The Aggression Towards a Porn Actress Doing Mainstream Work
More scary or pathetic?
share[deleted]
Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor. And whereas non-actors are routinely praised for their ability to do films with no prior experience, when a porn star does it people complain that she should stick to sucking c**k, or whatever. To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn but hatred of women.)
shareSpoken to a few pornstars did ya? Well, I beg to differ on your remarks. As it appears PR work plays a bigger part into who gets to act and who doesn't... and who ends up working in said industry because they choose to... or they just want to survive. Also who stays in said industry because they just enjoy their work. There appears to be a very small female minority in said industry that may agree that men hate women but most have been voiced once outside said industry in an effort to re-legitimized themselves. Many don't believe that men hate women at all. They're actually very nice 'REAL' people who have had either poor public relations or just lousy managers in their career choice to be in acting or the world of entertainment. Sasha is no exception to this rule.
It's not always the actor/actress that are at fault, sometimes it's the inadequacy of the script of which they have to interpret.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
Uh, I was talking about by people on the internet, not casting directors.
shareby ynisfre (Thu Mar 18 2010 09:47:53)
More scary or pathetic?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37)
Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor. And whereas non-actors are routinely praised for their ability to do films with no prior experience, when a porn star does it people complain that she should stick to sucking c**k, or whatever. To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn but hatred of women.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by - ynisfre on Mon May 10 2010 00:41:53
Uh, I was talking about by people on the internet, not casting directors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That must be the post scribed somewhere invisibly under this post.
Sorry if I addressed your obvious posting rather than the invisible one referring to "people on the internet or casting directors".
Nowhere in any of your posts whatsoever do you mention this information or even focus such particular attention ... just thought you'd like to know. and Yes, I can read what you typed.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
There's nothing invisible about the tone of this board... that's what I was addressing. Like when I said "when a porn star does it people complain that she should stick to sucking c**k, or whatever", who else would I be talking about but internet posters?
You responded by saying "Spoken to a few porn stars, did ya?", when I never gave the slightest indication I was making an argument on behalf of or from the perspective of a porn star vis a vis their ability to be cast in a mainstream role. You just assumed whatever you assumed and ran with it. You can make the argument my focus or intention was unclear (I thought it was obvious), but you sure as hell didn't address my post directly, because you were talking about something pretty different than I was.
By the way, it was internet people, not casting directors, not internet people or casting directors. I am not as confident as you that you're reading what I typed.
Either way "tonality" or "content-wise", you're post as typed eluded to the exact nature of "The Aggression" wether it be entitiy or entities, and for that matter any specific one you were referred to. So I would not be incorrect in assuming YOU were speaking "in general" about about a vastly large contingent of individuals, not restricted to specifically: "people on the internet, not casting directors".
...Please also notice that I've left your quotation as is this time as well as in my previous (original) post, thats because it is/was you're actual quote, however the later re-constituted quote is of course mine which makes more sense toward my actual line of original questioning. So since you've addressed no particular human genus or population up until I actually queied it, or as to wether or not they owned/operated a computer/projector/etc.,
...In fact, one could assume anybody, everybody or whomever they wished.
So as I may have rightly/wrongly assumed that their was some underlying elusive body of people that you might have been addressing they were never really mentioned anywhere, so I commented on what YOU actually typed, not what was inferred by said post. So again I apologize for my part as follows:
"Sorry if I addressed your obvious posting rather than the invisible one referring to "people on the internet or casting directors".
Nowhere in any of your posts whatsoever do you mention this information or even focus such particular attention ... just thought you'd like to know. and Yes, I can read what you typed."
