Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bones. Get rid of Sweets horrible girlfriend
121 views
Skip to first unread message
Rich
Oct 8, 2012, 8:11:37 PM10/8/12
to
Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
on the show?
on the show?
Joan in GB-W
Oct 9, 2012, 12:15:41 AM10/9/12
to
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:FfednZzW7qok9u7N...@giganews.com...
> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
> on the show?
Didn't that show bite the shark a couple of seasons ago?
> on the show?
RichA
Oct 9, 2012, 2:03:00 AM10/9/12
to
On Oct 9, 12:15 am, "Joan in GB-W" <jjkr...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
Well, now they are latching onto reality show concepts for plots....
> "Rich" <n...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
suzeeq
Oct 9, 2012, 9:56:04 AM10/9/12
to
Rich wrote:
> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
> on the show?
Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
> on the show?
anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
with last week.
anim8rFSK
Oct 9, 2012, 10:22:51 AM10/9/12
to
In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
the purpose of last week's show was.
But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
men?? Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
wrote:
the purpose of last week's show was.
But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
men?? Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
suzeeq
Oct 9, 2012, 11:32:49 AM10/9/12
to
anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
>>> on the show?
>> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
>> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
>> with last week.
>
> Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
> the purpose of last week's show was.
>
> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
> men??
Not always no. Sometimes it's reversed - men see it as the first step to
> In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
>>> on the show?
>> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
>> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
>> with last week.
>
> Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
> the purpose of last week's show was.
>
> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
> men??
permanence and the women don't.
> Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
> inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
anim8rFSK
Oct 9, 2012, 12:47:06 PM10/9/12
to
In article <k51g2q$b85$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rich wrote:
> >>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other
> >>> women
> >>> on the show?
> >> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
> >> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
> >> with last week.
> >
> > Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
> > the purpose of last week's show was.
> >
> > But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
> > men??
>
> Not always no. Sometimes it's reversed - men see it as the first step to
> permanence and the women don't.
Sure, because people are people, but the show says all women are one way
and all men the other ...
wrote:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Rich wrote:
> >>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other
> >>> women
> >>> on the show?
> >> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
> >> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
> >> with last week.
> >
> > Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
> > the purpose of last week's show was.
> >
> > But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
> > men??
>
> Not always no. Sometimes it's reversed - men see it as the first step to
> permanence and the women don't.
and all men the other ...
>
> > Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
> > inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
>
> That was a bit odd yeah. Class more than caste, but still...
They really made me lose respect for boss lady on that one.
> > Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
> > inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
>
> That was a bit odd yeah. Class more than caste, but still...
suzeeq
Oct 9, 2012, 1:13:42 PM10/9/12
to
anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <k51g2q$b85$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other
>>>>> women
>>>>> on the show?
>>>> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
>>>> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
>>>> with last week.
>>> Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
>>> the purpose of last week's show was.
>>>
>>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>>> men??
>> Not always no. Sometimes it's reversed - men see it as the first step to
>> permanence and the women don't.
>
> Sure, because people are people, but the show says all women are one way
> and all men the other ...
Do you always believe everything you hear and see on TV?
> In article <k51g2q$b85$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article <k51add$5u1$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rich wrote:
>>>>> Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other
>>>>> women
>>>>> on the show?
>>>> Well, given the outcome of last night's episode, maybe she won't be on
>>>> anymore. Then he can go flirt with that cute FBI newbie he was teamed
>>>> with last week.
>>> Hopefully that's where this is all headed, otherwise I have NO idea what
>>> the purpose of last week's show was.
>>>
>>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>>> men??
>> Not always no. Sometimes it's reversed - men see it as the first step to
>> permanence and the women don't.
>
> Sure, because people are people, but the show says all women are one way
> and all men the other ...
anim8rFSK
Oct 9, 2012, 3:03:52 PM10/9/12
to
Mason Barge
Oct 10, 2012, 2:02:47 PM10/10/12
to
On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:11:37 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
>on the show?
