Ship of Fools: Answering Frankenstein's questions

Thread: Answering Frankenstein's questions Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029956

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

From here

Frankenstein wrote:

quote:
If church is being seen as irrelevant, what is being done to address it?

I think there's a meeting next week where every single person with an interest in raising attendance numbers in the various denominations will come up with a solution. You have google, check it out.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I don't have much a problem with Frankenstein opening that thread. It's a subject we've been talking a lot about already of course, but that is true for most threads.

One thing I do have issue with on that thread is him commanding people to look things up on the internet. He should provide links and comment on why he thinks they support his views, not try to let others do his work for him.

[ 13. March 2016, 19:52: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

It feels like he's looking for a particular answer that he already knows and is expecting the rest of us to come to.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
It feels like he's looking for a particular answer that he already knows and is expecting the rest of us to come to.

No dog in the actual fight, but that particular rhetorical habit drives me batshit insane.

Is there a Latin term for it? Spittit Outicus?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Nicolemr: It feels like he's looking for a particular answer that he already knows and is expecting the rest of us to come to.

Yes, you put the finger on it. And I like Kelly's Latin term [Smile]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I've seen it called 'answer-pulling'.

Moo

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(Grumble) I've got an answer you can pull...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
(Grumble) I've got an answer you can pull...

Is it like my Uncle Marty's finger?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't have much a problem with Frankenstein opening that thread. It's a subject we've been talking a lot about already of course, but that is true for most threads.

Yeah, I wasn't in a state of fiery outrage when I started this thread. I just thought F's schtick warranted a notching up of the sarcasm, which might have been rather unpurgatorial.

quote:
I've seen it called 'answer-pulling'.

Well, I wonder how that would differ from Socratic Ignorance, which is one of my favorite debating techniques.

I gusss with Frankenstein, it seemed like he was framing certain issues right off the bat as being of utmost importance("decreasing reelvance of Christianity!!", and then demanding to know what people were doing about them. While sticking to pretty general terminology and refusing any requests for clarification, which made it hard to know what he was talking about.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: Well, I wonder how that would differ from Socratic Ignorance, which is one of my favorite debating techniques.

Hmm, Socrates could be a bit of an arse at times.

I also use a questioning technique rather often in debates (including on the Ship). I guess the difference lies in whether you're interested in people's answers.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There's also the difference between asking questions which you either don't know the answer to, or are unsure about the answer, and asking questions which you are sure of the right answer to - and being more than willing to then supply that answer.

Not that Frankenstein seems able to provide a straight answer to any sort of question.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Exactly. I have the feeling that with his questioning, he is trying to lead us to the killing answer he will someday give … but he never does.

The subjects he raises are interesting (even if we've discussed most of them before), but by just throwing in a question or a line, it feels a bit like he wants us to do his debating for him. Why not show a bit what your own opinions are on these topics? What conclusions do you draw from them?

(See, I can do the questioning thing too [Smile]

)

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

My curiosity was piqued, so I just peaked at the thread in question.

I found a bunch of posts from Frankenstein consisting mainly of large quotes from previous posts so as to bulk them up, tagged with questions and observations copy/pasted from a text-editor and delivered in a staccato and faux-magisterial manner in an apparent manifestation of studied minimalism.

I guess we all had a teacher like that at some point (sigh).

If you strain to make it out above the deafening trip-trap trip-trap noises in the background, it's just about possible to hear a clock ticking down somewhere.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

LeRoc wrote:

quote:
I also use a questioning technique rather often in debates (including on the Ship). I guess the difference lies in whether you're interested in people's answers.

With Frankenstein, I think he has this debate going on his head with an imaginary opponent who is shocked and outraged by his opinions, and he's hoping to find someone like that to argue with on the Ship. For example, when I asked him at the beginning to clarify what he meant by "relevant", he replied...

quote:
From my reading of the analyses of the census returns, available on the internet, the numbers who do not identify themselves with religion, is on the increase. I suggest that you goglee this yourself.

