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

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by robustpuppy

Edited to add, in her defense, it was her favorite shirt.

So true. Kids, when you mess with Wal-Mart's finest, you take your chances.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is typical left wing looniness. I have no problem admitting that there is bias in the media. On both sides. The left on the other hand only sees Fox and Rush as the biased parties.

I didn't say anything about the Washington Post or the NYT w/r/t the Kobe thing, nor did anyone else. You brought them up, in a total nonsequitor (does my use of this word mean Paigow won't fuck me?), in an apparent attempt to defend Fox. Get over it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would expect it from the defense. But why didn't Fox report what ESPN did (that the underpants with non-Kobe gunk in them were not the ones worn on the night of the attack)? It seems kinda you know like maybe relevant.

If they're yesterday's underpants, then the distinction is irrelevant to the defense theory, no? (The theory being she's a slut; the "compelling evidence of innocence" being that she's got someone else's jiz in her panties from around the time of the rape/consensual sex, which proves the theory, in theory.)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
I'm sorry, I meant to write "That's disgusting." It wasn't about you, it was about the restroom. Forgive my careless tossing about of personal pronouns.

But your sex talk could use some work.

Tutor me.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
What really galls me is that the lawyer bringing this irrelevant shit up is a woman. this puts her right up there with Robert Shapiro on the World's Most Despicalbe Lawyers list.

But since it's a woman bringing it up, it's not misogynistic.

Besides, she's ugly. Who cares what she says?

[Edited because I am, well, me.]

[robustpuppy]

Oops. Double post. But strangely, the first one showed up second.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If they're yesterday's underpants, then the distinction is irrelevant to the defense theory, no? (The theory being she's a slut; the "compelling evidence of innocence" being that she's got someone else's jiz in her panties from around the time of the rape/consensual sex, which proves the theory, in theory.)

Exactly! Having had sex with one person ever (unless you were legally married to that person at the time) implies consent to sex with anyone at any time. That's really how rape cases are set up to be tried. Also, please refer to my "she's not dead, so she must have wanted it" post.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I'm at a loss to understand what I spoiled. I didn't give away the substance of any jokes, and there is absolutely nothing about this show that relies upon the element of surprise. Just a vague sense of foreboding, and an unflinching, unblinking camera. Oh, and a pitiable Larry Sanders character who's very marginally easier on the eyes than Garry Shandling.

YOU GAVE AWAY PORTIONS OF THE EPISODE. THIS IS CAPS BC I DONT FEEL LIKE CUTTING AND PASTING QUOTES. YOU DISCUSSED WHAT TOOK PLACE. SOME OF US DONT WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BLANK. PLEASE PUT YOUR ARROGANCE, CONCEIT AND STUBBORNESS AWAY AND RESPECT THE READERS OF THIS BOARD ON THIS ISSUE. THANK YOU,



Greg Daniels, co-creator of "King of the Hill" and veteran of "The Simpsons," is going to be doing the American version. BBC is in talks with NBC to fund the pilot. God help us all.

Evening Standard news article.

why is that necessarily a bad thing? isnt Mike Judge somehow related to King of the Hill? He did Office Space. I think they should hire you to play Brent. Your know it all attitude and refusal to handle a simple request by someone you consider to be your mental inferior without refuting it on the merits first screams selfish, self centered, know it all boss to me. YOu would be great on the episode with the 80s training tape.

And thurgreed could be the token black guy.

and on an unrelated note, I am startintg to think Tim is really sexy, even with his ridiculous bowl haircut. i bet he is an animal in the sacque.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by robustpuppy
Besides, she's ugly. Who cares what she says?

Is she fat, too? Doesn't she know that if you eat more calories then you expend you will get fat? Where those calories come from is irrelevant.

(I can't believe e/o's post didn't get more play yesterday.)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Fugee
Atticus, you know a lot about a bunch of things but I don't think you've got it right on the early church.