She's about the only character on the show I like. She's *supposed* to be
>Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
>on the show?
irritating and does a good job of it, unlike, say, Angela, who is supposed
to be lovable and irritates me no end.
Jim G.
Oct 12, 2012, 6:21:49 PM10/12/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
> Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
> inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
I think that they nailed it. And I say that as someone who leans ever so
slightly towards being an exception to the rule (much more so now than
when I was younger), so I really don't think that I'm projecting here.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
> men??
Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
> men??
that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
> Sounds like somebody was trying to work out their therapy by
> inflicting it on us ... that, and the caste system line.
slightly towards being an exception to the rule (much more so now than
when I was younger), so I really don't think that I'm projecting here.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Get down off the cross. We need the wood." -- Pete Lattimer, WAREHOUSE 13
suzeeq
Oct 12, 2012, 8:35:58 PM10/12/12
to
Jim G. wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>> men??
>
> Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
> that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
> than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
I'm not average I guess, I see it as a way to share expenses... cheaper
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>> men??
>
> Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
> that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
> than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
for both with benefits. But then, sometimes I think like a guy.
anim8rFSK
Oct 13, 2012, 12:56:44 AM10/13/12
to
In article <k5ad1d$c0q$3...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four other
girls in the dorm room ...
wrote:
girls in the dorm room ...
suzeeq
Oct 13, 2012, 10:41:57 AM10/13/12
to
naturally. And there was only one roommate....
anim8rFSK
Oct 13, 2012, 12:57:15 PM10/13/12
to
suzeeq
Oct 13, 2012, 4:45:27 PM10/13/12
to
anim8rFSK
Oct 13, 2012, 6:03:21 PM10/13/12
to
William December Starr
Oct 14, 2012, 2:21:42 AM10/14/12
to
In article <k5bujk$m0d$3...@dont-email.me>,
suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> said:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>
>> A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four
>> other girls in the dorm room ...
>
> I never had to use the rollers to straighten my hair, it's that
> way naturally. And there was only one roommate....
People use rollers to _straighten_ their hair? Seriously, I thought
it was to induce curling.
(Insert dumb Winter Olympic joke here.)
-- wds
suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> said:
> anim8rFSK wrote:
>
>> A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four
>> other girls in the dorm room ...
>
> I never had to use the rollers to straighten my hair, it's that
> way naturally. And there was only one roommate....
it was to induce curling.
(Insert dumb Winter Olympic joke here.)
-- wds
suzeeq
Oct 14, 2012, 9:51:04 AM10/14/12
to
William December Starr wrote:
> In article <k5bujk$m0d$3...@dont-email.me>,
> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> said:
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four
>>> other girls in the dorm room ...
>> I never had to use the rollers to straighten my hair, it's that
>> way naturally. And there was only one roommate....
>
> People use rollers to _straighten_ their hair? Seriously, I thought
> it was to induce curling.
When they're 3" across, that'll straighten it. While adding a little
> In article <k5bujk$m0d$3...@dont-email.me>,
> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> said:
>
>> anim8rFSK wrote:
>>
>>> A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four
>>> other girls in the dorm room ...
>> I never had to use the rollers to straighten my hair, it's that
>> way naturally. And there was only one roommate....
>
> People use rollers to _straighten_ their hair? Seriously, I thought
> it was to induce curling.
lift and volume.
> (Insert dumb Winter Olympic joke here.)
Horace LaBadie
Oct 14, 2012, 11:53:28 AM10/14/12
to
In article <k5eg06$acb$1...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
wrote:
Only some people have the stones for curling?
wrote:
suzeeq
Oct 14, 2012, 12:37:25 PM10/14/12
to
Jim G.
