|  |
|
| |
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/20/01 8:14:08 AM
# Replies: 106
Holy moley, they're actually going to let him be President?
Response #1
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/20/01 1:47:18 PM
Well...they actually let Clinton be President.
Response #2
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/20/01 1:47:38 PM
There's no accounting for taste.
Response #3
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/20/01 9:34:27 PM
Yeah, but Clinton was, and still is, able to say multi-syllabic words.
Response #4
By: sooz
Date: 1/20/01 11:59:49 PM
Bush was, and still is, able to get through the day without lying about who's under his desk.
I'm more likely to trust someone because they're honest than because they can say big words.
Response #5
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/21/01 8:16:43 AM
Bad sign #1: I go to "My Yahoo" start page this morning, and all the US news has vanished. Seriously, the only thing on there is "UK and Ireland: Top Stories". Too creepy.
Apart from the obligatory occasional wisecrack, I'm prepared to reserve judgement on President Scooter, the most Powerful Man in the World, and give him a fair shot. I want my country to do well, therefore I want *him* to do well.
In fairness, I'll wait at least 6 months before I buy one of those "Don't Blame Me, I Voted in the Majority" bumperstickers.
Response #6
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/21/01 3:15:21 PM
Ok, sooz:
Who's under Shrub's desk?
Response #7
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/22/01 5:02:11 AM
I'm more likely to not give shit whose under ANYONE's desk, as long asthey don't fuck-up our economy, and the country in general.
Just like shurbs daddy, and his daddy's predecessor did.
Response #8
By: Roxanne
Date: 1/22/01 5:24:31 AM
I thought that the economy fuck-ups are set in motion by one administration and are not obvious to the public-at-large until the next administration is in office so that it appears that they are the ones responsible for it.
That way each party guarantees its future re-election. Clever, huh?
Response #9
By: sooz
Date: 1/22/01 6:20:12 AM
Likewise, I don't care who's under anyone's desk. heck, maybe it'll make 'em do a better job. It's the lyin' that I see as a character flaw.
Ugg. This whole conversation's already played out too many times.
Response #10
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/22/01 1:00:04 PM
When Shrub sez he's a moderate, he's lying. Why should you believe whatever else he says?
Response #11
By: sooz
Date: 1/22/01 3:59:13 PM
Show me some proof he's lying, Homer. He's not Rush Limbaugh and he's not the Greens. He's inbetween. Moderate.
There's proof that Clinton lied.. like, he admitted it a coupla days ago, for zample.
Response #12
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/22/01 4:51:21 PM
Point #1:
"Yeah, but Clinton was, and still is, able to say multi-syllabic words."
Well...any coffee-house pseudointellectual can spout multi-syllabic bombast. I believe it's overly simplistic to evaluate an individual's intellectual capability based upon the syllable-to-word ratio of their verbage. :) (Ratio = 2.5 syllables/word. *WHEW* I'm briliant!)
Sometimes I think it's just someone trying to show-off. In other words you can be a black-belt with a Thesaurus, and still dumb as a bag of hammers.
Point#2:
"When Shrub sez he's a moderate, he's lying."
A subjective judgement. I think by your criteria anyone to the right of Nader is a borderline fascist. By my subjective judgement, GWB is a moderate. But I break it down like this.
+
|
+-Nader
|
|
|
|
+-Clinton
|
|
+-Gore
|
+-Bush Sr.
|
+-George W.
|
|
|
|
|
+-Reagan
+-Fallwell
|
+
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #13
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/22/01 10:23:40 PM
Sooz:
"It's the lyin' that I see as a character flaw"
Ahh, ALL politicians have that characther flaw.
Response #14
By: sooz
Date: 1/23/01 6:06:10 AM
Broad generalizations, sweeping all people of a group under one rug... yeah, that always works! Like musicians... they're all unemployed bums.
Response #15
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 1/23/01 8:33:40 AM
Well, drummers are.
Response #16
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/23/01 6:52:29 PM
Sooz,
Do you really believe there is an honest, sucessful politician?
Response #17
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/23/01 8:49:39 PM
Shrub's whole deal thus far has been a circle-jerk for the religious right. He's not a centrist, he's not a moderate, and he doesn't really seem interested in making friends with the Democrats, like he said he was during his campaign.
I'm sorry you folks wish to do me the disservice of painting me as left of Lenin, but the fact of the matter is that very soon Shrub will take off his mask and show himself to be Timothy McVeigh.
And by the way, there are plenty of honest, successful politicians. Mostly Greens. :-)
Response #18
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/24/01 6:47:17 PM
Homey:
"Shrub's whole deal thus far has been a circle-jerk for the religious right"
Gee, we've never seen THAT from the republicans before have we?
"I'm sorry you folks wish to do me the disservice of painting me as left of Lenin, but the fact of the matter is that very soon Shrub will take off his mask and show himself to be Timothy McVeigh."
You're not going to get an arguement from me.
"And by the way, there are plenty of honest, successful politicians. Mostly Greens. :-)"
I said SUCESSFUL politicans, as in one that gets elected.
:)
Response #19
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/24/01 8:14:28 PM
Some people define success differently, particularly in national-level races like the presidential one where everyone freaks out about who'll steal votes from whom. In that kind of race, Nader was as successful as, say, Perot. :-)
Greens have historically had better support in local government, which stands to reason. 'Think globally, act locally,' and all that.
What amuses me is that the Greens and the Libertarians are mostly after the same stuff, but end up getting plopped down at opposite ends of what is sometimes called the political spectrum. If there were a GreenBertarian party, I'd probably be in it, and they'd win a lot more elections than just the Greens or Libertarians alone.
Response #20
By: sooz
Date: 1/25/01 10:10:25 AM
I usually dismiss discussions that turn to name-calling, like "Algore" or "Shrub."
Response #21
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/25/01 7:30:06 PM
I'd call him Shrub to his face. I'd use the honorific 'President,' however. President Shrub.
Response #22
By: sooz
Date: 1/26/01 7:08:12 AM
And that would mean... what? If I were in a business situation, I wouldn't expect people to take me or my point seriously in a meeting if I called them "boogerhead" and "scruffybutt."
I just figure people have the right to be called by their names, no matter what they've done.
