Comments on: Jerk-o-lanterns

By: comment

comment — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 03:29:26 +0000

The last one reminds me of one Easter where I was pissed at my husband for some unknown reason and I wrote “Fuck you” “Rot in Hell” and “Your mom is a bitch” on all the eggs with wax and colored them. By the time he came home I had cooled off and we had a laugh. I woke up the next morning to scrambled eggs with “You’re a bitch” written in ketchup.

By: mallory

mallory — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:59:59 +0000

OMG I LIVE AN HOUR FROM VALDOSTA, GA

By: infant tyrone

infant tyrone — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 00:17:31 +0000

You’re not looking for the Statue of Liberty at all!…Why, you ought to be ashamed of yourself!”

No, Ma’am…I mean, Yes, Ma’am!

By: Maas

Maas — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:40:37 +0000

To your first question, I would be more so were it to have a greater element of recursion. To the second, yes. To the third, yes. To the fourth, I have never given any indication otherwise. To the fifth, no (should that be “yes”? I supposes that’s the trouble with that semantic structure, eh?).

By: Critical Grass

Critical Grass — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:18:29 +0000

Oh my God. You’re really into this, aren’t you? Ok, here we go…
Was it your “lack of severe paranoia” thar made click “add to this thread”?
A high level discourse is the goal when it’s aproppriate. Not the case here…
Oh, and when you say that this note isn’t passive-aggressive you’re expressing your opinion, right? So, according to your previous comment, we all can disaggree, right? Otherwise you’d just be bashing PAN’s commenters self expression. And you wouldn’t want to do that, now would you?
Oh… Ok, then.

As you were.

By: Maas

Maas — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:58:14 +0000

Do you mean you don’t agree with the literal content, or do you disagree with something you happened to infer from what I wrote? If it’s the latter, then aren’t you really disagreeing with yourself (as the originator of the meaning being disagreed with)? Either way, keep up the good work.

My lack of severe paranoia seems to be preventing me from seeing the “outrageous and offensive” character of the first note that was apparent enough to some to justify threats of violence (fictitious as they were).

I understand that a high level of discourse was never the goal of this website, but it certainly seems more fun to make fun of the people who wrote passive aggressive notes, then to be passive aggressive about notes which are not.

By: Critical Grass

Critical Grass — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:22:31 +0000

Hey, Maas. I don’t agree with you.
And I’m NOT SORRY!

By: Wade

Wade — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:16:14 +0000

Ah. I see. So free speech means that someone can make any statement, no matter how outrageous and offensive, without any fear of challenge.

And I always thought that my right to oppose to the idea expressed by another, rather than their right to express it, was the essence of free speech.

My bad.

By: Maas

Maas — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:55:07 +0000

As popular as the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy is in the military, many posters here seem to want to adopt it for other areas. Introducing “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” for ideological positions. You’re welcome to subscribe to a religion, provided you aren’t “openly” religious. Sure, the first amendment lets you practice religion, but apparently that doesn’t included the proselytizing mandated by some religions, after all, if you say, “Hey check out this religion” to someone, they may be compelled against their wishes to irreversible convert!

It’s great that we can all join in bashing the pastor’s self expression, so I hope you’ll join me in my anti-picketing picketing.

By: Critical Grass

Critical Grass — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:16:26 +0000

Thwow him to the floor! Stwike him, centuwion, vewwy woughly!

By: MAMARILLA2

MAMARILLA2 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:55:56 +0000

Let me come with you, Pontiuth. I may be of thome athithtanthe if there ith a thudden crithith!

By: Hall Monitor

Hall Monitor — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:53:16 +0000

It’s never too early to get into a little Holiday spirit.

By: Oh Really

Oh Really — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:01:21 +0000

I assumed “Rott” was a Ratt cover band…in hell.

By: oi

oi — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 18:48:00 +0000

New note please.