BS: Who are the editors here?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Megan L
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 03:30 AM

Sadly Ollaimh your may have genuine things to say but like many who are here now your vicious nastiness stops people from listening.

There are times I could willingly pit Gnu ower ma knees and skelp him for bein glaikit but I know him to be one of the finest people on this site, a genuinely caring loving friend does not judge people by race creed or colour. My fault that I do not get to talk to him as often as I once did but I will not stand back and see someone who quite obviously does not know anything about him.


I would remind you of the words of my National poet Robert Burns

"O ye wha are sae guid yoursel',
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neibours' fauts and folly!
Whase life is like a weel-gaun mill,
Supplied wi' store o' water;
The heaped happer's ebbing still,
An' still the clap plays clatter.

Hear me, ye venerable core,
As counsel for poor mortals
That frequent pass douce Wisdom's door
For glaikit Folly's portals:
I, for their thoughtless, careless sakes,
Would here propone defences-
Their donsie tricks, their black mistakes,
Their failings and mischances.

Ye see your state wi' theirs compared,
And shudder at the niffer;
But cast a moment's fair regard,
What maks the mighty differ;
Discount what scant occasion gave,
That purity ye pride in;
And (what's aft mair than a' the lave),
Your better art o' hidin.

Think, when your castigated pulse
Gies now and then a wallop!
What ragings must his veins convulse,
That still eternal gallop!
Wi' wind and tide fair i' your tail,
Right on ye scud your sea-way;
But in the teeth o' baith to sail,
It maks a unco lee-way. "

The poem ends with this good advice

"
Then gently scan your brother man,
Still gentler sister woman;
Tho' they may gang a kennin wrang,
To step aside is human:
One point must still be greatly dark, -
The moving Why they do it;
And just as lamely can ye mark,
How far perhaps they rue it."

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 17 Apr 13 - 02:51 AM

Ollaimh, what is "Anglo" folk? Do you mean English folk? If so, describing it as "instrumentally challenged and talent free old guys who sing in church basements and sagely tell them selves that those ethnic musicians who get paid aren't 'real' folk" is utter nonsense, as a quick look at what is happening on the English folk scene will tell you. And over here English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh singers and musicians will happily play together. Perhaps this tribal animosity is a North American habit?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:46 PM

Wow the whole Atlantic war and ethnic cleansing thing all laid at the feet of one guy because he got pissed off because I misunderstood his comments about spiritualism?

You think gnu has the power to start another exile of the French?

I think he should try it, just to see if he can.

I can just picture Robbie Robertson picking up his Juno award.

Acadian driftwood.
Mudcat tailwind
Sent away, by a man named gnu
When you called him a redneck racist
and he is just as French as you.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:36 PM

I might add for the "folk collectors" they are the instrumentally challenged and talent free but they can be the leaders! and the cops!

the real musicians need their policing and leadership eh?

the folk "leader are parasites who luckily are more and more marginalized and irrelevant every day. they used to hold court and power at folk fests and clubs but they are so boring even their friends can rarely stand to listen to them.

pedantry is it's own reward

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:32 PM

well gnu pissed off is your natural state. that's part of the bigotry, or better said why you think your bigotry and ignorance are ok, because you are angry.

really you are just full of hate

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:26 PM

ollaimh... your posts in the past have proven you to be what you are. This latest one is no different. I understand what you say about the past as I am half Irish and half French and live in NB too. But, I reject your claims of the present, as I have in the past. I am far more tolerant of others than you. I am a not a racist... you are. You and your ilk are the problem in Canada's only officially bilingual province. The likes of you spread hatred and divisiveness for the sake of your own gain in stirring up shit where there is none to begin with. You should be ashamed of yourself.

YOU are the threat. And it makes me sad and angry.

BTW... that shit really pisses off my French relatives (mother, aunts, uncles). They have to deal with with the likes of you spewing your garbage... it embarrasses them.

