 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No Sex Since 1955
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: GUEST Date: 01 Mar 07 - 02:02 PM ??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:43 AM Peter - Isn't it wonderful how some jokes (like songs) wander through the nations? Your Russian version with the skis is much funnier, I agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: jeffp Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:12 AM A sailor coming into port from a long deployment was standing at the rail as they neared the dock. He spotted his wife standing on the dock and yelled, "FF!" She shook her head and yelled back, "EF!" He shook his head and replied, "FF!" She yelled back, "EF!" This continued for a while until his buddy asked him, "What's going on?" The sailor replied, "She wants to eat first." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Midchuck Date: 01 Mar 07 - 09:00 AM "I say, when this bloody war is over soon, I'll go back home, kick my boots off and lay my wife till she can't breathe anymore. And then I think I'll put off this bloody rucksack." Americans may substitute f***ing for bloody I read that joke in Bennet Cerf's "Pocket Book of War Humor" from WWII, that my grandparents had, when I was a kid in the '50s. In his version, it was a Russian trooper in winter, and he said, "I won't tell you the first thing I'll do when I see my wife, but I'll tell you the second thing I'll do. I'll take off my skis." The skis make the whole proposition more interesting than a rucksack, IMO. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Bob the Postman Date: 28 Feb 07 - 10:07 PM "She explained it was a 'grudge child', ...someone had had it for him." A grudge would be if someone had had it IN for him. (A second instance in this thread of the word which wasn't there) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 07 - 09:27 AM The Unit3ed States Marines are a branch of the Department of the Navy. They, too, have specialist sections trained for underwtaer, arctic and similar expeditions. They deploy in larger numbers than the Royal Marines, which sounds to be more like the United States Ranger or Seals corps. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: frogprince Date: 27 Feb 07 - 09:19 PM Bill just reminded me of something. This is the absolute truth. I'm a U.S. Navy vet. The first ship I served on had a plaque at the quarterdeck commemorating the history of her accomplishments. The first entry was "capture of a confederate blockade runner". No lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Bill Hahn//\\ Date: 27 Feb 07 - 06:46 PM The joke probably started during the Punic wars or earlier. I heard it when returning from service with the Union Army---then we said I have not had sex since 1776 A very old veteran Bill Hahn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Wilfried Schaum Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:52 AM No sex since May 1943: April 1945, in the trenches. One grunt to another: "I say, when this bloody war is over soon, I'll go back home, kick my boots off and lay my wife till she can't breathe anymore. And then I think I'll put off this bloody rucksack." Americans may substitute f***ing for bloody |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Blindlemonsteve Date: 27 Feb 07 - 07:33 AM The Royal Marines work in small groups, maximum of forty to a troop which is deployed in various theatres, each unit will specialise in different areas, i.e a mountain troop, arctic troop etc. With amphibious assault teams working in teams of 8. they are a strike force, All RM´s undergo Commando training, it is an extremely gruelling training regime with a high failure rate. When basic training is done they then train to specialise in certain aspects, these can be communications, catering, engineering, so each troop has a varied range of skills to fall back on. As stated before, you have to be at U.S Marine level just to be considered. They truly are an awsomely effective force. Small, well trained well armed. a troop of 40 held the Falkland islands against the Argentine invasion for over 6 hours without a single loss of life. Theyre daring raids against the Germans during WW2 caused havoc for the enemy, and ultimately led David Stirling to put together the S.A.S. which if you havent heard of them, its the "Special Air Service", Just think of "Delta Force" but on steroids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Alec Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:38 PM Ad at bottom of this page states:Royal Marines Mens Ring Titanium mens rings Laser engraved if you can have your ring Laser engraved without screaming,you may be tough enough to be a Royal Marine. I'll get me greatcoat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Schantieman Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:32 PM Apparently the US Marine Corps and the Royal Marines have the same standard fitness test for their recruits. It's a mixture of timed runs, press ups, sit ups etc. New recruits to both organisations have to reach the same standard. The only difference is that the USMC do it at the end of their basic training whereas the Royals have to do it before they start! ;-) S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Schantieman Date: 26 Feb 07 - 12:27 PM The Royal Marines are part of the Royal Navy. The following is an extract from "A Short History of the Royal Marines" from the RN website. On the 28th October 1664 an Order-in-Council was issued calling for 1200 soldiers to be recruited for service in the Fleet, to be known as the Duke of York and Albany's Maritime Regiment of Foot. As the Duke of York was The Lord High Admiral, it became known as the Admiral's Regiment. The Regiment was paid by the Admiralty, it and its successors being the only long service troops in the 17th and 18th century navy. They were therefore not only soldiers but also seamen, who were part of the complement of all warships. They have always been borne in HM Ships (although now only the major ones) as well as constituting the UK's 'rapid reaction force'; the vanguard of most recent actions. They are very much the primary force in the modern RN: HM Ships Ocean, Albion & Bulwark have recently been built specifically to transport and land large numbers of Royals (never just 'marines'!) and Ark Royal has just been converted to allow it to fulfil this rôle, as well as its original one as a strike carrier. I fear I may be responsible for a slight thread drift here. Steve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:35 AM ... because he won't believe you... good training they have you see... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: artbrooks Date: 26 Feb 07 - 07:05 AM I'm not sure what a "general fighting force" is, since the US military doesn't use that term. Their structure and mission are totally unlike that of the US Army (present stupidity in Iraq, in which the Marines are being used as light infantry, notwithstanding. I will readily admit to not knowing much about the RM, but I didn't think that they were much like the SEALS. Aren't they basically commandos, with an amphibious focus? And, BTW, don't tell a Marine that he or she is not a member of an elite fighting force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Gurney Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:55 AM If the US Marines are like the Royals, it could be an unpleasant experience to tell a joke about them. To their faces. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Blindlemonsteve Date: 26 Feb 07 - 01:51 AM Just want to point out that the "Marine Corp" in the U.S is totally different to the "Royal Marines" in the U.K, the U.S Marines are a general fighting force, the U.K Royal Marines are an elite fighting force, more on par to the Navy seals. Sorry, but i cant think of a funny joke at the moment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Adrianel Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:43 PM Schantieman: I'm not so sure about that respect. Apparently, the old line about "tell that to the Marines" originally had the second line "because the Army will never believe you". