LawTalkers - New Fashion Board 10-3-2003

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Fashionable (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - New Fashion Board 10-3-2003 - 11-7-2003 (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=441)

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He thinks you're a poseur with tired material. You should tell him to fuck off, since arguing that he's wrong isn't working well.

No, no he should tell TM that he is fat and ugly with emotional problems. Because that's an effective way to refute a substantive argument.

Edited to avoid repetitive words in adjacent posts.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
No, seriously -- what in the WORLD are you talking about? And how in the hell is this such common knowledge? Do any of the "tricks"[?] require folding or mutilation? Or is it just how you hold it? I remain perplexed.

Help a gal out, fellas.

No mutilation. I don't THINK any of it is painful. He's not wincing or anything. Some folding, I guess. I don't think any of it is common knowledge, although it seems that someone always knows someone else who does dick-tricks.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Frankly, $200K to see his dick for 30 seconds, as long as that is (the time period, not his dick), is way too much, because the the demand to see his dick simply isn't that high. Halle can command a much higher price, because people like TM paid money to see a crappy film like Swordfish just to see her tits. And she has a hell of a lot more to lose by flashing her tits to the world in a crappy movie like Swordfish than SD does by taking a dare for whatever his market price would be. My guess is that SD's dick on TV for 30 seconds is worth no more than $25K, if that. I know models in art classes that get paid $11 an hour.

I thought better of this one and deleted the post and avatar.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It means as much shit as saying he'd show his penis on TV for 30 sec. for $25k. He'll never be offered that much, so it's purely hypothetical. Which is where bad arguers seem to like things, when they aren't changing the grounds of the argument all the time (all the way to MPAA ratings).

Congrats. You figured out that my hypo was unrealistic. Sorry we can't give you a stuffed animal. We ran out because 40 people guessed ahead of you.

Of course its unrealistic, but were it real, yep, I'd jump all over that shit. $200K is a nice chunk of change for 30 sec work.

"Bad arguers"? I'm dicking around here on a screwball topic taking various positions left and right and weaving about. You want to really argue? Last time we did that I filleted you. Wanna go for round III? Pick a topic... any topic. I'll take "Execution Upon Marital Property Outside Federal Tax liens" for the whole pot, Alex.

Here, because you're tone deaf to subtly... I will argue any point that will wind someone into a moral fervor because I find whipsawing folks into diatribes amusing because, frankly, I find moral/ethical huaghtiness to be a rather repulsive personality characteristic. I'm not sure anymore where my ethics/morals/positions start or end. I'm just sure I don't like anyone who's got strong feelings in any one direction which seem unwavering. I tend to believe we should all be malleable pragmatists and think most of what passes for "values" are life standards people arrogantly construct and guard as sacred to evelate the human condition above what it really is. So argue any "sacred cow" to me and I'll happily fuck with it for hours, even if I agree with it. So, you could say, even though I have them, I have a problem with "principles." Or more accurately, I have a problem with people who wear them on their sleeve. Oh, and I was bored today. It was one of those days when deps were cancelled...

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That is such an excellent rhetorical ploy. I applaud your skills and stand in awe. You, raouaouaoal, have totally demolished that punk TM, and now we all know it.

Bravo. Way to hide behind TM and Paigow all day. You've done nothing but piggieback, and you're taking me to task? You're like that little fish who follows a shark eating scraps. Please. TM can gloat if he likes, but you've got nothing to say. I've treated you like a rented mule every time we've gotten into the ring...

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He thinks you're a poseur with tired material. You should tell him to fuck off, since arguing that he's wrong isn't working well.

I am a poseur with tired material.

The fires in Southern California are pretty scary. This picture was particularly creepy:

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/...l/28fire.l.jpg

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He thinks you're a poseur with tired material. You should tell him to fuck off, since arguing that he's wrong isn't working well.

Now, this is the POTD.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, no he should tell TM that he is fat and ugly with emotional problems. Because that's an effective way to refute a substantive argument.

Edited to avoid repetitive words in adjacent posts.

Hey, you keep harping on that description... if it bugs you that much, I guess I can't be that bad an "arguer." I seem to have stuck in your craw pretty damn well.

And get it straight. I never called you fat. I called you an angry future spinstress.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hey, you keep harping on that description... if it bugs you that much, I guess I can't be that bad an "arguer." I seem to have stuck in your craw pretty damn well.

And get it straight. I never called you fat. I called you an angry future spinstress.

I did not hide behind TM and particularly not behind paigow. The fact that I remember something stupid you said does not mean that it is factually true. I remember ostentatiously stupid things just because they are stupid. I also tend to remember them slightly incorrectly, which is pretty much what started the whole thing. Or helped to.

Not to be repetitious, but I think everyone here will unanimously agree that I am entirely correct when I say that you have never filleted me or treated me like a rented mule. Whatever "treated like a rented mule" means.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Not to be repetitious, but I think everyone here will unanimously agree that I am entirely correct when I say that you have never filleted me or treated me like a rented mule. Whatever "treated like a rented mule" means.

I have no mules in this battle, but for $25K can we get a live webcam telecasted enactment of this rented mule treatment between the two of you. Sounds sort of kinky.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Whatever "treated like a rented mule" means.

It means he fucked you in the ass.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It means he fucked you in the ass.

When you put it that way, I visualize two people having sex inside a giant mule. But I know what was intended, and I believe this treatment is easily avoided by including lots of corn in one's diet.

Penske, I'm sure that if you search your extensive porn collection, you will find that you already have something featuring a guy anally screwing some type of horse, and that the production values are much better than anything that could be done on a webcam. If you don't have anything, check with Less and Slave.

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
It means he fucked you in the ass.

Et tu, Atticus?

principles question

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you don't have anything, check with Less and Slave.

Which one is the mule and which one gets it in the dumper?