On 2014-07-09 12:20 PM, graham wrote:
> On 09/07/2014 8:43 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>>> women.
>>
>> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
>> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
>> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
>> happened.
>>
> SOME men!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SOME will do the right thing... whatever the hell that is supposed to
be. The thing is.... they CAN.

On 7/9/2014 2:22 AM, dsi1 wrote:

> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
> women.

If men has menstrual periods, we would have a 3-week work month. ;-)

Becca

On 09/07/2014 4:29 PM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 2:22 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>> women.
>
> If men has menstrual periods, we would have a 3-week work month. ;-)
>
> Becca
OTOH, if you add up the number of days in her lifetime that the average
female experiences her periods, it just about equals the difference in
longevity between men and women in the western world.{:-)
Graham

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:04:39 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-07-09 10:43 AM, sf wrote:
>
> > You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
> > end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
> > unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
> > happened.
> >
>
> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it is
> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine for
> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman who
> ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.

That's all well and good - but if woman's birth control not free to
anyone who asks for it, then it should be covered by healthcare
insurance. It's a real double standard. If men can only get a stiffy
by using something that's covered by insurance, then birth control
should be covered by insurance too... and no religious BS by the
employer should be allowed to interfere. If we take away women's
access to low cost birth control, then we should also take away men's
access to a low cost stiffy.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/2...cover-for-men/

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 7/9/2014 3:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it is
> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine for
> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman who
> ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.

Many men can always opt for a vasectomy, which can even be reversed at a
later date.

Sky

On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:24:45 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 4:43:13 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
> >
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
> >
> > > liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
> >
> > > be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
> >
> > > women.
> >
> >
> >
> > You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
> >
> > end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
> >
> > unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
> >
> > happened.
> >
> >
>
> My wife was asked to be a witness at a ******* wedding. I think that's kind of nutty because the bride and bride have only known each other for a couple of months. If it's a business deal in order to procure tax benifits, 2 months is fine. Anything else and is ill-advised. I suppose that a lot of *** folks are getting married these days simply because they can. OTOH, they don't have to deal with the vexing reproduction rights issues.
>

I think they are in the naive stage right now. Marriage is more
binding than a civil union. They don't understand that a failed
marriage means they need to get divorced before moving on and it's
going to cost more than they'd like to spend, even if they both agree
on terms. If they don't get divorced, then they can't marry again
(legally). Also, what happens if one goes on with a legal claim to
that person's fortune. It can be a real mess... but they'll figure it
out in due time.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 16:06:40 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-07-09 10:49 AM, sf wrote:
>
> >> I don't know if there was child abuse because we didn't see it. We only
> >> know what we heard through the door.
> >
> > Did you ever call the state or local Child Protective Services.? You
> > can report anonymously.
>
>
>
> We once called the police over an incident with a child in a car in
> front of a local store. The kid was screaming and carrying on as if he
> was being abducted. We wrote down the license number and got a
> description of the car and the adults. The cops followed up and got
> back to us..... out of control little brat.

Better to be safe than sorry. Think about this one
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/dad-t...ourt-he/ngYGC/
I wonder why no one reported an unaccompanied child in a vehicle to
the authorities? The car was in a parking lot during the daytime! He
could still be alive if someone had reported the incident. He is by
no means the only child who has died that way, but that case currently
has the most press coverage.

It happens too many times.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92943
http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/06/18/...steven-lillie/
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/l...265445081.html

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/B...ts-3229489.php
The article says:
Nationally, an average of 36 children a year die when they are trapped
in overheated cars. Some get into the cars on their own and some are
intentionally left by parents, but the majority are forgotten by a
parent or caregiver who fails to glance in the backseat.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

