March 30, 2007

Stupid: Internet Body Rejects .xxx Domain
— Ace

Is it just me, or is the easiest, most effective way to block porn from kids simply banning an entire extension like .xxx?

People are stupid, and they like to live in a pretend world. A pretend world, for example, where porn doesn't exist, and Seattle Slough can pay $40 a year to live a "carbon neutral lifestyle."

The U.S.-based Internet governing body rejected a proposal on Friday to create an adults-only zone on the internet, or a .XXX domain.

Supporters of an .XXX domain argued it would make it easier to confine sex sites and filter them out. Opponents argued it would make pornography on the Internet easier to find.

It's so difficult to find right now. I mean -- Google It! You cannot find any Google references at all for "pooter." Oh, wait, you can find almost 500,000.

And I made up that stupid word.

Bill Quick think he's so cool for inventing "blogosphere."

Hah. Piker.

Home of Pooter Media: See, with adult sites given a .xxx domain, no one would run into this sort of disappointment.


The More You Know: The scientific definition:

>well, since it's gone, i can now ask a really dumb question:
> what's a pooter?

I studied Science to intermediate level in secondary school, including Biology. We had exactly one field trip in three years, into the school grounds, where we were armed with Pooters. A Pooter is a small container with two plastic tubes coming out of it. One of them is covered with gauze on the end inside the container. The idea is that you suck through this one while pointing the other one at various of God's Little Creatures, which find themselves rudely transported into your container for future study. Of course the two tubes look very much alike, and if you then suck through the wrong one you get a mouthful of insects.

There's probably a moral.

Éamonn


"Who dares gets a mouthful of earwigs."
"Plus ca change, plus c'est un cafard dans la gueule."
"A louse in the pooter is worth two in the mouth."
"Quis custodiet ipsos pedes?"
"All's well that poots well."
"Look before you suck."

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 PM | Comments (73)
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Did you mean: shaved cooter ?

Posted by: trey at March 30, 2007 04:44 PM (ye2wK)

2 One of the owners of a porn production company said it would make more sense to create a .KIDS address and put all the child safe stuff there.

Posted by: harrison at March 30, 2007 04:48 PM (yYMAJ)

3 Also ICANN said it would put them in the business of decide what constitutes "porn".

Posted by: harrison at March 30, 2007 04:51 PM (yYMAJ)

4

One of the owners of a porn production company said it would make more sense to create a .KIDS address and put all the child safe stuff there.


www.ace-of-spades.kids?


Posted by: Mark at March 30, 2007 04:52 PM (g/MbU)

5 "Look before you suck."

Words to live by.

Posted by: harrison at March 30, 2007 04:56 PM (yYMAJ)

6 Yeah, I don't get why they wouldn't make .xxx. Seems like a good move.

Posted by: Sinistar at March 30, 2007 05:00 PM (bSYRF)

7 >>>> and Seattle Slough can pay $40 a year to live a "carbon neutral lifestyle."

Pwn3d!!!!!

Posted by: Sinistar at March 30, 2007 05:04 PM (bSYRF)

8

Friday night, and there's a plethora of pooter at Aces.


I'm so happy. :-)


Posted by: Thingfinger Farge at March 30, 2007 05:13 PM (41Dd+)

9 and Seattle Slough can pay $40 a year to live a "carbon neutral lifestyle."

Damn!  I knew I got screwed.  The Goreacle hit me up for $1K.  I guess I had to pay extra to make up for my involvement in the VRWC.

Posted by: pbrown at March 30, 2007 05:27 PM (NP8hw)

10

There is another definition that predates you for the meaning of pooter as well, and it is related to the name of the entomological capturing device.


The context of the word 'poot' generally seems to imply moving currents of air. As in 'to pass wind'.


Posted by: Entropy at March 30, 2007 05:34 PM (Uh5fR)

11 While I agree that rejecting xxx or some other porn-only domain is a stupid idea, I can see where its existence wouldn't have much of an impact.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 30, 2007 05:43 PM (wmgz8)

12 It might make just as much or more sense to boot porn off of port 80 as outlined in the Clean Port 80 initiative. It's really easy to block a port and that way the whiners don't have to worry their sleazy little asses off about being "ghettoized" or whatever.

Posted by: Charley Fox at March 30, 2007 05:50 PM (DLGtQ)

13

I'll make a deal with you. You can have your .xxx if I can personally beat the stuffing out of the people responsible with spamming my mailbox with prOn.


