PDA

View Full Version : Why Buy Sex?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

xdamage
10-31-2006, 09:58 AM
Kat, I knew there was something I liked about you (OK, this is just one of them). If more women understood this I'd probably still be buying dances from American girls...;)

Seriously, do you really feel like you're inferior (in math if F > M, then it's also true that M < F). I mean I can understand a guy telling a girl this to get into her pants, particularly if she is hot, but come on, how many guys here really feel like they are inferior?

OTOH I like Kat's honesty. I happen to think it's misguided, like arguing that red is superior to blue (my answering being they are just different), but if I'm going to judge people as superior or not I judge based on their accomplishments, not their sex. If a woman accomplishes a lot, she has my respects. If a man accomplishes little, he won't. That works the other way around too.

The funny thing is when a man or a woman argues that their half of the species is the superior half, they are, inadvertently acknowledging there is a difference. OTOH if a sociobiologist argues there is a difference, the radical feminisist will argue the other way, that this is just men trying to hold them back.

Women have more opportunities today then ever to participate in jobs that have traditionally been held by men. The downside for them is they also have less excuses today not to excersize those opportunities. While in the past it was okay to argue that men are holding them back, increasingly that . I know the colleges my daughter applied to are seriously hurting for female students in many departments that are wide open to women (particularly in the science and math departments0, but that apparently, statistically, these jobs hold little interest for women. Hmm, a sociobioligist would say yep, that's because males and females really are different (but they wouldn't say one or the other is superior).

dlabtot
10-31-2006, 10:07 AM
Men and women are like two sides of the same coin.... saying one is better than the other is like saying heads is better than tails.

yoda57us
10-31-2006, 10:31 AM
Seriously, do you really feel like you're inferior (in math if F > M, then it's also true that M < F). I mean I can understand a guy telling a girl this to get into her pants, particularly if she is hot, but come on, how many guys here really feel like they are inferior?

X, I don't feel inferior to anybody. I'm lousy at math...I'm primarily agreeing with Kat regarding her point on feminism and gender equality. The word "superior" doesn't really carry as much weight with me as it may with others. I realized a long time ago that women control more of what goes on in the world and in a man's day to day life then most men want to give them credit for. I don't have a problem with this.Honestly, I don't take it all that seriously.

xdamage
10-31-2006, 10:57 AM
Men and women are like two sides of the same coin.... saying one is better than the other is like saying heads is better than tails.

Exactly. They are different but inseparable



X, I don't feel inferior to anybody. I'm lousy at math...

I don't feel inferior to anyone either, and of interest, most people are pretty lousy at math, so you are in good company.

To me the male and female halfs of the species is what works. That's my evolutionary bias speaking again. Which is to say that if it wasn't for the sexual, and psychological tensions, we wouldn't be here and at best the world would still be full of plant life and singled cell organisms. To argue that one half of the species is inferior is like arguing that the left side of your brain is greater then your right, or vice versa. They are different, true, but one can't exist without the other, and both perspectives are needed.

Where I think both male and female sexists go wrong is in confusing their personal life issues with the big picture. Fortunately the big picture exists regardless of the individual, and what works and has worked for billions of years goes on regardless of how little (or how much) any individual decides to contribute.

Katrine
10-31-2006, 06:10 PM
X, must you always have the last word? The argument is moot. Fun, but moot. We need each other to survive, at least until technology takes that away from us. There was a study done recently:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061019/math_women_061019/20061019?hub=SciTech

Daniela
10-31-2006, 07:12 PM
^ great article Kat

Here's another one for X ;)

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/12/skinner.htm

Jenny
10-31-2006, 07:24 PM
Really, my point had nothing to do with either math or women in any workforce, except exotic dancing, or sex and gender inequality. It was simply that it is not cool to patronize a service, enjoy a service and despise the people who provide it for you. And no reasonable person would see commentary like "you're not doing anything with your life except shaking your ass, so shut the fuck up, stop having opinions, stop examining the world until you become a rocket scientist" as anything but contemptuous. It is not always about the feminists, you guys.

mr_punk
10-31-2006, 07:35 PM
you know, X. she does have a point.

xdamage
10-31-2006, 09:01 PM
It was simply that it is not cool to patronize a service, enjoy a service and despise the people who provide it for you.

