WTF? "John Galt SOLO Fairy Brigade to Fallujah"

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Post 41

Friday, November 12, 2004 - 4:05pm

::::::::::::Standing Ovation::::::::::::::

Bravo, Sciabarra. ;)

Post 42

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 2:44pm

Joe Maurone wrote:

For you breeders out there :), in case you don't know the term, "fag hag" is an affectionate term for women who hand enjoy the company of gay men.

What do you mean by "hand enjoy"? That term conjures visions of something I do not think you intended to convey!

Luke Setzer

Post 43

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 2:50pm

Forgive me, Dr. Sciabarra, 'tis merely that when there is talk of elevation and sin and debauchery, a woman can do nothing else but stand and be counted according to her station; she knows only that her duty rings, uh, calls.

<smooch>

Jeanine Ring ))(*)((

Post 44

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 8:05pm

Pizzabara said:
And in the elevated synthesis, I'd never favor right hand or left hand; I use both hands.� In fact, every appendage becomes actively involved in the orgasmic, uh, organic whole.�

I say:
In my own pianistic experience, I have found this to be absolutely true. The elevated experience can musically reach climactic heights when one practices vigorously going up and down the instrument several times. The experience is even more enjoyable when an extra set of hands are involved. :)

Pianoman
(Edited by Adam Buker on 11/13, 8:42pm)

Post 45

Saturday, November 13, 2004 - 8:33pm

I plead the fifth. No idea what hand enjoy was meant to be...

Post 46

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:29am

I am very concerned about Luther in all of this. He is being introduced to concepts that it just ain't right for a wholesome God-fearing southern boy to be exposed to. And there's no seventy-step Covey programme for it, either!

Some time back I received private e-mail written in the style of Nat Panty. At that point, his targets were Barbara & Tibor. I didn't mention it to anyone except Diabolical, since it sounded to me rather like a disturbed young man we both knew. He agreed, but we can't be sure. What I *am* sure of is that Nat Panty & that original poster are one & the same.

I am also sure that we shouldn't give a tinker's cuss about him. As long as he spells our (pet-) names right ...

Linz

Post 47

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 2:45am

Oh dear. Now I've just noticed this, from Jennifer:

'I decided to edit my previous post, as it was rather cranky.� It just so happened that while I was in said cranky state, a "Random Article" popped up at precisely the right time.� The article was "On Belly-Laughers and Anal Retentives."� As�I read through its message thread, I was reminded why I am here in the first place.'

So far, so excellent ...

'I spent a decade as far away from "The Movement" as I could get, because I had never encountered such a dour, dull, lifeless crowd of people.� (Newsflash: Highly intelligent does not have to equal vapid.)� SOLO was my place�to say "Piss Off!" to those people.� And so it shall remain.'

So far, *still* so excellent. SOLO doesn't *do* "dour, dull, lifeless" except inadvertently when a phascist or some other such blowhard gatecrashes the SOLO party ...

But then, Jennifer says:

'Now, get those panties on a flagpole.� (Yours, Linz, not mine.)'

To view my panties is something none of you can afford. To view what the removal of my panties would expose is something none of you could survive.

Linz

Post 48

Sunday, November 14, 2004 - 11:17am