Well, anything that gets the photo of a genuinely beautiful and sensual young woman onto this board - as a change from that pasty-faced, snaggle-toothed, self-mutilating little scarecrow of a half-pubescent - can't be all bad.

What the fuck IS it with you guys that you ignore a glowing fountain of life and sensuality like THIS and flock around that life-denying tombstone Cracky?

Is it the phenomenon that Kurt Vonnegut pointed to in "The Sirens of Titan", where Malachi Constant boasts about an ex-girlfriend who had been runner-up in the Miss Universe Contest: "She was far, far more beautiful than the winner. Her beauty had frightened the judges."

Or are you just gay?

Complaining that we only post about cracky on a cracky board.

>>2
On the other hand, one of the less execrable of your "house poets" puts a persuasive argument for the other point of view, when he begins by saying:

"Yes, Cracky, I do another love,
Another I love far better than thee,
And another I will have for my wife.
Then what have I to do with thee?

For thou art melancholy pale
And on thy head is the cold moon's shine,
But she is ruddy and bright as day,
And the sunbeams dazzle from her eyne."

But ends on the note:

"I thought Love lived in the hot sunshine,
But oh! he lives in the moony light!
I thought to find Love in the heat of day,
But sweet Love is the comforter of night!

Seek Love in the pity of others' woe,
In the gentle relief of another's care.
In the darkness of night and the winter's snow,
In the naked and outcast, seek Love there."

Fuck right off is all the poetry you deserve.

>>2

>What the fuck IS it with you guys that you ignore a glowing fountain of life and sensuality like THIS and flock around that life-denying tombstone Cracky?

$500pcm just to jerk off to that? LOL. Too much makeup, too much fake tan, boring vanilla female is fail, I could see better just standing outside for 5 minutes, but I'll never see another Cracky...

>>6
Let's not let the details of the stories I relate on here - like the "500 dollars PCM" business - become TOO solid a part of what "everyone knows" about RavRav. I may not be the "troll" I'm accused of being, but a lot of what I say should be taken with a pinch of salt.

As to her "vanilla" quality....well, for a long time I was convinced that her sexuality, far from being "vanilla", was of a flavour far beyond the wildest dreams of Ben and Jerry. Now I'm not so sure. Some days I suspect there's nothing in the way of sexual ice-cream inside that svelte and vampish cone at all - which is a suspicion which I've come to harbour, actually, over the years about a large number of apparently intensely sexualized women.

Rather than just chucking abuse at her, though, I think you'd do better to enter into the implications of the Blake poem I quoted, since, precisely due to her relative "vulgarity", RavRav can indeed stand as that opposite principle of bland Californian "sun-rays" that Blake opposes to the "winter and darkness" of Cracky's England. After all, if you're laying claim, as you are, to some sort of power of subtle discrimination as regards female beauty, you ought to be able to appreciate the "dialectics" of the question, no?

nobody cares about you, ravrav or the flavor of your imaginary sex lives

fuck off troll

>>8
Yeah, you're right. I suppose it's kind of pathetic of me taking up space with this "imaginary" stuff that ought by rights to be filled by all you guys' true reports of the passion-filled nights you're spending in the bed of a girl you're all going out with, and who, moreover, has remained, miraculously, fifteen years old for the past six years.

Or to speak more plainly - since I suppose I ought to have realized by now how utterly lost all irony is on a shower of humourless and brainless idiots like you - .71 is hardly the place to sneer at someone for leading a purely imaginary love-life.

>>9
Apart from the fact that this is a case of the usual lying hypocritical "tag-team" nonsense one sees on these boards.
It certainly wasn't me who dragged RavRav into this, or who introduced the term "vanilla" either. It was Pinky Rose the Newfag who decided that photos of her might be a good way of turning attention away from the discussion of his own vanity and arrogance.

No troll, fuck off is all you get. Enjoy you empty calories.

Troll Alex is far more enjoyable than the bitter angry Alex.

