Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Lol. Yo, idk where that came from, but i'm straight.
Soldiers in Afghanistan given bibles, Told to "Hunt people for Jesus"
- Thread starter Mr Wiggl3s
- Start date
- Status
You haven't wiped it Cal - isn't that within your power? If it is that offensive then how about creating a police state here and delete it.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Why are yall catching feelings? Not that big of a deal.
He feels strongly against christianity (apparently, idk). Yall feel strongly against obama (I consider politics and religion on the same level). Everyone here choses to display their opinion somewhere.
I consider all this anti-obama stuff offensive, but im not going to bitch about it. I just thought that was something that is allowed to be posted/viewed.
He feels strongly against christianity (apparently, idk). Yall feel strongly against obama (I consider politics and religion on the same level). Everyone here choses to display their opinion somewhere.
I consider all this anti-obama stuff offensive, but im not going to bitch about it. I just thought that was something that is allowed to be posted/viewed.
Are you asking me to delete it? Is that what you'd like?
I don't see any reason to.
I don't think anyone needs to be protected from an image or quote.
However I think it's absurd when a person does something that is designed to provoke and insult and then takes offense and become indignant when they are challenged regarding it.
You're attempt to equate something sodomizing a traditional representation of Christianity that predates the use of the cross to merely calling a politician a socialist was ridiculous and the attempt to make the association insults the intelligence of everyone in the forum.
Lol. Yo, idk where that came from, but i'm straight.
Then post a picture of a pig doing that to a koran-
See how that goes over.
Mr Wiggl3s
Dedicated LVC Member
Lol. when /b/ comes back up i'll /r/
sodomizing now? wow. talk about taking things too far. see alot of animals standing in that position at times through the years. if thats what their doing, then i guess biology is wrong and animals self produce. oh wait, i know, immaculate conception for all.
you've been busy shag. unfortunately i don't have the luxury of such time nor the motivation to be as diligent as you.
but i'm arguing against points being made to me. what would you expect for an answer. yes, you're right?
and vitriol and derision i argue with? i view it as the PASSION i argue with.
as with anything, it depends on how you view it.
you take it your way, i take it mine.
i've disliked your signatures, and dislike your present avatar, but i'm hardly gonna make a federal case of it.
but keep whining about it. it brings out your true colours.
and this coming from the kid who whines of others going off topic.
you've been busy shag. unfortunately i don't have the luxury of such time nor the motivation to be as diligent as you.
but i'm arguing against points being made to me. what would you expect for an answer. yes, you're right?
and vitriol and derision i argue with? i view it as the PASSION i argue with.
as with anything, it depends on how you view it.
you take it your way, i take it mine.
i've disliked your signatures, and dislike your present avatar, but i'm hardly gonna make a federal case of it.
but keep whining about it. it brings out your true colours.
and this coming from the kid who whines of others going off topic.
Like the song says...
"And then we'll do it doggy style so we can both watch "X-Files"
Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"
Offense is in the eye of the beholder Cal - what is offensive to me, isn't offensive to others and visa versa...
And what looks like sodomy to some, looks like the discovery channel to others - especially when viewed with the fact the avatar deals with 'evolution'.
And Shag's avatar isn't designed to offend a group of people as well? To me it looks like we have a double standard here - Is something that is offensive to some Christians 'more' offensive than something that is designed to be offensive to Democrats? Is there a hierarchy here?
So, is indignation towards religion worse than disparaging other subjects? I just want to make sure I have this 'right'.
"And then we'll do it doggy style so we can both watch "X-Files"
Do it now
You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals
So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"
Offense is in the eye of the beholder Cal - what is offensive to me, isn't offensive to others and visa versa...
And what looks like sodomy to some, looks like the discovery channel to others - especially when viewed with the fact the avatar deals with 'evolution'.
And Shag's avatar isn't designed to offend a group of people as well? To me it looks like we have a double standard here - Is something that is offensive to some Christians 'more' offensive than something that is designed to be offensive to Democrats? Is there a hierarchy here?
So, is indignation towards religion worse than disparaging other subjects? I just want to make sure I have this 'right'.
Given your past here, I would hardly expect anything approaching honesty or decency and civility from you. But don't think for a moment that there is any comparison between my pics and your avatar. As I have pointed out, my pics make a legitimate point and are not crude. The fact that you seem to think that a crude image like you have is somehow not uncivil shows your utter contempt for Christianity.
