Just Donated $200 To Send Hellouser To Japan.

[hanginginthewire]

What does hairblues being a woman have to do with anything? She's a free agent who apparently chose to make a donation, as is her perogative. You are being rather paternalistic, nameless.


Also, is it just me or has this website gone to complete sh*t in the last couple of weeks. It's like Dante's Inferno up in here with everybody growling and sniping at one another.

 

[nameless]

What does hairblues being a woman have to do with anything? She's a free agent who apparently chose to make a donation, as is her perogative. You are being rather paternalistic, nameless.

Being a woman is not relevant when it comes to the first $100 that Hairblues donated.

But it does become relevant with her having to donate excessive amounts of money so that a grown man who can afford to contribute doesn't have to pay his way since he believes has already done so much for hairblues, when in fact he has done nothing for hairblues or anyone else.

And I can assure you that if we got our hair back that punk "that_guy" would be at the clubs trying to impress women with what a man he is so your issue that in a gender equal world it's OK for men to mooch off women is a red herring. It's definitely unattractive for a grown man (with the ability to chip in) to get a woman to pay excessively so that he doesn't have to chip in, especially under the ludicrous premise that he has already done so much for the women when he has actually done NOTHING for the women.

How many hairs has punk "that_guy" grown on hairblues' head?
Answer - ZERO.

 

[hanginginthewire]

But you don't know anything about ThatGuy's finances, interests, goals, etc. When I used to attend Mass with my Catholic parents - I would see that some parishoners just passed the collection basket without putting anything in it. No one started berating them or asking them why they were mooching .... When the Church donated the collected monies, they didn't say "this is from everyone at St. Joseph's except that a**h** Smith family..."

Anyway, it's absurd to debate this, you are making yourself look very foolish nameless. Maybe ThatGuy will make a donation to something else that comes up down the line, if he so chooses. Maybe he won't. Why you are railing against select individuals who have not is beyond me.

 

[hairblues]

Hairblues has already paid $100 to help fund the Hair Loss Congress trip but she's thinking about contributing more so spineless sponges like you don't have to pay your way. You're nothing but a spineless punk who sponges off women.

OMG don't bring me into this sh*t.

That was my choice--no one else has to make that f*****g choice..get over yourself.

 

[hairblues]

Being a woman is not relevant when it comes to the first $100 that Hairblues donated.

But it does become relevant with her having to donate more money so that a grown man/mooch who can afford to contribute doesn't have to pay his way since he believes has already done so much for hairblues, when in fact he has done nothing for hairblues or anyone else.

And I can assure you that if we got our hair back that punk "that_guy" would be at the clubs trying to impress women with what a man he is so your issue that in a gender equal world it's OK for men to mooch off women is a red herring. It's definitely unattractive for a grown man (with the ability to chip in) to get a woman to overpay so that he doesn't have to chip in, especially under the ludicrous premise that he has already done so much for the women when he has actually done NOTHING for the women.

How many hairs has punk "that_guy" grown on hairblues' head?
Answer - ZERO.

STFU

 

[hanginginthewire]

 

[nameless]

But you don't know anything about ThatGuy's finances, interests, goals, etc. When I used to attend Mass with my Catholic parents - I would see that some parishoners just passed the collection basket without putting anything in it. No one started berating them or asking them why they were mooching .... When the Church donated the collected monies, they didn't say "this is from everyone at St. Joseph's except that a**h** Smith family..."

Anyway, it's absurd to debate this, you are making yourself look very foolish nameless. Maybe ThatGuy will make a donation to something else that comes up down the line, if he so chooses. Maybe he won't. Why you are railing against select individuals who have not is beyond me.

I do have enough information to make the judgments I've made. That_guy told me that the reason he's not chipping in is because he feels that he's done enough for everyone here by giving us information in his posts. WTF kind of sh*t is that?

 

[nameless]

STFU

NO.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to post information that you've already posted about yourself?

 

[nameless]

OMG don't bring me into this sh*t.

That was my choice--no one else has to make that f*****g choice..get over yourself.

Hey, I'm allowed to come to the conclusion I come to.

I already said that I understand that you have the right to make excessive contributions if you choose to do so. I'm not trying to stop you from making excessive contributions. But I'm allowed to say that IMO you are making excessive contributions (so that others don't have to contribute) if that is what I believe is happening.

And if I see someone doing something that I think is immoral I have the right to call him/her on it. Have you ever heard of free speech? You're allowed to do what you want to do (including paying excessively if you chose to do so) but I should have the right to comment that, that is what you are doing.

 

[hairblues]

Hey, I'm allowed to come to the conclusion I come to.

I already said that I understand that you have the right to make excessive contributions if you choose to do so. I'm not trying to stop you from making excessive contributions. But I'm allowed to say that IMO you are making excessive contributions (so that others don't have to contribute) if that is what I believe is happening.

And if I see someone doing something that I think is immoral I have the right to call him/her on that.

technically you are treating me different because I am a woman purely to attempt to shame @That Guy which is f*****g ridiculous. So you are using me to prove a stupid point no one agrees with.

so STFU about me as a woman and what I donate. Just STFU.

 

[nameless]

technically you are treating me different because I am a woman purely to attempt to shame @That Guy which is f*****g ridiculous. So you are using me to prove a stupid point no one agrees with.

so STFU about me as a woman and what I donate. Just STFU.

