• mike (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    john:

    So people only apologise when they agree they were wrong?

    I usually assume that someone's apology is an honest one, unless they make that hard to believe. In this case, why wouldn't I assume he was an honest person? Do you think he wasn't?

    Don't know - but I generally believe that public apologies aren't worth the paper they're written on (thanks groucho).

    You obviously didn't read the rest of the OP's post - where he suggested several reasons why someone might apologise even when they don't believe they did wrong - I'd also add 'to keep the peace' (although I guess that's kind of the one about minimising fallout).

    If someone accused me of something that was even remotely true I might apologise because I accept they took offensse to it - but that's not nececssarily an admission that I think it's wrong. Or I might apologise because the way they've decided to approach me for it (via a public twitter post) has the potential to get me mixed up in something pretty big (ie in this case, "I might have said something that someone found offensive, and although I think they're being petty I'll be the bigger man and keep the peace because I could see this getting quite tedious, and the potential flak I'm gonna cop is not really worth standing up and insisting that I'm just a poor little victim here").

    You must be very naive to think anyone's (let alone almost everyone's) apology is alwasy an honest one. Not that apologising when you don't understand what you did wrong is necessariyl dishonest.

  • Joe L (unregistered)

    I'm betting that trtrwtf and most of the people bagging him is really just one person arguing with himself.

  • Oxin (unregistered)

    trying to wind down after a rather productive day and enjoying the comments on here then: "Why are you reading about excellent sex?" from my girlfriend. Thanks everybody! :)

    Now time to explain.....

  • (cs) in reply to whitey
    whitey:
    According to every article I've read about the Richards thing (oops, hope that's not misinterpreted) is that the whole problem with the world is working white hetero-sexual males.
    I find the term "white" offensive.

    I prefer to be called a "person of pallor".

  • David (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    anti-men activists

    I first started thinking about feminism and listening to feminists over twenty years ago. I've never met an "anti-men activist" or heard of any, except as a sort of bogeyman from people who knew nothing about feminism.

    Shenanigans, I say.

    Mighty impressed that you have been "thinking" about feminism for two decades without ever imagining that, like every other thing that is A Thing, it is liable to attract its share of nutcases. If you are for real - which seems improbable, but there you are - you might try googling "SCUM manifesto" as a jumping-off point. Have fun.

    I appreciate your attempts at white-knighting. There is no doubt that women have been treated shabbily in the past and, indeed, are sometimes still treated so today. But the opposite extreme - complete intolerance of any man who fails to achieve some feminism-friendly "ideal" - is neither practical nor especially equitable.

    And to suggest that it is - while simultaneously asserting, as you do above, that no such claim exists - is simply absurd. I suppose that is this "womans logic" that we are always hearing so much about?

    PS: kiss kiss. You sound like a hottie. LOL.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    s73v3r:

    Not nearly as much as posting their picture on the internet for having a quiet conversation among themselves that she listened in on, took offense, and decided to try to shame them because it was something she didn't like.

    Oh, for the love of fuck, you don't even know what happened. Why are you even talking?

    From Richards' description of the situation:

    What I will share with you here is the backstory that led to this – The guy behind me to the far left was saying he didn’t find much value from the logging session that day. I agreed with him so I turned around and said so. He then went onto say that an earlier session he’d been to where the speaker was talking about images and visualization with Python was really good, even if it seemed to him the speaker wasn’t really an expert on images. He said he would be interested in forking the repo and continuing development. That would have been fine until the guy next to him… began making sexual forking jokes I was going to let it go. It had been a long week. A long month. I’d been on the road since mid February attending and speaking at conferences. PyCon was my 5th and final conference before heading home. ... They started talking about “big” dongles. I could feel my face getting flustered.

    So she was having a conversation with one of the guys, and this other fellow butts in with irrelevant sexualized cracks. She wasn't sitting around eavesdropping and shouting "gotcha!", she was having a conversation and this guy starts talking about dicks.

    Please shut the fuck up until you at least know something about what you're talking about.

