Well That Was Fast
Cheryl Greer
my very good male friend and his psycho drama-queen wife, who have a
very troubled marriage to say the least, had a sprog back in April.
Yes, I told him this was an utterly stupid thing to do, but they don't
believe in abortion, so whatever. Now they have a pleasant baby girl
who I view as a sort of niece, and who I pity because of her messed-up
parents.
Fast forward to yesterday. Due to a baby-sitting crisis, friend took
his kid to work with him. Then he wrote about it on his blog. I left a
comment to said blog, stating in no uncertain terms how wrong it is to
take a kid to work. (He'd gotten nothing but positive comments from all
the rest of the breeder-oriented world, so I see it as my duty to be the
lone voice of reason to him. :) ) Friend understood, and agreed. He
hopes it never has to happen again. All settled?
Noooooooo. Friend's wife sees comment and has apparently been going
ballistic ever since! Now I am "mean", and I don't like the baby, and
she wants him to "take a stand" against me, and is considering never
letting me see the child again. Over a -blog comment-!! Uhhh...ok. So
now I'm torn between just ignoring her and hoping it will blow over and
she'll move on to the next psycho-drama, or writing her an email and
laying it all out for her so she will at least have to stop putting
words into my mouth and thoughts into my head. Knowing her, that will
probably just make it worse.
Why do men marry psycho bitches?
Cheryl
--
"You're just one psychological drama after another"
-- Erasure
T. Van Voris
<snips to question>
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
Maybe because they prefer a female's warm body over masturbation?
I'm guessing that the last thing he's thinking about seconds prior to
climax is what kind of relationship he may be getting himself into.
Fucking feels good, and for many, having a guarenteed fuck is just plain
easier than hunting for a fuck. By the time he's bored, her psycho-claws
are embedded too deep for easy extraction.
Sex drives just aren't rational - and I'd say that women marry psycho
bastards, too, for the same reasons I listed above.
T.
No 33 Secretary
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.104081...@panther.Gsu.EDU:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Cheryl Greer wrote:
> <snips to question>
>
>> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
> Maybe because they prefer a female's warm body over masturbation?
Or, at least think they do, until they have comparative data.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Jason G
>
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
Cuz the crazy ones are always good in bed?
Fountain of Filth
Jason G <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote:
ROFL!!!
Sometimes psycho bitches don't show their true colors until after the
wedding. A friend of mine cut his losses a couple months after his
wedding when it was glaringly apparent he'd married A Psycho Bitch*.
He later summed up his divorce with the following quote:
"It was a religious difference. I'm Catholic, she was Satan."
He's now happily single and wants to date again. He's made noises about
wanting kids before, and it's my secret hope that he'll find a CF chick.
(He's one of three single guy friends I fear losing to breeding. The
other two are CF.)
~Fountain of Filth
Who sometimes wishes she could have a harem... lol
--
*I never asked him how she was in bed, but she was a HOTTIE. DH and I
drooled over her the first time we met her.
"The enemy is at the gate. And the enemy is the human mind
itself - or lack of it - on this planet." - General Boy
T. Van Voris
> "T. Van Voris" <alu...@panther.Gsu.EDU> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.3.95.104081...@panther.Gsu.EDU:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Cheryl Greer wrote:
> > <snips to question>
> >
> >> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
> >
> > Maybe because they prefer a female's warm body over masturbation?
>
> Or, at least think they do, until they have comparative data.
Heh.
And, of course, one would have to be a *lousy* and/or basically
incompetant masturbator if one can't even manage to please one's own
self...I mean, getting off IS the point of masturbation, right?
T. - Love Comes In Spurts (oh, no, it *hurts*!)
No 33 Secretary
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> "T. Van Voris" <alu...@panther.Gsu.EDU> wrote in
>> news:Pine.GSO.3.95.104081...@panther.Gsu.EDU:
>>
>> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Cheryl Greer wrote:
>> > <snips to question>
>> >
>> >> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>> >
>> > Maybe because they prefer a female's warm body over masturbation?
>>
>> Or, at least think they do, until they have comparative data.
>
> Heh.
>
> And, of course, one would have to be a *lousy* and/or basically
> incompetant masturbator if one can't even manage to please one's own
> self...I mean, getting off IS the point of masturbation, right?
A counterpoint might be that getting off isn't the sole point of sex with
someone else. If it isn't the sole point of masturbation, then, frankly,
you need help.
stePH
That's no reason to *marry* one.
stePH
--
"A lion will exert himself to the utmost, even when entering the tiger's
den to throw baby rabbits off a cliff!" -- Moroboshi Ataru
Bill Bradley
> T. - Love Comes In Spurts (oh, no, it *hurts*!)
Glad to see another Richard Hell fan here.
I've got an ex- (with kid) who lurkers here... I won't touch this
thread with a 10-foot pole [Hi Jenn]
Bill
Cheryl Greer
stePH <acet...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Jason G wrote:
>
> > In article <vicious-BB585F...@individual.net>, Cheryl Greer
> > says...
> >
> >> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Cuz the crazy ones are always good in bed?
>
> That's no reason to *marry* one.
I'd agree with this theory, except the couple in question never have
sex. I know that the short simple answer is: because my friend is a
moron. :)
I just wish I knew what to do with her now that she's directing her
psychoses at ME! Drama isn't my forte.
LeeAnne
the anti-psycho bitches, shit, damn, hellcrap.
Now I've got to get me some good drugs....
;-)
"Jason G" <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote in message
news:cg2kr...@drn.newsguy.com...
Carl Menden
> his kid to work with him. Then he wrote about it on his blog. I left a
> comment to said blog, stating in no uncertain terms how wrong it is to
> take a kid to work. (He'd gotten nothing but positive comments from all
> the rest of the breeder-oriented world, so I see it as my duty to be the
> lone voice of reason to him. :) ) Friend understood, and agreed. He
> hopes it never has to happen again. All settled?
>
> Noooooooo. Friend's wife sees comment and has apparently been going
> ballistic ever since!
Well, what exactly did you say in your comment?
T. Van Voris
<Evil Grin> The Crumsy Pirates are working on two performance pieces:
1) The Masturbation Cover Trilogy: Love Comes in Spurts, Orgasm Addict,
and Turning Japanese. We will probably solicit audience participation.
and to tie in with the Psycho Bitches Thread:
2) While my boys cover Highway to Hell, I'll assume the character of
Psycho Bitch who screams over the song about "how you never pay attention
and you need to go to the story and why don't you ever listen to me and
you need to pick up some kitty litter or there will be two angry pussys in
the apartment and why are you paying attention to me am I too fat for you
maybe it's time we had a baby....etc."
See? Punk Rock's not dead.
T. - damn straight, I'm a Richard Hell fan
Bill Bradley
> <Evil Grin> The Crumsy Pirates are working on two performance pieces:
>
> 1) The Masturbation Cover Trilogy: Love Comes in Spurts, Orgasm Addict,
> and Turning Japanese. We will probably solicit audience participation.
R. Hell, Buzzcocks and the Vapors, nice selection. Might I suggest
Gen. X "Dancing with myself" as an addition?
> See? Punk Rock's not dead.
No, it always smelled like that.
