Love or Logic

[anigav]

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

[whatcdfan]

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

[Startear]

1. Hardly
2. I certainly try
3. Yes

Logic is just our way to explain everything, so it's sometimes almost impossible to apply logic to love which sometimes is irrational.

[anigav]

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

[whatcdfan]

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

Yeah but the love that you talked about is purely driven by lust.

[anigav]

That seems to be lust? I feel love and lust are two different things?

Yeah but the love that you talked about is purely driven by lust.

So in a way you suggest that love tends be driven by lust.. isn't that can be termed as logic behind love. So whenever logic enters love that results into lust?

Can there be love without lust or logic?

[anigav]

Insensitive souls who don't care about love and try to find logic only in lust.

[NotLettingItGo]

There is no fucking logic in love. Love is only a delusion that inspires animals to have sex and produce offspring thus satisfying our eternal desire to exist forever, could there be a more fake emotion then this?

You're wrong. I can assure you love exists entirely seperately from lust.

[evlo]

No people social reaction is based logic, you need to accept reactions as set of rules.

[Squeamous]

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.

[mjmacky]

For everyone in here, love is also a feeling you have towards your siblings, parents, children. I wouldn't be so quick to equate it with lust...

Love is rather a sense of deep caring

A relationship starts out on lust, interest, affection. Eventually, the feeling of love is introduced and grown from a general investment into the other person. Once the relationship gets promoted by the acknowledged addition of love, the original drives of lust, interest, affection, etc. start to decline in variable rates. Eventually you'll end up with a hag/stretchysack who you don't care to fuck, kiss or listen to, but you'll be damned if you don't love the bitch/bastard. Either that or you just knock boots less often.

Of course, this all occurs in competition with contempt and feelings of its ilk, so that could alter the course in various ways. Love and contempt can coexist, just think about the relationships you might have with some of your family members, current lovers, exes.

Where does logic come into play? Well, it works into the development of love, your interpretation and understanding of the other person is a product of logic, and allows you to actively or subconsciously evaluate their worth in terms of your emotional investment. Logic plays its role in all of these factors that lead in and out of being in love. Logic is what keeps you from merely consuming their flesh and rolling around the floor covered in their innards.

Maybe too serious for a lounge post, I promise to derail subsequently.

[NotLettingItGo]

Just as well really... otherwise chavis et-al would be well fucked.

[manker]

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.lolwut the fucking fuck :lol:

===

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

Oh, love is deeply caring about someone? Really, well isn't that just caring deeply. How deeply must one care before it's love. How deep is the line that separates love from care.
Love is when you take more pleasure in that person's pleasure than your own. Isn't that selflessness.
Love is when you can't get a person out of your mind. That's infatuation.
Love is when you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about someone. That's adrenaline released when you get excited. So, excitement.
Love is when the desire to look after someone over-rides everything else. Yeah, we're back to deeply caring again.

The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

[Proper Bo]

Yes
Yes
Yes

Love is the application of logic to lust.lolwut the fucking fuck :lol:

===

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

Oh, love is deeply caring about someone? Really, well isn't that just caring deeply. How deeply must one care before it's love. How deep is the line that separates love from care.
Love is when you take more pleasure in that person's pleasure than your own. Isn't that selflessness.
Love is when you can't get a person out of your mind. That's infatuation.
Love is when you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about someone. That's adrenaline released when you get excited. So, excitement.
Love is when the desire to look after someone over-rides everything else. Yeah, we're back to deeply caring again.

The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

I got bored of that halfway through the first line.
Also - poove.

[manker]

You missed out on me ending that line with 'fucking fuck' and an appropriate smiley.
quality, it was.

[NotLettingItGo]

...
The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

You missed out the bit about love being able to co-exist with contempt.

Also the fact that 'love' can encompass various other emotions which you may feel for another doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a unique emotion. For example... when was the last time someone you only cared for emotionally hurt you?

You have my deepest sympathy... to have lived your life without having ever truly loved is a sorry thing.

[manker]

...
The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

You missed out the bit about love being able to co-exist with contempt.

Also the fact that 'love' can encompass various other emotions which you may feel for another doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a unique emotion. For example... when was the last time someone you only cared for emotionally hurt you?

You have my deepest sympathy... to have lived your life without having ever truly loved is a sorry thing.I didn't miss anything out. Any paucity of words on my part was by design.
The fact that what you deem love can co-exist with contempt only goes to strengthen my claim that 'love' is a hotpotch of emotions.

As does your complete inability to substantiate your claim that love can exist as a unique emotion.

To answer your penultimate point, I don't think anyone I've only cared for has emotionally hurt me; however, someone I've deeply cared for, whose acheivements I could take vacarious pleasure in and who I was almost infatuated with has hurt me emotionally.
There's that reinforcing again ^

I lol in the general direction of your last, because it demonstrates clearly that you've misunderstood my premise.

[NotLettingItGo]

...
The fact that what you deem love can co-exist with contempt only goes to strengthen my claim that 'love' is a hotpotch of emotions.

There's the nub... you called love intangible... whereas I would define it is undefinable, because love is something that doesn't fit the words you used to define other emotions... it is more than the sum of all of those... It might well encompass those emotions, but they're not enough to define it. For example none of those emotions are ones which can co-exist with love... you can't care deeply for someone and hold them in complete contempt at the same time... the two of them are incompatible... that's not the case with someone you love.



As does your complete inability to substantiate your claim that love can exist as a unique emotion.

Covered above.


To answer your penultimate point, I don't think anyone I've only cared for has emotionally hurt me; however, someone I've deeply cared for, whose acheivements I could take vacarious pleasure in and who I was almost infatuated with has hurt me emotionally.
There's that reinforcing again ^

I lol in the general direction of your last, because it demonstrates clearly that you've misunderstood my premise.
Hmmm interesting, but it doesn't detract from what I stated above.

[manker]

There's the nub... you called love intangible... whereas I would define it is undefinable, because love is something that doesn't fit the words you used to define other emotions... it is more than the sum of all of those... It might well encompass those emotions, but they're not enough to define it. For example none of those emotions are ones which can co-exist with love... you can't care deeply for someone and hold them in complete contempt at the same time... the two of them are incompatible... that's not the case with someone you love.
What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

You're also right when you say that you can't care deeply for someone you hold in complete contempt. You'll agree that this is an absolute. If you hold every aspect of someone's persona in contempt, then there is nothing to care deeply about. All that could possibly be left is a sense of duty where you feel as if you have to look after that person. As in the case of an grown-up convicted rapist offspring with no where else to live, for example.

