Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #568442 > unrolled thread

sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2016-04-06 19:48 -0500
Last post2016-04-09 22:57 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 22 — 10 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 19:48 -0500
    Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-06 20:37 -0500
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 00:17 -0400
    Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 04:33 +0000
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 02:28 -0400
        Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-07 06:49 -0500
    Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 23:19 -0700
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 02:34 -0400
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 05:18 -0700
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 07:57 -0500
        Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-04-07 20:19 +0000
        Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 22:28 -0700
    sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-06 23:39 -0700
      Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 02:45 -0400
        Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-07 06:52 -0500
          Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 05:08 -0700
            Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 05:16 -0700
              Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 05:28 -0700
              Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:30 -0400
            Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 10:15 -0400
          Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-07 13:50 -0700
    Re: sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-04-09 22:57 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#568442 — sci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-06 19:48 -0500
Subjectsci.physics behavior | Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
Message-ID<fJidncHgRurSM5jKnZ2dnUU7-YOdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406

> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
> failure, not lower IQ



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#568448

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-04-06 20:37 -0500
Message-ID<ne4dlg$pkm$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#568442
On 4/6/2016 7:48 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
>>
>
>> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
>> failure, not lower IQ
>
>
>


"...cognitive scientists at Marxist College and the Massachusetts 
College of Liberal Arts..."


==>  poor scientific american, infested with contract journalists with 
no science background...



       vulgar words are used to impress


too bad those Marxist Leftist Arts college in Mass spent all that time 
and money, and came up with the wrong answer, too much smoke-um dope-um.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568466

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 00:17 -0400
Message-ID<CblNy.8229$iS2.2340@fx34.iad>
In reply to#568448
On 04/06/2016 09:37 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/6/2016 7:48 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
>>>
>>>
>>
>>> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
>>> failure, not lower IQ
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> "...cognitive scientists at Marxist College and the Massachusetts
> College of Liberal Arts..."
>
>
> ==>  poor scientific american, infested with contract journalists with
> no science background...
>
>
>
>        vulgar words are used to impress
>
>
> too bad those Marxist Leftist Arts college in Mass spent all that time
> and money, and came up with the wrong answer, too much smoke-um dope-um.

Even commies can be right about HVAC. He always uses vulgarity to try to 
impress people, even though it only shows his limited vocabulary and 
intellect. "Wordsmith"! Bwahahahaha!



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568470

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-04-07 04:33 +0000
Message-ID<mh4htc-gem.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#568442
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?

Is spamming a sign of an asshole?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568484

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 02:28 -0400
Message-ID<56nNy.7493$S57.3831@fx08.iad>
In reply to#568470
On 04/07/2016 12:33 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>
> Is spamming a sign of an asshole?
>
>
Yes.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568527

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-04-07 06:49 -0500
Message-ID<ne5hgq$ghj$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#568484
On 4/7/2016 1:28 AM, benj wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 12:33 AM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>>
>> Is spamming a sign of an asshole?
>>
>>
> Yes.
>

Dr's can fix the ass hole such as it doesn't leak out so much.
there are ads on TV about it

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568479

From"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-06 23:19 -0700
Message-ID<be08ee8f-e136-4d58-b376-345fb59d80e4@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568442
On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:48:19 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
> > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
> 
> > New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
> > failure, not lower IQ

  I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar" because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the article you cited:

  "...the "poverty-of-vocabulary" (POV) hypothesis would have us believe [that] swearing is the "sign of a weak vocabulary", a result of a lack of education, laziness or impulsiveness. In line with this idea, we tend to judge vulgarians quite harshly, rating them as lower on socio-intellectual status, less effective at their jobs and less friendly.

  "But this view of the crass does not square with recent research in linguistics...

  "This research has led to a competing explanation for swearing: fluency with taboo words might be a sign of general verbal fluency. Those who are exceptionally vulgar might also be exceptionally eloquent and intelligent...

  "New research by cognitive scientists at Marist College and the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts attempts to test this possibility, and further debunk the POV hypothesis, by measuring how taboo word fluency relates to general verbal fluency. The POV hypothesis suggests that there should be a negative correlation: the more you swear, the lower your verbal prowess...

  "Across three studies,... The more taboo words participants could generate, the more verbally fluent they were in general. This finding can serve as a nice empirical middle-finger from vulgarians everywhere, directed at those who had, until now, been unfairly judging them for their linguistic abilities."