If a .xxx address is going to finally make my email box spam-proof, then I'm all for it.


What we need is stiff penalties for Internet nuissances. Why should I have to spend $24.95 for a spam blocker? How about we kill jail all of the spammers, instead?


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 06:02 PM (T7CsH)

14

No attempt to do any of this shit will really work all that well.


You have to incentivise the pornographers to respect the filters.


It's not the 'Big Porn' that goes after the kids. It's usually con artists and warez piracy sites and whatnot and amateur porn that gets all those trojan horses associated with it. And the real problem is, you can do whatever the hell you want with US computers.. (actually you can't because there are legal issues...but for the sake of the argument lets say we had King Canuck in charge and he could decree whatever the hell he wanted) but you can't touch foreign servers. To do so would be tantamount to an act of war, and it would also set a precedent for other countries to do it to our servers.


Now, you can get into the business of blacklisting such foreign servers with the DNS name servers, and that can be done....albeit terribly difficulty....at least you could skim them down a good bit even if you can't get all of them.


But this opens the door to a few more problems. Again, precedent. Every other country is going to do the same. Some allready do (China), but others are itching to justify starting (Germany and probably most EU countries). And whereas it's one thing to block porn, most of these guys are going to go after political speech. And it would totally fragment the whole internet. It wouldn't be the world-wide web anymore...just a hodge podge of various national webs.


And the most insidious of the bunch will still bombard you with porn. The hackers and pirates? Yes well, they will hack and pirate their way around any such things, hijacking other peoples sites to show porn on and having trojans direct traffic to it, moving as neccessary, and remaining at all times outside the reach of the USDOJ if they are foreign (and the majority seem to be anyway). You're mostly just beating on studio produced porn, which IS fairly legitimate and willing to cede to sensible restrictions.


And really, you look at for instance the EU, and trying to blacklist sites is just not something I think you want to encourage. Once you start doing it you can justify snuffing out whatever you want. If the FEC decided to treat the ICANN servers like public airwaves, they could impose network standards and declare you are no longer allowed to swear on the internet.


Posted by: Entropy at March 30, 2007 06:16 PM (Uh5fR)

15 Okay, I have to say it now. I waited because I thought it was perhaps a family saying and I didn't want to insult your family - but a pooter aka tooter is clearly where the poots/toots come from (i.e. the ass) and you didn't make that word up. It is common in various areas of the US.

Cooter is the front part on a woman.

Every time you say pooter in reference to the cooter it irritates the heck out of me because I think your talking about, well, the pooter (ASS you fool).
DKK

Just saying

Posted by: LifeTrek at March 30, 2007 06:17 PM (obOTN)

16 LifeTrek, that's true, pooter is usually ass, so the first time I saw Ace use it, I thought that was what he meant and he made a mistake. I'm used to it now, and it never irritated me.

Posted by: Sinistar at March 30, 2007 06:32 PM (bSYRF)

17 By mistake, Imean typo.

Posted by: Sinistar at March 30, 2007 06:32 PM (bSYRF)

18 I always regret combining the comments here at Ace's with Urban
Dictionary.  I can't stop myself though, it's like watching a
train wreck.

Posted by: Justin at March 30, 2007 06:37 PM (Q4HdS)

19

So here's what I would do, where I mighty Senator Entropy.....(as if you bald monkey retards deserved someone of my stature to rule and direct your paltry little affairs)


Step 1.) Method - Create a rating guideline. Not like the FCC's TV ratings, those kinda suck, and not like the MPAA ratings, those are even worse. Something more like the voluntary ESRB video game ratings...only frankly I think we could do even more specific and better then that on a computer format, while still being clear and conscise. Pass this into law as an official internet ratings standard.


Purely voluntary. You do not have to use the ratings, the standard is just there if you want to use them.


Step 2.) Incentive - Create a government certification for approved internet browsers. Get MS and Firefox and Opera, they'll all jump on board. Most of the code is there, it's just no one uses it. You create a Browser Certification standard. By law, you must meet the requirements in order to advertise with the official logo/seal. You'll find no restrictions here on the browser or consumer side, it will be welcomed and embraced. It is voluntary - it is not a regulation of the software industry. It is voluntary participation in a government certification program. You can declare your browser certified if it is and you want to, but (by penalty of law) not if it isn't. You can sell a browser that isn't, you just can't claim it is. In due time, it will probably be hard to find browsers that DON'T boast this government certified capability. You'll also have to unfortunately create some sort of FEC review board to monitor these software browsers and ensure they meet the requirements. But this is easy. Consumers and software companies will be receptive. You're going to need to sell it, obviously, with a media campaign, but many interest groups will jump on this and sell it themselves.