If you wish to tell me that you love someone that you have complete contempt for, I would counter by saying that you only hold certain aspects of that person in contempt, that there are other parts of her/him that you actually care deeply about or that you're still infatuated by.

[megabyteme]

Isn't this thread ironic to the macs? A bunch of unlovable bastards and an unloving ball breaker all discussing love. :wub:


EDIT: And a moron (welcome, WhatCD)...

[Biggles]

A wee tune - that has a passing connection to the thread


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqDj5CP3Kag

[Quarterquack]

For a thread that started off as a bunch of wanker tripe, this actually turned out half decent. I blame Mary. She made the first serious post in this thread.

As for love, I define it as a loose combination of concepts in this thread. As humans we can only ascribe our feelings to those accepted by society - after all they are abstract - but as a species we all work with the same pool of emotions and are programmed to "feel" what the other person feels simultaneously. From person to person this varies on an emotional range where "love" falls for them. Some people (myself included) vie for intellectual comfort, and can't imagine a relationship with someone who can't stimulate them on said level. Other people care more about shared interests like projected vision; so on and so forth there's multiple examples. From person to person the emotional combination that constitutes the perfect balance to nurture affection/"love" may vary, but I think the fundamental definition is a variation of what Macky described. Identifying yourself as being in "love" is in itself the time-point where you actually are first in love. Totally circular argument, like.

[NotLettingItGo]

What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

It's taken me a while to figure out how to phrase the answer to this... love isn't a by-product of those other emotions, it's the emotion which enhances all your other feelings for specific people. Often for no explainable reason. For example it's often not possible to explain why you love one person whilst not feeling love for a different person, who in real life might be someone who is seemingly much more your type... ergo love does exist.

[megabyteme]

ergo love does exist.

Please tell me you don't use "ergo" in your RL discussions. That would make you more of a twat than previously expected... :O

[mjmacky]

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

That could be chalked up to me losing my sense of romanticism. My answer could change depending on the nature of my relationship with a mistress, if I could ever bag one worthy of my interest. I feel like I should hurry before I become financially well-off and distinguished.

[mjmacky]

Isn't this thread ironic to the macs? A bunch of unlovable bastards and an unloving ball breaker all discussing love. :wub:

Strangely, all of us are more capable in the terms of logic, yet the concept gets almost entirely ignored. Then again, it's easy, so bravo members for taking the challenge.


[to reject] Please tell me you don't use "ergo" in your RL discussions. That would make you more of a twat than previously expected... :O

I happen to do this at times. Though it's usually to maintain a pompous impression.

[NotLettingItGo]

Oh! Good god no... I use "thusly" in RL.

[megabyteme]

Oh! Good god no... I use "thusly" in RL.

Ergo, you are an insufferable twat. As expected. :D

[OlegL]

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?
Love is a feeling, and logic is not a feeling; it's reasoning. You can't apply reasoning to your feelings; therefore, the answer to your question is no: love and logic can't live together.

[megabyteme]

Can they both live together?

Do you apply logic in love?

Do you love logic?
Love is a feeling, and logic is not a feeling; it's reasoning. You can't apply reasoning to your feelings; therefore, the answer to your question is no: love and logic can't live together.

Who let the retarded Vulcan in here? :unsure:

[OlegL]

You are... I am... we are... we do things that... I... weed.

[anigav]

Great to see that there are still some people who think love is love. Its something where you don't expect anything in return. Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless. Moment you start applying reasoning or logic to any relationship that is based on pure love then it is not love any anymore. It start taking all sort of ugly form like that of lust, greed etc. Very true love or logic can't live together. Honestly, you can't define or quantify love. Still love is a very loosely used and most abused word.

Yes, we all are logical, we like logic. But do we follow any limits or rationale in applying logic to all situation including love?

[megabyteme]

You are... I am... we are... we do things that... I... weed.

Best post you've ever made. :happy:


Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless.

Unfortunately, the only people I've ever encountered who tout "unconditional love" are FAR from worthy of such care, or emotion. If one is worthy, they NEVER have need to mention it.

[anigav]

Best post you've ever made. :happy:


Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless.

Unfortunately, the only people I've ever encountered who tout "unconditional love" are FAR from worthy of such care, or emotion. If one is worthy, they NEVER have need to mention it.

Very true.. they are so humble to say even these words. And anyone saying or using the word unconditional has in-fact already applied the logic or has some hidden agenda behind this.

[OlegL]

Great to see that there are still some people who think love is love. Its something where you don't expect anything in return. Its more like a faith where one tends to be unconditional, its about caring and is selfless. Moment you start applying reasoning or logic to any relationship that is based on pure love then it is not love any anymore. It start taking all sort of ugly form like that of lust, greed etc. Very true love or logic can't live together. Honestly, you can't define or quantify love. Still love is a very loosely used and most abused word.

Yes, we all are logical, we like logic. But do we follow any limits or rationale in applying logic to all situation including love?

I absolutely agree with everything you said in this particular post.

[manker]

What I actually said is that it's the most intangible of intangibles. I described it that way to allude to its undefinable nature, we are in agreement.
It's precisely this which makes me assert that it doesn't exist on its own. That it can only be experienced as a by-product of many, much more tangible, emotions.

It's taken me a while to figure out how to phrase the answer to this... love isn't a by-product of those other emotions, it's the emotion which enhances all your other feelings for specific people. Often for no explainable reason. For example it's often not possible to explain why you love one person whilst not feeling love for a different person, who in real life might be someone who is seemingly much more your type... ergo love does exist.So you think that love is some kind of emotional enzyme. A catalyst to enhance the intensity of other emotions you feel for a person.

I would say that other emotions do this too - you must concur that Occam's razor dictates that my explanation is much more palatable than yours.
Jealousy and infatuation oft go hand in hand and encourage each other to effect a manic spiral of actions the unafflicted would describe as mental. Deeply caring for someone coupled with an ingrained loyalty to that person can lead to a state approaching perfect altruism.