I'll leave to your non-stop whining then about customers, you know, the people that patronize your service.

Jenny
10-31-2006, 09:10 PM
^^^
Finally. A gift I can use.

sander8son
10-31-2006, 09:42 PM
^^^
Finally. A gift I can use.

Humphhhhhhhhh, guess i'll just take back those warts i gave you >:(

Jenny
10-31-2006, 10:19 PM
No, baby, that was a luxury. I still appreciate it.

FBR
11-01-2006, 07:05 PM
I'm buying it this weekend. But its been three weeks since my last confession. I'm cutting back ::)

FBR

redhothoney
11-01-2006, 10:11 PM
Once again I will say guys are big stupid dogs & that's why I like taking their money!

FBR
11-01-2006, 11:31 PM
redhot, I only bark after her fourth orgasm. Bow wow. I promise I wont take the money back even though I should.

FBR

xdamage
11-02-2006, 07:44 AM
Once again I will say guys are big stupid dogs & that's why I like taking their money!

You go girl!

Chicagoeditor
11-02-2006, 07:59 AM
I'm divorced. I already paid for sex.

Casual Observer
11-02-2006, 05:43 PM
^ Hehe...

<S> CE

xdamage
11-03-2006, 03:36 AM
There was a study done recently:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061019/math_women_061019/20061019?hub=SciTech

It's an interesting study.

The gene argument is that there are biological differences, but nobody serious in the fields is yet saying that those differences are well categorized, or cannot be overcome on an individual basis. Quite the opposite, since we are talking about statistics over large groups, there is no way to predict how an individual will do, so every individual should be given every possible opportuntiy.

However, there is a common thread in this layman's article and an important set of tests that are missing. Did you see it?

The common thread is that women did better based on the type of information they read first. What is missing from these tests then is the same type of testing performed on men. What we can't tell from this article is over a large set, which group does better despite social/peer influences. Knowing that could make a huge difference. Why?

While it's popular in our culture to believe that people should be coddled and emotionally nurtured, that's not universal. In many cultures it's valid to think that the way to separate out the best from the average is to leave it up to the individual to find self-motivation, to push on because they love their field, or area of expertise on their own steam. And actually to a great degree that's true in our culture as well in many fields. With so many people wanting the "rewards" of a prestigous job, one simple way to separate out those who really want it from those who want to be coddled and carried through it is to put pressure on people, to provide less emotional support and more demands.

What is also missing from the layman's description of the tests is a description of how the articles handed to these women were worded. Why?

A great many people, particularly young idealistic college students, still are growing out of their black-or-white think patterns from childhood.

So there is a big difference between handing them an article that explains that statistically there is few percent difference in performance attributed to genes (semi-factual) vs handing them an article that was written with an intentional all-or-nothing think bias (e.g., genetics have shown us that women do poorly at math, implying "all") which is not what most serious sociobiologists are teaching.

I'm absolutely sure there is a much greater percentage of women that could be successful in areas of science and math. The problem right now though is not that the opportunities aren't available. The problem is that, for whatever reasons, colleges are still experiencing very low enrollment by women in these areas. In fact many colleges are experiencing a decrease in enrollment. And pushing them to enter those fields doesn't seem to work either. But there is a strong indication that women, stastically over large groups, are less interested in spending their whole lives in these fields then men. What does that mean? Hard to be sure, but it may have less to do with the stereotype that "women can't do math" and more to do with "women find math to be boring" (yes that's an over simplification to make a point).