What drew me into this dialogue was:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37)
To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn [red]but hatred of women.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which you make a presumption that 'lovers of porn hate women'... which similarly would make your prejudice based on fiction rather than the facts if I hadn't posed my line of questioning. So wether you intended to or not I could safely assume you're answer would be "No". Well, I sought to enlighten you somehow with this issue however since you've chosen such a defensive posture and it seems a futile endeavor, of which is realyy not worth not deconstucting/discussing anymore. I didn't come to make a war, I came to make aware, so you just continue to assume/presume whatever you wish.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation." H. Spencer
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
What is up with you? My posts were attempting to be pretty straightforward, and you're turning it in to some overly parsed jumble. For example, when I said:
"To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn, but hatred of women.) "
I meant exactly that. I never "made a presumption that lovers of porn hate women." Rather, I said that those who have an anger towards porn stars going mainstream either hate porn, or, more hypocritically, love porn but hate the women who do it. It was that simple. It had nothing to do with making a sweeping generalization about everybody who loves porn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by - ynisfre on Sat May 29 2010 13:13:48
What is up with you? My posts were attempting to be pretty straightforward, and you're turning it in to some overly parsed jumble. For example, when I said:
"To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn, but hatred of women.) "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTHING!! Other than the fact that now your above statement is substantially different than the one you've clarified below. You spoke of tonality of your earlier statements should have been quite clear. Apparently they were not! Since you had to actually change the tone of the later statements in order to answer what was clearly my direct line-of-questioning from very the start. You finally addressed the person or people to which you were referring to after I asked. Then you go off on me with this nonsense: ynisfre (Wed May 26 2010 07:12:59) "...who else would I be talking about but internet posters?" ... "By the way, it was internet people, not casting directors, not internet people or casting directors. I am not as confident as you that you're reading what I typed" Were you trying to be insult someone's inteligence with this or what?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant exactly that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS: "(or their love of porn, but hatred of women.)"... IS SUSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THIS "more hypocritically, love porn but hate the women who do it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never "made a presumption that lovers of porn hate women."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUT! this is exactly what you state! So its fair to say you made a judgment call here or assumed a position as such of which you could actually back this up. You should really have someone take a look at that keyboard of yours because it apparently fails to include your full thought process when you use it ...LOL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather, I said that those who have an anger towards porn stars going mainstream either hate porn, or, more hypocritically, love porn but hate the women who do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No!!!! you didn't say this, you did however state this on Sat May 29 2010 13:13:48 pm, but I'll forgive you. Of course I was not privy to what was actually taking place inside your head, so I would not know nor ever have known this is what you really meant. I can safely say that I'm still not really sure what was meant because this really just gives a different slant toward your earlier post. It is still a blanket judgment call of which you've never actually backed up. C'est la vie!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was that simple.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you see it isn't or wasn't so simple. This isn't Instant Messaging or a 'Live' chatroom where fully communicated thought processes are not expected plus people like me actually read this stuff you people type... And not what we thought you typed but exactly what you state/typed. Is that clear and simple enough for YOU? :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It had nothing to do with making a sweeping generalization about everybody who loves porn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently it was a generalization in my opinion (...and yes, this is exactly what i meant to say), so perhaps for now on if you don't ever wish to be misunderstood again you should adhere your fully processed thought to the board and leave out any assuming that we'd know/knew exactly what took place inside your head or what you were actually trying to say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37)
"Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor...."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the above posting, I believe I clearly stated my case for both non-actors & porn actors... and actors in general. So you just go on with your little tyraid because somehow you were misunderstood and I'll continue to apply validation and back up my original information toward the reasonable lines of a Q&A (aka discussion).
In case you hadn't realized, my lead-in statement, "Spoken to a few pornstars did ya?" in my original post was stated in jest... my usage of slang should have been your clue. Wow! Is it always this enjoyable talking to you, its been like a visit to the dentist for me. later :)
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
Let's just take a look at one little thing, in your entirely overlong post.
Me: I never "made a presumption that lovers of porn hate women."
You: BUT! this is exactly what you state!
That is emphatically NOT what I stated. I said that of the people who have aggression towards someone like Sasha Grey doing mainstream work, they're either people who hate porn, or love porn but hate the women that do it. I never painted the entirety of porn lovers with that brush. ONLY the people that have aggression towards the Sasha Grey's of the world.