    This puts a completely different complexion on it. Since she was already in conversation with (at least one of) these guys, surely it would not have been beyond her wit to have said something like "Oh, puh-LEEZE" or something equally dismissive of his dongle jokes.

    From the comments made here (and I'm not about to research it, life's too short) it is not clear whether he had actually used names of private body parts or merely cracked jokes based on the innuendoes intrinsic to certain amusing terms used in IT.

    Worth bearing in mind that she was not the only one to whom it had been a long week (and if she was going to that many conferences (good grief - five in a row?) she's obviously not a worker anyway, just some opportunistic politico). Tiredness affects some guys by making them facetious and silly (especially when caffeine has been used in large quantities to aid conversation), and if the talk being given is so utterly dull that the audience are conversing among themselves, this does not aid the irritation.

    I am minded of grade-school where a bunch of kids would be bantering, the way they do, and suddenly one of the girls suddenly gets up and says "I'm telling Teacher," because she has decided to use what one of the boys has said as a way to get him into trouble. (If the teacher has any sense, he/she would send that nasty bossy little prig away with a flea in her ear for being a tattle-tale, but instances of such treatments of girl-on-boy tale-telling are rare).

    All of this is ammunition to the oft-voiced opinion that women a) have no sense of humour, b) have no sense of what is important politically, and c) are bossy self-important narcissists. And until the sort of egregious behaviour engaged in by this appalling Richards woman ceases, I'm afraid the above opinion will continue to circulate.

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered) in reply to Moe K
    Moe K:
    A coworker of mine used to pronounce SCSI as 'sexy'. That always made a few giggles around the office...

    That's just scuzzy.

  • (cs)

    Reminds me how I was once on a vacation and somebody called me from work with some problem. I said something like "Go to TaskManager. Is [executable name] running? Kill him!" I just happened to be at the counter of a pizza place at the time, and the waiter was slightly surprised.

  • (cs) in reply to PRMan
    PRMan:
    Wow. People are willingly pro-Nazi now?!? What a sad, sad world this is turning into.

    Sigh.

    The point is, the US is the religious nutcase capital of the West; so the US can fucking deal with em, and not try to "send them back". You're all born FROM them anyway, so deal with your ancestors FFS.

  • (cs) in reply to Adam
    Adam:
    Good job they weren't PDF files
    You mean PDO files?
  • Shinobu (unregistered) in reply to Dogsworth
    Dogsworth:
    TRWTF is file extensions longer than 3 characters.
    TRWTF is file extensions, period.
  • MrBester (unregistered) in reply to Shinobu
    Shinobu:
    Dogsworth:
    TRWTF is file extensions longer than 3 characters.
    TRWTF is file extensions, period.
    TRWTF is period, file extension.

    FTFY

  • Your Name (unregistered) in reply to Shoreline
    Shoreline:
    TRWTF is that despite my vigorous search attempts I could not find a porn movie titled "Dot: The Excellent Sex Files".

    I mean... come on.... we sent a guy into space but we can't even do that?

    wtb: Microsoft Office porn parody.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    I first started thinking about feminism and listening to feminists over twenty years ago. I've never met an "anti-men activist" or heard of any, except as a sort of bogeyman from people who knew nothing about feminism.

    Shenanigans, I say.

    Are you serious? You have never, ever, heard a woman say that she hates all men, or that all men are scum, or that all men are involved in a conspiracy to subjugate women? Either you have only associated with the most moderate feminists in the world, or you have a very poor memory, or you are pushing a very lame lie, or -- my preferred theory -- you are so blind to your own prejudices that you don't recognize the extremists in your own crowd when you see them.

    Surely just about every movement in the history of the world has people who get carried away to ridiculous extremes. It's fair to say, "Hey, you can't judge our entire movement by a few crazy extremists." It's often fair to say, "Our movement has far fewer crazy extremists than our opponents claim. Most of us are very reasonable people." But to say that your side has NO extremists and that the very idea that there could be such people is a vicious slander spread by your enemies? You're just hurting your own credibility when you make such a patently false claim.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    ... but TRWTF is of course the fact that the words "excellent sex" are categorised as "very offensive". I'd go further: TRWTF is the fact that there are people in the world who believe that sex should always be unpleasant, painful and inconvenient, and should be abstained from in all circumstances except for the purposes of procreating into the appropriate religious upbringing.

