Topic: Umm, what??? That's pointless... (Read 768928 times)

pwhodges · « **Reply #3950 on:** 09 Mar 2014, 16:57 »

While they were inserting the catheter for the angioplasty and stent into my heart arteries after my heart attack, they asked me to move around as they specified to make it go in easier.

Ooh - new page - needs pointless image:

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #3951 on:** 09 Mar 2014, 17:18 »

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3952 on:** 09 Mar 2014, 20:13 »

Quote from: BeoPuppy on 08 Mar 2014, 15:44

Interesting, although I didn't know "vixen" and "sexpot" were pejoratives. I just thought they were old-timey, but complimentary.

94ssd · « **Reply #3953 on:** 09 Mar 2014, 21:41 »

What makes the list worse is that neither of the first two on the "positive expressions" for women are specific to being sexually active, while most of the male ones and all of the negative female expressions are.

Quote from: Method of Madness on 09 Mar 2014, 20:13

Interesting, although I didn't know "vixen" and "sexpot" were pejoratives. I just thought they were old-timey, but complimentary.

I've never head the term 'sexpot,' but I feel like vixen could be used either way depending on context. Same with "player" in the male category (which from what I've heard is more often used negatively). I'm pretty sure I've never seen or heard the term wench used outside of medieval fiction, either.

Additional note, I've only ever heard "vamp" used in the song Hard-Hearted Hannah., so I didn't realize it had that particular meaning.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #3954 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 00:03 »

'vixen' and 'vamp' seem positive to me, too. 'Sexpot' just seems funny. Language + time = babylon.

Sorflakne · « **Reply #3955 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 00:31 »

I can't even fathom the origin of a word like 'strumpet'.

Is it cold in here? · « **Reply #3956 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 00:58 »

It's a lot like a strombone.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #3957 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 01:15 »

I imagined you saying that in a thick italian accent, for some reason. LO-as they say-L.

From Middle English 'Strumpet' ... further origin unknown. In other words, no fucking clue.

pwhodges · « **Reply #3958 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 02:14 »

Sexpot is not negative in my mind; however, bounder definitely is (and not especially sexual in any case), not to mention player and others. Also, it's a matter of perception; various of the male terms marked positive are clearly negative in my mind, because I have rejected that style of sexual interaction. Plus, there are some inconsistencies - e.g. the Wikipedia articles on both Casanova and Don Juan start by using the term "womaniser" for them, which this list has as negative.

Thrillho · « **Reply #3959 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 03:51 »

I agree. The male list is like a huge, throbbing, grey area. Everyone I know and respect considers 'player' to be a negative, but I also know of groups of guys (and cultures, even) that consider 'player' a positive.

LTK · « **Reply #3960 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 04:14 »

Quote from: 94ssd on 09 Mar 2014, 21:41

What makes the list worse is that neither of the first two on the "positive expressions" for women are specific to being sexually active, while most of the male ones and all of the negative female expressions are.

None of them are. The acronym of MILF already makes incredibly clear that it's not referring to the woman's wishes or behaviour, other than being a mother.

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3961 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 04:17 »

Gigolo, Casanova and Don Juan are all non-positive where I've been.

I dunno about Minx and Vixen either but I don't hear them as negative terms at all, and when I use them myself they're positive. Also if you must call someone promiscous in the negative sense, absolutely must do it, calling them a strumpet's the way to go XD

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3962 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 05:06 »

Trollop works, too.

LeeC · « **Reply #3963 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 07:19 »

Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is playing Hercules

he's...he's wearing the lion pelt!

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3964 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 07:37 »

The astroids and maps in that comic are my company's product.

Also, I wouldn't dare have children with a woman who wouldn't be in her own costume demanding control of a squadron of her own.

LeeC · « **Reply #3965 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 07:56 »

Honestly if I had the money and the players I would totally play that game (saw a few play through on miniwargaming.com) but if the wife didn't want to play I am fine with that.

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3966 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 08:20 »

I used to have more of the triangle shape, but as I focused more on core and strength training I shifted. I also started fighting bears regularly so that probably helped.

LeeC · « **Reply #3967 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 08:58 »

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3968 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 09:51 »

Holy fuck trigger warning!

(click to show/hide)

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #3969 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 09:53 »

LeeC · « **Reply #3970 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 11:53 »

A terrier shows off its catch after a 15 minute rat hunt in French trenches during WWI. September 1916

(click to show/hide)

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #3971 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 14:02 »

cesium133 · « **Reply #3972 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 14:03 »

"... but... but I make bread FUN! This isn't FUN!"