Are you treating every sentence individually, and ignoring the one that came before it?
On second thought, don't answer that. Honestly I can't even read your posts without going cross-eyed. This is not meant to be offensive, but is English your second language? What are we even arguing anymore?
Edited to add:
Okay sorry, I have to include this one as well:
Me: Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor...."
You: As for the above posting, I believe I clearly stated my case for both non-actors & porn actors... and actors in general.
The quote of mine you posted was made before you ever said anything in the thread! It had nothing to do with you! Are you experiencing time out of sequence?
If you wish to bypass all my point-to-point discussion to see exactly where I am coming from the perhaps the LAST portion of this reply might serve the as my best answer (I left it in uncolorized text so it would be easiest to locate).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37)
Statement #1Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor. And whereas non-actors are routinely praised for their ability to do films with no prior experience, when a porn star does it people complain that she should stick to sucking c**k, or whatever.
Statement #2To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn but hatred of women.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I boke it down to what I understood as 2 different thoughts ...And I replied to them as follows
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by A_Normal_Person (Sun May 9 2010 01:41:55)
Spoken to a few pornstars did ya? (jokingly)
Comment on Statement #1: Well, I beg to differ on your remarks. As it appears PR work plays a bigger part into who gets to act and who doesn't... and who ends up working in said industry because they choose to... or they just want to survive. Also who stays in said industry because they just enjoy their work.
Comment on Statement #2: There appears to be a very small female minority in said industry that may agree that men hate women but most have been voiced once outside said industry in an effort to re-legitimized themselves. Many don't believe that men hate women at all. They're actually very nice 'REAL' people who have had either poor public relations or just lousy managers in their career choice to be in acting or the world of entertainment. Sasha is no exception to this rule.
It's not always the actor/actress that are at fault, sometimes it's the inadequacy of the script of which they have to interpret.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does this make it any clearer now!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by - ynisfre on Sun May 30 2010 01:52:49
(I intentionally left THIS out because of it's irrelevance)
Me: I never "made a presumption that lovers of porn hate women."
You: BUT! this is exactly what you state!
That is emphatically NOT what I stated. I said that of the people who have aggression towards someone like Sasha Grey doing mainstream work, they're either people who hate porn, or love porn but hate the women that do it. I never painted the entirety of porn lovers with that brush. ONLY the people that have aggression towards the Sasha Grey's of the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK! I get it! It's not what you meant to say but in the 'REAL' world and 'REAL' time when comments are offset as such within parenthesis it signifies to those who actually read it that it is an assertion of the writer's own emphatic opinion or an unvoiced quiet thought process is being expressed. This is how most of the English speaking and/or writing world would interpret it. For instance what your not exhibiting or displaying to me on the recieving end of this would be it's equivalent (cussing, swearing, etc., ...LOL). I not trying to give you a hard time, I hope you realize that ...at least. I finally got around to some of the other posts on this message board and read some of your replies so I'm not here to do battle with you. But the post, written as is, is in fact misleading according to what YOU believe any of us English speaking would have understood what you really meant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you treating every sentence individually, and ignoring the one that came before it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In A Word ............NO!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On second thought, don't answer that. Honestly I can't even read your posts without going cross-eyed. This is not meant to be offensive, but is English your second language? What are we even arguing anymore?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#1 Sorry I did ...I'm like that. (laughing)
#2 Sorry about that but people in here seem to loose track of what they say and when they say it, so I include that specific portion in my discussion with them. If there is something that was left out I've indicated that by the usage of elipses (...). I've done this again below to address the later 'edited' portion of your reply (...don't freak out it's just the actual posting dates). You may have also noted usage of color which denotes things such as sender/recipient and dated material. Thats so I could keep it straight what actually took place and when.
#3 As a matter of fact, I minored in English, My majored is/was History
#4 I don't know! I apparently misintepreted what you stated 'as it was posted' (See earlier portion where I addressed it), therefore I addressed it specifically 'as it was written'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited to add:
Okay sorry, I have to include this one as well:
Me: Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor...."
