Ex-girlfriend wants photos back?
John Hatpin
http://www.snopes.com/love/revenge/photo.asp
... which gives various variations on a meme: girlfriend splits with
boyfriend by mail (he's in another town or overseas), and requests the
return of a photograph he has of her. The joke is that he sends her
loads of photos of other women along with her own photo and an
explanation that he's not sure which is which, so please pick hers out
and return the rest.
Now, what puzzles me is why a woman (and it's always a woman in those
stories) would want her photo back from an ex-boyfriend during a
split.
When I split from one girlfriend, she did the same thing. It was
quite unusual, and I remember being puzzled. She wanted to take home
all of my photos that had her in them. I was too upset to object - it
all happened within a couple of hours - and watched as she went
through my photo albums removing all photos with her visible and
packing them away in her suitcase before leaving on the next train.
This wasn't vitriol - we were calm about it. She wanted to remain
friends, but I couldn't deal with that, so we broke off all contact
mutually a few days later.
Bear in mind: (1) this was long before the days of the internet; (2)
there were no porno shots or anything, just basic pictures; (3) some
were pictures of the two of us, some with friends, some just of her.
So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
Mary
>
> So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
> want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
> similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
> her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
> necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
I don't get it either. I don't think I would have let her have my photo
albums if I'd been you. Not that I want to start a fight or anything,
but my photos are mine.
Mary
John Hatpin
Under the circumstances, I was too heartbroken to even think about it,
and just let her take them away without a word of disagreement. I
wasn't bothered about the photos leaving; I was bothered about her
leaving.
These days, it's sad that I haven't got much in the way of a record of
that pretty girl I used to date. I don't even know where the
negatives are.
Veronique
In college, I didn't have any really great photos of myself except for
my senior ID card. So when I graduated, I gave my (then)-boyfriend
that. I subsequently realized we weren't meant for each other and
since the ID card was a part of my history and memorabilia, I asked
for it back. He refused.
He then began to stalk me, and I eventually moved cross country
without a forwarding address. He mailed a letter to my parents' house,
asking it to be forwarded. It was. Inside the letter was my ID,
shredded with a razor blade into teeny-tiny strips.
In these days of digital photos and reproduction, I doubt that a photo
has such a unique value. But IME, the sorts of men who refuse to
return photos when requested are exactly the sorts it is a good idea
to keep a good distance from.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Mary
Well, okay, that's a different perspective. It's a different situation
though too - what I meant was, the photos that I _take_ are mine. You'd
given this guy that picture. It was yours to start with, if you see
what I mean.
Would you have felt the same way about a picture that he'd taken?
It might not have changed the stalking bit (ick, that must have been
nasty) but I think the principle's a little different.
Mary
John Hatpin
>In college, I didn't have any really great photos of myself except for
>my senior ID card. So when I graduated, I gave my (then)-boyfriend
>that. I subsequently realized we weren't meant for each other and
>since the ID card was a part of my history and memorabilia, I asked
>for it back. He refused.
>
>He then began to stalk me, and I eventually moved cross country
>without a forwarding address. He mailed a letter to my parents' house,
>asking it to be forwarded. It was. Inside the letter was my ID,
>shredded with a razor blade into teeny-tiny strips.
An extreme example! My goodness. That's shocking.
Maybe I should clarify that, in my case, it was photos I'd taken using
my camera and my film, mounted in my own albums along with other
photos of other people and places. She had her own camera, and took
her own photos throughout our relationship.
>In these days of digital photos and reproduction, I doubt that a photo
>has such a unique value.
Well, these days I suppose there's the worry that someone might get
upset and stick JPEGs on the internet as a form of revenge or
something. But, as you say, you can't exactly ask someone to return a
copy of a digital photo.
>But IME, the sorts of men who refuse to
>return photos when requested are exactly the sorts it is a good idea
>to keep a good distance from.
Well, in your experience it's certainly understandable!
Veronique
No, of course not. And I didn't ask for anything other photos...I
can't really imagine asking (as in John's example) for photos we'd had
taken together or anything.