Now the fun part. Part of the certification is, that by DEFAULT, without touching anything, for Computer Morons who don't even know they have filters, just have kids and a computer - the filter must be set not to display adult or foreign or UNRATED content. By DEFAULT (and a great many people will never change the default) you will not have access to unrated or foreign registered sites unless you manually change the settings lower.


Now here's your incentive....both in the US, _AND_ abroad. You do not HAVE to rate your site. It is voluntary. But if you do not rate your site, there are going to be millions of people out there who simply cannot access your page. At all. Obviously, not desirable. The only ones who can see it are the people who CHOOSE to allow unrated content, so hey, whatever. Warned.


Otherwise, legit sites will WANT to give themselves ratings so people can see the damn sites. Porn sites might not care, since anyone viewing the various adult stuff will probably also view unrated. But hey, you choose to see unrated. Sites like Ace of Spades, obviously, are going to want to include HTML coding the browser can interperet to provide accurate ratings on the sight, because otherwise they will just be depriving themselves potential viewers. It would EVEN work to clean up alot of sites that want broader viewership, as they would self impose cleaner standards in order to maintain lower ratings in the hopes of being accessable to more people. But again, it is a choice.


Step 3) In the US, the rating is voluntary, but misrating a system would be a felony, and I would probably legislate a $1000 tax credit (or bounty reward) to the first person who reports each instance of blatant misratings to the FEC, and go after them with a fucking baseball bat for the first 10 years to really get it enforced and observed. It'd be a 'broken windows' period.


Step 4) Now foreign servers, we cannot enforce this on. We can encourage them to rate as above, but we can't touch them if they misrate, rating a porn site the equivalent of "G". The DNS servers would have to keep track of the routing on foreign servers. The US gov simply CANNOT regulate the content (or ratings) of foreign servers. So the browser certification would have to include support for a mirrored ratings system of "foreign" ratings. that's just all she wrote. Can not means can not, not will not, can not. Does not possess such ability. It would be the same ratings, but obviously, foreign and not garuanteed or enforced. It would be disabled in the browser by default. You would have to lower that setting and choose to view content the ratings system could not garauntee by penalty of law to be rated properly. Again, your choice. Disabled and filtered as a default setting.


Posted by: Entropy at March 30, 2007 06:42 PM (Uh5fR)

20

To me, ass means the whole kit-n-kaboodle. Everything in the entire area.is covered under 'ass' when referring to a chick's body.


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 06:50 PM (T7CsH)

21

As far as the ratings themselves go, I would be VERY clear and concise, so there is not going to be any unintentional misrating. It's going to be a content litmus test, with various content flags you could allow or disallow. There aren't going to be any larger 'category' or 'age range' type ratings...like "G". It's just not needed here and with an computer medium we can do better. There are different requirements obviously. We don't need to fit it on a box.


For instance, you have a category like "Nudity" (and of course, all this shit would have to be legally defined if it isn't allready but that's what politicians do...).


Either you have nudity, or you don't. Any nudity. Even a medical sight, if has booblies on it, they have nudity.


Depiction or description of engaugement in sexual activities. you got it or you don't. Seperate from nudity...so a medical site might have "nudity" but not sex.


Hell, www.m-w.com would have flags on any given entry, and would be flaged as (to be brief) pornography on the entry for "fellacio". Or "sodomy". And that is ideal, in my opinion, as if you determine your child is not old enough to be privvy to sexual content, then he's not old enough for this. I wouldn't want my 5 year old looking up the dictionary definition of "cunnilingus" any more then I would want him to see it.


You could have a list a page long, and checkboxes to allow or disallow.


And again, it is not a SITE that neccessarily is rated but a page. So a medical dictionary would have different tags on the page that shows the breast with the cancerous lump in it (nudity) then it would on the page that shows ingrown toenails. And again, in the context of deciding what content to expose yourself to I find this appropriate.


I haven't got fleshed out details and it would require some work and thought and polish but I beleive it's a workable starting point and can be done, and is the best we could do, and would be effective if done right.


Posted by: Entropy at March 30, 2007 06:52 PM (Uh5fR)

22

Of course...my plan does absolutely nothing about email spam.