You: As for the above posting, I believe I clearly stated my case for both non-actors & porn actors... and actors in general.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This issue was addressed just above this portion of the reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The quote of mine you posted was made before you ever said anything in the thread! It had nothing to do with you! Are you experiencing time out of sequence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, there I am #4 post! Right after you posted the above statement and I replied ... and we've been the only ones here since
The Aggression Towards a Porn Actress Doing Mainstream Work ynisfre (Thu Mar 18 2010 09:47:53)
Re: The Aggression Towards a Porn Actress Doing Mainstream Work d_m_s (Tue Apr 6 2010 05:00:28)
Re: The Aggression Towards a Porn Actress Doing Mainstream Work ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37)
Re: The Aggression Towards a Porn Actress Doing Mainstream Work A_Normal_Person (Sun May 9 2010 01:41:55)
Lastly I'm not trying to be a pain however I've been on the internet for 20 some odd years and RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines is the most widely excepted standard worldwide internet communications and its not necessarily English but it's been a defacto standard for a very long time. Below I illustrate this because I'm not making all this up just so I can bust on you.
RFC 1855 - Netiquette Guidelines: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
Netiquette E-guides on social interaction and communicating electronically:
http://www.studygs.net/netiquette.htm
http://www.studygs.net/writingcontent.htm
So the following might help clear to the worldwide audience how what is posted ...is most often how it is taken. And the usage of parenthesis is in common language (English, French, etc.,) just like writing in a letter. SEE APA Parenthetical Documentation: http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/research/apaintext.html
And Smiley (or better known as emoticons) came into existence around 1979,
see 'A Brief History Of Smiley's': http://www.nerdtimes.com/emoticons/[url] See also Emoticon @ Wikipedia, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon for the proof. This is also by the way the first sign on the internet that a parenthesis had a different purpose or meaning and use to express something emotionally such as a smile :-)
Which was then applied to other internet communications by a similar vane when communicating empassioned thought processes such as "((smile)), ((LOL)), ((chuckle)), etc.," SEE Netiquette and distance learning: http://www.helium.com/items/1301019-virtual-classroom-netiquette See also Following the "Netiquette" rules that govern on-line communication: http://www.alri.org/litlist/netiquette.html
See also Using Correct Email Netiquette: Lack of vocal of non verbal cues in an e mail can sometimes cause the content of the e mail to seem offensive even though it was not the intention of the sender. Always clarify the sender’s motivation for sending the e mail before getting mad and responding. One way to help the reader understand the intention of your e mail is to use emoticons or place a gesture or an emotion in parenthesis. (((smiling))).
http://www.articleeight.com/Art/4507/94/Using-Correct-Email-Netiquette .html
SEE also Using Correct Email Netiquette - 16386: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1103982/board/reply/163956725
See as well, John Wesley College - Campus and Online Christian Education: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1103982/board/reply/163956725
Netiquette guidelines: http://www.google.com/search?q=netiquette+guidelines&sourceid=ie7&; amp;rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=
usage of parentheses "Netiquette" http://www.google.com/search?q=usage+of+parentheses+%22Netiquette%22&a mp;hl=en&lr=&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&as_qdr=a ll&start=10&sa=N
Now don't go ballistic but here's some random posts I found right here in IMDB using parenthetical expressions online and in 'context' of communication over the network and similarly recognized thoughout the rest of the world wide web (aka 'the internet'), just take the short perusal and see where nothing has been left to chance or to cause a musunderstanding as to what was actually meant by the poster:
EXAMPLES:
IMDb :: Boards :: I Need To Know
Subject: 'Paranormal' started by Unbreakable94 (original poster)(Sun May 30 2010 22:57:47)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Paranormal by MadSimian (Sun May 30 2010 23:00:24)
UPDATED Sun May 30 2010 23:25:56
"Ghost Hunters"
"Sightings"(although it also had segments based on other fringe subjects-UFOs, Bigfoot, psychic powers, etc.)