Response #23
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/26/01 4:39:52 PM
...or what they're about to do. :-)
Response #24
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/26/01 8:01:00 PM
Bushwatch 2001 -- Week 1
| Pros | Cons |
|
|
Response #25
By: sooz
Date: 1/27/01 6:35:04 PM
Ok, Homer, let me make sure I understand: You can see clearly into the future, and have stated as "fact" what Bush is going to do, and that's what you're upset about? It's nothing he's done so far... it's all speculation?
Holy Mackerel. Do you realize how nutty that is? Please, at least have something concrete to gripe about, rather than bitching about something that hasn't happened.
It's kind of like speculating that your significant other could possibly fool around on you, and then getting mad at them for it, even though they've done no such thing.
Response #26
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/27/01 6:43:12 PM
Two words:
John Ashcroft.
Response #27
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/27/01 10:06:28 PM
I'm with you Sooz. When people resort to the kind of petty "Algore", "Shrub", "Klintoon", "Raygun" type crap you're *generally* not going to get any sort of reasoned discussion. For all the bad things that can be said about Congressional politicians in general, if you exclude those on the extreme left and right, they are frequently a whole lot more mature about their disagreements than are many of their supporters. They can feel passionately about their causes and "fight the good fight" without having to paint those with contrasting opinions as evil dangerous threats. I like that. I like that alot. I wish more people could behave with that sort of civility.
There are, unfortunately, those who believe their "vision" for what is right for everyone and what will "make the world a better place" is in fact SO right and SO true, that people with contrasting opinions are evil, dangerous, blind, ignorant, insensative or just plan socially defective in some way. That I see alot of.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #28
By: sooz
Date: 1/28/01 11:36:47 AM
But Homer is a normally reasonable, even-tempered sort of guy. This is what I don't get... the blind flailing about, Chicken Little-style, about W.
Four yers ago I didn't agree with Gowan, but as I age, I begin to. I didn't vote for W, either, but he's our president, and we really should hope he does well. Once someone's in office, it does not good to rant about things they haven't even done.
Response #29
By: sooz
Date: 1/28/01 11:46:39 AM
Ooo ooo, I remember what I was gonna say.
Four years ago, my friend Dave ranted and raved that if Clinton got re-elected, the country WOULD NOT survive. I said, "Like, what's gonna happen? Will the country just fold, and call it quits?"
Four years later we're still here, Clinton had a big-ass scandal involving lying, but I'm doing better economically than I ever have. We survived.
I think it's about the same with the anti-Bush brigade... kinda like the Y2K scare people. There's some merit that there could be a danger, but the world isn't gonna end.
Response #30
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/28/01 4:19:08 PM
The world isn't going to end, but decades of progress could very easily be undone. Of course the notion of 'progress' is up for grabs, but Our Honorable President Shrub failed to get my vote, so obviously he disagrees with my progressive stance.
And for what it's worth (though I know it's not worth much to sooz or Sorc'), the Republicans have made their bed and now are complaining that they can't get any sleep.
Sorc sez: "There are, unfortunately, those who believe their "vision" for what is right for everyone and what will "make the world a better place" is in fact SO right and SO true, that people with contrasting opinions are evil, dangerous, blind, ignorant, insensative or just plan socially defective in some way. That I see alot of."
Do you believe that your 'vision' of milquetoast political discussion and easy condescension *is* better than the vision of others? Of course you do, or you wouldn't complain abou it. Do you view those with passionate political views as 'evil, dangerous, blind, ignorant, insensitive, or socially defective?' Could very well be, given the rest of your rhetoric.
It's painfully easy to paint others as name-calling whiners (thus whining and calling them names). But it's not quite so easy to even *begin* to think that their spiky, unaccessible language may actually guard something that's actually true. I think it's worth that effort. I call George W. Bush 'Shrub' because I hate typing 'George W. Bush.' Why do you call me unreasonable?
Shrub's got everything going for him: A huge honking wad of cash, the backing of corporate America, a political family, an experienced VP and cabinet of advisors, some OK appointments, connections connections connections, and Rush Limbaugh. He should do pretty well, even though a significant chunk of the population thinks he wasn't elected to the office he now holds. He ran on a platform of uniting the parties and being moderate, and yet the first thing he did was to make it illegal to support health organizations that support abortion rights in any way. His appointments include John Ashcroft and other reactionary right-wingers. He's going to create a governmental office of faith-based charity (an act which has very dire Constitutional consequences).
So, aside from me calling him 'Shrub' a few times, why would you not believe he was lying when he said he was a moderate?
Response #31
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/28/01 7:39:04 PM
So do you mean to tell me, that both Sooz and Sorc would dismiss anyone's point as possibly being valid, JUST becasue they make a comical moniker of someone's name?
Isn't that doing the same thing you are critisizing others for doing?
Loved the chart Fang.
Response #32
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/28/01 8:14:06 PM
HOMER SEZ:"Do you believe that your 'vision' of milquetoast political discussion and easy condescension *is* better than the vision of others? Of course you do, or you wouldn't complain abou it."
Not at all, silly fellow. My 'vision' is simply *MY* vision. The fact that I'VE got a particular 'vision' or belief doesn't require me to believe that it is the only TRUE vision. It's MY vision, it works for ME; I can't say if it will work for anyone else but me. Do I hope people will take on some of my beliefs or learn something from them? Sure, I think that would be pretty cool. Does it bother me if they don't? Not at all. Whatever choices they make they will be the ones to reap the great benefits or the dire consequences of those choices, just as I will by my choices.
That's where I think your mistake is. You seem to believe that everyone's beliefs have to be absolutist. Either black or white. The fact is that I have my beliefs. I've arrived at these beliefs based on my life experience and personal set of priorities. While I will follow these beliefs, I will act on these beliefs, I fight according to these beliefs, I will always accept the fact that I may be totally wrong. I always recognize that one day I may find evidence or experience that changes my beliefs. It is about humility. It's about avoiding the arrogance of believing that YOUR way is the only TRUE way. One doesn't have to assume an arrogant posture of believing that their 'vision' is absolutely better than the 'vision' of others in order to follow it. I suppose I just don't require that sort of absolute certainty and infallibility in my beliefs to follow them and be happy. I am perfectly able to admit that I'm just doing the best that I can at the time that I'm doing it.
HOMER SEZ: "Do you view those with passionate political views as 'evil, dangerous, blind, ignorant, insensitive, or socially defective?'"
