Interrogate PMS Elle!

[El]

So, today's lessons seem to be as follows:

Sir_Les has some kind of issue with me that he wants me to respond to, is angry that I'm refusing to respond to it, but also refuses to tell me what kind of response would be acceptable.

Same goes for Eclair.

And, Krispy Kreme is better than dunkin donuts according to the members of I2.  

As I said in response to the earlier anal sex discussions,

/somehow manages to conceal her immense gratitude for the edification  

[Adam]

The Simpsons donuts with pink  icing on are nice if you like donuts. when I was on olanzipine I was addicted to them. They sell them in my local Sainsuburies

["couldbecousin"]

PMSElle is definitely a super bitch on here

But I do think she was just taking the piss with the whole "you want to fuck me" thing

I mean I reckon I have pribably said stuff like that myself on here before but I don't genuinely think anyone here wants to fuck me

That being said, I reckon most guys here DO wanna fuck her

also why are none of you women going Dunkin Donuts with ME ffs!!!!

I'll go to Dunkin Donuts with you 

Just give me a few years to re-write my genetic code and grow breasticles 

   for going the extra mile to help your friends!

[Al Swearegen]

So, today's lessons seem to be as follows:

Sir_Les has some kind of issue with me that he wants me to respond to, is angry that I'm refusing to respond to it, but also refuses to tell me what kind of response would be acceptable.

Same goes for Eclair.

And, Krispy Kreme is better than dunkin donuts according to the members of I2. 

As I said in response to the earlier anal sex discussions,

/somehow manages to conceal her immense gratitude for the edification 

Elle you do not do anything but deflect, and I am not telling you to "take it back take it back". You are being silly and irrelevant again. You are deflecting.
I am saying you need to back your bullshit.
You don't, and I call you on it. More and more members are seeing exactly the same shit as I am so perhaps it is not silly old Les here. Nor emotional Eclair. Nor Curmudgeon PPK.
You do have some very real issues with guys and do interject this bullshit into post after post on here. No it is not imaginary. Yes others notice it. Yes much of what you say is disguised in humour and some of it as the thread that PPK pointed out, simply isn't.
Rather than yet deflecting again and trying to ply at being the announcer/ringmaster here, how about acknowledging that you are not in such a position, you are merely a bad circus act and the crowd you are addressing are wanting their monies worth. We need you to back what you say.

It doesn't require much of a sleuth here to discern what you are answering to but let's pretend that you are too stupid to read what is said and interpret it (not that I think that you are, I think you are smart enough but that it serves you and your ego to deflect and not back what you have to say)

Eclair says that after 4 years and much support and giving of personal information that it was all one way traffic and that you were free to give such info to Trigger but not her. She says that your reasons not to were privacy related due to stalking a incident, but that you felt that you would be a little selective and warranted such info to Trigger and not her and she feels that it is insulting. That is what I and probably most would say and I think it is a reasonable call. Your call obviously. You can tell anyone anything you like but I would say she has every right to feel like you simply shat on her.

Me? I say you have a problem with guys and not only is it thinly disguised but that you take every opportunity to reinterate these stupid immature and bigoted stances towards guys over the board again and again and when you make these juvenile assertions whether in humour or overtly that you are giving a backhander to every guy including the guys here.

When I pick you up on this (and I will and do) you deflect again and try to deflect it back at me and this latest effort of me supposedly wanting to fuck you, is again something that you need to back. Moreso too because asserting this is not only creepy and a shot at my values but also a shot at my partner (who would be choosing to be with a man apparently wanting to lust after a young immature little bigot - you) That is right. YOu insult me AND Hyke.

So explain to the "Ladies and Gentlemen" why you are a man hating bigot. Explain too why you see fit to denounce men and their place in society and relationships and their ability to be good partners. Explain why on Earth you believe that I would want to fuck you and be very clear as to why. Explain why you seek to insult Hyke. Explain whether you truly believe your claim that you are not backing has any validity or whether I would not even fuck you with Scrap's dick.

You won't. Yuo will try to dance around this too and say that I am making a fuss or that Eclair is just emotional or you don't understand or that things are tough for you or you will laugh it off or try to find anything else to do rather than back your claims. But the claims are here and pretty fucking clear.

There is one rule at Intensitysquared back your claims.

[P7PSP]

That ^^^ is a detailed enough challenge that the usual "fix" in lieu of an actual answer will look pretty silly.

[El]

So, today's lessons seem to be as follows:

Sir_Les has some kind of issue with me that he wants me to respond to, is angry that I'm refusing to respond to it, but also refuses to tell me what kind of response would be acceptable.

Same goes for Eclair.

