton from the nucleus of an atom. It's clear from a social anthropological view that homosexuality arises at the gene level because it's beneficial to our ability to form social groupings. Where men live in groups, especially in military situations that require intense inter-reliance, it's thanks to those genes that we can work together.

Here's the rub (but not the frottage) - the discourse on sexuality in our society has been controlled by people of a puritanical bent (aw shit, now I'm leaning on Foucault's History of Sexuality - we'll be at this for days), who exclude faggots from the perception of norm. Thus, modern armies A: defend the culture that controls the discourse that excludes homosexuality, and B: are reliant on the genes that engender homosexuality for their cohesion. The only way this can work is through the repression and denial of overt homosexual behaviours, effected by their translation into covert expressions of male intimacy.

Look - I don't really like it either. But it makes a lot of sense, and there's lots of empirical evidentiary support. Soldiers are only gay to the statistical norm, but the forces that bind a military together are fundamentally queer.

Uncle

I'm just too damn hungover to focus on what you're saying so I'll just go ahead and concede the point on this one.

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

Offline

 

#38 2008-10-30 22:35:47

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

If that's what you've been doing this whole bit, you've been wasting your time. And ours. Bombard and bombast with your sequipedo predilections doesn't automatically "win" you every discussion you enter. Sometimes, you lose just for participating. Take it from someone who used to make a novella of every post and who has no personal shortage of SAT vocab. When succinctly deployed, language is a sword; when an overweening abundance, a shield between you and others.

Offline

 

#39 2008-10-30 22:47:39

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

If that's what you've been doing this whole bit, you've been wasting your time. And ours. Bombard and bombast with your sequipedo predilections doesn't automatically "win" you every discussion you enter. Sometimes, you lose just for participating. Take it from someone who used to make a novella of every post and who has no personal shortage of SAT vocab. When succinctly deployed, language is a sword; when an overweening abundance, a shield between you and others.

Oh shit, here comes the word storm...

Offline

 

#40 2008-10-31 04:10:15

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Well, that's no way to win an argument, but it doess confirm the statistical utility of large words and long paragraphs.

If that's what you've been doing this whole bit, you've been wasting your time. And ours. Bombard and bombast with your sequipedo predilections doesn't automatically "win" you every discussion you enter. Sometimes, you lose just for participating. Take it from someone who used to make a novella of every post and who has no personal shortage of SAT vocab. When succinctly deployed, language is a sword; when an overweening abundance, a shield between you and others.

Christ on a dildo, pENIx, take a fucking chill pill. You really do need to get a little perspective, or sex, or exercise, or therapy, or...something. I write for a living, and I generally (but not always) use standard Englitch. When I write here, I write for fun. That's right - my own. Not yours. So...like...go fuck yourself, you querulous quimshy (oh no...horrors...neologisms...try not to shit yourself). You used to be fun too, old girl, after you stopped posting novellas, but lately reading your words is like eating crackers dispossessed of cheese and served without the wine - dry as dust, dry as the Gobi Desert, dry as the dry side of the planet Mercury in the driest part of the dry season, dry as your grandma's feather duster (bet you thought I'd say vagina...). Anyways, carry on with the vitriol - it vexeth me not, neither doth it rankle.

Offline

 

#41 2008-10-31 12:02:43

Were you trying to prove my point, Sesquipedo?

Offline

 

#42 2008-10-31 15:06:51

pALEPHx wrote:

Were you trying to prove my point, Sesquipedo?

No. I was trying to get you to lighten up or shut up, Desultofaggo.

Offline

 

#43 2008-10-31 23:27:17

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

No. I was trying to get you to lighten up or shut up, Desultofaggo.

For all your facility with the language, Desultofaggo doesn't have the same chime to it. Sorry. And if you wanted me to lighten up, grab the lube, roll over, and make sure that ball gag is over your mouth so I don't have to listen to you complain until you like it.

Offline

 

#44 2008-11-01 05:30:54

pALEPHx wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

No. I was trying to get you to lighten up or shut up, Desultofaggo.

For all your facility with the language, Desultofaggo doesn't have the same chime to it. Sorry. And if you wanted me to lighten up, grab the lube, roll over, and make sure that ball gag is over your mouth so I don't have to listen to you complain until you like it.

That's more like it - that's the old pENIx!
Sure - Sesquipedo is a much better name than Desultofaggo. Desultofaggo, I believe, means "ass-mop" in Armenian. Small clarification: ball gags go IN the mouth, not over the mouth. Oh - and speaking of ass-mops, I've got incredible gas and a lower intestine full of impacted feces. Somewhere - but not in 101 Days of Sodom - the blessed Marquis wrote that there is no finer sensation than pushing one's cock up a whore's ass and into a soft stool. My shit, as of an hour ago, was extruding from my sphincter in the shape of an I-beam, with approximately the same tensile strength and hardness. But you know, go right ahead. No sacrifice is too great for a High-Street bro. But if you don't mind, I'll just keep reading my book.

Last edited by WilberCuntLicker (2008-11-01 15:44:25)

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com