onthebeach, Poirot is one of the few women who posts on OLO who generally does not play the girls club routine.

I think you are looking for insult where there was none intended.

Kids do have pre-teen snickers about "doodles" and any evidence of their existence, most of us outgrow that but not all.

On the broader discussion -
My suspicion is that many of the morals campaigners are fighting some pretty big personal issues about sexuality. I suspect a lot want it all to be dirty because that makes it more fun. Their secret sin would be not nearly so enticing if it was all normal healthy human life. They spend far too much time contemplating what they consider to be sin or dirty for their own good (or anybody else's). The product of a diseased sexuality manifested by outward proclamations of a commitment to public values and morals and private trips to a quiet spot for some private sin.

R0bert

I didn't misquote.

onthebeach,

Okay, Mr-I-want-to-pick-an-argument-for-no-particular-reason.

My quote:

"Regarding budgie smugglers - what is the big deal about a bloke wearing those?...I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves a grown-up, what is the problem with a man wearing a brief costume for swimming - at this particular juncture in Western social history."

How can you construe from that an "off" implication towards men?

You say:

"In this case in your view the wearing of said Speedos warrants rising above above pre-teen smirks..."

What a stupid argument.

My point being that people who would quibble or snigger over the wearing of Speedos would perhaps have the maturity of a pre-teen, for whom such attire might raise a few giggles.

Now deary, I realise you get your jollies from deliberately misconstruing and misrepresenting other poster's views...and then loading your rhetorical cannon full of bollocks to fire in their direction.

Shame it keeps blowing up in your face.

I didn't misquote you.

You misquoted yourself to leave out the key section that I queried with you. Why you did that you still will not say. Or even admit it was omitted.

It should have been easy enough to admit you erred and move on.

In the post I originally referred to it would have been easy enough for you to agree that yes, the subject clause could have led to misunderstanding and was superfluous, and move on.

They were simple, reasonable questions. Your anger is out of proportion.

There is nothing to be gained from a rude exchange. So I will move on.

onthebeach

I did "not" misquote.

I abridged my quote to highlight the gist of my point.

Yes I realise that you grabbed hold of: "....I mean for someone who has outgrown pre-teen smirks, and considers themselves grown-up...."

So what?

I could just have easily have said: "For any mature person..."

There is no big deal about that passage. I was merely pointing out that it takes an immature and pedantic mind to quibble over men wearing Speedos.

It takes an even more immature and pedantic mind to quibble over such a passage.

I watched you try this line on Pelican recently, attempting to blow her position out of proportion with a little cherry-picked precision.

I'm interested occasionally on this forum to analyse the the devices employed by "some" posters.

Yours are a case in point.

You cherry-pick a portion of a post. You then proceed to deliberately misconstrue its intent. After which you carry on the travesty by misrepresenting and denouncing the poster you have chosen for your "treatment". - as you have done to me here and on another thread.

It's called trolling.

And then, when you are challenged, you feign delicate sensibilities as in: "Your anger is out of proportion....There is nothing to be gained from a rude exchange. So I will move on." (btw, that's me abridging your post - not misquoting you:)

That's rich!

You intentionally skewed the entire meaning of my post to match your "confected" line of attack. Anyone reading my post (as RObert noted) would understand that you contorted my meaning in a misguided attempt to provoke me.

Hint: - If you're going to provoke fellow posters with vacuous points of order, at least attempt to render your misrepresentations a little less obvious