And, Krispy Kreme is better than dunkin donuts according to the members of I2. 

As I said in response to the earlier anal sex discussions,

/somehow manages to conceal her immense gratitude for the edification 

Elle you do not do anything but deflect, and I am not telling you to "take it back take it back". You are being silly and irrelevant again. You are deflecting.
I am saying you need to back your bullshit.
You don't, and I call you on it. More and more members are seeing exactly the same shit as I am so perhaps it is not silly old Les here. Nor emotional Eclair. Nor Curmudgeon PPK.
You do have some very real issues with guys and do interject this bullshit into post after post on here. No it is not imaginary. Yes others notice it. Yes much of what you say is disguised in humour and some of it as the thread that PPK pointed out, simply isn't.
Rather than yet deflecting again and trying to ply at being the announcer/ringmaster here, how about acknowledging that you are not in such a position, you are merely a bad circus act and the crowd you are addressing are wanting their monies worth. We need you to back what you say.

It doesn't require much of a sleuth here to discern what you are answering to but let's pretend that you are too stupid to read what is said and interpret it (not that I think that you are, I think you are smart enough but that it serves you and your ego to deflect and not back what you have to say)

Eclair says that after 4 years and much support and giving of personal information that it was all one way traffic and that you were free to give such info to Trigger but not her. She says that your reasons not to were privacy related due to stalking a incident, but that you felt that you would be a little selective and warranted such info to Trigger and not her and she feels that it is insulting. That is what I and probably most would say and I think it is a reasonable call. Your call obviously. You can tell anyone anything you like but I would say she has every right to feel like you simply shat on her.

Me? I say you have a problem with guys and not only is it thinly disguised but that you take every opportunity to reinterate these stupid immature and bigoted stances towards guys over the board again and again and when you make these juvenile assertions whether in humour or overtly that you are giving a backhander to every guy including the guys here.

When I pick you up on this (and I will and do) you deflect again and try to deflect it back at me and this latest effort of me supposedly wanting to fuck you, is again something that you need to back. Moreso too because asserting this is not only creepy and a shot at my values but also a shot at my partner (who would be choosing to be with a man apparently wanting to lust after a young immature little bigot - you) That is right. YOu insult me AND Hyke.

So explain to the "Ladies and Gentlemen" why you are a man hating bigot. Explain too why you see fit to denounce men and their place in society and relationships and their ability to be good partners. Explain why on Earth you believe that I would want to fuck you and be very clear as to why. Explain why you seek to insult Hyke. Explain whether you truly believe your claim that you are not backing has any validity or whether I would not even fuck you with Scrap's dick.

You won't. Yuo will try to dance around this too and say that I am making a fuss or that Eclair is just emotional or you don't understand or that things are tough for you or you will laugh it off or try to find anything else to do rather than back your claims. But the claims are here and pretty fucking clear.

There is one rule at Intensitysquared back your claims.

You're jumping to conclusions re: the issue with Eclair, but I thank you for attempting to clarify what you're asking for.  I still think I was more than half-right regarding your overarching desire to have me "take it back."  I will attempt to reply to your post.

[El]

OK, I am going to reply solely to Sir_Les with this post, as Éclair seems to be vascillating on what she wants from me, and as PPK seems to be chiming in but with not much more than a “ditto.”

Sir_Les, I have noticed *you specifically* taking frequent issue with posts I make about men, be they serious or in jest.  I’ve also noticed that you often seem to read what I write with a really strange skew to it- not even necessarily that you read prejudice into it, but rather that you seem to have genuine issues with comprehension.  Here’s a good example of what I mean:  http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,17039.msg735773.html#msg735773  If you read that post then scroll down through the thread, you notice others seemed to have less difficulty parsing the fact that I was referencing my salary specifically rather than talking about the wage gap between men and women.  You seemed ready and eager for me to be saying something much more global than I actually was.

What I keep wondering is why the hell it bothers *you* so much when I make any type of post about men, women, gender issues, or the like.  You’re saying that other members have noticed this issue; what you’re not also acknowledging is that it seems to go up your ass particularly hard.

There are theories I could have and there are reasons that could be given.  My comment that you want to fuck me was a glib allusion to one potential theory- that your upset about my “man-hating” could potentially driven or fueled by some kind of crush on me.  I have no idea what it actually is about me that you find so upsetting.  I don’t even know if you understand it.  What I do know is if that was the reason you’d probably lie about it.

What I’m also noticing is how absolutely wild that comment of mine seems to have driven you- you’re having one hell of an extreme reaction.  Again, as to the why, I don’t know, and I can’t know.  What I do know is it’s certainly a reaction you could be expected to have if I was right.

