Quote:
2 hours ago, caikgoch said:
Non speakers should approach technical discussions of word usage with care. "Mono" vs "poly" refers to the relationship, not the individual. The mare may have only one "husband" but she has multiple "wives" unless some evil human limits their access.
And unless we get too hung up on PC points, there is also "polyandry". Interestingly, the "poly" both is called "polygamy" so in this context the feminine is dominant.
You´re wrong, mono or poly does refer to the individual , it´s absolutely possible to remain monogamous in a polygamous relationship, isn´t it? So , Caikgoch, what is it then? A "mono" relationship? Or a "poly" one,huh? I guess being a "non speaker" or " native speaker" doesn´t matter so much if simple common logic gets discarded completely...
Yes, there is "polyandry", but this is a relatively modern and new word you cannot find anywhere in classical Greek literature. A new concept that only has been made possible by societal changes in recent times. And now, would you call mares polyandrous? If they only have one male mate? I hope I don´t have to point out how incredibly ridiculous and Pippi Longstrumpesque your "... a mare may have only one husband but she has multiple wifes..." cringefest is. Ich mach mir die Welt, widde widde, wie sie mir gefällt. When reality and ideology collide...wowsers, I have read many stupid things in forums like this, but that...I guess I´ll print it out and hang it on my wall. Congratulations, Caikgoch, what an outstanding achievement...
Quote:
2 hours ago, Alexe said:
30, your reading comprehension is really bad. I was saying I only believe anyone but you.
And then I was talking about how you can't have normal zoo discussions anywhere because theres always someone riling someone else up to get some drama
How do you do, fellow kids?
You make sense with your arguments but, man, do you make me cringe hard..
Okay, man, my bad...got you wrong there.
And nevermind the "leetspeek", I use it on a certain purpose to bait a certain other "member" in here... [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/wink.png[/img]/emoticons/ [email protected] 2x" title=";)" width="20" />
Quote:
1 hour ago, 30-30 said:
certain purpose to bait a certain other "member" in here
That's the topic? Baiting other people to argue?
All is clear now.
Jesus, I have 30-30 ignored and he's still trolled this thread into being completely incomprehensible.
That'll do for today... so it goes I suppose. Man you folks need some better spokespeople.
Quote:
57 minutes ago, covfefelake said:
That'll do for today... so it goes I suppose. Man you folks need some better spokespeople.
That has always been the problem. Only the most insane volunteer to represent a group so reviled. Worse yet, they seem to want to save everyone else from their pet insanity.
Quote:
5 hours ago, caikgoch said:
That has always been the problem. Only the most insane volunteer to represent a group so reviled. Worse yet, they seem to want to save everyone else from their pet insanity.
It happens in general humanity too. There we call them "politicians."
09-16-2018, 12:11 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2018, 12:17 PM by silverwolf1.)
Quote:
14 hours ago, covfefelake said:
Jesus, I have 30-30 ignored and he's still trolled this thread into being completely incomprehensible.
That'll do for today... so it goes I suppose. Man you folks need some better spokespeople.
And this is on topic how? At least most of 30-30s replies have been generally about dogs kissing until replies to him take them elsewhere. Perhaps you should read entire threads before attacking them yourself. I'll allow NO thread to become an attack on one user just because you dislike them. Watch out for the warning...
sw
09-16-2018, 08:45 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2018, 09:11 PM by covfefelake.)
Quote:
9 hours ago, silverwolf1 said:
And this is on topic how? At least most of 30-30s replies have been generally about dogs kissing until replies to him take them elsewhere. Perhaps you should read entire threads before attacking them yourself. I'll allow NO thread to become an attack on one user just because you dislike them. Watch out for the warning...
sw
It's as on topic as the rest of this thread (or as far as I got, anyways). Which is actually the point. Where are the other warnings? What vendetta? I'd wager you should look at a mirror. Something is going on and rather than attacking the instigators you go after anyone willing to ask "wut?"
SIlverdude, I haven't read 30-30's posts to know either way what he's on about. I only know somehow, trouble follows him everywhere, even without reading his posts, to the point nearly NOTHING here is on topic. That kinda points to something, you know, when trouble somehow follows you everywhere? I think you can do the math.
I don't dislike anybody. And quit with the warning crap if you aren't applying it evenly because I can't even say I'm complaining about 30-30, just the results of his actions I guess? Maybe other members need punishing, fuck if I know. But If you think I'm not going to call things like that for what they are, ban me AND people like me and see what good it does you. I only visit what, once every two days anyhow? It won't hurt you, I assure you. It won't help either though... and that's kind of a loss in and of itself. Forums do better with members from both sides of the aisle, I'd think.
Quote:
15 minutes ago, covfefelake said:
It's as on topic as the rest of this thread (or as far as I got, anyways). Which is actually the point. Where are the other warnings? What vendetta? I'd wager you should look at a mirror. Something is going on and rather than attacking the instigators you go after anyone willing to ask "wut?"
SIlverdude, I haven't read 30-30's posts to know either way what he's on about. I only know somehow, trouble follows him everywhere, even without reading his posts, to the point nearly NOTHING here is on topic. That kinda points to something, you know, when trouble somehow follows you everywhere? I think you can do the math.
I don't dislike anybody. And quit with the warning crap if you aren't applying it evenly because I can't even say I'm complaining about 30-30, just the results of his actions I guess? Maybe other members need punishing, fuck if I know. But If you think I'm not going to call things like that for what they are, ban me AND people like me and see what good it does you. I only visit what, once every two days anyhow? It won't hurt you, I assure you. It won't help either though... and that's kind of a loss in and of itself.
No, the topic, and most all of the replies, is about kissing dogs. Your reply was about attacking 30-30, thus the warning.
My name is silverwolf, not "dude", btw. It's obvious you haven't read 30-30s posts, in this topic anyway. They've been a source of good debate so far, and on topic debate at that. Trouble follows him because he does post his mind, whether you, or I, agree with him or not. Too many folks attack opinions that don't paint a rose-colored opinion of zoophilia, and his reflect more harsh reality than most.
My warnings are applied very evenly, just look at the record. The whine sounds too familiar, almost word for word...
I ban only those who've earned it. You have the option to stay or go as you please unless you grossly violate the few rules here. You are the bad guy in this, whether you like to see it or not. Post on topic, relevant replies if you don't want to be.
sw
09-16-2018, 09:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-16-2018, 09:40 PM by covfefelake.)
You do know I moderate a much larger forum than yours? Not that that means much, but I'd almost have to issue you one for baiting here, if I had the power.
Instead, I will take it to PMs. Please continue normal citizens. I know nothing about dog kisses (despite my attempt to learn how it works) so I will not be reading further.
|
