Elaine Puts Out For A Good Cause!

"We can do this the easy way or we can do this the fun way!" with these leering words Elaine, scrafices her viture or at least it's remnents. She felt the pangs of guilt that resulted when because of aninterview a friend lost out on adopting a baby. Sooooooooooo Elaine consents to a roll in the hay with an adoption bureaucrat. A trooper to the end!!!

I wouldn't sacrifice my virtue or the vestages thereof, to take a roll in the hay with an adoption bureaucrat (nor anyone else for that matter), under any circumstance, for anyone at anytime, nor anywhere! I don't think it's anything to brag about.

Note my spelling knocks yours to a fault-line!

Mary

On 25 Apr 1997, David A. Tharp wrote:

In article , [email] wrote:

So, if we read your correctly spelled but perhaps poorly phrased commentary correctly, you are a virgin. How nice. Why are you bragging about it? Perhaps you should visit an alt.sex group.

Spelling? Who cares about spelling. Spelling every word correctly is as easy as using a dictionary or spell checker. No mystery. No magic. No big deal. A child can do it, let alone an asu.edu person. Certainly nothing with which to compare intellect or be competitive about.

This is the online community, nit-picking on spelling is poor form, and only done by those with little else to offer....except perhaps their virginity.

Have a nice day...you apparently don't know what you're missing...

On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, blank wrote:

I won't dignify any of this with a reply!

In article , [email] wrote:

matter), under

The truth shall set you free Mary..pity you can't recognize that. Any woman that tries to slam another on the usenet for poor spelling, and then doesn't want to respond to their own poor use of the language, is one stuck up, well, bitc*..

On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, blank wrote:

Stooping to name-calling, eh? How similar to grammar school! Applying a label isn't necessarily going to alter the situation now, is it? Besides, with the same label you apply to me, all I'd have to say to you, is well, look in the mirror! You must have the experience to know what one is to be able to apply it to others.

Mary

In article , [email] wrote:

No, just intellectual integrity.

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, AREX wrote:

Yeah, right! If you have so much intellectual integrity, then why are you taking the time, and energy, to arguing with the likes of me? (I've just insulted myself.)

Guys, cut it out. This is getting ridiculous. Please just let us discuss "Seinfeld" in peace.

Michael Alexander

In article , [email] (Alexandr59) wrote:

Michael, I hear your call. But you realize your call is an oxymoron??

Besides, I think we might actually like each other.. ;)

On Sun, 4 May 1997, AREX wrote:

Yeah, but you don't have either, because people who proclaim to have any intellect or integrity don't waste their time trying to "save" people who obviously don't want to be "saved" or rescued. I never proclaimed to have needed it.

In article , [email] wrote:

If you watch politics at all, you will see plenty of people with intellect trying to save us all. Hmm..though perhaps your are correct in the lack of integrity part (regarding politicians trying to save us)...ok, I'll quit, your quite right, wouldn't be right...so I won't try to save you, just point out your silly foot in mouth statements?? And you can point out mine.

In article , [email] says...

commentary

But you did!

Quoth [email] (blank): :

Oh, really? Note that there is no "a" in the word "vestige". If we're nit picking, let's get them all.

SNIP

Maybe... maybe not, as shown above. :-)

To reply by email, delete the *NO_SPAM* from my email address.

In article , ldavis@*NO_SPAM*roanoke.infi.net wrote:

Ha! I guess you're right!

Dave

On 25 Apr 1997, Lincoln Mongillo wrote:

And what are you gonna do if I said "Yes"? Blood-wing me with it?

On Sat, 26 Apr 1997 02:20:37 -0700, [email] wrote:

<snip>

Nobody asked you!

On Sat, 26 Apr 1997, Patrick wrote:

Too bad! I told you anyways! What are you gonna do about it? This ng is open to everyone's opinion, including mine and yours.

Since when is this ng segregating who can and can't be here?

Mary places a high price on her virtue but that is her perogative. What interests me is the fact that she seems to condemn (by implication) Elaine for the act of generosity which enabled a deserving couple to get a baby. "Judge not least that you be judged."

On 26 Apr 1997, David A. Tharp wrote:

Elaine can do whatever she darned well feels like it. After all, she's just a character on a TV show, and that's all it is, a TV show. It's not reality.

All I'm saying is that I won't stoop to Hollywood's decrpid moral code, or the lack of a moral code thereof. TV shows are TV shows and imho, their fictional reality doesn't suit me at all.

Q/
/S

Mary as I said before in a different forum It's tv that is real and the outside world that is bogus. Besides it's not a matter of Hollywood's code but a choice made by a non-virgin to use her "favors" for a worthy cause. Does this make even a fictional character a bad person? Also the bureacrat in question might've been tempted by a non-monetary bribe but might've made the right choice adoptionwise. After all pillow talk, inside as well as outside of marrige, has solved a number of problems.

Not even going to touch that!

Mary

On 29 Apr 1997, David A. Tharp wrote:

Quoth [email]: :

What a coincidence. That's what Michael Jackson said to Lisa Marie on their wedding night.

(And she said, "Hail no, I will not dress up like mah Daddy!")

To reply by email, delete the *NO_SPAM* from my email address.

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 ldavis@*NO_SPAM*roanoke.infi.net wrote:

Not even goinng there, either!

Mary don't waste your time arguing with Arex. It's a battle of wits and your opponeent ran out of ammo a long time ago!!!!

In article , [email] (David A. Tharp) wrote:

We're not really arguing, most educated folk would be able to ascertain that...but we'll give you a second chance seeing your an .edu and all..

By the way, your spelling is horrible..

Better YSU than a Columbian yuppie!