>
> It might not have changed the stalking bit (ick, that must have been
> nasty) but I think the principle's a little different.
I think it all kind of went together, the stalking and refusing to
return, then destroying my picture: evidence of a damaged mind or
something.
V.
Dover Beach
news:1184531021.1...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> He then began to stalk me, and I eventually moved cross country
> without a forwarding address. He mailed a letter to my parents' house,
> asking it to be forwarded. It was. Inside the letter was my ID,
> shredded with a razor blade into teeny-tiny strips.
>
Oh, eek! Yikes.
I have pictures of all but one of my exes; that one was obsessed with
aging and didn't want any pictorial evidence that he had once been
younger than $Today's_date. They had pictures of me, which they may
have tossed over the last decades, but I never asked for them back. It
wouldn't occur to me, actually.
My husband still has his wedding ring from his first marriage in a
drawer in the guest bedroom. I don't think there's anything wrong with
keeping mementos of old relationships, even if they went Horribly Awry.
--
Dover
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
> want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
> similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
> her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
> necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
Camera catches part of someone's soul, which is
transferred to the photo.
Veronique
Yeah, I have photos of various guys I've been with through the years,
and I'm sure some of those guys probably still have photos of me. I
just was just telling my story of asking for a photo back.
John Hatpin
So, once the ex-girlfriend takes the photo back to her place, what
dark and arcane rites and rituals does she perform to reabsorb the
portions of her soul previously hidden within the photo?
I'd guess it's something to do with crystals. Yep, it's got to be
crystals. And pyramids. Pyramidic crystals! And chants!
But does it work with photos stored on hard drives, SD cards, CDs and
so on? My soul needs to know.
Dover Beach
news:1184532845....@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
Of course. And it's really a larger story about being stalked. Sounds
very scary and creepy.
--
Dover
HVS
-snip-
> So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship
> would want the other partner's photos?
Amateur psychologist says "to control the fate of all recorded
evidence of the relationship, either for holding or for destroying".
--
Cheers,
Harvey
John Hatpin
>On 15 Jul 2007, John Hatpin wrote
>
>> So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship
>> would want the other partner's photos?
>
>Amateur psychologist says "to control the fate of all recorded
>evidence of the relationship, either for holding or for destroying".
In other words, "to get the photos for some reason or other"?
Jerry Bauer
(in article <e80l93pr9j1oa5erh...@4ax.com>):
> These days, it's sad that I haven't got much in the way of a record of
> that pretty girl I used to date. I don't even know where the
> negatives are.
The negatives are that you miss the positives.
--
Jerry "Are you sure?" Bauer
HVS
Not really "some reason or other" -- more "to exercise exclusive
control over shared aides-memoires".
--
Cheers,
Harvey
Bill Turlock
Not very clever of her not to insist on taking the negs, too
Bill Turlock
Heh. I had incredibly compromising nude (and more) photos of an
ex g.f. I burned them and the negs, just so she wouldn't have to
worry about them. She then lied to the vice squad about me
anyway. Doesn't matter, I guess, (except for that ten years out
of my life), I got my scruples and no one can take that away.
Bill "that's the kind of SOB I am" Turlock
Bill Turlock
Curiously, I've know women who would do virtually anything in
front of a still camera, but refused video as somehow invasive.
John Gilmer
> In college, I didn't have any really great photos of myself except for
> my senior ID card. So when I graduated, I gave my (then)-boyfriend
> that. I subsequently realized we weren't meant for each other and
> since the ID card was a part of my history and memorabilia, I asked
> for it back. He refused.
>
>
> He then began to stalk me, and I eventually moved cross country
> without a forwarding address.
You just made the case for observing the "custom" of returning "stuff" when
the relationship is over.
If I can find the book, I will look in up in my "Miss Manners" book but I'm
sure she is of the "Return the Ring, Return the Photos" school.
John Gilmer
> These days, it's sad that I haven't got much in the way of a record of
> that pretty girl I used to date. I don't even know where the
> negatives are.
