AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
slatten49 wrote:
So, you ladies want to interrupt my head from my shoulders? :shock: What am I to do, let it go as planned? :roll: :hunf: :lol:
Remember, I said early this AM we would detach it, inspect it, fill it with appropriate thoughts and use Gorilla Glue to reattach it. I am going to consult with the SM on the matter. :twisted: :-P :-)
slatten49 wrote:
Chief, you really need to get out on the OPP, a little more. Those of us who participate, call these frequent interludes, "rollicking frivolity". A breath of fresh air!
You just have to look for them! :mrgreen:
All are welcome. :thumbup:
Yes indeed. Even us Jarheads welcome members of our 'Transportation Department'.
There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines themselves, and the enemy. Everyone else has a second hand opinion.
(Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army)
AuntiE wrote:
Or "going off the rails". Heck, he even missed football watching together. Of course, he may root for wrong teams. :cry: Sometimes he seems slightly contrary, not offensively so. :shock:
As long as it's not the evil "Ravens", of Baltimore. :?
Outside of being Naval personnel, I do not find him offensive, at all....just not a Marine! :mrgreen:
Old_Gringo wrote:
Yes indeed. Even us Jarheads welcome members of our 'transportation department'.
There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines themselves, and the enemy. Everyone else has a second hand opinion.
(Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :mrgreen:
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
slatten49 wrote:
As long as it's not the evil "Ravens", of Baltimore. :?
Outside of being Naval personnel, I do not find him offensive, at all....just not a Marine! :mrgreen:
I did not call him "offensive". I said he can be contrary. He probably finds me the same on occasion, though how such could happen is incomprehensible. :roll:
AuntiE wrote:
I did not call him "offensive". I said he can be contrary. He probably finds me the same on occasion, though how such could happen is incomprehensible. :roll:
No, you did not, but I phrased my comment contrarily.
I have never found you contrary...just persnickety! :mrgreen: Incomprehensibly so. :wink: :lol:
slatten49 wrote:
No, you did not, but I phrased my comment contrarily.
I have never found you contrary...just persnickety! :mrgreen: Incomprehensibly so. :wink: :lol:
She is that, at times; incomprehensible.
RetNavyCWO wrote:
This is probably the first thread I've read on this forum since I got here that was light-hearted and fun.
Thank you, AuntiE! Please...may I have another?
Fair warning, it can become addictive!!
Well AuntiE, you may begin your celebration(s) now. The Ravens just beat K.C. 45-44.
AuntiE wrote:
John Denver, "Some Days Are Diamonds, Some Days Are Stones". It is actually one of Slatten's and my favorite songs.
While he was interfering, I was getting through. :-o
Ah me, I stand corrected, but I'm ever SO glad you got through!! I could tell by the way that slatten was beginning to grovel a little that you must have and slatten could tell his days were numbered!!
Searching wrote:
Ah me, I stand corrected, but I'm ever SO glad you got through!! I could tell by the way that slatten was beginning to grovel a little that you must have and slatten could tell his days were numbered!!
AuntiE, I stand in awe and am humbled by your power of concentration, to say nothing of your powers of persuasion!! :mrgreen:
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
RetNavyCWO wrote:
Since the wearing of a wedding band or ring is a recognized method in our society of announcing to others whether one is single or involved in a committed, loving relationship, I would say that both men and women should wear wedding bands/rings. I can understand an opposing viewpoint that one's love life need not be announced to anyone - let the rest of society perceive an individual based upon the individual's actions rather than on whether the individual is involved in a committed relationship. To that I would say that more information about a person is better than less if we are going to interact with that person. If a person is wearing a wedding band/ring, we know with some degree of certainty that the person is probably married. If a person is not wearing a wedding band/ring, we don't know one way or the other, but we would probably assume the person to be single...which could be problematic depending on the circumstances.
For example, if a woman who is not wearing a wedding band or ring makes a flirtatious gesture or comment to me, I would, more than likely, assume she has a romantic interest in me and respond accordingly (whether positively or negatively). If the same woman is wearing a wedding band or ring and makes the same gesture or comment, I would probably think she was just being nice. I might still think she was interested, but she would have shot herself in the foot because I would never date a married woman.
Since the wearing of a wedding band or ring is a r... (
show quote)
If a woman makes a comment to you, it may be your presumption it is more then nice simply because she does not have a wedding ring on. Be assured a married woman who does not have a ring on can set you back firmly in your place without giving offense. Is it your contention a woman can only be interested in you for a "date" as opposed to simply having conversation?
By the way, I have not worn my wedding ring in eighteen or more months. My spouse has not had his on in I cannot recall when.
I have waited to put forth my position on this subject. I choose you to put it forth.
It is my contention a couple either know they are married; committed to that marriage; honor each other and their commitment and vows or they do not. A ring on their finger is not going to change their behavior. It is you who gave the example of a man having another ring to cover the ring outline. His ring made no difference to his being a piece of slime and honoring his vows.
As a generalization, I further believe married individuals, who are committed to their spouse, marriage and vows, have an "air" (for lack of a better word) about them which conveys their lack of availability.
slatten49 wrote:
Chief, you really need to get out on the OPP, a little more. Those of us who participate, call these frequent interludes, "rollicking frivolity". A breath of fresh air!
You just have to look for them! :mrgreen:
All are welcome. :thumbup:
However, some of us have been guilty of crashing certain individuals serial topics and the rest of us have joined in. Think our defense could be "comic relief". :-o
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
slatten49 wrote:
No, you did not, but I phrased my comment contrarily.
I have never found you contrary...just persnickety! :mrgreen: Incomprehensibly so. :wink: :lol:
If you want incomprehensible, wait till you read my commentary on wedding bands and my position thereon. I perceive heads will be exploding.
AuntiE
Loc: 45th Least Free State
Searching wrote:
However, some of us have been guilty of crashing certain individuals serial topics and the rest of us have joined in. Think our defense could be "comic relief". :-o
There have been topics needing our disruption. :hunf:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.