I've got the entire DVD set from the thirties and forties. With that and a good supply of Monty Python, one is ready for whatever the Trailerpark can dish out.

Well, this thread, like some others in the past, is instructive in demonstrating just how far you will go to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

Oh, and plenty of Don Rickles and a good smattering of WWII era/50s Warner Brothers cartoons.

All it demonstrates is your utter lack of character. But you have ridden shotgun for Scratch her for quite sometime, so all of this is hardly surprising.

Forget it, consig. Droopy won't get this particular joke.

Wow. So I point out to you how a reasonable person could construe your little verse and Paul and me in a sexually suggestive manner, and ask you to delete the reference to me from your poem. I show in detail how a reasonable person could interpret your words in such a manner. You admit that the reference to Paul was meant to be a sexual reference, but insist you intended no sexual innuendo in reference to me despite including me in the same verse as the sexual references to Paul, and referencing me as a "bad girl."

I haven't seen a single poster who has asserted that there is no way a reasonable person could have interpreted your verse about Paul and me in a sexually suggestive manner and that I was being wildly unreasonable to have interpreted it in that manner.

Instead of simply being gracious and admitting that it could have been interpreted in a sexually suggestive fashion, and you regret that it was so open to that interpretation, and since that was not your intent, you would delete references to me from the verse, you have signaled your intent to continue attacking me personally.

And yet, to you, I'm the one who has behaved without character and in an immoral fashion.

Interesting effect Mormonism has had on you. I wonder if this is what is meant by "so let your light shine."

Newark International Airport

Probably because you tend to be a perfect, narcissistic, self important ass with a grossly exaggerated estimation of your own intellectual capabilities.

People who focus upon the rare, hastily created typos that sometimes occur on message boards tend to be like that.

It deflects attention from...their lack of intellectual substance.

No further proof of the extent of Droopy's denial is needed.

Beastie, reading your posts is about as interesting and stimulating as watching an oil slick.

Don't you have something productive to do, something that would fit your personality and character...like grave robbing?

Or writing sexually suggestive pseudo-poetry?

A hallmark of the hopelessly psychotic, by the way.

*deleted*

LOL. Hefner considered himself a libertarian.

Your posts have now reached complete absurdity, Droops.

First you write what is obviously a sexually suggestive (and insulting) "poem" about Beastie.

When called on it, you claim it was not sexually suggestive, and claim that the interpretation of a poem is up to you, which is rather the opposite of what real poets tend to claim.

Then instead of saying what a real human being would say in response to Beastie's completely understandable (because it really was intended by you, after all) interpretation of your poem (i.e., "I'm sorry"), you go on and on with further insults of Beastie.

Bottom line--your initial insult of Beastie has somehow in your own mind provided you the basis to continue insulting Beastie.

Do you have any concept how sick and pathetic your behavior is?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

*deleted*

Thanks, consig. Your summary of the situation is astute.

So did Buckley, and they debated each other at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum.

I wonder why?

On behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I want to formally apologize for Droopy's boorish behavior.




And now that we know how fond he is of sexual innuendo, it makes me wonder exactly why he refers to himself as "Droopy."


Though I expect he will deny it . . .

Just wanted to enjoy the fact that you're using one of your own to insult MD.

Have they now?



The song was not about Beastie. Try taking a look at it first. Secondly, there were no sexual references. ...pants on fire, how does that go? I've already explained myself. I now see why you find this place so much more comfortable than the MADboard.



I also know what intellectual poseurs tend to do. You have found your home here consig, just like lostindc and so many others.


I've never claimed to be a real human being. I'm the Six Million Dollar Apologist. Better, stronger, faster...




Welcome to the Trailerpark consig. Y'all come back now, hear?



Telling the truth, even in a satirical manner, of what is obvious - that Beastie has had pearls and treated them as fodder, is hardly an insult.



No, but that's probably only because I've never been in attendance at any of your graduate level gospel doctrine classes.

You're a member of that Church? I've been a bit ambiguous about that, given your posting history at the MADboards.

Thanks for the clarification.



You're exposing yourself for who and what you really are now. Why? Because you are in your natural element her consig, just like many of us have long understood.

Spread your wings and fly. This is your gilded cage.