Whereas, in fact, I had not disputed his claims about the census at all. But it's like he was just hoping for someone to come along and do so.

Tellingly, when Jengie Jon, in his first post, DID present evidence calling into question the census numbers, Frankenstoen declined to reply. Despite previously having been very eager to push that point on people who WEREN'T disputing it.

[ 14. March 2016, 13:36: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Well, I wonder how that would differ from Socratic Ignorance, which is one of my favorite debating techniques.

Hahaha, I suspect people have been using Socratic questioning for thousands of years and in the process pissing everyone off.

As The Republic suggests, the main advantage of the Socratic is that you can twist your opponent in knots without ever having to spell out what you think - so you can pretend to be all innocent "what.. I don't know, I'm only asking questions..". It's bullshit.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

The difficulty I've always found with the Socratic method is that unlike in Plato the other side never seem to know their lines.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Yes, not endorsing the actual points made by Plato via the Socratic method, which are debatable, to say the least.

Like, just as how you wouldn't take a democratic vote on how to care for your sick horse, you shouldn't take a democratic vote on how to run your society.

And all his opponents can do is nod along with "By Zeus, it is just as you say, Socrates", when confronted with such wise interrogation.

[ 14. March 2016, 14:16: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
LeRoc wrote:

quote:
I also use a questioning technique rather often in debates (including on the Ship). I guess the difference lies in whether you're interested in people's answers.

With Frankenstein, I think he has this debate going on his head with an imaginary opponent who is shocked and outraged by his opinions, and he's hoping to find someone like that to argue with on the Ship. For example, when I asked him at the beginning to clarify what he meant by "relevant", he replied...

quote:
From my reading of the analyses of the census returns, available on the internet, the numbers who do not identify themselves with religion, is on the increase. I suggest that you goglee this yourself.

Whereas, in fact, I had not disputed his claims about the census at all. But it's like he was just hoping for someone to come along and do so.

Tellingly, when Jengie Jon, in his first post, DID present evidence calling into question the census numbers, Frankenstoen declined to reply. Despite previously having been very eager to push that point on people who WEREN'T disputing it.

Jengle Jon:
Frankenstein

You do know don't you that the 2011 census was designed to have a drop in numbers because the 2001 survey was felt to overstate the level of commitment in the UK to Christianity. I have this from Abby Day who advised the census people on this issue.

Only someone who is naive about the interpretative quality of statistics would believe that the decline is as steep as indicated by the survey. For an actual comparison, you might like BRIN (British Religion in Numbers) prefer to use the British Social Attitudes Survey which is conducted annual and has been asking about Religious affiliation since 1983.

Happy exploring of those sites.

Jengie Jon:

To try and clarify things, it was Jengie Jon who questioned the 2011 census returns and not Leroc.
I had confused the author, quotes within quotes..

Quote:
I asked him at the beginning to clarify what he meant by "relevant",
My understanding of this familiar word is as per any competent dictionary.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
passer: I found a bunch of posts from Frankenstein consisting mainly of large quotes from previous posts so as to bulk them up, tagged with questions and observations copy/pasted from a text-editor and delivered in a staccato and faux-magisterial manner in an apparent manifestation of studied minimalism.

… aaand again.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Tellingly, when Jengie Jon, in his first post . . . .

Just fyi, that would be her first post. [Biased]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes, not endorsing the actual points made by Plato via the Socratic method, which are debatable, to say the least.

Like, just as how you wouldn't take a democratic vote on how to care for your sick horse, you shouldn't take a democratic vote on how to run your society.

And all his opponents can do is nod along with "By Zeus, it is just as you say, Socrates", when confronted with such wise interrogation.

IIRC, Plato/Socrates wasn't too fond of democracy (or maybe that was Aristotle? I need to read them both again) but his ideal political system seemed to be a form of aristocratic ruling class - who exercised in the nude.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Frankenstein: My understanding of this familiar word is as per any competent dictionary.

