Sunday, December 28, 2003
Saturday, December 27, 2003
Thursday, December 25, 2003
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Friday, December 19, 2003
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Hello,
This was forwarded to me today by my good friend Rayne. I know it is well-intentioned on her part, but I'm not sure if it has its base in some type of urban myth or not. Here it is:
PLEASE READ...Warning to all women
Â
Hi all-thought this was worthy of passing along. This was sent to my wife, by a close friend. The last comments are from her.
This is something that happened to Ryan and me on the way back from Texas last spring. I didn't think much of it until now. The reason we were a little suspicious is we had been riding in a jeep all day with 100 degrees temps and we stopped at a truck stop for something to drink. When I was leaving a young girl followed me out and asked what kind of cologne I was wearing, and if I wished to sample some low-priced colognes that she was selling. Well, after 7 hours in the car sweating. I don't think you could tell I was or was not wearing any cologne. We just got in the jeep and said no thanks. So this does happen.
To all my female friends-
It was about 3 weeks ago, I was at the shell station in Auburn getting gas. I was about 11:30pm. I was approached by 2 men and 2 women in a car. The man that was driving asked me 'What kind of perfume do you wear?' I was a bit confused and I asked him 'Why?' He said 'We are selling some name brand perfumes, at cheap prices.' I said I had no money. He then reached out of the car and handed me paper that was laminated; it had many perfumes on it. I looked quickly at it and gave it back. I said, I have no money. He said it is OK, we take check, cash, or credit cards. Then the people in the car began to laugh. I just got in my car and said no thanks. Then I received this e-mail yesterday, and it sent chills up my spine.
Please read this It is not joke.
Here is the e-mail I was sent-
Dear Friends,
I know not all of you are women that I am sending this to, but am hoping you will share this with your wives, daughters, mother, sisters, etc.
Our world seems to be getting crazier by the day. Pipes bombs in mailboxes and sickos in parking lots with perfume. Be careful. I was approached yesterday afternoon around 3:30 pm in the Wal-Mart parking lot at University Drive in Des Moines, by two males asking what kind of perfume I was warning. Then they asked if I'd like to sample some fabulous scent they were willing to sell me at a very reasonable rate. I probably would have agreed had I not received an email some weeks ago warning of a 'Wanna smell this neat perfume?' scam. The men continued to stand between parked cars, I guess to wait for someone else to hit on. I stopped a lady going towards them, pointing at them, and told her about how I was sent a e-mail at work, about someone walking up to you at the malls or in parking lots, and asking you to SNIFF PERFUME that they are selling at a cheap price.
THIS IS NOT PERFUME...IT IS ETHER! When you sniff it, you'll pass out. And they'll take your wallet, your valuables, and heaven knows what else. If it were not for this e-mail, I probably would have sniffed the 'perfume.' But thanks to the generosity of an emailing friend, I was spared whatever might have happened to me.
I wanted to do the same for you. PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO ALL YOUR WOMEN FRIENDS, AND PLEASE BE ALERT, AND BE AWARE. IF YOU ARE A MAN AND RECEIVE THIS, PASS IT ON TO YOUR WOMEN FRIENDS.
Ladies this happened to me yesterday and I didn't smell the perfume either, thanks to this email. This is true. Believe me, I know. I was over by Big Lots in the parking lot at lunch time when I was approached. So either day or night, it does not matter. There were 3 guys together when I was approached. I called the police when I got back to my desk. Like the email says above, LET EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT THIS. YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, COWORKERS, who ever. It helped me. The first things that popped in my head was this e-mail warning.
--XXOO Tanya
This was forwarded to me today by my good friend Rayne. I know it is well-intentioned on her part, but I'm not sure if it has its base in some type of urban myth or not. Here it is:
PLEASE READ...Warning to all women
Â
Hi all-thought this was worthy of passing along. This was sent to my wife, by a close friend. The last comments are from her.