That’s why I made that particular comment, and that’s why I’m still not sure if it was accurate or not.  I’m not going to get into an argument about whether or not I can read your mind, or what you’re really thinking.  Obvsiouly I can't read your mind; I can only make inferences and guesses.

About Hyke:  I don’t keep track of who is in what relationship with who on these boards very well.  I meant no disrespect to her because quite frankly I hadn’t even connected her to you until you pointed it out.  I have no issue with Hyke; from virtually everything I have seen she seems like a really cool person.  I certainly hope that your relationship with her is a good one for both of you.  If this causes upset between the two of you I am truly sorry.

Re:  Broader “issues with men”:  I think you’ve given me more reason to keep whatever thoughts I have on this to myself than to sharing them.  You’re coming from a place of attack and I rather assume you’d take anything I had to say on the matter as fodder for further attacks.  There are times I think I’d like to have a productive discussion on I2 about some of the issues you raised, perhaps a discussion that could be enlightening for myself and/or for others here, but I don’t see this turning into that.  Not with the tone you are setting right now.

[Al Swearegen]

OK Elle you keep throwing out the I want to fuck you thing as a credible theory so let's entertain this braindead concept and actually back your claim. That is what we do here right?
Tell us all what on Earth I would find remotely crush-worthy about you. Be specific and let that ego run it course. I will give you a lead in her to make it easy.

"Les is in a long-term committed relationship with a woman in her mid forties. Les has frequently posted his love of curvy full bodied women and moreso his love of older women. Les hates bigots and whether they here or on AFF has fought against bigotry fiercely. I am neither full-bodied nor older and am a bigot. Therefore....."

Should make interesting reading.

So reading much more into what you wrote? You say you wanted clarification and that you had no idea what Eclair is on about and that she wasn't clear, I clarified and you say "You're jumping to conclusions re: the issue with Eclair". Unless you have an idea about what Eclair is saying, which you state you don't then this makes no sense at all does it?

Me specifically taking issue with your bigotry. That is the first smart thing you have said yet that actually is worthy of examining. Ask CBC or Sea Tart whether I am staunch in fighting against bigotry? Perhaps Pikajedi? Ask anyone here if I call out bullshit when i see it?

As to things being up my arse hard, I am reactionary. Is this a surprise to anyone? Has anyone here seen me react to anything in the recent past in a strong and condemning way other than this? Anyone? 
Of course you chose to insult my partner in your inference and that does piss me off just a little.

As to whether you now chose to keep your bullshit to yourself or not because of me? Who really gives a fuck? That sounds very "victim" doesn't it.

I did say at the start of this "You won't. Yuo will try to dance around this too and say that I am making a fuss or that Eclair is just emotional or you don't understand or that things are tough for you or you will laugh it off or try to find anything else to do rather than back your claims. But the claims are here and pretty fucking clear.

There is one rule at Intensitysquared back your claims."

Have you backed your claims or done as predicted?

[Al Swearegen]

There are theories I could have and there are reasons that could be given.  My comment that you want to fuck me was a glib allusion to one potential theory- that your upset about my “man-hating” could potentially driven or fueled by some kind of crush on me.  I have no idea what it actually is about me that you find so upsetting.  I don’t even know if you understand it.  What I do know is if that was the reason you’d probably lie about it.

What I’m also noticing is how absolutely wild that comment of mine seems to have driven you- you’re having one hell of an extreme reaction.  Again, as to the why, I don’t know, and I can’t know.  What I do know is it’s certainly a reaction you could be expected to have if I was right.

Nice deflect there. I would probably lie about it? Bullshit Elle. I am the one backing my claims and you are the one deflecting.

But I will let you know about what I believe about you and I am no psychologist but as we are getting into the realms of psychological mumbo-jumbo and what is said and why, let me have a crack.

I believe that certain things and values and experiences colour our perceptions about different concepts. Sometimes these concepts are rather pervasive and hard to shake even when we know intellectually they are flawed. Sometimes the want to hold onto these things that feel true but we know aren't are the most tenacious of all. Its not true but it feels true and so we may feel a desire to defend these "feelings" rather than the intellectual truth behind them because to discount or invalidate them injures our feelings or our ego and in effect presses on us and who we are as individuals.

Now consider the Catholic that lapses and loses their faith. They slowly absolve their belief structure. They may give up their believe in the doctrines and reject God and rebel against the codes they live their lives by. Guilt? Well that is entirely different. Too pervasive and all encompassing and strongly embedded. They can not shake this. Experience and upbringing and readings have hammered that into their psyche and they can not shift it. Even if they know it is wrong they refuse to recognise it and will defend it to save their ego.

