| Re: Crazy about you by nicole081083 |
21-Jan-04/1:41 PM |
|
|
 |
| Re: a comment on Gethsemane (or, Jesus learns what's up with dying) by zodiac |
21-Jan-04/11:22 AM |
|
What do you mean when you say you "don't acknowledge the reality of death"?
|
|
|
|
| Re: Forgive and regret by penguin fiend |
21-Jan-04/11:15 AM |
"You can ask me to punish you with turds, you can ask me strike you into the ground with my cane, you can ask me to slaughter your children with an axe, you can ask me have your name slandered at the bi-monthly Cheesesmith's Convention, you can ask me withdraw your trouser allowance, and you can ask me to ride you into towne like a donkey. You can even ask me to return you to the dung-heap I found you on. But there is one thing you cannot ask of me; one thing that is beyond all my powers as a Gentleman to endure...
You cannot ask me to forgive you. For that is something no man can do."
Earl Proud-Stocking XV to his butler, upon catching the feeble manservant parading around the Bedchamber in his Master's Jodhpurs.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Gethsemane (or, Jesus learns what's up with dying) by zodiac |
21-Jan-04/10:44 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: My Daffodil bulb by YoungLady |
21-Jan-04/10:21 AM |
Ahh, but could not the same also be said of a freshly laid stool, glistening like dew in the morning sunlight?
When I woke up
The sun was hot
It shone upon
My chamber pot
And then I saw
A coil of brown
And felt I'd best
Inform the towne
On other days
The things I dump
Are mostly grey
And not so plump
But this young brown
So sleek and proud
Is sure to draw
A mighty crowd!
|
|
|
|
| Re: bimby by sneakerpimp |
21-Jan-04/9:52 AM |
|
You said "dump with love".
|
|
|
|
| Re: Gethsemane (or, Jesus learns what's up with dying) by zodiac |
21-Jan-04/9:23 AM |
|
I raised the issue of why Jesu "prayed to Himself" in Gethsemane, and why He asked for an alternative to crucifixion when He should have already known the answer to His question, with a Christian, and the Christian said that when Jesu swooped down to planet Earth and took on humanoid form He was subject to the same fears and pains that humans feel, and that whilst in humanoid form He may not have been omniscient. What do you say to that? I don't think you can say Jesu IS God at the same time as saying He wasn't omniscient whilst in humanoid form, because that would make Him simultaneously identical to God and different from God. The best you can do is say Jesus was PART of God, but as far as I know no Christians endorse that view, and it is not backed up by the Bible. In short: buncombe.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on death of devil XIII by crwncka1 |
21-Jan-04/5:23 AM |
|
What do you think is more funny: wee, or poo?
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on sea of pearls by crwncka1 |
20-Jan-04/7:11 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: sea of pearls by crwncka1 |
20-Jan-04/7:06 AM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Why you don't fall through the floor by ?-Dave_Mysterious-? |
20-Jan-04/6:23 AM |
No; sadly Professor ?-Dave_Mysterious-? made the Mathsranker Brownlists for repeatedly refusing to accept The Splendour Of Gold argument for the existence of God, and for twice showing his bum. Once Brownlisted, the renowned mathematician lost all High Trouser privileges, and was only allowed to use the Whitehead Library if he balanced a potato on his head and kept it there for the duration of his stay. It was following one such 'potatoed' library session that ?-Dave_Mysterious-? hit an all time low as his Royal Society funded research took a terrible turn for the brown. Indeed, the Mathsranker Council were forced to banish him completely after he conjectured that the number 6 didn't exist and was purely an illusion, whilst simultaneously claiming (without proof) that he had discovered a new whole number between 5 and 7 called "bum". One hapless young student, after hearing the sound of a wounded animal mewing in Dave's office, foolishly decided to investigate, only to be trapped inside the soiled chamber for several days whilst the mad professor (who had been impersonating a dying otter) forced the poor fellowe to assume the validity of his blasphemous results and derive a new Theory of Arithmetic thereon. When the weeping apprentice did as he was told, and eventually proved the inevitably devastating "6 = bum" Theorem, ?-Dave_Mysterious-? flew into a terrible rage and, after throwing all his toys on the floor, ran across the room and vaulted through a closed window.
No doubt you'll agree that his is a very sorry tale, indeed.