This is something that happened to Ryan and me on the way back from Texas last spring. I didn't think much of it until now. The reason we were a little suspicious is we had been riding in a jeep all day with 100 degrees temps and we stopped at a truck stop for something to drink. When I was leaving a young girl followed me out and asked what kind of cologne I was wearing, and if I wished to sample some low-priced colognes that she was selling. Well, after 7 hours in the car sweating. I don't think you could tell I was or was not wearing any cologne. We just got in the jeep and said no thanks. So this does happen.
To all my female friends-
It was about 3 weeks ago, I was at the shell station in Auburn getting gas. I was about 11:30pm. I was approached by 2 men and 2 women in a car. The man that was driving asked me 'What kind of perfume do you wear?' I was a bit confused and I asked him 'Why?' He said 'We are selling some name brand perfumes, at cheap prices.' I said I had no money. He then reached out of the car and handed me paper that was laminated; it had many perfumes on it. I looked quickly at it and gave it back. I said, I have no money. He said it is OK, we take check, cash, or credit cards. Then the people in the car began to laugh. I just got in my car and said no thanks. Then I received this e-mail yesterday, and it sent chills up my spine.
Please read this It is not joke.
Here is the e-mail I was sent-
Dear Friends,
I know not all of you are women that I am sending this to, but am hoping you will share this with your wives, daughters, mother, sisters, etc.
Our world seems to be getting crazier by the day. Pipes bombs in mailboxes and sickos in parking lots with perfume. Be careful. I was approached yesterday afternoon around 3:30 pm in the Wal-Mart parking lot at University Drive in Des Moines, by two males asking what kind of perfume I was warning. Then they asked if I'd like to sample some fabulous scent they were willing to sell me at a very reasonable rate. I probably would have agreed had I not received an email some weeks ago warning of a 'Wanna smell this neat perfume?' scam. The men continued to stand between parked cars, I guess to wait for someone else to hit on. I stopped a lady going towards them, pointing at them, and told her about how I was sent a e-mail at work, about someone walking up to you at the malls or in parking lots, and asking you to SNIFF PERFUME that they are selling at a cheap price.
THIS IS NOT PERFUME...IT IS ETHER! When you sniff it, you'll pass out. And they'll take your wallet, your valuables, and heaven knows what else. If it were not for this e-mail, I probably would have sniffed the 'perfume.' But thanks to the generosity of an emailing friend, I was spared whatever might have happened to me.
I wanted to do the same for you. PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO ALL YOUR WOMEN FRIENDS, AND PLEASE BE ALERT, AND BE AWARE. IF YOU ARE A MAN AND RECEIVE THIS, PASS IT ON TO YOUR WOMEN FRIENDS.
Ladies this happened to me yesterday and I didn't smell the perfume either, thanks to this email. This is true. Believe me, I know. I was over by Big Lots in the parking lot at lunch time when I was approached. So either day or night, it does not matter. There were 3 guys together when I was approached. I called the police when I got back to my desk. Like the email says above, LET EVERYONE KNOW ABOUT THIS. YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, COWORKERS, who ever. It helped me. The first things that popped in my head was this e-mail warning.
--XXOO Tanya
Tuesday, December 16, 2003
INcredible...................................
Tue Dec 16,11:44 AM ET
By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer
CLEBURNE, Texas - Joanne Webb intended to spice up marriages and earn extra cash by selling erotic toys.
Instead, the former fifth-grade teacher and executive board member of the Burleson Chamber of Commerce faces criminal charges and embarrassment after a police sting.
"It's ludicrous to think that the government can step into our bedrooms," said Webb, who has been married 20 years and has three children.
Webb was one of 3,000 consultants for Passion Parties, a San Francisco-based company whose representatives set up Tupperware-type parties for women who feel more comfortable buying marital aids in a private home than at an adult bookstore or on the Internet.
"We're doing a wonderful service, and we're not doing anything wrong," company President Pat Davis said.
A consultant since June and the first Passion Parties' consultant charged with obscenity in the company's 10-year history, Webb was charged with a misdemeanor under the state's obscenity law.
Adult stores sell sex toys around the law by posting signs that say "sold only as novelties." Webb didn't do that and faces up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted.
