Posted by Els on 09/05/05 23:15

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?

> 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>

>>>> 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 :-)

>>>>> 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 :-)

> Anyway, "discombobulated" means confused or disoriented.

Which may well be the result from lack of blood pressure in the brain.

> 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.

I think that happens both ways. It's not just women who bore men.

>> 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.

Eeew!

> 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.

> 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.
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).

(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?

"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

>>>>> 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).

>>>> [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 :-)

>> [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.

<g>

>> 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.

Ah yes, but that was before my time I think. Could it be it was about
KDE and some mail program?

> You'd think they'd put up a special forum or something.

Quite.

[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?

>> 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.

> 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.

>>>>> <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!

>>>>> 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?
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 :-)

>>> 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.

>>>> [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 :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

[Back to original message]