Compulsory Homosexuality...

Ted Haggard said:
Mmmmm....hi sweetie! You really seem like my type ;)

PM me, stud muffin, if you ever want to hook up for a "massage".



Warmest Regards,

Ted
Click to expand...

LOL

Wouldn't it be funny if you got like, 7 pm's from 7 different guys on here? I will put money down that TopSpin is one of them!
 
Darla said:
LOL

Wouldn't it be funny if you got like, 7 pm's from 7 different guys on here? I will put money down that TopSpin is one of them!
Click to expand...


Honey, now I don't kiss and tell.

Let's just say that old Topper and I have been PM'ing for months now.

Those cajun boys are insatiable!



Cheers,

Ted
 
Ted Haggard said:
Got the PM, AssHat! thanks!

See you soon! I can't WAIT!




Warmest Regards,

Ted.
Click to expand...

Quit fantasizing, queenie. I don't go down that road. Not that there's much wrong with y'all. You're generally very funny, color coordinated, and charismatic people. I just consider that avenue to be exit only.
 
No. It's a premise I thought up retroactively for my punchline waiting to happen: 'mandate'.

It's not a premise, its a conclusion. A premise is the reason why you believe, the supporting evidence...
 
AssHatZombie said:
An introduction is not a 'reason to believe'. You read, mental midget.
Click to expand...
As usual, you have seized upon the least significant phrase in the definition. You have a remarkable talent there, boyo: you could probably completely misunderstand even the most meticulous and elegant statement ever formulated by Man. Stupidity alone is not enough to explain such a thing. I think some sort of cognitive disorder must be involved. But I digress.

A premise is a statement or assertion set forth beforehand. One's syllogism proceeds from the premises. To liken the premise to an "introduction" is simply an analogy by way of illustration . . . for the slow witted.

And speaking of slow-witted, I believe that AnyOld's point went whizzing right past you like a peregrine falcon passing a sated mosquito. You don't posit compulsory homosexuality at all. :pke:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
As usual, you have seized upon the least significant phrase in the definition. You have a remarkable talent there, boyo: you could probably completely misunderstand even the most meticulous and elegant statement ever formulated by Man. Stupidity alone is not enough to explain such a thing. I think some sort of cognitive disorder must be involved. But I digress.

A premise is a statement or assertion set forth beforehand. One's syllogism proceeds from the premises. To liken the premise to an "introduction" is simply an analogy by way of illustration . . . for the slow witted.

And speaking of slow-witted, I believe that AnyOld's point went whizzing right past you like a peregrine falcon passing a sated mosquito. You don't posit compulsory homosexuality at all. :pke:
Click to expand...

I haven't seized on a phrase in THE definition. I have chosen the definition i intended. In comedic parlance jokes are said to have a premise, or setup. SO shut your mouth, idiot child. Once again, you have stepped right in it.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I haven't seized on a phrase in THE definition. I have chosen the definition i intended. In comedic parlance jokes are said to have a premise, or setup. SO shut your mouth, idiot child. Once again, you have stepped right in it.
Click to expand...
Have I indeed? Interesting coincidence. Back in the days when "I Found It!" appeared on myriad car bumpers around the nation -- most of the graffiti affixed by Christofascists without the consent of the owners of said bumpers, I've little doubt -- I sported a "I Stepped In It!" sticker of my own. How prescient of me.

As an aside, I was always more fond of the "Who Needs It?" and "And Then I Flushed It!" variants. Having jumped on the bandwagon early, though, I was stuck with my impetuous choice. Ah well.

So, now that it suits your purpose, you admit that words have multiple meanings. We make a smidgen of progress then. Of course you continue to insist on switching between those multiple definitions at your own whim, so we've not yet been able to advance beyond the fourth grade. Keep at it, sonny: you'll get it some day, I'm sure.

Tell us, Asswig, why it is you find the idea of compulsory homosexuality so attractive. No offense to Robdawg intended, most of us really don't care for the concept. Especially that "compulsory" bit. Of course, if it were compulsory, you wouldn't have to feel guilty any longer, would you?

:cool:
 
OrnotBitwise said:
Have I indeed? Interesting coincidence. Back in the days when "I Found It!" appeared on myriad car bumpers around the nation -- most of the graffiti affixed by Christofascists without the consent of the owners of said bumpers, I've little doubt -- I sported a "I Stepped In It!" sticker of my own. How prescient of me.

As an aside, I was always more fond of the "Who Needs It?" and "And Then I Flushed It!" variants. Having jumped on the bandwagon early, though, I was stuck with my impetuous choice. Ah well.

So, now that it suits your purpose, you admit that words have multiple meanings. We make a smidgen of progress then. Of course you continue to insist on switching between those multiple definitions at your own whim, so we've not yet been able to advance beyond the fourth grade. Keep at it, sonny: you'll get it some day, I'm sure.

Tell us, Asswig, why it is you find the idea of compulsory homosexuality so attractive. No offense to Robdawg intended, most of us really don't care for the concept. Especially that "compulsory" bit. Of course, if it were compulsory, you wouldn't have to feel guilty any longer, would you?

:cool:
Click to expand...


I never said words didnt have multiple meanings. We were just using the same definition in the AA thread, though you asserted a strawman argument that I was using a different definition. I was merely pointing that out.

Stop being a moronic douchebag and get a life.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I never said words didnt have multiple meanings. We were just using the same definition in the AA thread, though you asserted a strawman argument that I was using a different definition. I was merely pointing that out.

Stop being a moronic douchebag and get a life.
Click to expand...
LOL! It wasn't a strawman because you clearly were, and are, using a different definition than I. Go back to my very first post on the thread and you'll see that I explicitly set out the definition with which I'm concerned.

Naturally, being the confused idolator that you are, you never grasped the fact that I dispute the relevance of the definition of "discrimination" you wish to apply.

Poor little Asswig. Someday, maybe, you'll get that GED. Keep working at it! We're all behind you!
 
OrnotBitwise said:
LOL! It wasn't a strawman because you clearly were, and are, using a different definition than I. Go back to my very first post on the thread and you'll see that I explicitly set out the definition with which I'm concerned.

Naturally, being the confused idolator that you are, you never grasped the fact that I dispute the relevance of the definition of "discrimination" you wish to apply.

Poor little Asswig. Someday, maybe, you'll get that GED. Keep working at it! We're all behind you!
Click to expand...

Your confused rants are cretinesque.

It was funny when you tried to assert that discrimination MUST be accompanied by racism. That's funny. Racial discrimination is racial discrimination, even if you perform it based on some misguided sense of justice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top