That's why women want pictures back and often return pictures of you. They
don't want you to be dwelling on her and she doesn't want to dwell on you.
It's also a reason why "office romances" have a bad reputation: the break
isn't "clean."
Frankly, I think it's a good idea.
My grandmother (mom's side) would "put away" pictures of those who died.
It's a good way of putting sad memories behind.
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>>
>> These days, it's sad that I haven't got much in the way of a record of
>> that pretty girl I used to date. I don't even know where the
>> negatives are.
>
>Not very clever of her not to insist on taking the negs, too
To be fair, at the time she was as upset as I was about the whole
splitting-up thing, and probably hadn't thought about that.
Nor had I, to be fair.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
Perhaps the sign "Hatpin: Witch Doctor in residence" over the doorway
had something to do with it.
Hank Gillette
"John Gilmer" <gil...@nni.com> wrote:
> My grandmother (mom's side) would "put away" pictures of those who died.
> It's a good way of putting sad memories behind.
And yet around the turn of the last century, it was very popular to take
pictures of the (recently) deceased.
I'd never get rid of or put away the pictures I have of my mother.
--
Hank Gillette
"Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now
for Congress and ultimately the American people." -- Archibald Cox
Hank Gillette
"John Gilmer" <gil...@nni.com> wrote:
> If I can find the book, I will look in up in my "Miss Manners" book but I'm
> sure she is of the "Return the Ring, Return the Photos" school.
But keep the negatives.
Ulo Melton
>In article <T5GdnQeL-vgcdgfb...@nni.com>,
> "John Gilmer" <gil...@nni.com> wrote:
>
>> My grandmother (mom's side) would "put away" pictures of those who died.
>> It's a good way of putting sad memories behind.
>
>And yet around the turn of the last century, it was very popular to take
>pictures of the (recently) deceased.
I've seen that done in the more recent past. Not formal posing of the
corpse, as was done in ye olden days, but quick snapshots of the
departed lying in the narrow house. It always seemed slightly creepy to
see people photographing a dead body, but funerals are kind of creepy by
nature, so what the hey.
>I'd never get rid of or put away the pictures I have of my mother.
I think putting away pictures may have been a temporary move, until the
survivors felt strong enough to bring them out again.
--
Ulo Melton
http://www.sewergator.com - Your Pipeline To Adventure
"Show me a man who is not afraid of being eaten by an alligator
in a sewer, and I'll show you a fool." -Roger Ebert
Mary
>
> I've seen that done in the more recent past. Not formal posing of the
> corpse, as was done in ye olden days, but quick snapshots of the
> departed lying in the narrow house. It always seemed slightly creepy to
> see people photographing a dead body, but funerals are kind of creepy by
> nature, so what the hey.
Leroy. I don't like open-casket funerals. I don't want people
peering at my deceased corpse; and I don't want them taking photos of
me dressed up like a dead store mannequin.
There were a bunch of people taking pictures of my MIL at her funeral
and I was very, very creeped out. My mother (who is terminally ill
with cancer) has already asked to be cremated and that the memorial
service not resemble a funeral at all. She doesn't belong to a church
and isn't religious, so the memorial will be a celebration of her life
in their community's clubhouse.
> >I'd never get rid of or put away the pictures I have of my mother.
>
> I think putting away pictures may have been a temporary move, until the
> survivors felt strong enough to bring them out again.
Photos of people that I won't see again are not a source of pain to
me. To the contrary, I find them to be a source of solace.
Mary
N Jill Marsh
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>Now, what puzzles me is why a woman (and it's always a woman in those
>stories) would want her photo back from an ex-boyfriend during a
>split.
>
>When I split from one girlfriend, she did the same thing. It was
>quite unusual, and I remember being puzzled.