Once again, not at all. I myself have passionate political views. I just find it counter-productive to beat people who disagree with me over the head with them. As for people who DO feel the need to beat people over the head with their views.... Evil? I don't believe in the concept of evil. Dangerous? The only real danger they present is to the acceptance of their own views by others by alienating them...assuming thats with they want. Blind? No, but perhaps a bit myopic...once again, assuming they are trying to pursuade/inform people. Ignorant? Certainly not on the basis of their chosen beliefs. I never assume someone is ignorant simply because they disagree with me. I may, however, ask them to present their facts and evidence for their claim. Insensitive? The only way I'm going to claim someone is insensitive is if I personally see them act like an insensitive prick towards someone else. Socially defective? I don't have a witty answer to this one so I'll just say no.
HOMER SEZ: "It's painfully easy to paint others as name-calling whiners (thus whining and calling them names). But it's not quite so easy to even *begin* to think that their spiky, unaccessible language may actually guard something that's actually true.
There was a long post you made to J.J. back on Momma Bear's board BIO years ago about his tendency to use the same sort of silly name-calling. Up to a couple of years ago I still had a copy and would have posted it in reponse. Since I don't I will simply suggest that if you REALLY have something to say, and you believe it's THAT choc-full-o-pithy-wisdom and important, you'd just spit it out.
HOMER SEZ: "So, aside from me calling him 'Shrub' a few times, why would you not believe he was lying when he said he was a moderate?"
Because he isn't an extremist. What is your criteria for being a moderate?? If someone does anything favoring the right, he can't be a moderate? I think a better way to judge is to look at what someone does/believes as a whole. If the vast majority of someones views and deeds lean to the far right or far left then they aren't a moderate. But if they have a mix, most of them not far right or left, then I call that person a moderate. He himself calls himself a conservative, and that he is. If he were a far right conservative, NONE of his cabinet appointments would be pro-choice. If he were a far-right conservative, he would have abolished the education department. If he were far right conservaitve he would have rode into town under a banner of rolling-back roe-vs-wade like the OTHER far right conservatives.
HOMER SEZ: "Why do you call me unreasonable?"
Actually, I'm just constantly amazed on a daily basis how much you taken to the sort of beliefs and behaviours that you used to attack. That is certainly your right. But you can't expect that sort of philosophical / behavioral turn-around to go without notice or comment. That WOULD be unreasonable.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #33
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/28/01 8:15:55 PM
CAP SEZ: "So do you mean to tell me, that both Sooz and Sorc would dismiss anyone's point as possibly being valid, JUST becasue they make a comical moniker of someone's name?"
Making a comical moniker of someone's name doesn't invalidate someones point, it doesn't validate their point either. In fact the only thing it does is create static in a potentially productive discussion. It also may server, if it occurs with some frequency, as an indicator that the person using the moniker is so strongly in opposition that a productive and reasonable discussion isn't possible with them on that given person or subject. And that was the thrust of that point in my post.
I mean, what do you really think the likelyhood is that you will be able to have a productive and reasonable discussion of the Clinton Presidency and his policies with someone who is constantly spewing venom about about "Klintoon"? Not impossible, but if I were going to bet money, I think the odds would be against it.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #34
By: Roxanne
Date: 1/28/01 9:10:43 PM
Can someone explain to me how Bush is supposed to have "stolen" the election? I've heard it said more than once and I am still unsure on what that means.
Response #35
By: sooz
Date: 1/28/01 9:43:27 PM
(Bowing out of discussion)
Trying to talk about President Bush with Homer is like trying to rationally discuss pro-choice/pro-life issues with someone that's standing outside the clinic, screaming and waving a sign.
Thus said, I'd like to make it clear that I adore Homer on a personal level, and would buy him cheesecake at Katz' deli any day of the week. And if I were still a single person, I'd spread the cheescake all over him, and...
well, anyway. Back to the politics, but I'll stay out of it. :-)
Response #36
By: Da Sissop
Date: 1/29/01 5:02:06 AM
Roxy: Bush is said to have "stolen" the election because his supporters succeeded in having the manual recounts stopped.
Exactly the same thing the other side would have said about Gore had the recounts shown him to be the winner.
This really was a no-win election.
And as much as I may make satirical (smartass) comments and take easy potshots at Bush, I'm really just glad it's over. I mean, if Gore couldn't soundly TROUNCE him, then something was seriously wrong with the Democrat candidate.
Response #37
By: Roxanne
Date: 1/29/01 4:24:48 PM
But wasn't the Gore team trying to "steal" the election by manually counting votes? I am neither pro-Bush nor pro-Gore, but I did think the manual counting seemed very fishy in any case.
As long as our only choices are Democrat or Republican party members, then all elections are pretty much no-win, if ya ask me. Both are different sides of the same coin. It's illogical to be completely liberal or completely conservative on everything.
Response #38
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/29/01 5:31:27 PM
Manual recounts are part of FL state law. The candidate can request recounts. Besides, how do you *steal* an election by getting a *more accurate count* of the votes?
Response #39
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/29/01 6:46:05 PM
Sorc:
"In fact the only thing it does is create static in a potentially productive discussion"
Poppy-cock! (I've been waiting for an occasion to use that word)
That implies that only 2 parties are in the discussion. Do you really believe that just because someone makes fun of someone's name, that nullifies anything they have to say? Come on. That's just like saying that someone cannot possibly make a valid point, JUST because they are republican....
Wait a minute...you MIGHT just be one to something.
:)
Response #40
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/29/01 9:00:15 PM
CAP SEZ: "That implies that only 2 parties are in the discussion."
I must have missed something, I don't see how what I said specifically implies that. I any case, you asked if I or Sooz would discount them. I can't speak for Sooz, only me. That's two people. Me...and Homer or the other person.
CAP SEZ: "Do you really believe that just because someone makes fun of someone's name, that nullifies anything they have to say? Come on."
I shall repeat the portion of my post that answers that question. If it occurs with some frequency it can serve as an indicator that the person using the moniker is so strongly in opposition that a productive and reasonable discussion isn't possible with them on that given person or subject. A realization that Sooz aparently arrived at the hard way after getting that nasty bruise on her forehead. :)
And that was the thrust of that point in my post. Ta-Dah!