To a degree, but this goes beyond the pail. If something is offensive, the problem isn't always with the person taking offense. If I started referring to you constantly as a whore who needs to shut her mouth and get me a beer, I think you would get offended. There are plenty of times you and hrmwrm have shown offense at something I or someone else has said or done. When is it justified to be offended and when isn't it then?
When have you ever seen fish do that on the discovery channel? That is not how fish procreate. Another specious argument in a dishonest and disingenuous attempt to defend your complete lack of decency.
If you hold Obama in as high regard as people of faith hold their religion, you have a problem.
What I posted are directed at Obama's politics and competence. It is mild compared to the "humor" directed at conservatives. Obama was just recently laughing at Wanda Sykes calling Rush Limbaugh the 20th hijacker, joking about his drug addiction and hoping he died; all vicious personal attacks directed at Limbaugh. Where those as offensive as the pictures I have posted? Where do you draw the line?
You and hrmwrm are the only two with double standards here and it is disingenuous. Instead of being honest and admitting that hrmwrm's avatar goes beyond the pail, you are trying to manufacture a double standard on our part when there is not. Just another example of liberals more often then not lacking any sense of decency,civility or integrity. You are attempting to dishonestly lower the burden of proof as to what qualifies as uncivil in regards to my pictures and raise it in regards to hrmwrm's avatar (though I have no doubt you would never admit it).
People of faith hold that religion is very high regard. Even if you don't hold that faith in high regard it is only civil to treat it with respect when others of faith are around (as they are in this forum). There are some basic standards of appropriateness that anyone with some degree of civility would recognize (that, apparently would not include you). Would you start making dead baby jokes to someone who just had and infant die of SIDS?
But it's not about either of our sensibilities.
O.K... then it's not sodomy, merely something having sex from behind with a spiritual symbol. A distinction without a difference. I don't think it's "intention to offend" would be any less if it were in missionary position either.
The intention is to offend.
Whether it succeeds in "offending" me or you, or if simply convincing me that he is a belligerent twit is of no consequence to this discussion.
First- why is it offensive to say that Obama is a socialist. Would it be offensive to write "capitalist." So on that level, you're attempt to equate the two fails. There is no comparison.
But even more important than that, if Shag is to post a provocative signature or avatar, he should be more than willing and able to discuss and defend it. He shouldn't take offense or act persecuted if someone makes note of it or challenges him on it.
Nothing more has taken place here.
The administrators are within their rights to remove or edit offensive content, but I don't think anyone has even considered requesting such a thing. Don't represent this a censorship issue or some kind of double standard. None exists.
We've addressed this.So, is indignation towards religion worse than disparaging other subjects? I just want to make sure I have this 'right'.
Try again, SPINstress.
ford nut
Local nut case
Things do seem to disappear around here lately.
No explanation why.
Police state not too far behind I fear.
First of all, that statement is completely untrue and if pressed for examples, you wouldn't be able to provide any.
Every "edit' anyone does leaves a signature, so you're completely talking rubbish.
And if you really think you're ability to express yourself and engage in conversation is being restricted, then feel free to provoke Fossten somewhere else.
ford nut
Local nut case
It would be hard to provide them, there gone.
I have seen this on posts if they are edited if the whole post is deleted there is no signature.
I call them as I see them Cal, always have, I'm not thrilled to have posts deleted but I think it should be communicated why.
You can decide what kind of Cal you are.
Calabrio of LVC Or
Calvin Louie of .org
Beyond the pale? Your pale is easily breached Shag… And I love the whole fish procreate argument – that is hilarious – can you come up with more along those lines? I actually think one might be a newt – it has legs… No, wait, it is obviously immoral – interspecies sex – aggggghhhhh… I am soooo offended.
(this way you get to call my argument even more specious and dishonest and that I have even less decency. Oh that's right - I can't have 'less decency' I already am completely lacking decency already. Oh Shag, this is classic!!!)I might be offended at the whore/beer reference – but I am sure there are a few women who would smile and fetch for you Shag – once again – offense is in the makeup of the beholder.
Nope, I don’t hold Obama in as high as regard as I do my religion, but, I find hrmwrm’s avatar on about the same level as yours as far as ‘intent to offend.’ Yours offends me slightly, so does his, however, both are intended to offend.