Her attorney, BeAnn Sisemore, planned to file a motion Tuesday to dismiss the case on grounds the law violates someone's right to own a sexual device, which is not illegal.
Webb has taken a leave of absence from the chamber of commerce until the case is settled. She declined to say Monday if she plans to keep hosting parties.
"These devices that I sell are marital aids, and I want to help couples stay together," Webb said.
Tue Dec 16,11:44 AM ET
By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer
CLEBURNE, Texas - Joanne Webb intended to spice up marriages and earn extra cash by selling erotic toys.
Instead, the former fifth-grade teacher and executive board member of the Burleson Chamber of Commerce faces criminal charges and embarrassment after a police sting.
"It's ludicrous to think that the government can step into our bedrooms," said Webb, who has been married 20 years and has three children.
Webb was one of 3,000 consultants for Passion Parties, a San Francisco-based company whose representatives set up Tupperware-type parties for women who feel more comfortable buying marital aids in a private home than at an adult bookstore or on the Internet.
"We're doing a wonderful service, and we're not doing anything wrong," company President Pat Davis said.
A consultant since June and the first Passion Parties' consultant charged with obscenity in the company's 10-year history, Webb was charged with a misdemeanor under the state's obscenity law.
Adult stores sell sex toys around the law by posting signs that say "sold only as novelties." Webb didn't do that and faces up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted.
Her attorney, BeAnn Sisemore, planned to file a motion Tuesday to dismiss the case on grounds the law violates someone's right to own a sexual device, which is not illegal.
Webb has taken a leave of absence from the chamber of commerce until the case is settled. She declined to say Monday if she plans to keep hosting parties.
"These devices that I sell are marital aids, and I want to help couples stay together," Webb said.
Monday, December 15, 2003
Sunday, December 07, 2003
My entry on the Playhouse bulletin board from 12/5/03 at 12:40 AM (EST) was not written at home on my computer. Rather, I was waiting for a friend to finish some work at an office in West Hollywood. The owner of the company graciously allowed me to use a computer there. Evidently another employee must have looked over my shoulder and seen that I was on my site. He was taken aback and went to go rat me out to his boss, the same man who had let me use the computer. The boss did not care at all, but the story made its way back to me.
I kept pestering my friend to tell me why the other employee had been so alarmed. Was he worried that I was doing work on the computer that could be traced back to their office? Did he think that women in the office would be offended? Did he actually think I was doing something illegal? By the way, this guy must have an awfully sharp eagle-eye to have even noticed me on the site at all, particularly since I confined myself to a bulletin board entry that was a mere few sentences. My friend was laughing too hard to give me a straight answer, and just said: "Some people are just offended by porno."
Now I could see the guy being offended if I had been sitting there perusing naked photos and masturbating, or even just sitting there perusing naked pictures, but I wasn't. There wasn't a single one on any of the pages I had visited. Was he just alarmed because I had visited an adult site inside their building? Doesn't he know that just about every guy who has a private office with a door on it jacks off to the Internet during his lunch hour?
I've been sitting here for the past two minutes looking at that last sentence to see if I want to modify it at all, but I don't. The "just about every guy who has a private office" part seems accurate to me, but perhaps the lunch hour reference doesn't take into account the varying habits of different men. If I was better on the computer though, I would post a copy of the graph that shows the hours of heaviest traffic on the site here. Most visitors who come here (pun intended) are from the US, and the hours of peak activity (pun intended) are what roughly correspond to the typical lunchtimes for most office workers. It's not just a small spike in the graph during the midday hours either, it is a large one that is consistent month after month.
Thinking about the whole subject this afternoon made me reflect on how so many people still consider porno to be "taboo." They do, but they don't. I think many of them pretend that they do, but they actually view adult material themselves. Not just by accident either. I can't count how many people have told me that they were just flipping through channels and happened to see me in a porno, or came across my site accidentally, or saw one of their friend's magazines in which I had a layout. It's particularly amusing because there is such a H-U-G-E volume of porno out there and I am in so little of it. I'm thinking that they must have been looking at a whole lot of porno before they ever saw me in anything. How else could these folks just inadvertantly stumble across something I was in? Why do they pretend otherwise? It's not as if I would think they were weird because they were masturbating. I'd think they were weird if they never did.