On 7/9/2014 11:39 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-09 4:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>>
>> My wife was asked to be a witness at a ******* wedding. I think
>> that's kind of nutty because the bride and bride have only known each
>> other for a couple of months.
>
> Just wait a while. Then you will see problems with same sex divorces. We
> have had a couple interesting cases since same sex marriages were
> allowed here.
>
> First of all, there was all sorts of news coverage of the first *******
> marriage. They names and pictures were plastered all over the media.
> It was a different story when they got divorced. There was a publication
> ban issued because they did not want to be publicly identified. Funny
> how they loved the attention when they broke that first barrier.
>
> *** couples have been flocking here to get married since same sex
> marriages became legal. Now some of those marriages are failing. There
> was an case a few months ago where a female couple are whining they they
> cannot get divorced. One was American (from Florida) and her spouse is
> British. Neither Britain nor the state of Florida recognize ***
> marriages so they can't get divorced there. They can't get divorced in
> Canada because they have to meet residency requirements. These two
> foreigners are trying to get Canada to change its laws, to drop the
> residency requirements. Our government has no interest in becoming a
> mecca for quickie divorces, and for good reason. There are child
> custody and support issues that would have to be enforced. Our
> government has enough on its legislative plate without having to amend
> our domestic laws to appease foreigners who came here for marriages of
> convenience.

As a practical matter, there's little that can be done about marriages
between strangers. We'll just have to take the fallout when it all goes
downhill. Hetro-couples have had a lot of practice with marriage
so I guess *** couples have a right to act stupid for a while.

>
> If it's a business deal in order to
>> procure tax benifits, 2 months is fine. Anything else and is
>> ill-advised. I suppose that a lot of *** folks are getting married
>> these days simply because they can. OTOH, they don't have to deal
>> with the vexing reproduction rights issues.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't
>>> hurt.
>

On 7/9/2014 12:29 PM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 2:22 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>> women.
>
> If men has menstrual periods, we would have a 3-week work month. ;-)
>
> Becca

Yay!

On 7/9/2014 1:24 PM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 13:24:45 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, July 9, 2014 4:43:13 AM UTC-10, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
>>>
>>>> liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
>>>
>>>> be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
>>>
>>>> women.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
>>>
>>> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
>>>
>>> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
>>>
>>> happened.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My wife was asked to be a witness at a ******* wedding. I think that's kind of nutty because the bride and bride have only known each other for a couple of months. If it's a business deal in order to procure tax benifits, 2 months is fine. Anything else and is ill-advised. I suppose that a lot of *** folks are getting married these days simply because they can. OTOH, they don't have to deal with the vexing reproduction rights issues.
>>
>
> I think they are in the naive stage right now. Marriage is more
> binding than a civil union. They don't understand that a failed
> marriage means they need to get divorced before moving on and it's
> going to cost more than they'd like to spend, even if they both agree
> on terms. If they don't get divorced, then they can't marry again
> (legally). Also, what happens if one goes on with a legal claim to
> that person's fortune. It can be a real mess... but they'll figure it
> out in due time.
>

They are as a child with a new toy. (-:

On 2014-07-09 19:19, Sky wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 3:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
>> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it is
>> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine for
>> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman who
>> ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.
>
> Many men can always opt for a vasectomy, which can even be reversed at a
> later date.
>

True, but that would apply more in long term relationships. If it is a
short term thing.... the guy could be lying.

On 7/9/2014 7:16 PM, sf wrote:

> That's all well and good - but if woman's birth control not free to
> anyone who asks for it, then it should be covered by healthcare
> insurance. It's a real double standard. If men can only get a stiffy
> by using something that's covered by insurance, then birth control
> should be covered by insurance too... and no religious BS by the
> employer should be allowed to interfere. If we take away women's
> access to low cost birth control, then we should also take away men's
> access to a low cost stiffy.
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/2...cover-for-men/
>

IMO, ED should not be covered any more than a game of golf. It is
recreational, not a necessity.

In the Hobby Lobby case, they are not limiting most birth control. Only
the morning after that they equate with abortion.

Providing birth control saves everyone a lot of money in the long run.
I'd rather pay for a couple of condoms or pills than an unwanted baby
for 32 years .

On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:46:41 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> In the Hobby Lobby case, they are not limiting most birth control. Only
> the morning after that they equate with abortion.

Actually it is being broadened to cover ALL birth control.
Pandora's Box.
http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5873611/...ling-explained
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-contraception

An article about the Hobby Lobby religious beliefs vs real science.
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcaria...30-column.html

--
I take life with a grain of salt, a slice of lemon and a shot of tequila

Heard a comedian the other day who said he couldn't wait to see what happens when two men get divorced. How's the court going to decide which guy to screw over?

