Planet-Love -- traffic slowing?

[Jack]

... in response to Thanks, posted by MarkInTx on Jun 2, 2004

Posted by Patrick on 01/26/2004

Neither may reply to, " nor mention the other either by name or any other reference". The first to do so will be banned. If one of you starts trouble and the other replies, both will be banned.

Patrick I would really like to respond to Boy Blunders remarks but as per your implied conditions if I reply back, even after he has violated your conditions, I could be banned, so I will not reply back to him.

In his attempt to again (and again and again) start trouble, Boy Blunder has again violated the terms you set on both of us.

[Dan]

... in response to Thanks, posted by MarkInTx on Jun 2, 2004

If your curiousity were so pure, you would not have jumped at the first (innocuous) post to launch a missile.

You were baiting with your initial post (some would call it trolling) - hoping that someone would respond (as they did) with just enough of a reply so that you could make your point about how great is the RWG and how depleted are the other boards and those board's participants.

Clearly you do not read the RWD or you could not (with credibility, anyway) make the various claims you make here.

But that's OK - with all that blood flowing to your minor extremity, it's no wonder you can't maintain a coherent and credible thought. The brain does require blood to support itself you know.

- Dan

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Mark, You're Fooling No-one . . ., posted by Dan on Jun 2, 2004

Dan...

Feel better now?

Go ahead... take all of the shots you want... call me all of the names you want... I really don't care. Knock yourself out.

But, I was merely pointing out a curiosity. My initial post was absolutely non-offensive (if you actually took the time to read it.) I only mentioned RWG when BobbyOrr said things were slowing on "all boards" -- which is simply not true.  

And I do think that your board's activity has affected PL... You mean that you don't?

Frankly, I don't care... But I did think it was interesting...

[Dan]

... in response to Re: Mark, You're Fooling No-one . . ., posted by MarkInTx on Jun 2, 2004

[This message has been edited by Dan]

Yes, your initial post was (on the surface) innocuous enough - as was JohnK's response.

Your response to his n/t post, however, was far from "curious."

Mark, you can pour this kind of pablum down the throats of those on RWG, but your insipid attempts to feign innocence are insulting to anyone with half a brain - even those whose brains are blood-starved.

- Dan

[Globetrotter]

... in response to Thanks, posted by MarkInTx on Jun 2, 2004

I never thought you a bad guy.  Actually, I liked your enthusiasm and input, and your journey.  What I hated about what you wrote was your premise that your way was the best way.  You told of how you were twice divorced when you began looking in the FSU.  That's OK.  I was divorced 15 years ago and if I'd married 2 others I'd had relationships with after that....one for 5 years, another 6, I'd have been like Liz Taylor by now.

I hope you succeed this time as I think your heart is in it.
But never give up too much.  Your "success story" will be determined 20 or 30 years from now, and not before.  You are happy now, and most are happy for you.  

At least she is not 40 years your junior, or you would be sleeping with a 3 year old.  Tone down man.  Tell of funny things that happen to you, how she adapts, the kids, what others that follow your path may expect.  That's all.

And, Good Luck.

[MarkInTx]

... in response to Re: Thanks, posted by Globetrotter on Jun 2, 2004

Thanks for the kind words.

I really didn't expect a firestorm over my little observation...

But, I *have* learned not to share anything on here about how my wife has adapted, or funny things that have happened.

Too many guys on here are just waiting for the chance to attack...

I may be stupid, and a slow learner... but eventually, I did learn my lesson.

Hope things are well with you... Glad you didn't disappear like you thought you might...

[LP]

... in response to antagonism, posted by TwoBitBandit on May 31, 2004

[This message has been edited by LP]

...deleted

[LP]

... in response to Perspective...., posted by LP on Jun 1, 2004

[This message has been edited by LP]


...deleted.

I'm not gonna do it. I'm not gonna get dragged into this again, it's not worth it.

[Dan]

... in response to antagonism, posted by TwoBitBandit on May 31, 2004

You need to take a HARD look at the genesis and evolution of things before flapping your mouth off.

*IF* you took the time to read FIRST, you'd see that Mark posted a baiting question only to take the first opportunity to tackle issues that are still apparently stuck up his ass from eons ago.

I agree that Mark, indeed, has a valid perspective - one valid perspective - and if he stuck to that perspective, I doubt anyone would get too terribly rankled. As it is - he's an intentional troublemaker. Worse, perhaps, than a troll.

And that is MY valid perspective on the priapistic puppy dog.

- Dan

[LP]

... in response to Same 'Ol Mark . . . "Puppy With a P..., posted by Dan on May 31, 2004

What's a priapism anway? Is that like the mental masturbation Stevo mentioned? You know why they do that don't you? It's cuz they're incapable of doing it proper. Lol, you know things are getting bad when even Mary  rejects you.

Maybe MtMav can explain it, it's seems right up his alley. (I'd ask him but I'm so far elevated he looks like an cockroach down there).

[Dan]

... in response to L*M*AO..., posted by LP on May 31, 2004

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=priapism

I don't know if some of those terms will pass the board filter.

I don't know why exactly, but after several years of seeing Mark's prolific (if not downright profligate) posts, I just conjure up this image of a jumpy over-active puppy dog running around jumping up and down and slathering dog spit all over everyone - all while wearing a bright pink hard-on looking for the next "wife' to jump on (or in, as the case may be).

Maybe it has to do with his story of the frisbee - and the one of his viagra. Somehow there's a connection there --smile--.

- Dan

[Jack]

... in response to 'Priapism" . . ., posted by Dan on May 31, 2004

ha, ha,

[LP]

... in response to 'Priapism" . . ., posted by Dan on May 31, 2004

[This message has been edited by LP]

Ah, I see. And here I thought it really had nothing to do with sexual function (or disfunction, as the case may be). Can't say I remember the frisbee deal but I do recall his waxing poetic over the magic blue pill.

Reminds me of all those ED commericals I see where they mention how sustained erections over 4 hours require immediate medical attention. What's up with that? I always laugh out loud when I hear it, imagine rolling into an ER with that problem? Good thing it doesn't apply to emotional hard-ons or he'd have expired long ago.

I dunno, maybe I should break down and finally try some of this stuff. If I die you may have to bury me vertically though

[John K]

... in response to Re: 'Priapism" . . ., posted by LP on May 31, 2004

An ex-girlfriend of mine is a Urology Nurse.  She's seen pretty much everything.  One guy came in with a priapism, self inflicted the hard way (no pun intended).  He heard that if you injected liquid cocaine into your penis you could stay hard for hours.  Indeed it did.  14 hours later, he came into the ER in extreme pain, as the swelling hadn't gone down.  Another idiot decided to wrap a rubberband around his member once it was erect to keep it at attention.  The idiot was drunk at the time and passed out with the rubber band on.  

Needless to say, those guys have removed themselves from the gene pool, as they will never be able to interact in an intimate fashion with that equipment ever again...

[Philb]

... in response to Re: 'Priapism" . . ., posted by LP on May 31, 2004

[This message has been edited by Philb]

I have seen people roll into the ER with this problem and for them it ain't funny ;-)

I must have missed the "Lavender Boy" post