Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WCCO.com)   "I just want to keep this quiet." Complete, raw, uncut Sen. Craig pottylove audio now available for your iPod   (wcco.com) divider line 340
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11753 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Aug 2007 at 6:54 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-08-30 09:46:08 PM  
Bartleby the Scrivener:well, that wasn't your point.

but if you believe the broadest defintion of "soliciation", since when is asking for sex illegal? if i put both my hands in front of me and thrust my hips to an fro, or place my hand near my mouth and poke my cheek with my tongue, both are "code" or nonverbal gestures for sexual act and there is nothing illegal about that.

Re-read my post.

It's exactly my point. The act is illegal, and by any definition asking or inducing someone to engage in the illegal act is also illegal.

The prostitutes and johns arrested and charged on COPS are not arrested for having sex, they are arrested for either pandering or soliciting the act.

Asking for illegal sex is illegal. The charge here relates to the nature of the sex act in question. In this case public sex.

And it is possible that you could be charged for the hand mouth thing, but unlikely as it could be interpreted as satire or simply crude gesture (which may or may not be a crime in some communities).

Seriously, you should reconsider the "Scrivener" part of your name.
 
2007-08-30 09:47:45 PM  
eraser8: Sunny Ray writes: If he had not plead guilty and kept his mouth shut...

Maybe so. But none of that is entrapment. Entrapment is when the government, by persuasion or trickery, entices a person to commit a crime that, but for the government's "outrageous" conduct, he would not ordinarily commit. The government's presenting an opportunity to commit a crime is not entrapment.


I appreciate you taking the time to explain that to me. I think if it went to court, a sitting U.S. Senator with access to great lawyers would have made a case against it and would not be guaranteed to lose.
 
2007-08-30 09:49:23 PM  
I call entrapment. I was all against this politician before I heard this, now I say he was legitimately heterosexual and this was one of those moments where shiat looks like it couldn't happen any other way but miraculously it did. Leave the man alone, he's not a queer. The cop is
 
2007-08-30 09:50:37 PM  
no dude reaches down on the floor to pick up a renegade piece of t.p. that's like sitting on the toilet without looking for wetness first (i'm looking at you, home depot glue hoax guy)
 
2007-08-30 09:53:44 PM  
ghost_who_walks: So to summerize:

4. He plead guilty. Any straight guy will tell you he'll defend his straightness to the end, and I guess this would apply moreso to someone who has already denied his gayness so publicly in the past... so why roll over now? "Sweep it under the carpet"? He should know that whatever happens, these things do not stay hidden; if he were truly innocent, he would have lawyered up, and shut his mouth.

5. The cop gave him a chance...more than one. But other reports it seems that as part of this operation in the mens room, the cop had caught others, but let them off with a warning; taking them somewhere private, and not handcuffing them. He didn't seem to know that this was a Senator until the guy outed himself with the business card. It would seem they just wanted to clean up the toilets at the airport, not necessarily arrest the closet cases.

...and finally, no-one picks up toilet paper off the floor of a men's room!


Your opinion. I agree with it.
 
2007-08-30 09:57:37 PM  
Bartleby the Scrivener: JOEKC: Bartleby the Scrivener: since when is asking for sex illegal?

Ever since I've lived in the Midwest. Especially if you ask a cop.

touche.


Everytime I think I'm in favor of legalizing prostitution, I ask myself if I would like hookers hanging around in my neighborhood. Probably not. Maybe I would favor a "red light" district like they have in some European countries. I mostly favor the government staying the hell out of people's personal lives. I don't remember ever being "hit on" in a bathroom, but maybe I have been and just didn't know the cues. But I only go into the stalls if I have an extreme case that just won't wait until I get home -- almost never, really.

What I really don't believe is the senator is so fastidious he was helping tidy up the stall by picking toilet paper up from the floor. That's gotta be a lie.
 