My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > >
> >>> Bull shit Julie
> > >
> > > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
> > > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
> > >
> > > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
> >
> >
> > Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
> >
> You went to my school? I doubt it.
>
> > I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you
> > say when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.
>
> I didn't say that you had to agree but I sure as hell am not making
> things up. I don't know what era you went to school in or where.
> And I can only speak for my school. I know what went on there.
>
> I worked in the couselor's office in Jr. High. My school was a
> particularly rough one as it was new to Jr. High students the first
> year that I went there. It had been used for something else the year
> before. Not sure what. So every kid who had been kicked out of every
> other school in the district went there. Thankfully things had
> calmed down by the time my bro went there, three years later.
>
> But some time during my first year there, they had to close the
> locker bays (eclosed buildings just for lockers) except before and
> after school and at lunch time. Why? Too much bad stuff went on.
> Like people throwing firecrackers at other people or people just
> hanging out in there and not going to class.
>
> But lots of kids were putting stuff in their lockers that they
> shouldn't have been. Pills, pot, liqour and cigarettes. The police
> were called for the pills and pot. They came and picked them up.
> But the liquor and cigarettes? Locked away in a cabinet that was
> near where our desks were in the counselor's office. I worked with
> an older girl in there. We had access to the key and were usually
> left to our own devices. There was a seceretary in there but she was
> rarely there. And nobody kept an inventory of what was in that
> cabinet. So it was a pretty much help yourself thing and you'd
> better believe that we did!
>
> I worked in all of the different offices in high school. If they did
> do locker checks then, I wasn't aware of it and we didn't have any
> such cabinet.
> >
> >
> > While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
> > people and not overtly religious.
> >
> > My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
> > religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but
> > instead over developmental and learning disabilities with state
> > supported assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
> >
> > I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
> > anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong.
> > You just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents
> > by calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me
> > unkind all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.
>
> What? Where did I have an anti home schooling rant? I didn't. I'm
> not against home schooling at all. I just said that it isn't right
> for my daughter. And I never called a large group of people
> religious nuts.
>
> What I said was specifically that I knew of two religious families in
> NY who home schooled and one religious family here, of whom the
> mother and daughter were odd. I never said nut. I never met the dad
> or any siblings if there were any. But those two were for sure odd.

Julie,

You suck at trimming. You posted a note tht was you ranting at home
schoolers. Maybe you were tryong to quote another. I dont know or
care by now.



--

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > >
>> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>> > >
>> >>> Bull shit Julie
>> > >
>> > > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
>> > > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>> > >
>> > > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>> >
>> >
>> > Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
>> >
>> You went to my school? I doubt it.
>>
>> > I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you
>> > say when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.
>>
>> I didn't say that you had to agree but I sure as hell am not making
>> things up. I don't know what era you went to school in or where.
>> And I can only speak for my school. I know what went on there.
>>
>> I worked in the couselor's office in Jr. High. My school was a
>> particularly rough one as it was new to Jr. High students the first
>> year that I went there. It had been used for something else the year
>> before. Not sure what. So every kid who had been kicked out of every
>> other school in the district went there. Thankfully things had
>> calmed down by the time my bro went there, three years later.
>>
>> But some time during my first year there, they had to close the
>> locker bays (eclosed buildings just for lockers) except before and
>> after school and at lunch time. Why? Too much bad stuff went on.
>> Like people throwing firecrackers at other people or people just
>> hanging out in there and not going to class.
>>
>> But lots of kids were putting stuff in their lockers that they
>> shouldn't have been. Pills, pot, liqour and cigarettes. The police
>> were called for the pills and pot. They came and picked them up.
>> But the liquor and cigarettes? Locked away in a cabinet that was
>> near where our desks were in the counselor's office. I worked with
>> an older girl in there. We had access to the key and were usually
>> left to our own devices. There was a seceretary in there but she was
>> rarely there. And nobody kept an inventory of what was in that
>> cabinet. So it was a pretty much help yourself thing and you'd
>> better believe that we did!
>>
>> I worked in all of the different offices in high school. If they did
>> do locker checks then, I wasn't aware of it and we didn't have any
>> such cabinet.
>> >
>> >
>> > While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
>> > people and not overtly religious.
>> >
>> > My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists a
>> > religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but
>> > instead over developmental and learning disabilities with state
>> > supported assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
>> >
>> > I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
>> > anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong.
>> > You just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents
>> > by calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call me
>> > unkind all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.
>>
>> What? Where did I have an anti home schooling rant? I didn't. I'm
>> not against home schooling at all. I just said that it isn't right
>> for my daughter. And I never called a large group of people
>> religious nuts.
>>
>> What I said was specifically that I knew of two religious families in
>> NY who home schooled and one religious family here, of whom the
>> mother and daughter were odd. I never said nut. I never met the dad
>> or any siblings if there were any. But those two were for sure odd.
>
> Julie,
>
> You suck at trimming. You posted a note tht was you ranting at home
> schoolers. Maybe you were tryong to quote another. I dont know or
> care by now.

