Well done you frogs!

Well, Planet Visitor is as ranting a loon as I've encountered for ever.
I mean, even the posting name suggests that his sky is a different
colour.

 

John Rennie secured a place in history by writing:

Strictly I wouldn't want to test it in court - but I think most people
would think this way.

 

The Older Gentleman secured a place in history by writing:

"A sky the colour of fruitcake
Its sun an irrational, raging ochre
From dusk to dawn, occasional incandescence
Bewitching, beguiling, chilling in its portent
Of ever darkness and empty, empty void"

 

We all do, I'd imagine.

However, the preponderance of evidence suggests that copulation means
the act of coitus, which is fairly unambiguously vaginal intercourse. I
have found a few sources, however, that have broader definitions.

That does not really change the fact that the expression "oral
copulation" is an incredibly awkward construct and that "blowjob" or the
more "scientific" term "fellatio" are both considerably more elegant.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"

 

What Jon's trying to say is that 'Planet Visitor' is a retarded,
knuckle-dragging, illiterate arsewipe who's had sex with every member of
his family.

He just doesn't want to come out and say it.

D.

 

I prefer "headjob", but I've never considered one to be particularly
elegant, regardless of how satisfying.

 

I think that it may well be a fairly Australian expression. My better
half found it confusing, associating it with something mind-blowing
rather than other-thing-blowing.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

No - since no-one knew what act might have taken place at that point. I
mean the question would have to have been framed in a way that encompassed
all acts that might have been considered significant, and not allow an
answer that was strictly true, but evaded the point of the question.

Agreed - I was assuming John's quote was correct: If Clinton said
'relations' then I think he was on dubious ground.

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

Nonsense. They may have more than one definition of course, but that's of
no relevance here.

You're constrained to to the accepted definitions though - you can't
redefine at will. As you have done by redefining 'blowjob' to be an act
of copulation.

You want me to apologise for having a bigger vocabulary than you? What
do you gain from this apart from making yourself look stupid?

Heh? You said it couldn't...

Here we go...the expected sojourn into ice-cream van land. Straitjackets
at the ready...

You are now entirely at odds with your original stated position: It was
you who claimed that copulation couldn't be defined as I said it was
because it implied reproduction capability, not me. Des may be his own
special brand of fruitcake, but he retains enough sanity to recognise
that he's not even in your league (which, quite possibly, has only one
member).

But this is a clumsy attempt to move the goalposts - the word is
'copulation' not 'coupling'. Unless, of course, you think the two are
synonymous - which wouldn't surprise me at all. No doubt the children in
your house attach their toy-trains together by way of copulation.

Clearly a nonsensical example, since there can't possibly be any children
in your cell....

Maniacally, I expect.

This doesn't make it correct you know.... I can cite hundreds of well-
understood errors of grammar or spelling and guarantee I'll find all of
them on the internet a hundred times over. The manglings that an American
court might subject our language to are particularly poor evidence for
your case.

Ah, back in la-la land. You were, momentarily, almost lucid there.

You get off on this stuff I think. All rather disturbing.

There's nothing sloppy about using a rare word - it's still correct.

What six words?

I don't use a spell-checker, don't need one.

You have far too much faith in the expertise of the legal profession.

Heh. You reckon.

Must be time for your medication by now, the strain is evident after that
addled outburst. Make sure you get some rest.

 

That's nothing. He once used the word 'if' and called it a 'conditional
clause'; When I pointed out that clauses require a verb and a subject,
he used his expensive copy of _The OED_ on CD-ROM to demonstrate that he
doesn't know how to use his expensive copy of _The OED_ on CD-ROM. He
thinks that the conjunction 'if' is in fact a 'conditional clause'.

What a fuckwit.

D.

 

Wherever did I say that, John? You've been drinking Jim's Kool-Aid, I
fear.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"

 

Actually, I think I've just dreamed up a new use for the super-magnets
mentioned in the thread up there somewhere.....

 

Planet Visitor II secured a place in history by writing:

So you've never seen an adjective used as a noun before? You need to
brush up on your bible-studies man, it's full of them...

It wasn't exactly a scream. More a snort of derision.

Heh. My friend Desi.

What happened to Planet Visitor I anyway? Did Des have him murdered?

 

Ask him about the noun 'academia', which he uses as an adjective....

D.

 

You are E. Jarvis Thribb, no?.

 

I had not so much as implied it. I had made no mention of Clinton
whatsoever until this post if memory serves.

Whatever do you mean?

He had sex (not "coitus" or "copulation", necessarily, but sex) with a
woman who was not his wife. Last time I looked that wasn't a crime.

He lied about it to the public. That was stupid given the ease with
which his deception was detected but I still don't see what the crime
was.

He lied about it under oath. That was probably illegal although I'm not
even sure of that.

I think that his family might take issue with that, as it happens.

--
Mr Q. Z. D.
Remove luncheonmeat (truncheon) to reply.
" Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain.
But when you put it in the body of a great white shark,
ooohh! Suddenly you've gone too far!"

 

Rich B secured a place in history by writing:

Heh. *proud*

But schtum! I was hoping to send PV2 off on an eternal Google to find the
original author of such an apposite piece...he's bound to find it now....

 

You'd be wrong, but I don't think that's a new experience for you.
--
| ___ 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

 

No problems, then. A few years ago, two or three of us on AADP
cross-checked all of his posts against google, and it was discovered
that every single 'fact' that he posted, came from a google search,
after which he chose the sixth or seven page of hits, in an attempt to
conceal the fact that his education had stopped at the age of fifteen,
when he and his mother fled the Soviet Union to escape his abusive
stepfather.

He has conceded the accuracy of this information, especially that
related to his family history. As for the paucity of his education, he
went so far as to use his son's degree certificate, and try to pass it
off as his own.

D.

 

des_just_passing_through secured a place in history by writing:

See Des, this is where I think all of you loons have gone too far. There's
amusement to be had in this supposed battle of intellects (particularly in
the reductio ad absurdum to nitpicking over spelling, grammar etc) but I
haven't the slightest interest in actually getting to the truth of who PV
is or his backround, family, education etc. Usenet is not real life and
vice-versa. The moment you start trying to step over the boundaries and
get at the individual...that's when your sanity becomes questionable.