2007-08-30 09:58:08 PM  
eraser8,

Yes, I'm serious. Now that I've heard both of them discuss it, as recorded at the time it happened, I'm convinced the cop was covering his own ass, and that the Senator was not lying. Based entirely on the way they were talking.
 
2007-08-30 09:58:23 PM  
Honestly, I just wish this whole damned thing would go away so we could actually get back to paying attention to the little issues like the Iraq War, domestic economic policy, etc. If I was an Idahoan(?), I might give a damn, but I'm not.

But the absolutely insane apologist/victim mentality of the far right just blows me away some times. I just got my bi-weekly ten-minute dose of Michael Savage a few minute ago, and he starts off talking about how he's just so upset and sickened by the whole Larry Craig thing; that he's just "had it up to here" and not going to take it any more when it comes to this crap.

Then he explains what he's upset about.

He's not upset that Craig did this. He's upset that - get this - Hillary Clinton and "the Democrats" orchestrated this whole affair to distract from the news that she was "caught" receiving campaign contributions from a felon. That's right: this is all just another big "leftist" plot to kill fetuses and spit on soldiers and push the gay agenda by, I don't know, having gay people arrested.

And there were people calling in telling him he was right on and that they suspected the same thing.

What. The. Fark?
 
2007-08-30 10:05:15 PM  
From the ever helpful and topical Slate (quote by others earlier):

Is tapping your foot really code for public sex?

Yes. The signal has been around for decades in the United States and Europe. Generally, one person initiates contact by tapping his foot in a way that's visible beneath the stall divider. If the second person responds with a similar tap, the initiator moves his foot closer to the other person's stall. If the other person makes a similar move, the first will inch closer yet again. The pair usually goes through the whole process a few times, just to confirm that the signals aren't an accident.

Next, one of the men will slide his hand under the divider. This usually means he's inviting the other person to present himself, as if to say, "Show me what you got." The partner can respond by kneeling on the floor and presenting his penis or rear end underneath the divider. Or he can swipe his own hand under the divider, as if to say, "You go first." Some married men make a point of displaying their wedding band (like Sen. Craig allegedly did) to make themselves more alluring.
 
2007-08-30 10:08:46 PM  
wuyizidi: From the ever helpful and topical Slate (quote by others earlier):

Is tapping your foot really code for public sex?

Yes. The signal has been around for decades in the United States and Europe. Generally, one person initiates contact by tapping his foot in a way that's visible beneath the stall divider. If the second person responds with a similar tap, the initiator moves his foot closer to the other person's stall. If the other person makes a similar move, the first will inch closer yet again. The pair usually goes through the whole process a few times, just to confirm that the signals aren't an accident.

Next, one of the men will slide his hand under the divider. This usually means he's inviting the other person to present himself, as if to say, "Show me what you got." The partner can respond by kneeling on the floor and presenting his penis or rear end underneath the divider. Or he can swipe his own hand under the divider, as if to say, "You go first." Some married men make a point of displaying their wedding band (like Sen. Craig allegedly did) to make themselves more alluring.


Thank you for sharing this. I find these kinds of social interactions fascinating.
 
2007-08-30 10:09:08 PM  
Wow, sounds like the secret code has been hacked. I predict the incidents of gay sex in public bathroom stalls shoots through the roof.
 
2007-08-30 10:11:58 PM  
Prospero424: Honestly, I just wish this whole damned thing would go away so we could actually get back to paying attention to the little issues like the Iraq War, domestic economic policy, etc

It's people like him who helped create the problems we have today. They "wore their morality as their best garment" (Gibran) and got elected on a family values/protect America (i.e.war) platform. I could care less if my congressman(woman) is gay or straight. What I care about is their pandering to the religious right which at this point seems to be synonomous with the Republican Party. The GOP needs to reclaim its conservative roots. I doubt "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater would be a Republican today. End rant.
 
2007-08-30 10:14:40 PM  
Chilton: that the Senator was not lying.

Even about picking up the tp? C'mon.
 
2007-08-30 10:15:48 PM  
Prospero424: What we need is some stories of soldiers turning gay in Iraq and sucking each other or the enemy off.