    I suppose there are a few people such as you describe in the world. But the far bigger and more relevant group would be those who believe that sex is a fun and exciting thing and that we should work hard to prevent it from being made cheap, dirty, and boring.

    Personally, I am baffled by the idea that when I say that I don't want sex treated cheaply that this makes me "anti-sex". I don't want all of Rembrandt's paintings thrown in the mud and trampled on by a herd of pigs. I don't think this makes me anti-Rembrandt or anti-art. Quite the contrary, I take that position precisely because I am pro-art.

  • jay (unregistered)

    So as I understand it, the two basic tenets of feminism are:

    1. Aside from some minor anatomical differences that are totally irrelevant to 99.9% of workplaces, women are exactly the same as men, and they should be treated exactly the same as men. They should have the same opportunities on the same terms and receive the same rewards. Women are just as tough and smart as men.

    2. Women must be given special protection in the workplace, because women cannot possibly function in the sort of work environment where men have traditionally thrived. Women are fragile flowers who can be crushed if they hear a single rude comment.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to jay
    jay:

    Are you serious? You have never, ever, heard a woman say that she hates all men, or that all men are scum, or that all men are involved in a conspiracy to subjugate women? Either you have only associated with the most moderate feminists in the world, or you have a very poor memory, or you are pushing a very lame lie, or -- my preferred theory -- you are so blind to your own prejudices that you don't recognize the extremists in your own crowd when you see them.

    No, I actually have not met any such person. I've met people who are angry, and people who will say stupid things out of anger, but as far as I know I've never met anyone who I could call an "anti-men activist", and it's not because I haven't been spending time with all sorts of feminists. I don't think you have either, frankly. Your paranoid persecution fantasies do not constitute a reality.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Mike:
    Agreed. I wonder if they would have complained if the guy was talking about impotence instead. Europe sent us their puritans ... its time to send them back.

    Er, no, we wanted them to fuck off for a reason, so we persecuted the fuck out of them for being total religious nutcases.

    If you want to get rid of them, you'll have to colonise the moon or something, because if those fuckers come back, we'll have no choice but genocide. Maybe you could try a series of cattle trains leading to "special" showers... that looked like a workable solution.

    This is, of course, exactly why the Puritans left Europe to begin with: because the champions of tolerance, then and now, believe that the way to demonstrate your open-mindedness is to ridicule, censor, and if that fails, imprison and kill everyone who disagrees with them.

  • Will Shackleton (unregistered) in reply to Adam

    Quite a few teachers at school use that one.

  • Duggan (unregistered)

    Ah, this brings back memories of discussing the joys of playing Deus Ex and finding out that the guy I was talking to heard it as Day of Sex and was filtering my commentary through that filter.

    And apparently the captcha was done by an MMA afficiando, specifically a Vale Tudo practitioner.

  • Mike Smithwick (unregistered)

    Then there's the time about 20 years ago when some guy in Texas called up a book store looking for a magazine. Specifically Unix World. The woman at the other end of the line paused and said "I'm sorry sir, we're not that kind of bookstore."

    Discuss.

  • QJo (unregistered) in reply to jay
    jay:
    QJo:
    ... but TRWTF is of course the fact that the words "excellent sex" are categorised as "very offensive". I'd go further: TRWTF is the fact that there are people in the world who believe that sex should always be unpleasant, painful and inconvenient, and should be abstained from in all circumstances except for the purposes of procreating into the appropriate religious upbringing.

    I suppose there are a few people such as you describe in the world. But the far bigger and more relevant group would be those who believe that sex is a fun and exciting thing and that we should work hard to prevent it from being made cheap, dirty, and boring.

    Personally, I am baffled by the idea that when I say that I don't want sex treated cheaply that this makes me "anti-sex". I don't want all of Rembrandt's paintings thrown in the mud and trampled on by a herd of pigs. I don't think this makes me anti-Rembrandt or anti-art. Quite the contrary, I take that position precisely because I am pro-art.

