No need for 'Duck' if that were his meaning (?)

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #20,758 by Ashton 12/7/01 10:50:11 PM Reply	No need for 'Duck' if that were his meaning (?) Sometimes snide remarks need more than a couple words - to be understood (er Bill?) Guess: I think he was just bein a smartass redneck cracker from SoFla - just to rattle a cage or 2 - while his kid lets him play on the Mac.. A. Cracker? Cackle.. Cackle..
Post #20,864 by boxley 12/9/01 10:40:44 PM Reply	As the Huron said to his soup, e tu Brule? play on words is all with memories of a few AF wimmen who fit the bill. thanx, bill tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #20,967 by Ashton 12/10/01 11:21:30 PM Reply	Yeah well, I figure in any real misogynist situation, I'd find ya with the underdog an fightin' off the Yahoos.. :-)
Post #21,107 by boxley 12/11/01 9:40:47 PM Reply	define "underdog" :) tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"

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

Carefully labored prose!
76 ms