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:28 AM "She explained it was a 'grudge child', ...someone had had it for him." As the old song goes... That's what friends are for boys, That's what friends are for. Do all you can to help a man, Yes, that's what friends are for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: autolycus Date: 24 Feb 07 - 03:49 PM Frogprince. No. Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Bunnahabhain Date: 24 Feb 07 - 07:43 AM You're right Jimlad. They're supposed to leave that to consenting adults.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: jimlad9 Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:46 AM CHILDREN!! STOP THIS BEAVERING STUFF RIGHT NOW IT IS RUDE !!!!!. I AM BLUSHING |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: frogprince Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:31 PM I know I should be ashamed of myself, but... Is "beavering" another term for "muff diving"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: katlaughing Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:06 PM We heard "beavering" as a verb on Antiques Roadshow UK, last night. I kid you not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Cool Beans Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:03 PM Report today (Feb. 23) says "Beaver seen in New York for first time in 200 years." Really. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: artbrooks Date: 23 Feb 07 - 07:06 PM Schantieman, that fact that we make jokes about them should NEVER be assumed to mean that we don't respect our Marine Corps. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Schantieman Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:57 PM Curiously, although the US Marines seem to be the butt of the sort of jokes we Brits direct at the Irish, the Royal Marines are universally respected throughout the Armed Forces. Perhaps not so curious? S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Joe_F Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:24 PM That takes me right back. Summer of '55. My first time, not my last. %^) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: jimlad9 Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:23 PM My mate was sent overseas in WWII . He returned after 3 Years to find his wife with a 1 year old baby. She explained it was a 'grudge child', ...someone had had it for him. Is there any coats left?. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: John J Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:29 PM Ho-ho! JJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: artbrooks Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:09 AM How to murder a Marine: throw a bucket of sand off a cliff and shout, "Hit the beach!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: frogprince Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:04 AM Legendary (well, mythical) announcement on Armed Forces radio: "The time is now 1600 hours. For you civilians out there, it is now 4 pm. For you marines...the big hand is on..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:36 PM ... 13 times... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Louie Roy Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:01 PM Or the guy who got his wife pregnant the hard way Standing in a hammock |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: katlaughing Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:23 PM LOL...that is one date I will definitely be on time for!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: artbrooks Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:49 PM Kat, you are on his schedule for 2230. Don't be late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: katlaughing Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:48 PM I didn't get it, either, Wolfgang, except that she might've said "pregnant," but not the punch line. Thanks to whomever for fixing it. I want to meet the Sargeant Major!:-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Donuel Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:20 PM Maybe it was a hamburg and not a hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:01 PM What's harder than getting a pregnant elephant in a Mini-car? Getting an elephant pregnant in a Mini-car. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Nigel Parsons Date: 21 Feb 07 - 05:00 PM Or the man who persuaded his boss to give him the day off work because his wife was having a baby. He goes in the next day and the boss asks "Is it a boy, or a girl?" "I won't know for 9 months!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 12:37 PM Reminds me of the old story about the pregnant lady who dashed up to a guard in the Pentagon. [A notoriously difficult building to navigate in] She said "Help me officer, I think my baby's just about to be born" He said "Ma'am, you shouldn't have come into the Pentagon in that condition" She said "I wasn't IN this condition when I came INTO the Pentagon!" Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Bill D Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:57 AM "view page source" is your friend when it seems something is missing. Even if you can't fix it, you can often figger out what's wrong. This HTML is unforgiving! (I have sometimes figured out 'real' links to songs or images from what was embedded in complex HTML) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:45 AM I was faced with exactly the same dilemma, Wolfgang. ;-) I wracked my brains trying to figure out what the hell that joke was about, what the homburg had to do with it, etc...finally gave up in frustration and went off to some other thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Wolfgang Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:10 AM A lady stepped onto a crowded bus and turned to one of the passengers -- a gent wearing a homburg, as it happened -- and asked, "Would you mind letting me have your seat, sir? You see, I am pregnant...". Of course, he leaped to his feet and gave her his seat. He hastily explained, "I;m sorry you had to ask, ma'am, but to tell the truth, you don't look That was the first visible version of Amos' joke and even Skarpi who too isn't a native speaker posted LOL immediately after the joke, so why couldn't I get it? I thought about a different meaning of 'look' or about something left out that was obvious to everyone else like "look...not good enough that any man would care to get you pregnant" and then I decided it must be the homburg that was the clue to the understanding of the joke. Why else would such a stupid detail be mentioned? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: GUEST,ib48 Date: 21 Feb 07 - 11:07 AM neither did i,our lass didnt arrive until 21oo |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Liz the Squeak Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:40 AM Aha... now joke No. 2 makes more sense.... LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:35 AM Than you, Elf!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: Amos Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:46 AM Something got really hosed in that joke, where the italics should end after the word "look". About twenty words were slurped out of existence. Is there a bug in the code? Or was it mysteriously extirpated for no good reason? Mudelves? Thanks, A
[fixed-you typed a period instead of a right bracket] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:23 AM oooooooooooooo..... TMI... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Sex Since 1955 From: John MacKenzie Date: 21 Feb 07 - 08:06 AM Digital sex has been around for a long time, ask Onan. G. |
