|
|
 |
clodhopper |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 12:16 AM Longtime listeners will know this one (it's my personal favorite) but I'm curious to know how other people will answer. I'm taking this from memory and I might be embellishing on my own, but the core ideas are identical. Choose one of the following: 1) Imagine the most disgusting, putrid, vile, ugly, toothless, hairy, barely-human member of the oppisite sex you've ever met. Now, imagine that person twice as ugly and wants you. You must spend the night with this person making sweet, sweet love--all night long. You'd have to do everything that you would do to a person you really were attracted to and anything else that person asked of you. But after the fact, no one knows, not even the person you were with. There is no evidence and no one would ever think or believe that this act occured. You, however, remember it all and did in fact do all of it. 2) Take that very same disgusting, putrid, vile, ugly, toothless, hairy, barely-human member of the oppisite sex. You do nothing sexual or intimate with that person. But EVERYONE you know believes you did everything you would have had to do in the first option. Your family, your friends, your coworkers, your classmates, your priest, even some total strangers like the Pope believe you did that person. No matter how much you deny what happened, they'll never believe that you didn't do it even though you did in fact do nothing at all. So which is it? —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
savethebabies |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 12:24 AM i'll take door number 3... tell them I'm really gay.
or door number 4... suicide. —savethebabies |
|
|
|
|
Theo |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 12:26 AM #2, if people have preconcieved thoughts on me anyway....fuck em —Theo |
|
|
|
|
NYBret |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 12:29 AM Among members of this site, I'm probably a bit of a Loveline newbie.. I've only been listening for about two years. But I'd say, based upon what I've come to understand about Adam's perspective, he'd choose option #2. Why?
Going through with option #1 would be a traumatic event which would permanently impair, or flat-out destroy, his ability to achieve sexual arousal or orgasm... ever...
and I don't think the Adam we all know and love would survive without the ability to sqeeze one off every now and then.
Am I close? ...
—NYBret |
|
|
|
|
HazeTrooper |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 12:32 AM Choose one of the following: 1) Imagine the most disgusting, putrid, vile, ugly, toothless, hairy, barely-human member of the oppisite sex you've ever met. Now, imagine that person twice as ugly and wants you. You must spend the night with this person making sweet, sweet love--all night long. You'd have to do everything that you would do to a person you really were attracted to and anything else that person asked of you. But after the fact, no one knows, not even the person you were with. There is no evidence and no one would ever think or believe that this act occured. You, however, remember it all and did in fact do all of it. So - We'd have to have sex with you? 2) Take that very same disgusting, putrid, vile, ugly, toothless, hairy, barely-human member of the oppisite sex. You do nothing sexual or intimate with that person. But EVERYONE you know believes you did everything you would have had to do in the first option. Your family, your friends, your coworkers, your classmates, your priest, even some total strangers like the Pope believe you did that person. No matter how much you deny what happened, they'll never believe that you didn't do it even though you did in fact do nothing at all. So - We wouldn't have to have sex with you? Excellent question... Not sure what would be worse - Being in your presence or people thinking that I was in your presence. Does spelling count? —HazeTrooper |
|
|
|
|
digger |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:22 AM Longtime listeners will know this one (it's my personal favorite) but I'm curious to know how other people will answer. I'm taking this from memory and I might be embellishing on my own, but the core ideas are identical. -snip-
Adam did his Ultimate Hypothetical when Leeza Gibbons was guest, maybe 3-4 years ago. It was a hilarious show (Leeza is always a charm) and I'd love to hear it again.
—digger |
|
|
|
|
clodhopper |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:24 AM Three or four years ago? Shit. I could have sworn it was more recent than that. I remember telling people about it about a year ago, so maybe Adam just retold it. —clodhopper |
|
|
|
|
myfinalcoffinx |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:38 AM i believe that adam's response was option 1 - he said something along the lines of cracking open a few beers and getting it over with...
i couldn't disagree more.
eeesh
—myfinalcoffinx |
|
|
|
|
digger |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:41 AM Adam must have brought it up again cuz 1-year just doesn't sound right for when I had heard it. Oh, btw, I'd go with your first scenario, OF COURSE! —digger |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:52 AM
Edited Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:53 AM Adam did his Ultimate Hypothetical when Leeza Gibbons was guest, maybe 3-4 years ago. It was a hilarious show (Leeza is always a charm) and I'd love to hear it again. —digger
Yes, and the hypothetical guy in question was called "Russ with the hairy back."
