I am temporarily lifting the comment moderation, in the off chance that anyone is reading this, I'd like to ask all a question.
many people from SepiaMutiny have said that there were multiple calls for me to be banned, well, you all got your wish, they thoroughly dislike me over there, if a klan member wanted to do a post, they'd probably allow that over allowing me back on.
But I invite you to come here and share if you actually did send SM a letter urging my post. They said many people did, I want to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
Further more, if you wrote a letter, I'd be interested in any responses you may have received.
I guess this means you have no detractors...you need to start a vicious on-line blood feud...I'd might volunteer.
ahh. mr. or mrs anonymous rears their ugly head. did the comment moderation scare you away?
There were so many times that your comments brought out the best in others - unintentionally. I'm thinking of the few, kind lady-commenters who took the time to answer your unfair accusations against womankind's constancy and intelligence. (ak, for example) I'm sure you miss the attention and the banter.
Ak was one of those women who acknowledged a fair point even though it wasn't PC.
Nor do I see how I made any unfair accusations against anyone. Only, I pointed out clear logical fallacies.
But Bess, if you're still reading,... I've gotten the idea that most people on SM didn't mind my confrontational style too much, rather just wrote me off as a joke, a twit, whatever, but it was maybe a select few that just had it out for me. For example, Nayagan, Razib, and Abhi, maybe a few others.
Regardless, I hold that I brought perceptions and views to the table that few others did. Just do a simple search of my archived posts still on SM, you'll see many responses like, "I think HMF is onto something.. for once" or "I can't believe it, I actually agree with HMF.. just this one time..."
They all may hate me to the core, but to call me a 'troll' or whatever is just lazy, in my opinion, its just the one's in power were converted by the right people.
brown hindu cult
There's a "pick up line" thread over at SM now. You should chime in over how everything is tilted in favor of the woman.
They'll just delete the message. I dont deny the troubles women have had in the past, but now we've just let the pendulum swing the other way.
by the way coward, do you ever plan on revealing yourself?
by the way coward, do you ever plan on revealing yourself?hmf, do you?
No answer? Hmm?
no you shmuck, I mean use a handle other than "anonymous"
No I don't plan to post my name and address online, not without an armed bodyguard.
You argument about dudes having to put their self-esteem constantly on the line in approaching women and women don't have to do the same --- NOT!
Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCkNszLxUE0&feature=related
The game is hard on us too. Very hard.
Ha. how poetic, that link doesn't even work, the video is dead.
The game is hard on you - in a different way. you just have to look good but can have the personality and courtesy of a rotten egg.
The argument is completely sound, even in the light of your "defense"
I just now copied and pasted the link into my browswer and it worked for me. The video is there.
this is your defense to my point? a lesbian's response?
You're a joke. whoever you are. SOrry no dice.
have you posted here before
no you shmuck, I mean use a handle other than "anonymous"
how is "hmf" any different as a handle than "anonymous"? i don't really care to know your identity, but allegations of coward only reflect a pathetic lack of self awareness.
Because you cretin, if you log on as anonymous, you haven't even taken a shell identity, it's the reason sepia mutiny doens't like "handle switchers" because you don't even have the guts to get behind a single handle (however abstracting that is)
I dont care about who the f*ck you are, or what f*cking breakfast cereals you eat. But the ability to choose a handle and stick to it at least shows you stand behind your nonsense to some level.
So I still stand behind my statement, you're a coward.
Secondly. I've been vilified and summarily kicked off a message board for just stating my beliefs - I dont know how many people out there would simply get downright violent if they actually had the opportunity.
Those who had the courage in the past to stand up for their views despite the surrounding zeitgeist (MLK, Malcolm X, etc..) were ruthlessly gunned down...
I don't liken myself to these people, but even something as the woman who got punched in the face in San Fran for putting up anti-war pictures in her studio is something I'd like to avoid. So could I use courage, sure. but i think I've shown a pretty good offering for gender equality.
because you cretin, if you log on as anonymous, you haven't even taken a shell identity
really? this much blood boiling over a shell? why can't "anonymous" be that shell? because you say so?
So could I use courage, sure.
Maybe you could use whatever you mean by courage. Maybe you couldn't. I honestly couldn't care less. Nor do I care what breakfast cereal you eat, or how many times you empty your bowels. However your asinine insistence on bogus identifiers on a medium where no such concept exists, and where you yourself do not follow what you ask, is ridiculous. It should also be irrelevant because somebody who is mature would argue the comment, not indulge in ad hominem with the commenter, as you've done with me in every response. Again, not that I care. The way you respond reflects on your (in)ability to hold an argument, not mine.
Those who had the courage in the past to stand up for their views despite the surrounding zeitgeist (MLK, Malcolm X, etc..) were ruthlessly gunned down...
I don't liken myself to these people, but
you do? Don't forget the guy who stood in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square, Ang San Suu Kyi (but she's a woman, so we know she's got it easy), and Gandhi. Not that you liken yourself to these people...
At least your dumb ass is using "pot meet kettle" consistently. Now stick to that, and you'll prove my point correct, because now, I can connect posts together, rather than try and figure out which anon you are.
"why can't "anonymous" be that shell? because you say so?"
Because anonymous by definition is someone who refuses to take on a consistent identity. It's about connecting comments and a person standing behind an indentity. It's the reason SM doesn't like "handle switchers" even though they don't have user accounts, passwords, etc.. (ie. if you wanted, you could change your handle each time you posted) but the point is you take on a handle, and people use what you've previously said as well as what you've said now.. checking for consistency, kind of hard to do when anyone can just click the radio box.. anonymous.
attack the comment enough for you? shmuck.
i'm still at the laugh at you stage. but moving on to ignore after this. so. you're moving in the wrong direction.
I could say the same for you. but at least your dumb ass has figured out how to type the same handle each time. good job for you
Post a Comment