Anablogcabin
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:50 PM
...and there's the Log Cabin Republican connotation, although I think both things are tenuous.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Gay Porn Site?
Posted by Sue @ 2:51 PM
Analogcabin, after reading your post I went back and studied the word "Analogcabin." To answer your question, if one were to divide the word into three while sharing the "l," then yes... Anal Log Cabin does sound like a gay porn site.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Delicious Refreshment
Posted by Analogcabin @ 8:52 AM
What a thrill to wake up to a salvo of posts on The 'Cabin.
Referring to it as "The 'Cabin" reminds me of something with which I've wrestled for a while -- does the name Analogcabin sound like a gay porn site?
I might be showing my ass here, but I don't know what the word "messignation" means. Does anyone? I looked it up on Bartleby and Merriam Webster, to no avail. Then I typed it into Google and, for the first time in the history of Google queries, nothing came up.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Bollywood vs. Hollywood
Posted by Sue @ 12:06 AM
First of all, the owner of Yankee Doodle's Sports Bar on the Santa Monica Third Street Promenade must be a Red Sox fan. It was like pulling teeth getting someone to tune in to the Yankee's game, whilst the Red Sox played on nearly every single tube in the joint. I can't say I'll be patronizing their saloon any time in the near future. You hear me, Doodle? You just lost a customer. Yeah. I can hear you sobbing already.
So I had a 34 oz. beer. C'mon folks, what's up with that. 34 oz! Can the human stomach even hold 34 oz. of fluid? If I were a betting man, I'd wager $.07 that it cannot.
So we hear so much about Hollywood celebreties and their B.S. vanity hangups... But what about foreign film celebrities (or, rather, "celebs.")? I mean, would the dirt on some Bollywood actor read as such:
Prakash Habnashu -- Likes to walk with his wife by his side. Chooses only to marry one woman. Has been known to frequent Mc Donald's restaurants when traveling abroad. Frequent consumer of Big Macs. Especially fond of "two all-beef patties." Vanity requests are renowned for pushing his movies' budgets well over $4,000,000.
Where is THIS list??? I wanna know.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Item!
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 9:56 PM
Remember "Starsky and Hutch?" Today, I met Starsky.
Read his bio. There's some irony there, per our previous discussion, but not of the amusing kind.
I read that gossip site our host linked to earlier. Or, I should say, I gorged on it, like a sugar-crazed kid on Halloween night. Halfway through, I starting feeling sick, but that didn't stop me from reading. The thing that really stuck with me was the terseness of the language.
So here's some gossip of my own. Straight from the horse's mouth-- raw and completely unattributed. But let me just say, for the record, I'm disappointed that Barry hasn't chimed in with some juicy juiciness of his own, he who's been in Hollywood the longest. Come on, Barry, who's gonna know?
Fred Durst -- Jerk. Drunk. Crossdresser. Cheapskate. Uncircumsized. Knock-kneed. Twinkle-toed. Double dips when eating french fries. Uses coke for toothpaste. Likes his coffee regular-- lots of cream, lots of meth. Ego the size of Cher's tab at the plastic surgeon. Likes doing it with a pro while filling out the crossword. "Wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire." Likes getting burned and peed on during sex, and has been known to pay cash for it. "Would gladly piss on him if he was on fire."
Avril Lavigne -- Slut. Nazi. Pederast. Product of miscegenation. Apologist for David Koresh. Drug abuser and dealer-- runs a meth lab out of her trailer. Uses heroin for eyedrops. Scored 560 Verbal, 600 Math on the SAT's, but forgot to fill in her name!
Sarah Jessica Parker -- Rumored to have slept with her husband, on multiple occasions, after they were married! To shame! Had her breasts surgically replaced with a pair of weather balloons. Uses cocaine for seasoning.
Chris O'Donnell -- FOD. Crossdresser. Shriner. Hung like a cashew -- a eight foot long cashew! Used penis to rescue a couple stranded mountain climbers on set of "Vertical Limit."
Permalink |
-------------------------
Beer & Balls
Posted by Sue @ 7:57 PM
It is 6:07pm PST and I have just stumbled upon a small, but tasty, morsel of good fortune. It appears that I am to meet The Spencer2K at 7pm at a "sports-bar" establishment in Santa Monica to drink a few beers and watch the Yankees vs. Anheim base-ball contest. A fella by the name of Mike will also be joining us for brews. Although Mike and The Spencer2K have never before met, I am willing to bet $.07 that all of us will enjoy volleying a few amusing anecdotes about as we drink chilled, fermented malt beverages in the presence of other sports aficionados.
