What about the old ‘meat stick of love clause’? Why isn’t that put in the contract? How come Mr. Jar gets to decide when the Winkin Pink gets the lovin?
Oh, I forgot, I’m just a woman.
Dammit.
DAMMIT!
I think FCM meant “Continue the pile-on.”
It occured to me the night that I noticed apricot syrup signed up. And I considered myself quite “proactive” in expressing my suspicions.
And that, folks, is an airtight flame.
…Wait a second.
Gotcha ya. 
[sub]Thanks[/sub]
Hey, Binarydome! You were checking your “Big Contract O’ Marriage™.” The clause is in the “Great Contract O’ Marriage™.”
Silly you. And you thought apricot syrup was wrong.
I just want to share with you that I did my first “report to a moderator” today, and it was apricot syrup’s little rant cited in the OP (the 2nd one). I feel so proud.
And a special hello to yosemitebabe, who encouraged me in the True Way of the SMDB.
I saw your post, Biggirl, and it doesn’t seem that you were defending him, but merely giving him the benefit of the doubt. That’s more than he does, so no need to shun you.
For the umpteenth time:
DON’T CALL PEOPLE TROLLS OR SOCK PUPPETS ON THE BOARDS, BUT USE THE “REPORT THIS POST TO A MODERATOR” LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE OFFENDING POST TO INFORM THE STAFF. NO, YOUR SEMI-VEILED “TROLL OUTINGS” ARE NOT FUNNY. THEY ARE AGAINST THE RULES. SO KNOCK IT OFF.
Anyway, how stupid do you think we are? We have checked. He doesn’t appear to be a sock puppet, but rather a unique, new jackass. Is that so suprising to you all? Wouldn’t you think we would have banned sock puppet #3 (had he been that), seeing as we killed #2 within 3 posts?
Yeesh. This job is maddening at times.
I just soiled my armor!
Coldie needs a hug. 
My apologies! I did report my own post, in my defense – I guess I wasn’t clear on the “don’t say such things publicly” rule. Now I am; again, my apologies.
Daniel
OK, so he’s not a sock puppet. Thank you for banning him in any anyway…
Barry
No, thank Tubadiva.
Oompah!
Oompah!
Oompah!
On second thought – I just reread both the registration agreement and the FAQ, and I must be missing the clause that forbids public discussion about whether someone’s a sock puppet. I see the “don’t call people a troll” clause, and the “report wrongdoers” clause, and the “multiple usernames=wrongdoing” clause; are we supposed to infer the rule from these three? Or am I just a terrible reader?
If the rule isn’t in there, it might be good to add it. Given that four people in this thread alone were wondering the exact same thing, it sure seemed like something to talk about; given that we explicitly don’t know your methods for hunting down socks (and whether, for example, these methods can be circumvented by using a different ISP or a different computer), we’re not suggesting you’re stupid by wondering whether a sock has survived for a few days.
Daniel
Oh – and yay mods re: no more syrup!
Daniel
Now Daniel, be nice to Coldie - he’s such the Euro-Donny Osmond. In a good way :). Ya gotta love the way he puts the smack down.
Be nice? An apology, an admission of error, a request for clarification of the rules, a statement that I don’t (contrary to Coldie’s question) think the mods are stupid, and a cheer for the mods isn’t nice?
Fine!
:gives Coldfire a backrub and a glass of Chardonnay:
Better? I’m not trying to be a wanker, and I do approve of the moderators of the board, and I well know the schadenwhatever of watching Coldfire in particular smack around a whippersnapper. Just askin’, is all.
Daniel
You’ll be glad to know the only Contract 'O Marriage I know of that actually contains a “Thou shalt put out” clause is the raditional Jewish one. In which that obligation is on the man to provided sex as one of his wife’s three basic requirment (along with food and shelter), and which sepecifies both the quantity and quality (:)) to which she is entitled.
See, Yahweh isn’t so bad sometimes ;j
I’m kinda sorry he was banned. He was fun, in a very weird sorta way.