Katrine
11-03-2006, 07:47 PM
Ok, women in countries like Russia, Iran, and China are commonly found in math-oriented jobs, such as engineering and accounting. This is because there is no stigma for them growing up, that they can't do math.

sander8son
11-04-2006, 08:18 AM
xdamage, kat.... wtf does all of that have to do with you two slurping down on my meat stick for $5 each?

lunchbox
11-04-2006, 11:20 AM
xdamage, kat.... wtf does all of that have to do with you two slurping down on my meat stick for $5 each?
IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU!!!

I see you're a couple now, whose the lucky person, rightgina or leftgina?


I kill myself sometimes, really, or at least I want to...

gameover
11-04-2006, 07:15 PM
Ok, women in countries like Russia, Iran, and China are commonly found in math-oriented jobs, such as engineering and accounting. This is because there is no stigma for them growing up, that they can't do math.

No, this is just because they have hair lips :)

xdamage
11-06-2006, 09:46 AM
xdamage, kat.... wtf does all of that have to do with you two slurping down on my meat stick for $5 each?

Well it had something to do with human nature, and Katrine has proven time and time again that she is very intelligent and entertaining to chat or debate with. But in any case, I concede that it's much too far off topic now.

Nicolina
01-27-2007, 02:37 AM
Evolution is not just about what is good for the individual but works for the group as well.c

That is not true, x!!!! Did you miss the whole point of The Selfish Gene, or what????

I know, I know, this is an old thread, and picking fights with you is pointless, because you go on and on and never hear what the other person is saying...but I really believe in the validity of an evolutionary approach to understanding the behavior of humans and other animals, and it irks me to no end when someone who claims to believe in the same thing authoritatively spouts gross misinformation about evolutionary biology!

The idea that individual creatures have evolved to do things for "the good of the species" was long ago discredited--haven't you ever seen the Far Side cartoon of the sly little lemming with the life preserver??

The genes most likely to survive--in any species--are those that belong to the individual(s) who leave the most offspring who in turn survive to reproduce. End of story.

Concepts like game theory, reciprocal altruism, inclusive fitness, and the handicap principle have gone a long way toward explaining behavior that looks like it's done "for the good of the species"...but logically, the evolution of behavior that helps the group at the expense of the individual makes no sense whatsoever. (Jenny, I promise I will PM you about the penguins!!!!!!)

Again--genes survive if they somehow help their possessor produce greater numbers of successful offspring. Basic Evolution 101. Someone who has purportedly read so much Dawkins should know this!

Now, the girl who said that "sociobiology is just a theory" got my blood boiling too...but you guys probably chased her off a long time ago. Ooooooh, I'm so sorry I missed this part of the thread!!!

(Pet Peeve: the word "theory" has a completely different meaning in scientific parlance than it does in a conversational context...but I'll shut up now.)

Nicolina
01-27-2007, 03:08 AM
We need each other to survive, at least until technology takes that away from us.

Or until we evolve the ability to reproduce by parthenogenesis, like that Komodo dragon over on the pink side. :O

Then...you guys are toast.

xdamage
01-29-2007, 07:53 AM
Or until we evolve the ability to reproduce by parthenogenesis, like that Komodo dragon over on the pink side. :O

Then...you guys are toast.

Nah, because hot and likeable robot women will be so advanced by that point that we won't care.

xdamage
01-29-2007, 08:16 AM
That is not true, x!!!! Did you miss the whole point of The Selfish Gene, or what????


Richard Dawkins wrote the "Selfish Gene" in 1976. But in 1982 he wrote the "Extended Phenotype. The long reach of the gene", many years later when he had thought about it some more (or at least differently) and realized that the influence of the genes (the phenotype) extends beyond the "individual" to other creatures, even to the environment.