And your posts piss me off to no end.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 10:01 PM

many of you may find gnus out bursts charming, but I liv in new Brunswick where his particular form of redneck intolerance is a constant threat to over throw our very very hard won social peace between the French and English. out province is almost half and half and our city the same. there were decades when the French were without the most basic social services that English could take for granted and decades n=before that when vigilante mobs took over acadien villages to impose "justice" in several famous cases.

after much travaille now we have relative social peace. however it is constantly threatened by people like gnu who are prepared to let their anger be their belief rather than compassion or reason.

furthermore, even more decades ago the French were ethnically cleansed by americans and british violent racists. but then americans never apologize for a little genocide or ethnic cleansing. can you say Guatemala?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: ollaimh
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 09:52 PM

I notice that joe s pals are the instrumentally challenged and talent free old guys who sing in church basements and sagely tell them selves that those ethnic musicians who get paid aren't "real" folk.

that's pretty much what anglo folk is all about. creating cliques. of course they have no relevance to anyone any other way. at least they are relavant to each other that way

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 04:56 PM

JtS... my thoughts and prayers to you re the op on accounta (as you know) I really do care about you and your dear one.

Re... "Then he when wildebeest on me." Yup, and I'll do it again if you fuck with me again. Let's get that REAL clear THIS time.

Jeri... again, apologies but you have known me for a while and, well, nothing has changed. Still pretty much a dumb gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 03:48 PM

Joe, My apostrophe went and sought legal counsel...pointing out the he was merely replacing an "i", therefore not an 'Illegal alien', He's claiming that he was not trying to show that the 'hat' did not posses him.....Rather, that "Hat's off" could also be written "Hat IS off"...so the case is on 'appeal'.

Going to comment a bit better on a couple of other posts...thought of some good shit to point out some differences...as in, though the general area of the brain lights up more, it doesn't not necessarily mean that the 'paths' traveled by them was the same....though, their could be similarities is 'euphoric' sensations....but they would all be distinctly different....and there are.....as in the difference between peyote experience, and an orgasm, as opposed to that which you get while meditating...or music...ALL light up that area, but ALL are distinct from each other.
Unless you've experienced them in a way that you actually have those different 'feelings', then the thought of them all being the same, is just a wrong 'idea'....and all it is is just an idea.....arrived at using less amount of brain at that!...Nope, not the same!

For what it's worth...but respectfully,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 07:39 AM

Survival tip: Peeing in your boots only keeps you warm for a short time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 05:51 AM

""What do you non-smokers do after sex, sit around and eat jellybeans?"" Redd Foxx ""

Naah! They have enough breath left to start over for another go.

I wish I'd joined 'em before I wound up with emphysema. I'm sure it would have been more enjoyable than a cigarette.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 16 Apr 13 - 12:46 AM

Rob, stay off the drugs at high altitudes!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:17 PM

100 ! HA!

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:16 PM

"If I wanted to subtly request an edit to a post title, who would I contact?"

I wanted to know who to ask to change a thread with an obvious error in the title.

You brought up Gnu's thread and seemed to assume that I would want it changed.

That was the innocent error assuming that it was the the "spiritualism" thread

In actual fact I did not have that thread in mind and I said so.

"the title of the "spiritualism" thread. That would be Gnus's call.


I was pretty agnostic about whether it should be spiritualism. I did not know what Gnu could possibly mean with either word.
So I said this trying to excuse you and the others for that conclusion and trying to say I don't think any harm was done by the thread title.

I said

"The error was point out pretty early and politely I thought. It didn't hurt the conversation as much as other factors."

Then he when wildebeest on me. I went Chongo on him. The rest seems pretty clear I think.

I am getting very tired of this. I have and eye operation tomorrow. I am tired. I don't need the stress.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Joe at the Women's Center
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 09:13 PM

Well, all I can say, respectfully, is that I'm still confused. What was this thread about in the first place, and what was it I said in innocent confusion?
-Joe Confused-

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:52 PM

GfS: All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect!
Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!..