Bill
stePH
> <Evil Grin> The Crumsy Pirates are working on two performance pieces:
>
> 1) The Masturbation Cover Trilogy: Love Comes in Spurts, Orgasm Addict,
> and Turning Japanese. We will probably solicit audience participation.
"Turning Japanese" is a masturbation song? I guess I've never really
paid attention to the lyrics.
My wife tells me "Blister in the Sun" by the Violent Femmes is about
masturbation (another song I've never paid close attention to.)
Of course, there's always the DiVinyls' "I Touch Myself."
Veronique
[snip wife's overreaction to comment in husband's blog]
> Noooooooo. Friend's wife sees comment and has apparently been going
> ballistic ever since! Now I am "mean", and I don't like the baby, and
> she wants him to "take a stand" against me, and is considering never
> letting me see the child again. Over a -blog comment-!! Uhhh...ok. So
> now I'm torn between just ignoring her and hoping it will blow over and
> she'll move on to the next psycho-drama, or writing her an email and
> laying it all out for her so she will at least have to stop putting
> words into my mouth and thoughts into my head. Knowing her, that will
> probably just make it worse.
Let it lie. She's looking for a fight, a cause, a thing to flip out
over-- you'll only make your life worse by feeding the fire.
>
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
Because some men have a deep-seated need to be White Knights. Psycho
bitches have LOTS of problems, and for a little while, it looks as if
the White Knight might be able to solve them. This is never true, as
the issue is never the individual difficulty but the attitude of the
psycho bitch who sets herself up over and over again. Often, White
Knights don't clue up for quite awhile, which means you have perfectly
nice guys who father children with psycho bitches.
The short answer is, men marry psycho bitches because psycho bitches
make them feel needed. I see it as a sort of derailed feedback loop
that served human couples well as a part of bonding historically, but
like a fondness for sweet things, is detrimental to a subsection of
the population in these modern times.
V., yeah, I guess I HAVE thought about it.
--
LeeAnne
>
> "Turning Japanese" is a masturbation song? I guess I've never really
> paid attention to the lyrics.
Yes - think about making a squinty face when you're about to, well, um, you
know - you're Turning Japanese...
(not that I'd know a darn thing about that) ;-)
> My wife tells me "Blister in the Sun" by the Violent Femmes is about
> masturbation (another song I've never paid close attention to.)
Hmmm, never thought of that that way. Never really made much sense to me.
Sklenge
I've never faked it.
mroo philpott-smythe
[psychobitchectomy]
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
Psychobitches, like himbos, work really hard at getting their claws into
a potential partner. Most psychobitches want to pass on their inferior
genes, so they know they need to firmly embed themselves in the life of
a walking spoodonor/wallet. And they're not interested in giving it
away, because they're really not that interested in sex, except as a
prelude to the Most Important Thing in the World.
Howzat for an explanation?
sq
mroo philpott-smythe
Wasn't that what Zappa said about jazz?
sq, a Frank fan from way back
Bill Bradley
>>> See? Punk Rock's not dead.
>>
>> No, it always smelled like that.
>
> Wasn't that what Zappa said about jazz?
>
> sq, a Frank fan from way back
Close: "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." -Frank Zappa
I got to see Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard way" tour (with the
12-piece brass section) back in '88. The Version of "Lonesome Cowboy
Burt[Jimmy Swaggert version] on "Best Band Never Heard in Your Life" is
from that show. Very impressive. I'd suggest that Project Object
w/Ike Willis is the closest thing to being there.
Bill
J.W.T. Meakin
alu...@panther.Gsu.EDU says...
>
> <Evil Grin> The Crumsy Pirates are working on two performance pieces:
>
> 1) The Masturbation Cover Trilogy: Love Comes in Spurts, Orgasm Addict,
> and Turning Japanese. We will probably solicit audience participation.
Punk bukkake? Just take care the stage doesn't get slippery. Bill.
Stephen J. Rush
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Cheryl Greer wrote:
> <snips to question>
>
>> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
> Maybe because they prefer a female's warm body over masturbation?
Maybe some psycho bitches are good at hiding it until the man can't pull
out without financially castrating himself.
J.W.T. Meakin
I don't think I've ever met a psychobitch. This thread is making me
curious...
Bill.
mroo philpott-smythe
I saw him live in 84. The audience was the most fascinating mix of aging
hippies, trendoid musicheads, and teenage kids. Frank, as always, was
great. Obscene, fiendishly talented, and able to play through the HAZE
of potsmoke in the auditorium. Lonesome Cowboy Burt is one of my
favorites. Next week we're watching Baby Snakes.
sq
nil...@invalid.com
Message-ID:<3c499a9e.04081...@posting.google.com>
posted on 19 Aug 2004 12:55:34 -0700, Veronique wrote:
>Cheryl Greer <vic...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
>[snip wife's overreaction to comment in husband's blog]
>
>> Noooooooo. Friend's wife sees comment and has apparently been going
>> ballistic ever since! Now I am "mean", and I don't like the baby, and
>> she wants him to "take a stand" against me, and is considering never
>> letting me see the child again. Over a -blog comment-!! Uhhh...ok. So
>> now I'm torn between just ignoring her and hoping it will blow over and
>> she'll move on to the next psycho-drama, or writing her an email and
>> laying it all out for her so she will at least have to stop putting
>> words into my mouth and thoughts into my head. Knowing her, that will
>> probably just make it worse.
>
>Let it lie. She's looking for a fight, a cause, a thing to flip out
>over-- you'll only make your life worse by feeding the fire.
>
>
>>
>> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
>Because some men have a deep-seated need to be White Knights. Psycho
>bitches have LOTS of problems, and for a little while, it looks as if
>the White Knight might be able to solve them. This is never true, as
>the issue is never the individual difficulty but the attitude of the
>psycho bitch who sets herself up over and over again. Often, White
>Knights don't clue up for quite awhile, which means you have perfectly
>nice guys who father children with psycho bitches.
>
>The short answer is, men marry psycho bitches because psycho bitches
>make them feel needed.
>
>V., yeah, I guess I HAVE thought about it.
Great post, shows a lot of insight into human relationships!
Many people seem to think that males are only interested in
sex, but not true for most males, who do have what you call
a "White Knight" feeling.
>I see it as a sort of derailed feedback loop
>that served human couples well as a part of bonding historically, but
>like a fondness for sweet things, is detrimental to a subsection of
>the population in these modern times.
FWIW, I would agree with that evaluation. There does seem
to be less honesty these days, and a genuine "psycho bitch"
would know the proper things to say to the victim.
However, in many cases, neither partner would have much
insight into their actual subconscious and unconscious
motivations, and the "con" may not be deliberate.
A woman who has been mistreated in some way can find it easy
to decide that she is "in love" with an understanding male.
...Which can be a major problem in many therapeutic
relationships.
Moral: Everyone should _try_ to distinguish between
"friendship", "help", "therapy" and "love" when possibly
entering an "emotional relationship".
"nilkids"
>
J.W.T. Meakin
nil...@invalid.com says...
> >>
> >> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
> >The short answer is, men marry psycho bitches because psycho bitches
> >make them feel needed.
>
Than when? What is your basis for comparison?
Bill.
nil...@invalid.com
Message-ID:<MPG.1b8f1db2d...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>
posted on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:22:35 GMT, J.W.T. Meakin
wrote:
Than when I was a child in the US? :-)
Or if want to go back further, consider crime rates at the
time of the Great Depression when around 30% of the male
workforce was unemployed...and in those days, most of the
workforce was male.
