From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #153 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, April 22 2003 Volume 12 : Number 153 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Mellow Bi-Burrito Brothers [Glen Uber ] Re: back to bisexuality ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Grooving on a bi plane [brian@lazerlove5.com] Re: Mellow Bi-Burrito Brothers ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Minor update (reap) [Eb ] Re: Fear of a bi planet [gshell@metronet.com] Boobahs? ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Lemme get this straight... err... bi... ummm... ["Rex.Broome" ] RE: Back to bisexuality [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Bullshit! Re: Wheel no more [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] ...and every single one of them is right [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Di] Re: Back to bisexuality [Tom Clark ] Re: ...and every single one of them is right ["Jason R. Thornton" ] Re: Back to bisexuality [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Bi gotta message for you [Brian Cully ] Bi your command ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Senator Santorum - what's up with him? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: Fear of a bi planet [Tom Clark ] Re: Senator Santorum - what's up with him? [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Mellow Bi-Burrito Brothers Tom Clark: > -tc, post-burrito mellow. And then, Brian Cully: > You may take it very lightly, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't > get offended. In fact, I think that a lot of the "light offensive > humor" that floats about does far more to hurt people than when people > argue seriously. I'd like to offer burritos all around for all my feg friends...my treat! If there's one thing I've learned after many years of being on feg, it's that no one takes themselves too seriously around here. By the same token, most of us have strong opinions that fall all over the political, religious and moral spectra. From what I have seen, far more damage is done when people attempt to have "serious arguments". More often than not, these arguments devolve into ad hominem attacks and flame wars. I prefer the light-hearted jabs and slightly offensive one-liners that are bandied about rather than the flame wars and angry retorts that often occur as the result of misunderstanding, intolerance of fellow fegs' differing beliefs or the inability of some people to understand irony or sarcasm. I'll admit that some things I've read on here have been on the offensive and even tasteless side. I take it with a grain of salt because I don't think anyone on the list truly means to offend anyone. I'm more likely to delete political conversations and Buffy threads than I am conversations about bisexuality, sexual ambiguity or open marriages because I feel that people who are rabid about politics or vampire slayers are going to be far more cruel and heartless when attacking someone with a differing point of view. Barbara's comments are just as important as anyone else's around here and rather than attack her, someone should have used the opportunity to enlighten her or at least explain facets of these lifestyles. I'm glad to see that a few people have done that. I don't really know what I'm trying to say, but I think it needed to be said. So let's all have a beer and burrito and get back to the discussions about things that most of us can , like Robyn doing '70s covers, strolloping road whores on the Grand Ol' Opry, dead and dying celebs and hot girl-on-girl action. ;) So fuck you, Tom Clark, fuck you Brian Cully, fuck you fegs everywhere!* - -- Cheers! - -g- * No offense meant to anyone who doesn't understand this sentence. It's just a quaint, old-fashioned way to say good-bye. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:21:51 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: back to bisexuality On Tuesday, April 22, 2003, at 03:59 PM, ross taylor wrote: > Nice idea, but it mostly sounded like womp-womp-womp-womp for about > fifteen minutes. yeah, that pretty much sums up sexuality for me, too. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:27:00 +0000 (GMT) From: brian@lazerlove5.com Subject: Re: Grooving on a bi plane I'm glad you mentioned that song, Rex. Super groovy bass flows throughout! Tabbed it a few months back. And I'll talk talk talk about this song, but I already did. I understand the point of not letting gender get in the way of who you love or feel *love* for. Or something similiar to what I just said. It all sorta makes sense in my green pea. And thai green curry is simply, in my opinion, one of the greatest food to grace this earth. Nuppy ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:27:18 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Mellow Bi-Burrito Brothers Glen Uber wrote: > > * No offense meant to anyone who doesn't > understand this sentence. It's just > a quaint, old-fashioned way to say good-bye. I think you forgot to call them "you fucking fucks". I consider this a gross breach of fegiquette on your part. Stewart - -- "In a million years from now there'll be no men, no women... just a world full of wankers" - Gregory's Girl. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 12:21:27 -0700 From: Eb Subject: RE: Back to bisexuality >Barbara: >Monogamy is truly boring after 27 years and I wouldn't mind another >relationship on the side. In fact I've had a couple of one night stands over the years, so I'm not totally strict about these things. >Catherine: >And to think, I've been doing it wrong >for 20 years... (said very tongue-in-cheek). My understanding that tongue-in-cheek is definitely the wrong way. >I have a very happy, loving marriage, but both my >husband and I are free to pursue outside relationships (no, not sleazy >one-night-stands and wild sex parties, I'm talking "intimate" friendships). >So, I have a great husband AND a terrific woman who has been one of my best >friends for 8 years, and my "girlfriend" for nearly 3 years. > >OK - I'll shut up now... Please don't. ;) My god...is this list threatening to become *interesting* again? Too bad my sexual adventures wouldn't impress a 18-year-old -- I'll have to just lurk in this one. