New Fashion Board 10-3-2003 - 11-7-2003

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I think both her eyes and teeth are fucked up. She must be really good looking in person because someone this screwed up shouldn't be a sex symbol. Check out the eye problem here:

http://www.shashachu.com/Shannen/charmline.jpg (You'll have to cut and paste the link.)

I defy anyone to find a good photo of her teeth, which must be bad too. She refuses to have them photographed. Her tits on the other hand are a different story.



And now I'm interested in answeing Str8's question for myself. Spelling or Doherty? Hmmmm.



She's got the best bod money can buy, but I can't get past the horse face. So, if I've got no shot of marrying her for her money, I couldn't pick her. Besides, Doherty would be a good hate fuck.

TM

Missionary = Shannon

Doggie = Tori

[dc_chef]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Missionary = Shannon

Doggie = Tori

Titfuck = Shannen

Reverse cowgirl = Tori

[ltl/fb]

I heart G3. My heart pulsates for you. In a good way. You can have your 45 min of gratitude whenever you want it, my favorite cube.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I heart G3. My heart pulsates for you. In a good way. You can have your 45 min of gratitude whenever you want it, my favorite cube.

Guess what I found, hidden on a lower shelf, without a sign, in my local Trader Joe's this weekend:



Not that I'll be sharing any with you, Ms. fleeting gratitude.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
That's a good photo?

TM

Of her, no, of her teeth, yes.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
That's a good photo?

TM

Its better than the crap she put in Playboy this month. Like I needed to see shots of Shannon Doherty's left nipple...

S(either do the full monty or don't do Playboy)D

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dc_chef
It would, however, take freeballing to a whole new level.

Not to mention how wonderfully easy ball scratching would be...

S(I'd wear a kilt if I could, I think I've got the ass for it*)D

* You need a tight ass for a kilt because you know you're going to encounter a stiff breeze one day and its going to go up just like Marilyn Monroe's skirt in that famous picture. I guess I'd have to have my ass tanned and shaved, perhaps even Brazilian style... Shit, I guess that kills the kilt.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That cover shot has got to be either a really bad paste job or some assclown needs to remember not to do too many bongs before photoshopping the pics. Tori looks positively creaturish in that shot.

As opposed to what? Those super-hot shots of Tori grinning like Secretariat?

S(I think the problem was the airbrusher forgot to finish the area above the collarbone)D

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Guess what I found, hidden on a lower shelf, without a sign, in my local Trader Joe's this weekend:



Not that I'll be sharing any with you, Ms. fleeting gratitude.

I am grateful to you for the lovely Cathy picture.

I think I still have part of a package of ginger altoids someplace or other. I was unable to find whatever ginger things Paigow was talking about at Whole Foods, but I wasn't looking all that hard. Also the thought that they don't involve torturing animals or aliens makes them kind of unappealing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
$33.5m, if your name is OJ Simpson.

Actual amount paid - not much. OJ's got all of his dough in a pension.

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

Men should wear more kilts. I don't know if they should wear more skirts, but they should definitely wear more kilts.

I wouldn't mind seeing the great kilt making a comeback, either, but I acknowledge that the maintenance for day-to-day wearing is much higher.

YES. Men should wear more kilts. Men in kilts are so very sexy.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No, no, no. The major change in concept was the idea that the Sovereign had a monopoly over the use of force.

No, seriously. You've got to stop saying that I am wrong and then saying the same thing I just said. This argument is obviously turning tautological, but a couple of comments.

Look at it this way. Year 800. Pick your Germanic country. Commit a violent crime. What happens?

(1) there is a price to be paid to the victim;
(2) violence is done to your body by the victim's family.

My understanding (although I am willing to be corrected - it's been over a decade since I really studied this seriously) is that in Northern Europe ca. 800 this is an either/or proposition, not a both/and. Together they make up the system. The injured party/party's family only has a right to violence if the weregeld was not paid. And there's really a third option, servitude; the violence only come in where the weregeld can't or won't be paid. This is quite a different concept from the Babylonian / Judiac eye for an eye tradition, which is inefficient in that it destroys labor inputs as punishment, rather than transfering them to the vicitm as compensation. Efficient as always, those Germans.

Fast forward to 2003. Commit a violent crime anywhere in the US.

(1) there is a price to be paid to the victim;
(2) something (maybe not actuall violence) is done with or to your body by the government.

(1) doesn't seem to be the difference. (2) is.

Well, yes. Taking away the right to extract the cost from the private group is tantamount to abandoning the weregeld system, since other systems (including the Romans) still recognize a private cause of action for wrongs. But again, this argument has turned tautological - you see an evolution, I see extiction. Either way, the animal that was no longer is.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Of her, no, of her teeth, yes.

Wrong. I need to see if there's anything wrong with them. That photo tells me nothing.

TM

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
TM thanking me for going to the trouble of finding a photo for him.

Why TM, how sweet. You're welcome.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
No, seriously. You've got to stop saying that I am wrong and then saying the same thing I just said. This argument is obviously turning tautological, but a couple of comments.

Isn't that the way things are done here?

Of course, I also could just swear at you and call you names, right?

Excellent point on the either/or -- the weregeld was supposed to stop the feud, eliminating the criminal element. So, what you're saying is, we've come up with a system that doesn't stop the violence, just turns it over to the state, right?