Of course you don't. Because I called you on your lying.

On 7/9/2014 8:14 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-07-09 19:19, Sky wrote:
>> On 7/9/2014 3:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
>>> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it is
>>> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine for
>>> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman who
>>> ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.
>>
>> Many men can always opt for a vasectomy, which can even be reversed at a
>> later date.
>>
>
> True, but that would apply more in long term relationships. If it is a
> short term thing.... the guy could be lying.

So very true, as can the woman/women. However, even if the guy is a
long-term, short-term guy, it behooves him to get 'cut', so to speak -
that way he cannot get hit with any paternity (think DNA!) suits, and
those can last 18+$$$ years, too.

Sky

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:18:36 +0100, Gorio
> wrote:
snip
>
>My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some
>rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!

That issue has existed for year.
Janet US

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:18:36 +0100, Gorio
> wrote:

>
>'Dave Smith[_1_ Wrote:
>> ;1948500']On 2014-07-09 19:19, Sky wrote:-
>> On 7/9/2014 3:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:-
>>
>> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
>> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it
>> is
>> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine
>> for
>> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman
>> who ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.

No longer true since the advent of DNA testing.

>> Many men can always opt for a vasectomy, which can even be reversed at
>> a later date.
>>
>> True, but that would apply more in long term relationships. If it is a
>> short term thing.... the guy could be lying.

Just as many women lie about their tubal litigation. Of course men
and woumen who lie about having had that procedure are not quite sane.

"cshenk" wrote:
>
>Julie,
>
>You suck at trimming. You posted a note tht was you ranting at home
>schoolers. Maybe you were tryong to quote another. I dont know or
>care by now.

Julie thinks she's a writer, she's just verbose and inane.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 07:45:08 -0300, wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 03:18:36 +0100, Gorio
> wrote:
>
>>
>>'Dave Smith[_1_ Wrote:
>>> ;1948500']On 2014-07-09 19:19, Sky wrote:-
>>> On 7/9/2014 3:04 PM, Dave Smith wrote:-
>>>
>>> That is why I always that that the ultimate responsibility for birth
>>> control should be the woman's. Lots of people reject that and say it
>>> is
>>> not fair, that men should share the responsibility. That's all fine
>>> for
>>> a nice PC attitude and all, but, as you pointed out, it is the woman
>>> who
>>> ends up with the lifetime of responsibility.-
>>>
>>> Many men can always opt for a vasectomy, which can even be reversed at
>>> a
>>> later date.
>>> -
>>>
>>> True, but that would apply more in long term relationships. If it is a
>>> short term thing.... the guy could be lying.
>>
>>
>>
>>Heard a comedian the other day who said he couldn't wait to see what
>>happens when two men get divorced. How's the court going to decide which
>>guy to screw over?
>>
>>My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some
>>rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!
>
>Precisely - until they can implant a zygote into a man and let him do
>the rest, the woman has the say.

Actually that's no longer true... today many pre-nups address
abortion... they even give husbands the right to have their wife's
unborn child undergo a DNA test. Isn't modern science wonderful...

On 7/9/2014 9:18 PM, Gorio wrote:

> Heard a comedian the other day who said he couldn't wait to see what
> happens when two men get divorced. How's the court going to decide which
> guy to screw over?
>
> My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some
> rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!

Whoever wants out of the marriage usually gets screwed over, but for me,
it was worth it.