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:33:14 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Minor update (reap) Regarding the disgusting deathbed theft of my father's money clip and Social Security card, mentioned two weeks ago.... My mother talked to the local police a few times today. I guess it took this long for them to start investigating. The most interesting revelation of the day: One of the two mortuary guys no longer works for the company. Hmmmmm. The police wouldn't say *which* of the two, but Mum and I agreed that the answer is obvious: that sullen creep who never said a single word during the entire visit. He was definitely a bad egg. The detective talked to both guys, and they denied taking anything. Big surprise. They also denied wrapping up the body behind a closed bedroom door -- apparently, closing the door is strictly against company policy. Except they *did* do it behind closed doors, without a doubt. So, they're *both* liars. The Neptune Society, the larger mortuary which contracted out the body removal to the smaller local company, also behaved badly. Our "liason" (or whatever you call her) at the mortuary apparently never told her boss about the theft, and hoped things would just "work themselves out." She also never said one word about the incident a week ago, during a face-to-face burial consultation with me, my mother and sister. They should be *groveling* for our forgiveness, and they're not nearly as alarmed by this obscenity as they should be. My father would have turned 73 over the weekend. On Saturday, my mother hosted sort of a "birthday party" as a light alternative to a memorial, and a good 60 or so people showed up. Including at least three people who have held local political offices (two ex-mayors, one ex- or current councilwoman). An awful lot of people loved him. I saw several old neighbors and family friends whom I hadn't seen since I was a kid, which was simultaneously nice and rather weird. My thoughts are pitch-black, nowadays. Responses might be best received off-list. It's likely that I shouldn't have publicly posted this stuff in the first place, but I feel a need to vent. And it saved me some Bcc: juggling. Eliot was right, Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:52:55 -0500 (CDT) From: gshell@metronet.com Subject: Re: Fear of a bi planet On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Brian Cully wrote: > Generalizations are great, assuming you treat them as what they are: > observations of a whole data set. They break down and start offending > people when you start talking about them as laws, which they absolutely > are not. not on this list. it just doesn't happen here. no bigotry, no idol-worship no spongiform encephalitis induced slander. i mean heck, until now i had no idea jackie stewart was a redneck. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:52:44 -0500 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Boobahs? Any of you folks in the UK seen the Boobahs? I just caught wind of them today and am very intrigued. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:02:26 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Lemme get this straight... err... bi... ummm... Jason, then Catherine: >>>>I used to date a girl that was quite definitely bi. She was quite hesitant >>>to bring up the subject of her past relationships/experiences with women, >>because the vast majority of the straight men she had dated before me >>would >>get "really offended" by it. >>My experience is that far from being offended, they're usually TOO >>intrigued. Once a straight man knows that you're a bisexual woman, he just >>wants to "get it on" with you AND your girlfriend ;) This is all kind of interesting; it throws an interesting light on a few things various partners have said to me over the years. Seems like most of the women I've, er, been with have had lesbian experiences before, although *none* of them claimed to be "practicing" at the time. In most of these cases I ended up hearing the stories of those past relationships/trysts. Now, unlike in Catherine's experience, I never actually ran straight from hearing about those experiences to proposing a three-way, although I'll sure as hell cop to being, you know, intrigued-- after all, I do find the female body attractive, and I don't find two of them together any less so. By any stretch... But it never occurred to me that these women might have been downplaying their bisexuality *for fear that it might offend me*! And admittedly, they probably weren't, as I can't imagine I come off as someone who *would be* offended by it. Especially since they would generally not bring it up until after we'd been intimate, which usually sort of gives you the measure of a person and definitely breaks down a boundary or two. - -Rex, who admits, yeah, he did kinda hint around about the three-way thing with one of his girlfriends, but that was with one who just described herself as "bi" but had never been with a woman, so that was just not happening. PS How ya doin' over there, Eb? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:56:26 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Re: back to bisexuality Brian Cully said: "I didn't mean to imply a death threat, just make a point, although I admit too much vitriol came out." Thanks Brian, I appreciate that. And I apologize for insulting you. I will fade into the background again, only to shock you all at a future date. Sitting back and eating chocolate covered almonds. Listening to Buffy St. Marie, "God is Alive/Magic is Afoot". An early Leonard Cohen poem set to music. Interesting but not something easy to dance to. Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:11:08 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: RE: Back to bisexuality - -- Eb is rumored to have mumbled on Dienstag, 22. April 2003 11:21 Uhr -0800 regarding RE: Back to bisexuality: > My god...is this list threatening to become *interesting* again? Too bad > my sexual adventures wouldn't impress a 18-year-old -- I'll have to just > lurk in this one. Come on, it's the ultimate alternative lifestyle: having no sex at all! Well, I just bought myself a Hugo Boss suit (my very first suit!) and when I rode the tram on Saturday, wearing it for the first time, a woman seemed very interested in me. I didn't manage more than smiling back at her when she got off, but at least it gave me the feeling that a woman might find me interesting after all - it's been a long time. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:18:06 -0700 From: Barbara Soutar Subject: Senator Santorum - what's up with him? I'm just reading an interview with the severely homophobic Senator Santorum in which he discusses some of the same topics I was getting into. I'm ashamed of being even remotely associated with the kind of things he talks about... I am beginning to see why my flippantness was annoying to people. There are seriously people out there trying to ban homosexuality and equating it with incest, etc. Had no idea. The unedited transcript of the interview with this guy can be read at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2593786,00.html Barbara Soutar Victoria, British Columbia ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:21:48 -0700 (PDT) From: John Barrington Jones Subject: RE: Back to bisexuality > Well, I just bought myself a Hugo Boss suit (my very first suit!) and when > I rode the tram on Saturday, wearing it for the first time, a woman seemed > very interested in me. I didn't manage more than smiling back at her when > she got off Nudge Nudge Wink Wink say no more say no more! ;) (he grinned, knowingly) =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:31:28 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Bullshit! Re: Wheel no more >On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Jason R. Thornton wrote: >> The site has another URL at http://sho.com/ptbs/. You might want to try >> that to see if it works. > >"Sorry >We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are >intended for access only from within the United States. >Code: ZZUK20030422138.38.32.86" to throw a complete Spaniard into these works, I had no trouble accessing the site. Which could means: 1) New Zealand is now part of the US (unlikely) 2) The US plans to make NZ part of it (worrying, but who knows?) 3) The UK and Canada are no longer US allies and will soon be listed as part of an extended Axis of Evil (plausible) 4) The creators of the website have no idea what New Zealand is (most likely) James ("Isn't it one of those tiny states up mear Connecticut?") PS - I'm finally getting some of that new-fangled technology. Just bought my first DVD, a documentary about the Sex Pistols which the sales docket inexplicably lists as "The filth and the fur". James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 10:49:55 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: ...and every single one of them is right > And why "omnisexual"? Is that supposed to mean that those who are >attracted to men and women are also attracted to hermaphrodites and >eunuchs? Does it extend past that into other sexual preferences like >BDSM? I'm pretty sure we're talking only preferred partners and not preferred methods, so BDSM isn't covered by this. After all, you can be "100% heterosexual" or "100% gay" (if such things exists) and still be into BDSM, or D/S, or "water games", or roleplay, or anal, any of the other myriad possibilities. You might as well ask whether someone is omnisexual if they like 69. Back to the term "omnisexual" though - the terms I've heard are "ambisexual" if you don't agree with the term bisexual, and omni- (or pan-) if you're into the entire rich tapestry (specifically multiple simultaneous partners). Don't know whether the, shall we say, morally disapproved of parts of that tapestry would be included in those descriptions, though. >Now that I've managed to offend several people with my criticism of the >concept of bisexuality, I'll explain what I meant. This orientation >seems to be a recent invention... everyone I have met who claims to be >bisexual is gay. then you haven't met anyone who is really bisexual - only people uneasy with the term gay. Either that or you don't know them as well as you think you do. Why choose one sex and limit your choices? And while the term bisexual may be fairly recent (anyone any idea? Stewart?), the practice definitely isn't. Personally, I'd say that, as with almost everything, there's no black and white, there's a continuum from "as near as dammit 100% hetero" to "as near as dammit 100% gay". Most people probably fall at one or the other ends of the spectrum, but there'd a lot who are mostly one or the other, or completely ambivalent (hm. A lovely term, given its chemical meaning of 'able to bond equally with either'). >And, in the end, why is it that people are so keen to make judgements on one >another based on who one loves or sleeps with? I'd far rather be judged by >whether or not I am a loyal friend, an intelligent person, a good mother, an >enjoyable companion - things that truly matter, and are by far a better >measure of my "worth" than whose bed I was in last night. word. James (who's never done the deed with another man, but would also never rule out the possibility) James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:58:33 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Back to bisexuality on 4/22/03 3:11 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn at Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de wrote: > Well, I just bought myself a Hugo Boss suit (my very first suit!) and when > I rode the tram on Saturday, wearing it for the first time, a woman seemed > very interested in me. Women go crazy for a sharp dressed man. - -tc, nationwide... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:59:33 -0700 From: "Jason R. Thornton" Subject: Re: ...and every single one of them is right At 10:49 AM 4/23/2003 +1200, James Dignan wrote: >James (who's never done the deed with another man, but would also never >rule out the possibility) Dibs! - --Jason "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:00:41 -0400 From: Brian Cully Subject: Bi-ting the bullet On Tuesday, Apr 22, 2003, at 17:07 America/New_York, Rex.Broome wrote: > You might be taking my statement as a bit more of a "serious > pronouncement" > than I meant it. I was pretty much saying "this is what I observe > amonst > bisexual men of my acquaintance", although it was also somewhat > informed by > conversations I've had with people within that group who like to joke > around > about the same phenomenon I was mentioning... Naw, I was simply espousing my beliefs on top of what Aaron had said. I didn't think you'd meant anything past an observation of your own social circle. > But yeah, these are small-ass data sample groups, and as I was just > mentioning to Aaron offlist, for all I know they're shaped as much by > regional culture (I do live in Los Angeles), age group, ethnicity, > religion, > country of origin, or whatever the hell else. My girlfriend and I were joking about this after reading what Barbara had said about most bi's actually being gay. Most of /our/ bi friends tend to hover more on the straight end of the arena. I wasn't at all offended by what you'd said, I was just explaining what I saw as a problem with the use of generalization by a lot of people. - -bjc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 01:10:13 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Back to bisexuality - -- Tom Clark is rumored to have mumbled on Dienstag, 22. April 2003 15:58 Uhr -0700 regarding Re: Back to bisexuality: > on 4/22/03 3:11 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn at Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de > wrote: > >> Well, I just bought myself a Hugo Boss suit (my very first suit!) and >> when I rode the tram on Saturday, wearing it for the first time, a woman >> seemed very interested in me. > > Women go crazy for a sharp dressed man. Isn't it "Everyone's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man" in the ZZ Top song? That would fit in nicely with the bi theme and that song went through my head when that happened ... ;-) - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156, 50823 Kvln, Germany http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ "Being just contaminates the void" - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:14:59 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Back to bisexuality on 4/22/03 4:10 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn at Hagedorn@spinfo.uni-koeln.de wrote: >> Women go crazy for a sharp dressed man. > > Isn't it "Everyone's crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man" in the ZZ Top song? > That would fit in nicely with the bi theme and that song went through my > head when that happened ... ;-) I just looked it up and three different lyric sites say it's "'cuz every girl crazy 'bout a sharp dressed man" Must be a Texas thing. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 19:18:08 -0400 From: Brian Cully Subject: Bi gotta message for you On Tuesday, Apr 22, 2003, at 17:14 America/New_York, Glen Uber wrote: > I'd like to offer burritos all around for all my feg friends...my > treat! I'll send you my address so you can ship it to me. Nuthin's as good as a fed ex burrito that's been sitting... err... marinating in Talahasee for a couple days. > If there's one thing I've learned after many years of being on feg, > it's > that no one takes themselves too seriously around here. By the same > token, > most of us have strong opinions that fall all over the political, > religious > and moral spectra. Aye. This is a truly wonderful list for that. I've never been anywhere that can hold an actual non-flaming discussion over important topics like fegs. > From what I have seen, far more damage is done when people attempt to > have > "serious arguments". More often than not, these arguments devolve into > ad > hominem attacks and flame wars. I prefer the light-hearted jabs and > slightly > offensive one-liners that are bandied about rather than the flame wars > and > angry retorts that often occur as the result of misunderstanding, > intolerance of fellow fegs' differing beliefs or the inability of some > people to understand irony or sarcasm. Irony and sarcasm are fine, but I don't think Barb's comments happened to fall into those categories, although I'm probably a little touchy on the subject. Serious arguments are no longer serious, IMHO, when they devolve into ad hominem attacks and flame wars. That happens when one side closes itself off to the other, and it's no longer an argument. It's important not to take yourself or other's too seriously, but I don't think it's wrong for me to respond to a jab with, "hey, that hurts me and a lot of other people and here's why." > Barbara's comments are just as important as anyone else's around here > and > rather than attack her, someone should have used the opportunity to > enlighten her or at least explain facets of these lifestyles. I'm glad > to > see that a few people have done that. I, uh, endeavored to do that with my original reply to Barbara but my vitriol got the better of me, for which I apologize. Nothing gets accomplished when one side starts acting out of anger, regardless of reason. I do hope that at least some of what I said got through it. > So fuck you, Tom Clark, fuck you Brian Cully, fuck you fegs > everywhere!