|
|
 |
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 12:56 PM
Edited Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 12:58 PM http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/08/18/IN237263.DTL I came across this article today when I was looking for a quote from Retardgret Mead. Included below for your reading pleasure. "Slutty" behavior is good for the species. That's the conclusion of a new wave of research on the evolutionary drives behind sexuality and parenting.Women everywhere have been selflessly engaging in trysts outside of matrimony for a good long time and for excellent reasons. Anthropologists say female promiscuity binds communities closer together and improves the gene pool. More than 20 tribal societies accept the principle that a child could, and ideally ought to, have more than one father, according to Pennsylvania anthropologist Stephen Beckerman. "It begins to crop up in a lot of places," says Beckerman, who has reviewed dozens of reports on tribes from South America, New Guinea, Polynesia and India as co-editor of the newly released book, "Cultures of Multiple Fathers." Less than 50 years ago, Canela women, who live in Amazonian Brazil, enjoyed the delights of as many as 40 men one after another in festive rituals. When it was time to have a child, they'd select their favorite dozen or so lovers to help their husband with the all-important task. Even today, when the dalliances of married Bar ladies in Colombia and Venezuela result in a child, they proudly announce the long list of probable fathers. The much-touted evolutionary bargain of female fidelity for food -- trotted out by evolutionary psychologists with maddening regularity -- just doesn't hold up. "This model of the death-do-us-part, missionary-position couple is just a tiny part of human history," says anthropologist Kristen Hawkes, who has spent years studying the Ach, a Paraguayan people, and the North Tanzanian tribe Hadza. "The patterns of human sexuality are so much more variable." American college students still learn that human society is based on the age-old economic contract between the sexes: Men hunt and women raise children. Fathers provide meat for the family; in exchange, moms offer fidelity and the guarantee of paternity. Although men -- who produce millions of sperm -- are inveterate philanderers, gals, stuck with relatively few eggs that require a significant investment, tend to be choosy and coy. "This evidence is a real thumb in the eye for that view," says Beckerman. Anthropologists claim, good judgment aside, evolution has nudged women a bit toward promiscuity and sexual adventure. In all well-studied primates, females exhibit a polyandrous tendency when given the opportunity to stray. Some who cheat appear to be more fertile, and the offspring of most are more likely to survive. Fooling around appears to have helped our ancestral mothers equip their little ones for success -- the sexual equivalent of reading to them every night or enrolling in the after-school chess club. Hawkes says females likely hook up with multiple males for safety -- a mother's strong emotional bonds with more than one fellow provide an extra- protective hand in times of danger. An economic incentive promotes female infidelity in Bar society. All of the Bar children who had more than one father were more likely to survive into adulthood, fortified by small gifts of fish and game in times of scarcity. Even evolutionary psychologists, stout defenders of the meat-for-fidelity model, are beginning to acknowledge the benefits of women's "slutty" behavior. University of Texas psychologist David Buss gives most credit to "mate insurance," a backup replacement in case the male partner doesn't survive. Social approval of infidelity does not, however, imply a corresponding devaluation of marriage. "They're very, very faithful," says Beckerman's co-author Paul Valentine about the Curripaco, who live on the border between Colombia and Venezuela. The tribe believes that conception is a process that requires a lot of work, and the men are quick to take credit for their joint labors. "They say, 'Hey, this is really hard work having a baby,' " Valentine says. "And they really put on a smug look." Physiological data supports the theory that women have been sleeping around for centuries. For starters, men have evolved to compete in their partner's reproductive tract. Human males have large testicles that manufacture plenty of semen, especially when they reunite with their wives after separation. Their sperm includes coil-tailed versions that block instead of carry the ball. Females cooperate when they want to -- more often with their lovers than with their mates, according to one study. Women retain slightly more sperm after orgasm, and in the throes of excitement may even draw the virgin swimmers up through the cervix and into the uterus, according to British sexologist