That would get the conservatives to bring them home. Or broker peace.

Soldier: "You! With the car bomb! Can I suck you off?"

Insurgent: "Well, wow. Just wow! Nobody ever asked me if I just wanted to get sucked off before. Hey, forget the car bomb. I know a public restroom that's only partially rubble."

Soldier: "Ok, but we take my car."
 
2007-08-30 10:16:18 PM  
JOEKC: It's people like him who helped create the problems we have today. They "wore their morality as their best garment" (Gibran) and got elected on a family values/protect America (i.e.war) platform. I could care less if my congressman(woman) is gay or straight. What I care about is their pandering to the religious right which at this point seems to be synonomous with the Republican Party. The GOP needs to reclaim its conservative roots. I doubt "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater would be a Republican today. End rant.

Oh, I'm not saying the greater issue of hypocrisy isn't important. Far from it. I'm saying that we both know that hypocrisy alone doesn't get you 24-hour non-stop media coverage.

For that, you need kinky shiat. If only it could have been Cheney in that other stall. ;)
 
2007-08-30 10:16:45 PM  
logruszed:

Re-read my post.

It's exactly my point. The act is illegal, and by any definition asking or inducing someone to engage in the illegal act is also illegal.


in what language does asking equal inducing?

Hey Bill, what are you doing this weekend? i'm *thinking* i want to go shoplifting. would you be up for that?

gee, no thanks, Gary. i'm busy. i have to mow the lawn.

The prostitutes and johns arrested and charged on COPS are not arrested for having sex, they are arrested for either pandering or soliciting the act.

That was my point, not yours. soliciting a prostitute, in the broadest sense of your term, is illegal because prostitution is illegal.

Asking for illegal sex is illegal. The charge here relates to the nature of the sex act in question. In this case public sex.

if there is any point that has some credibility, it is this one. public sex is illegal. that was never the issue. but asking for sex (with adults, men or women) is not. as it stood, although the "code" night have had implications, it was still vague. the officer would have had a stronger case if he follwed up verbally by asking "do you want to do it here?" boom. solicitation.

And it is possible that you could be charged for the hand mouth thing, but unlikely as it could be interpreted as satire or simply crude gesture (which may or may not be a crime in some communities).

so you're saying there could be some variation in signifiance, depending on different circumstances?

Seriously, you should reconsider the "Scrivener" part of your name.

i would prefer not to.
 
2007-08-30 10:17:39 PM  
JOEKC: Chilton: that the Senator was not lying.

Even about picking up the tp? C'mon.


He should have said he was picking up a note regarding a bribe he took from a lobbyist. More plausible than tp and no problems with his party.
 
2007-08-30 10:19:06 PM  
Prospero424: For that, you need kinky shiat. If only it could have been Cheney in that other stall. ;)

. . . or his daughter
 
2007-08-30 10:19:12 PM  
i dont care if theres a farkin 20 dollar bill on the bathroom floor....im not touching it....and in an airport to boot....come on man...who do you seriously thing your fooling
 
2007-08-30 10:21:31 PM  
I think the reason he didn't lawyer up is this:

All your life you've been living with terrible secret, something you don't want anyone to know. If this were anything else, he probably would've acted calmly and lawyered up. But imagine his terror here: his worst nightmare is actually unfolding right in front of him. His whole world is collapsing in front of him. This is like confronting death.

As this is the last thing he wanted anyone to know, he feels complete alone. The only thought on his mind is, "yes, I plea to a minor charge, and hopefully, HOPEFULLY, this is as far as it goes. God, if you get me out of this, I promise to change and never have these sinful thoughts again!"

Is this kind of thinking rational? Of course not, but it's very hard for a person in his position to behave rationally right?
 
2007-08-30 10:22:19 PM  
ghost_who_walks: So to summerize:

1. There's been rumours going around for years about this guy. The convenient and childless marriage, the rumours, the "I didn't do it" statement about the pages when no-one said he had... nothing specific, but raises a rainbow flag when viewed in conjunction with this.