The problem here is that when the average person thinks of "individual" they think of their own body, their own brain, but gene's don't have any such concept. Since the individual's outcome is completely intertwined with that of the groups, and the environment. Genes don't care that they live in your body or any other body (actually genes don't care about anything, but I'm saying it that way to avoid writing out a lengthy multi-chapter explination). Genes that survive, tend to survive because they work. Genes really aren't even "selfish" - they either work or they don't work or at bare minimum they don't outright fail, but part of what works is what works for the group.

p.s. When Richard Dawkins used the word "Selfish" he didn't mean it as a human feeling of course, he just meant it as the anti-thesis of the human feeling of "altruism". But he knew even then that the genes have no human "feelings" of altruism or selfishness.




I know, I know, this is an old thread, and picking fights with you is pointless, because you go on and on and never hear what the other person is saying...

Reading, and understanding does not mean "agreeing". Likewise lack of complete agreement doesn't mean that you haven't been heard.

xdamage
01-29-2007, 08:35 AM
The genes most likely to survive--in any species--are those that belong to the individual(s) who leave the most offspring who in turn survive to reproduce. End of story.


The problem with that story is it implies it's as simple as having more offspring, but that clearly isn't so. If this was the genes only agenda men would be lining up at sperm banks, and women would spend their lives constantly pregnant. And yet it's not at all the way people behave when it comes to having children. Animals also don't behave this way.

What's important is that genes only survive if the offspring survive, and the offspring doesn't stop growing when it leaves the womb. There is a careful balance between having new offspring, and finishing raising the ones you already have that is optimal. Having too many offspring takes away resources from the others. Having too few, there is a risk none will survive. And beyond a certain age, people and animals tend to have less children even though they could have more. That adds risks of not living long enough to finish raising your children, as well as taking away resources that could be spent on your children's children. So it's complicated.

As for the individual, careful. It's also important to realize that genes don't live in individuals. If your specific combination of genes don't get passed on, it really makes no difference at all since the vast majority of your genes exist in others around you. Your individual survival won't change the outcome of the species. And even across species, the vast majority of the genes are the same. Genes really don't care if any "species" survives.

As for altruism, think about this... which is more likely survive?

a) Genes that have the mother and father feeling concerned about the survival of their offspring.

or

b) Genes that have the mother and father feeling neutral toward their offspring.


If choice a, is that altruism, or is that selfishness? And I think the answer is the question is meaningless. Like which is better, red or blue? I've heard kids argue that very question, but I think the real answer is the question makes no real sense, so any answer is meaningless. Genes are neither altruistic or selfish, but to whatever degree people behave in ways that selfish or altruistic, it's because it works, it survives.

p.s. I think Richard Dawkins was hoping to debunk the concept that people have that they are "altruistic", a human emotion attributed to behavior What he did not mean to do is to teach that people are "selfish", the opposite human emotion. Genes are neither. Sometimes what is good for you is good for me. If you want to view that as altruistic or selfish, you may as well flip a coin, it's just different views of the same thing.

Nicolina
02-01-2007, 09:50 PM
The problem with that story is it implies it's as simple as having more offspring, but that clearly isn't so.

Read what I wrote again: The genes most likely to survive--in any species--are those that belong to the individual(s) who leave the most offspring who in turn survive to reproduce. End of story.

Read the bold-face part one more time.

Why did you devote several paragraphs to explaining that the number of offspring produced by an organism is irrelevant if none of those offspring live to pass on their genes when I already said that?????

Yes, you are 100&#37; correct. If someone has 20 kids but they all die before the age of 12, that person's reproductive fitness is zero.

Yes, reproductive strategies vary greatly among organisms.

Yes, one must always apply a cost-benefit analysis when attempting to understand whether a behavior or set of behaviors leads to optimal reproductive fitness.

Yes, evolutionary analyses are complex and should not be oversimplified.

If you are going to write long posts, ostensibly arguing a point with me, could you at least tell me something I don't already know?? Could you say something that is relevant to the question at hand?

Here was my point: Many non-scientists believe that individual organisms are programmed genetically to behave in ways that help the species survive. This is incorrect, according to the current dogma in evolutionary biology.