Placing an avatar of Rush Limbaugh in an SS uniform with swastikas behind him and the word Nazi underneath would offend me as well. However it is ‘only’ political. The offense level would be the same as the Obama/ socialist/ hammer and sickle avatar is to me, and the hrmwrm avatar. This addresses your point as well Cal. Is ‘socialist/hammer and sickle’ offensive? The stigmatization involved causes many to view the word socialist as well as the hammer and sickle as something to be despised, in the same vein as Nazi/swastika.
The question is - would that ‘Rush/Nazi’ avatar be more offensive to you than the Obama/socialist avatar?
There is your double standard shag – admit to wanting to offend some people with your avatar – I don’t care the reason. You want hrmwrm to admit his is offending some people – shouldn’t you also be subject to the same criteria?
People without faith don’t see a reason to hold faith in a high regard. They view the issue far differently then we do. They often view faith as a sign of weakness and compromise. Go to the Ayn Rand Institute site if you want to see how some rational people view faith.
I wouldn’t make dead baby jokes in general shag – that is beyond my level of offense. However if people want to post them, fine. They should be held to the same ‘standards’ that others are – admit they are offensive to some, but be willing to take the criticism. If someone here has lost a child to SIDs - they will be very offended - and not read them.
You seem to take the point that your avatar is above criticism, it isn’t. It is offensive to some people, and perhaps you should just admit that -
Cal, I love ‘spinstress’
Beyond the pale? Your pale is easily breached Shag… And I love the whole fish procreate argument – that is hilarious – can you come up with more along those lines? I actually think one might be a newt – it has legs… No, wait, it is obviously immoral – interspecies sex – aggggghhhhh… I am soooo offended.
I might be offended at the whore/beer reference – but I am sure there are a few women who would smile and fetch for you Shag – once again – offense is in the makeup of the beholder.
Shouldn't you be doing something with your hands? Like washing dishes or changing diapers? If you are too busy poppin out a baby, I understand.*
As I said, mine makes a legitimate point and is not crude. There is a huge difference.
There is a big difference. American conservatism (which Rush represents) is not at all ideologically akin to fascism (let alone Nazi-ism). However, modern liberalism (egalitarianism) is ideologically akin to socialism/fascism. I have spelled out how in a number of posts in this forum.
So your hypothetical example of Limbaugh in Nazi dress compared to my picture of Obama is a false analogy; apples and oranges. My picture of Obama is making a legitimate point while your hypothetical is mischaracterizing and distorting to set up a straw man and marginalize.
Nope. The question is; is there legitimacy in either case? In one case the answer is no and in the other the answer is yes.
And don't try and claim that legitimacy is somehow subjective or "in the eye of the beholder". It is not.
So, if they don't hold the same view, it is perfectly ok to be intolerant of that view and treat it with derision. Got it.
Now get back to those dishes! In fact, WTH are you doin out of the kitchen?*
So, as long as they admit that what they say is offensive it is ok? That is your standard?
The point is that there is a strong degree of truth in the point I am making, which is why I posted it. But the avatar hrmwrm posted is not making any point except to offend, and your Limbaugh example is simply distorting and smearing. I never said the avatar was above criticism. I posted it to make a legitimate point. I have backed up that point on more then one occasion on this forum. If you are offended by the truth, maybe the problem lies with you.
Now, I think the laundry needs to be done, run along. Though I must say I am impressed. Even with that tiny female brain, you were still able to figure out how to get onto the internet and type up a coherent post.*
*the author of this post realizes that all the comments denoted are generally considered "offensive"
Ford Nut, consistent with what you've been posting lately, I can only imagine how thoughtful they were and how much energy and concentration it took for you to compose the "missing" posts. That would be very frustrating to find that an articulate argument was removed in an effort by moderators to silence a view point or make you look bad.
But if you can think of what's missing, send me a PM and I'll find out why (or if) they disappeared. I know of one evening where I trimmed some ridiculous cross talk and bickering (in an entirely bipartisan way) and it was clearly stated at the time.
Now you have to decide- are you going to act like an adult and demonstrate your ability to construct and articulate complicated thoughts related to society and policy while contributing to the forum. Or if you're just going to be a jerk who simply posts stuff with the sole intention of aggravating people and elicitation a negative response. An older, and arguably even less entertaining, of PeteSweet, you might say.
If you're sole reason for participating in the forum is to post one or two sentence responses designed to troll, grief Fossten or just disrupt, go somewhere else. I, again, encourage you to honestly and actively participate and contribute to any discussion here. And I mean that even more if you disagree with me on issues and world events. That's what makes it interesting to participate.