2. There is code for asking for anonymous sex in men's rooms and the Senator got it almost exactly right. There's a lot of sex going on in men's rooms apparently. I'd always assumed there was but thought it was solo stuff...lol. It figures though; if you're a closet case, anonymous random encounters is all you've got going I suppose, and a men's room is about as logical a place as any for that. I feel sad for the guys reduced to this; just wish they'd come out already, and have the chance to pick up the normal ways.

3. You can get done for soliciting sex still, even if money doesn't change hands. It may seem draconian, and prudish, but I guess the laws are left over from a time when sexual ideas were different. I guess it's also to prevent the defence of "money never changed hands" for prostitution. The laws are there to prevent this sort of thing happening: sex in places that are inappropriate. There's certainly no real way to age-check the person they're propositioning, too (Oh, wow, I think I just did a "Won't somebody think of the children" moment... That makes me feel as dirty as toilet sex.)

4. He plead guilty. Any straight guy will tell you he'll defend his straightness to the end, and I guess this would apply moreso to someone who has already denied his gayness so publicly in the past... so why roll over now? "Sweep it under the carpet"? He should know that whatever happens, these things do not stay hidden; if he were truly innocent, he would have lawyered up, and shut his mouth.

5. The cop gave him a chance...more than one. But other reports it seems that as part of this operation in the mens room, the cop had caught others, but let them off with a warning; taking them somewhere private, and not handcuffing them. He didn't seem to know that this was a Senator until the guy outed himself with the business card. It would seem they just wanted to clean up the toilets at the airport, not necessarily arrest the closet cases.

...and finally, no-one picks up toilet paper off the floor of a men's room!


You, and everybody else, missed one major one.

Craig wasn't charged with soliticing sex!

He was charged with two counts:

PEEP: Interferece with Prvacy

and

DISOR: Disorderly Conduct

Link (new window)

The second one (quite generic) is what he pled guilty to.

The first one, as the shorthand PEEP indicates, is for peeping. (Surreptiontitiously gazing, staring, or peeping in...or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose thier intimate parts...)

That is, the crime occured long before all the hand and foot signals. The crime was Craig squinting into the crack of the stall door (several times) to check out the officer. Waiting until the dancing was just to make sure the guy was truely trolling for sex.
 
2007-08-30 10:23:31 PM  
logruszed: He should have said he was picking up a note regarding a bribe he took from a lobbyist. More plausible than tp and no problems with his party.

Indeed, that's a lot more believable.
 
2007-08-30 10:31:02 PM  
Bartleby the Scrivener:

in what language does asking equal inducing?


In every language. "Hey, will you suck me off in this public restroom?" = illegal. Duh

That was my point, not yours. soliciting a prostitute, in the broadest sense of your term, is illegal because prostitution is illegal.

No it wasn't. You want to go back in time and prevent your earlier post before making a bullshiat claim. Your point was that "it is not lewd until the act is in progress.". The implication of your statement here is that his attempt (if it was actually an attempt and not misinterpreted) to initiate said act was not illegal, only the act its' self.

if there is any point that has some credibility, it is this one. public sex is illegal. that was never the issue. but asking for sex (with adults, men or women) is not. as it stood, although the "code" night have had implications, it was still vague. the officer would have had a stronger case if he follwed up verbally by asking "do you want to do it here?" boom. solicitation.

Asking for illegal sex is illegal. Now the senator might have not been asking for public sex or he might have been tapping the wrong code and really meant to be asking for the other guy to meet him in a private room at a hotel later in the day. But he was in a public restroom using common gestures to indicate he wanted to initiate an illegal sex act right then and there. That's why he got the bust.

so you're saying there could be some variation in significance (spelling corrected by logruszed), depending on different circumstances?

What is your point here? No reasonable person would suggest infallibility on the part of the police or anyone else in these matters. But he plead guilty.

Seriously, you should reconsider the "Scrivener" part of your name.

i would prefer not to.