Just to be clear: that's a fucking bullshit answer. On the thread in Purgatory, various people have expressed that the word 'relevant' can mean many things in the context of the question you raised. You opened a thread asking a question, people engage with your question and all you do is make long quotes and answer with "it's as per any competent dictionary".

This is disrespectful towards people who accepted your invitation to have a discussion with you. We know very well what the dictionary says thankyouverymuch; pointing us towards it in this way comes over as very patronising. We also know that words can take on different meanings when applied to different situations. You are obviously too dumb to get that.

If you don't think that discussing the meaning of 'relevance' in a situation of declining numbers of church attendance is worth your while, then you're not fit to open a topic that contains the word relevance. Get the fuck out of here, arsehole.

[ 14. March 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes, not endorsing the actual points made by Plato via the Socratic method, which are debatable, to say the least.

Like, just as how you wouldn't take a democratic vote on how to care for your sick horse, you shouldn't take a democratic vote on how to run your society.

And all his opponents can do is nod along with "By Zeus, it is just as you say, Socrates", when confronted with such wise interrogation.
IIRC, Plato/Socrates wasn't too fond of democracy (or maybe that was Aristotle? I need to read them both again) but his ideal political system seemed to be a form of aristocratic ruling class - who exercised in the nude.

Yep. I.F. Stone, among many others, has argued that Socrates whole political agenda was the exaltation of Sparta, to the detriment of Athenian democracy, a cause which naturally attracted the aristocratic youth.

The Trial Of Socrates

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Frankenstein: My understanding of this familiar word is as per any competent dictionary.
Just to be clear: that's a fucking bullshit answer. On the thread in Purgatory, various people have expressed that the word 'relevant' can mean many things in the context of the question you raised. You opened a thread asking a question, people engage with your question and all you do is make long quotes and answer with "it's as per any competent dictionary".

This is disrespectful towards people who accepted your invitation to have a discussion with you. We know very well what the dictionary says thankyouverymuch; pointing us towards it in this way comes over as very patronising. We also know that words can take on different meanings when applied to different situations. You are obviously too dumb to get that.

If you don't think that discussing the meaning of 'relevance' in a situation of declining numbers of church attendance is worth your while, then you're not fit to open a topic that contains the word relevance. Get the fuck out of here, arsehole.

A very humerous response.
You object to.my use of the word 'relevance' and object to my refering you to a dictionary.
In response you demonstrate your very limitted control of both the English Language and your temper.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
A very humerous response.
You object to.my use of the word 'relevance' and object to my refering you to a dictionary.
In response you demonstrate your very limitted control of both the English Language and your temper.

On the other hand, he can spell...

Also, he is right. You are a patronising gobshite.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I was going to suggest that refering might be a problem as well, but then I confirmed that it has an entry in Wiktionary. (as a misspelling of "referring".)

[ 15. March 2016, 12:04: Message edited by: passer ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

LOL if you think this a bad temper, you ain't seen nothing yet.

quote:
Firenze: On the other hand, he can spell...

The irony … Sometimes one should just allow oneself to savour these little nuggets.

(As some Shipmates know, English isn't my first language. It isn't even my second, so I still make mistakes. I have the feeling that when I type in English, my typing and my thoughts sometimes seem to be out of sync.)

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
LOL if you think this a bad temper, you ain't seen nothing yet.

quote:
Firenze: On the other hand, he can spell...
The irony … Sometimes one should just allow oneself to savour these little nuggets.

(As some Shipmates know, English isn't my first language. It isn't even my second, so I still make mistakes. I have the feeling that when I type in English, my typing and my thoughts sometimes seem to be out of sync.)

Your command of the "anglosaxon" is excellent.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Your command of the "anglosaxon" is excellent.

News just in: Hwæt! anglo-saxon has not been a medium of written communication for the past 900 years. These posts are being written in english, an altogether different language.

[ 15. March 2016, 14:54: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Your command of the "anglosaxon" is excellent.

Your command of "thinking" appears to be lacking.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Your command of the "anglosaxon" is excellent.
Your command of "thinking" appears to be lacking.

Before the Norman Conquest 1066, the English spoke Anglosaxon.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, d'uh. Do you have any other profound insights to offer?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Why is everyone saying "duh" all of a sudden? I've seen it on three different threads. Is it the new "asshat"?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's something AngloSaxon.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Your command of the "anglosaxon" is excellent.
Your command of "thinking" appears to be lacking.
Before the Norman Conquest 1066, the English spoke Anglosaxon.

No, they spoke Anglo-Saxon. But that's rather irrelevant to my point.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, d'uh. Do you have any other profound insights to offer?

It's as profound as anything else going on this board.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, d'uh. Do you have any other profound insights to offer?
It's as profound as anything else going on this board.

Can I help you find the door?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, d'uh. Do you have any other profound insights to offer?
It's as profound as anything else going on this board.
Can I help you find the door?

Now you're asking the questions.
Kind of you.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I don't have much a problem with Frankenstein opening that thread. It's a subject we've been talking a lot about already of course, but that is true for most threads.

One thing I do have issue with on that thread is him commanding people to look things up on the internet. He should provide links and comment on why he thinks they support his views, not try to let others do his work for him.

I am accessing the internet on a kindle.
I am unable to copy/cut/paste hence it's difficult to enter links.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I help you find the door?
Now you're asking the questions.
Kind of you.

Sometimes a question is a suggestion.

Why don't you use technology designed to allow input, rather than technology designed for reading?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Can I help you find the door?
Now you're asking the questions.
Kind of you.
Sometimes a question is a suggestion.

Why don't you use technology designed to allow input, rather than technology designed for reading?

I think I do both as I'm sure you do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

It's more of a wondering. Why would anybody who thinks "The English spoke Anglo-Saxon" to be the most profound thing here stick around this board? Glutton for punishment? Hoping to bring more such light to the heathens? Some kind of stupid fraternity pledge week dare?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

Why do I warrant so much interest?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's more of a wondering. Why would anybody who thinks "The English spoke Anglo-Saxon" to be the most profound thing here stick around this board? Glutton for punishment? Hoping to bring more such light to the heathens? Some kind of stupid fraternity pledge week dare?

"The most profound thing here" are your words.
Please remind me of the profound comments made on this theme.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Why do I warrant so much interest?

We're bored.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
Why do I warrant so much interest?
We're bored.

I am sorry to hear that you are bored.
If you really come from East Kilbride you must be unable to sleep or on night shift.
Either way you have my sympathy.
I generally turn to the radio, World Service.

Yes I have to admit to.being bored.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Actually, just settling in for my post lunch coffee and seeking online entertainment. Unfortunately all I have is you.

Though I'm not in the right time zone for the BCB, but I'm sure they'd let me join if I was.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, just settling in for my post lunch coffee and seeking online entertainment. Unfortunately all I have is you.

Though I'm not in the right time zone for the BCB, but I'm sure they'd let me join if I was.

With all the internet at your disposal...
I am not the only one on this web site.
It's not that difficult to ignore me.
So why?

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Are we doing haikus?

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Are we doing haikus?

If you think so.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
If you think so.

OK, so what are you here for? Don't you have something else to be doing other than annoying everyone else.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Frankenstein:
If you think so.

We're much more interested in what you think. If you think. Not about haiku or Anglo-Saxon. On the important subjects you started threads on in Purgatory.

These boards exist for discussion (with the exception of the Circus which is for games, and Hell which is for telling people they're wankers). Discussion requires people to state what they think, so that it's possible to actually discuss what they think. The reason there are now two threads here in Hell is that we want to call you a wanker. And, we have reason for that because you have shown precious little evidence of an intention to discuss. You've even stated that you are using technology that is unsuited to a text based exchange of ideas - good for receiving the ideas of others, crap at allowing you to tell us what you think.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What a passive-aggressive prick.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: What a passive-aggressive prick.

I agree with you on intent but to be honest, most of his replies are too weak to even qualify as 'passive-aggressive'.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Slimy?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Slimy?

