| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Ben Goren" |
| Date: |
21 Aug 2005 09:15:28 PM |
| Object: |
AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
I'm not sure if it's because I'm sick of this bloody obnoxious
*****'s incessant arrogance stinking up the place, or if I'm
just in the mood for a good twitting. But, regardless, I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
And Fucking Blithering Twatdom, as well.
Seconds?
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
21 Aug 2005 10:02:13 PM |
|
|
"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote in news:1124676928.726206.173090
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'm not sure if it's because I'm sick of this bloody obnoxious
*****'s incessant arrogance stinking up the place, or if I'm
just in the mood for a good twitting. But, regardless, I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
And Fucking Blithering Twatdom, as well.
Seconds?
Twit? Twit? Of course he's a twit. A stupid fucking twat of a twit.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Religion is but a desperate attempt to find an escape from the truly
dreadful situation in which we find ourselves. Here we are in this wholly
fantastic universe with scarcely a clue as to whether our existence has
any real significance. No wonder then that many people feel the need for
some belief that gives them a sense of security, and no wonder that they
become very angry with people like me who say that this is illusory.
-- Fred Hoyle
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
21 Aug 2005 10:11:50 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1124676928.726206.173090 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I'm not sure if it's because I'm sick of this bloody obnoxious
*****'s incessant arrogance stinking up the place, or if I'm
just in the mood for a good twitting. But, regardless, I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
And Fucking Blithering Twatdom, as well.
Seconds?
Twit? Twit? Of course he's a twit. A stupid fucking twat of a twit.
I long for the Good Old Days (which were not) when people ran their own BBS
systems and a Twit meant something.
On my boards it meant that the Twit could pay, could read and respond to
anything he wanted to. He even saw everything he wrote.
But nobody else did.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:25:39 AM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
The twit list is dead.
8-(
Long live the twit list!
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ordog" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
21 Aug 2005 09:38:26 PM |
|
|
Ben Goren wrote:
I'm not sure if it's because I'm sick of this bloody obnoxious
*****'s incessant arrogance stinking up the place, or if I'm
just in the mood for a good twitting. But, regardless, I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
And Fucking Blithering Twatdom, as well.
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~!
I suppose, if need be, we could issue the same award more than once!
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
21 Aug 2005 09:43:15 PM |
|
|
Ordog wrote:
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~!
I suppose, if need be, we could issue the same award more than
once!
Oh, that's just Raytard, one of the elder twits. I don't think
there's any mechanism for a re-twitting....
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 07:48:40 PM |
|
|
In episode <1124678595.424068.98470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ben
Goren burst into the room and exclaimed:
Ordog wrote:
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~! I suppose, if need be, we
could issue the same award more than once!
Oh, that's just Raytard, one of the elder twits. I don't think there's
any mechanism for a re-twitting....
Twitting Raytard would be superfluous...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 08:59:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:48:40 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <1124678595.424068.98470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ben
Goren burst into the room and exclaimed:
Ordog wrote:
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~! I suppose, if need be, we
could issue the same award more than once!
Oh, that's just Raytard, one of the elder twits. I don't think there's
any mechanism for a re-twitting....
Twitting Raytard would be superfluous...
Carrying twits to Newcastle, anyone?
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 09:52:56 PM |
|
|
In episode <cn0lg19otj9hjk9kpc62tgvrotj0vq1uj0@4ax.com>, Apostate burst
into the room and exclaimed:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:48:40 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <1124678595.424068.98470@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Ben
Goren burst into the room and exclaimed:
Ordog wrote:
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~! I suppose, if need be,
we could issue the same award more than once!
Oh, that's just Raytard, one of the elder twits. I don't think
there's any mechanism for a re-twitting....
Twitting Raytard would be superfluous...
Carrying twits to Newcastle, anyone?
I ain't pickin' that up!
Not without serious gloves at least...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 02:41:54 PM |
|
|
on 21 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Ben Goren (ben.goren@gmail.com)
made the light shine upon us with this:
Ordog wrote:
May I nominate ~I don't believe in atheists~!
I suppose, if need be, we could issue the same award more than
once!
Oh, that's just Raytard, one of the elder twits. I don't think
there's any mechanism for a re-twitting....
Cheers,
b&
I couldn't remember if Raytard had already been twitted. We *do* need a
list we can access. I had some fun with him for a few weeks, posting as
"Raytard Spanker", but it has gotten old. He's back in the bozo bin now.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
Plonked by Raytard
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 12:11:04 AM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2005 19:15:28 -0700, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com>
wrote:
I'm not sure if it's because I'm sick of this bloody obnoxious
*****'s incessant arrogance stinking up the place, or if I'm
just in the mood for a good twitting. But, regardless, I hereby
nominate ~Glorious Appearing~ for a.a Twitdom.
And Fucking Blithering Twatdom, as well.
Seconds?
Cheers,
b&
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of using
female genitals to put down people?
