RE: Arrogance

RE: Arrogance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Lucienne -> RE: Arrogance (10/17/2009 6:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IronBear I could sneer at but don't at your correction of a typographical error in confusing the words lose and loose a couple of times. After all you couldn't know that being dyslexic unless I write every post in Word, I do make many such errors which CM spell check doesn't correct, as the spelling was correct just chose the wrong word. Confusing "lose" and "loose" isn't a typographical error. And it's not due to dyslexia. It's due to spending too much time exposed to common errors on internet forums and not enough time spent reading properly edited material. quote: I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you are making a personal judgement of me without knowing anything about me and certainly not enough to sneer at. I made a general comment about finding arrogance based on birthright funny. You've eagerly placed yourself in that category without any assistance from me. I only know you from your words, and they've given me plenty to laugh at. quote: An example would be the sneering comment in another post where I move away from the first person and simply use a mode of speech often found in both the Victorian and Edwardian periods. I'm curious, how do you know it's a mode of speech often found in the Victorian and Edwardian periods?

IronBear -> RE: Arrogance (10/17/2009 6:36:58 AM)
That you find me someone to laugh it is good. Enjoy. quote: Confusing "lose" and "loose" isn't a typographical error. And it's not due to dyslexia. It's due to spending too much time exposed to common errors on internet forums and not enough time spent reading properly edited material. Seeing you have no idea what I spend my time on and what I read this is indeed a laughable statement. the confusion between loose and lose in in fact a common dyslexic mistake I and others I know make along with other words. That I don't pick it up if writing direct into posting boxes is the problem which is another reason when I write seriously it is done in word at 14 point Times Roman. I make few mistakes there. However you appear to have decided that no matter what you are correct and that is ok. Your wondering how I know the modes of speech in Victorian and Edwardian periods is simple. I grew up in a Victorian/Edwardian style home where the manners, mannerisms as well as etiquette and protocols were maintained by my parents, their parents and various great aunts and great uncles when I was young. I read books from that period as well as unpublished journals from my grand parents and other relatives who lived through those periods. It is a hobby of mine to collect books from those periods and it is relaxing from reading texts which I use often for research. Having said this, I believe we have nothing further to say to each other of any value. .

hardbodysub -> RE: Arrogance (10/17/2009 7:20:53 AM)
quote: I find the dictionary's meanings limited at times, e.g., it defines sadism as a psychological disorder I agree that the dictionary is sometimes limited, but the field of psychiatry defines sadism as a disorder; and the dictionary just reports this as one of the definitions for the word, and makes the source of the definition pretty clear. The dictionary also includes the more general definition. I would be disappointed in a dictionary that added definitions every time a word is twisted by the BDSM community, or any relatively small "special interest" group. Since the word "sadism" has already been mentioned, the use of the word here is often as removed from the word's real definition as the use of the word "slave". You could also add "forced" to that. Since everything we do in responsible BDSM is supposed to be consensual, we technically don't do anything that is really forced, and there are no real slaves, and a lot of "sadists" aren't really sadists. When we use these words, it's implicit that we're really talking about adopting the role that the word implies, rather than actually being or doing what the dictionary says it really means. Some people get closer to the real definitions in their roles than others do, and therein lies some of our confusion when we talk about such things.

Falkenstein -> RE: Arrogance (10/17/2009 8:58:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daintydimples Yes, anyone can be arrogant. However, I do think that there are too many females out there who hate men, and who use their supposed "dominance" as a tool to hurt and humiliate. In my mind, being petty, cruel and domineering, is not being dominant. It's just being mean. Unfortunately, anyone can buy a crop and say they are a femdom, and males subs will flock to them. A steady diet of online porn that portrays femdoms as petty and cruel doesn't help this situation. I would go further, submissive of any sex can be arrogant too. But I would also like to diversify the "arrogant". There is a flippant behavior, some kind of inverse self-depreciation which I can find quite amusing, as long as it is worn with humour. There is an arrogance that thinly veils unsecurity. It is a clear signal, can be annoying but sometimes is just inviting pity. Recently, I had to teach humility to a young consultant and felt almost a tang of guilt while I was wipping the floor with him. And there is a self-rightness of high achievers (or persons thinking so of themselves) which is for me a red flag and a clear signal that this person is heading for the wall. Another, IMnHO important point made by Daintydimples is the impact of BDSM media on the behavior of persons in the scene But that could be food for another threat

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125