[OT]Ad on the page...

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #20,643

by inthane-chan

12/7/01 11:07:55 AM

[OT]Ad on the page...

...was oddly appropriate for the page.

A young, fairly attractive woman, not showing a bit of arm, basically a big button up shirt on top, but showing lotsa leg, and holding a computer joystick (didn't want any confusion there!) in a, shall we say, suggestive position. No, she didn't have the typical Murican Advertisement "I'm a slut" look - just an average everyday face, which I find much more attractive, personally.

The irony was rather amusing.

Heard on NPR (an attempt to bring this back to relevance) was an older Muslim woman "women's libber" talking about some younger women she had talked to - that the whole "right" to wear miniskirts, makeup, and jewelry was actually degrading women more than the whole burqua situation, since the first option turned a woman from a person into a sexual object. I'm not going to make an argument one way or the other on this one...

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Does anyone else think... - (bepatient) - (57) - Dec. 7, 2001, 02:50:38 AM EST

(giggles) Nice change. But back to topic, - (wharris2) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2001, 03:37:13 AM EST

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. - (nking) - Dec. 7, 2001, 08:19:21 AM EST

Takes just one test case.. - (Ashton) - (39) - Dec. 7, 2001, 04:04:25 AM EST

The problem is... - (jb4) - Dec. 7, 2001, 08:49:51 AM EST

And just how... - (bepatient) - (37) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:37:30 AM EST

Dunno if I can put it in teerms simple enough for Econ. - (Ashton) - (36) - Dec. 7, 2001, 06:04:46 PM EST

Weird - (bepatient) - Dec. 7, 2001, 07:24:27 PM EST

Sure...fine...whatever. - (bepatient) - (34) - Dec. 7, 2001, 07:23:41 PM EST

Of course she is. - (Ashton) - (27) - Dec. 7, 2001, 09:28:32 PM EST

Presumption - (imric) - (26) - Dec. 7, 2001, 09:45:47 PM EST

comfort? utter BS. - (Ashton) - (25) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:34:05 PM EST

Get this. - (imric) - (24) - Dec. 8, 2001, 12:48:42 AM EST

These are quite 'special' circumstances. - (Ashton) - (23) - Dec. 8, 2001, 06:21:30 AM EST

Insolent? - (imric) - (20) - Dec. 8, 2001, 08:46:48 AM EST

Ah how EZ it would all be if.. logic alone were enough! - (Ashton) - (14) - Dec. 8, 2001, 07:37:23 PM EST

Logic alone? - (imric) - (13) - Dec. 10, 2001, 10:26:18 AM EST

Piffle - (Silverlock) - (12) - Dec. 10, 2001, 11:42:49 AM EST

*chortle* -NT - (imric) - Dec. 10, 2001, 11:50:54 AM EST

Not quite. - (bepatient) - (10) - Dec. 10, 2001, 11:58:19 AM EST

anti-piffle - (Silverlock) - (9) - Dec. 10, 2001, 12:50:21 PM EST

Reinstate it - BeeP (of all people) corroborated it! - (CRConrad) - (8) - Dec. 10, 2001, 05:03:20 PM EST

Yup. - (imric) - Dec. 10, 2001, 06:01:58 PM EST

not really... - (bepatient) - (6) - Dec. 10, 2001, 08:59:03 PM EST

Seems it only notes that they DO; doesn't say HAVE TO. - (CRConrad) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2001, 07:36:18 AM EST

So you are all in favor... - (bepatient) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2001, 09:32:10 AM EST

Nice two step - (Silverlock) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2001, 10:01:00 AM EST

Upthread - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2001, 10:19:35 AM EST

Yeah. And? - (Silverlock) - Dec. 12, 2001, 10:46:24 AM EST

You're making Marlowe's mistake: Conflating... - (CRConrad) - Dec. 12, 2001, 10:21:23 AM EST

Hey Maggie! - (Ashton) - (4) - Dec. 8, 2001, 07:41:16 PM EST

Hey Ash! - (slugbug) - (3) - Dec. 8, 2001, 10:29:20 PM EST

Thanks. - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2001, 12:57:38 AM EST

not 100% - (slugbug) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2001, 01:08:21 AM EST

Well, then, start a new topic. - (Andrew Grygus) - Dec. 9, 2001, 05:12:30 PM EST

Even easier solution. - (Brandioch) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2001, 08:47:54 PM EST

"The play's the thing wherein we'll catch the conscience of - (Ashton) - Dec. 9, 2001, 12:40:47 AM EST

Third option: - (mhuber) - (3) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:02:59 PM EST

That would be the Decent, the Honorable, the American thing - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:45:11 PM EST

And I suspect - (mhuber) - (1) - Dec. 9, 2001, 02:20:38 PM EST

Thanks, Mike.__ Al punte, as usual. - (Ashton) - Dec. 9, 2001, 03:15:45 PM EST

Two thoughts comes to mind.... - (Simon_Jester) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2001, 11:00:44 AM EST

Third: What (?) do we 'Stand For' _...if anything at all (?) -NT - (Ashton) - Dec. 8, 2001, 07:44:05 PM EST

[OT]Ad on the page... - (inthane-chan) - Dec. 7, 2001, 11:07:55 AM EST

Fine point - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2001, 12:29:26 PM EST

In that case - (nking) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2001, 04:22:27 PM EST

Yes You Can, Norm - (Ashton) - Dec. 7, 2001, 06:14:15 PM EST

having met some AF wimmen it may give a renewal of the term - (boxley) - (6) - Dec. 7, 2001, 08:20:02 PM EST

Maybe glamour + toughness aren't a common mix; and for sure, - (Ashton) - (5) - Dec. 7, 2001, 09:48:43 PM EST

Re: Maybe glamour + toughness aren't a common mix; and for s - (wharris2) - (4) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:32:30 PM EST

No need for 'Duck' if that were his meaning (?) - (Ashton) - (3) - Dec. 7, 2001, 10:50:11 PM EST

As the Huron said to his soup, e tu Brule? - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 9, 2001, 10:40:44 PM EST

Yeah well, I figure in any *real* misogynist situation, - (Ashton) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2001, 11:21:30 PM EST

define "underdog" :) -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 11, 2001, 09:40:47 PM EST

Take from the Soapbox - (bepatient) - (3) - Dec. 10, 2001, 12:02:40 PM EST

More info - (bepatient) - Dec. 10, 2001, 12:07:29 PM EST

It becomes more apparent that, the State Dept. presumes its - (Ashton) - (1) - Dec. 10, 2001, 11:51:05 PM EST

No...actually... - (bepatient) - Dec. 11, 2001, 10:13:13 AM EST

iwethey.org

I bet Socrates had a really nice lawn.
159 ms