It is my sincerest hope that The Spencer2K will detail his weekend for the lot of us. Tell us, The Spencer2K, about your travels! Entertain us with a flippant tale of joy... lust... romance...
As I am the master of the aside and non sequitur, it is worth mentioning that I was supposed to go to this Yankee's game. Alas, only single seats were available. I'll have none of that.
P.S. The "Linda Lovelace" Documentary is hiring.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Results.
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:52 PM
This weekend past The Spencer2K visited a young woman in Carmel (or thereabouts.) What's interesting about this isn't that she lives far north of Los Angeles, though that is vaguely interesting on a couple of levels. What's interesting and relevant is that he met this fetching young lass on Match.
Since all of you seem speechless in the face of the new Staff page, perhaps the Spencer2000 would deign to share with us stories of his triumph?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:29 PM
(... the sound of crickets.)
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, July 28, 2003
Bob Hope
Posted by Sue @ 11:25 AM
And now, a moment of silence for the late, great Bob Hope.
Permalink |
-------------------------
A Change of Topic?
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:51 AM
This morning Mr. Matt Tobey -- humorous if a bit too intra-promotional and curator of The City of Floating Blogs -- directed me to this list of Hollywood gossip. It's quite free of proof, but interesting nonetheless. I particularly enjoyed the image of Garrison Keillor being smacked around by a dom. "Lake Wobegone: Where the women are very strong. And cruel. And so delish."
The topic, I suppose, would be Hollywood gossip. Since a number of you are Tinseltown insiders, I though you might be able to share some of your fabulous tales of Hollywood Babylon. Like that time Spencer2K did a bump of Meth out of Lou Gehrig's rectum whilst Carol Channing gazed upon their very nude forms greedily? That kind of stuff.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Sunday, July 27, 2003
An Informed Opinion
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:26 PM
As hoped, Mark of The 19th Floor responded to our quandry on the FDA regulations. I've included the text of his email here.
"I'm not an expert on FDA regs, but I think the agency would argue that the restriction is tied to a perceived health risk, not just because someone is gay. The same could be said for immigrants from Haiti. The merits of the rationale for the regs may be dubious (especially now), but generally public health interests outweigh any perceived discrimination by gay men. It's also important to note that homosexuals are not (yet) considered a protected class for purposes of equal protection analysis under the Constitution."
Interesting. Less interesting is how easily he put a stake through my Greenpeace hypothetical:
"The Greenpeace hypothetical is pretty easy. Neither state nor federal law recognizes political ideology as a protected characteristic for purposes of employment discrimination. Greenpeace is free to hire only those who believe in its agenda and, to be honest, it would seem to be an essential function of the job."
So there. Thanks to Mark for his response on this question. Now go read his blog.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, July 25, 2003
Barry in Our Hearts, Not Our Veins
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:11 AM
Oh, Barry. Never confuse our hypothetical homophobia with our very real love and admiration for you. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we love you... we just don't want your blood.
Seriously, though, Barry's point is good -- I would certainly have no preference were both blood donations tested, and I doubt anyone would. Would they? So if we assume that no sane person would hold preference when the blood is tested, we have to conclude that the guidelines are in place because of a lack of faith in the testing process (it's probably important here to differentiate between screening and testing -- the Red Cross screening process is what precludes Barry from ever seeing the needle) or an economic imperative.
I thought the latter might be true a few days ago, but I'm having more trouble buying it now. They'd have to prove to me that the percentage of people screened out because they're gay that would have tested positive for something would be high enough to amount to significant savings (outweighing the benefits they'd get by having healthy blood from those testing would prove safe.)
So, in my mind, the rationale must be that the testing methods aren't good enough. Come to think of it, I think they plainly stated that in the guidelines Jimmy posted last week. Took me a long time to get there, huh? So what is the Hep C and HIV infection rate of gay men still significantly higher than that of straight men?
In better news, look for a more informed and better thought-out commentary from Mark from The 19th Floor over the next couple of days. He emailed and let me know it's on its way. He's a good man, that one.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, July 24, 2003
sniff - sniff...