This is a plan for, essentially, restricting content for children in a most foolproof manner without restricting the freedoms of adults.


Posted by: Entropy at March 30, 2007 06:56 PM (Uh5fR)

23 i was a big fan of Britney Spears

She used to be so damn cute and hot at the same time.  Now, not so much.

Posted by: wiserbud at March 30, 2007 07:21 PM (WOPFA)

24 Can't say I'm surprised there is abit of overlap between cooter and pooter, there are 3 billion words for describing private parts. One new thing I learned today, there are blueprints to build your own pooter!

Also found the most disturbing picture I've seen in many years, truly more horrible than any kind of weak goatse that noobs could consider linking.

Posted by: wahhaw at March 30, 2007 07:25 PM (geWqS)

25 Yo, Menciace --  Robin Williams was calling Pam Dawber "Li'l Pooter" way back on Mork and Mindy...

Posted by: richard mcenroe at March 30, 2007 07:42 PM (II55j)

26

First Britney Spears and then blueprints to make a machine called a pooter that picks up insects... it's all so clear now.


Posted by: Buzzy at March 30, 2007 07:43 PM (CXz7T)

27 What we need is stiff penalties for Internet nuissances. Why should I have to spend $24.95 for a spam blocker?

You don't have to. Go to www.keir.net and download K9 for free.


Posted by: OregonMuse at March 30, 2007 07:46 PM (2g3cv)

28

An oldie but goodie.


 


And I know You like this song.


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 07:49 PM (YGdpV)

29

I'll make a deal with you. You can have your .xxx if I can personally beat the stuffing out of the people responsible with spamming my mailbox with prOn.


Whoops!  Sorry about the mixup.  If if makes you feel better, though, Bort is every bit as upset over the matter as you are.


Posted by: Warden at March 30, 2007 08:03 PM (rZ5uY)

30

Did you know that a) John Farnham is still alive and b) he covered an AC/DC tune?


Funny, I don't remember AC/DC ever using a fucking tambourine in their songs.


 


 


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 08:14 PM (YGdpV)

31 I spoke too soon. That looks like one hell of a concert. And the back up singer looks a dirty pig -- I dig that.

Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 08:16 PM (YGdpV)

32 Didn't Skid Row do that song about waitiing in line, or something like that, and it was played twenty times a day for months?

Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 08:19 PM (YGdpV)

33

Every time i see personalized name tags in a store i think of the Simpsons episode where Bart is trying to buy one and all he can find are "Bort" tags.


I remember that! Bart was like, "Bort?" And then the lady and her son, 'Bort,' enter the frame and grab the plate.


 




 


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 08:22 PM (YGdpV)

34

Little River Band ring a bell?


As much as I like AC/DC, their newer stuff is crappy.


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 08:39 PM (YGdpV)

35 Have you not seen Jenna lately Amish? She looks like shit! Like some old Beverly Hills skank who spends all her time tanning and getting face lifts. I tried to make a link to her picture but new comments wouldn't let me and then banned my ip, so just paste this into the address bar.......


Jenna, looking rough

Posted by: Amish is gonna be pissed when he sees this at March 30, 2007 08:56 PM (lKePk)

36 oops.......i deny all responsibility for this.

Posted by: ace is gonna be pissed when he sees this at March 30, 2007 08:58 PM (lKePk)

37

You're right. I guess Farnham is more of a journeyman than a member of a famous band.


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 09:03 PM (YGdpV)

38 Didn't GWB once refer to Vlad Putin as "Pooty Poot"?

Posted by: barry in co at March 30, 2007 09:16 PM (KOkrW)

39 The video of the soldier doing a Harry Caray impression while inspecting a car is funny.

Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 09:19 PM (YGdpV)

40    The .xxx can't work; the internet is global. We say "penetration", the Islamic nations say "showing (head) hair". Europe says "guns".

   Massive regulation is not the answer.

Posted by: moviegique at March 30, 2007 09:26 PM (1y5Vr)

41

HA!  Jenna Jameson is the victim of a botched vaginoplasty.


Gutfield just mentioned this on Red Eye... I guess they're doing a segment on it after the commercial.


Posted by: Frankly at March 30, 2007 09:29 PM (Q8tsb)

42 Quote Greg: " What could've gone wrong down there? Do you think her turnstile fell out?"

Posted by: Frankly at March 30, 2007 09:39 PM (Q8tsb)

43

Amish,


Talk about a trip via the wayback machine. I remember that first pic you linked to at 11:58 on the alt.binaries newsgroups back in the mid-90s. Without Titney's head photoshopped on it, of course.