I don't actually believe that all or most people need porno to get themselves off, but I would certainly think that everyone with a normal sex drive masturbates at least on occasion. So when people deny looking at porno are they just embarrassed because they were looking at the material for purposes of sexual gratification? Do most of them find masturbation to be shameful?
I'm not sure of the answer to those questions, but it was not too long ago that Joycelyn Elders was fired from her position as Surgeon General for advocating masturbation. That was a very, very sad event, and I am not at all kidding. What a pathetic commentary on the charades and pretenses of our society.
Porno certainly does lead to a lot of jacking off, which I find healthy. Other people condemn it for that same reason. I remember watching a Montell Williams show a number of years ago where models were defending their decisions to pose nude. One of the other guests on the show was part of some anti-pornography crusade. Now, here was a guy who really needed to get a life. At some point he addressed one of the models in a very loud, accusatory tone saying:
"Do you KNOW what men do when they read these magazines?" -(dramatic pause)- "They M-A-S-T-U-R-B-A-T-E!!!"
I smile at the memory, but at the same time I see how unhealthy his mentality was. Of this one fact I am utterly convinced: the men who denounce pornography the loudest always, without exception, beat off to it. They would not have that compelling need to decry it otherwise. They are endlessly fascinated by women who are comfortable with their sexuality and confident about their bodies. Unfortunately they are scared to death of these women and seek to scorn or vilify them. I'm referring mostly to the behavior of men here because men by far look at more adult material than women. I think what you always hear about men being more aroused by visual stimuli is very true indeed. For instance, I REALLY like fantasizing about different cocks, but I don't buy magazines or join websites to look at them. It's not that I'd be embarrassed, it's just that I don't really desire to have those visual images literally in front of me when I want to make myself cum.
This has been kind of a meandering blog. I'm not saying that the office guy who saw me typing on my site is a prudish hypocrite, sexually repressed, nor am I making any judgements about him. I just mentioned him here because that office incident led me to contemplating yet again why people act so offended by the mere mention or existence of porno. I'll reiterate too that I wasn't looking at any naked photos or lingering on my site in those moments so it was very surprising that he even noticed that something was awry in his environment there. Also, it was late at night after normal business hours, and I was sitting alone in a hallway that had virtually no foot traffic. Much as I espouse the merits of porno, I never would inflict it on some one who doesn't want to see it.
In a perfect world those people who wanted to indulge themselves in masturbation material would do so, and those who didn't want to see it would just not look at it. It should be just that simple. No one will force you to watch an adult video or make you buy a subscription to a nudie magazine, and sexually explicit products are usually very clearly labelled. If you don't want to look at porno, then don't look at it. Just don't tell me not to.
-- XXOO Tanya
I kept pestering my friend to tell me why the other employee had been so alarmed. Was he worried that I was doing work on the computer that could be traced back to their office? Did he think that women in the office would be offended? Did he actually think I was doing something illegal? By the way, this guy must have an awfully sharp eagle-eye to have even noticed me on the site at all, particularly since I confined myself to a bulletin board entry that was a mere few sentences. My friend was laughing too hard to give me a straight answer, and just said: "Some people are just offended by porno."
Now I could see the guy being offended if I had been sitting there perusing naked photos and masturbating, or even just sitting there perusing naked pictures, but I wasn't. There wasn't a single one on any of the pages I had visited. Was he just alarmed because I had visited an adult site inside their building? Doesn't he know that just about every guy who has a private office with a door on it jacks off to the Internet during his lunch hour?
I've been sitting here for the past two minutes looking at that last sentence to see if I want to modify it at all, but I don't. The "just about every guy who has a private office" part seems accurate to me, but perhaps the lunch hour reference doesn't take into account the varying habits of different men. If I was better on the computer though, I would post a copy of the graph that shows the hours of heaviest traffic on the site here. Most visitors who come here (pun intended) are from the US, and the hours of peak activity (pun intended) are what roughly correspond to the typical lunchtimes for most office workers. It's not just a small spike in the graph during the midday hours either, it is a large one that is consistent month after month.