Why shouldn't I be allowed to comment that you are a woman and why shouldn't I be allowed to comment what you donate? Keep in mind that you yourself posted that you are a woman and you also posted what you donated. I'm only posting what you yourself already said. I got the information I posted from you.

 

[nameless]

And Hairblues, you, Hanginthere, that_guy and a few others are not the only people who post here. Just because you and that-guy and hanginthere have no problem with a woman having to pay excessively so mooch men don't have to contribute doesn't mean ALL of the posters here feel that way. I for one find it distasteful.

Others may also find it distasteful.

I understand that you're OK with it if you have to contribute excessively for the HLC trip so that some guys don't have to contribute. But what about the posters here who think that isn't right? Shouldn't their views be allowed here as well?

Why is it that only the view that it's OK that women have to contribute excessively so moochy guys don't have to contribute at all should be aired? Why can't an opposing view be aired as well?

 

[hairblues]

And Hairblues, you, me, Hanginthere, and a few others are not the only people who post here. Just because you and that-guy and hanginthere have no qualms about a man mooching excessively from a woman doesn't mean ALL of the posters here feel that way. I for one find it distasteful. Others may also find it distasteful.

OK, I understand that you're OK with it if you have to contribute excessively for the HLC trip so that some guys don't have to contribute. But what about the posters here who find that distasteful? Shouldn't their views be allowed here as well?

Why is it that only the view that it's OK that women have to contribute excessively so mooch guys don't have to contribute should be aired? Why can't an opposing view be aired as well?

I actually think you need medication.

 

[nameless]

I actually think you need medication.

And this is from a person (note that I called you a "person" not a "woman") who finds nothing particularly crazy about that_guy's belief that you should contribute more to pay his way because he has already done so much for you. LOL! You don't know delusional when you see it.

And I think I have a valid point. I think you know that there are other posters here (besides me) who also feel that it's distasteful for a grown man to have women contribute excessively so that he doesn't have to contribute. You yourself said I'm trying to shame him, which means you realize that there are other posters here (besides me) who also feel that it's distasteful for a grown man to have women contribute excessively so that he doesn't have to contribute. After all, why would he feel shamed about mooching off women if I'm the only person here who thinks it's wrong for men to mooch off women, at least excessively.

Why shouldn't the people who agree with me get to see their feelings aired?

Why should only the attitude that it's OK for men to mooch off women with no limits get to be aired?

 

[hairblues]

And this is from a person (note that I called you a "person" not a "woman") who finds nothing particularly crazy about that_guy's belief that you should contribute more to pay his way because he has already done so much for you. LOL! You don't know delusional when you see it.

And I think I have a valid point. I think you know that there are other posters here (besides me) who also feel that it's distasteful for a grown man to have women contribute excessively so that he doesn't have to contribute. You yourself said I'm trying to shame him, which means you realize that there are other posters here (besides me) who also feel that it's distasteful for a grown man to have women contribute excessively so that he doesn't have to contribute. After all, why would he feel shamed about mooching off women if I'm the only person here who thinks it's wrong for men to mooch off women, at least excessively.

Why shouldn't the people who agree with me get to see their feelings aired?

Why should only the attitude that it's OK for men to mooch off women get to be aired?

No you are trying to shame him meaning 'you' are 'trying' but not succeeding because there is nothing for him to be ashamed of other than in your warped perspective that is not making sense to anyone else but you.

 

[nameless]

I admit that there is some chivalrous thinking/feelings behind my attitude but I do not think that 100% of chivalry is bigotry and bad. I do believe that some chivalry is a good thing. For example, if I were to see a man beating up a woman I believe that it's a good thing for my chivalry to kick in and break it up because it's not a fair fight. It depends on the situation.

 

[hairblues]

I admit that there is some chivalrous thinking/feelings behind my attitude but I do not think that 100% of chivalry is bigotry and bad. I do believe that some chivalry is a good thing. For example, if I were to see a man beating up a woman I believe that it's a good thing for my chivalry to kick in and break it up because it's not a fair fight. It depends on the situation.

Its not chivalrous...its ridiculous.

 

[nameless]

No you are trying to shame him meaning 'you' are 'trying' but not succeeding because there is nothing for him to be ashamed of other than in your warped perspective that is not making sense to anyone else but you.

So then if nobody else agrees with me then he isn't shamed. The only way others will think less of him is if those others think that there is at least some truth to my point that it's unmanly to mooch excessively off women.

 

[nameless]

Its not chivalrous...its ridiculous.

OK if I ever see some guy beating the hell out of you I'll shrug it off and go my own way. I don't need the scrapes on my knuckles anyway.

But I'll still stop men from beating up other women who don't mind a little well-placed chivalry.

 

[hairblues]

So then if nobody else agrees with me then he is not shamed. The only way others will think less of him is if those others think that there is at least some truth to my point.

Correct
he is Not shamed.
You attempted to do so because of your warped perspective BUT for the rest of us it is a warped perspective.

OK if I ever see some guy beating the hell out of you I'll shrug it off and go my own way. I don't need the scrapes on my knuckles anyway.

But I'll still stop men from beating up other women who don't mind a little well-placed chivalry.

equating a man not putting money towards something he does not feel is necessary
and
him beating a woman.

you really need mental help.