Becca

sf wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:22:38 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
> > We can go on and on about religion and morality and conservationism and
> > liberalism but the reality is that if men could get pregnant, this would
> > be a non-issue. In the end, this is about men trying to hold power over
> > women.
>
> You nailed it brother. Women like sex too. The problem is that they
> end up with a lifetime of responsibility when they engage in
> unprotected sex while men can just walk away and pretend it never
> happened.

Real men don't just walk away. They end up paying for that night for
the next 18-25 years. For a night of just fun sex, a hooker (no matter
the price) is a better deal.

G.

On 10/07/2014 9:29 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
> On 7/9/2014 9:18 PM, Gorio wrote:
>
>> Heard a comedian the other day who said he couldn't wait to see what
>> happens when two men get divorced. How's the court going to decide which
>> guy to screw over?
>>
>> My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some
>> rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!
>
> Whoever wants out of the marriage usually gets screwed over,

That's patently false!
Graham

On 7/10/2014 11:06 AM, graham wrote:
> On 10/07/2014 9:29 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
>> On 7/9/2014 9:18 PM, Gorio wrote:
>>
>>> Heard a comedian the other day who said he couldn't wait to see what
>>> happens when two men get divorced. How's the court going to decide which
>>> guy to screw over?
>>>
>>> My only issue with abortion is the possibility of the father having some
>>> rights. Don't ask me how to work that out!
>>
>> Whoever wants out of the marriage usually gets screwed over,
>
> That's patently false!
> Graham
>

If you want out bad enough, you will leave with nothing, so sorry, I
have to disagree.

Becca

On 2014-07-10 11:36 AM, Ema Nymton wrote:
>
>> Baloney. A healthy sex life can ensue without coitus, and in fact a
>> healthier sex life considering all the diseases. Do you know what the
>> most common and prefered method of sex is today, via phone and PC...
>> sexting is huge today, ten year olds are engaging... just about every
>> ten year old has a pen, a phone, and a camera.
>
> Maybe that works for some people, but for me, warm and willing flesh
> beats a phone every time.
>

Sheldon was confusing the concept of a healthy sex life with his love
affair with his right hand.

On 7/10/2014 4:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:36:58 -0500, Ema Nymton >

>>> Baloney. A healthy sex life can ensue without coitus, and in fact a
>>> healthier sex life considering all the diseases. Do you know what the
>>> most common and prefered method of sex is today, via phone and PC...
>>> sexting is huge today, ten year olds are engaging... just about every
>>> ten year old has a pen, a phone, and a camera.
>>
>> Maybe that works for some people, but for me, warm and willing flesh
>> beats a phone every time.
>
> So you don't think plopping your crotch on a flatbed scanner ain't
> sexual... please. Most people on FaceBook use it to hook up for
> electronic sex... electronic sex is extremely popular nowadays. The
> cell phone and PC made it very easy to cheat... not to mention
> webcams. Ten year olds are sexting nowadays. Nowadays many ten year
> olds are scaning their crotch. Nowadays long distance electronic sex
> is extremely popular.


Sheldon, I find no argument here, men are visual and women, not so much.
People have phone sex and I am sure they have sex via Skype and Wii,
I've just never done it, that is just not for me. I am not tech savvy, I
have trouble trying to figure out my cell phone. Here lately, I can not
get the timer to work on my coffee pot.