No, really. You should. And you should probably avoid situations where you might have to argue on your own behalf.
 
2007-08-30 10:32:38 PM  
logruszed: Soldier: "You! With the car bomb! Can I suck you off?"

Insurgent: "Well, wow. Just wow! Nobody ever asked me if I just wanted to get sucked off before. Hey, forget the car bomb. I know a public restroom that's only partially rubble."

Soldier: "Ok, but we take my car."


If I post the relevant part here, it might get me in trouble with the mods. But I'll say that if you've never seen Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy, now would be the time to watch it. There's a character played by Scott Thompson in that movie that will farking crack you up with the similarity to this situation.

I'll just say this for anyone who's seen it: "There goes a maaaaaaan!"
 
2007-08-30 10:32:54 PM  
JOEKC: Even about picking up the tp? C'mon.


The officer was referring to whether or not he had 'success' in this bathroom before. At least that's the 'lying' I'm talking about. I don't think the Senator was doing what the cop was accusing him of doing, in that specific case.

Peeping--that's another issue entirely. But I don't think, in that conversation, that the Senator was lying or 'distrespectin' the cop, to use his words.
 
2007-08-30 10:33:15 PM  
Sunny Ray: Wow, sounds like the secret code has been hacked. I predict the incidents of gay sex in public bathroom stalls shoots through the roof.

Buy! Buy!


/don't forget he was picking up that paper on the floor with the back of his hand mind you.
 
2007-08-30 10:37:07 PM  
The guy's a dumbass for not getting a lawyer before he made a statement, and he's obviously also a dumbass for trying to have sex in a public bathroom -- as rich as he is, I'm sure he can buy some discreet prostitute without anyone knowing, but obviously he gets off on the danger of it.

His stupidity is what makes him unfit for office.

On the other hand, I am really tired of sexual scandals. Who farking cares what weird stuff public officials like to do to get their rocks off, as long as it's between consenting adults?

I guess, though, that guys like this can be easily blackmailed -- not good in a public official. If America would stop getting it's panties in a knot about teh gheys, these guys wouldn't have to be secretive about their sexual proclivities.

Notice that his big rebuttal is "I'm not gay" rather than "I'm not a guy who solicits sex in public restrooms." Shows where the controversy lies.
 
2007-08-30 10:38:07 PM  
its
its
its
its
 
2007-08-30 10:39:14 PM  
This audio should never have been released, and the fact that it was should scare us as Americans. It's a demonstration of "power to wreck you", potentially.
 
2007-08-30 10:39:31 PM  
The cop had a tape running. Why didn't he allow Craig to follow up on his "signals" with a verbal request for illegal sex? It sure would have simplified the whole process and eliminated the need for an interrogation.
 
2007-08-30 10:40:28 PM  
I can't believe all of the people defending Craig. If you don't want to be suspected of trawling a restroom, howzabout not (1) staring through a crack and pointing to your junk, (2) sitting in the adjacent stall, and sticking your foot under far enough to touch the foot of the dude that you were staring at, and (3) repeatedly sticking your hand under the stall wall and sliding it forward.

Short of actually sticking your cawk through a glory hole, those are the creepiest possible behaviors for someone in a men's room. Hell, I don't even like guys breaking the urinal distribution code. He is lucky a cop and not someone easily annoyed was over there.
 
2007-08-30 10:40:52 PM  
The cop is lying. Until hearing the tape, I assumed Craig was guilty, but the cop's anger and loss of words towards the end of the tape make it obvious the cop was exaggerating the facts. When Craig called him on the left hand vs right hand thing, the cop started to lose his cool and quickly ended the interview; he's undoubtedly not a very good cop, nor interrogator (hence the Bathroom Squad assignment). Craig never should have given up the fight, the charges would have been dropped for sure.



/not a Craig supporter
/not a lying cop supporter either
 
2007-08-30 10:45:42 PM  
I get the feeling a number of the guys in this thread are going to start listening for foot tapping in public bathrooms. Not because they're looking to get any, but just because they're curious if it happens very often.
 
