Posted by Neredbojias on 09/05/05 13:57

With neither quill nor qualm, Els quothed:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>
> >> Ahem.
> >
> > Gesundheit.
>
> Danke.
>
> > 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.

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.

>
> >> 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?

>
> >>> 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.)

Anyway, "discombobulated" means confused or disoriented. It's not
necessarily so negative a trait and everybody gets that way sometimes.
However, coupled with one or more of the typically feminine
idiosyncrasies with which we are all familiar, it can become a powerful
force allied to the dark side of the human experience. In the milder
manifestation, it might simply engender ennui.

>
> >>> On the other hand, this was somewhat of a vanity on the part of
> >>> the "first psychologist" because any man worth his salt knows what they
> >>> need instinctively.
> >>
> >> I reckon he should have been an inventor; he had too much time on his
> >> hands and therefore started rationalizing what everybody knew already
> >> without a need for words.
> >
> > It sounds to me like you have one giant hang-up regarding the supposedly
> > enormous amount of optional time men hypothetically have at their
> > disposal.
>
> To be entirely honest: no. I merely tried to glue the fallen apart
> topic together by linking a chunk about 'psychology' back to
> 'inventive males'. I really don't mind what men do with their time, as
> long as it's their time, not mine.
>
> > Well, to rectify your conceptual miscegenation, men seldom
> > have "time on their hands." They may have interludes of lesser
> > productivity with something in their hands, but that is an eel on a
> > different reel.
>
> Indeed it is. I wouldn't call that 'lesser productivity' though.
> Different maybe, not necessarily lesser. BTW, when I said 'time on
> their hands', I was /not/ meaning to refer to idle time. Rather
> dedicated time. Which is a good thing too.
>
> >>> This seems to be an irreconcilable point of debate so I shall sublimate
> >>> my current perceptions of same with a discrete non-response.
> >>
> >> Wise choice. And the longest non-response I've ever seen.
> >
> > Men are used to such things which, ironically, seem to occur in times of
> > greatest need.
>
> Not sure what you're saying they're used to; irreconcilable points of
> debate, giving long non-responses, or wise choices? All three?
> I'm guessing you mean that men are used to women giving them
> non-responses especially when men need non-non-responses from those
> same women? Maybe you're right. But if I'd get a non-response when I
> really needed one, I'd force a response.

Your final guess wins the kewpie doll. 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.

And last but not least, ask yourself this question: What would the
world say if a man tried to "force a response"?

>
> >>>>> Men tire easily of droll mental meanderings.
> >>>>
> >>>> You reckon? I thought that's what gives an inventor his ideas.
> >>>
> >>> Inspiration is what motivates an inventor. For example, the guy who
> >>> invented the bra probably wanted nothing so much as to become familiar
> >>> with what his psychological makeup made difficult for him to grasp.
> >>
> >> I think you're quite right about that. If it were really a functional
> >> item meant for support, it would have been a women who invented it.
> >
> > I could refute that
>
> Correct. Cause imo, it was indeed women who invented it, only the
> current form was invented by a man who forgot to patent it.
>
> > 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/2511

After reading that article, I tried Googling for jockstraps but fell
asleep waiting for the responses.

>
> >>> 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.

>
> >> [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.

>
> [time-efficiency coming naturally to men]
> >>> "Efficient" doesn't mean "spartan".
> >>
> >> Ow, I know that, point still holds though. I'm certainly not
> >> time-efficient.
> >
> > Whose fault is that? -Your mother's?
>
> No, don't think so. If it is indeed a fault, I'd say it's mine.

Well, um, er, okay.

> >>> There can be plenty of time to do
> >>> the things you want to do and still accomplish all that is necessary if
> >>> you use your time wisely. Men tend to learn this during puberty by
> >>> multitasking on the commode.
> >>
> >> Ah /that/'s what they call it!
> >
> > Generally I call it a crapper but I try to watch my language when I'm
> > speaking to a dame.
>
> That's how this thread started I think? You calling colourful language
> the 'mystique' of a man.

Actually, it started with some long-forgotten question about some nerdy
html stuff. You'd think they'd put up a special forum or something.

>
> >>>>> I dunno, men can be pretty darn inventive on the spur of the moment.
> >>>>> Just look at the lines they come up with while dating.
> >>>>
> >>>> If those were a measurement of men's inventiveness, we'd still be
> >>>> lighting our paraffin (kerosene for you) lamps every night, if that.
> >>>
> >>> Harrumph, I detect a note of disparagement in your redoubtable rebuttal.
> >>> Or is it a misinterpretation on my part and your just into wax?
> >>
> >> No misinterpretation, sir. Well detected I might say. Not to be taken
> >> personally of course, 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.

>
> 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.

Ah, generalizations are generally so congenially generic.

>
> >>> <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.

>
> >>> 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 for your less-than-subtle intimation that men often respond to
> >>> women's voicings with "She doesn't understand," it may very well be the
> >>> oldest excuse in the book but I doubt it predates the oldest profession
> >>> in the world which succinctly delineates the reasoning of at least some
> >>> of the fairer sex. Would you say such reasoning is conducive to
> >>> promoting confidence in that same sex?
> >>
> >> You really have to ask?
> >> Of course it isn't. Rather the opposite.
> >
> > 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...

>
> >> [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.

--
Neredbojias
Contrary to popular belief, it is believable.

[Back to original message]