J.D. Spangler
says...
>>
>> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>>
>
Nah. Take it from my brother, insanity is no measure of a woman's bedroom
skillz. Hammertwat was indeed the goldentwat, but he's been with some total
loons who were about as fun as a cold shower once the clothes came off.
It just takes longer to get rid of the good-in-bed psychos. Of either gender.
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
Cynic-at-large
http://www.ayrsayle.net
"Ideally someone's religion should have about as much importance
to me as what they had for breakfast. As long as they're not
regurgitating it on me I really shouldn't have to give a damn."
J.D. Spangler
says...
<snip>
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
Never having been married, I'm going to wager a guess that psycho bitches
are really good at feigning interest in the other person till it's too
late. As the old saw goes, he says "I do", she says "You damn straight you
will." ;^)
--
Regards,
J.D. "Lost a few friends that way" Spangler
AnCatDubh
Ny husband is a huge Zappa fan. He bought "Baby Snakes" and "Does
Humor
Belong in Music?" as soon as they were out on DVD. Not my cup o' tea
personally, but to each his/her own.
stePH
> I got to see Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard way" tour (with the
> 12-piece brass section) back in '88. The Version of "Lonesome Cowboy
> Burt[Jimmy Swaggert version] on "Best Band Never Heard in Your Life" is
> from that show.
So is every other track from that album, and from _Make a Jazz Noise
Here_ as well.
Rather well-documented that tour was (five CDs across three albums, plus
a few isolated tracks in the _You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore_
series), which is a good thing since most of the USA never got to see it.
Bill Bradley
> Bill Bradley wrote:
>
>> I got to see Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard way" tour (with the
>> 12-piece brass section) back in '88. The Version of "Lonesome Cowboy
>> Burt[Jimmy Swaggert version] on "Best Band Never Heard in Your Life"
>> is from that show.
>
>
> So is every other track from that album, and from _Make a Jazz Noise
> Here_ as well.
I meant the particular show that I saw.(Pgh, PA) It's one of the few
released tracks from that tour that were not mixed from several
performances.
> Rather well-documented that tour was (five CDs across three albums, plus
> a few isolated tracks in the _You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore_
> series), which is a good thing since most of the USA never got to see it.
Such a shame. From what I understand the problems are what soured him
on touring again.
Bill
stePH
> stePH wrote:
>
>> Bill Bradley wrote:
>>
>>> I got to see Zappa on the "Broadway the Hard way" tour (with the
>>> 12-piece brass section) back in '88. The Version of "Lonesome Cowboy
>>> Burt[Jimmy Swaggert version] on "Best Band Never Heard in Your Life"
>>> is from that show.
>>
>>
>>
>> So is every other track from that album, and from _Make a Jazz Noise
>> Here_ as well.
>
>
> I meant the particular show that I saw.(Pgh, PA) It's one of the
> few released tracks from that tour that were not mixed from several
> performances.
d'oh! I really should work on that "reading for comprehension" thing :)
One thing I just noticed though: the band was a 12-piece in total, with
a 5-piece horn section (trumpet, trombone, and alto, tenor and baritone
saxes IIRC)
I kind of wish Zappa hadn't done that (combined performances from
several venues within a single song) but at least the transitions are
seamless ... I can't tell where one stops and another begins anyway.
>
>> Rather well-documented that tour was (five CDs across three albums,
>> plus a few isolated tracks in the _You Can't Do That On Stage Anymore_
>> series), which is a good thing since most of the USA never got to see it.
>
>
> Such a shame. From what I understand the problems are what soured
> him on touring again.
My big regret is that Johnny Cash never made the show to do "Ring of
Fire" with the band. Having "Mr. Sting" do "Murder by Numbers" on
_Broadway the Hard Way_ was pretty cool, though.
Carl Menden
> How quickly Breeder Brain develops to a terminal stage. Background:
> my very good male friend and his psycho drama-queen wife, who have a
> very troubled marriage to say the least, had a sprog back in April.
> Yes, I told him this was an utterly stupid thing to do, but they don't
> believe in abortion, so whatever. Now they have a pleasant baby girl
> who I view as a sort of niece, and who I pity because of her messed-up
> parents.
>
> Fast forward to yesterday. Due to a baby-sitting crisis, friend took
> comment to said blog, stating in no uncertain terms how wrong it is to
> take a kid to work. (He'd gotten nothing but positive comments from all
> the rest of the breeder-oriented world, so I see it as my duty to be the
> lone voice of reason to him. :) ) Friend understood, and agreed. He
> hopes it never has to happen again. All settled?
>
> ballistic ever since! Now I am "mean", and I don't like the baby, and
> she wants him to "take a stand" against me, and is considering never
> letting me see the child again. Over a -blog comment-!! Uhhh...ok. So
> now I'm torn between just ignoring her and hoping it will blow over and
> she'll move on to the next psycho-drama, or writing her an email and
> laying it all out for her so she will at least have to stop putting
> words into my mouth and thoughts into my head. Knowing her, that will
> probably just make it worse.
>
>
You and your friend both got what you wanted, so what are you griping
about?
You didn't have to post a comment "in no uncertain terms" slamming
what your friend did during a child-care pinch. But you did, and you
apparently identified yourself, despite knowing that if his wife saw
it, it would make her mad.
Your friend didn't have to make sure his wife saw your posting, but I
bet he did.
You and your friend both crave the drama of pissing off his wife --
you for the smug feeling of superiority, him for the smug feeling of
being calm and collected while his wife goes ballistic.
She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
Move on and quit playing a destructive role in someone else's
marriage.
Art Class
Ouch.
Recent ex-gf turned out to be a PB and I definitely displayed some
White Knight characteristics.
As her insanity began to reveal itself, I never thought I could solve
her problems, but I sure thought I could "help out." That maybe she
would learn or get better or something just by being in a relationship
with me. WRONG. I got worse by being with her.
Like you said, she kept setting herself up over and over again and
there was nothing I was going to be able to do to stop it. It was
like watching an analog clock go round. It's path never changes.
I had incorrectly pegged her as CF, but the actual reason for her
childlessness was that no one has ever stuck around long enough for
the relationship to get to that stage. She says she wants to have
kids and I pity the sorry sack of shit that ends up with the support
payments.
I mentioned I was getting too old to have kids anyway and her first
statement was "That is ridiculous! Look at Tony Randall!"
Yikes.
Caine
> You and your friend both got what you wanted, so what are you griping
> about?
Oh, STFU. <snip yet another whiny asshat>
HAWAIIAN CHICKEN KABOBS
2 skinless chicken breasts -- (2 to 3)
1/2 cup soy sauce
1/4 cup honey
3 cloves garlic, crushed -- (3 to 4)
1/2 tsp. ginger
1 tsp. citrus juice (pineapple works best)
Tropical hot sauce (Habanero) or Datil sauce to taste.
Cut breasts into cubes and place in marinade at least 3-4 hours, turning
periodically. Then, put on skewers with pineapple chunks, cherry or grape
tomatoes, Vidalia onion slices and Red Bell pepper slices. Place on grill
and baste once with marinade. Put foil on grill with some cooking spray
because this stuff is messy. Cook to desired doneness. Turn Kabobs every
five minutes. (That is critical part of the process!) Serve with rice.