2007-08-30 10:46:31 PM  
'And there were people calling in telling him he was right on and that they suspected the same thing.

What. The. Fark?"

Dude. Those morons are what's left of the "conservative movement." Even Pat Buchanan's done with them.
 
2007-08-30 10:47:25 PM  
Good thing the Senator didn't have a hanky:

Link
(pops)(possibly NSFW)
 
2007-08-30 10:51:53 PM  
guesser: /not a Craig supporter/not a lying cop supporter either

But probably a closeted homo.
 
2007-08-30 10:52:29 PM  
IAmDrGalacawicz:
Get over it. Partisan politics is ruining this country.


No, that's not what is ruining your country,

What is ruining your country is extremism. The very thing your goverment points out as a fault in others around the world is the very thing they are using to control their people. The extreme right demands that you side with them or be included with the baby-killer homosexual drug dealers, and the extreme left insists that you don't want to be with the side that has the warmongering poluting capitalist pigs; and niether one will accept that anyone could be anywhere in between.

You are allowed to have partian views. You are allowed to have views that straddle the divide. What you shouldn't do is hold so blindly and tightly to the beliefs of those who wish to lead you that you never question them, never consider that your views may differ. You don't have to agree with everyone, and at times there will be no compromise between the views, but most people are being played: They're being told that to accept one agurment, one single idea out of step with what is being dished out of HQ is to be a tratior... That such thoughts should be crushed with the might of Thor.

That's not Partian... that's Extremism. And it's dangerous, and it will destroy your country.


The people orcestrating this probably believe in their heart the ideas they are espousing, but that's not the problem. The fact that they will not accept that "the other side" could ever possibly come up with an equally valid point of view is what is. You can choose a side in a debate and still repect the ideas and people on the other side, even if you never agree with them. You can accept that there may be more than one road to the goal. Something the people who are directing your country at the moment seem unable or unwilling to do, or to allow anyone else to do. Statements like "You're either with us or against us" are huge signals for this behavior, and that they go unquestioned speaks volumes about how much control they have.

The people may never see eye to eye on issues like welfare, drug control, gun control... but that is no excuse to ignore the issues or force an unwanted compromise on people, or worse, as is happening now, use these issues to inflame opinion about the other side without offering any real substance for their own.


And now for some quotes from The West Wing (aka The Left Wing):
"Every once in a while, there's a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts."

...

Ritchie: Now, I want people to work together in this great country, and that's what I did in Florida - I brought people together - and that's what I'll do as your President. End the logjam, end the gridlock, and bring Republicans together with Democrats, 'cause Americans are tired of partisan politics.
Bartlet: Actually, what you've done in Florida is bring the right together with the far right. And I don't think Americans are tired of partisan politics; I think they're tired of hearing career politicians diss partisan politics to get a gig. I've tried it before. They ain't buying it. That's okay, though; that's okay, though, 'cause partisan politics is good. Partisan politics is what the founders had in mind. It guarantees that the minority opinion is heard, and as a lifelong possessor of minority opinions, I appreciate it.
 
2007-08-30 10:53:29 PM  
logruszed:

in what language does asking equal inducing?
In every language. "Hey, will you suck me off in this public restroom?" = illegal. Duh


like i said, i don't disagree with the legality of the claim. but asking is not inducing.

That was my point, not yours. soliciting a prostitute, in the broadest sense of your term, is illegal because prostitution is illegal.

No it wasn't. You want to go back in time and prevent your earlier post before making a bullshiat claim. Your point was that "it is not lewd until the act is in progress.". The implication of your statement here is that his attempt (if it was actually an attempt and not misinterpreted) to initiate said act was not illegal, only the act its' self.


no, go back and read. please read. my original response was to ambercat. wait, here it is in full for ya, cuase i'm that kind of guy.

