BS Thread

[MHSL82]

You asked me everything except for if I tried extracting liquid from this person's mom's mammary glands, and this person's mom wasn't even there.

Did you? I mean, I know the answer, but you seem to want me to ask that question... so I must oblige... but only because I want to... I will not oblige to what I do not want to oblige even if I must... unless I want to oblige to something I don't want to oblige to.

 

[MHSL82]

She asked me about my family and if I had any siblings. She then told me about how her mom, and how many siblings she had, and how they were all conceived within 5 years, and her explanation of how each one was conceived so soon after the birth of the previous child.

I really did not expect this conversation to end up getting to this detail... and yes, even as a lawyer, I did not anticipate this, though I would have warned you of it anyway as a due diligence disclaimer of liability - you know, assumption of risk.

 

[MHSL82]

And how can it happen often? Is that four times? Once, few, several, often. That would mean 5 kids (cause I can't imagine anyone breastfeeding before having their first kid... and except for Angelina Jolie, I can't see anyone nursing someone else's kid).

How can a lawyer not see an outcome occurring? As a lawyer, you know the various actions that people are capable of, because you had to study the consequences of them. For example, you showed examples in the discussion of assault vs. battery.

So therefore, a lawyer shouldn't be surprised at any action, because he had to study the consequences of it during law school. He had to know how to apply the law to it.

Since I know that you're a great lawyer, your lawyer persona couldn't have been the one that typed that. It must have been your robot persona. Therefore, it looks like you need to update your outcome computation algorithm, so that it can compute more outcomes, and consider the consequences of them. I'll send you a flash drive that you can stick into your USB drive socket, so you can have the patched algorithm.

You're not reading what I said as a lawyer would, that's your problem. I said I couldn't imagine or see a woman breastfeed a baby who is not theirs. If I tried to see it, they'd get a restraining order. I could do it, but as I presently typed, I could not see any woman do so - partly because I was in a room with no women or babies at the time. As to not being able to imagine a person breastfeeding before having their first baby (read: getting pregnant), I just can't, even as a lawyer. I have heard of claims of having a baby without sex (see: Jesus, Dionysus, et al). But breastfeeding before birth? Naaaah.

Oh, I'm not a robot. Would a robot say he wasn't a robot? I don't think so. Robots cannot lie, they can only compute. But as a human, I can lie... so am I a robot or not? No, I'm not. I just explained that. It would be incapable of doing so... even if it convinced itself that it was something other than a robot, a truth would be clear in its subconscious.

And I only have one side of me. I'm 2D.

 

[nuraman00]

Did you? I mean, I know the answer, but you seem to want me to ask that question... so I must oblige... but only because I want to... I will not oblige to what I do not want to oblige even if I must... unless I want to oblige to something I don't want to oblige to.

I don't know what you just said, but I don't think you want to know the answer, so I won't answer it.

 

[nuraman00]

You're not reading what I said as a lawyer would, that's your problem. I said I couldn't imagine or see a woman breastfeed a baby who is not theirs. If I tried to see it, they'd get a restraining order. I could do it, but as I presently typed, I could not see any woman do so - partly because I was in a room with no women or babies at the time. As to not being able to imagine a person breastfeeding before having their first baby (read: getting pregnant), I just can't, even as a lawyer. I have heard of claims of having a baby without sex (see: Jesus, Dionysus, et al). But breastfeeding before birth? Naaaah.

Oh, I'm not a robot. Would a robot say he wasn't a robot? I don't think so. Robots cannot lie, they can only compute. But as a human, I can lie... so am I a robot or not? No, I'm not. I just explained that. It would be incapable of doing so... even if it convinced itself that it was something other than a robot, a truth would be clear in its subconscious.

And I only have one side of me. I'm 2D.

The more you deny it, or the harder you deny it, the more true it is.

Also, if you deny it less, then it means it's because it's true.

 

[nuraman00]

You're not reading what I said as a lawyer would, that's your problem. I said I couldn't imagine or see a woman breastfeed a baby who is not theirs. If I tried to see it, they'd get a restraining order. I could do it, but as I presently typed, I could not see any woman do so - partly because I was in a room with no women or babies at the time. As to not being able to imagine a person breastfeeding before having their first baby (read: getting pregnant), I just can't, even as a lawyer. I have heard of claims of having a baby without sex (see: Jesus, Dionysus, et al). But breastfeeding before birth? Naaaah.