Oct 15, 2012, 3:13:58 PM10/15/12
to
suzeeq sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:35:58 -0600:
I suppose there's an entire range of "moving in together" scenarios, and
many of them are nothing beyond a practical consideration. In the
current context, however, I thought that there was an emotional and
romantic component to things, or else the entire question would seem to
be pointless. And when that romantic component is present, I think that
(in the vast majority of cases, at least) the woman looks at moving in
together much differently and much more seriously and much more in terms
of a commitment than the man does.
Or maybe I'm just a pig and I'm projecting a whole bunch here. :)
many of them are nothing beyond a practical consideration. In the
current context, however, I thought that there was an emotional and
romantic component to things, or else the entire question would seem to
be pointless. And when that romantic component is present, I think that
(in the vast majority of cases, at least) the woman looks at moving in
together much differently and much more seriously and much more in terms
of a commitment than the man does.
Or maybe I'm just a pig and I'm projecting a whole bunch here. :)
Jim G.
Oct 15, 2012, 3:13:58 PM10/15/12
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:56:44 -0700:
Should the rest of us just assume that you're gonna be retiring to your
bunk for a while?
bunk for a while?
anim8rFSK
Oct 15, 2012, 7:17:30 PM10/15/12
to
In article <vfio789plo846v1gk...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:56:44 -0700:
> > In article <k5ad1d$c0q$3...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jim G. wrote:
> > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
> > > >> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing
> > > >> to
> > > >> men??
> > > >
> > > > Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
> > > > that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
> > > > than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
> > >
> > > I'm not average I guess, I see it as a way to share expenses... cheaper
> > > for both with benefits. But then, sometimes I think like a guy.
> >
> > A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four other
> > girls in the dorm room ...
>
> Should the rest of us just assume that you're gonna be retiring to your
> bunk for a while?
It's my happy place.
> anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:56:44 -0700:
> > In article <k5ad1d$c0q$3...@dont-email.me>, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Jim G. wrote:
> > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
> > > >> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing
> > > >> to
> > > >> men??
> > > >
> > > > Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
> > > > that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
> > > > than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
> > >
> > > I'm not average I guess, I see it as a way to share expenses... cheaper
> > > for both with benefits. But then, sometimes I think like a guy.
> >
> > A guy with big hair rollers having pillow fights with the four other
> > girls in the dorm room ...
>
> Should the rest of us just assume that you're gonna be retiring to your
> bunk for a while?
suzeeq
Oct 15, 2012, 8:33:55 PM10/15/12
to
Jim G. wrote:
> suzeeq sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:35:58 -0600:
>> Jim G. wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
>>>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>>>> men??
>>> Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
>>> that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
>>> than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
>> I'm not average I guess, I see it as a way to share expenses... cheaper
>> for both with benefits. But then, sometimes I think like a guy.
>
> I suppose there's an entire range of "moving in together" scenarios, and
> many of them are nothing beyond a practical consideration. In the
> current context, however, I thought that there was an emotional and
> romantic component to things, or else the entire question would seem to
> be pointless. And when that romantic component is present, I think that
> (in the vast majority of cases, at least) the woman looks at moving in
> together much differently and much more seriously and much more in terms
> of a commitment than the man does.
>
> Or maybe I'm just a pig and I'm projecting a whole bunch here. :)
No in general, I think you're right. More women probably look at it as a
> suzeeq sent the following on Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:35:58 -0600:
>> Jim G. wrote:
>>> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 09 Oct 2012 07:22:51 -0700:
>>>> But, really, moving in together means everything to women and nothing to
>>>> men??
>>> Oh, heck yes. Granted, there are plenty of exceptions, but I would say
>>> that moving in together means much, *much* more to the average woman
>>> than it does to the average guy. Not even close.
>> I'm not average I guess, I see it as a way to share expenses... cheaper
>> for both with benefits. But then, sometimes I think like a guy.
