From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 13/11/2025 2:44 am, john larkin wrote:   
   > On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 15:46:45 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 12/11/2025 2:21 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2025 18:17:21 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 11/11/2025 6:45 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 17:40:29 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> On 9/11/2025 5:16 am, john larkin wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 04:08:21 +1100, Bill Sloman    
   >>>>>>> wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> On 9/11/2025 2:24 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> Bill Sloman  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> [...]   
   >>>>>>>>>> You've chopped my text - which made it perfectly clear that I wasn't   
   >>>>>>>>>> going around telling people that they were fools - so that you could   
   >>>>>>>>>> post something gratuitously offensive.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I thought you considered gratuitously offensive posts were the normal   
   >>>>>>>>> way of replying.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> I don't go out of my way to be offensive, but I don't sugar-coat my   
   >>>>>>>> messages either. John Larkin expects to be flattered, and is offended   
   >>>>>>>> when he isn't, to the point where he thinks he is being insulted, but   
   >>>>>>>> this strikes me as an unusual attitude.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> You obsess over JL and DT. I'm in good company.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> You think that Donald Trump is good company? Jeffrey Epstein did too.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Epstein   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> DT banned him from Mar-a-Lago after he messed with some of DT's young   
   >>>>> female employees.   
   >>>> That's what Donald Trump now claims   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> DT's taste in women trends towards the bigger end.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Grabbing them by the pussy?   
   >>>   
   >>> Tasteless, but he did say "they let you."   
   >>>   
   >>> Sexual aggression is a common trait in politicians; it's part of the   
   >>> power pattern.   
   >>   
   >> So that's what you see as "good company". The sexual predator isn't   
   >> any kind of good company.   
   >   
   > I never said that. I'm a one-woman guy; having more than one   
   > girlfriend confuses me.   
      
   Having a girl friend implies some kind of social contract. At one point   
   I was close to two different women at the same time, but neither would   
   have been described as my girl friend - we all lived a long way apart.   
      
   > Some guys like having many lady friends; that seems to be pretty   
   > common these days. But that's not predatory if the girls cooperate.   
      
   Grabbing women by the pussy is predatory. If the women are too   
   intimidated to protest it's still predatory.   
      
   > You may as well call the women predatory.   
      
   Only if they initiate the physical contact. Short skirts and low   
   necklines may signal willingness to interact, but "predation" implies   
   reach out and grasping.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)