>So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
>want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
>similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
>her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
>necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
I'm not all that sure why you went from unusual to common in your
description of it. I've never heard of that before, ever, though I
have heard of various weird photo behaviours, such as destroying
photos of the dumper, or new partners insisting on destruction of
photos of the old, that sort of thing.
nj"doesn't consider it uncommon because of lack of experience,
though"m
--
"I do not rhyme to that dull elf
Who cannot imagine to himself..."
John Hatpin
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:04:35 +0100, John Hatpin
><RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>>Now, what puzzles me is why a woman (and it's always a woman in those
>>stories) would want her photo back from an ex-boyfriend during a
>>split.
>>
>>When I split from one girlfriend, she did the same thing. It was
>>quite unusual, and I remember being puzzled.
>
>>So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
>>want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
>>similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
>>her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
>>necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
>
>I'm not all that sure why you went from unusual to common in your
>description of it.
It's unusually common. That's an oxymoron! Hey, semantics. I meant
unusual in a personal perceptive sense ("why do they do that"?) but
common in the more general sense of being done a lot.
>I've never heard of that before, ever, though I
>have heard of various weird photo behaviours, such as destroying
>photos of the dumper, or new partners insisting on destruction of
>photos of the old, that sort of thing.
Photos of the dumper? What's that all about?
The new partners getting rid of their new SO's photos of their own
previous SOs is more understandable, though, even if my sentence
structure isn't.
OK, I'll come up with a hypothesis:
1. This came to me when I was reminded by your post about a common
trait in animals (I think lions are one example) - when a female
acquires a new mate, he eats any of her babies lying around. In this
way, he makes sure that the female will devote her resources to his
own offspring.
2. Flip this 180 degrees, and consider a female leaving a male, in a
general sense. She'll want to take her offspring with her, because
she's already invested a lot of her resources in them - pregnancy,
lactation, etc. Less important for the father, because he's invested
less resources, ie sperm and maybe a bit of hunting and protection.
(We're not talking about humans specifically yet, not even mammals.)
3. So, what have photos of a couple got to do with child custody?
Well, material possessions are a recent development in human history,
and prior to that, the only possessions were children. In a human
relationship, photographs that symbolise time spent together are,
psychologically, miniature children, and treated as such during a
breakup.
So, the possession of photos - custody, if you like - reflects the
behaviour of parents towards the offspring of their own, or others,
children from other relationships.
Now, that's pop psychology for you, isn't it? Real finger-in-the-air
rubbish. But sometimes it's fun to think about things, however
fatuous.
Bill Turlock
Desmond Morris-ey, but I kinda buy it.
N Jill Marsh
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 21:04:35 +0100, John Hatpin
>><RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>When I split from one girlfriend, she did the same thing. It was
>>>quite unusual, and I remember being puzzled.
>>
>>>So, can anyone explain why someone terminating a relationship would
>>>want the other partner's photos? It's never occurred to me to do a
>>>similar thing, and Marianne certainly doesn't mind my having photos of
>>>her. Nevertheless, it seems to be a common response, and not
>>>necessarily done out of anger. I don't get it.
>>
>>I'm not all that sure why you went from unusual to common in your
>>description of it.
>
>It's unusually common. That's an oxymoron! Hey, semantics. I meant
>unusual in a personal perceptive sense ("why do they do that"?) but
>common in the more general sense of being done a lot.
Is it done a lot, though? It happened once to you, and I think a
couple of other people have mentioned it, but no one seems to be going
"oh yeah, the old give me all pictorial representations of me! thing"
and I've never heard of it and so I'm wondering who has the lacuna?
Huh, that sounds like a game...
>>I've never heard of that before, ever, though I
>>have heard of various weird photo behaviours, such as destroying
>>photos of the dumper, or new partners insisting on destruction of
>>photos of the old, that sort of thing.
>
>Photos of the dumper? What's that all about?
Oh, you know, burning pictures of the person who did the dumping, or
cutting out the face of the cheater in group pictures, kooky stuff
like that. I guess some people find it therapeutic.