I suggest that the your last stems from the illogical nature of emotions; it might be more sensible for my missus to be scared of walking home from the pub alone than of spiders, instead she will stagger home and then pish in the kitchen sink cus there's a spider in the bath.
We cannot plan or decide to feel excitement, panic or happiness. Just like we cannot decide which person our broiling menagerie of emotions will tell us that we 'love'.

[Something Else]

I cannot believe she pished in the kitchen sink.

Trying to describe love in words is silly.

[anigav]

Trying to describe love in words is silly.

You mean illogical?

[manker]

I cannot believe she pished in the kitchen sink.I said that too. Are you me, at all.

'I can't believe you pished in the kitchen sink'
'What else was I supposed to do, there was a spider in the bath'
'Pish in the toilet?'
'THERE WAS A FUCKING SPIDER IN THE BATH, ARE YOU DEAF'

[megabyteme]

I suppose there has got to be something in the definition of love that includes the sink pisser not being subject to homelessness, or battery. If not loved, at least the minimum standard for such a relationship rises to "VERY good friend"- one whose urinary boundaries have become marginalized...

There's a time factor involved as well as the expectation that they would allow you to cross a similar foul line. Few would allow sink use violation on a first, or second, date- even if the sex is above average. :noes:

Perhaps this test could be used by daters who are uncertain if the relationship is "going anywhere". :sly:

[Quarterquack]

Perhaps this test could be used by daters who are uncertain if the relationship is "going anywhere". :sly:

"So, after we finish this amazing white cloth, candle-lit date, what do you say to coming back to mine for some serious sink pissing tolerance experimentation, sugar?"

[mjmacky]

Where are your heads at? If she doesn't let me piss on her during the first or second date, she's not *the one.

*The one I want to eventually lose interest in after several weeks of kinky sex.

P.S. She better piss on me too, but absolutely no scat, we're not fucking gardening here.

[Five]

Love eventually leads to Sex. Its all about a nice kinky sex.

[manker]

I suppose there has got to be something in the definition of love that includes the sink pisser not being subject to homelessness, or battery. If not loved, at least the minimum standard for such a relationship rises to "VERY good friend"- one whose urinary boundaries have become marginalized...

There's a time factor involved as well as the expectation that they would allow you to cross a similar foul line. Few would allow sink use violation on a first, or second, date- even if the sex is above average. :noes:

Perhaps this test could be used by daters who are uncertain if the relationship is "going anywhere". :sly::lol: :earl:
Fantastic. I wish I'd done that.

I also have a heart-warming tale of a fourth or fifth date, Tumbarlam Tump, conifers, diarrhea and gentlemanly conduct.
But then, who hasn't.

[anigav]

Well the derailment starts 92446

[Biggles]

I suppose there has got to be something in the definition of love that includes the sink pisser not being subject to homelessness, or battery. If not loved, at least the minimum standard for such a relationship rises to "VERY good friend"- one whose urinary boundaries have become marginalized...

There's a time factor involved as well as the expectation that they would allow you to cross a similar foul line. Few would allow sink use violation on a first, or second, date- even if the sex is above average. :noes:

Perhaps this test could be used by daters who are uncertain if the relationship is "going anywhere". :sly:

Call me a liberal hippy but as long as the basin of dishes were moved first I wouldn't be too phased by a pee in the sink - especially if it was spider phobia induced. I would be less enamoured if it was a number 2. I suppose even liberal hippies have their limits.

[Alien5]

Love is the only way the only way is love.©

[OlegL]

Like in John Lennon's song, "Love is real; real is love; love is feeling, feeling love; love is touch; touch is love..."

[Artemis]

Like in John Lennon's song, "Love is real; real is love; love is feeling, feeling love; love is touch; touch is love..."

I like David Bowie's song more:

Ha ha ha, he he he
I'm a laughing gnome and you can't catch me......

[OlegL]

I like this song by David Bowie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8IXx4tsus&ob=av2n

[Alien5]

My favorite song written by Bowie is called Kooks, it reminds me of the time i first listened to hunky dory all the way through, I was in art class in 1991 or something like that, we started throwing clay around and making it stick to the ceiling and I made a huge sculpture that collapsed.

I had a teenage crush on a girl who was a friend of a friend, so embarrassing when you like someone that doesnt like you in that way, and at the same time someone is in love with you but you cant see her as anything more than a best friend, I cried a lot. The end.

Will you stay in our Lovers' Story
If you stay you won't be sorry
'Cause we believe in you
Soon you'll grow so take a chance
With a couple of Kooks
Hung up on romancing

Will you stay in our Lovers' Story
If you stay you won't be sorry
'Cause we believe in you
Soon you'll grow so take a chance
With a couple of Kooks
Hung up on romancing

We bought a lot of things to keep you warm and dry
And a funny old crib on which the paint won't dry
I bought you a pair of shoes
A trumpet you can blow
And a book of rules
On what to say to people when they pick on you
'Cause if you stay with us you're gonna be pretty Kookie too

Will you stay in my Lovers' Story
If you stay you won't be sorry
'Cause we believe in you
Soon you'll grow so take a chance
With a couple of Kooks
Hung up on romancing

And if you ever have to go to school
Remember how they messed up this old fool
Don't pick fights with the bullies or the cads
'Cause I'm not much cop at punching
Other people's Dads
And if the homework brings you down
Then we'll throw it on the fire
And take the car downtown

Will you stay in our Lovers' Story
If you stay you won't be sorry
'Cause we believe in you
Soon you'll grow so take a chance
With a couple of Kooks
Hung up on romancing

Will you stay in our Lovers' Story
If you stay you won't be sorry
'Cause we believe in you
Soon you'll grow so take a chance
With a couple of Kooks
Hung up on romancing

[Squeamous]

For everyone in here, love is also a feeling you have towards your siblings, parents, children. I wouldn't be so quick to equate it with lust...

Love is rather a sense of deep caring

A relationship starts out on lust, interest, affection. Eventually, the feeling of love is introduced and grown from a general investment into the other person. Once the relationship gets promoted by the acknowledged addition of love, the original drives of lust, interest, affection, etc. start to decline in variable rates. Eventually you'll end up with a hag/stretchysack who you don't care to fuck, kiss or listen to, but you'll be damned if you don't love the bitch/bastard. Either that or you just knock boots less often.

