|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 09/06/05 10:47
With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> >>> I was as happy as a coon hound in a
> >>> skunk swamp the day my ex-wife left although I did perform one final
> >>> solemn ritual when I burned her picture in effigy and spread the ashes
> >>> haphazardly around the ring in the bowl of the commode prior to a hearty
> >>> and renewing flush of life.
> >>
> >> She was that bad, huh?
> >
> > Well, in an attempt to boil it all down to a single, overall deficiency,
> > she just wasn't a very nice person. There were times when she could be
> > nice and in certain areas she was even above the norm, so to speak, but
> > the mean of her personality was just that - rather mean. She also
> > seemed to lack a certain sense of decorum that most people exhibit
> > relative to whatever social setting they happen to be in at the moment.
>
> Erm.. you mean she'd burp in an exclusive restaurant or wear high
> heels on a bike ride or something?
Yeah, that's it. No couth and no class. Unfortunately, no character,
either.
>
> > One thing I found pretty funny was that a couple of times she said,
> > "Well, at least we're compatible on an intellectual level." Well, we're
> > not. She had more ego than brains, although I probably should have
> > taken a different tact with her tantrums than I did as well.
>
> More ego than brains.. you're sure she was a woman?
> </ducks>
The Devil Woman from Hell. Perhaps I did something really, really bad
in a past life.
>
> >>>> Btw, it's men who have a lack of blood in their brain cells when they
> >>>> use what they do have. Recipe for discombobulation.
> >>>
> >>> Not exactly. Men are proficient at redistributing bodily fluids for
> >>> their vital purposes and can always take a nap after mating if they feel
> >>> fatigued.
> >>
> >> May I assume then that thinking straight is not a vital purpose?
> >
> > Phffft. Who can think straight when he's got a boner?
>
> Erm.. that's what I meant by saying the blood is required elsewhere so
> the brain can't use it, thus leaving men discombobulated more easily
> then women :-)
Oh, men aren't discombobulated under such circumstances. They simply
osmose into an altered state where as often as not they are able to be
even more single-minded due to the damping of extraneous stimuli.
Furthermore, men have brain-power to spare so a few red cells more or
less probably don't mean as much in the cranium as they do in the
crotch.
>
> >>>>> exhibiting behavior Freud cataloged quite scientifically over a century
> >>>>> ago.
> >>>>
> >>>> And which behaviour would that be exactly? As I've never been
> >>>> discombobulated[1] in the slightest possible way, I have no idea what
> >>>> behaviour would go with that (lack of) state of mind.
> >>>
> >>> Irrationality, petulancy, pettiness, rudeness, inconsideration,
> >>> haughtiness, coldness, vileness, pruriency, and flatulence just to name
> >>> a few. With some thought, most men could make a list several pages
> >>> long.
> >>
> >> Right! Now I'm even more sure I've never been in that state. Ow, I can
> >> say I've at times displayed each single one of those traits, but never
> >> all at the same time. And never combined with discombobulation. Traits
> >> like these are mostly invoked by the male partner's behaviour. Haven't
> >> had to display any of them since my divorce.
> >
> > I just had a horrible thought. What if you're my ex-wife in edisguise?
> > Oh, bummer, bummer. Please say you're not and swear to it on the Holy
> > Bible (unless you're an atheist in which case you can use the phone
> > book.)
>
> I won't swear (says somewhere in that bible I shouldn't, so it'd be
> pretty stupid to swear on that same book), but I'll promise you, that
> if you are not secretly a Brazilian man who hardly speaks any English,
> then chances are I'm not your ex-wife :-)
I'm definitely not a Brazilian. I don't even like their nuts.
....
> > And speaking of your response to
> > the non-response issue, it's easy enough for a woman to "force a
> > response", indeed. All she has to do is dance around in something
> > skimpy, gyrate her genomes a little, and Bingo! She scores! Men,
> > because of their biological makeup, can be overwhelmed by the tactics of
> > most any wily, wicked woman displaying such a concupiscent bent,
> > although they do feel a certain sense of remorse when they've been
> > drinking and sober up.
>
> That's not exactly what I meant by forcing. That is foul play if you
> ask me.