    "I don't want all of Rembrandt's paintings thrown in the mud and trampled on by a herd of pigs."

    Straw man much?

    The point about freedom of speech is that while you may not like people discussing a subject which you clearly have trouble thinking about rationally (a crueller person than me may suggest that perhaps you desperately need a better experience of the act than you have previously had), you have no right to enforce your hysterical neuroses upon the population at large.

    And to rise to the bait of your straw man, if I own a Rembrandt, it is completely my choice as to what I do with it, and if I feel like throwing it in a pigsty, that is my decision and absolutely none of your business. If watching this act distresses you, then that is your personal problem and absolutely none of my concern.

    Actually, throwing a Rembrandt into a pigsty sounds good to me - the best destination for that over-rated drab rubbish.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to QJo

    [quote user="QJo"] The point about freedom of speech is that while you may not like people discussing a subject which you clearly have trouble thinking about rationally (a crueller person than me may suggest that perhaps you desperately need a better experience of the act than you have previously had), you have no right to enforce your hysterical neuroses upon the population at large. [/quote]

    Straw man much? There's a big difference between abiding by ordinary conventions of civilized behavior - which includes respecting other people's "hysterical neuroses" to some extent, if you want to use that loaded terminology - and censoring everyone everywhere from talking about anything but the Approved Topics.

    [/quote Actually, throwing a Rembrandt into a pigsty sounds good to me - the best destination for that over-rated drab rubbish.[/quote]

    Talk out your ass much? You've obviously never seen a Rembrandt if you can call them "drab".

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    jay:
    QJo:
    ... but TRWTF is of course the fact that the words "excellent sex" are categorised as "very offensive". I'd go further: TRWTF is the fact that there are people in the world who believe that sex should always be unpleasant, painful and inconvenient, and should be abstained from in all circumstances except for the purposes of procreating into the appropriate religious upbringing.

    I suppose there are a few people such as you describe in the world. But the far bigger and more relevant group would be those who believe that sex is a fun and exciting thing and that we should work hard to prevent it from being made cheap, dirty, and boring.

    Personally, I am baffled by the idea that when I say that I don't want sex treated cheaply that this makes me "anti-sex". I don't want all of Rembrandt's paintings thrown in the mud and trampled on by a herd of pigs. I don't think this makes me anti-Rembrandt or anti-art. Quite the contrary, I take that position precisely because I am pro-art.

    "I don't want all of Rembrandt's paintings thrown in the mud and trampled on by a herd of pigs."

    Straw man much?

    The point about freedom of speech is that while you may not like people discussing a subject which you clearly have trouble thinking about rationally (a crueller person than me may suggest that perhaps you desperately need a better experience of the act than you have previously had), you have no right to enforce your hysterical neuroses upon the population at large.

    And to rise to the bait of your straw man, if I own a Rembrandt, it is completely my choice as to what I do with it, and if I feel like throwing it in a pigsty, that is my decision and absolutely none of your business. If watching this act distresses you, then that is your personal problem and absolutely none of my concern.

    Actually, throwing a Rembrandt into a pigsty sounds good to me - the best destination for that over-rated drab rubbish.

    Umm, what? Are you responding to my post, or are you responding to some other post and you accidentally quoted mine?

    What did I say that gives you the idea that I need a "better experience" of sex? I said, quote, "sex is a fun and exciting thing". I'm sure it's possible to have sexual experiences that are more fun than any I've ever had -- I don't suppose that mine were the absolute best in the history of the world -- but I thought most of them were pretty good.

    At what point in my post did I call for censorship? I said nothing of the kind. I said that treating sex in a certain way is a bad idea and takes away from the maximum enjoyment of it. I didn't say that I thought that it should be illegal. Can you grasp the concept of someone saying, "X is a bad idea, and people would be better off if they didn't do X" without immediately leaping to "therefore X should be illegal"? That is a really great idea someone came up with called "freedom": I can think one thing, you can think another, and we can each be allowed to pursue our own ideas of what is best.