Bartleby the Scrivener 2007-08-30 09:13:05 PM
ambercat:
However the signals invite the person to engage in sex with them in the bathroom, a public place. This breaks public lewdness laws or what ever they are called.

no. lewd acts are illegal in public. making a sign (that could be demonstrated to have variable significance) is not. it is not lewd until the act is in progress.

then you jumped all over it and conflated it with your solicitation spiel.

anyway, see the posts with what he was actually charged with. no lewd behavior or even soliciation for chrissakes. i wonder why?

if there is any point that has some credibility, it is this one. public sex is illegal. that was never the issue. but asking for sex (with adults, men or women) is not. as it stood, although the "code" night have had implications, it was still vague. the officer would have had a stronger case if he follwed up verbally by asking "do you want to do it here?" boom. solicitation.

Asking for illegal sex is illegal. Now the senator might have not been asking for public sex or he might have been tapping the wrong code and really meant to be asking for the other guy to meet him in a private room at a hotel later in the day. But he was in a public restroom using common gestures to indicate he wanted to initiate an illegal sex act right then and there. That's why he got the bust.


see above.

so you're saying there could be some variation in significance (spelling corrected by logruszed), depending on different circumstances?

What is your point here? No reasonable person would suggest infallibility on the part of the police or anyone else in these matters. But he plead guilty.


like i said before, i'm sure he had to do some inner negotiating quickly. i don't think he did the best thing, but that's just me.

Seriously, you should reconsider the "Scrivener" part of your name.

i would prefer not to.

No, really. You should. And you should probably avoid situations where you might have to argue on your own behalf.


herman melville scoffs in your general direction.

good night, funnyman.
 
2007-08-30 10:57:22 PM  
Bartleby the Scrivener, do you know your moniker is taken from a story by an author, Herman Melville, who had a major gay crush on Nathaniel Hawthorne, and that the story from which you take your moniker is primarily a story about a same-sex crush?

No, I didn't think you knew that.

There's nothing wrong with that, BTW - I'm 99.998% straight and Melville is a favorite author of mine...
 
2007-08-30 10:57:39 PM  
generalDisdain: Good thing the Senator didn't have a hanky:

Link
(pops)(possibly NSFW)


Aww, c'mon! First the breeders find out about the bathroom code, now you're telling them about the hanky code? What's next, are you going to tell them the secret code that can be punched into any remote to turn on gay porn on the tv?
 
2007-08-30 10:58:10 PM  
Larry Craig is my senator, so I am getting a kick out of these replies...

/o rly?
//ya rly
 
2007-08-30 11:01:39 PM  
Geotpf:
You, and everybody else, missed one major one.

Craig wasn't charged with soliticing sex!

He was charged with two counts:

PEEP: Interferece with Prvacy

and

DISOR: Disorderly Conduct

The second one (quite generic) is what he pled guilty to.

The first one, as the shorthand PEEP indicates, is for peeping. (Surreptiontitiously gazing, staring, or peeping in...or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose thier intimate parts...)

That is, the crime occured long before all the hand and foot signals. The crime was Craig squinting into the crack of the stall door (several times) to check out the officer. Waiting until the dancing was just to make sure the guy was truely trolling for sex.


Indeed, I shall make that point number 6 then!

/and sorry for my rant about partisan politics there, just went off on a tangent there
//it's just something that realy gets to me, clearly.
///The US always was an extremest state, it's just that it used to be extremist about personal freedom, and that's something to be appluded
////nowadays, it doesn't seem that way
 
2007-08-30 11:05:39 PM  
sseye: Bartleby the Scrivener, do you know your moniker is taken from a story by an author, Herman Melville, who had a major gay crush on Nathaniel Hawthorne, and that the story from which you take your moniker is primarily a story about a same-sex crush?

No, I didn't think you knew that.

There's nothing wrong with that, BTW - I'm 99.998% straight and Melville is a favorite author of mine...


well, i knew those two liked to get in a daisy chain with whitman and emerson, but i never knew melville wrote a story with my name in the title. that's really strange, considering i wasn't even alive back then. i learn something new everyday here on fark. i'll have to go look it up. it sounds like a great read.

thanks. i'm a better person for reading your post!
 