Posted by Barry @ 5:10 PM
I feel so loved and supported here at Anablog.
Ok... to stick to the hypothetical vein... (and to make the contrast not quite as severe as the Zaire example) if you needed blood and had a choice between a straight man's screened blood and a gay man's screened blood, would you have a preference??
Permalink |
-------------------------
Hypotheticals
Posted by Analogcabin @ 12:49 PM
I think what's most interesting about this discussion is trying to determine when the discrimination begins.
Gays aren't prevented from trying to donate blood, it's just that their blood will not be used. If the blood were drawn, then simply discarded, would it be discrimination? Is the only fair way to accept and test everyone's blood, and to use all blood, regardless of the source, that tests safe? It seems to me that the answer is yes, and that the current FDA guidelines are a stop-gap in case of test failure, false negatives, and to save money on supplies and processing costs for what they deem "high risk" blood. Are such stop gap measures legal or moral in this circumstance?
Something else to keep in mind is that blood donation is anonymous in almost all circumstances (I understand that they occasionally allow immediate family to directly donate blood in emergencies.) The recipient of the blood is never allowed to choose the source pool or demographic. I'd guess this is a legal measure insuring immunity from lawsuits for donors, though I'm not positive.
On a side note, I still haven't heard back from Mark on the issues I emailed. I hope to, and if I do, I'll post them here. I suspect he'd have insight on this issue.
Permalink |
-------------------------
What if?...
Posted by Sue @ 10:50 AM
While we're on the hypotheticals trip here...
What if that blood were screened. The man from Zaire's blood came out negative, whereas the white guy from the Dakota's blood was tainted with Hepatitis-C because he's been out philandering with every two-bit whore, sheep and cow his side of the Mississippi?
As an after thought, it should also be pointed out that a vast majority of pedophilia court cases in the U.S. are cases involving sex crimes commited against minors by a heterosexual males. Based on that statistic, shouldn't we be sending our children to churches and schools staffed entirely by gay pastors and teachers? Statistically speaking, your children are safer that way. Instead, these teachers have to stay in the closet or risk being fired on some societally homophobic knee-jerk lynch mob reaction.
Point being: Why does the straight community use statistics to ban gay people from certain aspects of life, yet turn a blind eye to statistics that would otherwise help gay people?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Um...
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:03 AM
Because we're racist pigs and must be stopped?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 1:27 AM
I'm going to play devils advocate here. You need a blood transfusion immediately. You have two options, take unscreened blood from a white straight male living in North Dakota or take unscreened blood from a black man living in Zaire. If I were a betting man, I would say everyone who reads this would take blood from the straight guy living in North Dakota. Why?
i am the spencer2000 <beep>
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
I'll Give You a Fucking Blood Donation... Right in the Nose!
Posted by Analogcabin @ 11:29 AM
So I've been thinking about this issue quite a bit, and I continue to waffle. This is uncomfortable for me, as I'm usually able to formulate an opinion, informed or no, in seconds and argue that point to the point of pointlessness. Is the FDA and, by extension, the Red Cross discriminating against The Gays by refusing their donation of blood?
It reminds me of a saying: "I don't know discrimination, but I know what I like."
There's a blog I read called The 19th Floor. It's written by a lovely gentleman who happens to be a lawyer that works in one way or another on disability policy. I'm gonna ask him, and I'll post his response here.
I'm also gonna throw him my fucking Greenpeace hypothetical, because none of your chumps had the sack to respond. Cowards!
And Sue, how about a yoru nephew's head on the body of Jenna Jameson taking it like a champ. Or chimp. I want to see just how far you'll take this.
Dear Lord, don't let him do it, for all that is Holy and Beloved....
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, July 21, 2003
Posted by Barry @ 3:30 PM
you know... for kids
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monkeyboy
Posted by Barry @ 2:01 PM
Awesome... just wondering if it would be legal to keep your monkey/nephew in a California residence.
Permalink |
-------------------------
You Axed For It!
Posted by Sue @ 1:20 PM
Enjoy.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Blood Makes Noise
Posted by Barry @ 12:50 PM
"Is it really discriminatory?" - Given that the window for HIV antibodies in blood can take up to 2 months to appear in a test screen, wouldn't a more reasonable regulation from the FDC be "Any gay man who has had unprotected sex within the last 3 months will not be accepted as a donor"?