  I believe you owe Jim, and every other person you have ever criticized for cussing at you, a fucking apology.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568487

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 02:34 -0400
Message-ID<XbnNy.3513$jM7.340@fx24.iad>
In reply to#568479
On 04/07/2016 02:19 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:48:19 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
>>
>>> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
>>> failure, not lower IQ
>
>    I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar" because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the article you cited:
>
>    "...the "poverty-of-vocabulary" (POV) hypothesis would have us believe [that] swearing is the "sign of a weak vocabulary", a result of a lack of education, laziness or impulsiveness. In line with this idea, we tend to judge vulgarians quite harshly, rating them as lower on socio-intellectual status, less effective at their jobs and less friendly.
>
>    "But this view of the crass does not square with recent research in linguistics...
>
>    "This research has led to a competing explanation for swearing: fluency with taboo words might be a sign of general verbal fluency. Those who are exceptionally vulgar might also be exceptionally eloquent and intelligent...
>
>    "New research by cognitive scientists at Marist College and the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts attempts to test this possibility, and further debunk the POV hypothesis, by measuring how taboo word fluency relates to general verbal fluency. The POV hypothesis suggests that there should be a negative correlation: the more you swear, the lower your verbal prowess...
>
>    "Across three studies,... The more taboo words participants could generate, the more verbally fluent they were in general. This finding can serve as a nice empirical middle-finger from vulgarians everywhere, directed at those who had, until now, been unfairly judging them for their linguistic abilities."

Use of vulgarities is common in novels written by the best writers whose 
prowess with vocabulary is beyond question.

>    I believe you owe Jim, and every other person you have ever criticized for cussing at you, a fucking apology.

:-)

>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568533

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 05:18 -0700
Message-ID<caf99268-c1ab-472f-b6b8-a4835f9129a7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568479
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 2:19:56 AM UTC-4, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 5:48:19 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
> > > http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
> > 
> > > New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
> > > failure, not lower IQ

How much lower can your f*cking IQ get Sam Worm Liar? No limits?

>   I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar"
> because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the
> article you cited:
>
>   "...the "poverty-of-vocabulary" (POV) hypothesis would have us
> believe [that] swearing is the "sign of a weak vocabulary", a result
> of a lack of education, laziness or impulsiveness. In line with this
> idea, we tend to judge vulgarians quite harshly, rating them as
> lower on socio-intellectual status, less effective at their jobs and
> less friendly.
>
>   "But this view of the crass does not square with recent research
> in linguistics...
>
>   "This research has led to a competing explanation for swearing:
> fluency with taboo words might be a sign of general verbal
> fluency. Those who are exceptionally vulgar might also be
> exceptionally eloquent and intelligent...

Basically Sam was unable to read/understand the article he mentioned.
 
>   "New research by cognitive scientists at Marist College and the
> Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts attempts to test this
> possibility, and further debunk the POV hypothesis, by measuring how
> taboo word fluency relates to general verbal fluency. The POV
> hypothesis suggests that there should be a negative correlation: the
> more you swear, the lower your verbal prowess...
>
>   "Across three studies,... The more taboo words participants could
> generate, the more verbally fluent they were in general. This
> finding can serve as a nice empirical middle-finger from vulgarians
> everywhere, directed at those who had, until now, been unfairly
> judging them for their linguistic abilities."
>
>   I believe you owe Jim, and every other person you have ever
> criticized for cussing at you, a fucking apology.

He he... even if Sam ever fucking apologized, it would be disingenuous
at best, and predictably condescending from wherever the Worm begins
to highlight the text said asshole Liar is going to cut and paste next.

>   Mark L. Fergerson

I want/ed to mention George Carlin, his great 'Seven Words You Never
Hear' genius comedy. Also, when I took English Lit classes at UMCP,
all the students shared with eachother a one-page document of the forty
different ways to use the word fuck Fuck FUCK. Pretty certain it's
made its way on to the WWW/Internet/Usenet/... O wait, here it is:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=forty+different+ways+to+use+the+word+fuck

Lord John Parker Androcles brought this great skit to my attention:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=provocative+hello+dudley+moore

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Language, mind (y)ours. What The Fuc|<?!”
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=George+Carlin+great+Seven+Words+You+Never

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568539

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 07:57 -0500
Message-ID<S8mdnagfo9G7xJvKnZ2dnUU7-RudnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#568479
On 4/7/16 1:19 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar"
> because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the
> article you cited.


   His behavior at the time was similar to "blue collar" workers that I
   encounter.  Nuff said.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568678

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2016-04-07 20:19 +0000
Message-ID<turitc-31s.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#568539
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/16 1:19 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>> I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar"
>> because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the
>> article you cited.
> 
> 
>   His behavior at the time was similar to "blue collar" workers that I
>   encounter.  Nuff said.