I had an experience pretty much as you're describing a number of years ago. It was awesome...visions, sound, bright lights, and a feeling of euphoria DEEP within me...no control over where it was going and a huge peacefulness.

If I'd been that way inclined, I could easily have ascribed it to communion with a "god" or a "universal spirit" or whatever. But as it happened at 19,000 feet, I'm pretty sure it was just brought on by hypoxia! Despite the cold I felt really hot and my partner had to stop me taking off my clothes.

I know loads of people who've had visions, heard sounds etc when at high altitide, and I'm quite happy that it's down to physical processes and reactions in the brain rather than being "closer to god".

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:39 PM

GfS: Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'...and unless you've had a substantial spiritual experience, it would be like trying to 'explain' an orgasm to a virgin...and in like manner, listening to a virgin say there is no such thing as an orgasm, and therefore saying they don't exist is just silly to those who know differently!
Now there might be different reasons for a person NOT experiencing and orgasm, such as fear and insecurity about having one, and those people, often women, may group together and 'discuss' every aspect of being 'fulfilled' and coming to a consensus of how they are above it all..but the fact remains, they haven't had one, and for them to tell other women, who have had one, that having an orgasm with their husband doesn't really exist is just them explaining that they have missed out on something, that they have no idea about. Those who have had one can remember, what it was like before they had one...likewise, those who are frigid, can only 'play down' any 'need' for one.
[...[
It's not a matter of 'believing things ABOUT' an orgasm, like belonging to a 'church', but rather, having the actual experience...and there isn't a way around it in this life.
Having a spiritual experience or having an orgasm is something that is available to everyone in this lifetime, and your husband would LOVE to accommodate your request...much like God regards his people as his Bride!!

What a ridiculous analogy!

How about an alternative....One group experiencing orgasms and putting the explanation down to the idea that there's an invisible 3rd (or 2nd in the case of masturbation!) party in the room "facilitating" the orgasm and without that presence an orgasm wouldn't be possible, whilst another group may also experience orgasms but puts them down to physical and neurochemical reactions and responses to internal and external stimuli on their own bodies, rather than the need for an invisble presence during the process.

I can sit on a mountaintop in the breaking dawn and feel huge awe, and deep, deep happiness, but I don't need to postulate an invisible friend to explain it. It's in me! Other people hear voices or experience visions, and we know that these come from within their own brains...Charles Bonnet Syndrome, for instance, or Schizophrenia, to take just 2 examples. So why shouldn't the experiences other people see as "spiritual" come from within their own brains, rather than being the result of a connection with an intangible external consciousness?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:10 PM

EdT "No matter how thin you slice it, there will always be two sides."
― Baruch Spinoza

Three, actually, if it's a circular or elliptical item. More otherwise.

I well remember asking my Physics teacher during a test if we should write on both sides of the paper to receive the pearl: "Naylor, you can write on all 6 sides if you like, but I can't promise to mark it all"

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:21 PM

Okay. Fine, IF JtS stops slagging me off I won't have to respond to such. If not, deal's off. Fair deal? I think it is. Done deal fer me.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 07:00 PM

The whole "finish it" thing: tell me how that happens on the internet? It doesn't. It goes on and on until whoever is the maddest pisses off, and neither one of you guys is going to do that. So what happens is you just brawl through thread and fuck up all of them. In effect, it's not you or JtS that's going to get hurt the most, it's those of us who would like some reasonable conversation.

The quibble over the word was dumb, but continuing the fight for THIS long is worse. C'mon, guys... PLEASE.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:30 PM

Jeri... I don't start em. I finish em. I never pissed in anyone's bed uless they pissed in mine FIRST. I got pissed on and I will not stand for it.

Jeri, or anyone else, if ya can tell me what *I* did wrong in ANY of this, please do and I will apologize. I always have when I was in error in any way on any topic or in any discussion. AND, I never backed down from an attack and I have never allowed myself to be bullied... and that includes going to bat for others.

I will not be bullied.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 06:13 PM

That's the problem right there. What are you doing in JtS's bed, gnu?