If you were to tell me that that isn't what you meant, that you actually were referring more to inclusive fitness & kin selection, or to game theory and evolutionarily stable strategies and studies that have found (for example) that a population in which 40% of individuals exhibit more aggressive behavior while 60% generally exhibit less aggressive behavior is an evolutionarily stable outcome........well, then, I would say, "Oh, sorry, x. I misunderstood. I see that you actually do know what you're talking about, but you just didn't articulate it very well in that sentence."

Likewise, if you were to tell me that actually, I’m wrong, and the dogma has recently been challenged by serious researchers in the field, then I would read carefully what you had to say.

HERE’S WHAT MY EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY TEXT HAS TO SAY ABOUT THIS:
George C. Williams, in 1966, wrote a book called Adaptation and Natural Selection. In it, he “challenged the prevailing endorsement of group selection, the notion that adaptations evolved for the benefit of the group through the differential survival and reproduction of groups (Wynne-Edwards, 1962), as opposed to benefit for the gene arising through the differential reproduction of genes….Within five years of the book’s publication, most biologists had relinquished their subscription to group selection, although recently there has been a resurgence of interest in the potential potency of group selection (Sober & Wilson, 1998; Wilson & Sober, 1994.)”

When you said something along the lines of “evolution cares about the group, too,” I assumed you were referring to the concept of group selection. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Nicolina
02-01-2007, 11:04 PM
The r and K strategies aren't really two opposing strategies, but they are related to creature complexity, and evolution has a direction from simpler to more complex.

Actually, r-strategy and K-strategy are considered two opposing strategies. Although there is kind of a "gray area" between the two strategies, organisms are generally classified as either "r-strategists" or "K-strategists." It isn't really a spectrum thing.

I disagree that "evolution has a direction from simpler to more complex." Vast stretches of time and chance evolutionary "breakthroughs" can allow for the evolution of complexity, but I don't think it's an inevitable outcome. But that's a whole different argument.


....of course genes don't plan that far into the future or give up because complexity has poorer odds. If that was so, then the world will be filled only with simple creatures that reproduce in great numbers...

And that, indeed, is exactly how it was for about the first 3 billion years after the first life forms appeared on earth. Multicellular organisms didn't even arrive on the scene until about 700 million years ago. Just sayin'.

(And this really has absolutely nothing to do with buying sex. But that's what I love about the Blue Side. So there.)

xdamage
02-02-2007, 08:32 AM
Read what I wrote again: The genes most likely to survive--in any species--are those that belong to the individual(s) who leave the most offspring who in turn survive to reproduce. End of story.


What you write is correct, but not really at odds with what I was getting at. My point is that you and I and other people share 99.9&#37; of our genes. Genes survive as long as the group of people that share similar genes survives. Individuals come and go. Genes survive by copying themselves across multiple individuals so if one individual dies, the genes go on in other individuals.

What you are saying is true, but like I wrote to J, current estimates have the total # of human genes at around 30,000, some estimates 2-3x that. If you think about that it's obvious that not all pairs of people generate new genes of interest. 30-90K is a small # as compared with the billions of people having offspring, and the billions before them, and even more interesting that 97% of those genes pre-existed before humans. That means that new genes of interest are rarely successful, and what is more interesting in terms of gene survival is that there are billions of us carrying around copies of the same genes. If a few of us dies, our genes go on. Genes are effectively protected by duplicating many times across many individuals (including across species).



Here was my point: Many non-scientists believe that individual organisms are programmed genetically to behave in ways that help the species survive. This is incorrect, according to the current dogma in evolutionary biology.


Sure, that's not true. Genes don't care about species as such. As I said, we categorize species, but genes don't.*

OTOH, it seems pretty clear now that people and animals do tend to tend to adopt behaviors that are more likely to help others with similar genes to themselves. It's not that they are trying to "help the species". It's that genes that try to protect their own copies are successful (it's secondary that they happen to be of the same species). When you look at animal and human behavior in terms of how they tend to behave toward their own offspring, next their kin, next others who are similar, next others are less similar, patterns of cooperation exist. It's not because the genes are trying to protect "the species" but it does appear that successful genes try to protect themselves in others who carry the same genes.



