|
|
 | | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
| (...) What cracks me up is that a woman's nipple is the single most useful item on the breast. It's like, showing a water fountain, but blacking out the nozzle. How did breasts get to be so obscene? IMO, a thong bikini is more obscene (and painful (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet! (...) Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it *is* Todd's sandbox (as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) Well, how about another AFOL acronym- CRAPP- obviously NOT "polite usage." I think that it is a convention thing- defined by the community- in this case, however, since LUGNET is worldwide, I guess the standards are Todd's. So I would tender a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) state; (...) Let me start by saying I think we agree on the meat of the issue. However, I think some people are succumbing to the falacy that in order to exist, something must be identifiable in words, which is surely not the case. I can't (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
