Which Bible, though? I presume they mean the one written in Pennsylvania:
I laughed out loud. At 3:30 a.m.
You know, if you set a better example regarding where to poop, maybe the message would be received.
Buy yourself a drink on me, Ron. You've earned it.
Kimberley Conrad?
The second "e" is for "eleemosynary."
Geez, it's like you can see right into me. Now I want to go donate to Planned Parenthood.
Okay, so she got one thing right.
Whoa, you're breaking Karen Christy's heart, right here.
Oooh, very well played.
Speaking generally, if you can't be inspired to behave like a gentleman to Claire Sinclair, then there's just no hope for you. I recommend summary execution.
Fair enough. I also consider breakfast cereal to be an occasionally worthy dinner entrée, but I also understand why other folks don't.
Diner? Broadcast News? Legends of the Fall? Casino? Fight Club? Sideways? The 40-Year-Old Virgin? The Social Network (or maybe that's just a theme)? The Town? Most Kevin Smith movies?
Aren't a high percentage of movies about male friendships mostly about...girls?
Is that what habitué means?
But dry is often pretty good. Wet is clearly not better.
Seconded on Metropolitan. That movie just gets better with every passing year. In part because it was already a beautiful anachronism when it was made.
Okay, I know this is awkward. After my breakdown at that last tennis match, I did go away for a long time. I saw five oceans, both poles, the Amazon, and the Nile.
But really, I was just settling some issues in my mind. And I know things were kind of rough for you as well. The aborted early marriage. The lost finger. And I understand the inspiration for your plays started drying up too.
But now I realize that none of that matters. Not the secret smoking. Not the depression. Not even the fact that you're my adopted sister. I just need to say something to you. The next time I see you.
Oh, and please don't tell Eli.
#m4w
#inthefriscalatingdusklight
#isthatmordecai
#letsgotothemuseum
#gawkerdating
Sure, that's one approach: To completely rule out intent when interpreting someone's words.
But that seems needlessly risky to me. Intent is frequently a useful, even indispensable guide to understanding someone's meaning. Even in the conversation we're having here. Ruling out intent just seems like adding another layer of confusion — one might even say blindness — to a process that's already pretty confusing.
Because if you don't inquire into intent, then you can get to some absurd conclusions pretty quickly. Like calling people prejudiced against certain groups when they probably aren't. And if you make a distinction which allows certain people to use the word and bars it to others, then you're coming perilously close to judging people strictly according to their skin color or sexual orientation or what have you. Which also seems risky to me. And not the way forward.
I admit, inquiring into a speaker's intent also carries some risks. But at least it leaves open the possibility of not making a judgment about the level of someone's prejudice — abstaining, as it were — when there isn't much evidence to go on. That's mostly why I suggest it; the other methods just seem to draw conclusions about prejudice on very little evidence. I'm unwilling to judge someone else's prejudice based on a word choice. It feels like jumping to conclusions to me. I'd rather be more careful and collect more evidence first.
I guessing because the judge in question isn't a man.
From now on I will you the word "American" to mean "genital warts." Anybody offended now? Of course you would be. That's offensive.
But I'm not offended at all. Fly your freak flag, man.
Also, you've raised the interesting question of how often you find yourself discussing genital warts in your daily life.