R. Robin Baker. Still, David Buss places most of the blame for all this wanderlust on the guys. Bottom line, sperm are cheap and eggs are expensive, he says. He cites his own 1993 studies of college undergraduates. Women said they'd like maybe up to five partners in a lifetime. Men in various surveys ranged from 18 up to 1,000. Sure, both sexes have one-night stands. Both also can mate for life. But men tend toward variety and women will most often stay true to the stable, dependable provider, Buss claims. Anthropologists are not so sure. Some say today's emphasis on female monogamy may have more to do with socioeconomic trends than evolutionary instincts. Extramarital trysts were a way of life for the Canela -- until the encroachment of outsiders. "Multiple lovers, that's just part of the life. It's recreation, just like races and running. It's all done in the spirit of joy and fun," says William Crocker of the Smithsonian Institution, who has studied the Brazilian tribe since 1957. When a woman got pregnant with her husband, she would go out to find as many as five more "fathers" for her fetus. Because every bit of semen was believed to contribute to the baby, a dedicated mom looked for a variety of desirable traits in her lovers: sexual skills, good looks, oratory talents, top-notch singing abilities -- and naturally, a good provider. Crocker says the Canela's sexual customs began to disappear after the arrival of traders, who brought in material goods such as machetes, axes, pots and pans, introducing the idea of exclusive ownership. The missionaries came next. The evangelists, who arrived in the early 1970s, translated the Bible into Canelan and did their part to discourage the tribe's sexual intimacy. Beckerman says, "I suppose it doesn't mean there's any less fooling around, it's just that the fathers don't take responsibility for it and the mothers don't admit it." Modern relationships are not all that different. High infidelity, remarriage and divorce rates may have less to do with modernity than with our collective sexual past. "It makes the variation we're seeing in modern society so much more understandable," Hawkes says. If the anthropologists are right, monogamy may well be counter-evolutionary or an adaptation to modern life. Or perhaps the nuclear family has always been more of an ideal than a reality. Sally Lehrman writes frequently on health issues. This article first appeared on alternet.org. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 2:04 PM
Edited Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 2:04 PM I think he would say that we shouldn't be imitating primitive cultures. And besides, relationships and reproduction today have more at stake than the evolutionary aspects. I don't buy into the "spirit of joy and fun" stuff either. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Lou Cypher |
+ |
Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 3:29 PM That was more than 3 lines. Brain stopped working at some point. —Lou Cypher |
|
|
|
|
drakeguy19 |
+ |
Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 4:25 PM Of course he would say "Cannot judge. Everything is beautiful. Different culture, cannot judge other cultures. How dare you judge other cultures! You CANNOT judge!"
—drakeguy19 |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Thursday, November 4, 2004 at 10:41 PM DL - Yeah, I keep pointing that same thing out to people and they always call me a racist. I'll say "Hey, you know, a society's culture and ethics has a lot to do with how much it progresses. Don't get me wrong, theres a lot of things about America, but couldn't it be possible that part of why we've gotten so far are our cultural values?" Then all I hear is "OH MY GOD! HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT AMERICA IS BETTER THAN TRIBAL CULTURES!?!? TRIBAL CULTURES LIVE IN HARMONY WITH NATURE! THATS A RACIST REMARK BECAUSE THE ONLY PLACE PEOPLE FIND VALUES LIKE YOURS ARE IN EUROPE, THE UNITED STATES, AND ISRAEL WHERE PEOPLE ARE WHITE!" heh.. Personally, I don't think Muslims advocate polyamory either and they all seem to be pretty brown. But thats not safe to mention either, because the other side calls you a terrorist. :) —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Friday, November 5, 2004 at 8:52 AM I don't think its too controversial to say that Islam permits polygamy (or polygyny to be more specific). Of course it's not really practiced that much in the US or Europe because the extra marriages aren't recognized or legal. But in Africa in particular it's not that rare of a practice for Muslims. Some of the more progressive Muslims argue that polygamy should not be allowed because the Qu'ran only authorizes it if the husband can treat all his wives equally and attend to their needs. The progressives argue that it is impossible to treat a second wife (or third or fourth) as equal to the first since it would be impossible to fully attend to fulfill all the duties of husband to the first wife if the man also had to fulfill the duties of husband to other women as well and would invariably lead to inequality among the wives. —Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Friday, November 5, 2004 at 9:31 AM Once again. My father is Muslim. I was raised as a Muslim. I know what they are all about. Can we PLEASE just bomb the Middle East out of existence. Please? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Santa's Mouth |
