Hey, stuff it up your asshat, you foat-gucking nugget-felcher! Hurl this, you gandy-dancing futtock-fetishist!
You get burned toast and gruel, Buster. 
Okay, that was pretty good. (“Gandy-dancing futtock-fetishist”? I like that.)
But you just had to add the smiley, didn’t you? How can I be properly offended if you can’t wipe that inspipid grin off your face? I just don’t believe your heart is in it.
You, sir, are nice. Don’t try to deny it. I’ve got your number!
Ha! I say. HA!!! Got my number? You think you got my number?? You don’t even have my decimal point! :mad: You meretricious mugwump, do you have any idea to whom you’re eructating your jejune jabber? I think not. Indeed, I declare you to be Fatally Flawed in one fundamental fact:
You, sir, are addressing a madam. :rolleyes:
Nice work, if you can get it.
Oops. (Shoulda known, though, what with the sharing of the pictures of the kitties.)
Only now, knowing that it was a woman making with the erudition and the clever epithets, I’m getting kind of…gulp…No! I will not flirt in the Pit!
Dammit! Now I’m all befuddled…
Well, there you go again – making unwarranted assumptions based on gender stereotypes, you puling, puerile, pusillanimous pooftah.
:: sly wink ::
How about pitting with a flirt?
:: saucy head-toss ::
[Lorenz Hart]
I’m wild again
Beguiled again
A simpering, whimpering child again
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I
Couldn’t sleep
And wouldn’t sleep
Until I could sleep where I shouldn’t sleep
Bewitched, bothered and bewildered am I
[/Lorenz Hart]
Sorry to spoil your fun, you goat-felching fucknugget! 
(To the 99.99% of you who saw this coming, my apologies; I just couldn’t help it!
Strict constructionists do not maintain that gays are “not deserving” of anything; the strict constructionist view has nothing whatsoever to do with the moral fiber of gays or with the rightness or wrongness of denying them full marital benefits. The strict constructionist view is centered on what the law says, not what it should say.
Put another way: I think slavery is a horrific, evil institution that never should have blighted our society. But prior to the passage of the 13th amendnment, I would have had no grounds to argue that slavery was unconstitutional. The moral view of slavery as an institution and the legal view of what is prohibited by the constitution are two quite different things.
Damn! I just keep dropping those parens.
Thank you for your undeniable good advice. Please remember that there is a difference between being a “moron” and simple ignorance. As I explained to EddyTeddyFreddy, most of the people who know me know what I mean when I use certain terms and the correct context in which to apply them. When I started this thread I had no idea it was going to go the way it did. I figured there’d be plenty of vulgarity and back and forth name-calling on the part of the participants, but not that the majority of it would be directed at me.
Frankly, I don’t know how much I will continue to post here anyway as this “train wreck” that Ferrous is so fond of 
did consume much more of my time than I can really afford to spend. I may or may not continue to participate in Pit threads (as I believe that the best way to learn is to do) but if I do I think you can safely expect that my postings will be of a considerably different nature. I appreciate your concern for my reputation and the weight given to my presence on this board.
And not to be contrary or anything, but I don’t believe that continuing to use the word “moron,” whether you personally approve of me or not, is very productive. True morons are rare and I doubt that any are to be found at this site. Or are we once again sliding into an area of semantics where words don’t really mean what they sound like to me?
Puling? Jejune? I am loving this! I haven’t heard(?) such a wonderful vocabulary since reading John Richardson’s books “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” and “Sacred Monsters, Sacred Masters.”
A good friend and I used to create word games by going through Richardson’s books and articles (Vanity Fair, etc.) looking for words we didn’t know…there was always at least one on every page…and then look up the definitions, write them down, and a week later try to use them in a sentence (without checking our notes, of course). Much fun.
Care for a glass of Chardonnay, my friend?
I really am not focusing on you or the strict constructionists among us. And remember, I DID later concede in that thread that while you weren’t necessarily a homophobe, your argument could have been seen as being homophobic.
Rather, here, I am focusing on people who, from the get-go, would deny that gays and lesbians possess an immutable sexual orientation, and would then move heaven and earth to come up with data to demonstrate that it is mutable rather than simply ask people if they could change it if they had to. (Dewey, could YOU change your sexual orientation if you HAD to?)
That’s a little sloppy and I’m sure you’ll find things to needle me about, but I’m not at my best right now, so it’ll have to do for now.
Has anyone else noticed that this thread has developed multiple personality disorder? Which posting persona will be next? The Sage Advisor? The Humble Acolyte? The Flaming Flirt? The Deweyling Debater?
One Triple Sec with a twist, coming right up!
How about something from the Cafe?
Anyone watching the new Survivor series? Who do you hope wins?
Dear Flaming Flirt,
I have indeed. I’ve also noticed a huge drop off in acitivity since this thread became civilized.
And, lest we not talk again for a while, let me thank you again for your help and guidance. It was most welcome and appreciated.
Ah, yes, the train wreck’s been cleared off the tracks and rail service is back to normal. Move along, folks; nothing to see now.
Puts me in mind of the old joke: “Last night I went to the fights and a hockey game broke out.”
“She shoots; she SCORES!!!”