Anti: “Sometimes even, the purpose is simply to have a vehicle for the words…”

You mean posts are vehicles for words?

You are incredibly insightful sweat pea. Just ignore that – I had wanted to use “insightful” in a sentence today.

R0bert:”I've not tried to keep up to thoroughly with who says what about who so I may miss some but my overall impression is that the comments directed at antiseptic are generally more personal, more directly hateful of the him than the stuff he posts about others.”

I’ve kept up, it’s pretty even really which is actually quite a task for Anti when occasionally outnumbered but Cornflower has been known to lend him a hand, Rusty kind of slithered off somewhere and Benk doesn’t seem particularly reliable.

I will however start awarding points and maybe let everyone know at a future date who the winner is.

Could we agree on scoring?

5 points for the usual Pomeranian and sock-puppet remarks

7 points for referring to posters as female when they have identified themselves as male

10 points for blanket statements about women

15 points for the predictable “she is female aka wrong or lying and a man trapping, money sucking whore”

2 points for the sometimes muttered “I like women”

300 points every time someone calls him an idiot no matter how many words they use or how subtly implied

Dear Antiseptic,

Social interaction is the process by which people
act toward or respond to other people.

Because we live in a meaningful world, we have to
interpret human behaviour in order to interact
with others. We interact largely through shared
understandings of things like language. That's
why the words we use are so important. If the majority
of posters find the words you use offensive -
then obviously you need to take another look at the
reality you've constructed for yourself. It may not
be accurate.

TPP, "Cornflower has been known to lend him a hand"

No, that misrepresents my position entirely and implies that I take sides, which I aim not to do and have said so on several occasions. I have my own opinion and that is hard enough to represent because I am always in such a hurry. If my view is in part or totally in agreement with others on occasion, so be it.

However I count myself among the many who has had the temerity to occasionally put a view that was different to some and like so many others who have done that I attracted the unwelcome labeling and abuse that goes with it. I hope I gave a reasonable account of myself in return, however baiting and cat calling are not things to which I would normally respond.

Frankly TPP, you should have had enough fair dealings with me not to put me in the position of having to explain myself like this. Perhaps I have have misunderstood your intent and if so I apologise, I have not read all of your post or others apart from a quick scan because I have a lot to do today.

R0bert: << I've not tried to keep up to thoroughly with who says what about who so I may miss some but my overall impression is that the comments directed at antiseptic are generally more personal, more directly hateful of the him than the stuff he posts about others. >>

If you haven't been paying attention, you're not really in a position to make an informed comment then, are you?

I generally have a fairly high regard for you and your views (even where I disagree) as with a number of other posters. Turning a blind eye to the spiteful misogyny and personal insults continuously spewed out by Antiwomen does not do you credit.

Now he apparently wants to diminish the seriousness of the crime of rape - are you going to defend that, too?

Hello Cornflower, in your most recent post you complain you have been labeled and abused, and that baiting and cat calling are not for you. However, I've read a great many posts from you on this site where you have labeled others via cat calling and baiting. Just look at your display on the footy topic, where many of your posts sound remarkably similar to antiseptic's posts. But it's your life, and you can do whatever you want to do. It's seems a shame that you can't see the way you present yourself, either that or you simply don't want to openly admit it. But again, it's your life and you can do what you want. Cornflower, maybe you should look inwards a bit more, and become a bit more gracious towards people here. Or, you can just continue as you have been. It's up to you, but either way it would make little difference to others here but that's not important anyway. What's important is the level of understanding you have about your own behaviour, then maybe that would enable you to better understand other people here. Thank you.

A member questioned whether rape is the second worst crime next to murder, in reply to another member's belief that it was. His question was, "Is non-consensual sex (rape) really the second worst crime next to murder? Why?" Now the question here is not really how the various crimes should be rated. The question is, "why would he even think to ask that question in the first place, in reply to the other member?". I find the member's question to be the most disgusting thing I've read on this site, and I think it says a lot about what he's written on this topic. I believe rape should not be diminished. It's a serious and insidious crime, often committed for the purpose of control and intimidation. The seriousness of rape should not be diminished, regardless of one's personal agenda. The consequences of rape can last an entire lifetime for the victim. Yet there are still people in our society who trivialise rape, or don't see it as a "real" crime.