>OK, I'll come up with a hypothesis:
>
>1. This came to me when I was reminded by your post about a common
>trait in animals (I think lions are one example) - when a female
>acquires a new mate, he eats any of her babies lying around. In this
>way, he makes sure that the female will devote her resources to his
>own offspring.
Not my post. And I don't think that's why the boy lion does that. He
does that because babies that he's not familiar with from birth stink
like notus, so he kills them, because he's not all that crazy about
babies anyway, they're squally, they eat you out of house and home,
they sneak up and ruffle your mane when you're trying to look
majestic, that sort of thing. No boy lion is considering wise
devotion of resources when he takes out those little bastards, he's
thinking about 2 PM feedings. The queen going into heat is probably
not the sort of cause and effect he's dwelling upon.
>Now, that's pop psychology for you, isn't it? Real finger-in-the-air
>rubbish. But sometimes it's fun to think about things, however
>fatuous.
Anyway, it would have been fairly funny rubbish if I hadn't got all
stuck on the annoying lion babies.
nj"and next on "WHO HAS THE LACUNA?" the death-match!"m
Estron
"I want you to come on, come on, come on, come on and
Take it! Take another little piece of my soul now, baby
Take another little bit of my soul now, darling, yeah. (come on)
Hey! Have another little piece of my heart now, baby, yeah.
You know you can take it, if it makes you feel good . . . ."
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@kc.rr.com
Kansas City, Missouri
Dover Beach
news:22rn931o27lq1qcl0...@4ax.com:
>
> nj"and next on "WHO HAS THE LACUNA?" the death-match!"m
I have a hiatus and a void. Can I play?
--
Dover
John Hatpin
>On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:57:42 +0100, John Hatpin
><RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>>It's unusually common. That's an oxymoron! Hey, semantics. I meant
>>unusual in a personal perceptive sense ("why do they do that"?) but
>>common in the more general sense of being done a lot.
>
>Is it done a lot, though? It happened once to you, and I think a
>couple of other people have mentioned it, but no one seems to be going
>"oh yeah, the old give me all pictorial representations of me! thing"
>and I've never heard of it and so I'm wondering who has the lacuna?
I dunno. Do I get another go at rephrasing?
"It's more common than I expected, and I find it unusual". Howzat?
>>Photos of the dumper? What's that all about?
>
>Oh, you know, burning pictures of the person who did the dumping, or
>cutting out the face of the cheater in group pictures, kooky stuff
>like that. I guess some people find it therapeutic.
Ah! I thought you meant photos like this:
http://www.elph.com.au/thiesspl.jpg
Seriously, I hadn't thought of the word in the context you meant,
which is so plain now.
>>OK, I'll come up with a hypothesis:
>>
>>1. This came to me when I was reminded by your post about a common
>>trait in animals (I think lions are one example) - when a female
>>acquires a new mate, he eats any of her babies lying around. In this
>>way, he makes sure that the female will devote her resources to his
>>own offspring.
>
>Not my post.
Yes, it was. Again, my sentence structure lets me down, and I'll try
again.
"This came to me when I was reminded (by your post) about a ..."
Not: "I was reminded (by your post about a...)"
Sheesh, I should go back to school! There was any number of ways I
could have avoided that ambiguity, but I didn't spot it.
Longer version: your post got me thinking, and I remembered reading
something by Dawkins about the killing-the-previous-husband's-kids and
how it makes sense in terms of genetics. The flight of fancy about
photos being ersatz kids took off from there.
>And I don't think that's why the boy lion does that. He
>does that because babies that he's not familiar with from birth stink
>like notus, so he kills them, because he's not all that crazy about
>babies anyway, they're squally, they eat you out of house and home,
>they sneak up and ruffle your mane when you're trying to look
>majestic, that sort of thing. No boy lion is considering wise
>devotion of resources when he takes out those little bastards, he's
>thinking about 2 PM feedings. The queen going into heat is probably
>not the sort of cause and effect he's dwelling upon.
An interesting hypothesis. But in my studies, I have found that male
lions don't tend to kill their own offspring, just those of others[1]
when possible.
