The Narcissistic Truths – No. 22
38 thoughts on “The Narcissistic Truths – No. 22”
Vent Your Spleen! (Please see the Rules in Formal Info)
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
You did forget disemboweled.
Yet I am cringing at the very thought of such torture and feeling very sick, thank you very much
I do not see how it would be possible for anyone to ignore you. Nor do I envision any sort of rational circumstance where anyone would to.
Anyone who could or would should be drawn and quartered.
I agree save I would suggest they be hung,drawn and quartered.
Dammit.
This is what happens when I am confronted with things that do not make sense, such as you being ignored.
I forget words.
Ohh, I get GREAT PLEASURE from ignoring you! I”ll say it again……GREAT PLEASURE!!!
(Not you HG of course…..but him!!!)
Seduced why would you want to be so cruel and want to hurt (y)ourself that much? We know you can’t resist. …you just can’t. We make sure you can’t. We have conditioned you and depleted your energy. You don’t know who you are anymore. The longer and deeper you are trapped the more of your self will be taken out of you. Ah but doesn’t it feel so goood? Some species of spider inject anaesthetic into their prey to comsume at leisure and enjoy. And enjoy that red heart some more. Thanks to you for putting it out there for us. Don’t do it. Stop hurting yourself. We don’t respect you and have only contempt for such pathetic creature but thank you anyway we need you to keep doing it. With love. Thanks to HG for exposing us all to these great top-tier insights and overall fantastic presentation.
Why would I want to be so cruel and want to hurt You that much? You know I can’t. … I just can’t ❤
<3
HG, this I promise you: some people can never be ignored – they just have it going on naturally and it’s just NOT possible: this is the category I would put you in 100% just by your natural nature! Think of it like your energy can be SO intense sometimes people just can’t hang – the price tag of being you – but it’s a hard job and part of the conflicting position to help empower empaths by your own admissions while strengthening awareness against your fellow Narcissists…it is why you are the Greater afterall…
Mr. Tudor, you are such a force that no one can ignore you.
Out of curiosity, does your inherentince include land and a title?
In England, if you divorce, can the spouse take your land and title, even if its in your family’s name?
Thank you and I am pleased you acknowledge this.
Yes it includes land but no title.
I don’t know the answer to your question, I am not a family lawyer.
Lol I know you are not Mr. Tudor. But I do know you are very intelligent and calculating. I assume a title means nothing to you?
I am too young for one, but believe me I want and deserve one.
I completely agree and believe you are never too young for a title.
I love that your kind has aspirations. You above all.
Thank you Love, I shall keep your words as watchword to my dark and frozen heart.
Your dark and frozen heart is instrumental in your success.
Solicitor?
That’s a profession not a title. Sir or Lord is what is being referred to.
Yes but you said i am not a family lawyer. That means you could be a solicitor who specializes in say, wills and trusts, property, correct? Or maybe i was giving you the title solicitor as you solicit women for dastardly deeds….the world may never know.
No, I said I am not a family lawyer because the subject appertained to family law. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not a lawyer but given what I do and some of the experiences that I have had, I know something of the law.
Nobody uses solicitor in that sense, they would use player for example.
Okay Dad, dial it back. I have no doubt that you have experiance dealing with the law. However the profession of solicitor means something different where you are and where i am. There are signs all over the US that say no soliciting or asking for money. There are prostitutes arrested for solicitation. You are correct that player is a more familiar term in the sense of a person who plays people or games. https://frenchtoastweb.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/wp-1479228677244.jpg
Actually I won’t dial it back because you are wrong.
The profession of solicitor in this country means somebody who practises law and is legally qualified to be a solicitor. When one refers to that individual and use a verb to describe the behaviour of that profession, one does not state that a solicitor solicits, nobody says that. Instead one would say that a solicitor practises.
In this country soliciting or solicitation is not understood as the work of a solicitor but rather either as an act whereby one is seeking to get something from another, as in solicit somebody’s opinion or the act of a prostitute looking for business.
In your country, attorney is the more widely known term for a lawyer BUT it is used as a term for a government lawyer in the US. Thus it also has a legal connotation in the US as it does in the UK.
