NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments in response to Johnny Dangerously. Thanks. I'm trying to ignore him, save reporting his sick, bigoted behaviour. If you have a spare minute, you might wish to review the archives and look for Mad Merv and Jenchurch. Do they look familiar at all? Jakew 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in answer to your comment about HH being very rare, i really don't believe it is.
I wouldn't want to say anything this personal on as public a forum as the Breast talk page, but my wife is a 30J, and honestly that's not that big. It really isn't so large that you'd take one look at her and think that she has the biggest breasts you've ever seen. Once you realise what a J cup looks like (and that all big breasts aren't DD, as the mainstream media often suggests) you can't help but notice others, partly because my wife and i are to an extent made to feel she's a freak by the fact that bras are so very hard to come by.
Incidentally i think that fact, about bras being hard to find, is strongly related to a lack of education about variation in breasts. Even people with breasts that really need an HH cup bra think 'oh my god, HH cup must be huge!', and buy E cup bras, so nobody demands the larger cup sizes....it's a vicious cycle of ignorance that wikipedia can assist in breaking.
I think the size/shap section should/must show wide diversity, otherwise it's pointless. The fact is HH cup breasts look significantly different to AA cups, so it's worth showing. If you just show B,C and D - they all look basically the same. Spute 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean I vandalized ICP? I have never used this site before. I have no idea what yu mean and am NOT a vandal. - LTF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.17.26.4 ( talk • contribs) .
You say you are different and do not fit into boxes, therefor you must be such.
Who is truly different in this world has to point such things out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.218.247 ( talk • contribs) .
Amusingly (well, amusing to those like myself who are easily amused, I guess), I'd just opened your talk page to leave you a message, when the bar appeared telling me that you'd left me a note. Anyway, I was wondering if I might email you privately to discuss? I'm jake@waskett.org. Jakew 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Where in Florida is ye? I'm in Ft. Lauderdale. Lawyer2b 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that before I got involved and I agree with your assessment. If he only knew how not-liberal I am. It's people like him that give people like me a bad name.-- WilliamThweatt 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm the judge of what's a personal attack against me, not you, so get over it buddy. Stanley011 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know someone left a message for you through this IP. I'm sorry about that. We're sharing a network for the dorms and I didn't know one of our guys was being an ass. This is the third or fourth time I've had to get an IP address unbanned or it's been abused because of someone in the building messing it up for everyone else. Please, if you have any other trouble, feel free to write. Again, sorry for the hassle. Shadowrun 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It says 'often viewed as' - so it's NOT cited as incontravertible encyclopaedic fact. I will search for the origin of these statements if you like, but I think you're straining on a gnat really (especially considering the crap in some of the rest of the article)! Linuxlad 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it is "POV pushing" to provide context and explanation for Ms. Coulter's inflammatory words about the Jersey Girls. (The edit you reverted points out that she uses the J.G.'s as examples of using victims as spokespersons in order to immunize them from criticism.) Lou Sander 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing and putting it back on the page! It certainly is more constructive than mine...-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
After my experience with the case of Dabljuh, where you made some comments I found helpful, I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [1] [2] Socafan 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. :) Shadowrun 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind an uninvolved party commenting :-) Your comment here was well put. Thanks for taking the time & effort to put it together! FreplySpang 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't take prozac. Try a little less self and a little more thought. Thought is good. I don't know why they did away with it. In the old days it was considered a good thing to think. Also, it's a real bummer that communists try so hard to rid the world of God. It is going to cause an awful lot of trouble here on earth. Mark my word. 65.200.179.195 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the following innapropriate and intentionally inflamatory comment from the Ann Coulter talk page:
Is the word cunt POV? 24.8.6.242 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
and replacing it with this:
Removed inappropriate inflammatory comment by User:24.8.6.242. It can be found here Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me removing your reply to it too for continuities sake. You apparently missed that the person was just being inflammatory. -- Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What on earth is the deal with him? His comments don't make any sense at all. Do you have any idea what the deal is. john k 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, in reading over the talk page here, I realized I referred to you in the feminine. I'm not sure why (maybe a subconsious association with your chosen user name?), but if I was wrong, please accept my apology.-- WilliamThweatt 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Right now there's a free-for-all at the above proposal, your input is highly appreciated (and feel free to disagree with me, as I'm in the minority :) ) -- kizzle 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Media Matters: "Glick was incorrect in claiming that the president's father, George H.W. Bush, was CIA director while the U.S. funneled support to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces. CIA assistance to the Afghan fighters began in 1979; Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977." [ [3]]. Just so you know. Have a great day. Stanley011 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(rm clause which completely reversed the meaning of a whole sentence. Huh??) When one says "Her style is not universally admired among those who share her political philosophy," one is using irony or sarcasm to condemn or at least demean Coulter's style. To point out there are admirers isn't to "reverse the meaning" of the sentence, but to moderate its hurtful and sarcastic/ironic nature. (The meaning is kept, since the subsequent sentence and references show a political supporter who doesn't admire her style.)