As for me, I'd choose option #2. Not only does it seem the lesser of two evils, but it could also have some benefits. A notch in the bedpost is still a notch in the bedpost. If others think you did ugly chick, it still counts. (And at least THEY could think my your drought was over.) And maybe some sweet, attractive chick would find me you charitable and magnanimous, and perhaps throw you a non-hypothetical lay.
—Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
ZT |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:55 AM Everyone who said 2 is lieing. 1 —ZT |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:57 AM
Edited Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 1:58 AM I don't know. Maybe. Not so much because I'd be afraid for others to THINK I did, but because 7 years IS an awfully long time. Like I said: A notch is a notch. Though if I were getting laid at a reasonable interval, I would DEFINITELY take Option #2.
...and the word is "lying," Captain MENSA.
—Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 6:03 AM From a girl's perspective, it would essentially be rape (since there's no way you'd want that person doing you), so I'd definitely be going with option #2. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
TortillaFactory |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 8:50 AM (since there's no way you'd want that person doing you) I dunno...Ron Jeremy gets laid an awful lot, and nobody calls THAT rape. This is a tough question. Thinking about it from a guy's perspective, I think I'd rather pick option one and just get it over with, as Adam said. As a girl...well, it would be tough having everyone think I did something that I didn't, but for girls there doesn't seem to be as much of a stigma attached to doing someone ugly. I'd pick option two. —TortillaFactory |
|
|
|
|
Dark Laith |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 9:22 AM I can't pick. I can't. UNLESS I get to kill the ugly chick when I'm done with her. In which case, #1. I'd feel a lot better about myself that way. —Dark Laith |
|
|
|
|
chix0r |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 9:40 AM >>Ron Jeremy gets laid an awful lot Feh, Ron Jeremy is neither disgusting, putrid, vile, nor toothless. —chix0r |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gouranga3221 |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 2:25 PM I would just shotgun a few cans of Budweiser and get it over with.
Having your buddies razz you for humping 'Thumbelina the human oxen' is a lot worse than actually humping her. —gouranga3221 |
|
|
|
|
Dusty TheHick |
+ |
Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 7:31 PM UNLESS I get to kill the ugly chick when I'm done with her. -Darkie ...and then come....again. —Dusty TheHick |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
000 |
+ |
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 7:18 AM
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080204/NEWS02/802040438
CHAPPAQUA - A naked martial arts expert battled police on Hardscrabble Road, absorbing two Taserings and swiping a cop's baton before he was finally taken down by four officers. The man, 28-year-old Peter Lu of Peekskill, is being examined in the psychiatric unit at the Westchester Medical Center, where authorities arraigned him this afternoon. He was remanded without bail to the Westchester County jail on the same Valhalla campus as the hospital, pending a hearing Thursday in Town Court. The fight took place shortly before 6 p.m. yesterday, after the completely naked man inexplicably showed up and started banging on a woman's front door. The woman called police, and Mount Pleasant Police Officer Frank Cavallaro responded. Lu, seeing the officer, came charging. "It was sort of a police officer's worst nightmare," said Police Chief Louis Alagno. Cavallaro used a stun gun to immobile Lu, who fell to the ground. The officer then ordered him to place his hands behind his back. Lu refused, so the officer Tasered him again. Lu complied this time, putting his hands behind his back. But when Cavallaro went to handcuff him, Lu started fighting again. In the ensuing melee, Lu knocked the Taser cartridge out of the officer's hand, disabling the device. The officer then lifted his baton and swung at Lu, who knocked the stick to the ground, picked it up and "came at the officer," Alagno said. "It's apparent he had martial arts training based on the moves he was using," the chief said. That's when Cavallaro took out his gun. It was at this point that three other officers arrived from neighboring departments. Lu continued to fight, but the officers managed to take him down and cuff his hands and ankles. As with Lu, Cavallaro was taken to Westchester Medical Center, where he was treated for a shoulder injury. He may require surgery, Alagno said. The chief praised Cavallaro's response, saying "the officer showed great restraint by not using his gun. He probably would have been justified, especially when Lu was armed with the baton." Police still don't know why Lu showed up at the woman's house. She doesn't know him and he apparently has no connection with other neighbors, the chief said. Authorities also don't know why Lu acted out. He was rambling incoherently in English at the time. "I would describe his behavior as bizarre," Alagno said. "Was it drugs? Was it mental illness? I don't know." Police, in searching the area, found Lu's clothes and car at a construction site a half-mile away. —000 |
|