Evil Scientists Find Garamet's Dildo

wow
dude really is that fucked up and full of resentment for other people being happy in their lives...:wtfturn:

Yeah his BLOG is out there......

When Dicky snaps and kills a school full of children the Obama administration not wanting any good crisis to go to waste will look at his blog and use that blog to make a run on banning guns.

Hey, I thought this thread was supposed to be about *me*?

...in 2006.

Hey, g....

Aww, but Jamey Dear's having so much fun reposting his little Photoshop job.

However, you raise an interesting point, which is that WF men are judged (initially, at least, until the finds some schoolyard meme to tack onto them) by their posts. WF women must first pass more subjective criteria.

Since a large number of us are on FB, with pics, we've all got a lot to judge each other by now.

After the fact, sure. But what does "I may or may not find you attractive" have to do with "I want to listen to what you have to say"? This isn't a dating site.

Your problem was that everyone always knew who you were. There was none of that mystique about "maybe this time it really is a hawt chick". That and the whole Probe thing...

Those may have been factors in my specific case, but I meant women posters in general. Since the membership of most boards is predominantly male, unless a n00b specifically mentions being female, it's assumed to be one of the guys.

As soon as the "Ooo, it's a Girl!" is factored in, the tone changes and, from some posters at least, every post passes through a "would I like to fuck her or not?" filter, IMO.

And there are other filters as well...

^Good thing I've never given a fuck about that.

Yeah. I knew what you meant. It really is interesting to watch the interplay here. Also to watch how I get played when/if I finally realize I am getting played.

The Internet was supposed to free us of all that. Many times it does, knocking down barriers of geography, etc., but the need to put people in boxes is still strong.

Good God, that's the first time I've seen his blog. He always seemed to be a little ego-centric and heavy-handed... but holy mother of God.

The man fancies himself a basement iconoclast. And his views on human sexuality are... twisted. Backward, actually, if I'm taking it in correctly.

Everytime I think he's gone as far as any sane person can go, he rises to the occasion.

Whoever said that? Bill Gates led the nerds in a takeover of the world but that didn't mean there was going to be some kind of new standard of behavior. Just a different set of people dictating a slightly different set of rules. Hawt chicks are really still in charge.

Dismissing the silliness about Gates owning the intarwebz, you can't deny that there *are* new standards of behavior online, or perhaps only reworkings of old standards. The asshole who used to harass strangers with anonymous phonecalls can now call himself Face and harass strangers online. That's an old behavior given new life.

On the positive side, though, social media provides far more interactivity than was possible before.

The silliness is there for just that reason. It's silly to assume that new technology will lead to a change in people's behavior. We'll find ways to do the same kinds of things we've done all along. For instance, the anonymous phonecall you mention? It was a salesman who called at dinner. We got caller ID. He got ID block. We let our answering machines / PCs pick up. He got a system that doesn't bother him unless it detects a real person on the other end of the line. The tech changed quite a bit but the standards of behavior didn't move one iota.

And that's what I was getting at. Whether it was Bill Gates calling the shots or Lee Iacocca (sp?) or Henry Ford, the same basic motivations are driving the captains of industry.

Okay, I think we're talking about two different things here. The kind of anonymous caller I meant was the heavy breather type. Nowadays he's spewing obscenities on message boards. He's a function of societal factors that haven't changed in millennia, and the Internet isn't going to affect his behaviors except in that it makes them more ubiquitous.

What I'm referring to is people with sincere intentions. People whose horizons, before social media, were limited to their neighborhood, the town they lived in, their circle of friends and family, business contacts, if any, maybe a penpal or two. That horizon has expanded immeasurably.

Now, you and I, because of our respective professions, probably have more global contacts than, say, some stay-at-home Mom in Sheboygan (although, maybe not; you never can tell), but why shouldn't that Mom have the opportunity to, say, trade recipes with someone in Tokyo or Adelaide or Yellow Knife? Before the Internet, she might, but it would have been less likely.

Someone once suggested that the Internet is our era's Gutenberg press. I don't think it's much of an exaggeration to say exactly that. The problem is, we're in the middle of it now. It's hard to remember when it wasn't in place, and how much it's affected our lives.

I don't disagree with that. I've argued that the internet is going to kill or at least radically transform traditional news media (for instance) for a long time now. The decline of the NYT and the rise of Fox News alone are very suggestive indicators of that. The economic situation is accelerating the one and accentuating the other.

I think what sidetracked me was your comment that the internet was "supposed to free us of all that". I took that to mean that that was a function, a design purpose, of the internet. You actually meant that it was an effect of the internet. I can buy that. No question that it has.

Bull.

Neon, Josie, LizK....none of them have trouble being taken seriously and it's mainly because they don't post with a big ass chip on their shoulder.

Frankly, this post says more about how you think of the women here than how the males here do.

Good point, but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

Check your decoder ring. It seems to be malfunctioning. If you're going to presume to speak for the entire male population of WF, you need to be accurate.

What's so bad about masturbation?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

So, you're Baba. Who would have known?

I demand my garamet account to be delted.

One of the Internet's best-kept secrets.

Change your avatar, and we'll talk.

Y'know? That might be funny or even sharply sarcastic if there was anyone here that actually believed that. Heck, I don't think there are even a lot of Catholics that believe that.

No one outside the Vatican, certainly, and they might be better off advocating masturbation than their current m.o.

But remember how long ago that film was made. I'm sure there were at least a handful of pre-Vatican II Catholics who believed they'd go blind...

That's what I'm saying. I think you worked on getting it colorized and dubbed, didn't you?

I am apparently a person of multiple talents...some of which even I don't know about.