CAP SEZ: "That's just like saying that someone cannot possibly make a valid point, JUST because they are republican....Wait a minute...you MIGHT just be one to something. :)"
There are times when I do believe that may be the sentiment here. :)
Of course I have some friends who are unflinchingly right-wing Conservative and they think I'm too *Liberal* to be a real Republican, that I'm a closet *socialist* of some sort even! Imagine that if you will....
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #41
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 1/29/01 9:25:30 PM
HOMER SEZ: "Besides, how do you *steal* an election by getting a *more accurate count* of the votes?"
That assumes that the recount is inherently more accurate. The fact that there was no single standard applied across the board for all recounted ballots as to what constitutes a legal vote when it is in dispute leaves room for either side to argue about the accuracy of the count. If the Florida Supreme Court had handed down a standard for what counts as a vote and what doesn't when they kicked it back to the counties to recount they would have been able to settle it right there. Why on earth they dropped the ball on that I suppose we'll never know for sure.
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #42
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 1/30/01 6:13:45 AM
i leave you children alone for a minute and look what happens!
Response #43
By: sooz
Date: 1/30/01 7:01:03 AM
SOS! Thank all the gods in whom you believe that you're here.
And for whatever record may exist, I'm the one that said I drop out of conversations when it turns to name-calling. It takes longer to type "Shrub" than to type "Bush," so if a person can't have the civility to call a person by their name, I'm not interested in a discussion.
My mother told me that if a man introduces himself as "Robert," call him Robert. Don't call him Bob or Bobby or Rob or Robbie. It's respectful to call a person by their name. In this rare case, I agree with mom.
Response #44
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/30/01 9:12:59 PM
Typing 'Bush' alone just serves to further blur an already extremely blurry distinction between father and son.
I'm going to continue to call him Shrub, and if that means you don't want to talk with me about him, then so be it. Just be sure and watch your language forever and ever so that you never, ever again in your entire life call anyone by such names as, say, Slick Willie.
Now, about that cheesecake...
Response #45
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/31/01 5:44:25 AM
Homey:
"Just be sure and watch your language forever and ever so that you never, ever again in your entire life call anyone by such names as, say, Slick Willie."
Which I DO believe has happened more than once around here.
Response #46
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 1/31/01 5:46:44 AM
Sorc:
"Of course I have some friends who are unflinchingly right-wing Conservative and they think I'm too *Liberal* to be a real Republican"
Yeah well, one day, in a beautiful world somwhere, Rush Limbaugh and his minions WILL go away...COMPLETELY.
"I'm a closet *socialist* of some sort even! Imagine that if you will"
How can the words Socialist and Republican even be in the same paragraph together referring to one person?
Response #47
By: sooz
Date: 1/31/01 7:22:20 AM
We haven't discussed the Senior in a long time, Homey. You could refer to "W" or GW Bush. "W" is still his name, for chrissakes... you're just TRYING to be like a kid on the playground that won't quit calling the girls names, and pulling their ponytails.
On the other hand, you can call the cheesecake any name you want, and I'll still buy ya a slice. :-) Why do you live so damned FAR? These conversations would be so much more fun over coffee, sittin' in a room full o' hippies.
Love ya...
Response #48
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 1/31/01 9:12:42 AM
perhaps it's not relevant, but i'd like to offer a new perspective on name-calling:
in jamaica, people are very often not called by their real names. when i'm walking down the street, people i don't know will get my attention by calling out one or a combination of the following:
Mr. Chin
Mr. Chung
Chinah
Chinee
chinaman
Rich Chin
Jackie Chan
Ching chong ching chong!
Japanese
occasionally, i'll get something a bit more generic, like "Boss" or "Star," but that's rare. the reason being is that when someone calls out to me, "Boss!" how am i supposed to know they're talking to me and not someone else? but if they say, "Chin!" then i know to turn my head. No offense is meant, and similarly no one is offended if i call out to a person any of the following:
blacka
fatty
princess
brownin' (brown skinned girl)
yellowman (for albinos)
nutsie (for the guy selling peanuts)
dread (for rastas)
bal' 'ed (for someone without hair)
shortness
it's just a way of getting a person's attention. in my yard, with people i know, i also have a few names:
ron muschette
roy
ratface
i admit, i didn't like ratface for awhile, and in a way i'm glad they've stopped using it, but pet names don't really mean too much, they're just names. even "ratface" was not something that's meant in any pejorative way, it's just what the children started calling me and it kind of stuck. but this is a completely different culture! it took some getting used to, being called all nature of things which in america would be considered very taboo. but it was interesting to see other peace corps volunteers still very offended by the whole notion. it's easy to see how names can mean a great deal to some people, and very little to others.
all that being said, i'm agreeing with sooz. while in jamaica, names aren't meant in any way, the way homer is using the word "shrub" is clearly meant in a derogatory manner, as i'm sure homer will agree. homer, if the point of all your messages is simply to vent whatever you want to vent, by all means you should. but if you're trying to convince people to agree with your point of view, your reasoning would look much more objective and unbiased if you'd just call the guy "bush".
Response #49
By: sooz
Date: 1/31/01 11:27:38 AM
I do love SOS, on so many levels.
Response #50
By: Roxanne
Date: 1/31/01 12:23:49 PM
I do find it ironic that the discussion is about calling people by nicknames instead of using their real names, considering that most of us all here are using some sort of nickname...
Response #51
By: sooz
Date: 1/31/01 4:20:26 PM
But Rox, SOS made the distinction between a nickname ("Fang" for Bienfang, for example), especially self-chosen ones, and outright derogatory ones ("buttwipe", "boogernose" and "shrub", for example).
Response #52
By: The Professor
Date: 1/31/01 7:20:45 PM
.q
^kw
.x
Response #53
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 1/31/01 11:52:08 PM
Durn. I've forgotten just about everything there is to forget about vi.
What's ^kw again?
Response #54
By: Da Sissop
Date: 2/1/01 5:17:40 AM
/kwit
/aboryt
Response #55
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/1/01 8:58:33 AM
much love sooz, what are the happenings in austin? who is the governor?
Response #56
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/1/01 11:07:21 AM
SOS:
"who is the governor?"
As if it couldn't get any worse, we now have Rick Perry.
I'm sorry, but I just don't get it. Why has calling someone something other than their chosen name become such a big deal?
We all's dun dat for years `round dese parts Tex, and I reckon weez most likely to keep OWN doin' `er.
Raygun
Wush (wimp+bush)
Many, many, many others way too numerous to mention.
