Sluts are no different than studs

[Galateasdream]

More personal attacks?i see you still haven't read the rules of this forum.

Very sad

You are so keen on wiki

Hosted under oxforddictionaries.com, Oxford Dictionaries Online was launched in 2010. ... In June 2019, the free-of-charge dictionaries of English and Spanish were moved to Lexico.com, a collaboration between OUP and Dictionary.com, though with the lexicographic content continuing to be written solely by OUP staff

Didn't read the full wiki entry, lol.
You are brazen, I'll give you that.
Monday.
Monday.
Monday.

 

[ChristineM]

Didn't read the full wiki entry, lol.
You are brazen, I'll give you that.
Monday.
Monday.
Monday.

While you are misusing company property will you also look up the meaning of universal?

Why bother when

a collaboration between OUP and Dictionary.com, though with the lexicographic content continuing to be written solely by OUP staff

Is so prominent?

 

[Galateasdream]

While you are misusing company property will you also look up the meaning of universal?

Why bother when

a collaboration between OUP and Dictionary.com, though with the lexicographic content continuing to be written solely by OUP staff

Is so prominent?

Lol

You sound desperate.
Still not reading the full wiki entry, and selectively quoting it, I see.

Monday.
Monday.
Monday.

You must know that you are actually wrong. I can't believe you're doing this out of simple misguided ignorance. Which means you must know that the entry I provide on Monday will look different to the one you posted ... So why are you doing this?

 

[Galateasdream]

@ChristineM

2007
Etymology

There are many theories as to where this idiom comes from, but the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) discusses the following:

• A person standing on a pail or bucket with their head in a slip noose would kick the bucket so as to commit suicide. The OED, however, says this is mainly speculative;
• The OED describes as more plausible the archaic use of "bucket" as a beam from which a pig is hung by its feet prior to being slaughtered. To kick the bucket, then, originally signified the pig's death throes.

Now since your claimed 'full OED entry' for 'kick the bucket' has none of that information I be,ie E I have proved you wrong yet again.

Didn't even have to wait until Monday or 'misuse' resources.

So, now that's done, have a good day.

 

[Galateasdream]

And here:
"The first published citation for the expression in the OED comes from Francis Grose’s A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1785): “To kick the bucket, to die.” Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell which bucket is referred to here.

The expression also appears in a collection of American proverbs from 1789, according to the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, which agrees with the OED that the origin remains uncertain “despite much speculation.”
Kicking the bucket

 

[Galateasdream]

And here:
"The theory favoured by the OED relates to the alternative definition of a bucket as a beam or yoke that can be used to hang or carry things on.[2][4] The "bucket" may refer to the beam on which slaughtered pigs are suspended. The animals may struggle on the bucket, hence the expression.[2]

Cited from: [4] "Bucket." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.

 

[ChristineM]

Lol

You sound desperate.
Still not reading the full wiki entry, and selectively quoting it, I see.

Monday.
Monday.
Monday.

You must know that you are actually wrong. I can't believe you're doing this out of simple misguided ignorance. Which means you must know that the entry I provide on Monday will look different to the one you posted ... So why are you doing this?

i quoted the definition of your straw man. You attempted to take it to the realms of obsessed foot stomping to divert your error because you know your use of universal is wrong.

The desperate one is you because you could not back up your claims for your straw man so lets wait until Monday when you provide the full OED entry for the phrase "kick the bucket"... Never mind all the etymology (another of you desperate straw men), just concentrate on the definition.

Lets see how closely the word definition matches the online lexico (powered by Oxford) definition

 

[ChristineM]

And here:
"The theory favoured by the OED relates to the alternative definition of a bucket as a beam or yoke that can be used to hang or carry things on.[2][4] The "bucket" may refer to the beam on which slaughtered pigs are suspended. The animals may struggle on the bucket, hence the expression.[2]

Cited from: [4] "Bucket." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.

But not the definition, rather a possible explanation for its history

 

[ChristineM]

@ChristineM

2007
Etymology

There are many theories as to where this idiom comes from, but the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) discusses the following:

• A person standing on a pail or bucket with their head in a slip noose would kick the bucket so as to commit suicide. The OED, however, says this is mainly speculative;
• The OED describes as more plausible the archaic use of "bucket" as a beam from which a pig is hung by its feet prior to being slaughtered. To kick the bucket, then, originally signified the pig's death throes.

Now since your claimed 'full OED entry' for 'kick the bucket' has none of that information I be,ie E I have proved you wrong yet again.

Didn't even have to wait until Monday or 'misuse' resources.

So, now that's done, have a good day.

I don't care about etymology, that's your obsession. I do care about the definition

 

[Stevicus]

My goodness...

 

[Galateasdream]

I don't care about etymology, that's your obsession. I do care about the definition

So, let's be clear what's happening here.