+ |
Friday, November 5, 2004 at 11:45 AM
Edited Friday, November 5, 2004 at 11:47 AM Listen, isn't that EXACTLY what's happening with all the unwed mothers in this country? They have one guy's kid and bang a bunch more. That doesn't seem to be the answer, now does it? It ends up meaning NO father, and that means stipper or criminal. No, one father's enough, if you can keep him around. Why would you need more? Aren't the MOTHERS the ones that do all the nurturing? Dads tend to watch football and complain when something goes wrong, so I think more MOMS are the answer, and that means the GOOD polygamy, the Beach Boys polygamy: "Two girls for every boy!" Jews do it, Mormons do it, Kobe does it... And finally there'll be someone for my chick to talk to when I finish! She'll love it! Seriously, a chick wrote that article, and if Loveline has taught us anything, it's that she was abused and is attracted to chaos, but she's kinda bright and is trying desperately to justify her nutty desires. Well, nice try, but I don't think it's gonna work out in her favor if polygamy actually takes off over here. (And Laith- I'm sure President Tard is waiting on Jesus to give him the word to punish all those pagans over there. Shouldn't be too long now. DEFINITELY within four years. You think he's gonna let his BROTHER do it?!) —Santa's Mouth |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Friday, November 5, 2004 at 1:01 PM (And Laith- I'm sure President Tard is waiting on Jesus to give him the word to punish all those pagans over there. Shouldn't be too long now. DEFINITELY within four years. You think he's gonna let his BROTHER do it?!) Heh. I sincerely hope you are right. I've had just about all I can stomach of Islam. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Wednesday, November 10, 2004 at 10:30 PM The US would never be as aggressive with the Middle East as they should be because they keep putting a "Western face" to the people and culture. They think that the Islamist must love their kids too and cries when they watch Disney movies, so we must be able to reason with them.
Unfortunately, the MidEast only respects and responds to force, period. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Ganthet |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 4:50 AM If governments in the Middle East only respected and responded to force, then Israel wouldn't be having the problems it has been having ever since 1948. War wasn't what made peace between Israel and Egypt, not to mention Israel and Jordan possible. It was the high price and ultimate futility of war. If the Middle East only respected and responded to force, then we wouldn't be having any problems in Iraq (not to mention with Iran). We could simply brutally crush the insurgency by carpet bombing villages, towns, and cities and the Iraqis would submit to the greater show of force and ruthlessness. But in fact this would lead to the opposite result of making the US not much different from Saddam in their eyes and truly start a broader based insurgency that has the active and not just passive support of the majority of Iraqis. Things are bad enough as they are with pictures and memories of Abu Gharaib (and to some extent Guantanamo) still around to give credence to Islamist feelings that the US is waging a general war against Islam. —Ganthet |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:33 AM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 6:35 AM If the Middle East only respected and responded to force, then we wouldn't be having any problems in Iraq (not to mention with Iran). We could simply brutally crush the insurgency by carpet bombing villages, towns, and cities and the Iraqis would submit to the greater show of force and ruthlessnes -Ganthet
This statement is so absurd. Who says we should carpet-bomb "villages,towns and cities",little dogs and small children? Even if we are capable of being so ruthless, this is not a smart military move.
I'm talking about killing terrorists! Not negotiating with them compromising or trying to reason with them, like we do civilized people. Not going halfway into Fallujah 8 mos ago and then pulling back, because the terrorists inside promises to change and be peaceful loving citizens.
Abu Gharaib (and to some extent Guantanamo) still around to give credence to Islamist feelings that the US is waging a general war against Islam.