I happen to like mine, and think very highly of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 12:31:34 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:11:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:27:53 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
("JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>) said,
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
Icky girl cooties? Eeeeeew!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:10:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:11:48 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
Ever been a fireman, Therion?
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
27 Aug 2005 01:36:45 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:10:03 -0400 in alt.atheism, Apostate (Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:11:48 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
Ever been a fireman, Therion?
Erm, no. And why do I feel I'm missing something here?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
#442. Want food NOW? Then try http://www.rtios.co.uk/
- Yep, currently under test... Your opinion welcome.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
27 Aug 2005 10:09:52 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:36:45 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:10:03 -0400 in alt.atheism, Apostate (Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:11:48 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
Ever been a fireman, Therion?
Erm, no. And why do I feel I'm missing something here?
Prolly 'cause the post is cold, and the context forgotten.
However, I might (hint) have been holding a mental picture of you tossing a bucket of
kerosene and a cord of seasoned oak onto a small campfire, or something like that.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
27 Aug 2005 11:43:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:09:52 -0400 in alt.atheism, Apostate (Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 07:36:45 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:10:03 -0400 in alt.atheism, Apostate (Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 07:11:48 +0100, Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Clearly this matter of twat usage requires deep and penetrating
investigation by experts in the field. I propose the court convene
next Tuesday for oral submissions,
Ever been a fireman, Therion?
Erm, no. And why do I feel I'm missing something here?
Prolly 'cause the post is cold, and the context forgotten.
However, I might (hint) have been holding a mental picture of you tossing a bucket of
kerosene and a cord of seasoned oak onto a small campfire, or something like that.
That would be very silly. I prefer to use 99.7% Isopropyl Alcohol!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 06:54:39 AM |
|
|
In episode <D7ydnZ3--u9B_ZTeRVn-qw@comcast.com>, JTEM burst into the room
and exclaimed:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of using
female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to also ban "*****"
and other male-specific put downs.
I have to admit it tends to get me riled that the "c" word is forbidden by
the same people who freely use the word "*****" for men...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 09:01:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:54:39 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <D7ydnZ3--u9B_ZTeRVn-qw@comcast.com>, JTEM burst into the room
and exclaimed:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of using
female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to also ban "*****"
and other male-specific put downs.
I have to admit it tends to get me riled that the "c" word is forbidden by
the same people who freely use the word "*****" for men...
It's more that, calling a guy a twat means that he's a woman and
that's bad because supposedly being a woman is bad.
Is that what you want to tell the women here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 10:46:57 AM |
|
|
In episode <4327d9bf.220811250@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate burst into
the room and exclaimed:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:54:39 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In episode <D7ydnZ3--u9B_ZTeRVn-qw@comcast.com>, JTEM burst into the room
and exclaimed:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of using
female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to also ban "*****"
and other male-specific put downs.
I have to admit it tends to get me riled that the "c" word is forbidden
by the same people who freely use the word "*****" for men...
It's more that, calling a guy a twat means that he's a woman and that's
bad because supposedly being a woman is bad.
Is that what you want to tell the women here?
No, it's further evidence I should not post pre-coffee.
I have not--I repeat *not*--run into this here among our group. In
fact, I had in mind one (now former) friend that... well, I'm not going to
get into it. Suffice it to say, you'd risk getting slapped for anything
remotely perceived as a slight towards women but anything she said in
trashing men was just okay I was supposed to sit down and shut up.
Unfortunately, rereading what I wrote, it came out as a rather sweeping
generality which wasn't what I thought I was writing. Sorry if it came off
as commentary on folks in the ng.
(Weirdly enough, until very recently, I didn't know--I'm *serious
here--that's what "twat" meant and thought it was another word for "*****"
until I was brought up short by a couple of posters around some ng or
other... maybe here, I don't recall now. In any case, I think "twit"
suffices.)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 07:22:20 PM |
|
|
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
(Weirdly enough, until very recently, I didn't know--I'm *serious
here--that's what "twat" meant and thought it was another word for
"*****" until I was brought up short by a couple of posters around some
ng or other... maybe here, I don't recall now. In any case, I think
"twit" suffices.)
Such words tend to have diferent meaings and different degrees of insult
depending on a lot of factors. While rideing home from a Catholic boarding
school one afternoon with the kids from the local Catholic high school I
found this out *much* to my embarrasment. 90 miles difference in location
and worlds apart in meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Goren" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 09:42:35 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo
JTEM wrote:
Kate wrote:
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of
using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to also
ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
I have to admit it tends to get me riled that the "c" word is
forbidden by the same people who freely use the word "*****" for
men...
It's more that, calling a guy a twat means that he's a woman and
that's bad because supposedly being a woman is bad.
Is that what you want to tell the women here?
When you realize that calling somebody a *****, an *****, a boob,
a nutsack, a schmuck, a *****, or a putz are all about equally
insulting, I think you'll realize that calling somebody a twat has
very little to do with femininity or female genitalia.