What are you smoking? Co-equal with other Jewish political parties? You want to talk about being the target of ire: Before the Romans got into the game, the Jewish religious leaders were working hard to stamp out what they viewed as heresy by executing Christians. And that's not just from the New Testament. Josephus chronicles at least one instance of this.

True, but when the Bar-Kokhba Revolt was put down, there was no Jewish hierarchy anymore. Not only was the Temple destroyed (again!), but Jerusalem itself was off-limits. Judaism was forced underground in the Roman Empire. That doesn't mean the Jesus Movement shot to prominence; it means its contemporary competitors suffered a huge setback that leveled the playing field.

Co-equal doesn't mean it was respected; the Sadducees and Pharisees didn't get along either. This was serious stuff at stake. When I said "co-equal," I guess I meant that the Jesus Movement attained a status of its own when the rest of the Jewish community was scattered to the diaspora.

Raymond Brown theorized that the Gospel of John was written by a community of disciples dedicated to the Apostle John who were expelled from their synagogue for their beliefs in approximately 100 C.E. Consistent with their pain at losing their Jewish identity, they use a word found nowhere else in the Christian writings (aposynagogos) three times in the Gospel (9:22, 12:42, 16:2). Their Gospel (if Brown is to be believed) is also among the most virulently anti-Semitic. They were getting their own licks in, the best way they could.

The very early church wasn't about political parties. It was all about the message of salvation. I don't think it got political until the church was much more established as Christianity.

I think you're taking "political parties" in too modern a sense. I'm talking about the religious philosophies that were competing for the heart of Judaism. I don't say this to minimize the Jesus Movement, nor to insult the bona fides of the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and others. They were all looking for salvation, but they were in competition with each other for adherents and influence. Thus, "parties."

I'm not going out too far on a historical limb to say that Jesus probably sought the total reform of the Israelite religion, not its destruction. That's why the word "Messiah" is used; it couldn't have been coincidental that it resonated with uniquely Jewish expectations.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Tutor me.

Here's your tutor:





(lame, I know, but e/o taught me the picture thing today and I've been dying to use it)


Edited to note that someone could claim this handsome avatar! Up for grabs! Your welcome.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Exactly! Having had sex with one person ever (unless you were legally married to that person at the time) implies consent to sex with anyone at any time.

Regardless of whether that's true, the theory is that her particularly recent slutiness, not general slutiness, was the alternative source of the injuries ostensibly proving she was raped. In theory it makes (or could make) sense; who knows what the facts are.

Was Mike Tyson in Colorado the day before?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I didn't say anything about the Washington Post or the NYT w/r/t the Kobe thing, nor did anyone else.

Exactly my point. Whenever Fox reports anything its written off by the left as biased, but these same people who make such criticisms (for example, you) do not, with any regularity, point the finger of bias at the biased left winged media. I criticize that and addtionally, I hope Paigow doesn't fuck you. You don't deserve her tender loins.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Regardless of whether that's true, the theory is that her particularly recent slutiness, not general slutiness, was the alternative source of the injuries ostensibly proving she was raped. In theory it makes (or could make) sense; who knows what the facts are.

Was Mike Tyson in Colorado the day before?

I'm no litigator, and I'm certainly no criminal defense or prosecution litigator, but I really had thought there was something about admissibility and prior acts. For some reason I also thought that there was something . . . I don't know what . . . about prior sexual acts being brought up in rape cases. I guess if they found her blood and someone else's blood in her underwear and could link that to rough sex that would be one thing, but proving that she had sex with someone else in the recent past doesn't really seem to show anything about injuries. You'd need a lot more than just semen in her panties.

[ThrashersFan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Is she fat, too? Doesn't she know that if you eat more calories then you expend you will get fat? Where those calories come from is irrelevant.

(I can't believe e/o's post didn't get more play yesterday.)

And didn't Kobe read that recent study about how being next to a fat person decreases your own standing in the eyes of others? If she is fat, he needs to get a new lawyer right quick.