Go fuck yourself, copyright violatng, spamming ass hat.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568817

From"nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 22:28 -0700
Message-ID<d5a1db72-3f4e-4530-b338-b9895c2a0690@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568539
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 5:57:13 AM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 4/7/16 1:19 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > I clearly recall you accusing Jim Pennino of being "blue collar"
> > because he used language you consider vulgar. But to quote from the
> > article you cited.
> 
>    His behavior at the time was similar to "blue collar" workers that I
>    encounter.  Nuff said.

  Ah, then I misunderstood you- you were *complimenting* Jim on his superior vocabulary and eloquence, which according to your cite are correlated with his superior intelligence.

  Please accept my fucking apology.

> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

  Obviously the definition and use of "swearing" is a social issue, but I see no physics connection.  People have tried, and failed, to build sociological Standard Models, but suppose we consider language to be a bosonic exchange between fermionic minds...


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568491

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-06 23:39 -0700
Message-ID<69c2ade2-c159-48c5-9b89-9ee76d2f1d30@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568442
Sam Wormley
Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary? 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406 

> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of 
> failure, not lower IQ 
-------------

What a bunch of fucking assholes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568494

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 02:45 -0400
Message-ID<0mnNy.4194$XN7.2813@fx40.iad>
In reply to#568491
On 04/07/2016 02:39 AM, HVAC wrote:
> Sam Wormley
> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
>
>> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
>> failure, not lower IQ
> -------------
>
> What a bunch of fucking assholes
>
What the fuck are you doing up at this hour?

Aren't you supposed to be down for AI server maintenance about now?

In your case vulgar words is a sign of lower IQ.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568528

FromSergio <invalid@invalid.com>
Date2016-04-07 06:52 -0500
Message-ID<ne5hm9$had$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to#568494
On 4/7/2016 1:45 AM, benj wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 02:39 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> Sam Wormley
>> Is Swearing a Sign of a Limited Vocabulary?
>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-swearing-a-sign-of-a-limited-vocabulary/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160406
>>>
>>
>>> New research challenges the idea that vulgar words are a sign of
>>> failure, not lower IQ
>> -------------
>>
>> What a bunch of fucking assholes
>>
> What the fuck are you doing up at this hour?
>
> Aren't you supposed to be down for AI server maintenance about now?
>
> In your case vulgar words is a sign of lower IQ.
>

ok, who swears more, blacks or whites ?

Hillary or Trump ?





does not using swear words mean you have a high IQ ?  Like me ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568530

FromHVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 05:08 -0700
Message-ID<79cacbf5-dbea-4a49-a094-f58c283b6686@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568528
BJ quacked
> What the fuck are you doing up at this hour? 
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be down for AI server maintenance about now? 
> 
> In your case vulgar words is a sign of lower IQ. 
> 
-------------

I treated Fel to a night at the strip club last night. We had a blast! My stomach still hurts from laughing so hard. I had tears coming down my face. Just a great night out!

She's still sleeping it off. 

Lol

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568532

Fromjohn <johnsefton288@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 05:16 -0700
Message-ID<2553c25f-2e02-495e-8af4-d3cef43ecd48@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568530
Strip club

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568534

FromMahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 05:28 -0700
Message-ID<55c1d58e-119a-448f-bd5a-1adea465c44d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#568532
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 at 8:16:41 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Strip club

Speaking of schooling... that proves where HVAC got his, Lucky Bastard!

KookHVAC, still waiting to hear where and what you studied in College. 

-- Mahipal “IPMM... माहिपाल ७६३८: Got Degree or just soiled panties?!”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568563

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 10:30 -0400
Message-ID<6auNy.4316$uo7.2510@fx02.iad>
In reply to#568532
On 04/07/2016 08:16 AM, john wrote:
> Strip club

Strippers are hilarious!

Proof HVAC is Gay.

Proof there is no "Felony".



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568556

Frombenj <none@gmail.com>
Date2016-04-07 10:15 -0400
Message-ID<1YtNy.35729$Ld6.17259@fx33.iad>
In reply to#568530
On 04/07/2016 08:08 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
>> What the fuck are you doing up at this hour?
>>
>> Aren't you supposed to be down for AI server maintenance about now?
>>
>> In your case vulgar words is a sign of lower IQ.
>>
> -------------
>
> I treated Fel to a night at the strip club last night. We had a blast! My stomach still hurts from laughing so hard. I had tears coming down my face. Just a great night out!
>
> She's still sleeping it off.
>
> Lol
>
There is no "Felony".
There is no strip club.
Laughing till you cry over nothing is common behavior for HVAC.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web