El grupo al cual envías entradas es un grupo Usenet. Si envías mensajes a este grupo, cualquier usuario de Internet podrá ver tu dirección de correo electrónico
...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if you will, by reading the tabloids.
SteelBrick wrote: > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which > was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if > you will, by reading the tabloids.
> SteelBrick wrote: > > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which > > was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if > > you will, by reading the tabloids.
I wonder if using the word "bonk" actually increases your odds of someday becoming an internet troll, or if they just tend to go hand in hand. Life's little mysteries ...
> SteelBrick wrote: > > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which > > was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if > > you will, by reading the tabloids.
And you in turn, David, judge Brick as writing something bad. Brick is right up front about what he thinks. You in turn, are a hypocrite and would neveradmit to or be caught doing something so terrible as judging.
Peter Wenz wrote: > Am 29 Aug 2006 09:55:18 -0700 schrieb SteelBrick:
> > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > singer.
> Who cares?
> Cheers > Peter
I don't really care. However Bruce shouldn't be portrayed as the guy who speaks for every man. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a stand-up guy. Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good people.
> ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which > was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if > you will, by reading the tabloids.
> guy. Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > people.
And a Happy 70th Birthday to Senator McCain, BTW.
--
Dan
"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
Runnnerr wrote: > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > people.
You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
david wrote: > Runnnerr wrote: > > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > > people.
> You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is > either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does > some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
It is simplistic. What don't you understand about it? Cheaters are not good people. Perhaps you have reasons of your own for thinking otherwise. Maybe you think that cheating is just hunky dory. Maybe you cheat or have cheated on a significant other and think that it's just fine. I don't know.
> In article <QE%Ig.12276$%j7.1...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > mt...@socal.rr.com says... >> Every marriage I've ever witnessed that began with someone cheating on >> someone else to meet their spouse has ended in divorce.
> Except in this case Bruce knew Patti long before she joined the band and > they hooked up (to use the vernacular of the day). So that dog don't > hunt...
Huh? It's still cheating. Doesn't understand how knowing her makes a difference. One of the divorces I witnessed had the exact same scenario. They were going to school together.
> david wrote: >> Runnnerr wrote: >> > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good >> > people.
>> You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is >> either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does >> some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
> It is simplistic. What don't you understand about it? Cheaters are not > good people. Perhaps you have reasons of your own for thinking > otherwise. Maybe you think that cheating is just hunky dory. Maybe you > cheat or have cheated on a significant other and think that it's just > fine. I don't know.
People who look down on cheaters are people who have never had a chance to cheat.
Temptation is an ugly thing and all humans have weaknesses.
Runnnerr wrote: > davidlaw69 wrote: > > Ahhh, the judgmental...
> > SteelBrick wrote: > > > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer, which > > > was by the way in violation of his marriage vow, or "commitment", if > > > you will, by reading the tabloids.
> And you in turn, David, judge Brick as writing something bad. Brick > is right up front about what he thinks. You in turn, are a hypocrite > and would neveradmit to or be caught doing something so terrible as > judging.
Yes, please don't judge Brick on one post ... go ahead and review his other posts on alt.flame.faggots. I'm sure he's just misunderstood, not the internet troll he appears to be.
Runnnerr wrote: > david wrote: > > Runnnerr wrote: > > > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > > > people.
> > You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is > > either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does > > some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
> It is simplistic. What don't you understand about it? Cheaters are not > good people. Perhaps you have reasons of your own for thinking > otherwise. Maybe you think that cheating is just hunky dory. Maybe you > cheat or have cheated on a significant other and think that it's just > fine. I don't know.
Trying to disregard the fact that you and I have no idea whether or not there's been any recent cheating in Bruce's life, do you have access to an infallible list of the qualities that a "good" person always possesses? Do you allow for instances where a personal failing causes a person to examine themselves deeply in the hope of avoiding hurting others in the future? Do the Ten Commandments fill the bill for defining a good person, and if so, why aren't they taught to our children everywhere, from birth? If the definition is secular, should goodness be legislated-don't we need less badness in the world, beyond what is already in law..... Is a person bad if they judge others who they don't know personally, or if they do know them adequately, withholds compassion for the sadness that the pain that their failing has caused, and help and encouragement to change? Not that Bruce injured you in any way, but maybe St. Augustine was right on in saying that we should beware that we don't create a second "bad man" when we refuse to forgive those who have sinned.