* Fuck you, you fuckin' fuck! - -bjc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:36:01 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Bi your command Brian: >> Most of /our/ bi friends tend to hover more on the straight end of the arena. Thinking about this a little more, I've realized that there's another skewed aspect to my own control group-- I really actually know far more gay-identified men than bi-identified men, so some of my anecdotal evidence comes from these guys saying (usually jokingly) "when I used to be bi". And yet another mitigating factor is that for some reason the great majority of my friends are all paired up into couples, so while they are apparently monogamous, who even knows who among them might be bi. (I mean, I actually do know in many cases, but I don't go 'round asking.) - -Rex "Don't Ask, Do Tell!!!" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 16:58:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Senator Santorum - what's up with him? Barbara Soutar wrote: > I'm just reading an interview with the severely > homophobic Senator Santorum in which he discusses some of > the same topics I was getting into. I'm ashamed of being > even remotely associated with the kind of things he talks\ > about... I am beginning to see why my flippantness was > annoying to people. There are seriously people out there > trying to ban homosexuality and equating it with incest, > etc. Had no idea. Of course, the reason Santorum said it is he wants to fuck his sister.... > The unedited transcript of the interview with this guy > can be read at: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-2593786,00.html > > Barbara Soutar > Victoria, British Columbia ===== "Being accused of hating America by people like Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham is like being accused of hating children by Michael Jackson or (Cardinal) Bernard Law." -- anonymous . The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo http://search.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:17:42 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: I knew that sounded familiar... / auto-eroticism Ross T: >>I vaguely remember, from Cultural Anthropology classes, discussion of how >>strongly humans are disturbed by anything that crosses categories, that is >>"neither fish, flesh nor fowl." So much so that Terence Trent D'Arby scared away his entire fan base by releasing a record with that title. Well, he might have left off the "fowl" part, but look how terrifying even 2/3rds of it is... ___ gSs: >>i'd be glad to watch your show. but unless >>you are well trained you should run as soon as you have proven your >>aloftedness because at this point i believe i'll force sex, in a bad-way, >>on the first deity i come across, as a pay-back. though, you never >>actually know until it happens. we could end up an item. i prefer mortals, >>but i once owned a '69 mach 1. it was a god of some type and i would have >>rogered her long and slow, in a good way. Now I'm just confused. If you owned it, why didn't you just go to town? - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:03:36 -0400 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Fear of a bi planet gshell@metronet.com wrote: > > ... until now i had > no idea jackie stewart was a redneck. uh, namespace collision -- we're not talking Sir Jackie Stewart, the last interesting F1 driver, and famed Scottish dyslexic person from the same town as David Byrne? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:09:01 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Fear of a bi planet on 4/22/03 6:03 PM, Stewart C. Russell at scruss@sympatico.ca wrote: > gshell@metronet.com wrote: >> >> ... until now i had >> no idea jackie stewart was a redneck. > > uh, namespace collision -- we're not talking Sir Jackie Stewart, the > last interesting F1 driver, and famed Scottish dyslexic person from the > same town as David Byrne? > I believe we are. My reference to the sports channel showing "rednecks driving in circles" was meant as a slant to NASCAR (stock car racing dominated by said subculture), but Greg generalised it to the entire auto racing population. Life is short and quid pro quo But what's so strange about a down home family romance? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:16:06 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Senator Santorum - what's up with him? Quoting Jeff Dwarf : > Of course, the reason Santorum said it is he wants to fuck > his sister.... Speaking of which, does anyone else feel really icky watching Donny and Marie Osmond interact? or Pat and Bay Buchanan? ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:17:53 -0500 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Bullshit! Re: Wheel no more Quoting James Dignan : > to throw a complete Spaniard into these works, I had no trouble > accessing > the site. Which could means: > > 1) New Zealand is now part of the US (unlikely) > 2) The US plans to make NZ part of it (worrying, but who knows?) > 3) The UK and Canada are no longer US allies and will soon be listed as > part of an extended Axis of Evil (plausible) > 4) The creators of the website have no idea what New Zealand is (most > likely) Or (here's a guess) it works simply by looking at domain names: Stewart's from something-something.ca - a dead giveaway - whereas your address is just .com, which could be anywhere. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #153 ********************************