—Ganthet I prefer the Abu Gharaib scandal to the terrorist beheading videos anytime. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:41 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 1:41 PM Who says we should carpet-bomb "villages,towns and cities",little dogs and small children? I said that, genius. Remember? Can we PLEASE just bomb the Middle East out of existence. Please? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Santa's Mouth |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:01 PM
Edited Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:01 PM I say we air-lift out all the little dogs first. What did THEY ever do to anybody? —Santa's Mouth |
|
|
|
|
crumple1 |
+ |
Thursday, November 11, 2004 at 9:09 PM good idea...after we nuke them, repopulate the place w/ canines instead. dogs are not known for suicide bombings... —crumple1 |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Sunday, November 14, 2004 at 2:36 PM
Edited Sunday, November 14, 2004 at 2:38 PM So what the hell does nuking the middle east have to do with the topic, yay thread hijack. I think Drew would say that this might actually be what seperates us from the animals. Animals are still trying to meet their basic needs of survival, whereas nowadays in modern society we have it covered. We need to be focusing more on raising well-adjusted children and not just children that won't die right out of the womb. We have the not-dying part covered and now we go after bigger fish. I think Adam would call them out on their retarded logic of pointing at more primitive cultures as justification for things in modern society. Didn't cave men essentially rape their women? That's what happens in the wild a lot of times, look at whales. I should be able to rape then by that logic, yes? —Erlog |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Sunday, November 14, 2004 at 5:31 PM
Edited Sunday, November 14, 2004 at 5:31 PM No, actually he's going a point... sort of. I don't think he worded it very well, but I see what he's going for. Which is why I will now launch into my own retarded thesis on a semi-related topic! Okay, so we all know the whole thing about males being mentally more 'solid' than females, but females being more 'evolved' than males. (Just in case there are those of you who are not familiar with this, I'll give you an example: take an Etch-a-Sketch in one hand an a PowerMac G5, the kind where everything is built into that flatscreen monitor, in the other. Hold them up and drop them. Which do you think is more likely to survive? The Etch-a-Sketch, of course - the G5 has a bunch of complicated, delicate circuitry inside. On the other hand, we also know which one can get more work done - no, PC users, it's not the Etch-a-Sketch.) So, to put that in a (very) generalized way: Men do better in times of duress, but women do better in less stressful situations. Now, humanity's evolution has been largely just that: a transition from the wild - stress - into the modern world - less stress. Sure, life has gotten much more complicated, but we're not hunting for our food anymore, we buy it at the supermarket, etc etc. Right? So if men do better in times of duress... well, that's why in nature males tend to take the dominant roles, hunting, killing, etc. (Before I go further, remember, I'm speaking in generalizations here.) Okay, so now, think about it. Think of all those cultures today *coughmuslimscough* that treat their women like crap. Domineering males, right? But in our society, we have (some semblance, at least) of gender equality. So therefore, the societies that treat women like crap ARE in fact backwards and primitive. There, cold hard proof, you towel-headed dune niggers, now come and get me. ...Crap, that was more than three lines. I'm sorry. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 8:50 AM
Edited Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 8:56 AM I was responding to the original post. You know, the one that had nothing to do with the middle east. Also, since you've made such a compelling point in your counter argument of "you're retarded." I guess I will concede the point then, you have obviously won. Primitive cultures as in animals you twat. Not the middle east. Once again MY POST WAS NOT ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST IN ANY WAY. My point was that what works for primitive cultures may not be the best thing for modern society. Primitive cultures have more basic needs like food and shelter than we do. There are very few people in our society trying to meet their fundamental basic needs. We have those things covered, and now it's time to concentrate on the mental well-being as well as the physical well-being. Mental well-being as in raising healthy and well-adjusted children for today's world. Polyamory and whoring around of course does help the species, but so does rape. If there were no rape, there'd be fewer whales. I was pulling the train back on to the track after that mammoth derail of, "Let's talk about the middle east." I'm sure whatever we say about the middle east will have a great effect, it'll all be sorted out next week, right? —Erlog |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 10:54 AM
Edited Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 11:01 AM Also, since you've made such a compelling point in your counter argument of "you're retarded." I guess I will concede the point then, you have obviously won. I'm pretty sure that was crumpel, not me. I don't think you're retarded. Primitive cultures as in animals you twat. Not the middle east. Same thing to me. Once again MY POST WAS NOT ABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST IN ANY WAY. I'm hijacking the thread, remember? I don't care what your intent was, my posts are about MY intent! If there were no rape, there'd be fewer whales. Why do you insist on using whales as an example? Just out of curiosity. I'm sure whatever we say about the middle east will have a great effect, it'll all be sorted out next week, right? I'm sure whatever we say about primitive behavior will have a great effect, it'll all be sorted out next week, right? —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
Erlog |
+ |
Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 7:09 PM
Edited Tuesday, November 16, 2004 at 7:11 PM Oh, I was responding to crumple with that statement. It was not meant to be directed at you in any way Dark Laith. I can't say reliably any other species that actively rapes. I'm sure it happens a ton, but I've only seen the data on whales and I don't want to shoot myself in the foot by saying something that isn't true. Most of my thing was directed at crumple's statement of, "you're retarded" and not you.