Becca

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > > >
> >>> >
> >>>>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> >>> >
> >>>>> Bull shit Julie
> >>> >
> >>> > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
> >>> > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
> >>> >
> >>> > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
> > > >
> > > You went to my school? I doubt it.
> > >
> >>> I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you
> >>> say when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.
> > >
> > > I didn't say that you had to agree but I sure as hell am not
> > > making things up. I don't know what era you went to school in or
> > > where. And I can only speak for my school. I know what went on
> > > there.
> > >
> > > I worked in the couselor's office in Jr. High. My school was a
> > > particularly rough one as it was new to Jr. High students the
> > > first year that I went there. It had been used for something
> > > else the year before. Not sure what. So every kid who had been
> > > kicked out of every other school in the district went there.
> > > Thankfully things had calmed down by the time my bro went there,
> > > three years later.
> > >
> > > But some time during my first year there, they had to close the
> > > locker bays (eclosed buildings just for lockers) except before and
> > > after school and at lunch time. Why? Too much bad stuff went on.
> > > Like people throwing firecrackers at other people or people just
> > > hanging out in there and not going to class.
> > >
> > > But lots of kids were putting stuff in their lockers that they
> > > shouldn't have been. Pills, pot, liqour and cigarettes. The
> > > police were called for the pills and pot. They came and picked
> > > them up. But the liquor and cigarettes? Locked away in a
> > > cabinet that was near where our desks were in the counselor's
> > > office. I worked with an older girl in there. We had access to
> > > the key and were usually left to our own devices. There was a
> > > seceretary in there but she was rarely there. And nobody kept an
> > > inventory of what was in that cabinet. So it was a pretty much
> > > help yourself thing and you'd better believe that we did!
> > >
> > > I worked in all of the different offices in high school. If they
> > > did do locker checks then, I wasn't aware of it and we didn't
> > > have any such cabinet.
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
> >>> people and not overtly religious.
> > > >
> >>> My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists
> a >>> religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but
> >>> instead over developmental and learning disabilities with state
> >>> supported assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
> > > >
> >>> I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
> >>> anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong.
> >>> You just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents
> >>> by calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call
> me >>> unkind all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.
> > >
> > > What? Where did I have an anti home schooling rant? I didn't.
> > > I'm not against home schooling at all. I just said that it isn't
> > > right for my daughter. And I never called a large group of people
> > > religious nuts.
> > >
> > > What I said was specifically that I knew of two religious
> > > families in NY who home schooled and one religious family here,
> > > of whom the mother and daughter were odd. I never said nut. I
> > > never met the dad or any siblings if there were any. But those
> > > two were for sure odd.
> >
> > Julie,
> >
> > You suck at trimming. You posted a note tht was you ranting at home
> > schoolers. Maybe you were tryong to quote another. I dont know or
> > care by now.
>
> Of course you don't. Because I called you on your lying.

I didnt lyie Julie. You have others quoting the same back at you.

--

Sorry I brought it up.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:04:09 -0500, Ema Nymton >
wrote:

> On 7/10/2014 4:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:36:58 -0500, Ema Nymton >
>
> >>> Baloney. A healthy sex life can ensue without coitus, and in fact a
> >>> healthier sex life considering all the diseases. Do you know what the
> >>> most common and prefered method of sex is today, via phone and PC...
> >>> sexting is huge today, ten year olds are engaging... just about every
> >>> ten year old has a pen, a phone, and a camera.
> >>
> >> Maybe that works for some people, but for me, warm and willing flesh
> >> beats a phone every time.
> >
> > So you don't think plopping your crotch on a flatbed scanner ain't
> > sexual... please. Most people on FaceBook use it to hook up for
> > electronic sex... electronic sex is extremely popular nowadays. The
> > cell phone and PC made it very easy to cheat... not to mention
> > webcams. Ten year olds are sexting nowadays. Nowadays many ten year
> > olds are scaning their crotch. Nowadays long distance electronic sex
> > is extremely popular.
>
>
> Sheldon, I find no argument here, men are visual and women, not so much.
> People have phone sex and I am sure they have sex via Skype and Wii,
> I've just never done it, that is just not for me. I am not tech savvy, I
> have trouble trying to figure out my cell phone. Here lately, I can not
> get the timer to work on my coffee pot.
>
Leave it to Sheldon to find the weirdos on Facebook.