**edit**Also, you might be interested in watching the "Urban Legends" flash video series.
http://jkcinema.com/gamesmov.asp?type=5
Putting 'Solved' and saying 'thank you' shows respect to those helping you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the respondent, MadSimian emaphasizing the immediately preceding bit of information and it's objective (Facts are objective and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind.)
See Objective + Subjective: http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/popups/objectivity.htm
Below is another fine example of parenthetical expression under the same exact board under Subject: "Impossible movie find??" by droonfang (original poster) (Sun May 30 2010 21:27:03) in the same vane because bill9340 emphasizes just the prior piece of information however he utilizes it the subjective manner because bill9340 is expressing his personal opinion (not to worry it's not really a grammatical concept necessarily but it is 'the defacto standard of language' in use everyplace on the internet thing ...unless of course your posting some literary content):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by bill9340 (Sun May 30 2010 21:55:54)
This may be ringing a bell. I seem to remember a movie where the wife dumps the husband (or maybe a lover) down a trap door in the kitchen. The kitchen has a view out over the water & while she's trying to hide (I think it is a lover), you see the husband & son out the window returning from fishing in the boat. Any chance this is the correct story line (I haven't yet been able to remember this movie's name).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's another one, under Subject: 80s French(?) Art House movie - belly button scene (Solved)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by IOKs_Missus_Phooey (original poster) (Sun May 30 2010 21:10:15)
UPDATED Sun May 30 2010 21:30:13
I hope I'm remembering the correct details, as I was pretty young when I saw this movie. I was probably too young to be watching it, but I was spending the night with my grandparents and they had gone to bed and this was before there were channel locks on televisions. I am sure it was on HBO or some other cable channel, hence my sneaking and watching it. Anyway, I believe it was sub-titled and I think the accents were French. I remember there was some sort of complicated relationship/affair between a woman and a younger man (though the woman looked quite young, I think the man was even younger) and the scene that sticks out most in my mind was when the man poured some kind of either powder or maybe liquid into her belly button and then kissed her there. I didn't understand it at all, of course, but I remember being intrigued by that one scene. I believe at the end of the movie the couple had stopped their affair and I remember the woman staring out of her apartment window looking very sad and alone and the street she was staring out at looked bleak and empty.
That's really all I remember - sorry I couldn't give more detail. Thanks in advance for your help!
"He's not a Cockney, he's from bloody Yorkshire!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very similar the one above it
...Shall I continue? I think not! (although I had't run across an exact exchange representing ours but I know it's there because I've not only witnessed such an exchange but I've learned from it.)
...However I think you can see the format of the communication/pattern formulating here ...or maybe it's just the officially accepted and recognized protocol used thought out the internet. These were just from the first 12 posts/threads under this particular board from individuals just like YOU who wished to put some emphasise something within their comments or better yet, even bothered to express it in such a manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by ynisfre (Thu Apr 8 2010 01:18:37) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
Because there's nothing more inherently negative about a porn star doing mainstream work than a non-actor. And whereas non-actors are routinely praised for their ability to do films with no prior experience, when a porn star does it people complain that she should stick to sucking c**k, or whatever. To me it's pretty clear most of these people aren't judging the performance, but rather prejudging the person based on their distaste for porn (or their love of porn but hatred of women.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again I digress ...Facts are objective and provably true; however, if no clear facts exist about a topic, then a series of balanced opinions needs to be produced to allow the reader to make up his or her mind; opinions are subjective ideas held by individuals and so are always biased. If unbalanced opinions are presented as if they are facts, they act as propaganda or persuasion, e.g. a newspaper headline might state: "Youngsters are the prime cause of trouble in this area". This is presented as an objective fact but is clearly a subjective opinion.
