Gems
Sex
Sak Wathanasin
Re: OT: Epson printer problem
sw-6270CD.19533716012002@mail.network-analysis.ltd.uk
Wed, 16 Jan 2002 20:11:01 GMT
In article <B86B227B.15D6D%gxm.news@ntlworld.com>, gxm wrote: > Do-It-Yourself InkJet and Laser Printer Repair > > And this was posted as well (not tried it but it might be worth a go?): > > ...long procedure snipped... Me, I'd rather dance naked with a chicken, but it takes all sorts.
Rowland McDonnell
Re: Completely OT: PURPLE!
1fahzeh.1q73bcwfcmf7lN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:16:19 +0100
Peter Ceresole wrote: > In article <1fahewq.iwhzezgtzy9yN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>, > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > >> > Er? What sort of embarrassment? > >> > >> Being nonhirsute. > > > ><puzzled> Go on then, which sorts of Asian lacks hair in that > >department? I'll admit my own researches haven't been extensive, but... > > Apparently, lack of body hair is a characteristic of many Japanese. Well, yes - but there's being short on body hair and there's lacking patches of hair which appear to be almost always there. Lacking body hair is common amongst orientals, yes; but lacking pubic hair *too*? (okay, I'm only working from a sample size of 1) > Read > Erica Jong's "Fear of Flying" Never again. > for a pointer (she was married to a Japanese > man for a time). I've read the book once and don't recall that - but it'd take realistic threats of physical violence to get me to read the dreadful thing again. > I can't confirm or deny from personal experience (sadly) but maybe that was > one of the many attractions of Madam Butterfly? The picture that has just sprung to mind doesn't really bear thinking about. Gilbert and Sullivan. Big bushy Victorian beards. You do the rest. Rowland.
D.M. Procida
Re: Go to bed, Rowland
1famj62.14swk845cjaosN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk
Sun, 14 Apr 2002 10:29:09 BST
Rowland McDonnell wrote: > PeterD wrote: > > > How can you expect to feel full of beans if you're up until four in the > > morning posting stuff in ucsm? > > Ermmm.... How can I put it? It beats staring dismally at the ceiling > in abject despair at being unable to sleep or indeed do anything of any > practical use or benefit to anyone. Have a nice quiet wank.
Rowland McDonnell
Re: Go to bed, Rowland
1fanad0.1rix4q1h94cfoN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet
14 Apr 2002 21:11:36 GMT
<chuckle> A nice idea - but it wouldn't have helped and it's a bit antisocial doing that with someone else in bed...
Gareth John
Re: Go to bed, Rowland
3CBB6038.CCD49122@btinternet.com
Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:19:02 +0000 (UTC)
Simon Dobbs wrote: > [snip] > > this thread rather confirms my suspicions about several contributors- they > are a bunch of wankers. > > for gods sake grow up Why? Do grown-ups wank better?
D.M. Procida
Re: Go to bed, Rowland
1fatsbv.1i51fcp1r0p0saN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 08:39:18 BST
Simon Dobbs wrote: > >> this thread rather confirms my suspicions about several contributors- they > >> are a bunch of wankers. > >> > >> for gods sake grow up > > > > Why? Do grown-ups wank better? > > grown ups don't broadcast their infantile habits to the rest of the world. I > wonder if your wife or girlfriend likes you letting the whole world know of > your inadequacies- o- if you have to resort to such habits, it is probable > that you haven't got one a) I would be disturbed to find an infant wanking b) given your tone, I'm surprised you don't call it 'self-abuse' and warn that it can make you go blind c) what you need is a nice quiet wank
Gareth John
Re: X: Stability? My arse.......
3CC8344D.C6D0F1FF@btinternet.com
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 16:51:01 +0000 (UTC)
Peter Ceresole wrote: > > In article <1fb68pi.l4wlu9afhq17N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet>, > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > >> I thought modern thinking has it that it is a very large organ almost all > >> of which is invisible from outside? > > > >Not *very* large - that describes things like your intestines and liver > >and whatnot. > > What I have read about it (mostly in New Scientist, I think) implied that > it was larger than the liver (in the woman, obviously, where the liver is > smaller than a man's) and had connections to tissue in a relatively large > volume of the pelvic area. I could be wrong- I'm no gynecologist. Good grief, was that in the April 1st edition of New Scientist? I don't think many generations of medical students in the dissecting room, let alone working surgeons and anatomists, would have accidentally missed noticing something whose size would make it the largest organ in a woman's body, by your reckoning. Are you sure you aren't thinking of the handbag?
