Thread: Marriage?

Originally Posted by waxwing

I hope I have not dragged us even farther away from the point....

The point was a slanging match about....well, it's up there, or down there, either way works.

The 'logic slippage' yields this: With my 'AND' VM's statement means that he doesn't know a women over 30 who has experienced a problem and he knows many whose first-child birth was problem free. But, the same statement with the original 'BUT' relies on the first clause being founded on a blissful ignorance in general of the birthing problems of the over 30s. I get it Anyway waxwing I'm too bone-lazy to go on!

Now, would you like to correct your mistakes, Mr Grammatical?

Originally Posted by майк

With my 'AND' VM's statement means that he doesn't know a women over 30 who has experienced a problem and he knows many whose first-child birth was problem free.

'All the woman I know who gave birth after 30 had no problems'

If so, 'but' should be 'and'

How you managed to get through high school is just past me...

Shall I give you a hand with your punctuation?

Anyway waxwing I'm too bone-lazy to go on!

@Janice:

but I know when I have the winning side: when my opponent can be no more than vicious

That's because the only lingo you understand is that of viciousness. You can't even follow my line of reasoning, you're completely deprived of the ability to think logically and that's why you fail to see the connection between what I've been saying here and what's clear as daylight to anyone who has at least an ounce of grey matter in their top paddock. Consider yourself written off as a total social and academic failure.

As for you, JB, I can only recommend that you go back to square one and re-read my postings because you have once again demonstrated your inability to grasp the simple truth that I've been trying to explain to you all along, namely that the connection between the figure of 30 and the fact that certain things happen inside a woman's body when she's that age is dictated only by the fact that in this day and age the majority of women will have deplored their organisms by that very age and that many years ago this figure was different from what it is today and that it is constantly changing - slowly but inevitably changing. All those 30 y.o. women I was talking about had bodies of your average 20 year olds - there's no contradiction here with science which gives reference to age groups only in the social context of our societies because the average person is assumed to develop this and that condition by this and that age, etc. and it is possible to have lived 40 years on this planet and have a body whose major readings are the same as those of a 20 year old. Unfortunately you're too thick to undertsnad such a simple fact. So please send your midwifing colleagues my love - next time y'all go out onto the porch to git some beer from the fridge. I'm a fixin to come round to yo' ranch and stroke yo' dawg someday...

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Now, would you like to correct your mistakes, Mr Grammatical?

Frankly VM, that response is so lacklustre, it's useless. It's almost a compliment. Come on, get a grip!

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

How you managed to get through high school is just past me...

Yes, it gets used: 20 hits in your Google. You might consider: -
is just beyond me..., or maybe
just passes me by...
just passed me by...

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Shall I give you a hand with your punctuation?

Of course! That is why I am here! And whether in English or Russian. You may agree with me that the conversation is not always as erudite as it might be but there are, at least, some excellent opportunities for language development. The density of your invective leads much to be desired but, VM, you are highly skilled in English and, my guess is, even more adept at Russian. So, crack on, correct at will.

btw is it 'adept in' or 'adept at' - does it matter?

Anyway VM, apart from being diverted by my despicable grammar, did you give any consideration to the logic of my proposals?

Originally Posted by майк

But, like joysof, friendliness is not VM’s thing: standing of course behind the apparent anonymity of the Internet.

What?! An unnecessary jibe? You're learning, clearly.

Originally Posted by joysof

What?! An unnecessary jibe?

Yes. I agree. I stand by the previous thread but I apologise joysof for referring to it here.

Originally Posted by ????

Frankly VM, that response is so lacklustre, it's useless. It's almost a compliment. Come on, get a grip!

If there's anyone here who needs getting a grip, it's you. What I did is give you the taste of your own medicine. What, you found it hard to swallow?

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

How you managed to get through high school is just past me...

I don't give an airborne act of fornication how many google hits it produces, all I know is that my English teacher - a true Englishman born and bred - says so.

Of course!That is why I am here! And whether in English or Russian.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, mike, but I don't speak English - I speak a language related to English - it's called Veyemglish - it's a totally different language with its own vocabulary and grammar. You wouldn't know anything about it.

Anyway VM, apart from being diverted by my despicable grammar, did you give any consideration to the logic of my proposals?

No, I didn't. Should I?

And one more thing, mike - you speak of anonymity, so I dare you to look me up when you come to St Pete. Look me up if you dare.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

And one more thing, mike - you speak of anonymity, so I dare you to look me up when you come to St Pete. Look me up if you dare.

Hee. Are you listed under V for "VendingMachine" or M for "Machine, Vending"?

Originally Posted by майк

But, like joysof, friendliness is not VM’s thing: standing of course behind the apparent anonymity of the Internet.

No, a reasonable expectation of literacy and intelligence are joysof's thing. Alas that certain people around here can't meet such standards.

Originally Posted by Линдзи

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

And one more thing, mike - you speak of anonymity, so I dare you to look me up when you come to St Pete. Look me up if you dare.

Hee. Are you listed under V for "VendingMachine" or M for "Machine, Vending"?

Ha-ha-ha-ha You've made my day with that joke, Линдзи. You and the woman I love who has just agreed to become my wife. I'm the happiest man in the world now, so let us wipe the slate clean, Линдзи, shall we? I'm sorry I called you a cowgirl. You're not a cowgirl. You must be a very nice and intelligent woman and you have a grand sense of humour.

Anyway, mike can just pm me and I'll tell him how to find me, but I know he won't cos he ain't got the bottle.

P.S. JB - we're still at war.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Ha-ha-ha-ha You've made my day with that joke, Линдзи. You and the woman I love who has just agreed to become my wife. I'm the happiest man in the world now, so let us wipe the slate clean, Линдзи, shall we? I'm sorry I called you a cowgirl. You're not a cowgirl. You must be a very nice and intelligent woman and you have a grand sense of humour.

