The indefensibility of dropping what is already indefensible

That admission tells the rest of us here right from the outset just about all that we probably didn't want or need to know about what prompted you to write as you have done in this post in a way that might well make one wonder how many years it is since any woman last took an interest in you (if ever one did).


Who determines that your attitude is "as it should be"? By what and whose parameters? If your views are as intransigent and trenchant as is suggested by the ways in which you have expressed them, shouldn't you consider taking appropriate steps to ensure that you live the rest of your life in a woman-free environment? I'm sure that you'd do yourself a favour should you choose this option - to say nothing of the favour that such action would do for women who might otherwise have the self-evident misfortune to encounter you!


How many women have you personally observed conducting themslves in what you determine to be "brainless" ways? Who decides what female conduct is "brainless" and what not? Are you implying that you consider most or all women to be "brainless"? If so, on what grounds and with what evidence?


What on earth is that? You make it sound as though it is a profession!


Of what and for whom?


What's "right" about that? Do you favour such veiling of women as is the case today in certain parts of the Middle East where it is on occasion coercivel or even violently enforced? And do you endorse some of the more extreme maltreatment and mistreatment of women that still occurs in certain parts of that area?


You ought to have been concentrating on the food and wine being served to you there!


But you've just poured scorn on skirts!


By no means in all cases or at all times; that's absurd!


In your opinion - and, in any case, it occurs to me that whether a woman wears trousers of soe kinf or a skirt of some kind will likely make little or no impact upon the appearance, perceived or otherwise, of her "bosom"...


""Are" any of our members...", surely? Anyway, whilst I cannot - and accordiongly would not presume to - speak for any others of the mere dozen or so members here, I nevertheless suspect that most if not all would aver that no such "transformation" has actually taken place outside of your constricted imagination and also, for that matter, take exception to your blatantly expressed misogynistic attitude as wholly inappropriate towards other men, let alone to those 52% or so of the world's population who are women. You ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourself, but I somehow doubt that there's much hope of, or room for, any such thing!

This one wonders nothing of the kind; it's probably more likely that the Amazon faked it with photoshop, although one might wonder why it was not then sold on Amazon...


Whilst the membership of this forum remains vanishingly small, I am not the only other member, as might be implied from this!


Thank you kindly, but that's a different subject to the one under discussion here.


Far from it. Where, for example, is the evidence of "solicitationism" in the case that you mention? Who was doing the "importunate asking", what were they asking and of whom and in what way was such "importunate asking" identified beyond challenge as a "principle of life" on the part of those supposedly doing said asking?


These other examples that you cite are at least as obscure, not least on the grounds that no attempt has yet been made to provide a context for discussion of them but, more importantly, it is unclear how any of them - especially the last-named(!) - could achieve such a result, even if it were necessary or desirable that they do so.

Who needs to steer what? - and how and why?

What is a "more manly, principled and rewarding path" in the present context? The discussion was about certain conduct of certain women as perceived by member Gerard, the opening gambit of whose post admitted to the passage of three score years and ten since he had last taken any interest in the appearance of a woman, which rather defeats - or at the very least undermines - the remainder of what he wrote.

What is the supposed nature of the "manliness" that you seek to commend in a considered response to member Gerard here? - and why should it be so? The subject is surely the subject, regardless.

What was allegedly "unprincipled" about any part of my response, as you appear to imply that you have assumed it to be?

Whither the "reward" of whatever it is that you appear to expect from me in my response - and what is the nature of such "reward"?

I note that you have not even challenged anything specific that I wrote in response to member Gerard! Perhaps that fact, along with the above as yet unanswered questions, might "steer you back" to attempting to do so and, if so, the rest of the membership will at least be able to figure out where you're coming from on this. In the meantime - or "mean time", if you prefer - all that I wrote stands.

There are liberals and liberals. But ducks are the thing what.

stammers an obstinately self-willed member.

From the Dutch doeck old chap. Two yarns together in the warp and a single yarn in the weft. "The genuine white smock-frock of Russia duck and the whity-brown one of drabbet, are rarely seen now afield" regretted Hardy once in print.

I asked the legendary bb, who is currently wearing (the) trousers, what she thinks of Gerard's aversion to women, women wearing trousers and trousers in general. She wants to know what sort of clothes Gerard thinks she ought to wear?