Oh, I'm not a robot. Would a robot say he wasn't a robot? I don't think so. Robots cannot lie, they can only compute. But as a human, I can lie... so am I a robot or not? No, I'm not. I just explained that. It would be incapable of doing so... even if it convinced itself that it was something other than a robot, a truth would be clear in its subconscious.

And I only have one side of me. I'm 2D.

So we're both equal, as usual. I didn't see a woman breastfeed a baby that wasn't hers either, that day.

 

[nuraman00]

Do you have anything fun planned for the family outdoors, one of these upcoming weekends? Do you think the weather is getting nice enough to do something outdoors? Would you like doing something like that?

What about grilling or BBQs? I guess that's doing something outdoors, without leaving home. Do you like grilling and/or BBQing?

Or I guess I mean to ask if you have anything fun planned soon.

 

[nuraman00]

We're both robots because good things come in pairs, like John Stockton and Diet Pepsi; or Karl Malone, and Hardees fried chicken; or Jerry Sloan, and getting seven game suspensions for pushing Courtney Kirkland in the chest; or your kids and the secret nicknames you have for your kids (Skittles and M&M's; or Skittles and Reeses Pieces; or Skittles and Butterfinger BBs'; or Skittles and Cadbury Gems; or whatever secret nickname you gave your second embryo, can you share what it was? ).


We're both robots because good things come in pairs, and since you're a robot, you need a robot friend, so I'm your robot friend.

 

[nuraman00]

You're not reading what I said as a lawyer would, that's your problem. I said I couldn't imagine or see a woman breastfeed a baby who is not theirs. If I tried to see it, they'd get a restraining order.

Ridiculous post alert:

Or, maybe the woman wants you to see her breastfeed her baby. Maybe she hired you to consult on her technique (which is being videotaped). She wouldn't want her baby (or strangers or her husband) to sue her for improper technique, or malnourishment, or child endangerment.

So, she wants you to verify that she's doing a sufficient job, and providing a minimum amount of nourishment.

 

[nuraman00]

You're not reading what I said as a lawyer would, that's your problem. I said I couldn't imagine or see a woman breastfeed a baby who is not theirs. If I tried to see it, they'd get a restraining order.

Wait, what?

The woman is breastfeeding a baby that isn't hers (maybe because she kidnapped it), and SHE'S getting a restraining order on YOU?

YOU should be the one getting a restraining order on HER! Hey female, step away from that baby! (Unless the baby's mother (let's call the mother A) gave that other female (let's call the female W) permission to breastfeed A's baby.

Or maybe W legally adopted A's baby.

All signs point to MHSL82 just doing his legal duty, and making sure no one is breaking the law, or if someone is, then he's advising them on how to best resolve the situation. A or W shouldn't get a restraining order on MHSL82, but rather continue to pay him a hefty consulting fee!

And MHSL82 is probably making sure W didn't kidnap A's baby.

Or, it's not a scenario like previously described in "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle".

Or, MHSL82 is making sure it's not a dysfunctional environment like what happened in the Agassi household ( #337), where A's mother tried to breastfeed A's baby.

Or, maybe as I mentioned in the previous post (#349), maybe A wants MHSL82 to verify that she's doing a sufficient job providing nourishment, so A's baby can't later sue A for neglect or child endangerment or malnourishment. (Or that a social services worker or child protective services woudn't find the above claims of neglect/endangerment/malnourishment)

 

[MHSL82]

Well, the good news is this thread is adequately titled.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't know what you just said, but I don't think you want to know the answer, so I won't answer it.

I think you did and do know what I just did, but you don't want me to know the answer. But unlucky for you, I already know the answer. I know all answers! They might not be correct, but I know them!

 

[MHSL82]

The more you deny it, or the harder you deny it, the more true it is.

Also, if you deny it less, then it means it's because it's true.