—Erlog |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 1:34 AM
Edited Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 1:35 AM I agree with Bill. ... we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terrorism and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. -- Bill Clinton, 2004 DNCOsama Bin Laden could take quotes from this thread and use them in Al-Qaeda recruitment brochures. Winning the war in Iraq is going to mean winning the minds of the Iraqis. As of June, we weren't doing a very good job. http://www.arena.org.nz/iraqwc43.htm The goal here is to have Iraqis like us, not to think of all of them as a target. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:07 PM
Edited Wednesday, November 17, 2004 at 12:08 PM The goal here is to have Iraqis like us, not to think of all of them as a target. My father is Iraqi. Many of his friends are Iraqi. I do not care if Iraqis like me, or us, because I do not like them. Fuck what Bill Clinton said there, we just haven't tried killing/jailing/etc all of our enemies. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 19, 2004 at 3:32 PM Why don't you like the Iraqis? —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 11:45 AM Because I hate my father and I'm screwed up and I'm acting out. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 1:33 PM A good friend of mine was raised sikh, and has a love/hate relationship with the religion and culture. I thought I had it bad being raised christian, but my parents never made me wear a turbine (sp) to school. —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Colin |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 2:16 PM Turban... —Colin |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Saturday, November 20, 2004 at 4:21 PM my parents never made me wear a turbine (sp) to school. XD This is a turbine. lmao. Anyways... —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:03 AM This is a turbine. lmao. Now ZT will probably claim that that was deliberate, but I'd like to think that this is just one example of why he should use simple language. Instead of aiming for a turban, it would have been better to say 'my parents never made me wear a long scarf wrapped around my head'. You see, that would have conveyed this image 
just as well as the word 'turban', without resorting to one of them big obscure words that nobody knows and without the danger of misspelling. Well, I guess somebody might get confused with this 
or this 
so lets make that 'my parents never made me wear a long scarf wrapped around my head, like one of those towel head guys'. There we go. Clear as crystal. Maybe a couple more words, but that's a small sacrifice for being able to make your point to everyone in the audience, even if they've never learned some obscure foreign word that nobody can spell like 'turban'. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
Elvis-In-ZT |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:18 AM
Edited Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:46 AM Now ZT will probably claim that that was deliberate, but I'd like to think that this is just one example of why he should use simple language. —anobody Anobody, are you trying to hurt my feelings by pointing out spelling mistakes I made two years ago? A spelling mistake the I acknowledged was probably one at the time? That's what (sp) means. Why would I claim it was deliberate if I indicated I thought I was making a mistake? —Elvis-In-ZT |
|
|
|
|
bguirk |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:19 AM
Edited Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:24 AM So in my little program there's 3 women who wear head scarves daily (2 are hot for the record) and 2 that wear them occasionally. The daily wearers are all Russian and the occasional wearers are from I don't know wear but I'm guess Michigan by way of the Middle East (most likely Iraq around here). ano's woman in the picture looks like Little Red Riding Hood to me, but an older version for the fetish market. —bguirk |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:33 PM Anobody, are you trying to hurt my feelings by pointing out spelling mistakes I made two years ago? A spelling mistake the I acknowledged was probably one at the time? That's what (sp) means. Why would I claim it was deliberate if I indicated I thought I was making a mistake? ZT, I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and my brief tirade had just slightly less than jack shit to do with spelling (think 'turban' ~ 'ad hominem').
