there ! i put puravida back , with the avatar of a guy, for you and gost to be turned on ! 

Quote from: obladihell on August 05, 2009, 12:27

No, you didn't miss anything.
You think it's OK for gostwyck to be offensive with one woman, or two..
so it's OK for me to be offensive to you , woman or otherwise.

You cannot play both sides of the fence.
 Either both of us are wrong in being offensive or both of us are entitled to be offensive,
to man or woman, or the homo that gost calls me.
According to gost, I am both man and woman, so I am entitled to be offensive ...
ROFL.

Sorry, you missed my point.  I will try once more because I have some time to waste with you today. 

It isn't the "being offensive" I objected to in Lisa's post, or yours either.  Offensive is a relative term anyway. 

What I object to, is people pretending to be an authority on a subject they know nothing about. That goes for everyone and really has nothing to do with gender at all.

I am not offended by your tone.  I can take it or I wouldn't be here.  Same goes for Lisa4s, Stacey (who you keep alluding to), or anyone else on this forum.  While your attempts at chivalry are rather quaint, these women aren't/didn't ask for your help in defending them.

Gonna have to sign off now.  Got a life to live, and friends and family to spend it with.  Besides, I have a feeling you aren't going to understand this post any more than you have any others.

Give my regards to that next windmill you tilt at, would you Don Quixote? 

ETA:  And here comes puravida moving up on the outside.  Do I see 50%eggs joining in too?  C'mon, it's a party!!  Thanks again for the diversion

I am not sure,  maybe you should ask lisafx

ARGH.

I think that you are missing PB's point, and that was that the original "attack" was on this person who came from nowhere to spout off a whole lot of nonsense about something she clearly knew very little about. SHE is NOT making money on microstock because she is not (yet) participating in microstock.

I don't think PB was trying to draw lines of differentiation between the levels of contributor here, only between those who actually have real experience and knowledge of microstock, and those who clearly do not.

Hell, at this point I'd just like to see one thread make it through a grown-up on-topic discussion without the mention of lubricant.

And they wonder why people won't take them or their opinions seriously.

ARGH.

I think that you are missing PB's point, and that was that the original "attack" was on this person who came from nowhere to spout off a whole lot of nonsense about something she clearly knew very little about. SHE is NOT making money on microstock because she is not (yet) participating in microstock.

I don't think PB was trying to draw lines of differentiation between the levels of contributor here, only between those who actually have real experience and knowledge of microstock, and those who clearly do not.

whatalife, good to hear from someone else other than all of us aforementioned.

my point is also missed.  whether someone is active or inactive is moot.
we had oldhippy, OP, and many others who were disqualified simply because they are not with micro stock, or more directly, disagree with the culture of micro stock.
they came in here to "rant off" what they know squat.
so what?

is this not a forum? why can't they say what they want?
if it 's not a fact, or whatever, what's the big deal about letting them rant?
we can respond just as loudly to that.
but don't pick on anyone personally, to attack them .

we know by history, our good friend who is departed sadly , who was very verbose and loud
and nasty to many people here. but the big diff is that he was never personally obnoxious. he never attacked anyone directly AS A PERSON.
i can mention another very QUALIFIED AND SUCCESSFUL MICRO STOCK PERSONALITY here as well,
who has been just as loud and outspoken. He too have never attack anyone personally,
no matter how harsh his response.

that is the fine line that is not crossed. the fine line that crude old cranky gost crossed many times.

so PB finds it offensive to read about CRANKY OLD MAN WITH MALE MENOPAUSE.
well, PB can go to the disney site if she does not approve of it.
she could tell me the same, if i don 't approve of gost and his excessive estrogen antics.
but hey, i like to kick arse as much as the other person.
like it or not, i am here to stay. and if i read what offends me, i throw back an equally offensive remark. tit for tat. twit or *. male or female, it's all fair game.

someone before us laid the ground rules, we are merely playing by the same rules they play.

is this not a forum? why can't they say what they want?
if it 's not a fact, or whatever, what's the big deal about letting them rant?

Sure this is a forum, but this person came in and managed to badly derail at least 2 threads by copying and pasting her same lengthy rant in multiple places, whether or not it was on topic where it was pasted. I would think this is against the rules of this forum.

I don't even know how Gostwyk got brought up in this thread. (and I can't bear to read back through 8 pages, mostly nonsense, to figure it out) The majority of the personal attacks I'm seeing are not coming from Gostwyk, and they certainly don't have anything to do with the topic of this thread as intended by the original poster.

I guess I would think that those who value this forum would be opposed to threads falling into mayhem as seems to be the trend of late. Nothing wrong with reasoned debate, even emotional debate if it at least sounds a little bit sane. The longer the stuff that has been going on continues, the more "professionals" we will have coming here to tell us what amateurish ignorant imbeciles we are. ... and from the impression being given to the outside world, it seems like a logical conclusion.

Quote from: puravida on August 05, 2009, 13:34

Quote from: whatalife on August 05, 2009, 13:21

Hell, at this point I'd just like to see one thread make it through a grown-up on-topic discussion without the mention of lubricant.

And they wonder why people won't take them or their opinions seriously.

and you take everything that gostwyck says seriously? 
lol c'mon bud whatalife, you got to be kidding me , right? 

There has got to be some kind of serious disconnect for you to read what I wrote as some kind of endorsement of gostwyck. 

no, you are right. objectivity has been alluded from gostwyck's regular antics.

but i have to admit, your objective intervention makes good sense, right after  i read the response to persius.

Quote from: lubezombie on August 05, 2009, 13:30

is this not a forum? why can't they say what they want?
if it 's not a fact, or whatever, what's the big deal about letting them rant?

Sure this is a forum, but this person came in and managed to badly derail at least 2 threads by copying and pasting her same lengthy rant in multiple places, whether or not it was on topic where it was pasted. I would think this is against the rules of this forum.

I don't even know how Gostwyk got brought up in this thread. (and I can't bear to read back through 8 pages, mostly nonsense, to figure it out) The majority of the personal attacks I'm seeing are not coming from Gostwyk, and they certainly don't have anything to do with the topic of this thread as intended by the original poster.

I guess I would think that those who value this forum would be opposed to threads falling into mayhem as seems to be the trend of late. Nothing wrong with reasoned debate, even emotional debate if it at least sounds a little bit sane. The longer the stuff that has been going on continues, the more "professionals" we will have coming here to tell us what amateurish ignorant imbeciles we are. ... and from the impression being given to the outside world, it seems like a logical conclusion.

ok, i too did not go back many pages to see that that person was not the OP of this post, and that she hijacked this thread.

good of you to intervene to point this out .

Ho ho up ya $, whatever whoever you are. New member, huh?
did you resurrect yourself from dracula's tomb or what?

better buy a thesarus ..while you're at it. E bay's got a good bargain. don't you ever get a spellchecker?

I am finished "hier" , if you want to know