As you allude to this in the humor of your second sentence, the first sentence is a ridiculous assumption; a pet peeve of mine. Saying that the more one denies something the more true it is, is like the "I am rubber and you are glue" in effectiveness. It's designed to shut up the other person or for establishing something through no evidence at all. This is used when the person saying it no longer can keep up with the argument and desperately wants to turn it on the other. It's as fake of an argument as "I'm sorry if you were offended" is a fake apology. While a person who is guilty may skirt the issue and issue several denials, it's no more proof of guilt than proof of annoyance or insult of the accusation.

Oh, I posted this on Facebook. Let me know if you see the humor in the Facebook post or if it just looks weird/awkward.

 

[MHSL82]

So we're both equal, as usual. I didn't see a woman breastfeed a baby that wasn't hers either, that day.

Yes, we're equal. But I am a little bit more equal than you are. I saw a woman breastfeed my baby and I'm pretty sure that woman was my wife. I'd check, but she has a restraining order on me. I don't know why. She is violating the restraining order I gave her n behalf of my daughter as a legal guardian, but how am I to stop her if I can't get within 1000 feet?

P.S. How does a person know if they are 1000 feet away and not 999 feet away? I mean, to count the feet you'd have to get close to the person and count the steps or use some type of yardstick and calculator, perhaps. Now, you may say, easy, just stay far away, but I believe the law sets limits and it's my civic duty to stand next to that limitation. Being 10,000 feet away is blatantly ignoring the law, saying that it wouldn't matter if the restriction is 1,000 or 5,000 because I'm farther, anyway. That's disrespectful to the law.

On a more serious note, I wonder if the court bothers to say "1,000 feet or more" or if it just says, "1,000 feet." If the latter, I think it would be funny for someone to struggle to conform to the letter of the law (of the order, rather), struggling to stay exactly 1,000 feet away. It probably says "at least" or "no closer proximity in reference to" or some stupid legal language. I mean, great sophisticated language that allows society to operate under well founded civility and grace. No, lawyers don't just fall into restraining order forms, I'd have to look one up and you don't pay me enough to do so.

 

[MHSL82]

Do you have anything fun planned for the family outdoors, one of these upcoming weekends? Do you think the weather is getting nice enough to do something outdoors? Would you like doing something like that?

What about grilling or BBQs? I guess that's doing something outdoors, without leaving home. Do you like grilling and/or BBQing?

Or I guess I mean to ask if you have anything fun planned soon.

Fun is a relative term specific to the person having or lacking the fun or lack thereof. I do have things that I anticipate to have been fun but weren't or to be fun that I don't know if it will be. Yes, past and present tense mean nothing as I'm responding to a past post about a future event that already happened and to which I hadn't addressed yet. And yes, I know, all posts are in the past. At least all those in which I could respond to, unless I anticipated the future posts, in which you'd either tell me to anticipate or I would figure it out some other way.

And then there were some things that were fun. Mostly gardened this weekend, which I hate to do. Not because I hate gardening, it's just that I hate to do gardening. Gardening by itself is great. Doing it, not so much. Took my daughter to the gym. Well, not a workout gym, but a kids' play place gym.

As to upcoming weekends, nothing planned, all accidental. We planned our baby for almost a year (damn breastfeeding!), so no more planning for me. I plan on not planning on anything. Just having it. Weekends are weird when you don't have a full-time job. It's basically time where everyone else is free and you cannot contact employers.

How can I have something fun planned soon? I mean, it's either planned or it isn't planned. I have no idea whether I will plan it soon or plan it later. But it isn't planned yet to happen soon. I mean, if I plan something for next weekend that isn't really planned soon, unless you see next weekend as soon. I see it as planned next weekend, but also, since I already planned it, hypothetically, it would have been planned already, not planned soon, regardless of your definition of "soon."

 

[MHSL82]

We're both robots because good things come in pairs, like John Stockton and Diet Pepsi; or Karl Malone, and Hardees fried chicken; or Jerry Sloan, and getting seven game suspensions for pushing Courtney Kirkland in the chest; or your kids and the secret nicknames you have for your kids (Skittles and M&M's; or Skittles and Reeses Pieces; or Skittles and Butterfinger BBs'; or Skittles and Cadbury Gems; or whatever secret nickname you gave your second embryo, can you share what it was? ).


We're both robots because good things come in pairs, and since you're a robot, you need a robot friend, so I'm your robot friend.