--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > >
>> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> >>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> > > >
>> >>> >
>> >>>>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>> >>> >
>> >>>>> Bull shit Julie
>> >>> >
>> >>> > How in the hell would you know? You never met them. I say they
>> >>> > were odd and I am not the only one who thought that.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > What's with you now anyway? You used to be nice too!
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >>> Because I've been there and I'm not making it up as I post.
>> > > >
>> > > You went to my school? I doubt it.
>> > >
>> >>> I am nice but that doesnt mean I have to agree with everything you
>> >>> say when it's outragious cow patties of untruth.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't say that you had to agree but I sure as hell am not
>> > > making things up. I don't know what era you went to school in or
>> > > where. And I can only speak for my school. I know what went on
>> > > there.
>> > >
>> > > I worked in the couselor's office in Jr. High. My school was a
>> > > particularly rough one as it was new to Jr. High students the
>> > > first year that I went there. It had been used for something
>> > > else the year before. Not sure what. So every kid who had been
>> > > kicked out of every other school in the district went there.
>> > > Thankfully things had calmed down by the time my bro went there,
>> > > three years later.
>> > >
>> > > But some time during my first year there, they had to close the
>> > > locker bays (eclosed buildings just for lockers) except before and
>> > > after school and at lunch time. Why? Too much bad stuff went on.
>> > > Like people throwing firecrackers at other people or people just
>> > > hanging out in there and not going to class.
>> > >
>> > > But lots of kids were putting stuff in their lockers that they
>> > > shouldn't have been. Pills, pot, liqour and cigarettes. The
>> > > police were called for the pills and pot. They came and picked
>> > > them up. But the liquor and cigarettes? Locked away in a
>> > > cabinet that was near where our desks were in the counselor's
>> > > office. I worked with an older girl in there. We had access to
>> > > the key and were usually left to our own devices. There was a
>> > > seceretary in there but she was rarely there. And nobody kept an
>> > > inventory of what was in that cabinet. So it was a pretty much
>> > > help yourself thing and you'd better believe that we did!
>> > >
>> > > I worked in all of the different offices in high school. If they
>> > > did do locker checks then, I wasn't aware of it and we didn't
>> > > have any such cabinet.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >>> While there can be issues with some home scoolers, most are normal
>> >>> people and not overtly religious.
>> > > >
>> >>> My local freecyle/cafe group has 15 home schoolers. Only 1 lists
>> a >>> religion (catholic) and she's not home scholing over that but
>> >>> instead over developmental and learning disabilities with state
>> >>> supported assistance in her home to aid her in a teacher plan.
>> > > >
>> >>> I'm not 'un-nice' because I call a bullshit alarm on your
>> >>> anti-homeschool rant. I'm telling you that you are totally wrong.
>> >>> You just abused a large segment of a growing population of parents
>> >>> by calling them religious nuts. That is not right. You can call
>> me >>> unkind all you wish butIU was not the unkind one. You were.
>> > >
>> > > What? Where did I have an anti home schooling rant? I didn't.
>> > > I'm not against home schooling at all. I just said that it isn't
>> > > right for my daughter. And I never called a large group of people
>> > > religious nuts.
>> > >
>> > > What I said was specifically that I knew of two religious
>> > > families in NY who home schooled and one religious family here,
>> > > of whom the mother and daughter were odd. I never said nut. I
>> > > never met the dad or any siblings if there were any. But those
>> > > two were for sure odd.
>> >
>> > Julie,
>> >
>> > You suck at trimming. You posted a note tht was you ranting at home
>> > schoolers. Maybe you were tryong to quote another. I dont know or
>> > care by now.
>>
>> Of course you don't. Because I called you on your lying.
>
> I didnt lyie Julie. You have others quoting the same back at you.

You most certainly did. You claimed that I was saying bad things about home
schoolers and convicting a whole group of people. I most certainly did not.
I specifically mentioned three women that I know.

"Ema Nymton" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/10/2014 4:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:36:58 -0500, Ema Nymton >
>
>>>> Baloney. A healthy sex life can ensue without coitus, and in fact a
>>>> healthier sex life considering all the diseases. Do you know what the
>>>> most common and prefered method of sex is today, via phone and PC...
>>>> sexting is huge today, ten year olds are engaging... just about every
>>>> ten year old has a pen, a phone, and a camera.
>>>
>>> Maybe that works for some people, but for me, warm and willing flesh
>>> beats a phone every time.
>>
>> So you don't think plopping your crotch on a flatbed scanner ain't
>> sexual... please. Most people on FaceBook use it to hook up for
>> electronic sex... electronic sex is extremely popular nowadays. The
>> cell phone and PC made it very easy to cheat... not to mention
>> webcams. Ten year olds are sexting nowadays. Nowadays many ten year
>> olds are scaning their crotch. Nowadays long distance electronic sex
>> is extremely popular.
>
>
> Sheldon, I find no argument here, men are visual and women, not so much.
> People have phone sex and I am sure they have sex via Skype and Wii, I've
> just never done it, that is just not for me. I am not tech savvy, I have
> trouble trying to figure out my cell phone. Here lately, I can not get the
> timer to work on my coffee pot.

