Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Mondo Fuego™
I strongly disagree that "the implication of = was clear".
Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:39am
68.114.137.38

If it appeared that way to you, then my assurance to you that such was not the actual or intended case should enable you to move beyond that.

What is abundantly clear is that non-consensual advances, sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape are NEVER acceptable anywhere.

I have my own opinions, I just re-expressed them clearly and concisely, and I am under no obligation to yield to the opinions or misconceptions of others, especially not scumbags like Jeeves. I don't appreciate anyone reading shit into my opinions.

On a separate note, by analogy, you do realize that when you say 30+/18+ is "more than a bit skeevy and pathetic", you are including in your judgment the dating, engagement and marriage of Prince Charles and Lady Diana. Is that your intended opinion too? You can't have it both ways.

  • I do agree that neither of us knows if the allegations are true or not (nor, for that matter, will we if/when there's some sort ofr trial...OJ, anyone?). That's why I used the language I did. But I'm ... more
    • I strongly disagree that "the implication of = was clear". — Mondo Fuego™ , Tue Nov 14 10:39am
      • Thanks for the clarification.Poppet, Tue Nov 14 1:14pm
        I certainly won't apologize for my interpretation, as I think it was perfectly reasonable, but I very much appreciate the clarification. And yes, the Charles/Diana thing was a bit skeevy...but I also ... more
Click here to receive daily updates


Religion and Ethics BBS