|
|
Friday, June 2nd, 2006
|
1:58a - Small booktards wank
peace_criminal addresses "the heaps of books per month readers" asking if they are, in fact, actually reading. This is probably inspired by somebody posting on the previous day that they had only read 29 books during the month of May, their personal lowest total so far. People leap on the defensive, amidst the genuine replies, and cerulgalactus wins the discussion here.
Quite a tiny wank, but booktards tends towards wankage every few months when the book snobs and book tards go head to head, so I figured I'd note it. Now I'm going to continue reading at my regular pace, which I've been told is fast, while whimpering over the idea of people reading 300+ books a year. :{
current mood: hot (144 comments |comment on this)
|
8:38a
One day, in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) domestic_snark ...
danicia: "There is no such thing as VEGETARIAN caviar."
Other People: "O...kay? Dude, you might wanna switch to decaf, who cares?"
Other Other People: "OMG You can't call something caviar/fajitas/burgers if it doesn't have meat!"
serendipitylove: "You guuuuyyys! You're not supposed to ARGUE about OPINIONS!"
To quote curiouscatie in a comment on the ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif) clairvoyantwank post: "
In conclusion, holy crap, they're wanking about about eggplants."
current mood: hungry (89 comments |comment on this)
|
12:08p
So, April and Dale head over to the local Ihop for some breakfast. In the process their toddler gets horribly disfigured by some nuclear hot gravy (which caused second and third degree burns and as the story progresses, autism).
She gets some support for her poorly spelled tirade at first, but then people start asking questions. April defends herself with vim, vigor and bad spelling, and ED (the site's editor) is right there with her. Keep your eyes open for Linda from Eden Prarie who speaks with reason
The best part is that the thread started in November of '02 and the wank has continued up to last Tuesday.
I'm sorry I can't link to the individual responses.
Edit: Bonus wank! The God fearing Todd gets arrested at Wal-Mart for shop lifting after eating deli food before paying for it and he just know they're out to get good Christian disableds like himself.
This site is a gold mine.
(203 comments |comment on this)
|
2:23p - Small but Cute Running Over the Dog Wank
Here's a small but cute wank at the Booju_2ju comm at LJ, which I assume is sister to the Booju_Mooju comm that has been featured in the recent military vs. stay at home mommy wank. Apparently, some dude ran over a family's dog repeatedly, while laughing, in front of the family's kids while on the family's property-- and was sued for over a $1 million for it.
The community ever so rationally discusses the topic-- especially when my favorite new wanker, sblmnldrknss (she of the "military people shouldn't be allowed to have babies OMG!" fame) joins in with her informed opinions-- namely, the dog was old, about to die anyway, no harm no foul, right?
(69 comments |comment on this)
|
3:43p - Mm-mm, teen pregnancy wank.
Over at the Realm of Infamy (a site devoted mostly to discussing fantasy/sci-fi, but it's got an off-topic section), shaitan117 makes a thread Talked about a fucked up situation! (sic), wherein he relates to the public at large the sordid and unfortunate tale of having unprotected sex, and possibly impregnating his girlfriend:
I unintentionally ejaculated in her. The real problem is that she's very fertile, her real mother (she's adopted) was a prostitute from Mexico that gave birth to 21 kids, and not to mention my girl's been feeling symptoms all week.
( And we're off! )
There's quite a bit more to the thread, and this forum being what it is, it will only grow and grow. Bon appetit!
(75 comments |comment on this)
|
8:35p - Oh, NFP. You so crazy.
Over on nonfluffypagans,rogue_priestess poses an ethical quandrary. She's been attracted to this guy for several years, it's mutual, and though he's currently in a monogamous relationship, he's not happy. Given the Rede and all, she's wondering what the ethics of the situation are:
I've been taught to adhere to the "greater good" and not compromise my ethics, thereby not putting myself in a position to feel guilty and ashamed for making the "wrong" or "bad" decision later in life, and I'm wary of incurring the wrath of what I expect to be karmic retribution.
But there is also this undeniable animal instinct that refuses to let it be. In our logical minds, we clearly see and understand getting involved with eachother would be wrong and it would hurt others (B's current girlfriend). But then why is there such a strong urge regardless? "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals." Does this mean that we should just go with it? How can other people judge us as doing something wrong when all we do is, in the microcosmic universe (as above, so below, as without, so within), a direct act of Divine Will? Is it then not the will of the Gods that we find some comfort and pleasure in eachother?
As long as we both clearly understand that the satiation of the carnal lust is the fullest extent of our interaction, no one else is affected and thereby they should not be hurt. It's just sex; it's not a romantic relationship, it's not anything that would or should alter anyone's life path. Where is the harm?
With no specific "holy books" or "scriptures" to rely upon other than the "guidelines" put forth by the Rede and the Charge of the Goddess and a few other "ideas" or "tenets" of wicca, how would a person make the above decision based on the influence of their spiritual beliefs? How to reconcile "Divine Will" with "an it harm none"? Who is the authority on what is considered "right" and "wrong" and what qualifies said person/entity to do so? Society? God/dess? Ourselves as a reflection of God/dess?
People tell her.
One post in particular provokes an exchange with Swisscelt, which continues on in a different post.
ETA: Added a quote from the post.
current mood: Fantastico (144 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|