Caine
--
Extra Bitchy (tm) all the time.
Marc VanHeyningen
>posted on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:22:35 GMT, J.W.T. Meakin
>wrote:
>>In article <vcqai01tp4cuoca1g...@4ax.com>,
>>nil...@invalid.com says...
>>> to be less honesty these days...
>>
>>Than when? What is your basis for comparison?
>>
>>Bill.
>
>Than when I was a child in the US? :-)
Recently Reader's Digest conducted a study in which they deliberately
lost a wallet with cash and ID in various public places. They got most
of them back, though it did vary with the place.
> Or if want to go back further, consider crime rates at the
>time of the Great Depression when around 30% of the male
>workforce was unemployed...and in those days, most of the
>workforce was male.
In 1935, the murder rate peaked at 9.6 per 100k pop, while today it's
considerably lower than that. Um, what was your suggestion again?
nil...@invalid.com
Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:34:43 +0000 (UTC), Marc VanHeyningen
wrote:
>Thus said nil...@invalid.com:
>>posted on Fri, 20 Aug 2004 04:22:35 GMT, J.W.T. Meakin
>>wrote:
>>>In article <vcqai01tp4cuoca1g...@4ax.com>,
>>>nil...@invalid.com says...
>>>> FWIW, I would agree with that evaluation. There does seem
>>>> to be less honesty these days...
>>>
>>>Than when? What is your basis for comparison?
>>>
>>>Bill.
>>
>>Than when I was a child in the US? :-)
>
>Recently Reader's Digest conducted a study in which they deliberately
>lost a wallet with cash and ID in various public places. They got most
>of them back, though it did vary with the place.
Um, well, not that recently. Around 1995, wasn't it?
[extract]
A few years ago, a simple experiment gave people in
countries around the world a chance to reveal their
character when they thought no one was watching.12
Researchers conducting the experiment "lost" more than 1,100
wallets to see how many would be returned. Each wallet
contained $50 in local currency and the name and phone
number of the owner. The wallets were left on sidewalks and
in phone booths; in front of office buildings, discount
stores, and churches; and in parking lots and restaurants.
Then the wallet-droppers sat back and watched.
All told, 56% of the wallets were returned; 44% were whisked
away. But from one country to another, the results varied
greatly. First prize for honesty went to Norway and Denmark,
where fully 100% of the wallets were returned. Finishing in
the bottom four spots were Italy (35% returned), Switzerland
(35%), Hong Kong (30%), and Mexico (21%). The United States
placed in the middle range with 67% returned.
If these data are any indication, honesty is more a part of
the national character in some countries than others. But
cities and towns within the same country also varied widely.
Within the U. S. the four most honest communities out of ten
chosen for the experiment were Seattle (90% returned);
Concord, New Hampshire (80%); Cheyenne, Wyoming (80%); and
Meadville, Pennsylvania (80%). Tied for worst place to lose
your wallet were Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Dayton, Ohio —
where half the wallets were never seen again.
<http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0229.html>
No time to search for full list, but from memory, Australia
did better than the US, although again the results varied by
location.
>
>> Or if want to go back further, consider crime rates at the
>>time of the Great Depression when around 30% of the male
>>workforce was unemployed...and in those days, most of the
>>workforce was male.
>
>In 1935, the murder rate peaked at 9.6 per 100k pop, while today it's
>considerably lower than that. Um, what was your suggestion again?
I was speaking of overall crime rates, not specifically
murder rates. However, a quick look at DOJ graph of murders
between 1900 and 2001 indicates that the 1935 figure wasn't
a peak figure.
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm>
If click on the chart can get a listing for each year.
Won't bother to quote the whole thing, but in the thirties
the highest rate was in 1933, not 1935.
<http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm>
1930 8.8
1931 9.2
1932 9.0
1933 9.7
1934 9.5
1935 8.3
1936 8.0
1937 7.6
1938 6.8
1939 6.4
However, there have been higher rates, 10 or over 10 per
100,000, in more recent years.
1974 10.1
1979 10.0
1980 10.7
1981 10.3
1990 10.0
1991 10.5
1992 10.0
1993 10.1
Source: National Center for Health Statistics, Vital
Statistics
I find the trends interesting. From 1900 to 1904 the rate
varied between 1.1 and 1.3 per 100,000. It reached 2.1 in
1905, 3.9 in 1906, 4.9 in 1907. In 1911 was 5.5, passed 6
in 1913 with 6.1. Reached 7.2 in 1919, 8.1 in 1924, 9.2 in
1937.
Started going down after that with longer sentences, more
convictions.
I find it interesting that the US is one of the richest
countries in the world, yet has a very high percentage of
its population in prison.
[extract]
In 2001, nearly 6.6 million people were on probation, in
jail or prison, or on parole at year end. That number
represents 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or one in every
32 adults.
American Prisons: The Debate
Between 1973 and 2000 the rate of incarceration in the
United States more than quadrupled. The International Centre
for Prison Studies at Kings College, London now calculates
the U.S. rate at 700 people per 100,000. (That number
encompasses the most recently available federal, state and
local prison population statistics.) There are now more than
two million Americans behind bars. Add to that another four
and a half million on probation or parole and three million
ex-convicts.
More at:
<http://www.pbs.org/now/society/prisons2.html>
If click on the chart of "Who's locked up around the world"
will find that the US leads the field, incidentally.
However, to save readers the trouble of mousing over the
chart to get the numbers to pop up, will provide the
following list. All numbers are per 100,000 population.
USA 700
Russia 680
Belarus 550
South Africa 410
Thailand 350
England and Wales 135
China 110
Canada 100
Italy 90
France 80
Japan 50
"nilkids"
Veronique
> I mentioned I was getting too old to have kids anyway and her first
> statement was "That is ridiculous! Look at Tony Randall!"
>
Lord help me, I just snorted tea out my nose.
V.
--
Marc VanHeyningen
Thus said nil...@invalid.com:
>>In 1935, the murder rate peaked at 9.6 per 100k pop, while today it's
>>considerably lower than that. Um, what was your suggestion again?
>
>I was speaking of overall crime rates, not specifically
>murder rates.
I like to use murder as a metric simply because it's less likely to be
skewed by inconsistent reporting rates or even definition of what the
crime is. Some others, say rape, would be defined and treated very
differently today than in the 1930s.
nil...@invalid.com
Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Marc VanHeyningen
wrote:
>Tx for the Readers Digest citation.
No problems, usually try to cite sources.
True, and it is a crime that isn't always reported to
police. Known murders are. Which is why I cited my murder
rate sources & sources for other data in the post.
Of course, this doesn't go far to explaining why some
countries have much higher murder rates than others.
Some Australian stats:
4510.0 Recorded Crime - Victims, Australia
[extract]
"Relationship of offender to victim
Approximately half of the victims of murder, attempted
murder, assault and sexual assault knew their offender. For
sexual assault, the victim was four times more likely to
know the offender than not. A higher proportion of female
than male victims had a family member as their offender for
the offences of murder, attempted murder and assault. For
sexual assaults the proportion of victims with a family
member offender was similar for males and females, at around
29%.
LOCATION OF OFFENCE
For murder, attempted murder, assault and sexual assault,
the victim was most likely to have been subjected to the
offence in a residential location. This was especially the
case for victims of sexual assault where two in three
victims were sexually assaulted in a residential location.
