MEow wrote:
>>I know it has nothing to do with the content of the post, nitwit. It
>>does seem out of place with the OP's concerns about unknown people for
>>whom he feigns interest and support. He suggested eating bananas is
>>morally wrong, but finds enjoyment and/or amusement in acts of
>>consensual violence. I just wanted to know if he accepts the paradox,
>>but his intimations about his bizarre sexuality clarified the whole matter.
>
> You recently agreed that it wasn't immoral, as long as they're adult
> and consenting. Can you make up your mind?

Where did I agree with anything of that nature? My mind is made up.

>>>As long as the men he spanks are consenting to it, I don't see what's
>>>so immoral about it.
>>
>>What's immoral about eating bananas if the pickers not only consent to
>>picking them, but get paid to do so?
>
> Different issue

No, you dumb woman, that is THE issue.

> which I'm not going to discuss with you here.

Evasion of the main issue. Fine.

> Reality isn't as simple as you set it up, though.

Yes, it is. And unlike the OP, I was able to relate more about the issue
than what I remembered reading from some activists.

>>>No, not really. Anyone understanding usenet signatures and the humour
>>>in them would know that it's a quote and most likely meant as a joke.
>>
>>I do understand that, nitwit. I asked one question, a very reasonable
>>one, asking about the paradox between his feigned morality and his sig.
>
> You took his signature seriously.

No, I took it and compared it to his sentiments about bananas.

> This means failing to get the joke.

I got the joke, idiot.

> If you had seen it as a joke and nothing else, you wouldn't even have
> had an issue with it, as you would've known that far from all people
> having such things in their sigs are actually into that kind of thing.
> You can't tell from the signature, even if you happened to guess right
> once.

All of which is beside the point.

>>>Your failure to get that is not his fault or problem.
>>
>>I didn't fail anything, dipstick. Your behavior in this more is more
>>stupid than his sig.
>
> Is that the best you can do? Name calling?

I can do a lot better, including using nastier names. Shall I?

>>>>>As with most other quotes in signatures,
>>>>>it's probably placed there because the person having the signature
>>>>>thought it was funny. You seem to have big problems understanding
>>>>>usenet signatures and the humour in them.
>>>>
>>>>No, you seem to be lashing out again to gain brownie points with other
>>>>posters. I understand sigs quite well, and I have an excellent sense of
>>>>humor. I asked one question given the apparent incongruencies I noted.
>>>>That's all.
>>>
>>>I say what I mean because I mean it, though of course it's easier for
>>>you to pretend that I'm trying to gain brownie points. Your repeated
>>>insistence of taking signatures seriously and literally shows that you
>>>don't understand them, or you would've know that they're not meant
>>>that way.
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/1gd
>
>
> ROFL - This from someone who calls *my* replies stupid!

They are.

> At least my replies contain arguments

Weak ones, so stop bragging.

> and I don't have to resort to name calling.

No? Then take Jonathan and Rick out of your killfile.

> That fact that you couldn't come up with anything better

Like your repeated strawmen are worth bragging about?

> shows a good deal about you,

No, you don't know a damn thing about me. Except I have the best recipe
ever for meatless balls.

> just like the way you seem to think

Another unreasonable assumption...

> I'd be offended by
> something as childish as this.

I'm not worried if you're offended or not.

> I'm laughing!

You're easily amused. Then again, the simple ones usually are.