|
|
Posted by Neredbojias on 11/23/03 11:43
With neither quill nor qualm, Connie Pierce quothed:
> LOL, I can relate. I am absolutely addicted to my cell phone - not
> because I like to talk, though. Once, when my kids were 11 mo and 4, I
> was driving on a very dadrk, very lonely "country road" when my clutch
> cable broke. I was over 2 hours away from home. Anyway, I had to wait
> on the side of the road, huddled on the floorboards with my kids
> (really dark, really scary - one of the worst places to be stranded in
> those days) for 6 hours waiting for the hubby to come looking for us.
>
> FTR, we huddled on the floorboards to make it seem as if it were an
> abandoned car - that there weren't a woman and two babies left
> stranded. Didn't want to advertise our presence, you know.
And that's within the (conceptual) area where I support surveillance.
People shouldn't feel unsafe in the good ol' USA. However, wiring the
countryside is a bit much. And full-coverage satellite peeping smacks
of "Big Brother", etc. So the best solution is don't let women drive.
:) Sorry, I couldn't help myself. The only real solution I see to many
of these problems is spending more money on law-enforcement. -More
creative and intelligent law-enforcement, that is.
.....
> > Uh, I didn't really think I was "flaming the crap out of" you. I talk
> > to everybody that way.
>
> It felt that way - but bear in mind that I'm a total newbie at this
> Usenet thing. (: Too, I have an AWFUL temper. At least, that's what the
> hubby tells me! ( ;
Husbands are always right.
> > Anyhow, I believe you and one or two others made some comments
> > rhetorically asking what the difference would be if we had video cameras
> > in all public places. I responded by suggesting there would be a
> > difference and it would (not could but would) eventually lead to a
> > severe abridgement of our freedoms as we know them today.
>
> Yes, I agree. I woudn't want them in EVERY public place. But the ones
> that have the highest crime where it could some GOOD, yes. I'd be fine
> with that.
>
> And I wouldn't be fine with one in a dressing room, either! ( ; My
> "sins" should remain a secret! LOL
Interesting. What "sins" do you commit in dressing rooms?
.....
> > Yeah, I agree with you there. The replies are not always as gentlemanly
> > as they could be. And that means "gentlewomanly" as well. There's this
> > one broad, Barbara de Zoete (I think correct sp.) who used to be the
> > biggest bitch you'd ever want to see. Yes, she's better now because I
> > believe enough people told her how she was acting and she realized it
> > herself, but Boy! - in the old daze! The Wicked Witch of the West
> > seemed like Tinkerbell in comparison. I can understand someone being so
> > daunted by frustration that it manifests itself in unusual ways, but to
> > display such behaviour in something as non-intimate as a newsgroup
> > posting...? Of course men can be pissy, too, and I certainly don't wish
> > to display a bias toward the excessively emotional nature of the typical
> > woman.
>
> Ugh, I rarely get along with women. I don't get into the whole
> backstabbing thing. Or the whole vanity thing. And my sense of humor is
> typically more a long the lines of a man's - onee of the reasons I
> thought it was perfectly fine to admit that I thought Hat was funny. I
> liked Sam Kinison, too. And Denis Leary . . . Hat reminds of those
> guys . . .
>
> But as to Hat, he can be pissy, but he's intelligent when he does it.
> Instead of just saying "Fuck you" or "Up yours" he gets clever. And if
> I'm going to be insulted, I'd like it if it was at the very least a
> creative insult. ( ;
>
> That being said, I DO feel sorry for the average schmuck who posts for
> the first time, asking an innocent question. It's rouogh seeing them at
> Hat's mercy. The first time I ever talked to Hat was in my trying to
> defend some poor schmuck Hat verbally reamed. While I still feel sorry
> for the odd joe he attacks, I don't interfere anymore. It does no good
> . . .
>
> But I've been able to talk to Hat off and on, and he's even more
> intelligent when he's being decent. Well, I thnk it's smarter to say
> that it's a different intelligence. The attacking Hat is clever, witty,
> and harsh. The non-attacking (AKA contributing) Hat is thoughtful,
> insightful and wise. Someone once posted that they thought he was two
> people . . . but I maintain that there is one and only Hat. ( ;
But maybe he should have 2 names, like "Hat" and "Cap", for his dual
personas.
> > > Just MHO. And watch, yet again, I'm sure I'll get flamed for it. I hope
> > > you're wearing an asbestos suit. ( :
> >
> > Er, some like it hot.
>
> And some don't. Sometimes, I don't mind being flamed. Miimic pissed me
> off, flaming me a few days/weeks back and I got REALLY pissed off. I do
> that more often nowadays. I used to worry about doing that - worrying
> that I might go too far and hurt someone's feelings. But I'm learning
> more about the Usenet and what's okay. And if you're flamed, I've
> learned it's okay to flame right back.
>
> But still, I thought I should warn you that saying ANYTHING nice or
> reasonably decent about Hat is cause for flaming. It seemed the fair
> thing to do.
>
> BTW, I don't often see your name pop up here - can I ask what your
> "home group" is? Just curios, since you're a designer and I know only
> about 2 designer's groups!
Say what? Mature people don't have "home groups"! Harrumph, the very
idea... Furthermore, I'm not a designer. I'm a Komodo Dragon trainer.
But to answer the question you mis-posed, this is the only newsgroup
that I frequent. I used to hang around comp.lang.javascript, but if you
think the regulars are stuffy here, you should see the jamokes over
there. Not only are they testier than 2 teats on a pterodactyl but they
are often just as wrong as can be. At least our crabs have a decent
batting average.
--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|