The Language Thing (Community)

The Language Thing // Community

1  2  |  

the lady

Oct 25, 2003, 3:07pm
If you offered me beef jerky on the street, I wouldn't be offended (even if
I had not seen the beef jerky).

If you talked to me about beef jerky in AW, I would look at that two ways.

It seems double talk, (along with pairing together under tourist names) has
become a solution to having safe sex in Activeworlds.

As for myself, I have never paired with another tourist nor used double talk
in AW for sex.

How did double talk and tourist pairing evolve in AW?

light form

Oct 25, 2003, 5:04pm
Wow...that sure came out of left field. Is everything alright up there Lady?

And, for the sake of an argument, how would you have 'unsafe' sex in AW?

LF

the lady

Oct 25, 2003, 9:35pm
Are you asking if the topic of sex came from left field?

That topic hasn't been approached in the community ng as far as I know.
Public double meaning gz conversations happen all the time in front of every
age group in AW. For people that have been here a long time, they can
confirm this hasn't always been prevalent. So, when did it start happening
and why? Anyone know?

Citizens changing their names to tourists to have cyber sex also happens in
AW. Why do you change your name?

And finally, is it emotionally fulfilling - short term? Long term? Talking
in double meanings with someone you like or in front of a group of people?
Changing your name to a tourist to be with someone you think you know as a
citizen?

It may or may not be safe sex. It was truly only a guess. Hopefully
someone can explain.

[View Quote]

binarybud

Oct 26, 2003, 3:21am
eerrrrr aahhhhh ...I think your hanging out with the wrong crowds
hon....:)

[View Quote]

elyk

Oct 26, 2003, 5:18am
good lord....



[View Quote]

count dracula

Oct 26, 2003, 5:51am
Well, who knows, some day the grey female tourist might show up pregnant. It
is importnat to use condom.rwx when having sex.rwx otherwise unwanted
children.rwx might be born. Soon there will be many single-parent.rwx's in
AW becuase the fathers will not take their responsibilities or mothers
simply starts acting feminist and kick fathers out. These children.rwx might
in worse case grow up to be criminal.cobs and might even need to spend time
in jail.scn; all because they were not wanted as children.rwx.....*sniff*

Drac
light form <Light_Form at hotmail.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3f9ac954 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Wow...that sure came out of left field. Is everything alright up there
Lady?
>
> And, for the sake of an argument, how would you have 'unsafe' sex in AW?
>
> LF
>
>
>
>

bowen ten.sardna@newob

Oct 26, 2003, 5:55am
[View Quote] You mean single-parent.seq? ;)

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideas.

john

Oct 26, 2003, 6:36am
Lol!! :-)

~John

[View Quote]

codewarrior

Oct 26, 2003, 9:25am
Just to nipick... it's 'when having sex.seq' (or just 'seqs'), not sex.rwx

Let's get our nouns.rwx and verbs.seq in order.

[View Quote]

the lady

Oct 26, 2003, 10:35am
My grandmother often warned me of that very thing! And be wise in what
setting I show off my Alicia heels! : O

An anonymous poll would get more answers. : )

[View Quote]

ciena

Oct 26, 2003, 12:43pm
hahahaha rotflmao!! good one!
[View Quote]

poseidon

Oct 26, 2003, 2:21pm
I give the Lady credit :) Her post was extremely amusing on a saturday
morning. here here, the lady ;)

Poseidon

[View Quote]

john

Oct 26, 2003, 2:43pm
U sure she did it 2 make us laugth?

~John
aka
nhoJ~

[View Quote]

poseidon

Oct 26, 2003, 2:51pm
Probably not :) But I admire her ability to continue to post things out of
the blue... Its a good quality to not care about what people say about you
or to you, heh.

Poseidon

[View Quote]

john

Oct 26, 2003, 3:11pm
I suppose.. if thats what U call it :P

~John

[View Quote]

.duo.

Oct 26, 2003, 9:30pm
Well Lady, actually, when you are in any rough part of a town or city,
people will assume your looking for prositution.

Unless you were in a world in AW meant solely for cyber sex, I'm sure that
it wouldn't be recieved as vying for cyber sex if you said "beef jerky" in
AW.

Right... lol.

--
-.Duo. (342836)

.duo.

Oct 26, 2003, 9:31pm
Maybe you should become a psychologist, and then you would actually
understand what you are saying...

--
-.Duo. (342836)

e n z o

Oct 27, 2003, 3:46pm
I am sure that the idea at least has some reference to the People VS
Technozeus situation...


E


[View Quote]

john

Oct 27, 2003, 7:04pm
People VS Technozeus??

~John

Yes, I miss a lot.. lol!

[View Quote]

lioness.