If I didn't know about the commercials I would have thought the pairs were: John Stockton and Karl Malone; Hardees and Diet Pepsi, or Jerry Sloan and John Deere tractors. Or Courtney Kirkland and Kirkney Courtland.

No, I'm not a robot. I already paired up with my wife and my wife with my daughter and my daughter with me. But I will find you a robot friend, if you'd like.

Yes, I can share the secret nickname my wife and I gave my second embryo. She had the first, so the second is all mine!

 

[MHSL82]

Ridiculous post alert:

Or, maybe the woman wants you to see her breastfeed her baby. Maybe she hired you to consult on her technique (which is being videotaped). She wouldn't want her baby (or strangers or her husband) to sue her for improper technique, or malnourishment, or child endangerment.

So, she wants you to verify that she's doing a sufficient job, and providing a minimum amount of nourishment.

I can't say I wasn't warned.

But I can type it, regardless of its truth.

I wasn't warned of the ridiculous post!

Ok, now that that's out of the way, all women secretly want me to watch their breasts, whether or not they are attached to a thirsty baby or a baby who is not thirsty but there anyway. It's complicated because they have a natural drive to act like they don't want me looking but have to show it so I can see. Then, they have to act disgusted while unbuttoning their shirt.

Some women, I am happy to oblige, and I do. But these damn grandmothers, fatties, and obnoxious women get to me, especially around my wife. I'm trying to look like a loving husband and father. But when I tell them that, they just say I'm their daddy, which is disgusting and humanly impossible without legal adoption. I mean, they can be old enough to be my grandmother and I have to shield myself.

But, sometimes, it's good. But I wish they'd stop acting insulted or disgusted. So what if I drool? They asked for it. Even if they are fully clothed and are wearing a jacket.

I realize this has gotten a bit further than I wanted the joke to go. I'm not a pervert, said in the voice of Richard Nixon.

 

[MHSL82]

Wait, what?

The woman is breastfeeding a baby that isn't hers (maybe because she kidnapped it), and SHE'S getting a restraining order on YOU?

YOU should be the one getting a restraining order on HER! Hey female, step away from that baby! (Unless the baby's mother (let's call the mother A) gave that other female (let's call the female W) permission to breastfeed A's baby.

Or maybe W legally adopted A's baby.

All signs point to MHSL82 just doing his legal duty, and making sure no one is breaking the law, or if someone is, then he's advising them on how to best resolve the situation. A or W shouldn't get a restraining order on MHSL82, but rather continue to pay him a hefty consulting fee!

And MHSL82 is probably making sure W didn't kidnap A's baby.

Or, it's not a scenario like previously described in "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle".

Or, MHSL82 is making sure it's not a dysfunctional environment like what happened in the Agassi household ( #337), where A's mother tried to breastfeed A's baby.

Or, maybe as I mentioned in the previous post (#349), maybe A wants MHSL82 to verify that she's doing a sufficient job providing nourishment, so A's baby can't later sue A for neglect or child endangerment or malnourishment. (Or that a social services worker or child protective services woudn't find the above claims of neglect/endangerment/malnourishment)

I hereby disclaim all civic and legal duties for the rest of my life. Effective immediately.

 

[nuraman00]

I think you did and do know what I just did, but you don't want me to know the answer. But unlucky for you, I already know the answer. I know all answers! They might not be correct, but I know them!

Great post.

 

[nuraman00]

As you allude to this in the humor of your second sentence, the first sentence is a ridiculous assumption; a pet peeve of mine. Saying that the more one denies something the more true it is, is like the "I am rubber and you are glue" in effectiveness. It's designed to shut up the other person or for establishing something through no evidence at all. This is used when the person saying it no longer can keep up with the argument and desperately wants to turn it on the other. It's as fake of an argument as "I'm sorry if you were offended" is a fake apology. While a person who is guilty may skirt the issue and issue several denials, it's no more proof of guilt than proof of annoyance or insult of the accusation.

Oh, I posted this on Facebook. Let me know if you see the humor in the Facebook post or if it just looks weird/awkward.

The post is fine.

And I think you're trying to hide that you're a robot, from certain people. Hence my first sentence.

My 2nd sentence will happen when you realize your true calling.