I think the regulations in place are there more out of fear and paranoia (and a still lingering hold-over of panic AIDS created in the 80's from the lack of understanding it) rather than outright discrimination.... But isn't discrimination a product of fear, paranoia, and lack of understanding?
Sue... how about a nephew head on a monkey??
Permalink |
-------------------------
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Muy Interesante
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:12 AM
First off, let me say that I'm finding this topic interesting....
I think I'm with Jimmy on the blood issue. While the FDA's guidelines can seem like a sweeping indictment of homosexuality (specifically, gay men,) they also could be read as an indictment of any number of behaviors -- anything from IV drug use to travel to England during the 90's. Is it really discrimination?
Equating being gay with travelling to England is tenuous, I realize.
It's early here in Granville, and I'm not feeling particularly articulate. Forgive me. There's more I'd like to say on this issue, though. In particular, something about the relationship of these FDA guidelines to the blood collection agencies themselves, but I can't figure out what it is right now.
A friend and I were talking about something the other day. It's a related topic, though much more hypothetical. I was approached by a Greenpeace kid on the street. The event got me thinking about that particular job (those kids get paid hourly,) and whether a qualified person could be denied hiring or be fired because they don't believe in Greenpeace's mission. That is, is political or ideological "discrimination" legal in public non-profit organizations?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 3:39 PM
I confess, I didn't know about the FDA's ban on gay men donating blood. It seems to boil down to their definition of "high-risk" behavior. I see how this could be viewed as discriminatory against gay men, especially since it uses a somewhat broad definition of that behavior. "Men who have had sex with another man even one time since 1977," as opposed to "Men who have had unprotected sex with men..." or "Men who have had sex with men outside of a committed relationship..."
But you ought to read the FDA's FAQ on Blood. It explains their reasoning, which seems fairly even-kealed. People get turned down as doners for a lot of different reasons, and it's hard to argue with these measures, especially if statistics show them to be effective in reducing HIV transmission through transfusions.
Obviously, the inclusion of man-on-man sex as a reason for deferral cuts to the bone more than say, visiting the UK. We all know HIV is not exclusive to gay men, that it's not a "gay plague." Still, the two have a historical link that, though often misconstrued and manipulated to further the stigmatization of gay men, is supported by statistical evidence. And if men who have sex with men continue to account for a uniquely large proportion of new AIDS cases reported in the United States, which the FDA and CDC claim they do, isn't the government justified in using that as a criterion for refusal? The FDA adknowledges that by leveeing this regulation they're passing up on a large pool of potential safe doners, but to them it's an acceptable loss.
What I'm asking is, is this really discriminatory?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Silly Goose
Posted by Sue @ 2:02 PM
Not that it's my intention to diminish the importance of the argument of marriage as a "sinking ship," but I want to show y'all a picture of my nephew's head photoshopped onto a goose.
Here it is.
Enjoy.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 1:31 PM
I think it's funny, people coming out in defense of the "institution of marraige." Allowing gay couples to wed would "damage" the institution, and thus should be forbidden by law-- that's their argument. Yet divorce is legal. Divorce, the cessation of a marraige. How is that not "damaging?" Maybe divorce is next on their list. First things first, we stop the gays from getting married, then we take on divorce. One step at a time here, folks.
I mean, how much more damage can the institution take? You ask me, it's a sinking ship, well on its way to capsizing. Almost every wedding I've been to, "YMCA" gets played, followed shortly by "It's Raining Men." The cracks in the hull, they were showing long ago.
I say, to Barry and his friend-- in these troubled times, let Barney Frank give you hope.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, July 18, 2003
Barry "gaying it up again"
Posted by Barry @ 5:55 PM
I just wanted to share with the gang something I wrote earlier to a young, politically-minded gay republican friend of mine who was up in arms that people in power positions (senators, representatives, the President) were making statements on a day to day basis that undermine the citizenship of gay people -- and that we seem to be letting it happen to us by not making a more vocal stand.
This was my reply to him....
"The simple truth of the matter is that something bad will have to happen to mobilize us. We will have to get our rights TRAMPLED ON before we are motivated to band together and fight back with any force that may actually mean something to those in power. (ala the Stonewall Riots)
Currently there are several inequities in place which we SHOULD be rallying together to strike down.
1.) We're not allowed to "marry". Personally, I don't know if I ever would marry but the fact that I'm denied the right truly pisses me off. It says to society that I am somehow "less than" and not deserving of the right.
