Originally Posted by
Raza
I'm sure that you don't think it's what you meant, now that I've made it sound so ridiculous, but you definitely said that your pointing out a historical figure with a big ego and a tendency to openly romance others' lovers proved me to be non-unique. And then you spend two more posts going on about how my claims to greater complexity than were absurd delusions of grandeur.
Really not much room to back out of that one.
That, again, says more about you than it does about me. I mean, I know where you're coming from - I put a lot of effort into portraying myself as a pervert, egomaniac and perpetual rebel at every possible turn, because they're archetypes with just the right mix of glamour and depravity to suit my tastes, and I really do fit them well - but the fact remains that they're the labels on the package, intentional suggestions of character that oversimplify its content in order to communicate at least some universally understood key-phrases to bourgeoisie. So I can dig that you see me that way - I see myself that way - but if they're the greater part of what you gather from my posts then either you've been skipping the ones over two sentences long, or you've been dazzled into reading only what you've been made to expect while treating the actual messages as filler.
Bookmarks