More than three in five victims of kidnapping/abduction were
taken from a community location, with more than one in four
taken from a residential location.
<http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/76c8926bd8a12e1fca2568a9001393f2?OpenDocument>
As you have snipped a lot of material from my original post,
readers wanting more info on US murder rates for last
century should check that.
As not all readers use a threaded newsreader, will give
message number and other data for easy lookup.
Newsgroups: alt.support.childfree
Subject: Re: Re: Well That Was Fast
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:08:55 +1000
Message-ID: <md6di0lh4hclmhh4m...@4ax.com>
It is interesting to speculate on why murder rates vary so
much between countries. There are no doubt multiple
factors.
Regards,
"nilkids"
deer...@mindspring.com
"J.D. Spangler" wrote:
> Nah. Take it from my brother, insanity is no measure of a woman's bedroom
> skillz. Hammertwat was indeed the goldentwat, but he's been with some total
> loons who were about as fun as a cold shower once the clothes came off.
>
> It just takes longer to get rid of the good-in-bed psychos. Of either gender.
What exactly does it mean to be "good in bed?" Does it mean one is
prized for being responsive or for knowing how to make the other
person respond or is it a combination of both or does it depend on
what you want, or...?
C.
**
(looking for clarification, thanks--g!)
deer...@mindspring.com
Carl Menden wrote:
> She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
> reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
> particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
> the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
So, when a man marries, he should drop his female friends because,
after all, he was just with them because he wanted to bang them?
C.
**
(obviously Carl doesn't like women much, period--g!)
Cheryl Greer
wrote:
If I didn't know better, I'd almost say that Carl is my friend's wife
in disguise! :)
Cheryl
--
"You're just one psychological drama after another"
-- Erasure
nil...@invalid.com
Sun, 22 Aug 2004 00:10:25 GMT, deer...@mindspring.com
wrote:
>(looking for clarification, thanks--g!)
>
>C.
>**
My immediate response is to advise readers to "play it by
ear", but on second thought some would probably take that
advice entirely too literally. :-)
[Good thing some people have me "killfiled" isn't it? :-) ]
Will be interesting to see what answers you get. May
contribute more opinions if necessary. :-)
"nilkids"
Jason G
>What exactly does it mean to be "good in bed?" Does it mean one is
>prized for being responsive or for knowing how to make the other
>person respond or is it a combination of both or does it depend on
>what you want, or...?
>
Yes.
And 'the clench'.
--
Jason G
REP
Dyfferent <dyff...@worldreversentl.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 05:03:05 +0000 (UTC), mvan...@cs.indiana.edu
> (Marc VanHeyningen) wrote:
>
> >I like to use murder as a metric simply because it's less likely to be
> >skewed by inconsistent reporting rates or even definition of what the
> >crime is. Some others, say rape, would be defined and treated very
> >differently today than in the 1930s.
>
> Isn't it possible it can be skewed slightly by improvements in medical
> care? Surely people who are close to death are liklier to pull
> through now than they were in the 1930s. There are all sorts of
> techniques to save lives now that didn't exist then.
I think that is true for battlefield casulties, but not so much for
murder victims, since murder is usually an up-close-and-get-the-job-done
affair. I just read something about this the other day, but I'll be
damned if I can remember where.
--
"Did Father shoot him? I will eat Grandfather for dinner."
- Helen Keller, on learning of the death of her grandfather
REP
Dyfferent <dyff...@worldreversentl.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 05:08:44 -0700, REP <r...@inanna.com> wrote:
>
> >I think that is true for battlefield casulties, but not so much for
> >murder victims, since murder is usually an up-close-and-get-the-job-done
> >affair. I just read something about this the other day, but I'll be
> >damned if I can remember where.
>
> That depends how the murder was done, though. I suspect that
> poisoning has gone right down these days.
Due to the difficulty in obtaining effective poisons then and now,
rather than the effectiveness of treatment. There are still antifreeze
murders, for instance; it's easy to get a hold of and almost impossible
to reverse, but fewer strychinine murders. Poisonings are rare enough
these days that they usually make headlines when they happen.
meb
> Cheryl Greer <vic...@pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> [snip wife's overreaction to comment in husband's blog]
>
>
>> Noooooooo. Friend's wife sees comment and has apparently been going
>>ballistic ever since! Now I am "mean", and I don't like the baby, and
>>she wants him to "take a stand" against me, and is considering never
>>letting me see the child again. Over a -blog comment-!! Uhhh...ok. So
>>now I'm torn between just ignoring her and hoping it will blow over and
>>she'll move on to the next psycho-drama, or writing her an email and
>>laying it all out for her so she will at least have to stop putting
>>words into my mouth and thoughts into my head. Knowing her, that will
>>probably just make it worse.
>
>
> Let it lie. She's looking for a fight, a cause, a thing to flip out
> over-- you'll only make your life worse by feeding the fire.
>
I agree. I wouldn't say avoid a fight if one is physically
threatened, but *way* before anything gets to that point,
psychobitches toss out a lot of "verbal bait". It's the
bait part that is worth ignoring.
>
>
>> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
>
> Because some men have a deep-seated need to be White Knights. Psycho
> bitches have LOTS of problems, and for a little while, it looks as if
> the White Knight might be able to solve them. This is never true, as
> the issue is never the individual difficulty but the attitude of the
> psycho bitch who sets herself up over and over again. Often, White
> Knights don't clue up for quite awhile, which means you have perfectly
> nice guys who father children with psycho bitches.
>
> The short answer is, men marry psycho bitches because psycho bitches
> make them feel needed.
Nail. Hit. Head.
It doesn't have to be a marriage situation. If a sensible
person ever gets into a conflict with a psychobitch, everyone
is going to believe the sobbing drama queen.
-Mb
Noelle
news:qQ1Wc.299886$%_6.241652@attbi_s01...
> Nail. Hit. Head.
>
> It doesn't have to be a marriage situation. If a sensible
> person ever gets into a conflict with a psychobitch, everyone
> is going to believe the sobbing drama queen.
Damn, that's true.
--
Those who are frightened or intimidated by reading are encouraged to seek
entertainment elsewhere.
We recommend a shiny ball of foil.
--R.K. Milholland
J.D. Spangler
Depends on the person involved(the one making the designation). For
me, that would be:
1) Enthusiasm - This is probably the universal trait.
2) Flexibility - Mentally, I mean, although physically helps. ;^) Sex
doesn't have to follow a script anymore than life does.
3) Empathy - They should enjoy my excitement as I do theirs.
4) Tenderness
5) Desire - Someone who actually enjoys my body, as opposed to say,
some of my female friends(mostly the early 20s ones) who drool over
guys in general but then go "Ewww! Dangly bits!", or someone who just
wants a warm body. Silly girls. Sometimes I wonder why I consider them
my harem. ;^)
6) Initiative - Someone who is willing to say what they want without
being embarrassed, or come up with new things to try.
Physically attractive by one's standards is also probably a given for
everyone.
My brother's list probably wouldn't include 3, 4, or 5, and would
include technique whereas mine doesn't. He's a lot more into casual
sex than I will ever be.