Of course, this all occurs in competition with contempt and feelings of its ilk, so that could alter the course in various ways. Love and contempt can coexist, just think about the relationships you might have with some of your family members, current lovers, exes.

Where does logic come into play? Well, it works into the development of love, your interpretation and understanding of the other person is a product of logic, and allows you to actively or subconsciously evaluate their worth in terms of your emotional investment. Logic plays its role in all of these factors that lead in and out of being in love. Logic is what keeps you from merely consuming their flesh and rolling around the floor covered in their innards.

Maybe too serious for a lounge post, I promise to derail subsequently.

That's what I said, expanded into mind-blowing tedium.


lolwut the fucking fuck :lol:

===

I liked Mary Joe's post above about love being a sense of deep caring. I think it's wrong, though. Each time a commentator tries to quantify love, he or she ends up describing it as something else. Something different. Something that most certainly isn't love.

Oh, love is deeply caring about someone? Really, well isn't that just caring deeply. How deeply must one care before it's love. How deep is the line that separates love from care.
Love is when you take more pleasure in that person's pleasure than your own. Isn't that selflessness.
Love is when you can't get a person out of your mind. That's infatuation.
Love is when you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when you think about someone. That's adrenaline released when you get excited. So, excitement.
Love is when the desire to look after someone over-rides everything else. Yeah, we're back to deeply caring again.

The are many more I could write, but I think that's enough for people to get the gist.
Basically I think what we describe as love is a mixture of any and all of these emotions. The more deeply you care/the more infatuated you are/the more you'd do for your partner, the more 'in love' you are.
You can't say it, though, because then you'd be accused of being cynical or 'incapable of love' or a sociopath. When people say; 'I love you', what they're actually saying is that they believe that the feelings they harbour toward the recipient of their utterance roughly equates to what they feel society's definition of love is.
Most people know this but it's left unsaid as it's so much easier to grunt 'I love you too'.


Love is the most intangible of intangibles. The reason for this is simple;
It doesn't exist.

I've revised my opinion. This is the definitive post on the subject, all further discourse will be ignored.


Isn't this thread ironic to the macs? A bunch of unlovable bastards and an unloving ball breaker all discussing love. :wub:


EDIT: And a moron (welcome, WhatCD)...

Fuck you.

Anyway, so if we assume that what Manker said is true (and I do), why is it there still isn't a better term of appreciation to use than 'I love you'? That phrase always pops into my head during the fifth or sixth bout of coitus with the same individual , earlier if narcotics are involved, and it irritates the fuck out of me. I don't say it, obviously, but that's probably the only time it ever feels natural to say it (in a romantic context). And I know it's not just me, because if a man is going to say it to me it will be while doing something mucky, every time. Then obviously the floodgates are opened for subsequent mentions, because once you've said it it becomes as commonplace as farting. So what is it people are really saying when they say 'I love you'?

[Squeamous]

And I just got seriously proposed to by a gay man. Confusion reigns.

[NotLettingItGo]

So you think that love is some kind of emotional enzyme. A catalyst to enhance the intensity of other emotions you feel for a person.

I would say that other emotions do this too - you must concur that Occam's razor dictates that my explanation is much more palatable than yours.
Jealousy and infatuation oft go hand in hand and encourage each other to effect a manic spiral of actions the unafflicted would describe as mental. Deeply caring for someone coupled with an ingrained loyalty to that person can lead to a state approaching perfect altruism.

I suggest that the your last stems from the illogical nature of emotions; it might be more sensible for my missus to be scared of walking home from the pub alone than of spiders, instead she will stagger home and then pish in the kitchen sink cus there's a spider in the bath.
We cannot plan or decide to feel excitement, panic or happiness. Just like we cannot decide which person our broiling menagerie of emotions will tell us that we 'love'.

I'd forgotten about this thread.

No I don't, I know love is a completely separate emotion. I shan't say anymore, because I'm not willing to feed the dickheads who occupy this site. Sorry I have tried, but it's not possible to put into words without the likes of chavis thinking he can make hay with it.

[megabyteme]

No I don't, I know love is a completely separate emotion. I shan't say anymore, because I'm not willing to feed the dickheads who occupy this site. Sorry I have tried, but it's not possible to put into words without the likes of chavis thinking he can make hay with it.

:lol: You do realize you could not have made that post any more :emo: without writing it in you own blood, don't you?

[NotLettingItGo]

Not everything that appears to be chum, is chum.

[mjmacky]

And I just got seriously proposed to by a gay man. Confusion reigns.

I assume this to be the gist of the story about that:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nFI_Bhc-RI

[mjmacky]

That's what I said, expanded into mind-blowing tedium.

I was in pseudo agreement to the point you made, which is why I decided to elaborate my own thoughts on it. The tedium was rather in the shortening of my post to what you saw there, accomplished during my proofread.

[Squeamous]

And I just got seriously proposed to by a gay man. Confusion reigns.

I assume this to be the gist of the story about that:




I hate you.


I was in pseudo agreement to the point you made, which is why I decided to elaborate my own thoughts on it. The tedium was rather in the shortening of my post to what you saw there, accomplished during my proofread.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I can assure you, tedium is still present even in your final draft. It's probably just slightly less than at the beginning.

[mjmacky]

I hate you.

Undoes all the effort I went through to put that together. Life is but a series of tedious tasks :emo:

[Squeamous]

I hate you.

Undoes all the effort I went through to put that together. Life is but a series of tedious tasks :emo:

Wait, it might be something else: love, or possibly pity, or maybe slight revulsion. If only there was a thread which could help me pick my way through this emotional minefield.....

[manker]

The two aren't mutually exclusive. I can assure you, tedium is still present even in your final draft. It's probably just slightly less than at the beginning.:lol: :earl:

h4r5h but fair.
Quietly judging in the style of a school-mistress replete with riding whip ftw.

[manker]

Should point out that I don't actually know what a school-mistress is, nor why she would have a riding whip.
It just seems that if you were a school mistress, you'd have one on your person at all times to swish around menacingly at times such as these.

[megabyteme]

Not too dissimilar from Zorro, but (as I'm fanaticizing it) with a rather nice "S" pattern. :shifty:

[mjmacky]

Undoes all the effort I went through to put that together. Life is but a series of tedious tasks :emo:

Wait, it might be something else: love, or possibly pity, or maybe slight revulsion. If only there was a thread which could help me pick my way through this emotional minefield.....