But, having said that, I'm sorry if I offended you. Oh, sure, I
meant to offend--but my ire was aimed at Gratuitous Appalling,
not innocent bystanders. And, really, when there's a one-letter
difference between the words, and considering how pun-obsessed us
a.aers are...well, surely, it would seem to be one of those
irresistible forces one often hears about.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. I hereby publicly declare that Gratuitous Appalling is a
twat, a *****, an *****, a boob, a nutsack, a schmuck, a *****,
and a putz, all crammed together, and shoved into a very small
douche bag. b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
All but God can prove this sentence true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 11:03:03 AM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 07:42:35 -0700, "Ben Goren" <ben.goren@gmail.com>
wrote:
Kate wrote:
Mark K. Bilbo
JTEM wrote:
Kate wrote:
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium of
using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to also
ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
I have to admit it tends to get me riled that the "c" word is
forbidden by the same people who freely use the word "*****" for
men...
It's more that, calling a guy a twat means that he's a woman and
that's bad because supposedly being a woman is bad.
Is that what you want to tell the women here?
When you realize that calling somebody a *****, an *****, a boob,
a nutsack, a schmuck, a *****, or a putz are all about equally
insulting, I think you'll realize that calling somebody a twat has
very little to do with femininity or female genitalia.
From what I understand, by using the word twat, or ***** the intent is
to put down a guy by calling him a woman. It's about on the same
level as calling him a girly boy (as our lovely govenor has a penchant
for doing), which is derogatory to gays too.
A ***** is not calling someone a guy in general, it refers to a guy
who's being overcome with testorone so much he's acting like a jerk, a
boob has nothing to do with breasts in that context (it's short for
booby which was a stupid acting bird) and I'm not real sure what a
putz is - another term for *****? A nutsack I think is calling someone
nuts or crazy, rather than male testes.
But, having said that, I'm sorry if I offended you. Oh, sure, I
meant to offend--but my ire was aimed at Gratuitous Appalling,
not innocent bystanders. And, really, when there's a one-letter
difference between the words, and considering how pun-obsessed us
a.aers are...well, surely, it would seem to be one of those
irresistible forces one often hears about.
I'm not really all that offended, but I realize that sometimes people
don't stop to think about what they really are saying when they use a
slang term.
Cheers,
b&
P.S. I hereby publicly declare that Gratuitous Appalling is a
twat, a *****, an *****, a boob, a nutsack, a schmuck, a *****,
and a putz, all crammed together, and shoved into a very small
douche bag. b&
Sounds like a party
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 06:12:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Yeah...tit for tat.
--
zamboni #2139
BAAWA Assistant to the Vice-Administrator of Malevolence
EAC Tertiary Adjunct to the Dispenser of Obfuscation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:09:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Only a mean ***** would take things that far.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 01:48:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:09:25 -0400, Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Only a mean ***** would take things that far.
I knew a lesbian who called Margaret Thatcher a *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 03:14:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:48:15 -0400, Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:09:25 -0400, Apostate
<apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:31:34 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I don't disagree with twitdom, but can we get a moritorium
of using female genitals to put down people?
Because then, in the interest of fairness, we'd have to
also ban "*****" and other male-specific put downs.
Only a mean ***** would take things that far.
I knew a lesbian who called Margaret Thatcher a *****.
There's never one around, when you need one.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 06:00:40 PM |
|
|
"Apostate" <apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
I knew a lesbian who called Margaret Thatcher a *****.
There's never one around, when you need one.
A lesbian or a *****?
And while we're on the subject, is it impolite to refer to
them as Lez-be-Dykes???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
22 Aug 2005 08:18:35 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 19:00:40 -0400, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Apostate" <apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
I knew a lesbian who called Margaret Thatcher a *****.
There's never one around, when you need one.
A lesbian or a *****?
Tsk!
<despairs of any further purpose to live>
You knew a lesbian who called Maggie Thatcher a {cab|ambulance|*****|what-have-you}
You know how *long* it's been since I've had to *explain* one of those?
And while we're on the subject, is it impolite to refer to
them as Lez-be-Dykes???
When I'm in company I think or know includes one or more lesbians, I try not to be a *****.
But *only* then.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: AA - twit nomination: ~Glorious Appearing~ |
23 Aug 2005 12:26:03 AM |
|
|
"Apostate" <apostate.invalid.still@yeehaw.org> wrote
Tsk!
<despairs of any further purpose to live>
You knew a lesbian who called Maggie Thatcher a
{cab|ambulance|*****|what-have-you}
Yes. I get it.
Lady: Doorman! Call me a cab.
Doorman: Okay, "You're a cab."
Well, um, the opposet of that, actually.
Lez-be-*****: Hello? *****? Yoo Hoo! *****? Come here.
This Iron Lady needs you [gestures towards Maggie].
And while we're on the subject, is it impolite to refer to
them as Lez-be-Dykes???
When I'm in company I think or know includes one or more
lesbians, I try not to be a *****.
But *only* then.
I always try to talk up "boi *****." I figgure they can connect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