So someone please explain to me why all of a sudden that just because someone has gotten sensitive about their hero becoming president that all of a sudden they feel a need to call a moretoruem on "name callin'", just because they feel it's not showing they respect THEY feel this person deserves? Glad that you do feel they are deserving of respect. That doesn't mean you should EXPECT everyone to share your view or your feelings.
Gawd! I am just so SICK of whiners!
(Nice cleansing breath)
Ahhh. I feel better now.
Sure hope the garlic I had for lunch didn't knock anyone over.
:)
Response #57
By: sooz
Date: 2/1/01 1:02:09 PM
Oh, Spas, quit whining.
1. Rick Perry was elected to Leiutenant Governor. People knew that he could become the governor. It's not like there was a coup. He hasn't even done anything bad, so quit whining about him.
2. No one "all of a sudden" thinks people should be called by their names. I was saying that if you want to be taken seriously in an intelligent debate, that the nanny-nanny-boo-boo approach probably isn't going to help your case much.
3. This is an overall thing, if you'll pay attention. I also said that "Algore" wasn't going to help a person's cause. And furthermore, my "hero" didn't get elected to diddly, since my ex father-in-law is quite deceased.
4. Gawd, I am SO sick of whiners!
Response #58
By: sooz
Date: 2/1/01 1:06:55 PM
Oh, and hi, SOS. :-)
Austin's wonderful. Trees, hills, water, air... you know, all the things that Houston lacks. :-)
Response #59
By: The Professor
Date: 2/1/01 7:55:06 PM
Sorry I was having trouble understanding anything (that explains the vi commands that I posted) but I've reset my terminal back to ansi and now everything's clear...
Response #60
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/2/01 4:59:56 AM
Sooz:
"Oh, Spas, quit whining."
_I'M_ whining?
Gee, I must have been paying more attention than I initially thought.
"1. Rick Perry was elected to Leiutenant Governor. People knew that he could become the governor. It's not like there was a coup. He hasn't even done anything bad, so quit whining about him."
Sooz, I don't recall making any other comment other than "As if it couldn't get any worse..." I really don't see as how that is considered whining. The reason I don't like RIck Perry is becasue he's another turn coat bastard. Now is that whining?
"4. Gawd, I am SO sick of whiners!"
Sometimes, you make the set-up SOOOO easy.
Response #61
By: sooz
Date: 2/2/01 6:01:11 AM
I was quoting you, Spas. It was sarcasm. People try to make excuses for rudeness by saying "I'm sick of PI whiners," etc., when in fact, they're just being rude.
I really don't mean you in this case, or anyone in particular. I'm speaking in broad generalities.
So, how come I've never met you, anyway, eh? Are we going to have to go to Katz's for cheescake w/o Homer?
Response #62
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/2/01 6:16:42 AM
Capt. Crybaby says:
"So someone please explain to me why all of a sudden that just because someone has gotten sensitive about their hero becoming president that all of a sudden they feel a need to call a moretoruem on "name callin'", just because they feel it's not showing they respect THEY feel this person deserves? Glad that you do feel they are deserving of respect. That doesn't mean you should EXPECT everyone to share your view or your feelings."
Well crybaby, you must understand that not everyone can be as thick-skinned as us. some people just don't understand that you can have a perfectly good and thoughtful disucussion no matter what you call them, motherfucker. it's just one of those things that some people get and others don't.
It's obvious to me and you, crappin crybaby, that you can call anybody anything you want. you have emotions about somebody, and name-calling has always been a good way of showing clearly how you feel about somebody. but if you're trying to convince sooz that bush is lousy president, you're not going to score any points by calling him "shrub". Does that make sense, faggot?
Response #63
By: sooz
Date: 2/2/01 6:33:32 AM
I'm sorry. I just fell off my chair in a spasm of laughter. SOS is my current role model.
Response #64
By: Roxanne
Date: 2/2/01 8:18:57 AM
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
Response #65
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/2/01 11:37:59 AM
Sooz:
"I'm speaking in broad generalities"
Is that anything like speaking in tongues?
"So, how come I've never met you, anyway, eh? Are we going to have to go to Katz's for cheescake w/o Homer?"
Well, I think we had planned on that once before, about 3 years ago, and something came up at the last minute. I think you and Ritchie were going to play at some place in Georgetown or something? Oh I remember what it was, they didn't serve beer. :) Then I invited you and Homer to the Hole in the Wall on New Years Eve. Homer's truck broke down, and I think you ended up going to SA.
Sack Of Shit...
Opps! I mean SOS. :)
"Well crybaby, you must understand that not everyone can be as thick-skinned as us. some people just don't understand that you can have a perfectly good and thoughtful disucussion no matter what you call them, motherfucker. it's just one of those things that some people get and others don't. "
Dear Sir Ass Bag,
While I agree that many today are WAY too overly sensitive, had they spent so much time molesting collies during their formative years, they would realize that if even someone, such as yourself, with a douche-bag mentality, should at least understand that there is more than ONE perception on the world for one to consider. But of course, that would require them stepping out of the closet that their Uncle kept them in, for those "Special playtimes", to see there is indeed a world outside their own.
Most people don't seem ready for that though.
Further more, you son of Transvestite French Prostitute, I will not NEED to convince you or anyone else that Shrub is a bad president. Time will do that for me.
Rox:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"
Ahh, but what if the names are on the stones?
In light of the recent discussions, I just HAD to pass this on...
Reasons why kids in Texas are happy to see Bush as President:
10. "Hopefully, in four years, they won't be so ostracized for being illiterate."
9. "Texas children realize that their education is not nearly as important as protecting oil money."
8. "The children like having bake sales so they can replace heaters in their schools. It builds character."
7. "Texas children are fully aware that the other children, who are not interested in praying with them, need to be beaten in the streets."
6. "Bush resembles a monkey. Kids always like monkeys."
5. "The much younger kids see Bush as the fifth Tele-Tubby."
4. "Many kids confuse "Trickle Down" with "Heads down, thumbs up.""
3. "The ocean breeze thins the air in Texas, creating a lack of oxygen to the brain, increasing the appeal that Bush has."
2. "Kids think his last name is funny. (In fact, so do I, but I laughed during
sex-ed.)"
1. "Kids always like things that are bad for them, that's why most smokers start when they're teens."