Unfortunately, these things can be one-sided. Someone can be good in
bed for someone else, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
http://www.ayrsayle.net
Carl Menden
see what you posted about your friend? You know, your friend who's a
"moron."
I bet it was pretty intemperate and quite possibly mean.
Jack
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004, Cheryl Greer wrote:
> <snips to question>
>
> > Why do men marry psycho bitches?
>
>
Thank God for Kallman's Syndrome. Asexuality keeps the psycho bitches away.
-Jack
Fountain of Filth
J.D. Spangler wrote:
> Depends on the person involved(the one making the designation). For
> me, that would be:
> 1) Enthusiasm - This is probably the universal trait.
Who wants to fuck a dead body?
Oh wait, I forgot, this is ASC. Nevermind. ;-)
> 2) Flexibility - Mentally, I mean, although physically helps. ;^) Sex
> doesn't have to follow a script anymore than life does.
Variety is the spice of life. :-)
> 3) Empathy - They should enjoy my excitement as I do theirs.
I think it's also a willingness to give lots of sexual attention to your
partner without *expecting* anything in return.
> 4) Tenderness
Cue General Public song. ;-)
> 5) Desire - Someone who actually enjoys my body, as opposed to say,
> some of my female friends(mostly the early 20s ones) who drool over
> guys in general but then go "Ewww! Dangly bits!", or someone who just
> wants a warm body. Silly girls. Sometimes I wonder why I consider them
> my harem. ;^)
I never understood girls like that. Prettyboys ain't my cup o'tea.
I tend to drool over guys I find intellectually stimulating.
> 6) Initiative - Someone who is willing to say what they want without
> being embarrassed, or come up with new things to try.
Add to that being open-minded about feedback and input from your
partner. Post-coital discussions are fun.
> Physically attractive by one's standards is also probably a given for
> everyone.
Nicely crafted blanket statement. ;-)
> My brother's list probably wouldn't include 3, 4, or 5, and would
> include technique whereas mine doesn't. He's a lot more into casual
> sex than I will ever be.
Technique only goes so far. One has to be aware enough of their
partner's tastes to make sure technique is properly applied.
> Unfortunately, these things can be one-sided. Someone can be good in
> bed for someone else, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
Not quite sure what you mean by that.
~Fountain of Filth
--
"The enemy is at the gate. And the enemy is the human mind
itself - or lack of it - on this planet." - General Boy
J.D. Spangler
>
>
>In regards to what defines "good in bed"...
>
>J.D. Spangler wrote:
>
>> Depends on the person involved(the one making the designation). For
>> me, that would be:
>> 1) Enthusiasm - This is probably the universal trait.
>
>Who wants to fuck a dead body?
>Oh wait, I forgot, this is ASC. Nevermind. ;-)
http://www.sexylosers.com/ for the advantages of being a necrophiliac ;^)
>
>> 2) Flexibility - Mentally, I mean, although physically helps. ;^) Sex
>> doesn't have to follow a script anymore than life does.
>
>Variety is the spice of life. :-)
Sad to say, I know many people(of both genders) who figure "get up up, get
it in, and get off" is the only way to fly. :^(
>
>> 3) Empathy - They should enjoy my excitement as I do theirs.
>
>I think it's also a willingness to give lots of sexual attention to your
>partner without *expecting* anything in return.
That would fall under a different category... I'm more referring to
actually enjoying your partner's pleasure just for that reason, that it
*is* their pleasure.
Reciprocity as you have it here is one of those paradoxical things. It
shouldn't be expected but if it doesn't happen, then there's a problem. I
don't mean in the "tit for tat every single time" sense, but in the
"sometimes it's all about you, sometimes it's all about them, sometimes
it's all mutual".
<snip>
>
>> 5) Desire - Someone who actually enjoys my body, as opposed to say,
>> some of my female friends(mostly the early 20s ones) who drool over
>> guys in general but then go "Ewww! Dangly bits!", or someone who just
>> wants a warm body. Silly girls. Sometimes I wonder why I consider them
>> my harem. ;^)
>
>I never understood girls like that. Prettyboys ain't my cup o'tea.
>I tend to drool over guys I find intellectually stimulating.
Not quite what I meant :^) They seem to have this attitude that while
they're interested in men on whatever level, they're squicked by the actual
bits that make us male. Of course, as with everything else, it's not just
one side or the other. I have one male friend who is only interested in
female anatomy below the waist as something to put his pecker in. He
doesn't like to use his hands or mouth, which is an attitude I really can't
comprehend... just like I can't comprehend my aforementioned female
friends' attitudes towards the penis.
>
>> 6) Initiative - Someone who is willing to say what they want without
>> being embarrassed, or come up with new things to try.
>
>Add to that being open-minded about feedback and input from your
>partner. Post-coital discussions are fun.
Pre-coital, too... especially if there's time for some build-up and
anticipation.
And yes, feedback/ability to take feedback is a good thing. Too many people
take any suggestions as a blanket condemnation, when it's just a simple
fact that everyone's wired a little bit differently and that's the only way
to learn about them.
>
>> Physically attractive by one's standards is also probably a given for
>> everyone.
>
>Nicely crafted blanket statement. ;-)
Thank you. It's true, though. I've been interested in women in the past
that got a "WTF are you thinking?" from my friends... and vice versa. And
at least one of my gal pals gushed about some guy so much one summer I was
expecting Adonis reborn when I met him... only to meet an anorexic,
balding(at age 22!) idiot with a nasal, whiny voice. To this day I still
don't understand that one... and neither does she, now. ;^)
>
>> My brother's list probably wouldn't include 3, 4, or 5, and would
>> include technique whereas mine doesn't. He's a lot more into casual
>> sex than I will ever be.
>
>Technique only goes so far. One has to be aware enough of their
>partner's tastes to make sure technique is properly applied.
Enthusiasm counts far more in my book than technique, but I agree totally
about the awareness of tastes.
>
>> Unfortunately, these things can be one-sided. Someone can be good in
>> bed for someone else, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
>
>Not quite sure what you mean by that.
I mean it's possible for person A to be considered very good in bed by
person B... but person B may not be considered that good in bed by person
A. Seen a few nasty situations along these lines in the past. Sometimes
it's because of an inability to communicate, other times a person just
isn't willing to learn and deludes his/herself into thinking they're all
that and a bag of chips, sometimes it's just a case of not caring. Always
sad, no matter the reason.
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
Cynic-at-large
http://www.ayrsayle.net
"Ideally someone's religion should have about as much importance
to me as what they had for breakfast. As long as they're not
regurgitating it on me I really shouldn't have to give a damn."
J.D. Spangler
says...
>
>
>In article <4127E3AA...@mindspring.com>, deer...@mindspring.com
>wrote:
>
>> Carl Menden wrote:
>>
>> > She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
>> > reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
>> > particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
>> > the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
>>
>> So, when a man marries, he should drop his female friends because,
>> after all, he was just with them because he wanted to bang them?
>>
>> C.
>> **
>> (obviously Carl doesn't like women much, period--g!)
>
> If I didn't know better, I'd almost say that Carl is my friend's wife
>in disguise! :)
Heh. I figured troll myself, but who knows?
Cheryl Greer
"J.D. Spangler" <ayrs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not quite what I meant :^) They seem to have this attitude that while
> they're interested in men on whatever level, they're squicked by the actual
> bits that make us male.