    Or are you suggesting that because you disagree with me, that therefore I should not be allowed to express my opinions? You are opposed to censorship: you just believe that people who disagree with you should be shut up.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    Actually, throwing a Rembrandt into a pigsty sounds good to me - the best destination for that over-rated drab rubbish.

    Oh, and given your comments about sex and censorship, I don't doubt that you are serious in this comment about art. I can't help but wonder if: (a) You believe that if you do not appreciate a particular work of art, it should be destroyed. Either you think that the idea that other people might have different tastes from you is inconceivable, or you don't care what anyone else thinks and you believe that the world should revolve around you. And/or (b) When you see a work of skill and beauty, your first impulse is to trample it in the mud, because you want to reduce the world to your level of crassness.

  • jay (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    jay:

    Are you serious? You have never, ever, heard a woman say that she hates all men, or that all men are scum, or that all men are involved in a conspiracy to subjugate women? Either you have only associated with the most moderate feminists in the world, or you have a very poor memory, or you are pushing a very lame lie, or -- my preferred theory -- you are so blind to your own prejudices that you don't recognize the extremists in your own crowd when you see them.

    No, I actually have not met any such person. I've met people who are angry, and people who will say stupid things out of anger, but as far as I know I've never met anyone who I could call an "anti-men activist", and it's not because I haven't been spending time with all sorts of feminists. I don't think you have either, frankly. Your paranoid persecution fantasies do not constitute a reality.

    http://i-hate-men.tripod.com/id9.html

    http://www.mensuck.com/category/stupid-men-jokes/

    http://www.ihatemen.org/category/i-hate-men/

    http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Hate-Men/51271

    Need I go on? There are hundreds of such web sites out there, maybe thousands.

    I didn't say that I believe I'm "persecuted" by such women, just that they exist.

  • (cs) in reply to QJo
    QJo:
    ... but TRWTF is of course the fact that the words "excellent sex" are categorised as "very offensive". I'd go further: TRWTF is the fact that there are people in the world who believe that sex should always be unpleasant, painful and inconvenient, and should be abstained from in all circumstances except for the purposes of procreating into the appropriate religious upbringing.

    Hmm. Been a while since the Puritans were considered mainstream.

    Maybe some people consider some activities to be private?

    Not that I would get offended, I believe being offended is the responsibility of the offended; you are responsible for your own emotions. But I still choose to avoid it if it isn't inconvenient.

  • (cs) in reply to jay
    jay:

    http://i-hate-men.tripod.com/id9.html

    http://www.mensuck.com/category/stupid-men-jokes/

    http://www.ihatemen.org/category/i-hate-men/

    http://www.experienceproject.com/groups/Hate-Men/51271

    Need I go on? There are hundreds of such web sites out there, maybe thousands.

    I didn't say that I believe I'm "persecuted" by such women, just that they exist.

    They can hate men for all I care. I don't mind being hated by people I neglect to observe existing.

    However, it does bother me that such women persecute beautiful successful women. To them, you can't be beautiful and successful because you must have been exploited to be successful. No, only ugly women earned their place. A beautiful woman must have done something to please a man. This kind of mentality is very frustrating.

    I despise being around hateful people. I avoid it at all costs. Such people never take responsibility for their own action and blame everything in the world for their circumstances. Not fun to be around.

    Here's my observation.

    1. Men fail to truly take care of women. They seek only their needs in relationships. Women feel they are treated like objects.
    2. Women don't want to be treated like objects. They take action and claim they don't need men. Women start to seek to satisfy only their own needs in relationships. Women treat men as objects.
    3. Men no longer feel needed and see relationships with women as opportunistic at best, because women hate men and will only be in a relationship to satisfy their own needs.
    4. Go to step 1.

    Who really suffer from all this?

    Our children.

  • Privately Offended (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    eViLegion:
    But she tweeted it to the entire world and got a guy fired. There was no usher. What the fuck are you talking about?
    Her [SECOND] tweet:
    Adria Richards @adriarichards Can someone talk to these guys about their conduct? I'm in lightning talks, top right near stage, 10 rows back
    The response from the convention staff:
    pycon @pycon Thank you @adriarichards for bringing the inappropriate comments to our attention. We've dealt with the situation.
    Sorry, you were saying?
    You missed the bit which she was actually fired for. Holy Spindoctor, Batman!