The efforts were a bit more shallow unfortunately. I was hoping you'd show us your cock. It just fits my theme this posting session.

[megabyteme]

The efforts were a bit more shallow unfortunately. I was hoping you'd show us your cock. It just fits my theme this posting session.

Tempting the fates of Oleg high on weed, and his "love" for mankind, I see. :yikes:

[manker]

Not too dissimilar from Zorro, but (as I'm fanaticizing it) with a rather nice "S" pattern. :shifty:Your prose has drawn a particularly palatable picture in my mind.
We should totally have a whip-around (do you see what I did there) and purchase this outfit for madame squeams.

[megabyteme]

The kids may not have much of a Christmas this year, but put me down for $50 $87.43.

[Squeamous]

Should point out that I don't actually know what a school-mistress is, nor why she would have a riding whip.
It just seems that if you were a school mistress, you'd have one on your person at all times to swish around menacingly at times such as these.



Not too dissimilar from Zorro, but (as I'm fanaticizing it) with a rather nice "S" pattern. :shifty:Your prose has drawn a particularly palatable picture in my mind.
We should totally have a whip-around (do you see what I did there) and purchase this outfit for madame squeams.

Your visions of schoolmistresses are stuck in the early 20th century. I will consent to the role play, since it's Christmas, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will be dressed in an ill fitting jumper and slacks and I won't be meting out any punishment. I will simply gently explain that your behaviour is unacceptable, reiterate the behaviour manifesto I made you and your parents sign at the start of the school year, and then send you on a sterotypes awareness course.



The efforts were a bit more shallow unfortunately. I was hoping you'd show us your cock. It just fits my theme this posting session.

You love my cock that much? :unsure:

[chalice]

The efforts were a bit more shallow unfortunately. I was hoping you'd show us your cock. It just fits my theme this posting session.

You love my cock that much? :unsure:

Don't flatter yourself there, dearheart. Any cawk'll doodle do.

[manker]

Your visions of schoolmistresses are stuck in the early 20th century. I will consent to the role play, since it's Christmas, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will be dressed in an ill fitting jumper and slacks and I won't be meting out any punishment. I will simply gently explain that your behaviour is unacceptable, reiterate the behaviour manifesto I made you and your parents sign at the start of the school year, and then send you on a sterotypes awareness course.It's too late now. At the start of that forumular bromide, you said 'ill-fitting'.
This puts any self respecting male in mind of camel-toes and crop-tops.

Or it might be just me :lookaroun

[Squeamous]

Don't flatter yourself there, dearheart. Any cawk'll doodle do.

:ermm:

[chalice]

Don't flatter yourself there, dearheart. Any cawk'll doodle do.

:ermm:

:console:

[mjmacky]

Don't flatter yourself there, dearheart. Any cawk'll doodle do.

:ermm:

Partially right, it has to share the same skin as a real pair of tits and female curvature. None of those man tit knockoffs.

[Squeamous]

:ermm:

Partially right, it has to share the same skin as a real pair of tits and female curvature. None of those man tit knockoffs.

Quite right: all woman

[mjmacky]

Quite right: all woman

Not all women are quite alright, some of them unwillingly have dicks. This is the issue at hand.

[Alien5]

Ladyman

[Squeamous]

Quite right: all woman

Not all women are quite alright, some of them unwillingly have dicks. This is the issue at hand.

That's what divorce is for.

[Biggles]

Your visions of schoolmistresses are stuck in the early 20th century. I will consent to the role play, since it's Christmas, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will be dressed in an ill fitting jumper and slacks and I won't be meting out any punishment. I will simply gently explain that your behaviour is unacceptable, reiterate the behaviour manifesto I made you and your parents sign at the start of the school year, and then send you on a sterotypes awareness course.




Dear God that is utterly terrifying :O

Remorseless political correctness is a little corner of Hades all by itself.

[mjmacky]

Not all women are quite alright, some of them unwillingly have dicks. This is the issue at hand.

That's what divorce is for.

No, that's what misteresses are for.

[Alien5]

[QUOTE=mjmacky;3629582]

Not all women are quite alright, some of them unwillingly have dicks. This is the issue at hand.

:glag:

[Squeamous]

Your visions of schoolmistresses are stuck in the early 20th century. I will consent to the role play, since it's Christmas, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will be dressed in an ill fitting jumper and slacks and I won't be meting out any punishment. I will simply gently explain that your behaviour is unacceptable, reiterate the behaviour manifesto I made you and your parents sign at the start of the school year, and then send you on a sterotypes awareness course.




Dear God that is utterly terrifying :O

Remorseless political correctness is a little corner of Hades all by itself.

:yup:





That's what divorce is for.

No, that's what misteresses are for.

I don't understand, why disappoint two women?

[mjmacky]

I don't understand, why disappoint two women?

Easy, I'll explain it in this equation:
y = my level of satiation
x = number of women
c = number of unsatisfied women

You think it works this way
y = x - c
When in fact it works this way
y = x - c/100

And spoiler if you detest math
It would take dissatisfying 100 women to negate the satisfaction of 1 woman. It's basically heavily egocentric.

[manker]

The equation is actually slightly more complicated than that because x=i

[megabyteme]

And pie belongs in that equation somewhere. All important math equations involve pie.

[manker]

maths jokes ftw

squaring numbers is like sex with women; if they're under 13, just do them in your head.

[mjmacky]

maths jokes ftw

squaring numbers is like sex with women; if they're under 13, just do them in your head.

I don't like this rule, since I can square up to 17*17=289 in my head (that's really limiting my options).

[manker]

maths jokes ftw

squaring numbers is like sex with women; if they're under 13, just do them in your head.

I don't like this rule, since I can square up to 17*17=289 in my head (that's really limiting my options).You never really believed it when people told you that you were too clever for your own good.
Not until now.

You see what you've done :no:

[mjmacky]

I don't like this rule, since I can square up to 17*17=289 in my head (that's really limiting my options).You never really believed it when people told you that you were too clever for your own good.
Not until now.

You see what you've done :no:

For a second there, it was the first time in my life I regretted knowing any math. That was up until I remembered I tend to completely ignore rules.

[Squeamous]

I hate you all.

[manker]

You never really believed it when people told you that you were too clever for your own good.
Not until now.

