Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Sorry for the late response - lost the post link..

Posted by martirwithacause on 2011-March-11 14:22:41, Friday
In reply to Re: Not in Martir's defense posted by Anonymous on 2011-March-8 12:10:55, Tuesday

-------------
Ultimately, my "gut feeling" that you are an anti arises from your strange admixture of "knowing" and feigned "innocence."

Knowing is not so difficult. Reading posts (including the other pages of the index) helps (being a fast reader helps, too). Feigned "innocence"? Uh, you are *assuming* any innocence on my part is feigned. Have you stopped to consider that it *might not* be feigned?
-------------
Sometimes you reach into your bag-of-tricks and pull out VERY knowing details about posters and past occasions that wouldn't arise from simply dipping into your own index of posts, but from having been privy to the discussions here for years.

"Bag of tricks"? Hmmm... painting me as a magician, or a ne'er-do-well, aren't you?

"VERY knowing details about posters and past occasions" - as opposed to just ordinary details that are typed in words in posts?

"wouldn't arise from simply dipping into your own index of posts, but from having been privy to the discussions here for years"

Huh? I'm lost. If the posts are posted here, then I am indeed privy to the discussions. If I read the posts, how could it be otherwise?
-------------
On the other hand, you frequently appeal to innocent ignorance: "Oh, sorry, I didn't know that ..." (that I couldn't nick-link in that way, or post dangerous details, or questionably suggest torrenting this or doing that).

"you frequently appeal to innocent ignorance: 'Oh, sorry, I didn't know that ...'

Yeah - it's just innocent ignorance, because I have not read *all* the posts ever posted - or even more than a small fraction, actually. You have *any* idea, even as a fast reader, how long that would take?
-------------
Anyone who is knowing enough for the first would, necessarily, ALSO know the second ...

No. Not true. Because I haven't read *all* the posts.
-------------
Curious at best, no?

What is curious to me is that you didn't think of any of what I explain above as even being a possibility, and just assume the most negative point of view about the situation.

You know, despite all the cloak-and-dagger stuff here, sometimes it *is* better to take someone posting here at face value, or at least at the very minimum, give them the benefit of the doubt. Too much cynicism can spoil one's perspective, sometimes. martirwithacausesticky tired of defending my "knowing things" here

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Do not engage in campaigns of harassment against other posters.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.