Response #66
By: sooz
Date: 2/3/01 10:00:35 AM
Spas Speweth: "While I agree that many today are WAY too overly sensitive, had they spent so much time molesting collies during their formative years, they would realize that if even someone, such as yourself, with a douche-bag mentality, should at least understand that there is more than ONE perception on the world for one to consider. But of course, that would require them stepping out of the closet that their Uncle kept them in, for those "Special playtimes", to see there is indeed a world outside their own. "
So, pretty much, if everyone thinks like you, we'll all be better off, right?
Response #67
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/3/01 10:11:49 AM
Sooz:
"So, pretty much, if everyone thinks like you, we'll all be better off, right?"
Are you kidding?!!!
I KNOW I'm fucked up.
I'm just not so full of myself that I can't admit it.
Response #68
By: sooz
Date: 2/3/01 5:12:37 PM
I'm pretty sure no one here has ever professed perfection. Mostly, we're more interested in the open sharing fo ideas, I suppose.
Response #69
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/4/01 12:21:29 PM
...unless you call people names. :-)
Response #70
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 2/4/01 9:46:47 PM
I don't know what the hell you people are thinking, but I know *I'm* perfect.
Response #71
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/5/01 5:35:27 AM
Homey:
"...unless you call people names. :-)"
Ahhh, I love the smell of sarcasm in the morning!
Gowan:
"I don't know what the hell you people are thinking, but I know *I'm* perfect."
Doh!
What was I THINKING!!! Sorry Gowan!
Response #72
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/6/01 7:06:48 AM
Capt. Spastic says:
"Dear Sir Ass Bag,
While I agree that many today are WAY too overly sensitive, had they spent so much time molesting collies during their formative years, they would realize that if even someone, such as yourself, with a douche-bag mentality, should at least understand that there is more than ONE perception on the world for one to consider."
Spastic, excuse me if what I'm about to say seems overly explanatory--my ability to detect sarcasm has dropped considerably over the last few years, as jamaicans are never sarcastic, nor do they understand sarcasm. (and i'm not being sarcastic saying this.)
the point i was trying to make in my last message is that name-calling does trigger an emotional response that is not rational. i was hoping that you would see that my calling you names has the initial reaction of making you immediately defensive and wanting to dish out something at me, regardless of the point i was trying to make or the reasoning behind it. i realize what you wrote back was probably in jest, as you are an intelligent person and are bound to have gotten the point. even so, all your name-calling is making me defensive and i want to explain my point so that there are no hard feelings. and there are none, right?
Response #73
By: sooz
Date: 2/6/01 9:20:10 AM
He said "hard" and "feelings". Heh heh, heh-heh-heh.
Susan T. Butthead
Response #74
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/6/01 8:11:36 PM
SOS:
"Spastic, excuse me if what I'm about to say seems overly explanatory--my ability to detect sarcasm has dropped considerably over the last few years, as jamaicans are never sarcastic, nor do they understand sarcasm. (and i'm not being sarcastic saying this.)"
So when you called me Capt. Crybaby, and a faggot, that was not meant a humor? You meant that seriously?
"the point i was trying to make in my last message is that name-calling does trigger an emotional response that is not rational."
Yeah, the emtional response it triggers in me is to laugh.
"i was hoping that you would see that my calling you names has the initial reaction of making you immediately defensive and wanting to dish out something at me."
Which you got. I am guessing that you were expecting anger. Which you DIDN'T get. Sorry to have disaapointed you. Actually, no I'm not. :)
"i realize what you wrote back was probably in jest, as you are an intelligent person and are bound to have gotten the point."
It was written back as a match to what you wrote. _I_ thought that your post was made in the humorous spirit of the discussion. If it wasn't, well, it still works.
"all your name-calling is making me defensive and i want to explain my point so that there are no hard feelings. and there are none, right?"
Ok, so you tell me what the point and the intention of your action in the post where you did your own name calling was.
Response #75
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/7/01 6:01:44 AM
spas, i'm glad you saw the humour of my post, but i'm not sure you got the point. what i was getting at was that it's hard to have a good and thoughtful discussion when one person is calling the other person "crybaby" and "motherfucker." even i get defensive when people call me names, even when i know it's in fun. that's why people talk shit when playing basketball or poker, because even though you know the people don't mean the trash they say, it works up your emotions still. what does that have to do with being closed-minded and thinking there is only one way to think about things, as you replied?
Response #76
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/7/01 11:01:46 AM
SOS:
"but i'm not sure you got the point. what i was getting at was that it's hard to have a good and thoughtful discussion when one person is calling the other person "crybaby" and "motherfucker." even i get defensive when people call me names,..."
I guess. All I know is that when someone starts calling me names, I find it amusing. Esp if you can see they are getting visably angry AND calling you names. See, to me, I find it interesting/funny that people can be insited to anger over things such as a difference of opinion. You say that calling names sparks emotion, and you say that rather autonomously. Honestly, I could care less what you call me. Becasue for one thing, I know that in most cases, people start name calling becaue they are left with few other options to get their point across. For another, it just plaing doesn't bother me, because I know who and what I am. I do not need validation from other sources to legitimize that for me. Sure, I want to be liked, but cool if do like me, cool if you don't. If the opposing party can't see that there will be at least SOME areas that almost everyone will agree with at some point, as well as others they will DISAGREE in at other, then screw `em.
If you KNOW that the trash one is talking in the course of the situations that you name, then WHY indeed DOES it "...work up your emotions still"? To me, I would think the INTENT should matter more than the actual words. Much like many other instances in life. If you call someone something or say something to them in jest, would you want them to get angry at you? If you say something, anything, intended as joke, and someone takes it the wrong way, would you NOT do what you could to clarify it so that they would NOT be hurt? I think most would, because they would want the situaiton be be judged on their INTENT, not the misunderstanding of the outcome. Surely you can't tell me that there have never been times that you have misunderstood what someone said, as opposed to their intent? I'm pretty sure everyone has at some point or another.
The main point I'm getting at is where does it all stop? It's getting so people are getting offended is someone says "Have a nice day" and they don't like the way they said it. It's stupid. If you want to have a country based on the freedom of speech, that means ALL speech. You can't start picking and choosing what and where you want that fredom to be effective. Basically, I look at it like this. Anybody should be able to say anything they want to you, whether you like it or not. If they physically touch you, that's the wrong step to take, and they can expect to have their clock cleaned.
