I'm sorry I let you down.

If only I had reinforced you more, perhaps you would still be today the fiercely proud and independent poster you once were.

Instead of just an uptown biteoftheweek with a larger repertoire, better writing skills, and a sharper sense of humor.

Yes- I count you as one of my failures here, and it grieves me deeply that I have no one to blame but myself.

Why am I not surprised.

Though there is some truth to what you say (part of what makes it so vile)

She does have a larger repertoire, better writing skills, and a sharper sense of humor

and that is what makes you so pathetic. Writing it like you are the first one to notice.

Well - let's see if you have the same degree of honesty TK does.

Please point out to me where in the toppost there was a single reference to the poster being male or female, or where anything in the post turned on the fact of bright_virago's gender.

The post was about someone being a disappointment here - not about a man or a woman being a disappointment here.

A week or so ago, TK tried to use the same old worn-out "misogynist" paintbrush, and when I called him on it, he had the guts to concede that there was no reason for him to do so (although he did feel compelled to add in the usual Orwellianl Newspeak about "topping" and "shaming" behavior.)

So the question is whether you have at least the guts that TK had.

One other point. You wrote::

Writing it like you are the first one to notice.

and it's difficult to see what you had in mind when you wrote it.

I had a specific reason to draw the comparison - bright_virago seems to have fallen into the same "hanger-on" rut that you have always felt comfortable in.

But what were you implying - that Fraysters sit around going "wow - bright_virago sure is stealing bite's thunder"?

And if not that - exactly what diid you mean by what you wrote?

You're not going to try to play that phony he's a misogynist/outraged faux feminist card here, are you"

Talk about a poster being completely un-self-aware!

After schmoozing up to the likes of Inkberrow and Schad and others in your clique, you're simply pathetic ["he's vile"] to play your faux-outrage schtick now.

I uprated it; I hope everyone reads it.

Yes, he has "critiqued" many women in top posts. Whether he referred to gender or not is beside the point. I'm trying to recall if he has done the same to male posters.

That aside, tp of one's personal opinion about a poster isn't what I would consider appropriate.

... with HWMD's previous top post critiques of numerous female posters here. I'm somewhat surprised he hasn't done you. Then again, he seems to only do women...

I'm trying to recall if he has done the same to male posters.

Let me give you just two of my all-time favorites.

Mocking Schmutzie's journalitstic pretensions by my topposts under the nic "Pulitzie".

Mocking Schad with a toppost entirtled "Schadvertisement for Myself" under the nic "Schadnauseam". (As I recall, Kevin checkmarked this one just to tweak Schad, and then removed the checkmark.)

I strongly doubt there were any here who thought Pultizie and Schadnauseam were not my creations.

Then again, he seems to only do women...

The only thing that saves that from an outright lie is your use of the word "seems".

But interestingly, the very fact that you said it proves my whole point about women here who "play the woman card."

When I target male posters in the same way, you simply don't notice.

Would you mind directing me to the post where I said you were a misogynist?

Yeah. Didn't think so.

Such a funny thing, when you accuse someone of an accusation they didn't actually make.

Such a funny thing, when you accuse someone of an accusation they didn't actually make.

Emphasis added.

In what sense do you think I was using the word you emphasized?

Another example of the lenses through which you see the world, Ciinc.

Another example of the lenses through which you see the world, Ciinc.

You know, TK, if it weren't for your curious selectivity, I might not have lost the esteem in which I once held you.

Here I am being attacked by two female posters who insist on implying my "misogyny", and you choose to say not one word about the "lenses through which [they] see the world.".

In what sense do you think I was using the word you emphasized?

As an admission that the sub rosa text of your post to which I made reference was a crowd-pleasing allusion to my well-known "misogyny".

But if I have over-estimated your intellectual honesty - if you were using the word in a different way - then my bad.

Simply making observations. I don't see every post. Really. If I'm gone a week I don't browse back through posts to see what was going on. I'm sure you've critiqued a few men. I know you've done the same to many women.

Carry on as you wish.

my outrage was faux here, idiot

Serious response, DT2 - take it for what it's worth.

People notice what's on their radar and don't notice what's not on their radar.

I have, over my years here at the Fray, "attacked" far more male posters here for playing the "anti-Semite" card than I have ever "attacked" women for playing the "woman" card.

The point is - I tend to "attack" any poster here who's playing any kind of "card".

If you doubt this, consider my response to fpl just a few minutes ago.

I consider fpl one of my closest "friends" here at the Fray, yet felt compelled to "attack" him for playing the "holoer-than-thou"card regarding dirty white politicians vs dirty black politicians.