You see what you've done :no:

For a second there, it was the first time in my life I regretted knowing any math. That was up until I remembered I tend to completely ignore rules.I always try to follow at least some of them but that has its own consequences.
I was babysitting for a neighbour last summer and I had to unlearn the square root of 225.

[mjmacky]

I always try to follow at least some of them but that has its own consequences.
I was babysitting for a neighbour last summer and I had to unlearn the square root of 225.

Parents asking adult men to babysit their hot 15 year old daughters are just basically giving you consent to plow her.

[mjmacky]

I hate you all.

I can't possibly fathom why

[manker]

Hoi, Mary.
Why did the mathematician cover his wife's car in moist toilet paper and put dog crap thro' the letterbox when she didn't put any sweets in his xmas stocking.

[mjmacky]

Hoi, Mary.
Why did the mathematician cover his wife's car in moist toilet paper and put dog crap thro' the letterbox when she didn't put any sweets in his xmas stocking.

I'm in the process of trying to figure out the punchline. So far it's going to have something about multiplying and pi, but I haven't put it together yet. Letterbox is throwing me off, is that what you call a mailbox?

[manker]

Hoi, Mary.
Why did the mathematician cover his wife's car in moist toilet paper and put dog crap thro' the letterbox when she didn't put any sweets in his xmas stocking.

I'm in the process of trying to figure out the punchline. So far it's going to have something about multiplying and pi, but I haven't put it together yet. Letterbox is throwing me off, is that what you call a mailbox?Yup. Also, £sweets = $candy.

Edit; wait no. A letterbox is slot in the front door so the postman ($mailman) can put letters inside the house, rather than a mailbox which is located at the bottom of the front garden.

[manker]

Do merkins have stockings on xmas morning?





If not, I understand Mary's difficulty :dabs:

[Proper Bo]

I had a plastic bag "stocking" :emo:

[manker]

That's petty good, like. You can fit more stuff in a carrier bag :smilie4:

[Proper Bo]

:pinch:

[Squeamous]

I had a plastic bag "stocking" :emo:

Ha ha ha ha! You were poor!

[Proper Bo]

Nah, my ma was just a cunt.

[Biggles]

Nah, my ma was just a cunt.

93091

[Proper Bo]

Nah, my ma was just a cunt.

93091

are ye cahllin wor mutha a puff?

[mjmacky]

The only thing I remember getting in my stocking is a little bit of money. I haven't done proper Christmas in years, I threw it out with Christianity.

[Squeamous]

I don't know if I can be arsed with Christmas this year tbh. I'm asking for cash so I can buy a 5th of a new front door that the council is forcing me to buy.

Yay Jesus.

[mjmacky]

Explain council, I'm intrigued by this concept. If it could potentially inflame me, dismiss the inquiry with a flippant remark.

[Biggles]

I don't know if I can be arsed with Christmas this year tbh. I'm asking for cash so I can buy a 5th of a new front door that the council is forcing me to buy.

Yay Jesus.

You have that in Englandshire? I thought it was a Scottish thing.

MJ If the owners can't agree on the upkeep of the shared element of the property, as a last resort the council (local government) will send someone to do it and, knowing the owners are over the proverbial barrel, the workman will shaft until they squeal like a pig. Usually the sight of a council clipboard is enough to bring people to their senses and get stuff fixed themselves at a sensible price.

[Squeamous]

Explain council, I'm intrigued by this concept. If it could potentially inflame me, dismiss the inquiry with a flippant remark.



I don't know if I can be arsed with Christmas this year tbh. I'm asking for cash so I can buy a 5th of a new front door that the council is forcing me to buy.

Yay Jesus.

You have that in Englandshire? I thought it was a Scottish thing.

MJ If the owners can't agree on the upkeep of the shared element of the property, as a last resort the council (local government) will send someone to do it and, knowing the owners are over the proverbial barrel, the workman will shaft until they squeal like a pig. Usually the sight of a council clipboard is enough to bring people to their senses and get stuff fixed themselves at a sensible price.

Not in my case. I own a home in a block that belongs to the local governing body (council). They own some of the other flats and they're responsible for the upkeep of communal areas for which I pay a service charge. The EU has decided that certain fire safety standards have to be met in publically owned buildings, which mine is, and so even though I have an exemption for control of my own doors and windows I still have to replace my door, which is only a couple of years old, because it falls below standard. I'm pretty pissed off about it because I don't just have a spare £800 lying around. Plus, the cheerful way they informed me made me want to both cry and punch them repeatedly in the face at the same time.

[manker]

N'awwh. You replied to everyone in every thread.
You great big bucket of parma violets, you :happy:

===

£4000 for a door seems ridiculous. Like wtf.
Unless I've misunderstood something when you said you had to buy one 5th of it.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that councils move very slowly. Pay them small amounts but often and If you write them enough very eloquent but completely obtuse letters, it'll take ages before they set the dawgs on you. Months before they send anything to their collection dept, and that's if you don't interact with them at all. It'll take a year if you do.

I know I sound flippant, don't wanna teach you how to suck eggs, but I have lots of hints for warding off evil money collecting civil servants.
Part of my jawb description in these tuff times :dabs:

[Squeamous]

N'awwh. You replied to everyone in every thread.
You great big bucket of parma violets, you :happy:

===

£4000 for a door seems ridiculous. Like wtf.
Unless I've misunderstood something when you said you had to buy one 5th of it.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that councils move very slowly. Pay them small amounts but often and If you write them enough very eloquent but completely obtuse letters, it'll take ages before they set the dawgs on you. Months before they send anything to their collection dept, and that's if you don't interact with them at all. It'll take a year if you do.

I know I sound flippant, don't wanna teach you how to suck eggs, but I have lots of hints for warding off evil money collecting civil servants.
Part of my jawb description in these tuff times :dabs:

:mushy:

No I meant I'll get about £150 spent on me at Xmas, and I'll put that towards the door.
That's all actually very helpful. I suspected as much, given the previous owner was still paying service charges several years old when I moved in. Also, when I asked what the deadline for door replacement was the woman on the phone seemed a bit surprised and said something vague like 'the first quarter of the year'. But you know, things don't get done without deadlines you fuckwit, don't they understand?