But if you can think of what's missing, send me a PM and I'll find out why (or if) they disappeared. I know of one evening where I trimmed some ridiculous cross talk and bickering (in an entirely bipartisan way) and it was clearly stated at the time.
Thanks for the advice.
Now you have to decide- are you going to act like an adult and demonstrate your ability to construct and articulate complicated thoughts related to society and policy while contributing to the forum. Or if you're just going to be a jerk who simply posts stuff with the sole intention of aggravating people and elicitation a negative response. An older, and arguably even less entertaining, of PeteSweet, you might say.
If you're sole reason for participating in the forum is to post one or two sentence responses designed to troll, grief Fossten or just disrupt, go somewhere else. I, again, encourage you to honestly and actively participate and contribute to any discussion here. And I mean that even more if you disagree with me on issues and world events. That's what makes it interesting to participate.
ford nut
Local nut case
I didn't accuse you of muting a view point.
Only the facts here.
You deleted posts
No need to PM.
I see a double standard here.
Its ok for you to bicker with Fossten "man without a candidate".
But see fit to delete threads your not in the mood for.
Touche on PeteSweet shot Calvin.
If the double standards were droped and real discussion was encorarged here it might be fun.
Crude as applied to sexual innuendo in hrmwrm’s avatar? Sexual innuendo is often used to make a legitimate point.** Are you going to be the arbiter of taste – tawdry doesn’t lessen the ‘legitimate’ nature of the point Shag.
No Shag, placing into argument another example of similar content isn’t a false analogy here. Just because you ‘believe’ your avatar to be representational of ‘your’ truth, wouldn’t preclude someone from posting the Limbaugh/Nazi avatar as representational of ‘their’ truth. Go to Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis and you will find a compelling argument for that case. The author creates a compelling case, and creates a legitimate truth that would not be marginalizing the point made in the hypothetical Limbaugh avatar.
The hypothetical Rush Limbaugh avatar doesn’t smear or distort any more than yours does shag. You believe you have compelling argument to back it up. The author of the link above has compelling argument to back up the hypothetical Limbaugh logo. However, avatar’s are not about compelling argument, but of personal representation or persuasion. I believe hrmwrm’s is an example of personal representation, perhaps the same as your avatar, shag.
Oh, such high praise sir, I am certain I do not deserve such acknowledgment of my unworthy self. I know however I will be required to show my gratitude for that extreme honor, master. What would you like me to lick this time sir?**
**Note the use of sexual innuendo to make a legitimate point.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
No, this is a classic example of your deliberate obtuseness, being melodramatic in order to distort Shag's point and obfuscate the truth.Beyond the pale? Your pale is easily breached Shag… And I love the whole fish procreate argument – that is hilarious – can you come up with more along those lines? I actually think one might be a newt – it has legs… No, wait, it is obviously immoral – interspecies sex – aggggghhhhh… I am soooo offended.
There are no double standards. And despite all the encouragement, you still behave like a troll more interested in getting a response than contributing to the dialog.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
QFT.
Crudeness does hurt the conveying of a point. It engenders animosity from anyone who doesn't already agree with it the general sentiment (and many who do). If his goal was to convey a point, then the image he used was an extremely foolish choice. If, on the other hand, his goal was to insult, that image was a great choice. Given hrmwrm's history on this forum, it is rather clear what his goal was (though he will never admit it and try to claim otherwise).
Well, I know your little female brain may not be able to grasp this*, but the truth is not subjective.
The article you post is simply an attempt to rationalize a dishonest and inaccurate smear of Limbaugh. To perpetuate this smear, the author cherry picks facts, distorts and flat out lies. If your "truth" can only come about through dishonesty and deception, it is not in a truth.
But, being a woman, dishonesty and deception is your norm, so I wouldn't expect you to notice when it is used by someone else, let alone actually exhibit some form of honesty and admit you were wrong.*
So, your example is a false analogy because there is no legitimacy to the claim of Limbaugh being similar to Nazi/fascists, but there is legitimacy to the claim that Obama is a new age socialist.
And your claim that, "placing into argument another example of similar content isn’t a false analogy here" misses the whole argument that it was a false analogy. I guess I forgot about that lack of intellectual competence in the female brain*.
I will spell it out for your; The analogy is false because the Limbaugh example is not legitimate; it is a blatant distortion and smear attempt. The Obama example is legitimate because it is based in reality and not in distortion and lies.