You said that the lexico definition you posted was the 'full OED' definition. At one point you tried to deny it, but I was able to quote you verbatim.

I informed you that the free lexico online site entry was different to the full OED entry, since anyone who's used the OED for their academic or professional work knows it contains historical information and many literary quotations, and even common sense tells you that the OED, behind a hefty yearly subscription paywall, is obviously not going to be same as a free online dictionary, let alone the fact they're totally different websites. You insisted they were the same, even going to the effort of taking part quotations from their website that mentioned they recieved info from Oxford Publishing, in the attempt to deceive me into believing they are the same.

I posted from lexico's own website saying their entries were different to the full OED; I also cited the OED site itself where it showed how its definitions look and function and what information they contain (your lexico definition didn't even have pronunciation, word class or definitional info let alone etymology or quotations). You still insisted your definition is the full OED one.

I posted multiple credible sources, even including the Oxford connected etymology blog, that cited the OED definition with quotes and info not contained in your lexico definition, clearly proving that the full OED entry and your lexico entry are not exactly the same at all. You still insisted they were the same.

I think it inconceivable at this point that you could possibly entertain a sincere belief that the lexico definition and the full OED definition for 'kick the bucket' are exactly the same. I don't think you actually believe they are the same.

Which means the only possible explanation for your continued attempts at denial, evasion or asking for more evidence, is that you would rather play internet games and interact in bad faith to either gaslight me or make me engage in unecessary effort rather than simply admit an error on your part, most likely motivated by a desire to save face and to annoy me.

If I asked you to answer with a direct yes or no, whether you sincerely believed your posted lexico definition and the full OED definition were exactly the same, how would you answer?

It does not matter at this point. It is worthless to engage with people who, even on a trivial and pointless matter, would choose to repeatedly dissemble than just admit an error. It is worthless engaging with bad faith interlocutors.

So I choose not to engage any further with such silliness. If you wish you may claim this as a victory for your brazen game playing. It won't matter to me anymore. I am done here.

 

[ChristineM]

So, let's be clear what's happening here.

You said that the lexico definition you posted was the 'full OED' definition. At one point you tried to deny it, but I was able to quote you verbatim.

I informed you that the free lexico online site entry was different to the full OED entry, since anyone who's used the OED for their academic or professional work knows it contains historical information and many literary quotations, and even common sense tells you that the OED, behind a hefty yearly subscription paywall, is obviously not going to be same as a free online dictionary, let alone the fact they're totally different websites. You insisted they were the same, even going to the effort of taking part quotations from their website that mentioned they recieved info from Oxford Publishing, in the attempt to deceive me into believing they are the same.

I posted from lexico's own website saying their entries were different to the full OED; I also cited the OED site itself where it showed how its definitions look and function and what information they contain (your lexico definition didn't even have pronunciation, word class or definitional info let alone etymology or quotations). You still insisted your definition is the full OED one.

I posted multiple credible sources, even including the Oxford connected etymology blog, that cited the OED definition with quotes and info not contained in your lexico definition, clearly proving that the full OED entry and your lexico entry are not exactly the same at all. You still insisted they were the same.

I think it inconceivable at this point that you could possibly entertain a sincere belief that the lexico definition and the full OED definition for 'kick the bucket' are exactly the same. I don't think you actually believe they are the same.

Which means the only possible explanation for your continued attempts at denial, evasion or asking for more evidence, is that you would rather play internet games and interact in bad faith to either gaslight me or make me engage in unecessary effort rather than simply admit an error on your part, most likely motivated by a desire to save face and to annoy me.

If I asked you to answer with a direct yes or no, whether you sincerely believed your posted lexico definition and the full OED definition were exactly the same, how would you answer?

It does not matter at this point. It is worthless to engage with people who, even on a trivial and pointless matter, would choose to repeatedly dissemble than just admit an error. It is worthless engaging with bad faith interlocutors.

So I choose not to engage any further with such silliness. If you wish you may claim this as a victory for your brazen game playing. It won't matter to me anymore. I am done here.

The error was yours with your misuse of the word universal so you
chose to argue. You changed the goalposts by adding a straw man to divert attention from your error. So it was time to push buttons

Do what you will. I was going to wait until Monday when you showed the OED definition of your straw man to be equivalent to the lexico definition but seeing as how you are done i see no reason to wait.

Please feel honoured to join my very short list of just 4 people on my ignore list. And i would be honoured if you return the compliment

 

[Milton Platt]

First off, a **** is guilty of the same crime as a stud. If a man gets to brag about being a stud, then a woman has just as much reason for bragging about being a s***, no?

I prefer people don't have lots of partners and learn the virtues of chastity and purity, but

Jesus was criticized for hanging out excessively with sluts and whores and his first public miracle was to get people more drunk and partying harder on a highly addictive drug that makes people sexually promiscuous.

