beastlie, you are a lying, deceitful bitch of a woman.
I defy anyone to locate anything I have ever written on this board or elsewhere that could be reasonably seen as fitting the description you give above.
I have long understood that you people are not beneath making these sorts of "over-the-top" charges. The things Scratch and others have written about DCP over the years are ample proof of that. And I also understand that you don't find it necessary to document allegations that you make, no matter how outrageous. It is your sole intent to throw out this kind of stuff and then permit it to take on a life of its own. But there is a distinct difference between my carefully-worded "flirtations" and the type of things you insinuate above. So, search away, and let's see what you can turn up. If you fail, then it will be evident to everyone -- at least the honest ones -- that you are little more than a rank propagandist.
And, for the record, I find it difficult to believe that "men" have ever found you attractive, at least not without the aid of excess testosterone, several shots of tequila and extremely dim lighting. You are simply too ugly in soul for it to not show through. It gives me the willies just thinking about what you must really look like ...
So, in your opinion, repeatedly making comments about women’s anatomies and physical attributes do not match that description?
Let’s just look at one thread in particular:
Here’s a sampling of how you behave toward women on this site, starting with the thread that featured the tank-top. The topic was “Lamanite Only A Political Designation?” In the midst of this serious conversation, Will made this post, which triggered the others:viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5519&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=varicose+veins&start=63
I've watched you grow dumber over the course of the past two years.
I hope, at least, that you're happier now. What with your wife wearing her tanktop and panties to bed and everything.
My wife just wears the tanktop -- at least for 45 minutes or so. She likes to sleep in her soft flannel jammies.
And this has to do with WK's argument, how?
Quit being such an ass.
Go away, Lizzie. This conversation is over your pretty little head. You want to moderate my comments, go right ahead. Put some bite in your bitchiness.
Kimberly Ann protested:
What an unwarranted display of hubris! Will Schryver, I doubt anything you could come up with is over Liz's head, and I can assure you it wouldn't be over mine.
I'm going on a fifteen year old memory, but I believe you're still off by sixty or so years with Charlemagne. He may be called by some the "Father of Europe", but his progeny numbered around twenty, if I remember correctly (and I usually do), so I doubt that should be taken literally.
Also, thank you for exemplifying the sexist attributes of Mormon Priesthood holders. I enjoy pointing out the sexism inherent in Mormonism, and your above post does nothing but prove me right.
Will’s added more to his comments to liz
By the way, I know you’re sticking around simply because I told you the conversation was over “your pretty little head.”
In retrospect, I have no idea if you even have a “pretty little head.” You see, I am as handsome as my avatar suggests, but I have serious doubts that you are as good looking as your avatar would lead us believe. I’ll bet you’re a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind you than ahead of you. Right? ;-)
I'm quite well known for my "unwarranted display of hubris."
But it's nothing my 15-year-old daughter's sharp tongue can't rip to shreds.
Charlemagne (Charles I) lived in the second half of the 8th century A.D. And I think you're right that he had about 20 children. And I'll bet we're distant cousins because we both descend from him and several of his posterity. He's back about 50 generations for me. I can go back another 25 or so from him to a Roman ruler of Gaul who died in 6 A.D.
Oh, and by the way, my "sexist attributes" are not the exclusive province of the "Mormon Priesthood holder." I'm just a normal man. Well, probably a whole lot more manly than many of the "men" I see posting on this board. Most of them have been so utterly emasculated by our oppressive modern feminazi culture that they are only a couple of testosterone molecules shy of being eunuchs.
Now get your fat ass back in the kitchen and whip up a batch of cookies before I slap you silly.
I like you KA. I'll bet you'd look good in a tanktop, too. ;-)
Beastie’s snarky comment in return:
I'm sure being a Drama Queen results in the exaggerated need to prove one's maleness, too, as in referring to how females would look in tank tops.
For another example, look at your response to me – you focused on my physical characteristics, emphasizing that no man could possibly be attracted to me. (btw, there are enough posters here who have seen pictures of me to render your comment silly)
You have a habit, and perhaps people in real life are too polite to point it out to you, or perhaps you don’t do it in real life, but you certainly do it on this board. You have a habit of sexualizing your comments to women, in responding to them in a way that objectifies them, in the proper sense of the word, not the over-used sense of the word. When you disagree with what a female poster says, you often insert some derogatory comment about her physical appearance. When you have reason to believe you would find a female poster physically attractive, you insert some flirtatious, sometimes suggestive comment while dismissing her comments. This all adds up to someone who cyber ogles women, sizing them up like pieces of meat in the market.