LeeC · « **Reply #3973 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 14:20 »

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3974 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 15:09 »

That was fucking depressing.

LTK · « **Reply #3975 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 15:18 »

What? No! Many comics decide to take the angle of how creepy it is to pair any Pokemon at will with Ditto, but this is actually a really positive take: "Look at how awesome having a Ditto dad is!"

And yeah, mom's dead, but that's just the viral internet comics law that any feel-good story has to have a heartbreaking twist to it.

I swear I didn't even catch on until the very end.

K1dmor · « **Reply #3976 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 16:05 »

LeeC · « **Reply #3977 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 16:41 »

Kid protecting a baby chimpanzee form hyena

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3978 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 18:14 »

Quote from: GarandMarine on 10 Mar 2014, 09:51

The text at the bottom is kind of misleading. Both used telescopes, one telescope was well over a century more advanced. Sure, the iPhone looked through the telescope and took the picture, but...they're both basically cameras looking through telescopes.

de_la_Nae · « **Reply #3979 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 22:04 »

who the hell was just rolling the camera instead of helping shove off the hyena?

Detachable Felix · « **Reply #3980 on:** 10 Mar 2014, 23:08 »

My thoughts exactly, de_la_Nae. People are jerks.

pwhodges · « **Reply #3981 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 01:12 »

Or, as often, the picture is misleading in some way.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #3982 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 01:40 »

They photoshopped a budgy to look like a hyena.

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3983 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 04:16 »

That doesn't look like a Hyena. and a hyena would have taken the chimp and the kid without a second thought.

LeeC · « **Reply #3984 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 04:38 »

you know some people have trained hyenas as pets right?

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3985 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 05:00 »

I do in fact. It still doesn't look like a Hyena.

kyomi · « **Reply #3986 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 05:11 »

Hyena's just look soo.... eugh..

ev4n · « **Reply #3987 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 05:52 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 10 Mar 2014, 18:14

]The text at the bottom is kind of misleading. Both used telescopes, one telescope was well over a century more advanced. Sure, the iPhone looked through the telescope and took the picture, but...they're both basically cameras looking through telescopes.

I agree. I bet the single biggest difference is in glass quality.

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3988 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 06:01 »

This isn't wrong...

LeeC · « **Reply #3989 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 06:03 »

Quote from: GarandMarine on 11 Mar 2014, 05:00

I do in fact. It still doesn't look like a Hyena.

there are more Hyenas out there than just the spotted.
it could be a striped one or an arrdwolf

pwhodges · « **Reply #3990 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 07:07 »

Quote from: ev4n on 11 Mar 2014, 05:52

Quote from: Method of Madness on 10 Mar 2014, 18:14
]The text at the bottom is kind of misleading. Both used telescopes, one telescope was well over a century more advanced. Sure, the iPhone looked through the telescope and took the picture, but...they're both basically cameras looking through telescopes.

I agree. I bet the single biggest difference is in glass quality.

The change of exposure from 50 minutes to 1 second (plus colour) is not a trivial one, though.

pwhodges · « **Reply #3991 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 07:15 »

LeeC · « **Reply #3992 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 09:10 »

pwhodges · « **Reply #3993 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 10:09 »

LeeC · « **Reply #3994 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 12:10 »

Blue Kitty · « **Reply #3995 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 12:17 »

LeeC · « **Reply #3996 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 12:21 »

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3997 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 14:12 »

Quote from: pwhodges on 11 Mar 2014, 07:07

Quote from: ev4n on 11 Mar 2014, 05:52
Quote from: Method of Madness on 10 Mar 2014, 18:14
]The text at the bottom is kind of misleading. Both used telescopes, one telescope was well over a century more advanced. Sure, the iPhone looked through the telescope and took the picture, but...they're both basically cameras looking through telescopes.

I agree. I bet the single biggest difference is in glass quality.

The change of exposure from 50 minutes to 1 second (plus colour) is not a trivial one, though.

Well yeah, but that would've been the case no matter what you took a picture of, and it has nothing to do with the telescope.

~~GarandMarine~~ · « **Reply #3998 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 14:51 »

Quote from: LeeC on 11 Mar 2014, 06:03

I want three of these as pets.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #3999 on:** 11 Mar 2014, 14:56 »

I'd rather have a dire wolf.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Umm, what??? That's pointless... (Read 768928 times)