When you said something along the lines of “evolution cares about the group, too,” I assumed you were referring to the concept of group selection. If I was wrong about that, I stand corrected.

Ah okay, just a misunderstanding then.


*p.s. Another way to think about this... if genes were trying to "protect the species", then genes would suppress successful mutations that have resulted in new species. That clearly isn't so. But successful new genes are rare. Genes do try to protect themselves (metaphorically) and that can look like species protection since other individuals of the same species carry the same genes.

xdamage
02-02-2007, 08:42 AM
Actually, r-strategy and k-strategy are considered two opposing strategies. Although there is kind of a "gray area" between the two strategies, organisms are generally classified as either "r-strategists" or "k-strategists." It isn't really a spectrum thing.


Good points. I was more interested though in what is the optimal # of offspring that makes sense for a group vs R or K strategy, but yea, agreed.




I disagree that "evolution has a direction from simpler to more complex." Vast stretches of time and chance evolutionary "breakthroughs" can allow for the evolution of complexity, but I don't think it's an inevitable outcome. But that's a whole different argument.

And that, indeed, is exactly how it was for about the first 3 billion years after the first life forms appeared on earth. Multicellular organisms didn't even arrive on the scene until about 700 million years ago. Just sayin'.




True.

However I can only look at what has happened, not what might happen. If you read R. Dawkins, the Ancestors Tail, there is no denying that over the long run, billions of years, creatures have evolved that are more complex then their predecessors. Is it inevitable? On a small scale no. On a large scale? I can't be sure. I can only look at what has happened and complexity has increased.

Another way to look at it, simpler things must preceed complex things. I agree the complex things aren't inevitable, but if they are to appear, the simple things must come first. If you believe complexity equates with advantages over simpler things, then that suggests complexity is inevitable.




(And this really has absolutely nothing to do with buying sex. But that's what I love about the Blue Side. So there.)


Agreed ;) So where were you when the initial debate began? LOL

I could have used you as an ally to explain to Kitty that we humans really are biological creatures and it sure does relate to how we tend to behave, and it sure does relate to our drives to have !!!SEX!!!

SportsWriter2
02-02-2007, 02:13 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/2/3/3234a77b42c176b977451d7657e1ed73.png


Lowercase r, uppercase K.

The Verhulst and other algebraic equations for population dynamics can generate continuous values across a spectrum. The question then is whether real world examples supply all the values of r and K needed for spectrum continuity, and how fine the continuity has to be in a spectrum.

An academic argument, really. Good thing Nic has no homework this semester.

Nicolina
02-02-2007, 07:28 PM
^SPORTY!!!!! OMG!!! Where ya been?!????

I'd say I've missed you except I'm mad that you came on just to tell me I'm wrong!!!>:( (I think! you are saying I'm wrong, aren't you? See, I'm too stupid to even know.)

Whatever you crazy math people may say, the real-world, skin-out, field ecology folks tend to classify organisms as one or the other. So there. :P

My semester just started. It's the best semester EVER: Behavioral Ecology, Plant Taxonomy (really Plant Systematics), Human Sociobiology (really Evolutionary Psychology), and Creative Nonfiction, plus a couple other things. So yeah, not too much HW yet. I'm sure I'll have to disappear pretty soon.....

But I'm glad my erroneous statement inspired you to post. (You just can't resist me, can you? ;))

Nicolina
02-02-2007, 08:05 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/2/3/3234a77b42c176b977451d7657e1ed73.png


Lowercase r, uppercase K.

Yes. I should've been more accurate.


The Verhulst and other algebraic equations for population dynamics can generate continuous values across a spectrum. The question then is whether real world examples supply all the values of r and K needed for spectrum continuity, and how fine the continuity has to be in a spectrum.