Would y'all stop pissing? Seriously, other folks don't deserve this.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 05:59 PM

Gee, JtS... that's the closest I have ever seen you come to an actual apology. I feel like a prom queen.

But?... "But I am not crying like a stuck pig this time." Ya say I am pissing in my own bed? NO. I am pissing in YOUR bed. Because you deserve it after you pissed in mine.

Apologize or piss off. I will not be bullied or slagged off. And I will never not finish a fight that was foisted upon me for no good reason. Never.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 11:48 AM

Upon closer observation.....I surrender the rogue apostrophe!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM

"Seriously, I saw the complaint in the other thread and chose to ignore it. Who knew one person's problem with word usage would be worthy of a whole new thread? It's not the usage I'm accustomed to, but it's not technically wrong either.

And I'd rather have a guy around who gets mad and gets over it than someone who's just snotty all the time."

I opened this thread for a completely different reason.

I wasn't trying to be snotty or put anyone down. I just wanted to know who to politely send a message to point out an error in a thread title that had nothing to do with Gnu.

I wasn't even thinking of that thread until Joe innocently brought it up.

That is the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:59 AM

How's "moditor"?

Oh, nevermind....

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jeri
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:46 AM

Joe, he said "hat's off". Presuming he's only capable of wearing one hat, his hat's off. It's more of a sentence fragment than apostrophe abuse.

Seriously, I saw the complaint in the other thread and chose to ignore it. Who knew one person's problem with word usage would be worthy of a whole new thread? It's not the usage I'm accustomed to, but it's not technically wrong either.

And I'd rather have a guy around who gets mad and gets over it than someone who's just snotty all the time. ("Who's", of course, being a contraction of "who is".)

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:41 AM

"I think I can say for all the moderators, that we find gnu to be extremely entertaining.....even when he's grumpy. And in general, I think I can say that we have a lot more affection for "certain" individuals, than people might think we have."


I know that better than anyone I think. But I am not crying like a stuck pig this time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 08:27 AM

What is it I said innocently, Jack?

>>I've been waiting for you to ask me to change the title of the "spiritualism" thread.<<

That is what he is taking about isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 04:59 AM

First they cracked my sternum, and took out my heart....and you know what??...When I took an hour longer to come back, with my kids there, doing what they could....the doctor told them that I didn't want to come back..(true story)..but now, it's the apostrophe.....how about just one of these >> . <<....I got plenty of those!!...but not the apostrophes...I don't know what I'd do without them!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 03:16 AM

It's an apostrophectomy, Sanity. Don't worry, you'll really like the anaesthetic....

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 03:04 AM

Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!...not the apostrophe!!!!....anything but THAT!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 02:37 AM

What is it I said innocently, Jack?

I think I can say for all the moderators, that we find gnu to be extremely entertaining.....even when he's grumpy. And in general, I think I can say that we have a lot more affection for "certain" individuals, than people might think we have.

-Joe-

....and I didn't know that gnus and Wildebeests were the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:57 AM

Sanity, you have a very offensive apostrophe in your post, and I'm really tempted to remove it....

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:53 AM

I only mentioned it because Joe brought it up, innocently.

If you want to piss in your own bed gnu, I am not going to stop you.

Curse and swear and piss and moan all you like.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Apr 13 - 01:14 AM

Stringsinger: "Joe, you are doing a real service here. I'm glad you are allowing different point of view to be expressed. I can't think of many places where conversations of this nature are allowed to take place."

Make that a double!...WELL said!!!
Hat's off editors....
....then off with your heads!..(grins)
Thank you!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: gnu
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:18 PM

Spaw... hehehehe... As usual, yer a breath of fresh air.

Mods... yeah.. it must be tiresome. Downright upsetting at times listening to likes of me and the other idiots who never learn.