[1] Source: Disney, "The Lion King", 1994
>>Now, that's pop psychology for you, isn't it? Real finger-in-the-air
>>rubbish. But sometimes it's fun to think about things, however
>>fatuous.
>
>Anyway, it would have been fairly funny rubbish if I hadn't got all
>stuck on the annoying lion babies.
Aw, but lion cubs is cute! (Fixed pitch ahead.)
__________________________________________________________________
I'M IN UR PATCH OF SAVANAAH, MOMMY ...
, __, ,
_.._ )\/(,-' (-' `.__
/_ `-. )'_ ` _ (_ _.---._
// \ `-. ,' `-. _\`. `.,' ,--.\
// -.\ ` `. \`. `/ ,' ||
|| _ `\_ ___ ) ) \ /,-' ||
|| `---\ ,'__ \ `,' ,--. \/---. //
\\ .---`. / / | | |,-.\ |`-._ //
`..___.'| \ |,-| | |_ )||\___//
`.____/ \\\O| | \o)// |____/
/ `---/ \-' \
| ,'|,--._.--') \
\ / `n n'\ /
`. `< .::`-,-'::.) ,'
`. \-.____,^. /,'
`. ;`.,-V-.-.`v'
\| \ ` \|\
; `-^---^-'/
`-.______,'
... GETTIN RIPPED 2 SHREDZ BY UR NEW BOYFREND
N Jill Marsh
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>And I don't think that's why the boy lion does that. He
>>does that because babies that he's not familiar with from birth stink
>>like notus, so he kills them, because he's not all that crazy about
>>babies anyway, they're squally, they eat you out of house and home,
>>they sneak up and ruffle your mane when you're trying to look
>>majestic, that sort of thing. No boy lion is considering wise
>>devotion of resources when he takes out those little bastards, he's
>>thinking about 2 PM feedings. The queen going into heat is probably
>>not the sort of cause and effect he's dwelling upon.
>
>An interesting hypothesis. But in my studies, I have found that male
>lions don't tend to kill their own offspring, just those of others[1]
>when possible.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned "babies that he's not familiar with from
birth" stinking so badly of foreignness. I assume that lions don't
have access to easy to use without opposable thumbs DNA testers, so
they have to differentiate the icky babies from their own sprogs, I'm
assuming that's because their own is round and about from the first,
whereas the previous male's ones are already there, looking shifty.
Actually, I don't know how common that eating babies thing is, or for
that matter, how common mixing the little buggers up is, those cubs
all looks alike to me, but I'm bigoted that way.
nj"crosses to bear"m
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
Gaps are trump!
nj"I'll raise you a space and call TRIVIUM!"m
John Hatpin
>On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:19:00 +0100, John Hatpin
><RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>
>>N Jill Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>And I don't think that's why the boy lion does that. He
>>>does that because babies that he's not familiar with from birth stink
>>>like notus, so he kills them, because he's not all that crazy about
>>>babies anyway, they're squally, they eat you out of house and home,
>>>they sneak up and ruffle your mane when you're trying to look
>>>majestic, that sort of thing. No boy lion is considering wise
>>>devotion of resources when he takes out those little bastards, he's
>>>thinking about 2 PM feedings. The queen going into heat is probably
>>>not the sort of cause and effect he's dwelling upon.
>>
>>An interesting hypothesis. But in my studies, I have found that male
>>lions don't tend to kill their own offspring, just those of others[1]
>>when possible.
>
>Yeah, that's why I mentioned "babies that he's not familiar with from
>birth" stinking so badly of foreignness. I assume that lions don't
>have access to easy to use without opposable thumbs DNA testers, so
>they have to differentiate the icky babies from their own sprogs, I'm
>assuming that's because their own is round and about from the first,
>whereas the previous male's ones are already there, looking shifty.
Sorry - I missed the meaning of "smells of notus". I thought you were
referring to some kind of evil-smelling tacos or something.
"Hey, Gringo - you don't want to eat our delicious notus? They're
fresh - we caught the fish just last month!"