NOW THE LAST ONE!!!!! ...And this is just the initial response. Just read through this entire converstaion as it gets quite heated & out of control. This post also illustrates all the forms of emphasis plus the one I/we discussed, and it is clearly, distinctly and undeniably opinionated however its used in a recoginable format for ALL who read it! (I have to admit I was tempted to jump right in but I saw it was a futile assertion from the get go ...I was laughing hysterically after reading through it ...You might too!):
IMDb :: Boards :: Best and Worst :: most offensive movies, what and why
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: most offensive movies, what and why by takatomon (Tue May 4 2010 00:21:44)
UPDATED Tue May 4 2010 00:24:15
it's been asked many times in may ways...
most controversial
sickest
films that make you feel dirty after watching them
most disgusting
films that make you nauseous
films you should never watch with your parents
films like... (not naming any of the titles asked for)
& so on
i don't like answering these questions though as it only encourages people to see movies that should just be burned
My Movie Site
takatomon2000.googlepages.com/takatomonsmoviepages
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also these individuals so obviously left nothing to chance as to be misunderstood what they were saying. So one has to ask, what exactly was meant by the emphasis in the above? Was it to be applied to the most immediate and most recent portion of the post ...Was this to be applied toward the sum total of all of it's individual parts (entire statement)? Was it a passionately subjective or objective emotional remark? Was it one emotive response masking itself as another? Too many questions left unanswered!!
LESSON OVER!!! Welcome to the Worldwide Internet ...Happy Netting!!!
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
lol Normal Person ur a dk...but that was a damn fun read =p...
sharedeadbunny28, I take this as a complimement coming from YOU because after perusing your apparent taste in movie viewing and posted comments this is probably the best you could come up with such a limited vocabulary. Hostility isn't an attribute.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
feel free to enlighten on my apparent taste haha...and the previous post wasn't meant as hostile, but hey if you want to take it that way feel free...p.s. not everyone is out to get you
shareBelieve me if it were you who were out to get me, you'd be the least of my troubles, However you're statement appears to be and is considered personally rather hostile from someone I don't even know
deadbunny28 (Mon Oct 10 2011 18:03:38)
lol Normal Person ur a dk
It appears to be some type name calling to me ...whatever "dk" is supposed to mean, it can certainly be interpreted as hostile by just the way it sounds. ;)
As for someone set out to get me... Consider the fact that you've also found it necessary to systematically followed up on successive posts of mine with the exact same comment to further bolster exactly the same hostility... rather cowardly and hostile move hiding behind your keyboard.
Finally since you found it necessary to use only shorthand I can only assume you could not use the full word in longhand because it might cause you problems if it had ever been reported to IMDB. ;P
So you're no real problem or threat to me as was your apparent friend, 'ynisfre'.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off share
"whatever dk means" seriously?...i'll let you ponder on that for a bit...but come on man, clearly it was chastising in light, hence the lol...have some Holiday spirit and enjoy urself a bit...i'm not going to continue arguing with u over something so silly...Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
shareThere you are again, troll... did you sign up again just to leave me another of your little love notes :)
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
There you are again, troll did you sign up again just to leave me another of your litlle love notes. =p
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
I'm sorry, but your wide variety of text colors and wordiness just make you look pretentious.
If you don't believe in Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it, put this in your sig.
nihilistic, If you followed this line of discussion from the very beginning I found it absolutely necessary to display what was said ...and when it was said. She seemed to have lost her way back at the beginning and I was just trying to steer discussion back without all the name calling.
Those above postings for the most part were copied just as they were (color and all). I generally only changed to text color signifying either myself and or the poster I've responded to ...unless of course the copied material conflicts with said color scheme. I was in printing biz for many years so I do like to keep things legible and coherent whenever possible.
Dislike what UR viewing _what UR hearing _whatever's happening! U could go elsewhere or turn it off
[deleted]
ynisfre, I completely agree with you. I would argue it is really due to the Hoover effect, so named because Hoover went out after homosexuals, despite being a cross dresser himself. People who spend a great deal of time conveying how moral they are, often attack actors as the one you mentioned, to shift the focus off them.
I agree. People just like to feel morally suprior.
share