Oh, okay. I got so excited to see you here that I didn't really read it carefully. I see what you're saying. (I think.) I still think that, spectrum or no, in real world terms, it's fairly easy to decide if an organism is r-selected or K-selected. (What percentage of known organisms fall into some "gray area" in between is an interesting question, though.)

(What does that curve look like? Is it logistic? Sigmoid? See, this is why you won't catch me taking Population Biology if I can help it!)

FBR
02-02-2007, 09:04 PM
Sporty, where the hell you been? Did you get married or perhaps get trapped in some bondage cheerleader dungeon for the last six months or so? Damn. Good to see ya back though ;D

Nic I gotta say...your posts give me wood that would challenge a well sharpened Stihl chainsaw :P Well, I take that back...TOO probably owns Stihl. But seriously, the back and forth in this thread has been fun to read.

FBR

FBR
02-02-2007, 09:19 PM
So, it's just me who thinks that the big eyes and cute tiny feet are the only things preventing people from eating their babies in times of famine?

Got to see my 4 month old grandaughter today. Has been a week so it was very enjoyable. She does have big brown eyes but her feet are far from tiny for her age. She takes after my son. But like always she grabbed my beard with her tiny hands and gave me a smile consisting of two lower teeth and a lot of gums. Cannibalism was the furthest thing from my mind.

FBR

xdamage
02-02-2007, 10:56 PM
Whatever you crazy math people may say, the real-world, skin-out, field ecology folks tend to classify organisms as one or the other. So there. :P


Now there you go. That's the spirit Nic. Always question and prod and poke and push at what you learn. Better to question (and be wrong) then to take everything taught at face value. I happen to agree there is something to what you are saying, but would have to spend more time then I have the patience for right now to prove it.

Nicolina
02-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Nic I gotta say...your posts give me wood that would challenge a well sharpened Stihl chainsaw Well, I take that back...TOO probably owns Stihl. But seriously, the back and forth in this thread has been fun to read.FBR

:blush: Thanks, FBR! I thought you didn't love me no more when you shut down that thread on me after I very first started posting again. :-\

I figure everyone pretty much runs for the hills when I start dragging out my textbooks....I'm glad to know that a few hardy souls, at least, aren't rolling their eyes and scrolling as fast as they can.

It actually helps me learn this stuff, though, when I try to summarize it in a readable post. So I feel like it's not really such a terrible waste of time, even if nobody ever reads it. But I thank all those who are willing to wade through and challenge, question, or comment. :)


Did you get married or perhaps get trapped in some bondage cheerleader dungeon for the last six months or so?

yeah. my money's on that last one. :D

FBR
02-03-2007, 01:08 AM
:blush: Thanks, FBR! I thought you didn't love me no more when you shut down that thread on me after I very first started posting again. :-\ Im sure the damage was collateral. I enjoy your posts.



yeah. my money's on that last one. :D

Cant help it. Having visions of Sporty chained up on the wall with cheerleaders tickling his privates with pom poms.

FBR

lunchbox
02-06-2007, 04:16 PM
So, it's just me who thinks that the big eyes and cute tiny feet are the only things preventing people from eating their babies in times of famine?
I thought it was the chubby wrists.


Cant help it. Having visions of Sporty chained up on the wall with cheerleaders tickling his privates with pom poms.
I used to think I was a dirty old man...

He has internet access, and can work the mouse with his left foot. So you can spot him online, lurking quite often. He only gets use of his hands once in a blue moon.

FBR
02-07-2007, 08:10 PM
I'm a retard. I had to google deux ex machina LOL

FBR

FBR
02-07-2007, 08:44 PM
Jay, I appreciate that but to be honest I couldnt remember the exact definition even though Ive seen the expression deus ex machina used many times. Googling it refreshed my memory. And I agree...Sportys post did just that :)

FBR