Later in the same paragraph we see "Some find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that put her credibility in question." There is a reference to support the facts that are asserted, but the use of "some," coupled with the strong subjective adjectives, makes a very strong point against Ms. Coulter. How are we to maintain NPOV if the findings of those who are not among the "some" are forbidden to be stated? Lou Sander 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Kasreyn, again they are saying that there is no dispute as to the placing of people into this prejudicial category: [4]. I wonder if it is in order to continue to restore the dispute flag. It looks like an edit war. I guess the vote was inconclusive for renaming this category.-- Drboisclair 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Did I do something wrong? Politician818 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
ugh, this guy is a pain, look here for all the rest of his secret identities. -- kizzle 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: If you wish to comment on any material here, please add a comment to my main talk page, not here. Thanks, Kasreyn 09:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments in response to Johnny Dangerously. Thanks. I'm trying to ignore him, save reporting his sick, bigoted behaviour. If you have a spare minute, you might wish to review the archives and look for Mad Merv and Jenchurch. Do they look familiar at all? Jakew 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, in answer to your comment about HH being very rare, i really don't believe it is.
I wouldn't want to say anything this personal on as public a forum as the Breast talk page, but my wife is a 30J, and honestly that's not that big. It really isn't so large that you'd take one look at her and think that she has the biggest breasts you've ever seen. Once you realise what a J cup looks like (and that all big breasts aren't DD, as the mainstream media often suggests) you can't help but notice others, partly because my wife and i are to an extent made to feel she's a freak by the fact that bras are so very hard to come by.
Incidentally i think that fact, about bras being hard to find, is strongly related to a lack of education about variation in breasts. Even people with breasts that really need an HH cup bra think 'oh my god, HH cup must be huge!', and buy E cup bras, so nobody demands the larger cup sizes....it's a vicious cycle of ignorance that wikipedia can assist in breaking.
I think the size/shap section should/must show wide diversity, otherwise it's pointless. The fact is HH cup breasts look significantly different to AA cups, so it's worth showing. If you just show B,C and D - they all look basically the same. Spute 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean I vandalized ICP? I have never used this site before. I have no idea what yu mean and am NOT a vandal. - LTF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.17.26.4 ( talk • contribs) .
You say you are different and do not fit into boxes, therefor you must be such.
Who is truly different in this world has to point such things out? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.137.218.247 ( talk • contribs) .
