But did he explain for what cause, -t?
Not that I recall. If it happened at all.
Kaylee: Is that him? Mal: That's the buffet table. Kaylee: Well how can we be sure, unless we question it?
'Shindig'
What Happens in Natter 35 Stays in Natter 35
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
-t - May 17, 2005 9:50:26 am PDT #4903 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
shrift - May 17, 2005 9:52:32 am PDT #4904 of 10001
"You can't put a price on the joy of not giving a shit." -Zenkitty
I think I can, I think I can?
Oh dear god. This just merged with C'mon N' Ride It (The Train) for what I must say is a very disturbing porno smash-up track in my mind.
§ ita § - May 17, 2005 9:53:55 am PDT #4905 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Looks like Jack & Bobby isn't coming back, and Alias will be opposite Smallville.
DavidS - May 17, 2005 9:54:10 am PDT #4906 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Is this question making sense to anyone else?
It is to me. I always thought multiple orgasms meant one right after the other, without extra stimulation or whatnot in between each one.
That's what I associate with multiple orgasms, one peak after another in a chain. Not a matter of a short (or non-existant) refractory period.
Jessica - May 17, 2005 9:54:51 am PDT #4907 of 10001
And then Ortus came and said "It's Ortin' time" and they all Orted off into the sunset
But wasn't that in reaction to specific public outrage?
Yes, but if the public outrage was misdirected, why not say so? Why validate it with an apology?
-t - May 17, 2005 9:55:10 am PDT #4908 of 10001
I am a woman of various inclinations and only some of the time are they to burn everything down in frustration
Infinite Jest was teh first DFW I read. And I hated it. But I'm willing to give his non-fiction a try, since so many rave about what a genius he is. Come to think of it, I liked his writing just fine, it was the complete and utter non-resolution of the plot that made me mad. That shouldn't be a problem with infinity.
§ ita § - May 17, 2005 9:55:30 am PDT #4909 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
one peak after another in a chain. Not a matter of a short (or non-existant) refractory period
Does that differ from maintaining a heightened state of arousal and having sequential orgasms with no refractory period?
Which was, IIRC, the definitions presented.
§ ita § - May 17, 2005 10:00:15 am PDT #4910 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
but if the public outrage was misdirected, why not say so?
See upthread about caring less about what they mean, and more about what people read into no actual information.
Why validate it with an apology?
Because they can't afford not to. I didn't see the apology, so I can't comment on the semantics of the text. I'd love to read it, though.
DavidS - May 17, 2005 10:02:35 am PDT #4911 of 10001
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."
Does that differ from maintaining a heightened state of arousal and having sequential orgasms with no refractory period?
No, that's basically what I'm trying to describe. Though I prefer the successive peaks imagery to pop-pop-pop since each O can build off the one previous to it and be distinct.
Less: "Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh!"
More: "OH! Ooooh! OhOhOh! Ohhhhhhhhhh."
etcetera
tommyrot - May 17, 2005 10:04:19 am PDT #4912 of 10001
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I think we need an mp3 of Hec simulating multiple orgasms.