>Actually, I don't know how common that eating babies thing is, or for
>that matter, how common mixing the little buggers up is, those cubs
>all looks alike to me, but I'm bigoted that way.
I'm sure the lionesses can tell from visual cues: "He's got my deep
blue eyes, and my nose, and he's got your habit of lying down all day
in the shade. Must be ours."
John Hatpin
>On 16 Jul 2007 22:56:50 GMT, Dover Beach <moon.b...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote in
>>news:22rn931o27lq1qcl0...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> nj"and next on "WHO HAS THE LACUNA?" the death-match!"m
>>
>>I have a hiatus and a void. Can I play?
>
>Gaps are trump!
>
>nj"I'll raise you a space and call TRIVIUM!"m
Damn, I've only got chasms. Hit me, banker.
Lisa Ann
news:18tn93p2392gig2pa...@4ax.com...
Please tell me that as you typed that, you were mentally hearing the Janis
version and not the annoyingly perky and cheerful Faith Hill version.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why Faith Hill thought this should be
a perky, up-tempo song. I mean, I know she's happily married and perhaps
has never experienced the pain and trauma of a loved one yanking your heart
out of your chest and eating it in front of you, but surely she's at least
*met* someone who's gone through that.
Anyway, every time I hear that version, I have to scream and then find
another radio station.
Lisa Ann
N Jill Marsh
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
And speaking of blue eyes, Sunday I am off to visit
www.zanadubirmans.com off-line.
nj"too cute"m
Estron
>Please tell me that as you typed that, you were mentally hearing the Janis
>version and not the annoyingly perky and cheerful Faith Hill version.
I had to have been. I've never heard Faith Hill's version.
Peter Ward
>N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca> wrote in
>news:22rn931o27lq1qcl0...@4ax.com:
>
>
>>
>> nj"and next on "WHO HAS THE LACUNA?" the death-match!"m
>
>I have a hiatus
I'd get that seen to, if I were you.
--
Peter
I'm an alien
email: groups at asylum dot nildram dot co dot uk
Lisa Ann
> Previously, in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Lisa Ann wrote:
>
>>Please tell me that as you typed that, you were mentally hearing the Janis
>>version and not the annoyingly perky and cheerful Faith Hill version.
>
> I had to have been. I've never heard Faith Hill's version.
Count your blessings. She's just so freaking *happy* as she sings it, I can
picture her bopping around chirping, "Come on! Come on! Take it! Take
another little piece of my heart now baby!" like some annoyingly peppy
cheerleader.
Uuuurrrgh....
Lisa Ann
Bill Kinkaid
It's not quite as bad as "Hey Baby Let's Go to Vegas", though.
--
Bill in Vancouver
Blinky the Shark
Okay, someone who likes Janis can't be all bad.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Lisa Ann
news:slrnf9u3dl....@thurston.blinkynet.net...
LOL - thanks for triggering this memory, Blinky...when my sister got
married, not only did she go into full-bride psychosis, but so did my mom.
(Mom's theory is that we shouldn't go crazy all by ourselves.) We thought
Mom was a goner for sure when Tony, the best man showed up. Tony's hair was
longer (and prettier) than mine. Tony not only had tattoos, he had THE
TATTOO...a full-sleeved Janis Joplin portrait on his right arm.
Mom was not at all comforted when I told her, "Come on, Mom...anyone who
likes Janis can't be all bad!" (Before we got the valium down her, she was
screaming, "I like Janis too, but I don't have her fucking tattooed on my
body!")
Lisa Ann
John Hatpin
>Mom was not at all comforted when I told her, "Come on, Mom...anyone who
>likes Janis can't be all bad!" (Before we got the valium down her, she was
>screaming, "I like Janis too, but I don't have her fucking tattooed on my
>body!")
To be fair, though, having anyone's fucking tattooed on your arm is a
bit tawdry.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <b3Uni.38$_p1...@newsfe06.lga>:
>full-bride psychosis
<splorf>
--
Regards
Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal music & images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/