Thinking about the whole subject this afternoon made me reflect on how so many people still consider porno to be "taboo." They do, but they don't. I think many of them pretend that they do, but they actually view adult material themselves. Not just by accident either. I can't count how many people have told me that they were just flipping through channels and happened to see me in a porno, or came across my site accidentally, or saw one of their friend's magazines in which I had a layout. It's particularly amusing because there is such a H-U-G-E volume of porno out there and I am in so little of it. I'm thinking that they must have been looking at a whole lot of porno before they ever saw me in anything. How else could these folks just inadvertantly stumble across something I was in? Why do they pretend otherwise? It's not as if I would think they were weird because they were masturbating. I'd think they were weird if they never did.
I don't actually believe that all or most people need porno to get themselves off, but I would certainly think that everyone with a normal sex drive masturbates at least on occasion. So when people deny looking at porno are they just embarrassed because they were looking at the material for purposes of sexual gratification? Do most of them find masturbation to be shameful?
I'm not sure of the answer to those questions, but it was not too long ago that Joycelyn Elders was fired from her position as Surgeon General for advocating masturbation. That was a very, very sad event, and I am not at all kidding. What a pathetic commentary on the charades and pretenses of our society.
Porno certainly does lead to a lot of jacking off, which I find healthy. Other people condemn it for that same reason. I remember watching a Montell Williams show a number of years ago where models were defending their decisions to pose nude. One of the other guests on the show was part of some anti-pornography crusade. Now, here was a guy who really needed to get a life. At some point he addressed one of the models in a very loud, accusatory tone saying:
"Do you KNOW what men do when they read these magazines?" -(dramatic pause)- "They M-A-S-T-U-R-B-A-T-E!!!"
I smile at the memory, but at the same time I see how unhealthy his mentality was. Of this one fact I am utterly convinced: the men who denounce pornography the loudest always, without exception, beat off to it. They would not have that compelling need to decry it otherwise. They are endlessly fascinated by women who are comfortable with their sexuality and confident about their bodies. Unfortunately they are scared to death of these women and seek to scorn or vilify them. I'm referring mostly to the behavior of men here because men by far look at more adult material than women. I think what you always hear about men being more aroused by visual stimuli is very true indeed. For instance, I REALLY like fantasizing about different cocks, but I don't buy magazines or join websites to look at them. It's not that I'd be embarrassed, it's just that I don't really desire to have those visual images literally in front of me when I want to make myself cum.
This has been kind of a meandering blog. I'm not saying that the office guy who saw me typing on my site is a prudish hypocrite, sexually repressed, nor am I making any judgements about him. I just mentioned him here because that office incident led me to contemplating yet again why people act so offended by the mere mention or existence of porno. I'll reiterate too that I wasn't looking at any naked photos or lingering on my site in those moments so it was very surprising that he even noticed that something was awry in his environment there. Also, it was late at night after normal business hours, and I was sitting alone in a hallway that had virtually no foot traffic. Much as I espouse the merits of porno, I never would inflict it on some one who doesn't want to see it.
In a perfect world those people who wanted to indulge themselves in masturbation material would do so, and those who didn't want to see it would just not look at it. It should be just that simple. No one will force you to watch an adult video or make you buy a subscription to a nudie magazine, and sexually explicit products are usually very clearly labelled. If you don't want to look at porno, then don't look at it. Just don't tell me not to.
-- XXOO Tanya
Friday, December 05, 2003
No Doubt, This Is a Male
2 hours, 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fossil crustacean whose scientific name is "swimmer with a large penis" is the earliest clear example of a male animal, British researchers reported.
The 425 million-year-old ancestor of modern water fleas, found in rocks in Britain, is unusually well-preserved, allowing scientists to see it had gills and an advanced circulatory system.
