Annoying Partners
As a recent divorcee, it would be churlish to reveal what annoys me the most about my ex, apart from that unfortunate business with the crinkle-cut beetroot which tipped us over the edge. So, what winds you up about your significant other? If you have no partner, tell us about workmates. If you have no workmates, improvise with an annoying tramp
( , Thu 4 Aug 2011, 14:47)
As a recent divorcee, it would be churlish to reveal what annoys me the most about my ex, apart from that unfortunate business with the crinkle-cut beetroot which tipped us over the edge. So, what winds you up about your significant other? If you have no partner, tell us about workmates. If you have no workmates, improvise with an annoying tramp
( , Thu 4 Aug 2011, 14:47)
« Go Back
Face it.
If you have a cock, you're wrong.
No arguments, no evidence, no reasoning, no doubt. Even when you know without a shadow of a doubt that you're ultimately indisputably correct according to all scientifically proven laws of the universe. Look at your crotch. Is that a cock? Then you're wrong.
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 19:59, 17 replies)
If you have a cock, you're wrong.
No arguments, no evidence, no reasoning, no doubt. Even when you know without a shadow of a doubt that you're ultimately indisputably correct according to all scientifically proven laws of the universe. Look at your crotch. Is that a cock? Then you're wrong.
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 19:59, 17 replies)
lol its funny because your really bitter about something that was your fault anyway
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 20:00, closed)
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 20:00, closed)
you are either a hairy-legged feminist
or a total fucking sap. i know what my money's on.
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 21:15, closed)
or a total fucking sap. i know what my money's on.
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 21:15, closed)
“How do you know if it's time to wash the dishes and clean your house? Look inside your pants. If you find a penis in there, it's not time.”
~ Jo Brand
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 21:44, closed)
~ Jo Brand
( , Mon 8 Aug 2011, 21:44, closed)
There's a subtle art to coming out on top in an argument with a woman.
First, you can't persuade her with facts. You have to tune into her way of thinking and speaking, which is more about how she (and on rare occasions others) feel/s than what she thinks. Then, you have to be just as determined to win as she is. Men often don't bother with arguments because they don't see the subject as intellectually important, putting them at an instant disadvantage to the one for whom, right that moment, it's The Big Deal. Commitment, see. Grasp the subject with all the heart you'd instead be putting into playing Halo Reach or whatever, and fight your corner. Make sure *she* knows how *you* feel for once - hurt, upset, betrayed, but never indifferent, because that's the currency that makes sense to most women. Don't raise your voice, but be firm and determined, and when you make your final point, remember that forehands have more force but backhands have more style.
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 8:43, closed)
First, you can't persuade her with facts. You have to tune into her way of thinking and speaking, which is more about how she (and on rare occasions others) feel/s than what she thinks. Then, you have to be just as determined to win as she is. Men often don't bother with arguments because they don't see the subject as intellectually important, putting them at an instant disadvantage to the one for whom, right that moment, it's The Big Deal. Commitment, see. Grasp the subject with all the heart you'd instead be putting into playing Halo Reach or whatever, and fight your corner. Make sure *she* knows how *you* feel for once - hurt, upset, betrayed, but never indifferent, because that's the currency that makes sense to most women. Don't raise your voice, but be firm and determined, and when you make your final point, remember that forehands have more force but backhands have more style.
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 8:43, closed)
I guess this makes me massively, gigantically, spurtingly wrong then
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 10:23, closed)
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 10:23, closed)
I understand that the philosophical framing of this is
"If a man speaks in a forest, and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:16, closed)
"If a man speaks in a forest, and there isn't a woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?"
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:16, closed)
It's related to Pauli's exclusion principle, too:
"If, at any time, a man finds himself about to win an argument with a woman by the application of verifiable facts and unassailable logic, he will at that point discover that, somehow, the argument has changed into being about something completely different."
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:28, closed)
"If, at any time, a man finds himself about to win an argument with a woman by the application of verifiable facts and unassailable logic, he will at that point discover that, somehow, the argument has changed into being about something completely different."
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:28, closed)
Example:
"You see, it says right here that The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939."
"You've never liked my mother, have you?"
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:34, closed)
"You see, it says right here that The Wizard of Oz was released in 1939."
"You've never liked my mother, have you?"
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 12:34, closed)
"Fine, you get to be right again, well done, I hope it means SO MUCH to you."
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 13:06, closed)
( , Tue 9 Aug 2011, 13:06, closed)
« Go Back