A Final Solution to Woo-min, the Perennial Problem

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:18 pm

sschaula wrote:I should have put what I said in terms everyone can understand: this is pathetic.

Yes, that's usually what is meant by clarity...

.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 12:27 pm

sschaula wrote:I should have put what I said in terms everyone can understand: this is pathetic.

Yeah, well, do you have a better topic? We seem to have already covered all the deeper truths.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:02 pm

Trevor,

Indeed, Eliza. I've never seen the likes of it before.

I have. I only know one person from cyber discussion forums who is capable of this kind of satire. And this is what always gives him away.

.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:26 pm

Sher, it's natural thinking there's only one person with the cleverness to pull off such an assiduous satire of David's work. But I'm quite sure there are others who could pull of satires as subtle as this one, so you might want to re-think your position. What gives this one its status is how the language matches, and then cleverly exceeds, the form of David's writing (which, I am told, is equal to none in asinine pretentiousness), while simultaneously shining light on the essence of David's thoughts on women. Truly, after reading this work, we can all see what David's translation amounts to.

Dionysius the Undying · Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:30 pm

Shahrazad, I don't know who you're refering to, but trust me, we haven't crossed paths before.

Mr. Trevor Salyzyn, while I'm flattered you think my writing standards are up to those of Mr. David Quinn, I can assure you my meagre work, which is really more in the vein of homage, is only half joking.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:39 pm

Trevor,

Sher, it's natural thinking there's only one person with the cleverness to pull off such an assiduous satire of David's work. But I'm quite sure there are others who could pull of satires as subtle as this one, so you might want to re-think your position.

Okay, I'll bite. Where are those others? And why haven't I seen them post on forums before?

Have you ever seen any of Nat's satires before, or his role-playing? Or maybe you have seen him at work and never knew it was him.

Indeed, I have never been wrong before when I have guessed that a new character is Nat's creation. This would be my first time to guess wrong.

If you want to make a bet, I am now taking them.

.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:41 pm

Shahrazad, I don't know who you're refering to, but trust me, we haven't crossed paths before.

If this is true, it is totally my loss.

.

Dionysius the Undying · Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:42 pm

Well, Shahrazad, you might as well accept that you've just embodied that most prosiac of cliches: There's a first time for everything. You're wrong. I'm not this Nat. Get over it. Why don't you try discussing something of merit, like, oh, I don't know, Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, or Perfection instead of simpering and gossiping like Woo-min?

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:49 pm

Why don't you try discussing something of merit, like, oh, I don't know, Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, or Perfection instead of simpering and gossiping like Woo-min?

Hello? Do I have to remind you that I am just a woman?

I hope you like it here, Dionysius. Don't let some idiots and wimps drive you away.

.

Trevor Salyzyn · Post by **Trevor Salyzyn** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 1:56 pm

Sher,

Okay, I'll bite. Where are those others? And why haven't I seen them post on forums before?

The really good satire is usually only meant for one or two people, so it flies over most people's head. If everyone got it, it wouldn't be satire. It would be little more than a fart joke.

Have you ever seen any of Nat's satires before, or his role-playing? Or maybe you have seen him at work and never knew it was him.

I've been the brunt of a few of his jokes, yes. In the end, his hostility always shows its ugly head, and I stop talking to his caricatures. His jokes never instruct; they only demean.

Indeed, I have never been wrong before when I have guessed that a new character is Nat's creation. This would be my first time to guess wrong.

You would be the expert. :)

If you want to make a bet, I am now taking them.

I already took a gamble. I'm not betting twice.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:13 pm

Yeah, well, do you have a better topic? We seem to have already covered all the deeper truths.

So then lets focus on ourselves, and the pathetic-ness of this topic. Why men feel the need to lash out at women, even in jokes to eachother. What creates this chasm between the two sexes...is it really a lack of wisdom on the female side, or is it a fear on the male side? That seems like a much better topic than "maybe we should send women to venus"...blah blah blah.

Dionysius the Undying · Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:25 pm

If Mr. David Quinn and other Enlightened individuals or those on their way to enlightenment see the weakness of Woo-min for what it is, why shouldn't we discuss it?