2007-08-30 11:05:51 PM  
He probably should have watched this ACLU show about what rights you have when the police are all up in your face. They tell you to shut your trap and wait for a lawyer, especially when the pigs are telling you that if you just cooperate or sign on the line they'll let you off without any trouble.
 
2007-08-30 11:11:48 PM  

Some months ago Melissa Ethridge was playing downtown Portland and I shiat you not there a virtual sea of female mullets out there.

why a woman finds another woman is no mystery to me. Women are great! But why a woman would want another woman to look like Billy Ray Cyrus? It boggles the mind.


Oregon is the mullet capitol of the west- male or female. But an Ethridge concert would bring out a concentration.
 
2007-08-30 11:22:26 PM  
Bartleby the Scrivener: well, i knew those two liked to get in a daisy chain with whitman and emerson, but i never knew melville wrote a story with my name in the title. that's really strange, considering i wasn't even alive back then. i learn something new everyday here on fark. i'll have to go look it up. it sounds like a great read. thanks. i'm a better person for reading your post!

Yeah, well, considering you are employing a nuclear snark offensive - I'm not sure how that furthers a single point you've made, except as a biatchy concession. That's OK - I'm not offended by biatchy. I think it's kinda cute. And, just so I don't lead you on, "I'd have a beer with you" cute, not "we'll go to your place and have totally non-gay man-to-man sex" cute.

I will try not to embarrass you by belaboring the point (much), but "Bartelby the Scrivener" is about an employer whose employee doesn't actually do any useful work, but he can't compel him because of a strange, unexplained attraction. If you can think of any other way to fill in the details, let me know.

You can live in your closet if you like - but isn't it a little stuffy in there?
 
2007-08-30 11:25:48 PM  
Mayor Bee
generalDisdain: Good thing the Senator didn't have a hanky:

Link
(pops)(possibly NSFW)

Aww, c'mon! First the breeders find out about the bathroom code, now you're telling them about the hanky code? What's next, are you going to tell them the secret code that can be punched into any remote to turn on gay porn on the tv?


Nah, don't want to overload them with information. I only posted that to freak them out about their bandana color choices. That way they can alternate between "public bathroom sex signals" and "OMG!!! My bandana means I like WHAT!!!???"
 
2007-08-30 11:27:36 PM  
bitteroldman: could care less what his special tastes include

How much less COULD you care??

/late...drunk...STFU
 
2007-08-30 11:35:31 PM  
sseye: Bartleby the Scrivener: well, i knew those two liked to get in a daisy chain with whitman and emerson, but i never knew melville wrote a story with my name in the title. that's really strange, considering i wasn't even alive back then. i learn something new everyday here on fark. i'll have to go look it up. it sounds like a great read. thanks. i'm a better person for reading your post!

Yeah, well, considering you are employing a nuclear snark offensive - I'm not sure how that furthers a single point you've made, except as a biatchy concession. That's OK - I'm not offended by biatchy. I think it's kinda cute. And, just so I don't lead you on, "I'd have a beer with you" cute, not "we'll go to your place and have totally non-gay man-to-man sex" cute.

I will try not to embarrass you by belaboring the point (much), but "Bartelby the Scrivener" is about an employer whose employee doesn't actually do any useful work, but he can't compel him because of a strange, unexplained attraction. If you can think of any other way to fill in the details, let me know.

You can live in your closet if you like - but isn't it a little stuffy in there?


i like you. but i dont' drink. maybe we can go to the cheesecake factory, get something phallic as an appetizer, and make fun of the waitresses.
 
2007-08-30 11:42:13 PM  
Hey I'm conservative and I say this filth is deserving of the roughest options available against people. These farking power mad pervs who want to dominate young guys need to be put down like a Vick dog. Get this guy gone. In another saner time he would have been tarred and feathered for his disgusting proclivities.
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report