    Namely, her first Tweet at 10:32 and the blog posts afterwards.

    If she had actually done what you claimed, then two people would have been very embarrassed, but everybody would still have their jobs. That would have been a good result.

    But she didn't. She publicly named and photographing them before complaining to PyCon, then kicked up an almighty fuss afterwards.

    • Essentially, she refused to let PyCon handle it.

    She had three choices in that room:

    1. Tell them to shut up - she claims to have been talking to them at the time*
    2. Have a private word with an 'usher' and let them deal with it
    3. Stand on your chair waving a billboard saying "HEY! LOOK AT WHAT THESE TWO DID!"
    4. Shout the above at everyone who cared to listen.

    A sane person would choose options (1) and/or (2).

    She chose (3), then added (4) later.

    Would you do that? Do you think it's reasonable to do that?

    Sure, the organiser will respond to that, but probably by throwing you all out.

    I do find it very scary how so many jumped to conclusions and leapt to the aid of a "poor woman in distress". How sexist is that?

    * Source: 'butyoureagirl.com'

  • VATigers (unregistered)

    We had a teacher who would say students one sec see here ...There were always giggles whenever she said that.

  • trtrwtf (unregistered) in reply to Privately Offended
    Privately Offended:
    Namely, her first Tweet at 10:32 and the blog posts afterwards.

    Her tweet at 10:32 did not include any names. I have no idea if her blog posts included names, I haven't scoured her blog. She tweeted a description of the offensive behavior, a picture of the offending parties, and a request for the convention staff to deal with the issue.

    Yes, she made the issue a public one: the issue being the sort of bullshit drivel that is too popular among the would-be cool kids of the tech world. And yes, if you think "duh, penis" is an appropriate joke for a business environment you should be fired, because you're making your company look bad. If she posted names, which I haven't seen, then I still don't see that as a really big deal. These guys were proud of themselves, they thought the jokes were funny. If someone had tweeted "LOL, @Bob Smith made funny joke about forking repo", they'd have been pleased.

    This has gotten well past ridiculous. I wish I could believe that you twits were trolling, but for some reason I believe you're serious. For those of you who actually believe that Adria Richards was in the wrong to call out the sexist behavior that she observed, here are some simple rules of thumb for when you grow up and get big-boy jobs:

    1. If you can't figure out what jokes are okay in mixed company, don't tell jokes when you're at work.
    2. When you're wearing a company name badge, you're at work.
    3. There's the internet now. What you say in public is probably on film.
    4. Every company that you want to work for has policies about inclusivity, and explicit or broadly-implied sexual references are always going to come contrary to those policies. Seriously.
    5. It doesn't matter how good a programmer you are. If you act in a way that embarrasses your employer, you can be replaced, and you will be replaced, and you should be replaced. There are many good programmers, but your company only has one reputation.

    You can get away with breaking those rules a lot. They are not always enforced, and in fact they are not enforced nearly enough. However, those are the rules that apply, and you have no basis for complaint if you're fired for breaking them. None.

    If you don't believe this, imagine trying to argue the contrary in your next job interview. Then imagine the feel of your ass bouncing on the concrete sidewalk as they throw you out the door.

  • (cs) in reply to Adam
    Adam:
    Good job they weren't PDF files
    This one took me a few minutes. "Pedophiles", is that it?
  • true_Ouch_false (unregistered) in reply to eViLegion
    eViLegion:
    Mike:
    Agreed. I wonder if they would have complained if the guy was talking about impotence instead. Europe sent us their puritans ... its time to send them back.

    Er, no, we wanted them to fuck off for a reason, so we persecuted the fuck out of them for being total religious nutcases.

    If you want to get rid of them, you'll have to colonise the moon or something, because if those fuckers come back, we'll have no choice but genocide. Maybe you could try a series of cattle trains leading to "special" showers... that looked like a workable solution.