>
> I suppose there's an entire range of "moving in together" scenarios, and
> many of them are nothing beyond a practical consideration. In the
> current context, however, I thought that there was an emotional and
> romantic component to things, or else the entire question would seem to
> be pointless. And when that romantic component is present, I think that
> (in the vast majority of cases, at least) the woman looks at moving in
> together much differently and much more seriously and much more in terms
> of a commitment than the man does.
>
> Or maybe I'm just a pig and I'm projecting a whole bunch here. :)
committment, and some guys do too. And I'm not totally lacking in the
emotional or romantic side of it either. I've already been married and
not sure I want to repeat it again, so just see long term 'living
together' as an alternate.
Jim G.
Oct 17, 2012, 3:56:30 PM10/17/12
to
suzeeq sent the following on Mon, 15 Oct 2012 18:33:55 -0600:
Yeah, having a past marriage would be another thing that would affect
one's views on moving in together, and it's understandable why living
together might be preferable to another marriage for some folks.
one's views on moving in together, and it's understandable why living
together might be preferable to another marriage for some folks.
David Barnett
Nov 10, 2012, 12:24:54 AM11/10/12
to
In article <anim8rfsk-9AE93B.07225109102012
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
--
David Barnett
@news.easynews.com>, anim...@cox.net says...
--
David Barnett
David Barnett
Nov 10, 2012, 12:28:04 AM11/10/12
to
In article <90eb785rhqvi3tj68...@4ax.com>,
mason...@gmail.com says...
> She's *supposed* to be
> irritating and does a good job of it, unlike, say, Angela, who is supposed
> to be lovable and irritates me no end.
Bones irritates me also.
I usually like the guest assistants.
--
David Barnett
mason...@gmail.com says...
>
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:11:37 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
> >on the show?
>
> She's about the only character on the show I like.
Me too.
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 19:11:37 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >Annoying and not very attractive. Is she to contrast with the other women
> >on the show?
>
> She's about the only character on the show I like.
> She's *supposed* to be
> irritating and does a good job of it, unlike, say, Angela, who is supposed
> to be lovable and irritates me no end.
I usually like the guest assistants.
--
David Barnett
Mason Barge
Nov 10, 2012, 12:27:03 PM11/10/12
to
pretty much all great.
Remysun
Nov 10, 2012, 1:03:41 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:25 am, David Barnett <dbar3...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
If you've seen who'd the new girlfriend would be, you wouldn't mind.
> I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
erilar
Nov 10, 2012, 2:12:45 PM11/10/12
to
In article <MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com>,
How about getting rid of both?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
How about getting rid of both?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
David Barnett
Nov 10, 2012, 4:09:54 PM11/10/12
to
In article <drache-8BE46D....@news.eternal-
september.org>, dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
But if I had to choose only one...
--
David Barnett
september.org>, dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
>
> In article <MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com>,
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
>
> How about getting rid of both?
That would be a good idea.
> In article <MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com>,
> David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
>
> How about getting rid of both?
But if I had to choose only one...
--
David Barnett
Rich
Nov 10, 2012, 9:58:03 PM11/10/12
to
David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in
news:MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com:
Hollywood took my (and other people's suggestions) to heart; she's gone.
news:MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com:
erilar
Nov 11, 2012, 1:27:24 PM11/11/12
to
In article <MPG.2b096dac3...@news.bigpond.com>,
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> In article <drache-8BE46D....@news.eternal-
> september.org>, dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
> >
> > How about getting rid of both?
>
> That would be a good idea.
> But if I had to choose only one...
If I had to choose only one, I'd have to flip a coin.
> In article <drache-8BE46D....@news.eternal-
> september.org>, dra...@chibardun.net.invalid says...
> >
> > In article <MPG.2b08902d6...@news.bigpond.com>,
> > David Barnett <dbar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> >
> > > I'd rather get rid of Sweets & keep the girlfriend.
> >
> > How about getting rid of both?
>
> That would be a good idea.
> But if I had to choose only one...
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
0 new messages