Posted by: Cybrludite at March 30, 2007 10:04 PM (XFoEH)

44

Does the word 'pooter' refer to the 'front bum' or the 'back bum'?


'Back bum' is nice.


 'Front bum' not so much.


Posted by: Richard Gere at March 30, 2007 10:14 PM (x60uL)

45

HEY! If the moon were made of barbecue spare ribs, would you eat it?


I sure would.


 


 


http://www.flurl.com/item/Harry_Caray_in_Iraq_u_241778


 


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 10:22 PM (YGdpV)

46

^


NSFW


Posted by: Bart at March 30, 2007 10:42 PM (2EW7i)

47

This whole pooter concept has gotten too technical for me. I'm no longer happy. Besides, I should be asleep and am not. Rats.


Pooter = butt, or twat, or "all of the above', or bug catching apparatus, or "wind-making apparatus, etc.


Sounds like it means "whatever turns your crank".


....and "Plans for a build-it-yourself pooter"? Does it have wi-fi? Or is it Bluetooth? The things are so complicated in their natural state that the DIY version probably speaks EBCDIC.


 


 


Posted by: Twinkling Retina Cocktail at March 30, 2007 10:55 PM (41Dd+)

48

You guys have this whole pooter defining debate and wonder why women scoff at you? If you can't even decide what it is or where it is for sure, how can you possibly have any idea what you are supposed to do with it -  IF you ever get in the same room with it? (And I've got my doubts about that as well!)


I will say this - it did provide some entertainment for tonight's insomnia session. Thanks.


Posted by: dog 8 my hmwk at March 30, 2007 11:57 PM (72nKp)

49 Entropy, your plan was too long for me. I can't read the long ones. They give me petit mal seizures.

But I think the vast majority of porn purveyors would happily self-label. Because they want grownups with functioning credit cards. A .xxx domain would do it. But so would an official W3C meta tag. Like, meta content="pooter". We can let them fight out the definition in committee.

Posted by: S. Weasel at March 31, 2007 12:34 AM (MecJo)

50 In the interest of science, I'm willing to share all of my favorite porn sites.

Posted by: Red Dog at March 31, 2007 02:30 AM (86S3r)

51 when i hear pooter
i know i have 2
one is not
mine
but it can be

hmmm....

Posted by: rosie at March 31, 2007 03:43 AM (geWqS)

52

I think I'll have a vicodin martini for breakfast.


 


then a bubble bath.


 


 


BUBBLES!


Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2007 04:45 AM (W5xJB)

53

At first I thought the .xxx was a good idea, but listening to the Sages of Ace of Spades now I'm not so sure. (SAS or SoAoS?)


Trying to herd them all into one place would prove troublesome, it'd never fully work. And (as mentioned) the legit purveyors of porn would be fine with moving, but they're not the problem, so what would be solved? And the danger of making it easier to block stuff would outweigh the benifits of actual porn-blocking. How many "liberal" parents would find ways to block anything even vaguely right wing in order to "protect their children".


I think my initial reaction was based on the stupidity of the "Opponents argued it would make pornography on the Internet easier to find." Really? Are they KIDDING!?! (no pun intended) HOW could it be any easier? Google "Quim" = 2 million hits.


It probably would be easier & safer making .kid for safe sites, but we all know it would just be a pedophile magnet, eh?


Oh, for all those "concerned" parents who support blocking stuff? How about actually paying attention to your kids? Might work, eh?


Posted by: 5Cats at March 31, 2007 06:50 AM (cVijR)

54 the kids are all right.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at March 31, 2007 07:01 AM (W5xJB)

55

Skid Row rocks.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 07:44 AM (Uh5fR)

56

Not even in the same league as Skid Row, but still fun:


Jackyl


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 07:56 AM (Uh5fR)

57 Should Ace be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize?

http://bloodyscott.blogspot.com/2007/03/pooter-inventor-speaks-out.html

Posted by: Dan Collins at March 31, 2007 08:03 AM (PaHki)

58

Check out these guitars!


DragonForce : Operation Ground And Pound


They put old MIDI video game themes on their list of musical influences.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 08:04 AM (Uh5fR)

59 Anyone else using firefox and finding that this site freezes the current browser almost 60% of the time it loads?

Posted by: Sysiphus at March 31, 2007 08:25 AM (D9rud)

60

Dragonforce may look like they came straight out of 1985, but they're actually new.


