Well done you frogs!

Actually, it's only you that's referring to said comment. The rest of
us are simply enjoying your one-man comedy show.

Shame you're not actually trying to be funny, but it won't
stop the rest of us laughing at you anyway.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

WTF is oral copulation? It's a blowjob you prig, copulation doesn't come
into it.

 

No it's not, you ****

 

I *love* it when this sort of thing happens.

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

I think you need to check the definition of 'copulation'. Whilst you have
the dictionary open, you can check the spelling of 'imbecile' too.

 

Whilst he's about it, get him to check the words 'insure' and 'ensure',
as he thinks that they're interchangeable. Oh, and 'advise' and
'advice', for the same reason.

*snigger*

D.

 

My mistake. Perhaps if I had added, "and I would help her climb over
you to get seated," it might have made more sense.

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

<snip irrelevant subterfuge>

I see what you did there, you know. You probably should have found a
reference that didn't actually contain a definition of copulation
though.... "Copulation is the union of the sex organs of two sexually
reproducing animals". Ipso facto, a blowjob is not copulation, whether you
preface it with 'oral' or not.

But spelling an insult (insinuating stupidity) incorrectly is a special
case, because it reveals far more than the insult itself. But you already
know this.

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

You're just too funny - the extent to which you'll avoid any admission
that you might be wrong, surely some kind of psychological flaw, albeit
an amusing one. As a point of fact, it isn't the definition I 'prefer',
it's the one contained in the reference you provided, with the actual
definition omitted so you could continue to try and avoid the truth.

It's not 'my particular definition', it's the one you provided in your
Wikipedia reference. Which is not exactly an authorative work, but the
ones that are define it in the same way (eg the OED, or any number of
other dictionaries). This is just more squirming - the definition isn't
negated in this way any more than the definition of 'hearing' would be
wrong, because some people are deaf.

A blowjob is not 'oral copulation' any more than masturbation is 'manual
copulation' or buggery 'anal copulation'. It the kind of sloppy
expression that journalists dream up to avoid having their readers
confront the reality of whatever act they can only allude to, to spare
their readers sensibilities. This doesn't make it right.

If you fall over on the basic definition issues, I don't know how you
think you stand a chance of coherently arguing a case over the subtle
complexities of sexual maturity, gender dominance and our crude attempts
to legislate around these areas by defining age as the most critical
measure of responsibility. You're an idiot.

 

John Rennie secured a place in history by writing:

I'm not sure what you think the definition of copulation has to do with a
claim that didn't use the word, it seems a somewhat confused question to be
asking. I think what Clinton said was strictly true - but he offered an
answer to a question that wasn't the one that people wanted answered.

 

Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein secured a place in history by writing:

Gosh, I haven't had a death threat on Usenet since the 90s. And to think I
was about to duck out, on account of having more important things to do
than wind up the dribbling incoherents that inhabit AADP too...

 

John Rennie secured a place in history by writing:

Something broader, that would have encompassed blowjobs presumably.

 

He tried to have UKRM kill me, back in 2002 ...

http://minilien.fr/a0k2vm

D.

 

Come on, let's see if I can get one as well.

 

You really are ignorant, aren't you?

 

His actual words were "I did not have sexual *relations* with that woman,
Miss Lewinsky."

It would be arguably true if he had said "had sex" (or copulated, or
whatever), but "sexual relations" would include oral sex in most people's
understanding of the term.

 

Rich B secured a place in history by writing:

I was thinking this after I responded to John - and agree entirely. But
I'm not sure what point John was trying to make in the first place in any
case...

 

The semi-literate fuckhead can't even spell his own surname correctly,
it seems.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..88203../..24080.../..31896.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 00 Pts:0000 Miles:0000

 

Careful, SD ... he'll be calling you a 'Nazi' if this keeps up!

D.

 

The Older Gentleman secured a place in history by writing:

Bugger off, I've invested a lot of time in this already. Go find your own
twitching loon.