One again would not refer to the act of that government lawyer as soliciting or solicitation but rather practising as I have explained above.
Similarly, as you have confirmed soliciting is seen as asking for money and solicitation is something undertaken by prostitutes when they are seeking business.
Thus in either country if you said ‘he is a solicitor’, in your country it would be understood that he is a government lawyer and here that he is a lawyer who is one branch of the legal profession – the other being a barrister – nobody would think you mean he is a prostitute or by extension as you tried to suggest someone who chases women.
So, it’s unwise to parade some clever arse caption when you are wrong.
My Father was a lawyer. I understand and agree that solicitor and barrister are not used in the US. I am therefore not wrong. The idea that people who practice law do solicit clients is to be applied. Hence the term ambulance chaser. We are in agreement. Most people use attorney, lawyer, counsel interchangeably. So if I am wrong then so are you. I was simply saying that men and women can solicit and it means something else. therefore i am not an unwise smart ass as i’m simply trying to get you to lighten up. We are in agreement. I now see that I have touched a nerve. You have taken what I said and ran with the idea of what your interpretation was. Yes I know that your interpretation is always right in your mind. I forgot that I was dealing reasonably with an unreasonable person.
You have not read what I wrote. The term solicitor is also used in the US to mean a government lawyer and attorney tends to be used for those in private practice. I believe there is a society of solicitors and counsel in the US for those same government lawyers.
You used the word solicitor to suggest that this is a word which means someone who pursues women. It is not used in that sense. It means a lawyer, both in your country and mine. It also may be used to suggest someone who obtains business orders.
The terms solicit and solicitation are not the same as solicitor. Those words mean something different.
It is not the case that the interpretation is always right in my mind when dealing with a subject such as this and your final ad hominem response speaks volumes.
so·lic·it
səˈlisit/Submit
verb
ask for or try to obtain (something) from someone.[ HERE. Man can solicit for sex.]
“he called a meeting to solicit their views”
synonyms: ask for, request, seek, apply for, put in for, call for, press for, beg, plead for More
ask (someone) for something.
“historians and critics are solicited for opinions by the auction houses”
accost someone and offer one’s or someone else’s services as a prostitute.
“although prostitution was not itself an offense, soliciting was”
You can solicit a prostitute.
I AGAIN AGREE WITH YOU that they are not used in the same way. I said in my comment “or maybe”…..i did not say it is. Why do you take this as an attack? We can go all day HG. I have 48 years of practice. Stop with the sympathy card, oh shes attacked me it speaks volumes of her intention to attempt to hurt me. That is not you at all. I did not attack you i simply said you and i are not dealing reasonably. Your unwarranted attack against me on a one word comment with a question mark seems more ad hominem. Shall we laugh now or later? Or should we keep playing?
I will keep it simple.
You stated that the word solicitor meant somebody who chases women.
It does not mean that.
You did not state ‘you are someone who solicits women’ you used the word solicitor.
I am not taking it as an attack. I am pointing out that you were wrong. My response to you was not ad hominem in nature, I pointed out the error of your use of solicitor, an ad hominem attack would have been to state ‘you are an idiot for stating that’. Ad hominem is to attack the person and not the argument, which is precisely what you did by referring to me as being unreasonable.
I am not playing any sympathy card. You were wrong, that is all there is to it.
I will keep it more simple them.
I said “maybe I was giving you the title solicitor as you solicit women….
This was a joke. I did not say that the word solicitor means somebody who chases women. I was making a play on the title of solicitor to mean one who solicits product, women, etc…
I was saying that you can never be wrong, you always win. it is your own philosophy that you are unreasonable. How could that be an attack against you? You have said it yourself. I could care less HG. I don’t have a hole that needs filling. Thats ad hominem, yes? I was not wrong. From your perspective I was. Like I said, Do you want to do this all day?
You are correct about the point about the fact I always win, it has to be that way.
I am not unreasonable. From my perspective I am entirely reasonable, it is from your perspective that you regard me as unreasonable. The different perspectives as I often mention.