Exactly. But it's far from a rarity and many women consider it normal
behavior.
>
> > And last but not least, ask yourself this question: What would the
> > world say if a man tried to "force a response"?
>
> If you'd use the same force I meant, there would be no problem.
> When you really need an answer, and the partner doesn't wanna give a
> response, tell 'em the consequences. Which should not be any physical
> harm inflicted as punishment, but a logical consequence of that lack
> of a response.
Just as a side note, there is never a legitimate excuse for abusing a
woman (-or a gay person or a nerd or even an Australian.) However, when
you said "force", I took it to mean force not merely steadfastness.
> A bit like women who want their man to say if he loves them. Man
> doesn't know for sure, so he doesn't wanna say it. Woman says she has
> to know very soon, or else there's the consequence: man loses woman.
> Very simple. Very effective (if followed through).
Oh, the humanities! I think I need a beer.
>
> (men who then lie get in trouble later when found out)
>
> [bra invented by man because of 'inspiration']
> >>> but let's just say that when walking along skid row,
> >>> men simply got tired of seeing old hags sag in the wrong kind of bag.
> >>
> >> You'd think that, wouldn't you. But that's not exactly how it
> >> happened. Read up on the facts:
> >> http://www.nzgirl.co.nz/articles/2511cc
> >
> > After reading that article, I tried Googling for jockstraps but fell
> > asleep waiting for the responses.
>
> You're sure you didn't fall asleep before that?
Well <flush> er, ah, um...
>
> "Jockstraps were first developed in the late 1800's to be worn by
> bicycle delivery boys by the Bike Company."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jockstrap
So for the entire existence of the human race minus a little over 100
years, men had no support. No wonder I'm cranky in the morning.
>
> >>>>> Of course. I wasn't accusing *you* of such a base gambit.
> >>>>
> >>>> Somehow this sounds as if I'd be wise to act naive, or stupid to act
> >>>> wise...
> >>>
> >>> If you have to "act", you're acting like a woman.
> >>
> >> I meant the second occurrence of "act" to mean "do" or "behave", not
> >> "act" as in "actress". If there's one thing I don't do, it's act like
> >> something I'm not. Ever.
> >
> > Good point. One time I tried acting like a gentleman and everyone
> > thought I was sick.
>
> See? No use. I probably gave up on acting at the age of one. That's
> when I stopped pretending I could whistle (not a tune, one tone it
> was).
It's a good thing, though. Women are supposed to be the whistlees not
the whistlers.
>
> >>>> [baking cookies vs inventing modern technologies]
> >>>>> Excuse me for being sarcastic in a way not particularly genteel.
> >>>>> It's just that talk about creativity and baking somehow makes me feel
> >>>>> the stove's been on for a lengthy time and I have to get my cookies off.
> >>>>
> >>>> <g>
> >>>> (be careful - they may be hot)
> >>>
> >>> He he he. If you think they're hot, you should see the cannoli.
> >>
> >> No need to spell it out for me, I got the joke the first time.
> >
> > Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuusssssse me! Most
> > gals find a bit of repetition invigorating.
>
> Not when it comes to jokes - I think you've been had :-)
-Many times. And admittedly, some of them were jokes.
....
> [chat-up lines]
> >>>> I'm sure your good self would be quite a bit
> >>>> more inventive than most of today's one-lining attention seekers.
> >>>
> >>> Moi? Nah. Why reinvent the wheel when you can do things in established
> >>> circles.
> >>
> >> I don't believe you. With this obviously artistic way with words you
> >> have, you still use lines like "I haven't seen you here before" ?
> >
> > Huh? I never said that.
>
> So.. what wheel do you spin to chat up a prospective partner?
Well, if she's a dummy, I usually start out with "I like a girl with
brains." If I think she can reason deductively, I mention that I wear
extra large underpants. And last but least, the smart ones are told I'm
a doctor and asked if they've ever experienced the discomfort of a cold,
cold stethoscope in warmest of places. That one's almost fail safe.
>
> >> And then you wonder why it doesn't work?