I don't "believe" I have a compelling argument. I know I have a reasonable argument. The author in your article doesn't. You are trying to make this into a matter of perception when it is a matter of objective legitimacy. I know, as a woman, things like objectivity, legitimacy and reason are foreign concepts to you, so let me give a definition to help you out:
Legitimate:being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false
Again, if your "truth" depends on deception and dishonesty then there is no legitimacy there. It is not a matter of perception.Who ever said that avatar's are not about arguments? However, they can be about other things to. Personal representation is one of those things, but you are trying to dishonestly limit what they can and cannot be about. If hrmwrm's avatar is about personal representation, then the initial impression it creates is of someone who is intolerant and contemptuous of Christianity. It hurts his credibility in any argument he makes concerning religion in general and Christianity specifically. But, given his history on this forum, it is clear that he is not concerned with convincing anyone, only insulting others and frustrate debate here. That gives a strong indication as to what the purpose was behind the avatar.
It is rather telling that you keep talking about a "compelling" argument. A compelling argument is not a reasonable argument. In fact, the can be two very different things. All fallacious arguments are (or can be) compelling, but they are not reasonable or logical. If you are looking primarily for a compelling argument instead of a reasonable one, that would suggest that your thinking is based mostly in emotion. Too much estrogen mixed with that small female brain it seems*. Is it your time of the month?*
*the author of this post realizes that all the comments denoted are generally considered "offensive"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Actually, Shag, she may very well be past that point by now.
But, shag, it doesn’t hurt the fact the point is legitimate. The ‘crudeness’ has nothing to do with whether the point is viable or not. And if he wished to convey a point, and also create animosity- hrmwrm’s choice was brillant.
Really, Shag – let’s see what the socialists think of Obama… and then we can discuss how ‘legitimate’ your avatar is…
Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know.
By Billy Wharton editor of the Socialist magazine
The Washington Post, Sunday, March 15, 2009
Snip…
All this speculation over whether our current president is a socialist led me into the sea of business suits, BlackBerrys and self-promoters in the studio at Fox Business News. I quickly realized that the antagonistic anchor David Asman had little interest in exploring socialist ideas on bank nationalization. For Asman, nationalization was merely a code word for socialism. Using logic borrowed from the 1964 thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," he portrayed Obama as a secret socialist, so far undercover that not even he understood that his policies were de facto socialist. I was merely a cudgel to be wielded against the president -- a physical embodiment of guilt by association.
The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.
The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.
Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.
…snip
By Billy Wharton editor of the Socialist magazine
The Washington Post, Sunday, March 15, 2009
Snip…
All this speculation over whether our current president is a socialist led me into the sea of business suits, BlackBerrys and self-promoters in the studio at Fox Business News. I quickly realized that the antagonistic anchor David Asman had little interest in exploring socialist ideas on bank nationalization. For Asman, nationalization was merely a code word for socialism. Using logic borrowed from the 1964 thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," he portrayed Obama as a secret socialist, so far undercover that not even he understood that his policies were de facto socialist. I was merely a cudgel to be wielded against the president -- a physical embodiment of guilt by association.
The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.
The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.
Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.
…snip
And does your avatar hurt your credibility when you argue that Obama is a socialist (which according to many socialists he isn’t)? Obviously you are predisposed in that direction. Why should I argue anything different? Your viewpoint is well known, and obviously infallible according to you and your avatar. What is your purpose behind your avatar? Is it to continue the fallacy that Obama is a socialist?
You almost exclusively post Obama is a socialist because... type of threads – over and over and over again. This is very indicative of someone who needs constant reaffirmation that his viewpoint is correct. If I can find enough support material, I must be right, seems to be your mantra Shag.
And odd, that my little female brain has no trouble keeping up with that big, manly brain of yours, Shag. An almost magical brain, because at times, the male brain can compress itself and fit in the space of, oh something equal to the size of the head of a peni$** Imagine if I had two brain cells to rub together – the results would be overwhelming. However, it takes an incomprehensible amount of male brain power to even try to keep up with my poor little brain that is further crippled with the addition of estrogen, and perhaps hampered by 'my time of the month'. (Oh, trolling Foss - I know you are so concerned about this, but, I can still procreate like a rabbit on fertility drugs...
)I hate to tell you what testosterone does to normal brain cells shag….
A Yale School of Medicine study shows for the first time that a high level of testosterone… can lead to a catastrophic loss of brain cells.
Gosh, it is good you start out with so many.
**Note the use of sexual innuendo to make a legitimate point.
- Status