I wonder what sur thinks of women's feet if they're above size 6...into the restraints! It ain't feminine!

See I thought I was doing remarkably well here to not go off on one like I might at times, with the bee-line to physical attributes, sexiness and body parts that his post took. But no, I'm now too pedantic because I take what he chooses to post at face value and disagree. I give up.

I have answered your questions to the best of my ability but tend not to reply to any thing where
it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that I am wrong or where it would be trivial to do so

I have absolutely no idea where feet come into this but to satisfy
your curiosity : I dont really have an opinion on them either way

Fallible wrote:See I thought I was doing remarkably well here to not go off on one like I might at times, with the bee-line to physical attributes, sexiness and body parts that his post took. But no, I'm now too pedantic because I take what he chooses to post at face value and disagree. I give up.

There's currently no cure for some ailments, even not fancying Cate on Notes on a Scandal. We've got a long way to go. I guess you can't like all the people all the time. Sur is a strange one, and perhaps not a psychopath, although I have my doubts to be frank....and even if he is he might not be an utter pox as seems to be civilised at least, in his own way, and that's more than I can say about a great many of my real world acquaintances of late.

surreptitious57 wrote:I have answered your questions to the best of my ability but tend not to reply to any thing where
it has been demonstrated to my satisfaction that I am wrong or where it would be trivial to do so

I don't see any answers at all to my questions.

Anyway, I'm kid of blissed out still from last night to be honest, or I might be more arsed.

surreptitious57 wrote:
You re probably thinking I am moving the goalposts here but I am just more flexible with language...

See, that's what I most admire about your approach, surr: Your almost absolute disdain for goalposts. As far as I know, your only goalpost is your energetic striving to become as detached as possible ...

Once again : I have dealt with all your questions as comprehensively as I possibly can
Please remember from now on that I am not interested in argument just conversation
So I shall not impose upon you any more if you are blessedly arsed so merci beaucoup

surreptitious57 wrote:
Cito : I am an eternal work in progress so have mercy upon me and forgive me my shortcomings

To me, you're a paragon. That's, like, a polygon with only two sides. You know the joke: An inside and an outside, and holes at both ends.

surreptitious57 wrote:Once again : I have dealt with all your questions as comprehensively as I possibly can
Please remember from now on that I am not interested in argument just conversation
So I shall not impose upon you any more if you are blessedly arsed so merci beaucoup

Is that having dealt with all my questions as comprehensively as you can in an objective sense, or in the sense that according to your subjective dictionary, you declare that you have done so? You're not interested in argument, you were just hoping for a conversation when you accused KIR of crying like a baby. You're not interested in argument, you just hoped for a nice conversation when you began laying down truths about 'the natural female beauty', and women having nose jobs just because their noses are too big. Calling me pedantic is just your way of going about having a nice chat Can you lay out for me how you see a conversation going, so I know for future reference? You say 'she possesses no natural female beauty/symmetry', and I say 'okay'. You say 'she has a big nose and that's ugly', and I say 'I see you have made a point about her nose, thank you'. You say 'no one should talk about Lady Di's nose because she was a royal', and I say 'I see you have posted a comment, many felicitations'. Is that the kind of thing?

Keep It Real wrote:
Sur is a strange one and perhaps not a psychopath although I have my doubts to be frank ....
and even if he is he might not be an utter pox as seems to be civilised at least in his own way

I dont usually like saying good things about myself but old age has certainly humbled me compared to how I used to be
That is why I am always banging on about detachment : for me it is the best way to be the best version of me I can be

I know no one will remember me after I am gone but I always try to be nice to everyone as that is my nature
I am not a psychopath just a mentally ill obsessive compulsive who spends all his time alone in order to grow

Fallible : why do I even bother with you you are way out of my league
I know you think me a complete pain in the arse but please understand it is not intentional
I am not perfect I make mistakes I am a work in progress and I will be till the very day I die

There is no need to get existential over the slightest thing, surr. An hour ago we were disagreeing over Cate Blanchett's nose, now you've gone all 'mea culpa' on me. I would have settled for a straight back-and-forth. Instead we've had to have this tussle. Surely it would have been easier to have just had a straight forward disagreement..?

No one wants to disagree with you Fall, you're too scary

Anyway.. Paltrow. We'd make a terrible couple, and beside I'm out of her league.

aban57 wrote:No one wants to disagree with you Fall, you're too scary

Nonsense!

Freud > Newton