Good day.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Why you don't fall through the floor by ?-Dave_Mysterious-? |
19-Jan-04/4:15 PM |
|
"You have learnt your lesson, my child" said the old teacher, "Now go and tend to the orchard". The young monk left his master in the garden and returned to his labours. Master Daizui watched him disappear among the tall sheaves of rice, then, when he was quite sure the pupil had gone, he removed his sandal and covered the manhole with it.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Facial Bliss by ARTIE |
19-Jan-04/2:04 PM |
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Why you don't fall through the floor by ?-Dave_Mysterious-? |
19-Jan-04/1:52 PM |
Here's a problem for you, Goad (though I daresay I only just invented it so it may be rife with schoolboy errors):
Assume an equilateral triangle shaped manhole cover, with sides of length x. Show that if we are to be sure the manhole cover CAN fall down the manhole, then its thickness must not exceed
(x/4)*(2*(root 3) - 3)
Indeed, if this result is correct, and we assume a reasonable value for x (say 1m?), then provided its thickness does not exceed about 11.6 cm, it WILL be able to fall down the manhole.
Is 11.6cm a spectacularly thick manhole cover? I daresay it is not, though more research in this field is DESPERATELY needed.
Good day to you, Sir!
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Why you don't fall through the floor by ?-Dave_Mysterious-? |
19-Jan-04/1:23 PM |
|
You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on Outhouse by newagepoet2000 |
17-Jan-04/4:12 PM |
[from The Banned Diaries Of Sir Arthur Weatherby-Browne]
Alone in the yard, beyond the last of the wilting Azaleas, lies The Outhouse. A place of solitude, and of shame; see how it basks in its filth, taunting me with its soiled bounty. How many loved-ones have fallen there? Swallowed whole by its endless hunger for the browne? I'm wearing pyjamas now. Sieve in hand - the Earth will not claim this treasure! I lower my pants. And lay dung...
Trapped in the sieve! Writhing like a worm on a hook! My darling! I carry the beloved filtrate back to the bedchamber, there to bathe it, and clothe it in silk. But kicking and screaming, ever tethered to an old man's beard - that is no life for a crumbling stool!
Hands clasped in prayer, and weeping, I watch it ride off in its chariot. Black against the setting sun. Wrapped in a veil.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Miss Understanding by OneFingerAnswer |
16-Jan-04/10:23 AM |
|
I think it is one of the great tragedies of society that on the playground the word "gay" is synonymous with "filthy urchin". Can't children find something better to do during playtime than tearing madly about the place calling each other "gay"? It's extremely damaging because some of those children will actually be homos and, before you know it, they'll be taken in by all the hype and might start to believe that there is something "filthy" and "urchin-like" about being a "raving bender". Which there isn't. Thanks and God Bless.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Stand by me by Cougarchic |
16-Jan-04/10:08 AM |
This piece sounds very forced. As a poete, when you end up with lines like "My state of mind is a real disgust" or "Till I can heal my burn" you really ought to be asking yourself "Have I been praying enough?".
Well?
Have you?
Because if you haven't, how can you possibly hope to come up with good, rhyming lines through the love of Christ without compromising on the sheer absurdity quotient? A good effort, though! -7-
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The woods house by zodiac |
15-Jan-04/5:03 PM |
No, look, you old crone. I didn't ask for the meanings of the individual words. I asked what a "harsh, poignant talent" is, which you've failed to explain. You claim that a "harsh, poignant talent" is a talent for writing harsh, poignant stories. This is buncombe. The only way it could be right is if "X, Y talent" meant "a talent for writing X, Y stories", which it does not. Affix your shrivel'd eyes upon this proove: 1. Let P have an X, Y talent if and only if P has a talent for writing X, Y stories. 1. Let P have a talent for writing fictional, 2000-word stories. 2. Therefore P has a fictional, 2000-word talent. 3. This is buncombe. 4. Q.E.D. Or shall we take your principle further, and say that a man has a brown, German talent because he has a talent for making brown, German films? That you have a nasal, grating talent because you have a talent for producing that sort of sound?
From now on, I do not wish to hear you use the phrase "harsh, poignant" except when referring to "Ace Bandido Red" brand hot sauce.
|
|
|
|
| Re: a comment on The woods house by zodiac |
15-Jan-04/1:38 AM |
|
What in christ's name is a "harsh, poignant talent"?
|
|
|
|