lol nice one Becca. I am with you on phone sex et al. Hell you can't
cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > Ten year olds are sexting nowadays. Nowadays many ten year
> > olds are scaning their crotch. Nowadays long distance electronic sex
> > is extremely popular.
>
> Yes they are and the sad thing is, they have no clue what they are doing.
> My kid isn't doing this and wouldn't. But... She has told me of things she
> has seen. And she did not approve.

Never heard of this until right here when Sheldon mentioned it, but
then I opened my newspaper this morning and there is some long article
about the new sextexting. that's disgusting. Who wants to see a close
up of someone's private parts? I sure as hell don't want to see that.

G.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Actually, many medical professionals simply do not care about sex lives.
> You could complain of a lack of it perhaps due to a medication that they put
> you on. They will dismiss it. I have seen this happen many times.

For me, I'll not have sex again with a woman until I meet someone and
fall in love with her. the temporary sex or one night stands are not
worth it. Better to "take care of yourself" and be done with it. No
worries about disease, pregnancy, or just having someone around that
you really don't want around all the time.

Been there, done that. I've never been a "player" but I've been
accused of it many times. I just tried too hard to find "Miss Right"
and moved on too fast, only to realize later on that this wasn't the
right person for me.

G.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Hell you can't
> cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.

Personally, *I* would prefer a substitute for your husband. ;-D

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Hell you can't
>> cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.
>
> Personally, *I* would prefer a substitute for your husband. ;-D

Good cos you can't have him away *smirk*


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 14:30:02 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hell you can't
>>>> cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.
>>>
>>> Personally, *I* would prefer a substitute for your husband. ;-D
>>
>>Good cos you can't have him away *smirk*
>
> Weren't you taught growing up to share ??

You share if you want ... but I won't, so there! *stamps foot*

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:57:02 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:04:09 -0500, Ema Nymton >
>wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2014 4:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> > On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 10:36:58 -0500, Ema Nymton >
>>
>> >>> Baloney. A healthy sex life can ensue without coitus, and in fact a
>> >>> healthier sex life considering all the diseases. Do you know what the
>> >>> most common and prefered method of sex is today, via phone and PC...
>> >>> sexting is huge today, ten year olds are engaging... just about every
>> >>> ten year old has a pen, a phone, and a camera.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe that works for some people, but for me, warm and willing flesh
>> >> beats a phone every time.
>> >
>> > So you don't think plopping your crotch on a flatbed scanner ain't
>> > sexual... please. Most people on FaceBook use it to hook up for
>> > electronic sex... electronic sex is extremely popular nowadays. The
>> > cell phone and PC made it very easy to cheat... not to mention
>> > webcams. Ten year olds are sexting nowadays. Nowadays many ten year
>> > olds are scaning their crotch. Nowadays long distance electronic sex
>> > is extremely popular.
>>
>> Sheldon, I find no argument here, men are visual and women, not so much.
>> People have phone sex and I am sure they have sex via Skype and Wii,
>> I've just never done it, that is just not for me. I am not tech savvy, I
>> have trouble trying to figure out my cell phone. Here lately, I can not
>> get the timer to work on my coffee pot.
>>
>Leave it to Sheldon to find the weirdos on Facebook.

It's very easy to find the weirdos on FaceBook... all of them are
weirdos... making ones life on FaceBook makes one a weirdo by default.
It only took me being on FaceBook less than six hours to realize they
are ALL weirdos.... actually FaceBoogers are ALL Sickos.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
> > Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >> Hell you can't
> >> cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.
> >
> > Personally, *I* would prefer a substitute for your husband. ;-D
>
> Good cos you can't have him away *smirk*


WHEW!

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Ophelia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hell you can't
>> >> cuddle a phone and it would be no substitute for my husband.
>> >
>> > Personally, *I* would prefer a substitute for your husband. ;-D
>>
>> Good cos you can't have him away *smirk*
>
>
> WHEW!

;p

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/