2.) We are not allowed to donate blood. This began as a way to hinder the spread of AIDS back in the 80's. I understand why the measure was instated then -- back when we didn't know as much about how HIV was spread and were still learning how to detect it -- but currently ALL blood is tested. Do we still need to automatically disqualify gays from donating?
You may ask, why does it matter? Remember 9/11?? The country was mourning and people were looking at how they, as individuals, could contribute. The president urged us, as patriotic Americans, to give blood and that solution comforted thousands of people who felt like they were making a difference. Gays were denied inclusion to that comfort.
3.) We cannot openly serve in the military.
I know many gay people who scoff at this idea. They say something akin to "gays that serve in the military know what they're getting into and therefore get what they deserve". This, my friends, is bullshit. Straight kids join the military to get money for college. Should gay kids not have the same opportunity? Add to that the idea that gay kids are kicked out of their homes and cut off from their families just for being gay. Joining a branch of the service to get their lives back on track would be a workable solution if it were available to them.
I could go on and on but I think you get my drift. Like I said before (and with any luck I'll get proven wrong) it's gonna have to get worse before it gets better. "
I'm not sure if posting this here at Anablog will especially 'enlighten' anyone... but it couldn't hurt, right? Oh and BTW Sue... haven't yet seen the pirate movie.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Munkee Stew
Posted by Sue @ 1:25 PM
Barry, did you happen to watch Walt Disney's® "Pirates of the Carribean"? There was a cheeky monkey in that film who was the source of all sorts o' malarkey! He (or she?) was delightful, indeed. If it a monkey you be hankerin', I would suggest you go watch that film... If only to tide you over until the laws of the California Republic are amended to meet your monkey-lust needs.
Perhaps Mr. Howard Dean could assist you in that matter once he is elected president of the United States.
So what is the deal here? Have we officially abandoned The Spencer2K's quest for love? Must I direct The Committee's attention to a recent article that was linked to CNN's front page? The piece in question is entitled, "Love Algorithm: Business 2.0 'Web Love: Match.com's scientific formula for finding Mr. or Mrs. Right.'"
It must be known that I, myself, have had such luck in this field as of late. Would it be too bold of me to suggest inviting the young lady into this blog? I believe that she might be able to offer a new insight into this matter.
As an aside, I should also inform The Committee members that I was present at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA when a Russell Weller drove his Buick through a crowded Farmer's Market. I had crossed Arizona Avenue less than 20 seconds prior to his "geriatrically-induced" mishap.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Deanie -- Weenie?
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:42 PM
Now we're talking. Politics, celebrities, and monkeys. When Barry picks a topic, he really picks a topic.
On the subject of Mr. Dean, I can't say more than that I've heard he's quite the little stumper. Apparently he energizes a crowd pretty good for a white guy. The sad thing is that if you go into any church with a black preacher, and I'd bet dollars to donuts they'd public speak his ass under the table. Why is it white people can't deliver a speech? Or dance, for that matter?
And there's the fact that he's got some campaign flunkies keeping a blog -- BlogForAmerica.com. I read it once, but was put off by the surplus of public relations-approved swill they were shovelling, though if I'd thought about it, I don't I'd have expected much more than that. Still, I'm not sure what blogs are good for, but reprinting press releases isn't one of them.
As for J. Lo, I find their romance refreshing. Prior to this season's Project Greenlight debut, I was more irritated by it all the press, but Affleck is charming as hell on that show. Even well-spoken, generally. I saw enjoy it while it last, Barry, 'cause Jen chews 'em up and spits 'em out. I know, because I fucked her.
As for monkeys in California, here's the law.
Permalink |
-------------------------
I think I can, I think I can
Posted by Barry @ 3:04 PM
Well... here are the things that have been on my mind lately. I'll throw them out there to see if anyone cares.
A.) Possible Presidential candidates for the Democratic nomination: So far I'm with Howard Dean (Gov. VT)... I had a brief flirtation with Dennis Kucinich (senator from OH) and just this week I learned that General Wesley Clark might jump in there.
B.) Does ANYONE really care about Ben Affleck and J.Lo? They are an unwelcome yet seemingly EVER-PRESENT entity in my life. It's like some rank fart cloud I can't seem to evade. What did we do to deserve this?