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
Elvis-In-ZT |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:51 PM
Edited Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:21 PM You mean "turban" is a faux intellectual comeback people use after being personally attacked to try to sound superior? I have no problem with people having a good vocabulary, knowing a few latin expressions, etc. That's all well and good. But, I have my own standards. I judge people based on their character, their ideas, the content of what they say. Some how I just think there's more to life than how good you are at sounding like a pretentious asshole on the internet. —Elvis-In-ZT |
|
|
|
|
Stryker311 |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 7:56 PM anobody i doubt anyone is going to get a turban confused with a do rag. —Stryker311 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 8:27 PM anobody i doubt anyone is going to get a turban confused with a do rag. I think you're missing something there, Stryker. I said someone might get confused if you said 'my parents never made me wear a long scarf wrapped around my head' rather than turban (a slight exaggeration of the theme of replacing one term or phrase with another) Some how I just think there's more to life than how good you are at sounding like a pretentious asshole on the internet. I can't speak for Drake but I assure you that was never my goal (not even at some weird subconscious level).
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
drakeguy19 |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:21 PM You think I try to sound like a pretentious asshole just because I remark on someone else's ad hominem attack? —drakeguy19 |
|
|
|
|
MajandraFan |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:33 PM stop using latin. you're such a fat phuck that run around in a thong —MajandraFan |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:51 PM You think I try to sound like a pretentious asshole just because I remark on someone else's ad hominem attack? I would assume not but, as I said, I can't speak for you. Apparently ZT assumes we both do (because - you know - nothing's cooler than making yourself look like a pertentious a-hole).
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
drakeguy19 |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 10:52 PM No, I would say it's cooler to be a pretentious asshole with guns, right striker? —drakeguy19 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 11:08 PM
Edited Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 11:09 PM Whatever else the one we do not speak of may be, pretentious doesn't quite fit. —anobody |
|
|
|
|
drakeguy19 |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 11:22 PM You don't think putting himself above women and other people who don't understand his gun/weapons fetish is a classic example of pretentiousness? —drakeguy19 |
|
|
|
|
anobody |
+ |
Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 11:28 PM "attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc. than is actually possessed" Seems like a bit of a stretch. Picture Dan Akroyd in Trading Places saying "It's a Harvard Tie - I mean, like oh sure, he went to Harvard" (if you had actually seen that movie which I'm half guessing you haven't; Netflix it dammit - then you shall understand).
—anobody |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Friday, November 3, 2006 at 2:16 AM Is anobody seriously trying to school ZT in the use of language? Isn't anobody the one who can't even use the words "loose" and "lose" in the correct way? What happened to anobody's imaginary girlfriend, the same imaginary girlfriend that was going to make anobody post less here? —greymatters |
|
|
|
|
Elvis-In-ZT |
+ |
Friday, November 3, 2006 at 5:03 AM When striker, drakeguy, and anobody get in a fight, who wins? —Elvis-In-ZT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AceRockollaisAce |
+ |
Friday, November 3, 2006 at 11:59 PM Picture Dan Akroyd in Trading Places saying "It's a Harvard Tie - I mean, like oh sure, he went to Harvard" (if you had actually seen that movie which I'm half guessing you haven't; Netflix it dammit - then you shall understand).
Jamie Lee Curtis has the finest breasts in the world during this film - for that alone you should see it - the fact that the whole film is comedy gold is just a bonus —AceRockollaisAce |
|
|
|
|
greymatters |
+ |
Saturday, November 4, 2006 at 3:30 PM When striker, drakeguy, and anobody get in a fight, who wins? This is a trick question. It's nobody, because they're all still alive. —greymatters |
|
