FenStar wrote:If the internet isn't for stupid meaningless arguments over obscure technicalities, than I have no idea what it is for.

Porn

FenStar wrote:I have blood, just like all other animals that I am aware of. Blood != DNA, nor does sharing genes cause bonds. It is true you have a stronger bond to family members and that usually family members share genetics, but if you switched two children at birth there would be no difference as far as I know.

Still, none of that has anything to do with the "thickness" of blood

Allegorical statements wouldn't be allegorical if they were literal.

FenStar wrote:If the internet isn't for stupid meaningless arguments over obscure technicalities, than I have no idea what it is for.

Mavyn wrote:Porn

See, no I know people say that but I find it hard to believe that by any measurement you could conclude that is its primary focus.
I know there was a thing on the Colbert report a week or two ago that said 30%, but I couldn't imagine even 3% of my traffic being holos even if I had swallowed a bottle full of Viagra.

FenStar wrote:See, no I know people say that but I find it hard to believe that by any measurement you could conclude that is its primary focus.
I know there was a thing on the Colbert report a week or two ago that said 30%, but I couldn't imagine even 3% of my traffic being holos even if I had swallowed a bottle full of Viagra.

It's all women looking at it. No need to viagra, don't have to reallocate nearly as much blood.

FenStar wrote:I have blood, just like all other animals that I am aware of. Blood != DNA, nor does sharing genes cause bonds. It is true you have a stronger bond to family members and that usually family members share genetics, but if you switched two children at birth there would be no difference as far as I know.

Still, none of that has anything to do with the "thickness" of blood

oh, I'd forgotten how talking to Fen can be! It's all coming back to me...

as I recall, identical twins who have been raised in very different environments still have very similar personalities. Blood will out. to use a different phrase.

edit: and the only DNA in blood is in leukocytes. most of blood, i.e., the erythrocytes (and the platelets), has no DNA at all.

Josephus - is it possible I could send you some birdseed - or something else - other than those worms. They are vivid, very vivid.

FenStar wrote:I have blood, just like all other animals that I am aware of. Blood != DNA, nor does sharing genes cause bonds. It is true you have a stronger bond to family members and that usually family members share genetics, but if you switched two children at birth there would be no difference as far as I know.

Still, none of that has anything to do with the "thickness" of blood

In this case thick has two meanings. The scientific meaning, and the figurative meaning - such as thick as thieves. Meaning a close group of people with common associations.

Just as blood is scientifically thicker (more viscous) than water. Family is thicker (more closely associated) than friends or colleagues with whom you eat and drink.

You see, there's a double meaning in that.

klozitshoper wrote:Josephus - is it possible I could send you some birdseed - or something else - other than those worms. They are vivid, very vivid.

That's the point, innit? "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I'll go eat worms"

klozitshoper wrote:Josephus - is it possible I could send you some birdseed - or something else - other than those worms. They are vivid, very vivid.

EBW is about more than good taste; it's also about what tastes good!!

KtCallista wrote:In this case thick has two meanings. The scientific meaning, and the figurative meaning - such as thick as thieves. Meaning a close group of people with common associations.

Just as blood is scientifically thicker (more viscous) than water. Family is thicker (more closely associated) than friends or colleagues with whom you eat and drink.

You see, there's a double meaning in that.

but that ignors fen's point that fambly bonds aren't necesarily defined by blood (or even dna, for that matter). i think hes sayin that blood is a poor symbol for fambly bonds.

AZGman wrote:EBW is about more than good taste; it's also about what tastes good!!

like frog legs! which are thicker than water!

no1 wrote:like frog legs! which are thicker than water!

Unless they're very thin!

Mavyn wrote:Porn

tru dat..err so I hear

FenStar wrote:I have blood, just like all other animals that I am aware of. Blood != DNA, nor does sharing genes cause bonds. It is true you have a stronger bond to family members and that usually family members share genetics, but if you switched two children at birth there would be no difference as far as I know.

Still, none of that has anything to do with the "thickness" of blood

As I read your postings all that keeps popping up in my head is "thick-headed". Do you understand what that means?

lplady wrote:As I read your postings all that keeps popping up in my head is "thick-headed". Do you understand what that means?

lol
maybe he needs a "thick ear"?
At least that was the cure I was always offered for a thick head.

lplady wrote:As I read your postings all that keeps popping up in my head is "thick-headed". Do you understand what that means?

I don't see what the thickness of my skull has to do with it...

Mavyn wrote:It's all women looking at it. No need to viagra, don't have to reallocate nearly as much blood.

Hmm... I've always wondered if you could have a penis so large you passed out from blood loss every time you had an erection.

j5 wrote:That's the point, innit? "Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I'll go eat worms"

exactly. Eventually, I'll get over it.

Josephus wrote:oh, I'd forgotten how talking to Fen can be! It's all coming back to me...

I was wondering when somebody was going to remember that. You know he's practically hysterical by now.

pooflady wrote:I was wondering when somebody was going to remember that. You know he's practically hysterical by now.

perhaps he needs a hystericalectomy.

FenStar wrote:Hmm... I've always wondered if you could have a penis so large you passed out from blood loss every time you had an erection.

No. I am girl.

But there are men who get light headed from them.

Josephus wrote:exactly. Eventually, I'll get over it.

Just sub it to another site fer chrissake. Woot isn't the endall beall.
(To those paying attention, please be aware of my attempts to stay on the original theme in my various replies)

j5 wrote:Just sub it to another site fer chrissake. Woot isn't the endall beall.
(To those paying attention, please be aware of my attempts to stay on the original theme in my various replies)

it was a resub from Threadless, which I withdrew from Threadless so I could sub it here (after about a year- it wasn't gonna print there). I think that version was better, actually. I might be able to resub that with the sky changes, but it couldn't be Major Tom any more, if it's landing over water.

I think it would be snapped up by GoodJoe.

Mavyn wrote:I think it would be snapped up by GoodJoe.

exactly.

I have to wait another 45 days, roughly.

Josephus wrote:I have to wait another 45 days, roughly.

I like "Starry Tom" better, anyway.

Josephus wrote:I have to wait another 45 days, roughly.

i like it rough.

look before you leap.

he who hesitates is lost.

no1 wrote:i like it rough.

That's what she said.

FenStar wrote:That's what she said.

In your dreams.

no1 wrote:i like a trough.

Fixed that for you.

j5 wrote:Fixed that for you.

i don't even know what that means!

no1 wrote:i don't even know what that means!

It's what a pig eats out of.

j5 wrote:It's what a pig eats out of.

i don't eat like a pig, i eats them!

no1 wrote:i don't eat like a pig, i eats them!

Cannibal.

EDIT: although I think j5's comment was rather weak and non-sensible.

FenStar wrote:Cannibal.

EDIT: although I think j5's comment was rather weak and non-sensible.

I canker with this statement.

j5 wrote:I canker with this statement.

reading this makes me sore!