Rules? Rules, you ask? I'll give you the rules!

[Basil Chupin]

On 24/08/2010 23:10, Billie Walsh wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 01:06 AM, Basil Chupin wrote:
>    
>> On 24/08/2010 05:36, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>
>>      
>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:16:23 -0700
>>> Johnneylee Rollins<johnneylee.rollins at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> No thanks. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Once again I figured as much.
>>>
>>> Cybe R. Wizard
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> You know, even though I read this thread some hours ago I still sit here
>> flabbergasted, and have to keep looking out the window and shaking my
>> head in disbelief.
>>
>> I wonder what would have been the result if I had mentioned either one
>> of the other posts my wife had rejected as an example? In one she used
>> "chock-full of goodness" and in another she stated that she uses
>> "Shitake Mushrooms".....
>>
>> All truly mind boggling.....
>>
>> BC
>>
>>
>>      
> All I can say is that some people give to much power to words. Words in
> and of themselves can do no harm. They can only do harm if you give them
> the power to do so.
>    

No Billie, it goes deeper and further than that.

It's best explained by the anecdote about a psychologist who is asked to 
assess the mental state of a man accused of being a sex (I should not 
have said this...I *should not* have said this!) offender.

The psychologist conducts his first test by showing a series of inkblot 
pictures to the man and asks the man to tell him what the man sees. When 
shown each inkblot the man replies, "The man is [making love] [doing 
naughty things] to his wife." At the end the psychiatrist says to the 
man, "You definitely have a psychotic disorder concerning sex!" to which 
the man replied, "Looks whose talking! You're the one whose been showing 
me all these pornographic pictures!"

'Nuff said.....

BC

-- 
Gumperson's Law: The probability of anything happening is in
inverse proportion to its desirability.