No doubt he wasn't frightened or scandalized by a woman who enjoys sex even with multiple partners, for he was quite well aware that King Solomon was the wisest man on Earth , and he had sex with hundreds of wives and concubines. He must have had multiple new partners every day of the year. I bet they had some wild orgies.

At work all my co workers seem to obsess about and get excited about is sex, one of them has 17 kids, they gawk at women and brag about their sex-life. I'm guilty as well, which is why it is hypocritical if I condemn a **** in thought, word, and deed.

I've only been with impoverished and often troubled women and cannot brag about being a stud, but if I was, no doubt I would brag about it, have feelings of pride about it.

When a complete stranger returned to his apartment and caught me in bed with his girl (just giving her a backrub but still) I woke up the next morning with an amusing story to share with family and friends, followed by someone telling me "if you don't stay away from Dreya, you will be killed."

When an obese black girl at an IRTS facility who couldn't get in bed with me got me too drunk and stoned to walk, walked me to my room, laid me down on the bed and date-raped me, I woke up laughing and called my brother to share a funny story. No shame, guilt, or trauma.

Guys can brag about stuff like that. Why can't women?

I'm trying to twist everything the Antichrist does, pervert it, and make it so it no longer offends God. So, I believe the Anti-antichrist will have a "Whore of Babylon" to get the nation's intoxicated, but Jesus was a friend of whores, so can love a humble prostitute no doubt.

It's against God's rules, but Jacob had to break God's rules in order to steal Esau's blessing and destiny, then fight with God to become Israel, and God rewarded him with the greatest blessing, and all Jews descend from Jacob. You can break God's rules and be rewarded for it if you do it the right way.

Anyhow, I see no difference between **** or stud, as they are guilty of the same thing, and why was only the woman brought to Christ to be stoned ,and not the man who was with her?

When I become ill Duce, I'll outlaw **** shaming. There will be none of that on my watch.

Female ferrets can actually die from not having enough sex.

Funny story.....I hope you got a check-up....

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

First off, a **** is guilty of the same crime as a stud. If a man gets to brag about being a stud, then a woman has just as much reason for bragging about being a s***, no?

I prefer people don't have lots of partners and learn the virtues of chastity and purity, but

Jesus was criticized for hanging out excessively with sluts and whores and his first public miracle was to get people more drunk and partying harder on a highly addictive drug that makes people sexually promiscuous.

No doubt he wasn't frightened or scandalized by a woman who enjoys sex even with multiple partners, for he was quite well aware that King Solomon was the wisest man on Earth , and he had sex with hundreds of wives and concubines. He must have had multiple new partners every day of the year. I bet they had some wild orgies.

At work all my co workers seem to obsess about and get excited about is sex, one of them has 17 kids, they gawk at women and brag about their sex-life. I'm guilty as well, which is why it is hypocritical if I condemn a **** in thought, word, and deed.

I've only been with impoverished and often troubled women and cannot brag about being a stud, but if I was, no doubt I would brag about it, have feelings of pride about it.

When a complete stranger returned to his apartment and caught me in bed with his girl (just giving her a backrub but still) I woke up the next morning with an amusing story to share with family and friends, followed by someone telling me "if you don't stay away from Dreya, you will be killed."

When an obese black girl at an IRTS facility who couldn't get in bed with me got me too drunk and stoned to walk, walked me to my room, laid me down on the bed and date-raped me, I woke up laughing and called my brother to share a funny story. No shame, guilt, or trauma.

Guys can brag about stuff like that. Why can't women?

I'm trying to twist everything the Antichrist does, pervert it, and make it so it no longer offends God. So, I believe the Anti-antichrist will have a "Whore of Babylon" to get the nation's intoxicated, but Jesus was a friend of whores, so can love a humble prostitute no doubt.

It's against God's rules, but Jacob had to break God's rules in order to steal Esau's blessing and destiny, then fight with God to become Israel, and God rewarded him with the greatest blessing, and all Jews descend from Jacob. You can break God's rules and be rewarded for it if you do it the right way.

Anyhow, I see no difference between **** or stud, as they are guilty of the same thing, and why was only the woman brought to Christ to be stoned ,and not the man who was with her?

When I become ill Duce, I'll outlaw **** shaming. There will be none of that on my watch.

Female ferrets can actually die from not having enough sex.

Some of that stuff you mention wouldn't be bragged about. Who would brag about being raped?

But, yeah. Sleeping around is sleeping around. The only real difference is double standards and also women seem to do it more because of psychological issues.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Why would it benefit men to have women less promiscuous?

Paternity tests are a modern convenience.

 

[Yerda]

But, yeah. Sleeping around is sleeping around. The only real difference is double standards and also women seem to do it more because of psychological issues.

Do you think?

Almost every real manslut I've known has been hiding major anxiety and insecurity issues.

Anyway, sluts. I'm quite fond of them and not just for the obvious reason.