It shows that ostracodes -- extremely common water-dwelling creatures -- have evolved little in hundreds of millions of years, said David Siveter of the University of Leicester.
He and colleagues named it Colymbosathon ecplecticos, which means "swimmer with a large penis."
Siveter, in a telephone interview, said the 0.2-inch creature probably lived on marine shelves, about 500 to 650 feet deep.
"This crustacean clearly could swim," said Siveter.
And there was another striking feature, he added.
"It is certainly the oldest penis in the world, that's for certain."
He said fossils as old as 520 million years show dimorphism -- differences in anatomy seen between males and females. But there has been contention over which examples may be female and which male.
"In this case we clearly have a male," he said.
The fossil, preserved in volcanic ash, is so intact that the gut and even the anus can be clearly seen.
2 hours, 49 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A fossil crustacean whose scientific name is "swimmer with a large penis" is the earliest clear example of a male animal, British researchers reported.
The 425 million-year-old ancestor of modern water fleas, found in rocks in Britain, is unusually well-preserved, allowing scientists to see it had gills and an advanced circulatory system.
It shows that ostracodes -- extremely common water-dwelling creatures -- have evolved little in hundreds of millions of years, said David Siveter of the University of Leicester.
He and colleagues named it Colymbosathon ecplecticos, which means "swimmer with a large penis."
Siveter, in a telephone interview, said the 0.2-inch creature probably lived on marine shelves, about 500 to 650 feet deep.
"This crustacean clearly could swim," said Siveter.
And there was another striking feature, he added.
"It is certainly the oldest penis in the world, that's for certain."
He said fossils as old as 520 million years show dimorphism -- differences in anatomy seen between males and females. But there has been contention over which examples may be female and which male.
"In this case we clearly have a male," he said.
The fossil, preserved in volcanic ash, is so intact that the gut and even the anus can be clearly seen.
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Wednesday, December 03, 2003
Tuesday, December 02, 2003
Monday, December 01, 2003
Jailed for Office Gunplay, Man Wants Job Back
Mon Dec 1, 9:15 AM ET
TORONTO (Reuters) - Fired for walking into his office drunk, toting a loaded, sawed-off shotgun and saying he was looking for his bosses, a Canadian man wants his union to help him get his job back.
The incident last April stunned the man's co-workers at the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, where he had worked for 18 years as a tree pruner.
In court last week, George Pavlovsky, 44, was convicted of weapons-related offenses, but was acquitted of attempted murder. He is serving a two-year prison sentence.
Pavlovsky was reported to have been angry about being passed over for a promotion. He was arrested about 15 minutes after the incident began. His bosses away at the time and no one was injured.
The city of Moncton dismissed him, but a week later Pavlovsky went to his union to protest the firing and members agreed the union should help him try to get his job back once he finishes his prison term.
Steven MacKinnon, spokesman for the city of Moncton, said he was stunned that Pavlovsky would challenge his firing and said many of his co-workers are shaken by the thought of Pavlovsky returning to work.
"We're going to contest this vigorously," he said.
Mon Dec 1, 9:15 AM ET
TORONTO (Reuters) - Fired for walking into his office drunk, toting a loaded, sawed-off shotgun and saying he was looking for his bosses, a Canadian man wants his union to help him get his job back.
The incident last April stunned the man's co-workers at the city of Moncton, New Brunswick, where he had worked for 18 years as a tree pruner.
In court last week, George Pavlovsky, 44, was convicted of weapons-related offenses, but was acquitted of attempted murder. He is serving a two-year prison sentence.
Pavlovsky was reported to have been angry about being passed over for a promotion. He was arrested about 15 minutes after the incident began. His bosses away at the time and no one was injured.
The city of Moncton dismissed him, but a week later Pavlovsky went to his union to protest the firing and members agreed the union should help him try to get his job back once he finishes his prison term.
Steven MacKinnon, spokesman for the city of Moncton, said he was stunned that Pavlovsky would challenge his firing and said many of his co-workers are shaken by the thought of Pavlovsky returning to work.
"We're going to contest this vigorously," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
