posted July 07, 2009 05:00 PM            

Taumini, you surprised me with your post. That's a nice offer. We should maybe talk more sometime.

posted July 11, 2009 09:22 PM            

I walked to the mall today. I got some lunch. I bought a shirt, a pair of pants, and a pair of shoes.

posted July 11, 2009 11:51 PM            

The are very few female vocalists who really do it for me. The chick in this band does. If she was singing the line in this song to me:

"Wait...they don't love you like I love you."

posted July 13, 2009 12:47 AM            

Yes, it is an etiquette thing. You are right about your definition of spam. However, we also use the term in reference to a poster who posts an enormous number of threads to any single forum. There's also "Man Spam" like in the Godzala threads, where lusty ladies post provocative pics of their favorite celebrity heart throbs. So, in essence, "spam" is used as a term to mean generally excessive around here. No one ever seems to really mind the "Man spam," though.

Yes, it is true that Randall would prefer you not to post your email. Most often nothing will be done if you do. Occasionally, he will remove it.

I can't easily define an internet troll, but it's probably enough to say that it's a person who's a constant troublemaker or thorn in everyone's side. VenusDeLioness was throwing around the term as if to accuse everyone of being a troll, but that's not the case. I don't think you'll ever rationally be called a troll.

ABC,

posted July 13, 2009 04:11 PM            

quote:

---

My Ascendant is Virgo, yet my bf's Mars sign is Gemini. I'm done with nit-picking.

---

A hetero woman's Mars shows the traits she's drawn to in a male partner.

A hetero male's VENUS shows the traits he's drawn to in a female partner.

This is basic astrology.

You and your boyfriend demonstrate this splendidly as you have Mars in Virgo, he has Venus in Virgo, and you both have Virgo Ascendants.

quote:

---

Ask Lalalinda.

---

I don't need to. Lalalinda deleted a perfectly astrologically sound post that I wrote a long time ago, and there was a pretty huge commotion over it, and virtually nobody took Lalalinda's side in the matter. I don't have or espouse controversial astrological theory. The things I point out astrologically are generally pretty sound, and if Lalalinda hadn't have freaked out it's highly doubtful anyone would have had anything adverse to say about what I posted.

Also, I find it interesting that just recently you were asking Zala and I not to think of you in the context of your behavior a few years ago, and yet whenever I say anything against you you attempt to drudge up something in an attempt to discredit me. You want a certain courtesy extended to you, but you don't want to extend that courtesy yourself. What's up with that? And beyond that, if the things I've been embroiled in over my time here haven't resulted in my getting banned or in declining popularity with the general population here, how is it that you believe your bringing this stuff up is going to help you? It's not. It's a bad tactic/strategy.

quote:

---

T, LEXX, Diabla, GypseeWind, Pire, VinayM19, Glaucus, SunChild, Peri, Valus, Quinnie...and every single one of you who truly cares for me-

Provided any of you has anything to say to the furious, emotional individuals who are taking things personal- please, allow me to gently remind you-

The best support I can ever receive from any of you, all of you, regarding the situation at hand, is to completely ignore these angry persons who are taking things personal.

---

You know that most of those people are my friends, right? You also realize that I'm speaking to you because of your poor behavior, right? Why do you suppose that they would have anything to say against my talking to you? I can only conceive of them having something to say to me if they worry about your bipolar disorder. I'm not being excessively mean or degrading, though, and I don't intend to. I don't mind your presence here at LL. I only mind the way you act sometimes.

posted July 13, 2009 04:42 PM            

No, I don't know anything about that, but clearly Panetta stands in opposition to his own words. It may be policy not to mislead Congress, but he apparently testified that it was their practice, which does contradict his 2002 statement.

"This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta's actions back that up," Little said in a statement. "As the letter from these ... representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees."

posted July 13, 2009 09:20 PM            

as i understand the panetta thing, what he said when asked whether the CIA lied to pelosi is general and attributed to how HE sees the CIA, what he said about the "deceptions" applies to the CIA under someone else's watch. we'll see i guess - or NOT, but it seems he may have found out something he didn't know before...?

posted July 14, 2009 01:05 AM            

But then I have to vaccillate back to the fact that maybe he was trying to man up when he let it slip that the CIA was regularly deceptive towards Congress. Maybe that should be enough of an assertion that he doesn't have to go back and amend what he said previously. It's just a pride game. They dissed Pelosi, and now Democrats are seeking some sort of rectification for what was done.