Now what is your concept of male and masculinity and of what a man is? What are your readings and your experiences and role models and so forth? I more than suspect that you intellectually know that seeing a man is seeing a man not seeing all men. I suspect that you know that what motivates and drives one man differs from the next...intellectually. You may know that how one man treats a partner is different from the next and their values are different and so on. All on an intellectual basis. You may know from an intellectual standpoint, stereotyping and classifying "men" in generalisations and such is fucking stupid.

Yet I see you do it again and again. It is not once or even occasionally, and me pulling you up regardlessly is evidence to its proliferation in joke or otherwise. So why? Why does Elle hold onto such concepts so fervently? I am willing to rule  out stupidity out of respect. I say that your concepts of "man" are so deeply entrenched into your psyche and pervasive and you can't "let go" of all your stupid hang-ups about this. You defend this and I call you on it.

But deflect or lie if you like ... I suspect you will anyhow. You haven't backed anything yet

[Eclair]

Sir_Les has some kind of issue with me that he wants me to respond to, is angry that I'm refusing to respond to it, but also refuses to tell me what kind of response would be acceptable.

Same goes for Eclair.

Eclair says that after 4 years and much support and giving of personal information that it was all one way traffic and that you were free to give such info to Trigger but not her. She says that your reasons not to were privacy related due to stalking a incident, but that you felt that you would be a little selective and warranted such info to Trigger and not her and she feels that it is insulting. That is what I and probably most would say and I think it is a reasonable call. Your call obviously. You can tell anyone anything you like but I would say she has every right to feel like you simply shat on her.

You're jumping to conclusions re: the issue with Eclair

I'd say Les's conclusion that it was one way traffic is actually fairly accurate. And insulting is probably correct in how impersonal you were given I have always given you not only my name, but shared some fairly distressing and intimate stuff with you behind the scenes when you were going through your shit. I reached out as a woman, and also as a Mother, as you seem to have had issues about not having that caring in your life in the past.

Any doubts I had about your sincerity (other than to shut me the fuck up in the forum which now was clearly your motivation to contact me in the past week or so behind the scenes), was absolutely and concretely further backed up by your plus 1 crap in the midst of your 'genuine' (yes, sure) want to know what the issue was that I had with you.

So why Elle, would I detail anything further here, when it is clear to not only Les, but others, but you seem to still want to play oblivious. Why would I detail something to someone, who stops to plus when someone is taking the piss. That was the nail in the coffin for me as to the level of your sincerity.

I said my piece, and I'd prefer you don't use me any further to 'pretend' you actually are a caring person or actually give a shit or as some display to the men on the board on how lovely and caring you are.

I'm sure you will leave it at that, since, as I don't have a penis, I will have no further manipulation value to you.

[El]

Les:  I'm not going to continue to engage with you in the directions you're heading.  You don't want me to back my claims.  You're not asking for the kind of data that would allow for a rational discussion on any objective or proveable point.  You want me to provide you with tools and fodder to tear me apart as best you can think to, probably because I upset you.

Eclair:  I would like to respond to your emotional vomit publically or privately at some point but you seem to still prefer that I simply witness it and not defend myself.  That seems decidedly unfair to me.

I believe there is a certain degree of irony in some of the opposing principles in the accusations that Les and Eclair are flinging at me, though they are quite well united in affect.  I'm not sure how well that shines through, or if anyone but the three of us is even readin this thread at this point save to talk about pastries.

[Al Swearegen]

Yes I expected no less from you. When innuendo and inference and deflection don't work Elle's premises hit the pavement in an all mighty heap.

Les:  I'm not going to be able to back my claims on Intensitysquared.

Fixed (That is how we do it, isn't it?)

[El]

Yes I expected no less from you.

Then why did you waste all that time and energy asking for something you knew you weren't going to get?

[Al Swearegen]

Yes I expected no less from you.

Then why did you waste all that time and energy asking for something you knew you weren't going to get?

C'mon you are smart. Have a think about it.

[Osensitive1]

Sticking my nose in where doesn't belong. Can remember when first joined your comments on male emotions , and a couple of other things in this thread, had me consider your views of men to be negative in general, Elle.  http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php/topic,10477.msg585017/topicseen.html#msg585017 You've said some things since which have reinforced that view as well. However, wouldn't ever consider to make a big deal of it, as there's many men who don't really like women as a whole and just as many women who don't like men. Always figured if someone's views cause a strong dislike for half the human population, then maybe they have a good reason. I don't like women in general. This doesn't always apply to every woman, but yes, my views of them are often stereotypical, judgemental and sometimes even sexist. It appears it's not your general views that really offended Les, but the fact that you chose to directly aim them personally at him.