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 2:37 pm

Dionysius the Undying wrote:If Mr. David Quinn and other Enlightened individuals or those on their way to enlightenment see the weakness of Woo-min for what it is, why shouldn't we discuss it?

No reason. How about also discussing the shortcomings of men and the shortcomings of the animal realm?

There do seem to be some specific shortcomings that are most often observed in females, as DQ wrote, but rather than adding in that men are also mostly women, figure out which parts of the animal realm are common to both genders. Of the remaining parts differentiate between the shortcomings most common to women from the shortcomings most common to men. The things that are not shortcomings could be considered to transcend the animal realm and the human realm.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:09 pm

The question was, if fools see something why shouldn't they discuss it?

The answer is: by all means go ahead, fools. But bear in mind that you are fools and you are being fooled, and that people who see your foolishness are disappointed in it. That the thing being discussed does no good in the world, but it only causes others to fall into your black hole of foolishness along with you...to go on and make bad jokes which waste everyone's time, and don't really solve the real problem...which is not being able to get any satisfaction from the opposite sex.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:21 pm

sschaula wrote:don't really solve the real problem...which is not being able to get any satisfaction from the opposite sex.

This is not the problem, it's the goal.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:39 pm

I'd say it's the stimulus that creates the snowball effect in the man's mind, which creates that delusional goal.

If a guy isn't interested in women, he won't display interest. He also won't make topics about how inferior they are.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 3:57 pm

Trevor,

Sher, it's natural thinking there's only one person with the cleverness to pull off such an assiduous satire of David's work.

Man, you're good.

Your point has been proven.

.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:25 pm

Dionysius,

Please explain the significance of your name. In what sense are you undying?

.

Carl G · Post by **Carl G** » Thu Feb 22, 2007 10:27 pm

sschaula wrote:I'd say it's the stimulus that creates the snowball effect in the man's mind, which creates that delusional goal.

Exactly.

If a guy isn't interested in women, he won't display interest. He also won't make topics about how inferior they are.

This topic is for those who are interested in women but don't want to be slaves to that interest.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:39 am

If someone doesn't want to be a slave to something, mentally, they cease being it. But they have to wholly not want it.

Think about this: you're saying "gaa gaa goo goo" to a little baby and it stops paying attention to you after a while...the baby just didn't care anymore about you doing that and became interested in something else entirely. It wasn't holding on to your gaa gaa goo goo game, and just pretending to look away. It looked away because it wasn't interested at all in what you were doing...the baby became bored.

I think a part of everyone in question here wants to be enslaved to women. So to say these people want to be free isn't exactly true. They unconsciously get pleasure from the pain. They like playing this game...they like being attracted to women, at the same time not liking it at all.

They are pretending to look away, because it makes the most logical sense to look away...but the heart is like a wild horse. You can't get it to trust what you say by screaming at it, "come over here!" and pulling at its reigns. So in the same way, you can't change how you truly feel about women by cutting yourself off completely simply because it makes sense to do so.

And you especially can't do it by making up stupid ideas about how they are inferior to your great mind. It only pushes the true problem deeper, and makes it harder to ever uncover.

Just my opinion.

PyroSylph · Post by **PyroSylph** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:45 am

Sher said:

If you want to make a bet, I am now taking them.

It's me, Cloudy. I'll take that bet at 500-1. My stake is $500.

Shouldn't be too much of loss for you, right?

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:01 am

500 to 1 sounds good. My bid is $100. Let a neutral party hold your $50,000.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:13 am

sschaula wrote:If a guy isn't interested in women, he won't display interest.

This is not a very well thought out statement. You haven't even described wha kind of interest you are talking about. If you mean any kind of interest then you are completely off point. There are reasons aside from fucking to want to discuss women.

sschaula wrote:He also won't make topics about how inferior they are.

So you're saying you don't want to eat them?

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:05 am

This is not a very well thought out statement. You haven't even described wha kind of interest you are talking about. If you mean any kind of interest then you are completely off point. There are reasons aside from fucking to want to discuss women.

Like what? That's pretty much what it boils down to.

So you're saying you don't want to eat them?

No, they smell funky.

Shahrazad · Post by **Shahrazad** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:10 am

The women you have encountered smell funky. You're looking in the wrong places.