Runnnerr wrote: > Peter Wenz wrote: > > Am 29 Aug 2006 09:55:18 -0700 schrieb SteelBrick:
> > > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > > singer.
> > Who cares?
> > Cheers > > Peter
> I don't really care. However Bruce shouldn't be portrayed as the guy > who speaks for every man. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a stand-up > guy. Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > people.
************
And you're here, why? To piss on Bruce every chance you get?
> I don't really care. However Bruce shouldn't be portrayed as the guy > who speaks for every man. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a stand-up > guy. Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > people.
They're generally the best lays, though.
I've personally never cheated. I'm more of an enabler.
Runnnerr wrote: > david wrote: > > Runnnerr wrote: > > > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > > > people.
> > You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is > > either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does > > some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
> It is simplistic. What don't you understand about it? Cheaters are not > good people. Perhaps you have reasons of your own for thinking > otherwise. Maybe you think that cheating is just hunky dory. Maybe you > cheat or have cheated on a significant other and think that it's just > fine. I don't know.
Of course, I didn't say anything even remotely resembling "cheating is just hunky-dory." Maybe I just think that people and life are considerably more complex than you can comprehend, and maybe I think that people who do bad things are not condemned to be "bad" people.
susan wrote: > Runnnerr wrote: > > david wrote: > > > Runnnerr wrote: > > > > Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > > > > people.
> > > You make it sound like "good person" is a binary judgement: one is > > > either a good person, or one is not a good person (even if one does > > > some good things). Don't you think that's pretty simplistic?
> > It is simplistic. What don't you understand about it? Cheaters are not > > good people. Perhaps you have reasons of your own for thinking > > otherwise. Maybe you think that cheating is just hunky dory. Maybe you > > cheat or have cheated on a significant other and think that it's just > > fine. I don't know.
> Trying to disregard the fact that you and I have no idea whether or not > there's been any recent cheating in Bruce's life, do you have access to > an infallible list of the qualities that a "good" person always > possesses? Do you allow for instances where a personal failing causes > a person to examine themselves deeply in the hope of avoiding hurting > others in the future? Do the Ten Commandments fill the bill for > defining a good person, and if so, why aren't they taught to our > children everywhere, from birth? If the definition is secular, should > goodness be legislated-don't we need less badness in the world, beyond > what is already in law..... Is a person bad if they judge others who > they don't know personally, or if they do know them adequately, > withholds compassion for the sadness that the pain that their failing > has caused, and help and encouragement to change? Not that Bruce > injured you in any way, but maybe St. Augustine was right on in saying > that we should beware that we don't create a second "bad man" when we > refuse to forgive those who have sinned.
> susan > (also Matt. 18:23-25)
Awe c'mon, Susan, you're trying to force someone with black & white vision to see the world in all its glorious shades, hues, and nuances. I don't think Runnerr is up to that.
In article <ZeydnYIm0eDjEGjZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdn...@comcast.com>, "Burton Busk" <burton...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "SteelBrick" <scall...@mailinator.com> wrote in message > news:1156870518.326208.17220@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > ...he cheated on his first wife, Julianne Phillips, to bonk his backup > > singer. Phillips found out about his bonking his backup singer,
> Bonk? In my neck of the woods, it was always "boink".
> Bonking was what those tall guys did with apples in "Yellow Submarine". > Isaac Newton got bonked with an apple too. Not boinked.
> > I don't really care. However Bruce shouldn't be portrayed as the guy > > who speaks for every man. He shouldn't be portrayed as such a stand-up > > guy. Cheaters, while they may do good things in life, are not good > > people.
> They're generally the best lays, though.
> I've personally never cheated. I'm more of an enabler.
> bt
BT, I have said it once and I will say it again...You are the funniest man on the planet. --
|