Amusingly (well, amusing to those like myself who are easily amused, I guess), I'd just opened your talk page to leave you a message, when the bar appeared telling me that you'd left me a note. Anyway, I was wondering if I might email you privately to discuss? I'm jake@waskett.org. Jakew 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Where in Florida is ye? I'm in Ft. Lauderdale. Lawyer2b 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I noticed that before I got involved and I agree with your assessment. If he only knew how not-liberal I am. It's people like him that give people like me a bad name.-- WilliamThweatt 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm the judge of what's a personal attack against me, not you, so get over it buddy. Stanley011 02:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know someone left a message for you through this IP. I'm sorry about that. We're sharing a network for the dorms and I didn't know one of our guys was being an ass. This is the third or fourth time I've had to get an IP address unbanned or it's been abused because of someone in the building messing it up for everyone else. Please, if you have any other trouble, feel free to write. Again, sorry for the hassle. Shadowrun 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It says 'often viewed as' - so it's NOT cited as incontravertible encyclopaedic fact. I will search for the origin of these statements if you like, but I think you're straining on a gnat really (especially considering the crap in some of the rest of the article)! Linuxlad 08:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how it is "POV pushing" to provide context and explanation for Ms. Coulter's inflammatory words about the Jersey Girls. (The edit you reverted points out that she uses the J.G.'s as examples of using victims as spokespersons in order to immunize them from criticism.) Lou Sander 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing and putting it back on the page! It certainly is more constructive than mine...-- Chodorkovskiy (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
After my experience with the case of Dabljuh, where you made some comments I found helpful, I suggested some changes to the policies and asked to enforce those we already have: [1] [2] Socafan 18:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome. :) Shadowrun 23:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind an uninvolved party commenting :-) Your comment here was well put. Thanks for taking the time & effort to put it together! FreplySpang 00:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't take prozac. Try a little less self and a little more thought. Thought is good. I don't know why they did away with it. In the old days it was considered a good thing to think. Also, it's a real bummer that communists try so hard to rid the world of God. It is going to cause an awful lot of trouble here on earth. Mark my word. 65.200.179.195 13:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm removing the following innapropriate and intentionally inflamatory comment from the Ann Coulter talk page:
Is the word cunt POV? 24.8.6.242 06:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
and replacing it with this:
Removed inappropriate inflammatory comment by User:24.8.6.242. It can be found here Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me removing your reply to it too for continuities sake. You apparently missed that the person was just being inflammatory. -- Brentt 09:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
What on earth is the deal with him? His comments don't make any sense at all. Do you have any idea what the deal is. john k 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, in reading over the talk page here, I realized I referred to you in the feminine. I'm not sure why (maybe a subconsious association with your chosen user name?), but if I was wrong, please accept my apology.-- WilliamThweatt 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Right now there's a free-for-all at the above proposal, your input is highly appreciated (and feel free to disagree with me, as I'm in the minority :) ) -- kizzle 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
According to Media Matters: "Glick was incorrect in claiming that the president's father, George H.W. Bush, was CIA director while the U.S. funneled support to the anti-Soviet Afghan forces. CIA assistance to the Afghan fighters began in 1979; Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977." [ [3]]. Just so you know. Have a great day. Stanley011 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(rm clause which completely reversed the meaning of a whole sentence. Huh??) When one says "Her style is not universally admired among those who share her political philosophy," one is using irony or sarcasm to condemn or at least demean Coulter's style. To point out there are admirers isn't to "reverse the meaning" of the sentence, but to moderate its hurtful and sarcastic/ironic nature. (The meaning is kept, since the subsequent sentence and references show a political supporter who doesn't admire her style.)
Later in the same paragraph we see "Some find her presentations, both published and spoken, to be biased, offensive, inflammatory and claim them quite often full of misinterpreted facts that put her credibility in question." There is a reference to support the facts that are asserted, but the use of "some," coupled with the strong subjective adjectives, makes a very strong point against Ms. Coulter. How are we to maintain NPOV if the findings of those who are not among the "some" are forbidden to be stated? Lou Sander 20:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Kasreyn, again they are saying that there is no dispute as to the placing of people into this prejudicial category: [4]. I wonder if it is in order to continue to restore the dispute flag. It looks like an edit war. I guess the vote was inconclusive for renaming this category.-- Drboisclair 15:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Did I do something wrong? Politician818 07:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
ugh, this guy is a pain, look here for all the rest of his secret identities. -- kizzle 22:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)