> >> If a man in a bar asks you why he never saw you there before, it
> >> simply implies that a) the man hangs out there virtually every day (or
> >> weekend), and b) so far didn't have success finding a mate. This
> >> proves that a) he's only after a one-night-stand, or b) there's
> >> something wrong with him, so basically, you don't want him either.
> >
> > Yes, but if a woman in a bar asks the same question, it means a) she's a
> > gold-digging floozy out for bucks and willing to work "undercover" to
> > get them, or b) she contracted a case of syphilis, is going blind, and
> > desperately needs glasses and one for the road.
>
> Indeed. All reasons to avoid that type of woman.
-And the intrepidly unavoidable reason not to.
>
> > Ah, generalizations are generally so congenially generic.
>
> I reckon they should make a law to state that that has to be so. Soon
> enough it will be over with the generalizations' general genericness.
-At least so it's generally generalized in the genuine journals of
geriatric generals.
>
> >>>>> <Misc. irreproachable truisms by Neredbojias snipped>
> >>>
> >>>> I find that hard to believe, really.
> >>
> >> Nice snippage :-)
> >
> > I am oft complimented for my snippage,
> > Though more oft rebuked for my sippage.
> > I do not pass gas nor crassly burp,
> > But, alas, I've been known to loudly slurp.
>
> Not only good with prose, but a poet as well!
-From way back. I've penned o'er a hundred bodacious odes and wrote
some more in pencil. And to wit, some rather notably famous personage
from a bygone era actually purloined some of my best scribblage thereby
committing the unspeakable act of plagiarism, but he shall be nameless
here forevermore.
>
> >>>>> Sometimes you have to view the situation
> >>>>> pragmatically and just do what you do as good as you can do it. (That
> >>>>> could even be why a young male's whizzer is called a "do-do".)
> >>>>
> >>>> That must be an American expression, surely. Never heard it being
> >>>> called that before :-)
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I was hesitant about including that little snippet. Just out of
> >>> curiosity, what do young Australian males call it, -a "willie-wong" or
> >>> something?
> >>
> >> Sounds like a reasonable guess. Can't tell for sure though, as I don't
> >> know any young Australians.
> >
> > Hmm, I thought you were an Aussie. Can't remember why, -perhaps your
> > argumentative nature.
>
> As far as I know, Aussies are generally friendly, outgoing, lively and
> irrepressibly optimistic. Is that what you call argumentative?
No, it's what I call a loaded question. Do you know any Australians
besides kangaroos and koala bears?
> Anyway, no, I'm not Australian, I'm Dutch. That means not Danish, nor
> German. It's the nationality of the inhabitants of the Netherlands.
> Western Europe :-)
I'm an earthling. Not Martian, not Venusian, and definitely not
Centaurian. Certain, uh, creatures call me a wild space jock but I
prefer to think of myself as a geodesic node nestled comfortably on the
back side of an imposing butte.
>
> >>> Hmm, I didn't expect agreement here and am temporarily at a loss for
> >>> words. You're saying then that women's words are to be taken
> >>> salaciously?
> >>
> >> Only sometimes. Not as often as men interpret those words like that
> >> though. Not by far <g>
> >
> > And, of course, men are supposed to be the omniscient mind-readers who
> > *know* when a woman is speaking plainly and when a woman is speaking
> > fainly. Yeah...
>
> You got that right. (well, almost - 'fainly' is spelled wrong)
> It's not like we make it difficult for you to detect the difference
> though. As soon as you make an error, you are corrected. If the error
> is in favour of salaciousness, the correction usually is served as a
> slap. If the error is in the opposite direction, the consequence is
> less sex than you could have had.
Oh pshaw! That's female-thinking of the most chauvinistic kind.
'Thought it went out with the bustle and corset.
>
> >>>> [1] That sure is a funny word, especially when you say it a couple of
> >>>> times in a row.
> >>>
> >>> That's what I thought about "do".
> >>
> >> I agree. I've so far only found one example where repeating the word
> >> 'do' doesn't sound too funny. Maybe 'cause they put some music behind
> >> it and combined it with 'da'.
> >
> > Well, I hope the Camptown ladies sing other songs as well because that
> > one fell off the charts a mighty long time ago.
>
> Didn't know that song. Now I have two examples :-)
Er, what other song has "do da" in it?
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|