So it was all in good humour.

>>I was deliberately creating a pantomine dramatic speel to ease my boredom. I was imitating in my head the Jerry Seinfeld/Newman relationship, and having fun with the nemesis idea. Clues might have been seen in 'She's got them all fooled! Everyone except me!'. Even the use of 'vile ginx' which I found quite amusing when it was first brought out.<<

Well, that makes it all right then.

You are some piece of work, Houellebecq

"Where is the 'pack hunt'? That's laughable man." (Quote: Houlles 5 May )

"Where is the pack hunt now? The fearsom dogs protecting one of their babies as it were.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 7 May 2009 10:36:49 AM"

Er? You mean like the 'pack hunt' that was 'laughable'?

A 'pack-hump'?!?...there's that humping obsession again! And that from someone who pays good money for a lemon and accepts a 'slightly rancid prune painted...er, yuellow.

You are both becoming quite irrational.

Forrest

Pretty sure it was Allan Bell, but I'm not 100% sure.

Your memory is faultless, Bronwyn

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1307#23405

Its getting a bit embarrassing now, isn’t it?.

I’ve always disregarded Houllebecqu as merely one of a small group who admit quite blithely that they like to 'stir things up', have a bit of 'argy bargy’, - or any other of the euphemisms that such people have given, over time, to explain why they look with relief to places like this once the experience of pulling wings off flies has paled.

Hardly worth serious consideration.

But now the “Pantomime” thing and the thread on which he was blaming other people for his ennui because they were not rising to his bait.? Just like a kid with ADS, throwing stuff around to try to attract attention.

Well, of course your threads are boring, lovey. It’s because you yourself are becoming boring, you see.

Yes, there is a way of using words to provoke meaningful reaction; of getting people to think outside the square; of engaging in entertaining discussion; of captivating interest and of stimulating thought.

You just don't have that capability.

See, “stouches” or whatever, run along the lines of brute strength and ignorance, whereas, in a word contest well, its words that are used.

But, like a saw in the hands of a novice, words in the hands of the incompetent are simply squiggles in cyber-space.

Now if you were actually able to study human nature, to recognise people's weak spots and frailties, then one well-placed adjective could do all the damage you like. But throwing a whole lot of metaphorical knives around in the hope that one of them might hit is truly unproductive for you and terminally boring for others.

(E.G: -, telling an opponent you’ve never met that they are dried-up and have hair under their armpits is comparable to that opponent riposting that you are a fat ignorant tradie with a wart on your nose. Makes THEM look silly - especially if you don’t have a wart on your nose.)

It’s time to put your clothes back on and go home now, boy. Continuing publicly to expose yourself is undignified.

Hahaha. Yeah good one.

Ah, please wordsmith Romany, enthrall us more with your pompous analysis.

I don't feel embarrassed. That whole post just highlighted how seriously you take OLO, but more so, how seriously you take yourself.

I do thank all you established users for the entertainment you have provided. I might check back in now and then to see if you have in fact changed the world with you woundrous critiques of the issues of today.

All your responses give me the wonderful feeling of gate crashing an exclusive dinner party full of pretentious twats by pissing on the table.