xoder: (Default)
xoder ([personal profile] xoder) wrote2004-04-09 08:06 pm

RE:

Sex is not a subset of poking. They are disjoint sets, satisfying different drives. That is all, have a nice day.
---FORWARDED---

It is a subset of poking

[identity profile] orangecream.livejournal.com 2004-04-09 07:39 pm (UTC)(link)
You are wrong, and Kitri, Charlene and I are right.
ext_3482: Saturn Girl (i wear my underpants on the outside.)

[identity profile] unlovablehands.livejournal.com 2004-04-09 08:05 pm (UTC)(link)
this just reminded me: you still owe me money for all those bets you lost. bucko.

[identity profile] kitty-trie.livejournal.com 2004-04-10 06:50 am (UTC)(link)
sex is a subset of poking. its a type of poking, and its higher priority of pokingness

(The only valid use of ad hominim)

[identity profile] xoder.livejournal.com 2004-04-10 08:55 am (UTC)(link)
Seeing as how none of the people who disagree with me have penises, I would have to say that you have no basis for the statements you are making.

I would like to bring your attention to this thread, in which I am right and you are not

[identity profile] xoder.livejournal.com 2004-04-10 11:01 am (UTC)(link)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/xoder/312820.html?thread=412660#t412660

[identity profile] zsparke.livejournal.com 2004-04-11 11:30 am (UTC)(link)
I totally agree.

[identity profile] xoder.livejournal.com 2004-04-11 01:26 pm (UTC)(link)
Thank gods a girl agrees with me. All these women, and their not-having-penises, fully misunderstandanding the relationship between poking and sex!