 | | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) Doh! Was that my snipping error? If so, I apologize for getting in your face about it. (...) I'll have to watch more carefully in the future--who knows what I'm missing? Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) What you are responding to is some creative snipping. I'm pretty sure that footnote regarding Chicago Hope is from one of my posts a while ago. The person who said that the F bomb has arrived many times already *wasn't* me. (...) Yeah, I was (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) You don't watch TV, but you hear these words on the Simpsons "all the time"? That's a neat trick! On which episode has the F word been used? I'm pretty sure I've seen them all, and I've never heard that. Dave! (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
<snip> (...) The "F bomb" has arrived many times already... I hear F*ck and D*mn and B*tch and B*stard on the Simpsons all the time.... Jameson Robert Gagnepain (URL) 17714608 (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Best selection of parts to mess around with
|
|
(...) First, to answer Christopher-- No, it's not ok-- get into therapy NOW;-) (...) Well, give guys a break, sproat. There are mitigating factors involved, such as the fact that we are genetically programmed to respond in a sexual way to breasts (...) (25 years ago, 23-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
