And lets not even mention the confidence boost we get after seeing them. "I'm not that horrendous to look at after all.. hurray!"Veldrynus wrote:You can do it. Ugly men are much less shocking than ugly women.ScarlettP wrote: (Now don't make me go Google for Ugly men.)
How would that be gay? I'd have been all "Go playa-playa" and sht then. Thank Jebus i'm getting drunk tonight.vulnevia wrote: Rats! I was reading 'sleeping together' as in having sex, and 'nothing happening' as 'and we didn't go into that boyfriend-girlfriend phase'....
No, she was to look good for that.vulnevia wrote: But still, sleeping in the same bed as a friend w/o having sex with her don't make a guy gay IMHO.
And i need to reinstate my May contain sarcasm! sig.
It seemed to calm down and to my great pleasure it happened spontaneously, only thanks to the intelligence of the debaters. It sounded like a good moment for closure to prevent some smartbuttie to fire it again.Jolly Joker wrote:I wonder why the hell the hell thread has been closed just when it seemed to lapse anyway.
If Gravy admits his indeed terrrible mistake, I would happily edit the correction into his post. As for you agreeing with Corribus... I am suspecting that you say it so just to make me feel bad for the closure.Not to mention that I was just writing an answer to
a) gravy, stating he forgot Veldrynus who, if nothing else (joke, joke), did at least start the thread and would have deserved to be in - a gap which I had intended to fill and
b) to Corribus intending to agree with him for a change.
We are all here for entertainment. So what if we are saying the same thing over and over again? If it is enjoyable to flex our minds a bit, then what is the harm? Everyone was being for the most part civil. There was no name calling. Very few personal attacks. I don't see what the problem was. If nothing else, it livened the place up a bit. 
And for the record, let me state that the perception that the thread was going in circles was really only partly true anyway. Point in case, in just the last page of the thread, JJ, GC and I were discussing an aspect of the infinite nature of time. I won't belabor the details, but suffice it to say that GC and I were of the opinion that if the universe had an origin, then there could be a point along the timeline before creation occured. JJ maintained that that was not correct, and that if the universe was "born", then time was born along with it, and so all of time occurs after creation, so there's really no difference, from the perspective of time, between the two scenarios. now, granted, it took about 10 iterations for me to understand what JJ was really saying. And I'm still not sure I agree with it. Key words being "not sure". It is an interesting paradox and I had never looked at the problem like that before. So, all you nay-sayers - you are wrong. The thread was not worthless. I learned something. SoJolly Joker wrote:Strangely enough I'm really enjoying to wholeheartedly agree with Corribus once AGAIN. The thread had some depth and was a lot of fun. It covered a lot of ground and it wasn't trivial. I fail to see a reason to close it. I mean, Pitsu, what do you expect of a "good" thread? That people start every post with, "I agree with everything that was said so far"?
.
Well, another name was added to my list...Jolly Joker wrote: a) gravy, stating he forgot Veldrynus who, if nothing else (joke, joke), did at least start the thread and would have deserved to be in - a gap which I had intended to fill
Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 6 guests
