Hallelujah!!!
Kasia August 1st, 2008
The bridesmaid dresses are settled!!!!!!!!
I will post more about this over the weekend, but suffice it to say, for now, that I am downright thrilled. They’re modest, they’re pretty, they’re re-wearable…and they’re ORDERED!!! 
Well, except for the one for my Canadian bridesmaid. But I’ve sent her the information.
In addition to a longer post on this, expect me to post the meme Kit tagged me with in the next day or two…I’ve been a’percolatin’…
“there wearable” Come on, your not going to make your bridesmaids suffer and look like something stuffed into taffeta? Good, girl!
Yeah!
I’ve tagged you for a meme, details are on my blog if you’re interested.
There’s gonna be a *Canadian* bridesmaid? Oy. Isn’t that, like, illegal or something? And what’s this about getting her a dress? You know they haven’t evolved to wearing clothes yet . . .
Wow!
I thought EVERYONE has heard *if you can’t say anything nice, than you shouldn’t say anything at all*
Obviously I was mistaken.
Perhaps this one? It’s called *thinking before you speak*
This one is good too - *rude and interesting are not the same thing*
“I thought EVERYONE has heard *if you can’t say anything nice, than you shouldn’t say anything at all*”
This is why I’m keepin my mouth shut (for now).
Joe,
The Canadian bridesmaid is going to be wearing a parka, mukluks and one of those hats with the little flaps to cover her ears. Her outfit will, however, be in a festive color!
TBS
Hmmm …. wordpress doesn’t like angle brackets (probably thinks it’s some sort of html code), so I’ll try this again (with different brackets):
[sigh]
Kasia,
HUG!
Canuck,
I wouldn’t blame you in the least if you happened to make an off-color comment right about now! However your restraint certainly shows a level of class that our rude and angry *friend* doesn’t possess.
Big Seester,
I LOVE the mukluks idea! Nothing says winter quite like ‘em! And the hats - the bridesmaids could set a new trend!
Canada Joe,
2 words. Red Green.
TBS
My dear dumbf**k[Edited] goyim brethren:
There is such a thing as a sly sense of humor, which one is allowed to have, even with stuff so serious as this.
Cheers,
JW
A sense of humour (sly or otherwise) is certainly something that one is allowed to have. One is even allowed to use said sense of humour here. One is also allowed to demonstrate an ability to engage in polite and civilized discourse.
OK, I can see I’m going to have to put up a post on combox etiquette. For the moment:
JW, and anyone else who may have done so at any point: please refrain from using the F-word (or any other expletives) in my comboxes. Also please refrain from calling fellow comboxers by indubitably offensive names (i.e. “dumbf**k).
Let’s all remember that one of the disadvantages of the Internet is that it’s a very two-dimensional medium. There are no tonal or body language cues (hence the development of emoticons), and it can be very difficult to tell when someone is being serious and when someone is being facetious. So “sly” humor may not translate as well onto the ‘net. That doesn’t mean one can’t use it. But it bears remembering, either when someone else doesn’t “get” the joke or when I see something that I find questionable or objectionable.
I strongly believe in the value of letting others have their say, even when I don’t see value to what they happen to be saying. So I try to keep a pretty generous comment policy, with a “when in doubt, let the comment stand” application. There are, however, limits to what I will tolerate. I wil try to put up a post in the next few days with some more specific guidelines; because any just rule should be easily knowable by the people to whom it applies.
The Declaration of Independence makes a difference. So too the First Amendment. These and the other lovely Amendments (you might want to look them up sometime; they’ve done much good for you) trump the Commandments Ten, and all the rest of our early literary excreta.
Why are you trying to frame this as a First Amendment issue? I’m not Congress, nor am I any government actor. I’m a private citizen just like you. The Bill of Rights is a set of protections against government, not against other private citizens. And your assertion that it trumps the Ten Commandments is just weird, considering that this wasn’t a religious post and no one brought up religion before you did.
Fact beats fiction. I win. End of story. Cheerio.
You seriously need help.
Which fact beats which fiction? The way I see it, K’s right to enforce standards of conduct in her comboxes far outweighs your silly 1st Amendment argument.
I wish I could simply declare myself the winner of all my conflicts. Life would be so much easier that way. Unfortunately, in the real world, we have to provide evidence, and you haven’t offered any.
Joe, what exactly is it about organized religion (and Christianity is particular) that irriates you so much?
Is it that you’re terrified that we’re going to show up at your house in the middle of the night, kidnap you, and spirit you away to the Catholic Indoctrination Unit? Don’t worry - we don’t work that way.
Or is that you’re worried that, just maybe, there’s some truth to Christianity, and that you’re going to have a great deal to answer for when the time comes? Don’t worry - we all will.
Something else entirely?
I’m curious.
In point of fact I do not need help, as I am independent and fully human. I don’t lean on the crutch of religion to get me through life. This is quite funny, because for all your side’s self-defeating garbage, there are kernels of truth: the strogn must protect the weak. So it is with rational humans who think. They must take care of those who only follow their gut instinct. Brain, hearts, guts and gonads in balance — this is a fully formed human. If you cling to religion, you are not. You are, in the most literal sense, retarded.
Ah yes, I see. The “independent and fully human” Joseph Waldman, a rational, thinking human being, thinks that we’re the ones in need of enlightenment. You know, Waldman, he who, for some reason, finds it necessary to label people who disagree with him as “retarded.” Yes, independent, fully human individuals like Waldman are definitely superior to us mouth-breathing, barely functional believers. This is all so clear to me now - the scales have fallen away from my eyes! Thank you, thank you ever so much, Joseph Waldman, for leading me out of darkness and into the wonderful light of non-belief!
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: Waldman, if this is the best you can do in advocating for the atheist cause, don’t be surprised if nobody joins you.
By the way, why should I believe this: “Brain, hearts, guts and gonads in balance — this is a fully formed human. If you cling to religion, you are not.” Thus spake Waldman, ex cathedra? Res ipsa loquitur? Color me unimpressed.
You’re quite funny, djrakowski. And yes, I will have fries with that. Lock up before you go.
I should’ve known better than to expect an actual response to my questions.
Ah well. St. Dymphna, Ora Pro Nobis!
Magic spells and pixie dust have no place in the world of reason and humanity.
Score:
Enlightenment infinity and continuing upward;
Religion, zero and plummeting downward.
Waldman locuta est, causa finita est, I presume?
1776 C.E. uber 0 “A.D.” (sic).
It’s synthesis, after all, isn’t it? The two can work together to make three. In life, one and one don’t make two, one and one make one. This produces a heartier, hardier and healthier breed of human. Impervious to disease.
Actually, one and one, while normally making one (assuming you are talking about DNA replication, etc), doesn’t automatically create a “heartier, hardier and healthier breed of human.” Most typically, any mutations which occur (and we are talking mutations here) are neutrally beneficial to the organism and do not affect the organisms reproductive capacity. Only if there is an extremely beneficial or extremely detrimental mutation which affects reproductive capacity, is there going to be any “evolution” of sorts in one way or the other, by either enhancing that specific gene set in it’s promulgation, or disenabling it’s propagation throughout the species.
But, I don’t see where that comment fits into the conversation.
Whoa. I have been away too long, AND I’m old fashioned, but I’ve always thought guests should honor house rules or refrain from visiting.
Ummmm….yeah, back to the point.
I CAN’T WAIT TO SEE THE DRESSES!
I agree with kit…I’ve also been away too long! lol I too cannot wait to see the dresses!