I was going to get my door looked at independently, since they seem to have made their judgement just by looking at the outside of it. I was also going to ask the CAB or the Which magazine legal dept about the legality of it since I have a deed of variation excluding my doors and windows from council responsibility. If you have any tips you'd care to impart they'd be gratefully received, or perhaps I'll make you rue the day you offered at a later date :shifty:

[Biggles]

N'awwh. You replied to everyone in every thread.
You great big bucket of parma violets, you :happy:

===

£4000 for a door seems ridiculous. Like wtf.
Unless I've misunderstood something when you said you had to buy one 5th of it.
Anyway, what I wanted to say is that councils move very slowly. Pay them small amounts but often and If you write them enough very eloquent but completely obtuse letters, it'll take ages before they set the dawgs on you. Months before they send anything to their collection dept, and that's if you don't interact with them at all. It'll take a year if you do.

I know I sound flippant, don't wanna teach you how to suck eggs, but I have lots of hints for warding off evil money collecting civil servants.
Part of my jawb description in these tuff times :dabs:

:mushy:

No I meant I'll get about £150 spent on me at Xmas, and I'll put that towards the door.
That's all actually very helpful. I suspected as much, given the previous owner was still paying service charges several years old when I moved in. Also, when I asked what the deadline for door replacement was the woman on the phone seemed a bit surprised and said something vague like 'the first quarter of the year'. But you know, things don't get done without deadlines you fuckwit, don't they understand?

I was going to get my door looked at independently, since they seem to have made their judgement just by looking at the outside of it. I was also going to ask the CAB or the Which magazine legal dept about the legality of it since I have a deed of variation excluding my doors and windows from council responsibility. If you have any tips you'd care to impart they'd be gratefully received, or perhaps I'll make you rue the day you offered at a later date :shifty:

1st quarter of the calendar year or first quarter of the financial year? You could spin this out to June :shifty:

The fire regulation thing seems totally mental - how often fires spread from one house to another via the front door :blink:

[NotLettingItGo]

If your house has had new uPVC doors fitted they will have undoubtedly come with some kind of certification listing a whole load of BS standards the doors comply with. Relevant BS standards are BS476-8 (standard doors) and/or BS476-22 (fire doors).

The regulations for doors and how they react to fire haven't been updated since 1972, so it's exceptionally unlikely that your doors do not already comply with building regulations as far as fire resistance is concerned.

The regulations concerning means of escape have been updated, and obviously doors and windows are affected by those updates.

The relevant guidelines for that can be found in these documents (Building Regs -> Fire Safety) http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/buildingregulations/approveddocuments/partb/bcapproveddocumentsb/documentb

You'll want Volume 1 (dwellinghouses) and you'll find the information about requirements for means of escape in section B1 paragraph 2.8, on the bottom of page 19. It's the measurements that are legally required for a door/window to be legally acceptable as a means of escape.

You might also need to consider paragraphs 2.15 and 2.17 of that section, if your door opens out onto a communal escape route.

Ask them exactly what this replacement door is going to provide you with that your current door doesn't? And what standard that is?

I cannot believe that there is a single building in the UK with a door that doesn't comply with the fire safety regulations after all these years. So I will be amazed if your door needs replacing to meet fire safety standards, that were last updated in 1988 (that's the means of escape updates).

[Squeamous]

1st quarter of the calendar year or first quarter of the financial year? You could spin this out to June :shifty:

The fire regulation thing seems totally mental - how often fires spread from one house to another via the front door :blink:

Unfortunately I think it's the first quarter of the calendar year!

I know, it seems crazy. Although my front door does open out onto a shared central vestibule area. Apparently doors have to be certified able to withstand 30 minutes of fire according to these new EU rules. I'm going to get a second opinion :)

[NotLettingItGo]

There are two fire resistance ratings FD20 and FD30. All doors fitted to any building in the UK have had to comply with one of those ratings since 1972.

Most internal doors are rated at FD20, and most external doors are rated at FD30 (they were always made thicker for security, and the extra thickness automatically provided the extra fire resistance anyway).

FD30 means the door has to be able to withstand direct fire to one side of it without failing (ie allowing the fire to get through it) for a period of 30 minutes.

So you should definitely get a second opinion, and if it's uPVC see if you can find a certificate from whomever installed it, it'll be kitemarked on there to say which standards it conforms too. It might also be worth looking on the top edge of the door, some manufacturers put labels on the top egde of the door to indicate it's fire protection rating.

[NotLettingItGo]

And if they're charging you £800, you're being ripped off.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=external+entry+door+FD30+rated&hl=en&prmd=imvns&source=univ&tbm=shop&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=MUDQTu3AOdCf8gPk9OnuDQ&ved=0CLIBEK0E&biw=1022&bih=863

http://www.directdoors.com/?area=search;makeget=yes;submitted=yes;searchstring=Exterior+fire+door;submit_x=9;submit_y=10; (http://www.directdoors.com/exterior-doors-interior-doors-handles-locks-and-all-other-types-of-ironmongery-products/interior-doors/washington-solid-pvc-door-fd30-fire-rated-with-grained-faces-igb-p1989)

Obviously you'd have fitting charges and the like to add to that.

[NotLettingItGo]

Oh! The FD30 is the British name for the 30 minute standard E30 is the name our European overlords have given it.

So from the sound of it your council are requiring a certified door that meets BS476-22 rated to FD30 and/or E30.

Before you look into it query the exact requirements the council want, in 2005/6 there were some updates that required some firedoors to be fitted with automatic closing mechanisms (applications of that vary between local authorities), if they want that you can get that, just remember to never step outside of your front door without a key on you.

You'll also find references to seals when you hunt around (all firedoors have to have edges that have expanding seals when heated, thus sealing the door into the frame if a fire happens), so you'll get them anyway as part of it being a certified firedoor.

[megabyteme]

Reject seems to know a great deal about doors. I can only imagine how many he's been locked out by to amass that level of knowledge. :idunno:

[mjmacky]

Reject seems to know a great deal about doors. I can only imagine how many he's been locked out by to amass that level of knowledge. :idunno:

I thought the "back doorman" was reject's nickname derived of a sexual preference. Disappointing to learn of its literal roots.