>I still maintain that Alex knows perfectly well any of his recognizable posts will degenerate in a flamewar, for any reason any person care to assign to the degeneration.

>This he knows and said he knows many times.

>He goes to great length to make his posts recognizable, and this too he said he knows.

>I repeat it to make it as clear as I can, Alex knows his post will eventually degenerate in a shitstorm, and furthermore, I maintain he is counting on it.

>I dont care about any denial he may be in or any deception he may think he is pulling on us, I know this for having seen too many repetitions of the endless variations on this theme this ailing, insane and most immoral man has inflicted on us.

>He will keep doing this, if not here, elsewhere then.

>>13
That's absolute nonsense.

This "RavRav thread", for example, was obviously started as an attempt to mock and bait me as a pathetic old man who has to pay for sex that isn't even real sex.

My response was to introduce into the "discussion" two points of literary reference, one of which at least - as this board is often brimming over with William Blake - was an opportunity for a highly Cracky-relevant discussion that could have been conducted civilly and constructively.

Unfortunately, this particular Blake poem - one of his most heart-rending and profoundly true - doesn't appear to be part of the two or three well-known verses that the "Gospel-mongers" have fetishized.

So the responses so far have amounted to little more than "fuck fuck fuck you potery fuck you shit".

As one poster has pointed out, this is not currently a very bitter or angry Alex. But it might as well be, for all the difference it wll make.

>>14
So really, if you're seeing "endless repetitions on variations" as you put it, what you're seeing is the endlessly repetitive RESPONSES of a few people to what I do, which is actually pretty various and something new each time.

There are basically two endlessly repeated responses:

(i) Bump the old "mantric" Cracky thread with the big Cracky photo at the top of it. (I don't have anything to SAY about Cracky but I'll bump it anyway to show I hate Alex Reynolds).

(ii) Write: 'Fuck off you cunt'.

This is the "repetition" you see, not any "repetition" of mine.

This all expose you as the lying troll you are.

There is no civil discussion to be had for you here, and you know it.

Yet you are here telling us how charmless, petty, vicious little mediocrities we are, again...

So yeah, fuck off troll.

>>16
I really don't know what that means: "There is no civil discussion to be had for you here".

Do you really have no problem about admitting that your egos are so bloated and fragile that you are going to spend the rest of your lives gnawing and gnawing at some bone of resentment over someone's having once said to you: "That was a bad post"?

You really are a sad lot. I've been generally pretty friendly and constructive today and, really, all you've done is disgraced yourselves, with one of you banging his "elephants and buddhas" thing out over and over again on his keyboard like a spoilt two-year-old banging his spoon on his high-chair and another of you writing over and over again "fuck off we're not listening we hate you fuck off we're not listening we hate you"...

Or maybe it was the same guy.

>>17
I have to admit that I DO feel "in the wrong", somehow, coming back and back trying to start some constructive, civil interaction with a group of people who are obviously just not capable of behaving in any other way than as a group of petulant, clique-y little kids.

I suppose I get misled - understandably, I would say - by the fact that one of you announced yesterday that he was actually born in 1967, i.e., he's 44 years old.

But, yeah, it's clearly hopeless. I really will try to stop.

No, just fuck off troll. Till next time, as usual.

There is nothing constructive about a post that by your own admission you know will be disruptive, since there is no way no one is ever going to discuss what you would like to discuss here with YOU.

No matter what the reasons, everyone of your posts here have been disruptive.

You can stuff any pretense of constructive, civil interaction back up your troll asshole, no one will buy it.

>I've been generally pretty friendly and constructive today

fuck you, you came here to rant on pinky newguy and start another flamewar

>>17

>Do you really have no problem about admitting that your egos are so bloated and fragile that you are going to spend the rest of your lives gnawing and gnawing at some bone of resentment over someone's having once said to you: "That was a bad post"?

No, it means that I had enough interactions with you to know you are a jerk I have no interest in having a civil discussion with.