white_widow: (165)

3; misfire?

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-28 05:25 pm (UTC)(link)
Trust? Probably not, I do not even know who this is. Be curious enough to do it anyways, yes.
pagekaren: (Default)

perfection!

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-28 11:33 pm (UTC)(link)
Shit, sorry.
You're one number off from the person I meant to text.
I can't decide if it's alarming or funny that I managed to reach someone else that's in the business of 3 AM meetings.
white_widow: (173)

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-29 12:38 am (UTC)(link)
Don't worry about it, I was bored anyways.
It is probably ironic, at least. Are you expecting the person you actually meant to send that to to trust you or not to? I'm curious.
pagekaren: (Default)

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-29 01:13 am (UTC)(link)
And in the grand scheme of things, there are way worse random texts you could get from an unknown number.
Trust is much more likely than not trust.
Frustration and concern about why I'm asking is even more likely.
white_widow: (083)

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-29 01:17 am (UTC)(link)
Oh, SO much worse. I am very glad this was not one of those texts with a picture that makes me have to track down some random man and teach him manners.
Well, if concern is part of it, that is a good sign, yes?
pagekaren: (Default)

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-29 03:52 am (UTC)(link)
I haven't done this personally, but I've heard that some women will track down the guy's family members and let them know what he did. The resulting shit storm is a real schadenfreude moment.
I do appreciate the concern, but I don't usually appreciate what it leads to.
white_widow: (177)

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-29 03:57 am (UTC)(link)
Now that is a very interesting idea. Usually I just cause them physical pain, but I may have to try that.
What does it lead to?
pagekaren: (Default)

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-29 08:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I can get the temptation of that but I feel like the psychological damage is more impactful.
I've opted for "ew" or "aw, that's it?" the times I've gotten unwanted pictures.
Let's just call it over-correction.
white_widow: (165)

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-29 10:32 pm (UTC)(link)
You might have a point. And of course there is always the option of both.
"Aw, that's it." is a good choice.
Ah, I see. Your people are overprotective?
pagekaren: (Default)

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-29 11:09 pm (UTC)(link)
Just adding a bit of insult to injury for good measure, huh?
Overprotective is probably the best word for it.
white_widow: (065)

[personal profile] white_widow 2025-03-29 11:18 pm (UTC)(link)
Best to cover all the bases, after all.
That can be quite a pain to deal with. Better than the alternative, though, hm?
pagekaren: (Default)

[personal profile] pagekaren 2025-03-30 03:42 pm (UTC)(link)
I can't argue with being thorough.
Depends on how much of a margin is involved in the over-correction. But generally, yeah.