[NotLettingItGo]

Reject seems to know a great deal about doors. I can only imagine how many he's been locked out by to amass that level of knowledge. :idunno:

Either that or I know a great deal about flames :shifty:

[manker]

If you have any tips you'd care to impart they'd be gratefully received, or perhaps I'll make you rue the day you offered at a later date :shifty:No probs.
Do what reject said and to compliment that, if I can stop procrastinating sometime soon, I'll send you a PM with an innocent title that starts off with some pragmatic advice and ends with filthy innuendo and a pic of my bawls.

[megabyteme]

Reject seems to know a great deal about doors. I can only imagine how many he's been locked out by to amass that level of knowledge. :idunno:

Either that or I know a great deal about flames :shifty:

Most of us recognize you for the poof you are...

[NotLettingItGo]

Fuck and I thought I'd been doing such a good job of playing the straight guy, you know, all angst ridden and all that, like you all are :P

[anigav]

Can we now come back on original topic...

Who would like to summarize what we have discussed so far :ermm:

[Something Else]

I'll come all over your topic, but not your back. :smilie4:

[Squeamous]

No probs.
Do what reject said and to compliment that, if I can stop procrastinating sometime soon, I'll send you a PM with an innocent title that starts off with some pragmatic advice and ends with filthy innuendo and a pic of my bawls.

Lets dispense with the niceties and go straight to the bawls.

[Artemis]

No probs.
Do what reject said and to compliment that, if I can stop procrastinating sometime soon, I'll send you a PM with an innocent title that starts off with some pragmatic advice and ends with filthy innuendo and a pic of my bawls.

Lets dispense with the niceties and go straight to the bawls.

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: I mean seriously, they look like the prunes at the back of the fruit stand that have been in the sun waaaaaay too long, sort of God's little afterthought, or maybe he had just run out of tidy ideas or simply sneezed (alot) during the draughting process.

[manker]

Lets dispense with the niceties and go straight to the bawls.

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: You've obviously never seen my bawls :smilie4:

[Squeamous]

Lets dispense with the niceties and go straight to the bawls.

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: I mean seriously, they look like the prunes at the back of the fruit stand that have been in the sun waaaaaay too long, sort of God's little afterthought, or maybe he had just run out of tidy ideas or simply sneezed (alot) during the draughting process.

Are people's motives for photographing bawls something you often ponder?
Not all balls look like that, maybe that's just your's :unsure:

[megabyteme]

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: You've obviously never seen my bawls :smilie4:

Mine were rather nice until I hit 40. Perhaps I'll spring for some cosmetic surgery on them in the cumming years. The excess skin could be donated to help a burn victim, or perhaps, provide hair replacement for a balding African-American...

[Biggles]

You've obviously never seen my bawls :smilie4:

Mine were rather nice until I hit 40. Perhaps I'll spring for some cosmetic surgery on them in the cumming years. The excess skin could be donated to help a burn victim, or perhaps, provide hair replacement for a balding African-American...

I can't say I've noticed anything untoward happening to my tackle :unsure:

well there is the grey hair but I think that just makes my bawls look distinguished.

[manker]

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: I mean seriously, they look like the prunes at the back of the fruit stand that have been in the sun waaaaaay too long, sort of God's little afterthought, or maybe he had just run out of tidy ideas or simply sneezed (alot) during the draughting process.

Are people's motives for photographing bawls something you often ponder?
Not all balls look like that, maybe that's just your's :unsure:

oh em gee.
Abuse of the humble apostrophe.

I'm now sending you a pic of my mbm's bawls instead of mine.
I think we can all learn something from this.

[megabyteme]

Mine were rather nice until I hit 40. Perhaps I'll spring for some cosmetic surgery on them in the cumming years. The excess skin could be donated to help a burn victim, or perhaps, provide hair replacement for a balding African-American...

I can't say I've noticed anything untoward happening to my tackle :unsure:

well there is the grey hair but I think that just makes my bawls look distinguished.

I suppose I should point out (gawd I do luv the pun) that much of me has gone downhill in the past few years. I imagine it was only a matter of time before even my pinnacle of achievement wood suffer too. :(

[Squeamous]

I can't say I've noticed anything untoward happening to my tackle :unsure:

well there is the grey hair but I think that just makes my bawls look distinguished.

Isn't it starting to thin yet? There's nothing more gut wrenchingly pathetic than an ageing pubis :no:




oh em gee.
Abuse of the humble apostrophe.

I'm now sending you a pic of my mbm's bawls instead of mine.
I think we can all learn something from this.

I don't know what I was thinking, it just slipped out.
DON'T MAKE ME LOOK AT HIS BALLS!!1 :cry1:

[manker]

I think it's only fair that you look at them. Twice.
Especially since you made me think of septuagenarian pubis :pinch:

[megabyteme]

I think it's only fair that you look at them. Twice.
Especially since you made me think of septuagenarian pubis :pinch:

I believe that to be an expecially harsh pubishment as my own wife was only forced to see them once.

[Squeamous]

I think it's only fair that you look at them. Twice.
Especially since you made me think of septuagenarian pubis :pinch:

I believe that to be an expecially harsh pubishment as my own wife was only forced to see them once.

Owing to your word fail on the other fred, I consider my debt to you discharged sir.

MB, your testicular services will no longer be required. You may put them away.

[Artemis]

Ya know, as a dude 'n all, I've never ever even slightly understood why someone would want to see a picture of bawls :blink: I mean seriously, they look like the prunes at the back of the fruit stand that have been in the sun waaaaaay too long, sort of God's little afterthought, or maybe he had just run out of tidy ideas or simply sneezed (alot) during the draughting process.

Are people's motives for photographing bawls something you often ponder?
Not all balls look like that, maybe that's just your's :unsure:


I will say in my own defence, that the last chicken in the shop look depends on how bad the MSB is. Since I am married there are many times when they look quite fullsome rather than drained, but then that is the whole point of being married, to have someone to ignore you on a regular basis.

[Squeamous]

Are people's motives for photographing bawls something you often ponder?
Not all balls look like that, maybe that's just your's :unsure:


I will say in my own defence, that the last chicken in the shop look depends on how bad the MSB is. Since I am married there are many times when they look quite fullsome rather than drained, but then that is the whole point of being married, to have someone to ignore you on a regular basis.

Never mind, single people aren't having nearly as much of it as you think either. Except for me of course. I'm having LOADS.

[anigav]

I just love logic

Really? Why?