Response #77
By: sooz
Date: 2/7/01 11:59:10 AM
Spas sez: "It's getting so people are getting offended is someone says "Have a nice day" and they don't like the way they said it. It's stupid."
People have never jumped up and down with glee, as a whole, when they were called names. This whole "It's getting so that..." and "In this day and age" mentality is bullshit. People have always been people, and they've always had feelings.
Folks have the right to express their feelings about feeling hurt as much as you do. If you think that's "stupid," that's your right, of course. But how does it help anything to try to get people to suppress emotion?
Response #78
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/8/01 5:41:05 AM
Sooz:
"People have never jumped up and down with glee, as a whole, when they were called names. This whole "It's getting so that..." and "In this day and age" mentality is bullshit. People have always been people, and they've always had feelings."
Ok, but when has it gotten to the point before where laws are being legislated governing what people are allowed to say?
When it starts getting to point that people are brining lawsuits, and WINNING them based on the fact that they "suffered emotional distress" because someone said something they don't like, then things have gone too far. So you got your feelings hurt. Big deal! Get over it like everyone else does, and quit thinkin that you deserve a years salary becasue someone "hurt your feelings" !
I don't have a problem with people expressing their feelings. It's when it has gotten to the point that people think they DESERVE something because someone said something they don't like, that is messed up.
Response #79
By: sooz
Date: 2/8/01 6:45:02 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree.
Did you hear about the woman who had the unfortunate circumstance of physically resembling Monica Lewinsky? A professor at her college insisted on calling her "Monica," even though that wasn't her name. That'd be no big deal, and one could overlook it easily enough.
However, he also made comments to her in front of the class about internship, cigars, and a plethora of other things. She went through the proper channels of reporting this goofball to his superiors, but nothing was done. She sued the professor and the school.
We're in a media and money-based society. Hitting people with bad press and/or a monetary loss works wonders. If this woman couldn't be treated decently by going through the proper channels, what should she have done? Seriously... if you don't think she should have been able to sue for emotional damage, what SHOULD she have done? Let the bullies rule?
--------------
Another question: Do you believe there's such a thing as verbal or emotional abuse? If not, why?
Response #80
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/9/01 7:34:42 AM
Sooz:
"If this woman couldn't be treated decently by going through the proper channels, what should she have done? Seriously... if you don't think she should have been able to sue for emotional damage, what SHOULD she have done? Let the bullies rule?"
No, not at all. IF she went throught the proper channels, reported him, and did all this as she claimed to have done, then that was her only natural, logical next step. I'm just not too quick to believe she actually went through all those steps before slapping them with a lawsuit. People are WAY too quick and eager to sue these days.
Not to mention the fact that I'd be willing to bet that there is a REAL good possibility that she NEVER mentioned to him, herself personally, that it bothered her. That's what my problem is. If someone is constantly making remarks that offend you, here's what you should do, in my opinion.
1. Talk DIRECTLY to the person offending you. (and document EVERYTHING)
2. If step one fails, talk to that person, and their immediate supervisor.
3. If steps 1 & 2 fail, contact the board or HR dept. Usually, this will result in some action of some type. I mean it only makes sense doesn't it? In today's enviorment, it's rarey ever necessry to go anywhere beyond that. Most companies or government entites are too sacred OF being sued to not take action with the person in question over this situation.
Many people will skip them JUST because they WANT to sue. Just like what happened with that guy a couple of years back over the Sienfield episode. That guy should NEVER have lost his job, and that woman should NEVER have even gotten as far with that lawsuit as she did...but she did, and ruined someone's life in the process.
If that's not abuse, I don't know what is!
Response #81
By: sooz
Date: 2/9/01 9:15:24 AM
Spas says: "I'm just not too quick to believe she actually went through all those steps before slapping them with a lawsuit. People are WAY too quick and eager to sue these days."
We're back to "these days". There's documented PROOF that she went through the proper channels. You know, written reports, etc. You're beginning to sound like Dale Dribble, the paranoid guy on King of the Hill.
You automatically assume she's lying, even though there's documentation to prove otherwise. She's guilty until proven innocent, even though she's proven that the university and professor acted wrongly. Did you think I just made up the part about her going through the proper channels? Why would you assume she hadn't?
Response #82
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/9/01 1:02:56 PM
Sooz, in a lot of ways, 'in this day and age' is, in fact, appropriate. It's the 21st century. Things are spinning in very, very strange directions, and you'd have to be blind to the world not to see it. It's true that, generally speaking, human nature is what it has always been, but that same human nature is being pushed towards the limits by the overwhelming flow of information that comes our way every second of every day.
I think that people are generally overwhelmed by what they understand about their place in society, due to this flow of information coming at them. This leads to a fight or flight reaction. I also think that the societal equivalent of the 'fight' reaction is litiguous. People get overwhelmed, their reptile brain kicks in, and they want to sue, because they don't see any other kind of justice out there. This is a distinctly 21st-century reaction to perceived injustice.
In this way, I think people of this time don't really value the richness of human interaction. They don't see the justice that can come from an apology, or from a myriad of other more human, less litiguous sources. In short, people want to tear down, rather than build up, and again, I think it's a sign-o-the times, rather than an eternal rule of human nature.
Now, that said, when I say Shrub instead of Dubya, I say it because I believe the guy is the apex, the pinnacle, the archetype of the very sort of tearing-down non-justice I'm talking about. The guy can do so much better, and please forgive me for holding him to a higher standard than he apparently does.
Response #83
By: sooz
Date: 2/9/01 6:32:45 PM
When I read authors from the turn of the century... the one 100 years ago, I mean... they ranted about the precise same things we rant about here:
* The government is full o' crooks
* Education is going down the toilet
* Kids these days, I'm tellin' ya
* Big government vs. big business
* Certain classes of people aren't treated fairly
* Too much/not enough religion
* Capital punishment - right or wrong?
* Sex... they're having sex EVERYWHERE!
My grandfather-in-law, who passed away last month, was 95 when he moved on. He said that honestly, nothing's changed in 100 years. His parents bitched about the same things his great-grandkids bitch about. He scoffed when people would wave their arms about with the "In this day and age" stuff.
