I think wispfox's definition is even more liberal than mine, as I think at the time I wouldn't have been comfortable cuddling with either of you in public (and quite possibly the reverse). *Wanted* to, yes. But not yet comfortable.
Ah, see, my reply above is based on now, not then, since I was unaware if it then. :)
So, you are probably correct in that then (a few years ago?) I would also no have been comfortable cuddling with you. I don't think I knew you very well, if at all, a few years ago.
And amusingly enough, my follow-on musings about what definition I was really using came from the internal feeling that I *wasn't* part of your harem, even though by the definition I was suggesting, I would be. So I wanted to track down what definition I was *really* using :-}.
hmmm. it's possible that i missed the "definitions" portion of things, simply by not being in the room at the time. i had been thinking that things had been "defined" on LJ, but now i'm thinking that this happened on friday night? in any event -- i have no idea what RS's or A_J's definitions of "harem" -are-, so there it is. *sigh* *shrug*
my own use of the term had to do with seeing two lovely young lasses fawning over randysmith and giggling and acting cute about it. that's all. the fact that he went on to get involved with one of them is, well, all that needs to be said in total. *grin*
Definitions happened Friday night, yes, but I explained what I thought they were in a later post. So you can go see! :)
my own use of the term had to do with seeing two lovely young lasses fawning over [info]randysmith and giggling and acting cute about it. that's all. the fact that he went on to get involved with one of them is, well, all that needs to be said in total. *grin*
Hee! Indeed. Not that I remember being giggly and acting cute (although fawning seems... odd), but I have no reason to believe I wasn't.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-27 09:11 pm (UTC)I am also amused by being part of
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 02:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 02:40 pm (UTC)So, you are probably correct in that then (a few years ago?) I would also no have been comfortable cuddling with you. I don't think I knew you very well, if at all, a few years ago.
no subject
Date: 2005-08-29 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-30 02:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 02:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 06:44 am (UTC)my own use of the term had to do with seeing two lovely young lasses fawning over
no subject
Date: 2005-08-28 02:42 pm (UTC)my own use of the term had to do with seeing two lovely young lasses fawning over [info]randysmith and giggling and acting cute about it. that's all. the fact that he went on to get involved with one of them is, well, all that needs to be said in total. *grin*
Hee! Indeed. Not that I remember being giggly and acting cute (although fawning seems... odd), but I have no reason to believe I wasn't.