Adrian Tuddenham
Re: X: Stability? My arse.......
1fb7yj1.1m41rjj1fuxtbyN%atudd@bathSPam.demon.co.uk
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:48:20 +0100
Peter Ceresole wrote: > In article <3CC8344D.C6D0F1FF@btinternet.com>, > Gareth John wrote: > > >I don't think many generations of medical students in the dissecting > >room, let alone working surgeons and anatomists, would have accidentally > >missed noticing something whose size would make it the largest organ in > >a woman's body, by your reckoning. > > The article said that the tissue hadn't been recognized as being part of > the clitoris; that was the whole point, if you like; a perceptual upgrade. If women have an organ as big as that to induce them to propagate the species: 1) It begins to make mens' anatomy look well-designed after all 2) We men must be an even bigger turn-off than we thought 3) I shall think twice before shaking a woman's hand in future - you never know what effect it might have
D.M. Procida
1fdnvf2.1qy09jxwfjflN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:09:13 BST
Andy Hewitt wrote: > That's true, but with the advent of broadband, and the greater > performance in computers now, why stand still? > > I agree that something like Usenet shouldn't have HTML, but why should > Email be treated any different to the rest of the Internet now? HTML mail is the Internet equivalent of unprotected sex. The more you casual you are about it, the more you contribute to a culture of it, and the greater the risk that *everybody* faces of nasty viral infection. Just because we can do it (either because of the pill or because of increased bandwidth and power) doesn't mean it's a good idea. Mac users are the lesbians of the computing world. It's all very well our being smug and telling everyone else we don't get those viruses and that all we worry about is the occasional sore elbow, but nasty surprises have a habit of being (a) nasty and (b) suprises.
D.M. Procida
Re: Is it worth me upgrading to OS X?
1fh7jyo.1sinodygitksgN%{$usenet$}@apple-juice.co.uk
Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:37:59 BST
Peter Ceresole wrote: > The TiBook seems incredibly sensitive to input while it's asleep, and > doesn't like being woken and then dropping off again, I have a girlfri - Excuse me.
Patrick Navin
iChat AV advice/warning - danger Will Robinson!!
20030704140112203+0100@news.cis.dfn.de
4 Jul 2003 13:01:12 GMT
OK OK it was my own fault, but remember guys and girls, in your keenness to play with iChat AV always remember to be dressed before you answer calls from your female pals in Hong Kong! ;-) Patrick -- Remove YOUR PANTS to reply
Ivor Gleek
Re: New iBook/John Lewis (update)
1ge301o.124lbfd1f4vcxsN%ivor@25fpsnospam.freeservenospam.co.uk
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 May 2004 10:04:16 GMT
Peter Ceresole wrote: > Thom White wrote: > > > > Okay, I've got an ancient one, but that format is just *so* right. Not > > > too big and not too small. Yummy. The Queen of the Powerbokos. > > > > Ah yes, but they are a little too beautiful. I live in fear of the day I > > scratch or dent mine (as does my gf). > > Mine has got the usual flaked paint on the main frame (Oooer Mr Turing) > so the flat silver paint has a leprous rash of black chips and spots at > the bottom edge. But who cares? It's the flakes and spots of a life > lived with joy and competence in all weathers. Like women (this is > absolutely true and brooks no contradiction) the so-called imperfections > of age and experience make them more beautiful and alluring as time > passes. Especially women... Are we talking Boko stretch marks? Ivor
Ivor Gleek
1gdw81z.1a62hswg72flgN%ivor@25fpsnospam.freeservenospam.co.uk
16 May 2004 18:17:27 GMT
Bella Jones wrote: > Tim Gowen wrote: > > > She has named her new daughter Apple... > > > > http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4778686.html > > > > Eh? > > Arghh! I was going to post this yesterday, and then thought, but maybe > it's a bit tangential. Bugger. :-) Since when was anyone here worried about going off at a tangent. > > A triumph of product placement Wonder if it was it an iMaculate conception. (Groan) Ivor