Oct 27, 2003, 7:16pm
That is what they call it in the states hon. However I think in TZ's case it
should be renamed Chicago PD vs Technozeus. ;-"D


[View Quote]

john

Oct 27, 2003, 7:39pm
:-o

Lol

~John

[View Quote]

count dracula

Oct 28, 2003, 12:13pm
Funny way to say it. It sounds like all people would be against the person
accused; yet it is claimed " innocent until proven guilty". This way of
putting it actually mean that assumed guilty unless the accused can prove
otherwise.

If I was a citizen of US, I would object to the saying people vs someone. I
do not want anyone to include me to the one assuming the one accused is
guilty.

I was reading through this case with TZ. To me it seems the police has no
proof; they can only assume things. Personally I do not care if he had paid
for sex, because I do not see that as a crime. Surgeries rent their hands to
make people feel better, nobody prosecute them either, but if a person rent
a certain part of his/her body to bring some light in the other persons
life, it is a terrible crime. I can only ask why?

What I do object are the pimps. These people take most of the workers
sallery and even sometimes treat the workers very bad. I bet if someone
started to take 90% of the doctors sallery, and even force them to work long
days, it would not be the doctor nor his customer who would be punished.

Drac
john <johnf at 3d-reality.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:3f9d9683 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> People VS Technozeus??
>
> ~John
>
> Yes, I miss a lot.. lol!
>
[View Quote]

.duo.

Oct 28, 2003, 5:12pm
> I was reading through this case with TZ. To me it seems the police has no
> proof; they can only assume things. Personally I do not care if he had
paid
> for sex, because I do not see that as a crime. Surgeries rent their hands
to
> make people feel better, nobody prosecute them either, but if a person
rent
> a certain part of his/her body to bring some light in the other persons
> life, it is a terrible crime. I can only ask why?

Its an issue with American culture. It is too closed to sex for prositution
to be acceptable at all. It also is a good way to reduxce the spread of STDs
and such...

> What I do object are the pimps. These people take most of the workers
> sallery and even sometimes treat the workers very bad. I bet if someone
> started to take 90% of the doctors sallery, and even force them to work
long
> days, it would not be the doctor nor his customer who would be punished.

Doctors work very long days sometimes. I don't understand what you mean
about the pimps though.

bowen ten.sardna@newob

Oct 28, 2003, 5:49pm
[View Quote] You are always assumed guilty before proven innocent. Hence why you've
been charged with a crime to begin with. The same is true for every
judicial system in the world, unfortunately. Otherwise, there's no
basis for enforcement.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideas.

kf

Oct 28, 2003, 7:02pm
It also is a good way to reduxce the spread of STDs
and such...
<<<

The exact opposite - the less it is in the open and the more people who
are involved in it have to fear the public, the more will happen. The
public eye just does not "see" it anymore and the public conciousness is
satisfied.




[View Quote]

.duo.

Oct 28, 2003, 9:45pm
I meant not having prostitution >_< of course not being open about sex
increases the amount of STDs, but only really among teenagers (who in the US
are usually too embarrassed to get condoms, or carry them).

--
-.Duo. (342836).

technozeus

Oct 30, 2003, 9:59am
Could be. :)

I noticed the resemblance also, and wondered whether it was coincidental.

Of course, anything that anyone says to someone else generally has at least two meanings, because the person hearing it it almost certainly going to end up with a different meaning than the person who said it.

TZ

[View Quote]

technozeus

Oct 30, 2003, 9:59am
I disagree with that entirely. If a person can have the right to "remain silent" then why should they need to be present at all? I can understand why an innocent person would want to be present at a trial being held to determine their involvement or lack thereof in some crime that may or may not have taken place, but that should be their choice. The way it stands, the innocent person is jailed, and then required to go to court. Then when it's all over, if they're lucky enough not to end up convicted of something they didn't do, they have to pay to get the charges removed from their records. That's no way to treat an innocent person.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

technozeus

Oct 30, 2003, 1:16pm
Unfortunately, you seem to be right. Some people will assume such things based on factors can in no way be indicators of intent. I found out the hard way that a person can be assumed to be up to no good simply by trying to be helpful in an area where being helpful is rare enough not to be expected. That's a real shame too. It's a bit like assuming that people of a certain race are all criminals and can never be anything else, or that because there are mean people in the world we all have to be mean to each other. Such assumptions can't possibly be of any actual value, and personally I'm not going to assume that the people making them are incapable of learning to do otherwise.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

bowen ten.sardna@newob

Oct 30, 2003, 5:43pm
[View Quote] So you disagree that you're guilty until proven innocent and then at the
end of your schpeal claim that it's no way to treat an innocent person
to get false convictions removed?

Okay, then, if you're innocent until proven guilty there would be no
innocent people jailed... as the evidence would not convict. Guilty
people go free too because lack of evidence, therefore guilty until
proven innocent is the norm of a judicial system.

--
--Bowen--
http://bowen.homelinux.com
Give me ideas.

1  2  |  
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2022. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn