Who will have the last word on this thread ?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (268 of them)

View Previous Page...

YAY IT'S BACK

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 20 January 2003 16:17 (twenty-three years ago)

B-b-but - I would have won, Graham!

I am sick, but I'm still a winner! God damn it!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 20 January 2003 16:19 (twenty-three years ago)

this thread was locked?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 20 January 2003 17:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I can't believe you're all trying to compete for the last word on this thread.

― Mandee, Monday, 20 January 2003 18:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I know! Silly innit?

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 20 January 2003 18:25 (twenty-three years ago)

I guess it is sort of silly.

― rosemary (rosemary), Monday, 20 January 2003 19:34 (twenty-three years ago)

You're all being very childish, and someone with my kind of wisdom and dignity wouldn't even join in. (haha I'm winning!)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 20 January 2003 20:09 (twenty-three years ago)

You were winning...

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 20 January 2003 20:21 (twenty-three years ago)

I think Dan should win coz it was his birthday the other day.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 20 January 2003 20:57 (twenty-three years ago)

three weeks pass...

I intend to win.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 11:59 (twenty-three years ago)

This is terrible. Please do not revive it. For everyone knows that the last word was only supposed to be MINE

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:07 (twenty-three years ago)

It wont be me, but then, I'm not sure if I care....

― smee (smee), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:08 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't care. Definitely not.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I do.

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:17 (twenty-three years ago)

That's a shame, cos you ain't gonna win, Vic.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:23 (twenty-three years ago)

I wouldn't be so sure 'bout that, Nick

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:27 (twenty-three years ago)

Oh, I would.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:28 (twenty-three years ago)

so futile nick, give up now while you still have your sanity

― minna (minna), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:32 (twenty-three years ago)

jel gets an underscore and thus wins.

― Graham (graham), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:34 (twenty-three years ago)

um, congrats jel

― Vic (Vic), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:36 (twenty-three years ago)

But who gets the LAST underscore?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:38 (twenty-three years ago)

This thread need to be revived.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 10 February 2003 12:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes. I am a public servant.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 10 February 2003 12:49 (twenty-three years ago)

don't mess with the best

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 10 February 2003 16:58 (twenty-three years ago)

This thread is silly.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:10 (twenty-three years ago)

yes,isn't it?

― alix (alix), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

No.

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 18:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes?
NO

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 18:01 (twenty-three years ago)

here

― Chris V. (Chris V), Monday, 10 February 2003 18:03 (twenty-three years ago)

Hi!!!!

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:02 (twenty-three years ago)

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:15 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.novareinna.com/scribbles/lastword.jpg

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

You have to say something to have the last word. Duh.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:22 (twenty-three years ago)

No you don't

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Shut up. Yer stupid.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:28 (twenty-three years ago)

Okay

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:31 (twenty-three years ago)

Stop being a dumbass.

― Sarah McLusky (coco), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:33 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry, will do.

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:39 (twenty-three years ago)

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Jel, Sarah told me to tell you to tell yourself that you are being a dumbass.

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:43 (twenty-three years ago)

view source

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:43 (twenty-three years ago)

Touche

― Oops (Oops), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:45 (twenty-three years ago)

but really, I'm gonna retire from this thread

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 10 February 2003 19:47 (twenty-three years ago)

Senator BRUCE. Begot by, the abuses of the old saloon, and hastened to maturity by the economic necessities and uncalculating enthusiasm of the World War, and by the lavish use of money and political threats by the Anti-Saloon League, national prohibition went into
legal effect upward of six years ago, but it can be truly said that, except to a highly qualified extent, it has never gone into practical effect at all. The appetite for drink, which has been one of the primal impulses of the great mass of human beings ever since Jesus at Cana manifested forth His glory, to use the words of St. John, by converting the water in six water pots into wine, has, In its struggle with the vast repressive agencies set in motion by the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act, furnished another illustration of the truth, which neither moralist nor statesman should ever forget, even in his most fervid moments of disinterested or generous feeling, that man is a creature who can be regulated and bettered, but can not be made over. Once, during the agitation for the abolition of human slavery, Henry Brougham decried what he termed "the wild and guilty fantasy that man can hold property in man." As wild and guilty is the fantasy that even the power of the Federal Government can totally divest man of his warm garment of animal sensations, desires, and appetites. Ever since the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act became parts of the legislation of our land the human instinct of personal liberty, guided by a correct sense of the limits within which natural law can be controlled by municipal ordinances, has maintained an unbroken resistance to them; and nothing can be more unwarranted than the statement often heard that this resistance is limited to a single self-indulgent social class.

It is not kept up more stoutly by what the prohibitionists, vainly seek to excite social disaffection and jealousy, call the smart social set, than it is by the members of the American Federation of Labor. It is not limited to any social class or sect. It has brought about close working relations between the bootlegger and thousands of the most intelligent and virtuous members of American society who feel no more compunction about violating the Volstead Act than the Free Soiler did about violating the fugitive slave law, or the southern white did about nullifying ignorant negro, suffrage, the Federal Constitution in each instance to the contrary notwithstanding And the ever mounting record of arrests for drunkenness in all of our American cities since the enactment of the Volstead Act indicates only too significantly that the humbler and less fortunate members of society have their illicit purveyors of drink too. The recent utterances of Jewish rabbis, Protestant bishops and ministers, and of Catholic prelates like Cardinals O'Connell and Hayes, demonstrate the existence of a growing feeling, even among the American clergy, that absolute prohibition is not the ally but the enemy of human morality.

― Rockist Scientist, Monday, 10 February 2003 19:50 (twenty-three years ago)

oy.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Monday, 10 February 2003 20:32 (twenty-three years ago)

Senator BRUSHES. Begot surrounds, abuses of old hall, and accelerated to maturity by necessities economic and enthusiasm uncalculating of world war, and by use prodigal of money and of threats political by league of Against-Hall, prohibition national entered effect legal upwards does of six years, but truth can to be this which, unless a highly qualified degree, never _ has entered practical effect all appetite for drink, that to have to be one main great impulse human mass to be since then Jesus in Grey hair to show ahead its glory, to use word st. Juan, to turn water six water pote in wine, to have, in its extensive fight with repressive agency to fix to movement by eighteenth amendment and Volstead act, to equip another illustration truth, that neither moralistic nor statesman to always have to forget, uniforms in his the more fervid moment disinterested or abundant sensation, that man to be one creature who power to be to regulate and to improve, but to be able not to be to do above. Once, during the agitation for the abolition of the human slavery, the Brougham henry denigrated what it called "the wild and guilty fantasy that the man can carry out the characteristic in man." Wild and then guilty it is the fantasy that the energy of the federal government even can prevail totally to man of its hot clothes of the sensations, desires, and the appetites animals. Since then the tenth eighth amendment and Volstead the act became parts of the legislation of our earth the human instinct of the personal freedom, directed by a correct sense of the limits within which the natural right can be controlled by municipal ordinances, it has maintained an intact resistance to them; and nothing can be more unjustifiable than the declaration often heard that this resistance is limited a single social class one sameone. It is not continued reason why they call prohibitionists, vainly search to excite disaffection and social jealousy, the elegant social system, that it is in favor more bravely of the members of the American federation of the work. Any social class or sect is not limited. It has brought near relations of work around between bootlegger and the thousands of the most intelligent and more virtuous members of American society that does not feel not more of remorse on the violation of the act of Volstead that the free Soiler did on the violation of the law of the slave of the fugitive one, or the southern target did on annulling to ignorante black, suffrage, the federal constitution in each case on the contrary in spite of and the file whenever it mounted of the haltings for the embriaguez in all our American cities since the promulgation of the act of Volstead indicates only too much perceivably that the humblest members and less lucky people of the society they also have illicit his purveyors of the drink. Jewish the recent elocutions of rabbis, protestant bishops and ministers, and of you bark catholics has taste of cardinals ÓConnell and Hayes, demonstrates to the existence of a sensation every greater time, uniform between the American clergy, who the absolute prohibition is not the ally but the enemy of the human morality.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 21:17 (twenty-three years ago)

Dang I was just thinking the other day that I should revive this and indeed get the last word.

― Aaron W (Aaron W), Monday, 10 February 2003 21:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Aaron, you're obviously missing the axiom here.

― Amateurist (amateurist), Monday, 10 February 2003 21:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Skipping 168 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.