    NOPe. Not a solution, but one of the greatest PR WTFs in history.

    Thomas said, “Okay, I think--” “Excuse me, sir.” “Excuse me, BOY. Don't you see I'm on the phone? Did your parents NOT teach you to keep your trap shut when ADULTs are talking about ADULT stuff?” ...would have been my reply. And it would have been a double entender as well. Adult - LOL. Aggressive? Maybe. Unnecesarily aggressive? Not so much. That boy starts wasting my time, he'll get a good reply. After all, it is THEY who want to sell their coffee for $4.50. The rest of the world could live without THEM, not vice versa.

    capcha: appellatio - oral sex with an app.

  • Dominic (unregistered)

    Those old women were around to overhear the conversation because once, long ago, some people fucked.

    It's true.

  • SoleReasonForVisit (unregistered) in reply to TRWTF
    TRWTF:
    the real wtf are people asking you to leave, when you're talking about excellent sex.

    Actually I think TRWTF is that the two old ladies obviously hadn't watched "When Harry Met Sally."

    Complain? They're bonkers. What they should have said is (ta-daah...)

    "We'll have what he's having!"

  • An Anonimous Coder not Anglo-Saxon (unregistered) in reply to trtrwtf
    trtrwtf:
    This has gotten well past ridiculous. I wish I could believe that you twits were trolling, but for some reason I believe you're serious.

    Yes it has.

    For me - a non USian - this whole discussion is way beyond ridiculous. So "dongle" is a dirty word? I had not even known it was. For years I had to plug one into the back of my PC to run that software. (Now is that a sexist remark in itsevles - I appologize!) Should I now go forward and sue the software company for me having to touch and plug in such a dirty thing as a "dongle"?

    What I actually find highly offensive in my workplace - but am too scared to bring that up - is that habit of you USians to place the soles of your shoes on the edge of the worktable. You know the soles of shoes that touch the street with dog-shit and the lot. And then they place their hands on the same desk etc.. and me having to work with them. You know, I find that seriously offensive.

    Forking - I don't even find that in my dictionary. What was the offensive bit again?

  • (cs)

    No comments about master and slave drives...hmm...

  • DerpDerp (unregistered)

    Am I the only one seeing TRWTFs as being:

    1. No BCP for a location that gets hit with hurricanes and flooding every year.
    2. Allowing a vendor to make modifications to a production system both remotely and without oversight.
    3. Using email to handle a critical business process ('rosters') that could likely be handled automatically with a simple web app.
  • ezra (unregistered)

    IN DNA land, "restriction enzymes" are a common tool, and their are dozens of them (they cut DNA at a specific string of a,t,c,g, eg EcoR1 cuts at GAATTC)

    Anyway, restriction enzymes come from bacteria, and the name reflects that: HinDII comes from Haemophilus influenzae, BamH1 comes from Bacillus amyloliquifacens, etc etc So, every young grad student just has to use the enzymes Fok1 and SexA1

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Moe K

    That's actually how it was originally intended to be pronounced, if I recall correctly.

  • (nodebb)

    thanks

    Addendum 2024-01-24 22:03: I really love talking about sex, but in regular life you can't always find like-minded people to talk to about it and there are few people you can confide in. I am very happy that I found https://isexychat.com/ very cool sex chat here. I am now very happy that I can use it. It's really great. I hope that I was able to help you with it too. Good luck.

  • (nodebb)

    this is insane

  • (nodebb)

    so dope really

    Addendum 2024-03-21 03:41: The prevalence of free adult content platforms has sparked discussions about their impact on relationships and intimacy. While these platforms offer spaces for individuals to explore their desires and connect with like-minded others, they also present challenges. The accessibility of explicit material may contribute sex videos to issues such as addiction and unrealistic expectations, potentially affecting real-life relationships. Moreover, concerns about privacy and the commodification of intimacy in online spaces add layers of complexity to the conversation. Navigating the role of these platforms in modern relationships requires thoughtful reflection and consideration of their broader implications.

Leave a comment on “Excellent Sex”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article