Remember, it is my perspective and if you call me unreasonable, I consider that an attack when it suits me to do so of course.
The phrase is ‘I couldn’t care less’ not ‘I could care less’ If you state you could care less, this means you have some caring left which is not what you meant is it?
You were wrong. You used the word solicitor incorrectly. If you saw a man chatting up a woman in a bar and you said, commenting on the fact of him chatting up said lady, ‘he is a solicitor’ you would get some puzzled looks and be asked ‘is he a lawyer?’
What round are we in? Do you want me to go back and point out your spelling mistakes? From my perspective I am reasonable. I said, I was making a play on the word solicitor. In your scenario I would say Is he soliciting that lady. I understand what you meant. You will not admit to understanding what I meant. I dont expect you to. I do expect word salad….lets start attacking each other by throwing in things that have nothing to do with what we already agreed on to begin with. Such as solicitor has several meanings. Lawyer or attorney or one who asks for a service or advice.
Again. Not wrong.
I think it is round five. I make typos, I know I do, my mind goes too fast for my fingers.
No, you used one word, you wrote ‘solicitor?’ therefore anybody reading that one word would think lawyer, they would not think ‘ah a play on HG being somebody who solicits women’.
If you had written ‘what about the title of solicitor HG since you are somebody who goes around soliciting women’ that would have made more sense, but to write one word as you did – and you did do so – invited only one conclusion, namely you must have been referring to the word in terms of someone who is a lawyer.
So yes, your use of the one word in your post was wrong.
Moreover by stating that solicitor has several meanings, lawyer or attorney or one who asks for a service or advice, you have failed to include the meaning you have attempted to ascribe to it.
There is no word salad here, nor need I have any use for doing so as I have clearly pointed out how your use of one word was misleading and did not convey what you meant it to convey.
I did the solicitor question mark comment For a reason. I clarified in second statement by making a joke about the word solicitor to protect you not to hurt you. I really didnt want to write this on here. But you kept coming for no reason. You know there are ways of asking what I meant. I was trying to be nice to you. But you cannot be nice. I had no choice then but to defend myself. You have said time and time again what you do and what you are. What position could i take but defensive? Could you tell me if I provide no benefit to this forum? You can block me, you have the capability to do so. Why dont you do it? This would fuel you ultimately wouldn’t it? banish me from the arena. Is that what you want? Should we go rounds and argue here? Is that what you want? Should I never write another word, because I have to clarify everything i write and you don’t? Will I even get an answer?
Indeed you did do it for a reason as you have subsequently clarified through your expanded posts, but my point is that the use of that one word did not convey what you meant, it would be read, in the ordinary course of things as meaning something else, hence my response.
I did not regard your comment as an attack against me, I know you are respectful in that regard. I merely pointed out how using that word would be read to mean lawyer and not as you intended, by anybody reading it. I know you did not mean it to be hurtful. There was no need to defend yourself, all you needed to do was point out what you meant as you have since done and that would be the end of the matter.
I have no need to block you, I do not do that. Nobody has ever been blocked from this forum and your views are always welcome. You convey them in your own inimitable style and you should continue to do so as like many who write here, you have something to offer to the overall experience.
As you will have seen I do seek clarification in order to gain a clearer understanding of what somebody is writing.
And yes you have an answer too.
One more thing, one who asks for a service, couldn’t that include asking or soliciting one for sex? I did not fail to include the way i ascribed it. Again, why was there misleading? To protect.
Writing
‘solicitor?’
would cause any reader to think, ‘she means lawyer’
Nobody would think, from reading that one word she means ‘an apt title for HG because he solicits women to further his need for fuel etc’
That is the error.
You have clarified thereafter through expansion.
You have now expanded on what you meant whereas originally you just wrote ‘solicitor?’ and therefore anybody reading that word in isolation would have thought ‘lawyer’ rather than what you intended to convey, hence my response. The belated expansion provides the clarification.
Too young for a title? What an implication.
By all accounts, HG is right because he is using the term solicitor in the proper context.
Even writing that he “solicits women for dastardly deeds” does not make sense because you are not using the word in the proper context.