Welcome back E/O, leagl and Fringey: no one say the name "Penske" 3 times in a row

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

flinty on the anon is thin, but irl he's gignormous. plus here he's on the fashion board, but IIRC irl he shops the gap. NWTF?

He hopes to shop at the Gap someday. It's Old Navy all the way.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by J. Fred Muggs

He hopes to shop at the Gap someday. It's Old Navy all the way.

Perhaps, at a certain age, he will become sophisticated enough to rock the Land's End pinpoint and Traditional Fit chinos. Like the more distinguished board members, eh?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

AoN, I had a sock at the old place called "Earnest Dugudder." (Or maybe I just remember thinking that up. Anyway.) Anyhoo, Flower, I have trouble distinguishing when you are kidding. Since you raise valid points, joke or no, I will treat your post as if you are being serious.

I actually agree, to a certain extent, with this critique. I do think that there is a general coarsening of culture, and that American society is descending rapidly into a bottomless pit filled with lesser Kardashians and the caterwauling of American Idol rejects, all presented by a bunch of Ivy grads with contempt for the great unwashed that they exploit on their shows and the masses who find such exploitation entertaining.

So, I appreciate that Facebook is filled with idiots, dolts, victims and perpatrators alike -- my point was, does the general idiocy bother you, or the specific schmaltz poured put by those who have lost a loved one? If we allow drivel in general into our world, why complain about the Bard of Wilkes-Barre?

if there was a flower's id sock it would yell at you now

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if there was a flower's id sock it would yell at you now

A Flower's Id sock would be redundant.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

A Flower's Id sock would be redundant.

so if there were an atticus's id sock it would be anti-matter and the board could explode if the two posted to each other

[J. Fred Muggs]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Perhaps, at a certain age, he will become sophisticated enough to rock the Land's End pinpoint and Traditional Fit chinos. Like the more distinguished board members, eh?

Are you in my office? The pinpoint was no-iron also

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I think people who get irritated by this sort of thing misunderstand FAcebook completely. The mawkish, the pedestrian drama of the bourgeoisie is precisely what Facebook is for. It's the outlet for Everyman. If you're too cool for that (this is a jumping off point here, NB, not a full-frontal attack) stay the hell away.

You're not thinking very deeply. It's not the pedestrian being criticized here. It's the inane and moronic, and there's a difference.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

AoN, I had a sock at the old place called "Earnest Dugudder." (Or maybe I just remember thinking that up. Anyway.) Anyhoo, Flower, I have trouble distinguishing when you are kidding. Since you raise valid points, joke or no, I will treat your post as if you are being serious.

I actually agree, to a certain extent, with this critique. I do think that there is a general coarsening of culture, and that American society is descending rapidly into a bottomless pit filled with lesser Kardashians and the caterwauling of American Idol rejects, all presented by a bunch of Ivy grads with contempt for the great unwashed that they exploit on their shows and the masses who find such exploitation entertaining.

So, I appreciate that Facebook is filled with idiots, dolts, victims and perpatrators alike -- my point was, does the general idiocy bother you, or the specific schmaltz poured put by those who have lost a loved one? If we allow drivel in general into our world, why complain about the Bard of Wilkes-Barre?

Somebody has to man the FAIL button. Otherwise, it's Special Olympics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're not thinking very deeply.

is this intended objectively, or subjectively as to how deep he normally thinks?

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Out of 12 attorneys in our office, 4 are here. Tomorrow will be worse. Or is that better?

Fewer attorneys=better. Good on ya mate!

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone

You know those really expensive beans that are swallowed and then excreted by some native rodant or something? Hint: buy the cheaper beans and let your assistants, ummm, "add value."

And roll the savings into some 2008 Domaine Serene?

[PresentTense Pirate Penske]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Sure it is. I glid right by all your annoying sports shit and read your more interesting (to me) posts. Are you telling me that you honestly pay as much attention to everything SB posted about lunchboxes as you do to Penske's deranged ramblings about Obama?

Huh? I voted for Obama and generally am suppourtive of his effourts? NWTF??? The syphillis rotting your brain?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Do you read every post on this board?

Doesn't everyone?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by PresentTense Pirate Penske

Huh? I voted for Obama and generally am suppourtive of his effourts? NWTF??? The syphillis rotting your brain?

"deranged ramblings about" can be supportive. do you have Ty on ignore?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Doesn't everyone?

I do. What I do not read carefully enough are the criminal law decisions coming out of Minnesota's appellate courts. But after the bong water decision and now this one, I think there is some entertainment value. At least in comparison to middle age cracker rap:


A08-1784 State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Betsy Lou Burkland,
Appellant.

When government conduct is sufficiently outrageous that it is repugnant to the criminal justice system and shocking to a universal sense of justice, it violates the constitutional right to due process. A police officer investigating prostitution engages in outrageous government conduct that violates a defendant's constitutional right to due process when the officer initiates sexual contact by fondling the breasts of the target of the investigation and permits the escalation of that sexual contact by allowing the target to rub the officer's penis while he continues to fondle her bare breasts.