I'll admit, I have this issue. The male equipment is just...not
aesthetically pleasing to me, what can I say. Not that this keeps me
from any activities, but if I'd have my 'druthers, I'd vote for a
redesign of the whole area. :)
Erosion
>Carl Menden wrote:
>
>> She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
>> reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
>> particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
>> the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
>
>So, when a man marries, he should drop his female friends because,
>after all, he was just with them because he wanted to bang them?
Didn't you see the Nora Ephram documentary, "When Harry Met Sally"?
>C.
>**
Erosion
J.D. Spangler
> In article <eMeWc.40262$Yl.37203@okepread07>,
> "J.D. Spangler" <ayrs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Not quite what I meant :^) They seem to have this attitude that while
> > they're interested in men on whatever level, they're squicked by the actual
> > bits that make us male.
>
> I'll admit, I have this issue. The male equipment is just...not
> aesthetically pleasing to me, what can I say. Not that this keeps me
> from any activities, but if I'd have my 'druthers, I'd vote for a
> redesign of the whole area. :)
Neither set of genitals, male or female, are really that aesthetic if
you think about it that way.
My only redesign would be to put the testicles back up in the abdomen,
or at least make 'em retractable. Too damn vulnerable...
--
Regards,
J.D. Spangler
http://www.ayrsayle.net/
Noelle
news:96dad081.04082...@posting.google.com...
That is kind of an argument against the idea of the Creator being male,
isn't it? :)
Fountain of Filth
"J.D. Spangler" <ayrs...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <2ot1siF...@uni-berlin.de>, m...@privacy.net says...
> >
> >
> >In regards to what defines "good in bed"...
> >
> >J.D. Spangler wrote:
> >
> >> Depends on the person involved(the one making the designation). For
> >> me, that would be:
> >> 1) Enthusiasm - This is probably the universal trait.
> >
> >Who wants to fuck a dead body?
> >Oh wait, I forgot, this is ASC. Nevermind. ;-)
>
> http://www.sexylosers.com/ for the advantages of being a necrophiliac ;^)
You mentioned the comic some months back, and I checked it out back
then. Good stuff. :-)
> >
> >> 2) Flexibility - Mentally, I mean, although physically helps. ;^) Sex
> >> doesn't have to follow a script anymore than life does.
> >
> >Variety is the spice of life. :-)
>
> Sad to say, I know many people(of both genders) who figure "get up up, get
> it in, and get off" is the only way to fly. :^(
That was my ex-jerk most of the time. lol
> >
> >> 3) Empathy - They should enjoy my excitement as I do theirs.
> >
> >I think it's also a willingness to give lots of sexual attention to your
> >partner without *expecting* anything in return.
>
> That would fall under a different category... I'm more referring to
> actually enjoying your partner's pleasure just for that reason, that it
> *is* their pleasure.
Ah, gotcha. Agreed, too.
> <snip>
>
> >
> >> 5) Desire - Someone who actually enjoys my body, as opposed to say,
> >> some of my female friends(mostly the early 20s ones) who drool over
> >> guys in general but then go "Ewww! Dangly bits!", or someone who just
> >> wants a warm body. Silly girls. Sometimes I wonder why I consider them
> >> my harem. ;^)
> >
> >I never understood girls like that. Prettyboys ain't my cup o'tea.
> >I tend to drool over guys I find intellectually stimulating.
>
> Not quite what I meant :^) They seem to have this attitude that while
> they're interested in men on whatever level, they're squicked by the actual
> bits that make us male. Of course, as with everything else, it's not just
> one side or the other. I have one male friend who is only interested in
> female anatomy below the waist as something to put his pecker in. He
> doesn't like to use his hands or mouth, which is an attitude I really can't
> comprehend... just like I can't comprehend my aforementioned female
> friends' attitudes towards the penis.
Ohhh, okay. :-)
When I was a kid, I suppose I was squicked by "dangly bits," but now I'm
not. The male lovers I've had that were really good in bed got me over
that squick... especially DH.
> >> 6) Initiative - Someone who is willing to say what they want without
> >> being embarrassed, or come up with new things to try.
> >
> >Add to that being open-minded about feedback and input from your
> >partner. Post-coital discussions are fun.
>
> Pre-coital, too... especially if there's time for some build-up and
> anticipation.
:)
> And yes, feedback/ability to take feedback is a good thing. Too many people
> take any suggestions as a blanket condemnation, when it's just a simple
> fact that everyone's wired a little bit differently and that's the only way
> to learn about them.
Fortunately, I haven't run into any partners who were taken aback by
feedback.
> >> Physically attractive by one's standards is also probably a given for
> >> everyone.
> >
> >Nicely crafted blanket statement. ;-)
>
> Thank you. It's true, though. I've been interested in women in the past
> that got a "WTF are you thinking?" from my friends... and vice versa. And
> at least one of my gal pals gushed about some guy so much one summer I was
> expecting Adonis reborn when I met him... only to meet an anorexic,
> balding(at age 22!) idiot with a nasal, whiny voice. To this day I still
> don't understand that one... and neither does she, now. ;^)
Love is strange, goes the song...
[snip]
> >> Unfortunately, these things can be one-sided. Someone can be good in
> >> bed for someone else, but the reverse isn't necessarily true.
> >
> >Not quite sure what you mean by that.
>
> I mean it's possible for person A to be considered very good in bed by
> person B... but person B may not be considered that good in bed by person
> A. Seen a few nasty situations along these lines in the past. Sometimes
> it's because of an inability to communicate, other times a person just
> isn't willing to learn and deludes his/herself into thinking they're all
> that and a bag of chips, sometimes it's just a case of not caring. Always
> sad, no matter the reason.
That's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't sure.
BTDT with a friend in college I'll call J.
In retrospect, J probably was as good of a friend as he was a lover...
which is to say, he wasn't much of either, though he thought he was.
J.D. Spangler
>
>
>"J.D. Spangler" <ayrs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:96dad081.04082...@posting.google.com...
>> My only redesign would be to put the testicles back up in the abdomen,
>> or at least make 'em retractable. Too damn vulnerable...
>
>That is kind of an argument against the idea of the Creator being male,
>isn't it? :)
*jots that down for use in his next religious debate*
Carl Menden
> In article <vicious-457259...@individual.net>, vic...@pitt.edu
> says...
> >
> >
> >In article <4127E3AA...@mindspring.com>, deer...@mindspring.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Carl Menden wrote:
> >>
> >> > She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
> >> > reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
> >> > particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
> >> > the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
> >>
> >> So, when a man marries, he should drop his female friends because,
> >> after all, he was just with them because he wanted to bang them?
> >>
> >> C.
> >> **
> >> (obviously Carl doesn't like women much, period--g!)
> >
> > If I didn't know better, I'd almost say that Carl is my friend's wife
> >in disguise! :)
>
> Heh. I figured troll myself, but who knows?
Troll: Someone who doesn't agree with you.
J.D., aren't you even a little curious to see exactly what Cheryl
posted on her friend's blog that kicked off a shitstorm? Don't you ...
just a little, anyway ... smell a rat? She insinuates that it was
innocuous, but as a guy old enough to be bald and gray-bearded and
looking like the "before" picture in a Botox ad, I'm skeptical. What's
she afraid to reveal? I'm feeling more certain that what the "lone
voice of reason" posted on her friend's blog was pretty unreasonable.