Oh, Vendy! But...but...it can never be. Ours is a love forbidden. We're from different worlds! You're a vodkomat! I'm a schoolteacher! Don't you understand?! If I let myself love you, I'll lose myself!

Damn you, Vendy, for making me think...for making me think that we had a chance!

Ahem, Lindzi, I'm sorry, Lindzi, I don't know how to put this, but, erm, would you like to re-read my post? It wasn't...erm, actually, well, you see, there's this other girl...erm...not you...right...it's her I'm marrying. Wow, I said it! Well, it wasn't that difficult after all [wipes sweat off his forehead]

“Janice:
...“ ‘but I know when I have the winning side: when my opponent can be no more than vicious. ’ ”

“That's because the only lingo you understand is that of viciousness. You can't even follow my line of reasoning, you're completely deprived of the ability to think logically and that's why you fail to see the connection between what I've been saying here and what's clear as daylight to anyone who has at least an ounce of grey matter in their top paddock. Consider yourself written off as a total social and academic failure.”

You are igoring the question. You were trying to defend this statement:
"30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds."
Because you know you made an error in this assertion, you no longer try to defend it. Instead, you dismiss me. That makes you no less wrong, nor your assertion no more defensible.
It is sad that a person of your obvious intelligence should lack utterly the ability to admit a mistake.

Originally Posted by VendingMachine

Ahem, Lindzi, I'm sorry, Lindzi, I don't know how to put this, but, erm, would you like to re-read my post? It wasn't...erm, actually, well, you see, there's this other girl...erm...not you...right...it's her I'm marrying. Wow, I said it! Well, it wasn't that difficult after all [wipes sweat off his forehead]

[softly] I...I understand. I...

No, don't say anything.

[awkward pause]

Well, I guess...see you around, VM. [walks away, pauses, glances back over shoulder] And...VM? Take care of yourself.

Originally Posted by Janice McNay

You are igoring the question. You were trying to defend this statement....
"30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds."
Because you know you made an error in this assertion, you no longer try to defend it. Instead, you dismiss me. That makes you no less wrong, nor your assertion no more defensible.
It is sad that a person of your obvious intelligence should lack utterly the ability to admit a mistake.

The statement you're refering to needs not to be defended - to anyone with a brain it's an axyom, nevertheless I patiently explained to you why that statement is true and I'm not going to do it again because I can see you simply can't be arsed to effing scroll back and re-read my explanations. I'm walking on air tonight so I'll skip that rude comment I was going to make. And it's you who's made a mistake and won't admit it - but that's OK, I know that some Westerners are like that.


P.S. Dinnae ye find it a wee bit ironic thit yer surname shuid mean 'no' in English - fut wi yer havin made sae muckle negative an' ill-heartit posts an' aw? Ken fut ahm talkin aboot?

Your attacks on my intelligence do not bother me. I expected nothing better from you; anyone having the temerity to disagree with you receives the same treatment.
I have re-read, again, your posts concerning the following opinion you gave. This is the root cause of our current disagreement:

"...many centuries ago people's life expectancy was much lower, 30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds.


I have no disagreement with the former part of your statement. I vehemently disagree with the latter part.
You refuse to defend this statement any further. If this statement were true, it would mean that much of our view of the past would have to be changed. History’s prism would shift, not drastically, but enough. But, your assertion about how people around 30 years of age were then seen is false.
Rather than throwing more insults my way, you really ought to try enlightening me further. You wrote this:

"They were. Believe me, I happen to know. In the meantime, re-read what I wrote above."
Then, this:
A toadstool is more intellegent(sic) than you. Obviously you don't know what scientific analysis is and you've never heard of radioactive dating and other ways scientists use to determine a) the age of the fossil/remains, etc, b) when the organism died and c) its diet, d) state of health, etc. .

I still do not see what radiocative (carbon) dating and other ways of determining the age of fossils has to do with your assertion that:
30 year olds were considered to be very very old, like today's 80 year olds. I await from you further explanation or further insults. I expect only further insults because you know the facts are not with you.
By the way, my Irish accent is much better than your execrable satirization of it.

Janice. Two things.

1)Did you notice the part upthread where VendingMachine claimed to speak a language called "Veyemglish"? Or that he comes from the village "Twatskoye"? Such things are what we in the business refer to as clues. Not to rob you of fresh prey, VM, but...Janice, seriously. Adjust your debating fervor accordingly.
2)I should hope your Irish accent sounds more Irish than what VM wrote, because what he wrote was clearly intended to be Scottish. Are you an American?

I am an Irish woman and I now live in US

VM, no matter how many times I read your posts, I still can't find any scientific truth or fact to your uneducated version of physiology. A good looking healthy woman of 30 is still 30. Her bones, tissues, ovarys and uterus are 30, not 20. If she gets pregnant at 30 she's using a 30 year old egg. No amount of exercise or carrot juice will make that egg 20 and there is no way to slow the aging of the eggs. You can look at her and think she looks younger than 20, but when she goes to the surgery her insides look 30.
And no matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you aren't aging, when you fall off your high horse and end up in the morgue, the forensic pathologist will open your gut and find a 45 year old. (except when he saws open your skull he will find the brain of a 16 year old)

Also VM, when I get home next week and tell my Moscow girlfriends that they are not engaged to be married because it doesn't exist in Russia, they will want an explanation. So what do you suggest they call this time of buying rings and hiring caterers?

Looks like a lot of those "progressive people" who don't get STDs are turning up HIV positive.
www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/11/15/013.html