JtS... since you continue to slag me off or allude to your recently taken up cause which you took up well after it was first mentioned (as if you actually even knew it even existed before it was (FALSELY) pointed out by your far betters), glad you won't read this post or any more of my threads. Take note, tho... I ain't gonna post my name in any thread titles just because your prissy ass can't take the heat you generate when your knickers get in a twist on accounta you just like the way it feels. Oh... now I gotta apologize to the mods again... the Jack made me do it. Hahahahaa... well, at least I made myself laff... YMMV.

I realaize my post may be deleted because it is a tad nasty but when someone continues to fuck with me, I fuck them back. I don't start fights but I sure as hell finish them.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:10 PM

""Editing might be a bloody trade. But knives aren't the exclusive property of butchers. Surgeons use them too.""   Blake Morrison

And people who spread butter.    Jack the Sailor

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 06:08 PM

"I'm not sure where the term "editor" came from."

That was me, I saw a typo and a classification error on someone else's thread title and wanted to point it out before too many mocking birds came out.

I didn't want anything moderated, I didn't know if y'all still called yourself mud elfs after Joe was removed as moderator.

Joe answered the question and someone fixed the problem before I got a chance to say. All was good!

I was just trying to be nice and to be accurate. Sorry if there was any confusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:50 PM

""Editing might be a bloody trade. But knives aren't the exclusive property of butchers. Surgeons use them too.""   Blake Morrison

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:21 PM

I'm not sure where the term "editor" came from.
This place gets so shrill sometimes it sounds like a bunch of pissed off monkeys. The people crying "foul" are frequently those who want to argue and do little else. I usually can't be bothered to even read the stuff, and if the participants want to throw feces at one another, I ain't gonna try to clean it up.

That said, people bitch about language often do so because that's all they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:12 PM

Joe, you are doing a real service here. I'm glad you are allowing different point of view to be expressed. I can't think of many places where conversations of this nature are allowed to take place. On the media, we get loud-mouthed filibusterers who don't allow rebuttals to take place (a Republican tactic). Here, we get to respond hopefully with reason and not with invective (ideally). No one can shut another person up and that's great. Kudos to you, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Ed T
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM

""the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm.""

""What do you non-smokers do after sex, sit around and eat jellybeans?"" Redd Foxx

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 04:44 PM

Rather interesting that this thread asks who edits.

Sailor boy wants to dictate which parts of his waffle we can comment on.

I wasn't passing comment on the link you gave prat, I was more interested in what you wrote. You might like that because the more I read the more I note the world seems to spin round you.

if I were editing I would keep your comments in as written. Mudcat is after all entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:37 PM

I can understand the peyote reference...and the tests done, using MRIs on people using psychedelics, do light up the frontal lobe, much the same way I was describing in my previous post...only thing is...I hadn't taken peyote when it happened..that being said, I have a deep respect for our Native American brothers who have seen much the same thing. When we have gotten together to share 'notes', they have had no problem with me either.
Yo-ho!...Tewa for both 'Hello' and 'Farewell'!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Kenny B (inactive)
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 03:14 PM

Peyote has a long history of ritualistic and medicinal use by indigenous Americans. It flowers from March through May, and sometimes as late as September. The flowers are pink, with thigmotactic anthers (like Opuntia).

I read the BS section to improve my vocabulary and my understnading of the human psyche

BTW Musket i will use your "rose " phrase at every opportunity .... a gem amongst the thorns

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: michaelr
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:56 PM

GfS: ....but your awareness, of things much larger and fuller, not subject to time fuses into your consciousness...and it's impossible, as far as I know, to discount it....as time goes on, there are reminders all along the way...that just keeps proving itself. Things fall into order...not an order that you can figure out, nor can you configure them out....but they make sense, as they unfold. That's one reason, people outside the experience can clamor all they want about a subject, that SEEMS to make sense to them...but it is only temporary, and in a short time is obsolete.
All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect!
Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!...

Seems to me that you have perfectly described the psychedelic experience provided by sacraments such as peyote.

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

...and lean against the headboard and light up a cigarette??
wwwwhewww...just exhaling....

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:31 PM

>>the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm.<<

I agree, I get relaxed and sleepy after the later.