Max Mustermann
> J.D., aren't you even a little curious to see exactly what Cheryl
> posted on her friend's blog that kicked off a shitstorm? Don't you ...
> just a little, anyway ... smell a rat? She insinuates that it was
> innocuous, but as a guy old enough to be bald and gray-bearded and
> looking like the "before" picture in a Botox ad, I'm skeptical. What's
> she afraid to reveal? I'm feeling more certain that what the "lone
> voice of reason" posted on her friend's blog was pretty unreasonable.
Why are you obsessed with one comment on a blog, when you don't even know
the people or the blog?
Maybe you need your alter egos Tamika and katspajamas to back you up here.
Jason G
>
>Fortunately, I haven't run into any partners who were taken aback by
>feedback.
>
The only time I'm taken aback by feedback is when it makes the neighbors call
the cops.
Fountain of Filth
Jason G wrote:
"Well, we heard screaming, and we weren't sure if someone was being
murdered or fucked really hard..."
~Fountain of Filth
Glad to live somewhere where the neighbors can't hear me... ;-)
J.D. Spangler
> "J.D. Spangler" <ayrs...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<_MeWc.40263$Yl.38845@okepread07>...
> > In article <vicious-457259...@individual.net>, vic...@pitt.edu
> > says...
> > >
> > >
> > >In article <4127E3AA...@mindspring.com>, deer...@mindspring.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Carl Menden wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
> > >> > reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
> > >> > particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
> > >> > the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
> > >>
> > >> So, when a man marries, he should drop his female friends because,
> > >> after all, he was just with them because he wanted to bang them?
> > >>
> > >> C.
> > >> **
> > >> (obviously Carl doesn't like women much, period--g!)
> > >
> > > If I didn't know better, I'd almost say that Carl is my friend's wife
> > >in disguise! :)
> >
> > Heh. I figured troll myself, but who knows?
>
> Troll: Someone who doesn't agree with you.
Apparently you haven't been paying much attention. I don't agree with
a lot of people, old 'n new... see Jason Steiner, Beakr, Elizabeth,
even Pete on occasion, but that doesn't make 'em trolls to me.
Actually, those are just the ones I've publically disagreed with. I've
probably disagreed with over half the group total, even if most of
those times were of the thinking "yeah, right" in my head variety.
> J.D., aren't you even a little curious to see exactly what Cheryl
> posted on her friend's blog that kicked off a shitstorm? Don't you ...
> just a little, anyway ... smell a rat? She insinuates that it was
> innocuous, but as a guy old enough to be bald and gray-bearded and
> looking like the "before" picture in a Botox ad, I'm skeptical. What's
> she afraid to reveal? I'm feeling more certain that what the "lone
> voice of reason" posted on her friend's blog was pretty unreasonable.
Being a blogger myself and knowing how the drama goes, no, I can't say
I'm really that curious. Also having a former best friend with an
insanely jealous wife, I'm already well aware of how anything can and
will be turned against you.
Let's see what you said that set off my troll-o-meter:
"She probably has understandable reasons to get mad. There are two
reasons married men maintain friendships with other women,
particularly CF ones: 1. for the thrill of flirting and to keep open
the possibility of an affair; 2. to make the wife jealous.
Move on and quit playing a destructive role in someone else's
marriage."
Ok. First part was a nice false generalization. There's no reason for
a married man to give up friendships with other women, any more than
married women need to give up friendships with other men, provided the
friendships were just that: friendships. Which Cheryl gives no
indication that it *is* To insist otherwise generally reveals a lot of
insecurity on the part of the spouse. Having witnessed a lot of
marriages good and bad through the years, I can say the best ones
generally are where both parties are secure in their status and don't
go assuming because a spouse's friend happens to be a guy/girl that
the spouse is looking for an affair. There are inappropriate
behaviours for said friendship(to be defined by the couple,
definitions may vary), to be true, but simple friendship isn't one of
them.
Second part was insinuating that this guy was trying to get into
Cheryl's pants.
Thirdly, where you could have left it at "Move on, leave these two to
their misery", you decided to turn into a stab at her.
Make sense now?
Cheryl Greer
ayrs...@hotmail.com (J.D. Spangler) wrote:
> Also having a former best friend with an
> insanely jealous wife, I'm already well aware of how anything can and
> will be turned against you.
Word!
>
> Thirdly, where you could have left it at "Move on, leave these two to
> their misery", you decided to turn into a stab at her.
>
> Make sense now?
Thank you, JD. I appreciate the defense, though we've all probably
wasted far too much thought and typing effort on this individual (and
probably on this subject as well) already. Yeesh. Funny how most of the
actual participants in this matter have moved on, but some trolltard who
doesn't know me from Eve can't seem to. Drama queens come in all
genders, I see!
(And oh, my big "incendiary" comment was 'Learn what sick days are
for!')
No kids 4 you
> Jason G wrote:
>
>> The only time I'm taken aback by feedback is when it makes the neighbors
>call
>> the cops.
>
>"Well, we heard screaming, and we weren't sure if someone was being
>murdered or fucked really hard..."
>
>~Fountain of Filth
Nice. Really nice. I hope to get to use that sometime. I imagine the
reactions are a riot.
Virginia
"Jason G" <jrgu...@yahoo.REMOVEooTHISooPART.com> wrote in message
news:cgfpg...@drn.newsguy.com...
va ;-p
J.D. Spangler
says...
>
>
>In article <96dad081.04082...@posting.google.com>,
> ayrs...@hotmail.com (J.D. Spangler) wrote:
>
>> Also having a former best friend with an
>> insanely jealous wife, I'm already well aware of how anything can and
>> will be turned against you.
>
> Word!
>
>
>>
>> Thirdly, where you could have left it at "Move on, leave these two to
>> their misery", you decided to turn into a stab at her.
>>
>> Make sense now?
>
> Thank you, JD. I appreciate the defense, though we've all probably
>wasted far too much thought and typing effort on this individual (and
>probably on this subject as well) already. Yeesh. Funny how most of the
>actual participants in this matter have moved on, but some trolltard who
>doesn't know me from Eve can't seem to. Drama queens come in all
>genders, I see!
You're welcome. :^)
And yeah, we come in all genders. As a reformed drama queen since May of
'00, I can truthfully say lack of ovaries is no bar to being one.
> (And oh, my big "incendiary" comment was 'Learn what sick days are
>for!')
I figured as much. Like I said, I know the blog scene and how drama can
spring from anything. :^)
Gregory Morrow
Cheryl Greer wrote:
[...]
> Why do men marry psycho bitches?
RUN just as FAST as you can away from these two...nothing good can come of
staying in contact with these two....
The guy obviously has zero respect for himself since he hooked up with the
nutso babe. I've dealt with such couples (both gay and straight) a number
of times over the years. Believe me, you don't need the complications in
your life. Life is waaaaay too short to stick around wasting your time with
such folk.
--
Best
Greg
Gregory Morrow
Veronique wrote:
> art_c...@yahoo.com (Art Class) wrote:
>
> > I mentioned I was getting too old to have kids anyway and her first
> > statement was "That is ridiculous! Look at Tony Randall!"
> >
>
> Lord help me, I just snorted tea out my nose.
Or if ya wanna puke, Larry King....
--
Best
Greg