The same gripes are present. Human nature's the same. And apologizing for something you didn't do still doesn't help right any wrongs. If we apologize too often, it'll be kind of like telling your wife you love her... it won't mean anything. :-)
Response #84
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/12/01 5:45:33 AM
Sooz:
"We're back to "these days". There's documented PROOF that she went through the proper channels. You know, written reports, etc. You're beginning to sound like Dale Dribble, the paranoid guy on King of the Hill."
I didn't say there wasn't. I was simply using her as a comparison.
If she did all that, more power to her. She's the exception and not the rule now. As a matter of fact, I believe I even said that if she did that, more power to her.
As republican minded as you are, do you honestly mean to tell me that YOU don't think lawsuit abuse exists?
I mean I am all for justice, at pretty much any cost, and I do believe that if someone has truly been wronged, then they not only should sue, but it's almost their obligation to do so. But common sense should play a role somewhere. If YOU made a poor decision, you should not have the right to sue over it. Take it like an adult a move on. If someone says something that hurts your feelings, but doesn't otherwise due any harm to you, you should not have the right to sue. If a man tells a woman she looks nice, he should not be threatened with jail time, or the loss of his job just becasue she can do that. If he is making unwanted advances to her, nail his ass to the wall. If a man talks about a TV shows and simply mentions the word "Clitoris" there is NO WAY IN HELL he should loose his job over that!
Do you mean to tell me that you would AGREE with these things such as this?
Response #85
By: sooz
Date: 2/13/01 8:09:50 AM
Spas Sez: "As republican minded as you are, do you honestly mean to tell me that YOU don't think lawsuit abuse exists?"
1. I rarely vote republican. I didn't vote for GWB.
2. Of course it exists. Did I say otherwise? I'm actually very much FOR laws getting rid of lawsuit abuse. They harm the courts, waste our time and money, etc.
I said I agreed with the woman that went through the proper channels to get her wrong fixed, and was snubbed. I don't think people's first recourse should be our court system. If you knew me at all, you'd know that.
I have relatives that sue everyone. A woman is suing her own MOTHER. They think attorneys are The Answer. I think they're all nuts.
Response #86
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/14/01 4:56:48 AM
Sooz:
"1. I rarely vote republican. I didn't vote for GWB."
Nooooo, but you are rather conservative minded.
"I'm actually very much FOR laws getting rid of lawsuit abuse. They harm the courts, waste our time and money, etc."
I'm for getting rid of lawsuit abuse, but I don't think there should be laws governing it. I think the system in place works VERY well, IF people would use it. It's called "VOTING". If you see a judge that is pandering to stupid, unfounded lawsuits, don't elect him again.
"A woman is suing her own MOTHER."
Well, I don't know the circumstances, but there are some mothers, parents in general, that SHOULD be sued. Just out of curiousty, why is she suing her?
Response #87
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/15/01 7:03:46 AM
btw everybody i got accepted to law school. who will be the first to congratulate me?
Response #88
By: sooz
Date: 2/15/01 8:36:56 AM
ME! ME! Wahoo! Which law school, SOS? Congratumalations! When can we start the lawyer jokes, huh huh?
Response #89
By: Roxanne
Date: 2/15/01 11:10:20 AM
Nooooo! SOS, you are too sweet to become a lawyer!
Response #90
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/15/01 4:05:48 PM
Too sweet to become a lawyer, too smart not to.
Congratulations, sos!
Response #91
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/16/01 5:30:42 AM
Oh great!
Another lawyer!
Congrats though SoS.
Can an intern scandle be too far behind?
Response #92
By: Da Sissop
Date: 2/16/01 7:30:35 PM
Woowoo SoS! I'd just like you to know, you can always provide me with free legal counsel any time you like. And I mean that. I'm not just saying that.
Response #93
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/20/01 8:10:15 AM
thanks everybody, legal advice is on the house until i pass the bar exam.
btw i haven't actually decided to GO to law school. my other option is to become a licensed massage therapist.
Response #94
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/21/01 5:25:03 AM
I'd go for massage therapist.
You get to touch more semi to totally naked women!
Response #95
By: sooz
Date: 2/21/01 6:36:58 AM
Spas Sayeth: "You get to touch more semi to totally naked women!"
AHA! My buddy Dave is an RMT. I've SEEN some of his clients, and they're mostly not people you really wanna touch nekkid. Ewwwww.
Response #96
By: Roxanne
Date: 2/21/01 8:03:01 AM
"Licensed Massage Therapist" is listed directly under "Legal Career" in the course list for the Sally Struthers school, so I guess that's why SOS is undecided...
*grin*
Of course, you could always be a lawyer who gives massages!
Response #97
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/21/01 11:22:41 AM
"Yes, and just as I advise you to incorporate your business, I also believe you should incorporate more stretching and yoga into your daily routine..."
Response #98
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/21/01 12:33:20 PM
Sooz:
"AHA! My buddy Dave is an RMT. I've SEEN some of his clients, and they're mostly not people you really wanna touch nekkid. Ewwwww."
Hey, different strokes for different folks. Everyone has beauty somewhere.
Whew!
Boy am I relieved to see Rox and Homer after my last post.
I was beginning to get spooked!
Response #99
By: sooz
Date: 2/21/01 3:36:32 PM
But dammit, we didn't see Rox or Homer naked, and we didn't get to put our hands all over 'em.
Susan, basest of the base
Response #100
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/22/01 4:59:33 AM
Sooz:
"But dammit, we didn't see Rox or Homer naked, and we didn't get to put our hands all over 'em."
Damn it!
You are right!!!
Alright Rox, Homer...STRIP!
Response #101
By: Seventh of Seven
Date: 2/22/01 5:07:27 AM
wow, looks like i missed a good snerd somewhere in there...
Response #102
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/22/01 10:25:07 AM
SoS
"wow, looks like i missed a good snerd somewhere in there..."
You wouldn't believe!!
There was more sex than Behind the Green Door, and more carnage than a Cecil B. Demille film!
Response #103
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/22/01 5:05:14 PM
How can I strip if I'm already naked?
Response #104
By: Gowan McGland
Date: 2/23/01 9:10:25 AM
I'm not wearing pants.
Response #105
By: sooz
Date: 2/23/01 10:28:12 AM
Oh, like anyone around here but Jim wears the damned things, anyway.
Where you been, Gowan?
Response #106
By: Roxanne
Date: 2/26/01 9:07:24 AM
Umm,...when can I put my clothes back on?