That song is '06.


And that asian dude gives Malmstein a good run for his money. Check out the second solo (where they zoom in on his hands) 3/4 of the way through "Through the Fire and Flames"


And since I'm linking gratituous speed metal I may as well throw in Aces High and The Trooper. Nothing like good patriotic speed metal.


There goes the siren that warns off the air raid, Then comes the sound of the guns sending flak. Out for the scramble we've got to get airborne, Got to get up for the coming attack.


Run, live to fly, fly to live, do or die. Run, live to fly, fly to live, Aces High!


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 08:49 AM (Uh5fR)

61

Entropy, your plan was too long for me. I can't read the long ones. They give me petit mal seizures.


Yah...and it's not like any of you morons are senators that are going to introduce it anyway.


But I think it's a very good and very thorough plan.


To summarize : No regulation, only standardization. Everything is entirely voluntary -so it's not limiting or infriging on anyone - and rests on creating an incentive to use it, with the only penalty of law being using it fraudulently, which would incur serious penalties.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 09:35 AM (Uh5fR)

62

But so would an official W3C meta tag. Like, meta content="pooter". We can let them fight out the definition in committee.


That's largely what I'm talking about. But that exists now, it's just not broadly used enough to have any real effect. And there's no good reason to use it, because no one else is using it.


Which is why most of my plan consists of getting software companies who develop and distribute web-browsers to voluntarily get on board and start giving web content providers concrete incentives to use tags to rate their content.


Posted by: Entropy at March 31, 2007 09:39 AM (Uh5fR)

63 Now is as good a time as any to ask - are you a chick OregonMuse?

Me?  No, although I've been called a pussy quite often.



Posted by: OregonMuse at March 31, 2007 11:19 AM (2g3cv)

64

I've been called a pussy quite often.


I prefer the term "kitty"


Posted by: 5Cats at March 31, 2007 12:26 PM (cVijR)

65 BEWARE THE POWER OF THE KITTY!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Amanda Marcotte at March 31, 2007 12:28 PM (uQDzC)

66  In south eastern NC the space between the two is called a "Muff divers Chin Rest" Just cant figure out the good old boys out here in the back woods. Must be the old "A country boy will survive" thing.

Posted by: The Great Satans Sr, Intern at March 31, 2007 12:41 PM (ORiVn)

67 The fastest guy i ever saw play live was Yngwie Malmsteen

I saw Yngwie play live in the mid 80's . It was a small club and the opening band's bass player was Billy Sheehan (wasn't Mr. Big though). One of the best shows i've ever seen. Here's a song from Yngwie's Alcatrazz days that i always liked, and one from his hero Ritchie Blackmore (can't remember which is which).

clik on dis bitch

dis too mo'fo

Posted by: pooter lovin' fool at March 31, 2007 01:15 PM (0B8Rq)

68 Screwed up the secon link, here's a good one.

Posted by: pooter lovin' fool at March 31, 2007 01:17 PM (0B8Rq)

69 That's the same singer singer in both bands by the way. Think his name is Graham Bonnet.

Posted by: pooter lovin' fool at March 31, 2007 01:19 PM (0B8Rq)

70 FYI, the pooter.com website tried to run a script on my computer that my McAffee Security Suite blocked.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2007 03:57 PM (MWbji)

71

Ace, here's my serious opinion about your use of the term "pooter."   It was not really a significant contribution to the English slang lexicon.  It was sort of comparable to Helen Gurley Brown coming up with "canoodling" as a weak alternative for "fucking."


On the other hand, it was the perfect  set up.  When you first used "pooterocentric" in a post about feminist orthodoxy, I nearly fell out of my chair from laughing so hard.


I gotta believe you planned that.  Don't tell me otherwise.  Shit like that is why I just keep coming back to AOSHQ.


Posted by: Michael at March 31, 2007 04:22 PM (MWbji)

72 I saw Yngwie play live in the mid 80's . It was a small club and the
opening band's bass player was Billy Sheehan (wasn't Mr. Big though).

The opening band in question would've been Talas.

Posted by: zetetic at March 31, 2007 07:13 PM (vMCos)

73 Ive never heard a cover of an ACDC song that was better than the original.


Check out Everclear's cover of Sin City some time. Incredibly kickass.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at April 02, 2007 06:35 AM (wmgz8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
112kb generated in CPU 0.12, elapsed 1.1266 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.0457 seconds, 309 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.