I'd say whatever adjective would apply to this style of interrogation.

Basically, starting out with undefined terms, and resisting any attempt to define them, thus allowing the interrogator the license to dismiss any given answer as being wrong.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I suspect that Frankenstein is not really looking for answers, but rather that he/she/it is having some seriously infantile fun at the Ship's expense...... [Snore]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Basically, starting out with undefined terms, and resisting any attempt to define them, thus allowing the interrogator the license to dismiss any given answer as being wrong.

Definitely a subset of slimy.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
I suspect that Frankenstein is not really looking for answers, but rather that he/she/it is having some seriously infantile fun at the Ship's expense......

I.

I don't know the impression of others, but I see a markedly different style in Frankie's posts on this thread to that shown on others. Elsewhere, he has seemed to be the retired Catholic man set out in his profile - and from memory on one thread he said that he was 80. No sign of that person in any of his comments here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Looks for all the world like 1,000,000 other noobs before who find themselves insulted in Hell and get their back up and start acting adolescent or downright childish. Either by getting all passive-aggressive, or blustery, or "bring it on," or some other maladaptive mode of dealing with the hellish atmosphere.

Quite tiring. An of course the noob can't possibly know how many times we've seen it before because they're new. But trust me, Frankenstein, we've seen this behavior of yours before. You're not a special poppet. You're the last in a string of hundreds before you. We only respond at this point because (a) we hope it will egg you on to more silliness, or (b) we're sadistic bastards, or (c) something else.

You could man up and act your age, or you can keep on in this manner. Your call.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Stetson: I'd say whatever adjective would apply to this style of interrogation.

Basically, starting out with undefined terms, and resisting any attempt to define them, thus allowing the interrogator the license to dismiss any given answer as being wrong.

Thank you, that clip almost gives me issues with my anger management [Smile]

(which says something about the quality of the actors).

I wonder if there is a name for this way of debating (besides slimy, which seems a good characterisation).

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That is a fantastic clip. The film was otherwise a bit disappointing but worth watching for that one clip.

Its an interesting effect that these pot-stirring passing through are always tedious and painful, but often have the effect of provoking some interesting discussion. (Not between normal posters and them, but among the normal posters in the wake of the pot-stirring).

We once had a thread on how difficult it was to ignore them, which I think has sunk through oblivion to further oblivion, but sometimes it can be interesting not to ignore them.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

When I studied Beowulf at university, the Anglo Saxons spoke Old Englis.h.

Chaucer and Julian of Norwich spoke Middle Englis.

Jane Austen and I speak Modern Englis.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Ken used to do a great response to the word "Anglo-saxon" which included an explanation that the word was retrospectively applied to an ethnicity that was actually three Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons and Jutes).

I think, ironically enough, Bede used it first. However Saxon was often used as a broader term, and it's problematic to be precise about who would have been an Angle and whether all Angles were in fact Saxons in a sense.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, discussion of Angles tends to get obtuse.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:

Chaucer and Julian of Norwich spoke Middle Englis.

I'd put them at Early Modern meself - because you can actually read them straight off and follow the general drift. Whereas the likes of Pearl or Gawayne are still just that one, maddening remove from comprehensibility.

[ 17. March 2016, 12:46: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
just that one, maddening remove from comprehensibility.

And we're back to Frankenstein.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, discussion of Angles tends to get obtuse.

That's acute one.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just my normal sense of humour.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Still a scalene way to behave.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Possibly oblique.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Try to take it as a complement.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Sorry, just trying to triangulate on a few issues raised. Didn't mean to get on such a tangent with a circular argument.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
When I studied Beowulf at university, the Anglo Saxons spoke Old Englis.h.

AIUI, the language is known as "Old English" at a dark blue institution, and "Anglo-Saxon" in the pale.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

If you don't knock the geometry jokes off, you'll get to feel the pointy end of my hostly implements.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

They're just a few bad jokes. Just like Frankenstein.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What a passive-aggressive prick.

Part of that could definitely not be attributed to you.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0