Re: Erotic v Pornographic
Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:11 pm
reasonvemotion wrote:What I am trying to say, (rather badly), there are times for pictures, but there are also times for words, without pictures. Sometimes just pictures are not helpful and I will give an example. This was written by Spheres, I hope he doesnt object to me using it, it just seemed very appropriate for what I am trying to explain.So...so stop what?
What do you want me to stop?
It is time to get some control and stop, now.
To this 'argument' of yours, I would counter: 'Who' is to say when and if pictures are or are not required? 'Who?' The point being that, as far as I know, no one has told 'you' how to respond, whether 'badly' or not, and you would have every right to not take heed, as they TELL you what to do, as if you are their underling, it's your choice, as 'you' are the contributor, it is for 'you' to decide how to make 'your point.' It is for 'others' to 'understand,' however that's accomplished, this is not to say that 'I' don't 'believe' that one should always strive to be as clear as possible, but even though I believe this, I do not tell them how they should, as I understand that there is no necessary accounting of the conveyance of mind, I merely correct their words, as I see fit, via my argument, if they see that their words were ineffectual in accurate conveyance, and if they care to do otherwise, they shall learn to change their methodology on their own.
As far as you using any words of mine to make any point, either against me or otherwise, I could care less, mainly because I like you, whether we've argued or not, but even if I didn't like you, and you were my worst enemy, still I would only take it as an opportunity to set your usage straight, if I felt you misunderstood, if otherwise, I'd just let it go. As I see it as my job to ensure clarification, or not.
RE, I would hope that you'd never fear me, in any way shape or form. I am forever your friend, apparently in my mind alone, but that's OK. Plus I often share my 'battles' of wit, here on PNF with my wife. If she thought I was being unfair, she'd probably make me pay, one way or another.
But Van Der Beek's facial expression is that of condescension/sarcasm. Is that in fact what you mean to convey?
I would love more verbal input from you. Perhaps you can reverse the current trend, more words less pictures, as it stands there are more pictures less words.
Geez Bill, it seems however I put it, it comes out wrong. LOL I can see a picture looming LOL. U no wot, I get you. Forget everything I have said.
except
I still would like (in words) the meaning of the post I enquired about, please.
More 'facts' from the impressionistic. Maybe fat America thinks this but, dependent upon conditions, we can survive without food for about two months is the experts opinion and in certain cases it can be much longer. Water is a different, again depending upon conditions, it's about 3-5 days but again there have been extreme examples of up to 24 days.