C.) Is it legal to keep a monkey in a private residence in California? If so, where does one acquire a monkey?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Defeat
Posted by Analogcabin @ 11:33 AM
It's clear to me now that this is going no where. Spencer2K seems no longer interested in the aid of The Committee, The Committee seems no longer committed. It's time to let go of the dream.
There's so much more to discuss. More than Spence2K's lovelife. I look to Barry in these times.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
Chagrin
Posted by Analogcabin @ 10:45 AM
I was filled with hope last week. After the brouhaha, the promise of a finally posted profile update might have been the keystone in Spencer's Arch of Love. Imagine my chagrin when I logged onto Match this morning to find that the profile has yet to be updated.
Are we doomed to fail here?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
And, For Clarification....
Posted by Analogcabin @ 3:54 PM
... I meant "loose." Non-traditional usage, perhaps, but imagistic. Picture a gentle sparrow, raised in captivity until the great day it's loosed in the wild.
"To Loose" -- the beautiful orphan of our times.
Permalink |
-------------------------
So Much Outrage
Posted by Analogcabin @ 3:52 PM
This is outrageous. The naysayers, always naysaying, are being allowed to distract us from our Good Work. We shant be lured off Course, for Our Quest is Valiant and Great. It is a Search for the Grail of Love for the Spencer2K.
At this rate, Spencer will never loose his virginity.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by Barry @ 2:42 PM
I'm hungry.
Who stole my socks?
Penguins walk right up to you.
What is the significance of grue?
I choo-choose you.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, July 14, 2003
Remarkable
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 9:55 PM
I continue to be wary of Barry.
Whining. Mincing. Bleating, like one of Little Bo Peep's lost sheep. Nothing good can come of this? Yeah, you're right. Nothing. Sure.
Except for love. Oh, and laughter. And good food. And drink. And interesting conversation. And sex. Hot, sweaty, mutually gratifying sex.
But I guess none of that qualifies as "good" to our friend Barry.
Our goal, in my mind, is simple. Find a willing female who fits Spence2K's criteria, set up the date, then compel her to write in to the blog. And if we've found the right person, we won't have to compel her to write in. She'll do it on her own. She'll jump in headfirst. We'll get impressions, before and after. Some nice dialogue. Also, hopefully, some Rashoman-style conflicting accounts of the date's events. Come on, who wouldn't want to read that?
Oh, wait. I know who.
Barry.
Permalink |
-------------------------
SeeMeEraseMyProfileFromMatch?
Posted by Sue @ 5:27 PM
Committee members: Is "SeeMeGoWild" an active profile? On a recent visit to Match.com, I was unsuccessful when trying to access the profile of this fine, young specimen. If it is the aim of The Committee to find The Spencer2K sex, it would be wise to reconfirm the prospects and availability of this person.
If she is no longer available, I suggest that The Committee play the field a bit. Perhaps, The Committee would not be opposed to finding a male mate for The Spencer2K?
Permalink |
-------------------------
The Committee Is About Adaptation
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:45 PM
In response to Barry's query, The Committee is about adaptation. If the prospect lends itself to love, then that's what we'll deliver. But in those cases where love seems unlikely or undesirable, we'll settle for sex. Or, Spence will settle for sex.
I know I speak for Spencer2K when I say that he'll settle for sex.
Permalink |
-------------------------
dating via dot com
Posted by Barry @ 1:44 PM
Just a quick note to wish Spence the best of luck with this dating thing although I'm still a little unclear on the concept.... Are you trying to find Spence a mate... or just get him laid... or both?
I continue to be wary that nothing good can come of this... except perhaps an NBC telepic ala "The Billionaire Boys Club" after the fallout subsides.
I call dibs on the production rights.
Permalink |
-------------------------
SeeMeGetEmail
Posted by Analogcabin @ 8:58 AM
Today is the day when The Committee must finally craft an email invitation to SeeMeGoWild. Unless there are objections, I'll invite her to meet Spencer at Tiki Ti at 10pm on Friday evening.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Saturday, July 12, 2003
Sidebar to Sidebar
Posted by Sue @ 11:58 PM
If only Analogcabin were kidding. There are certain sad truths that exist in this world. The fact that the previous post was not posted facetiously is one of those sad truths.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Friday, July 11, 2003
Sidebar
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:35 PM
During July, people found Analogcabin.com by typing the below strings into their favorites search engine. While I find all of them fascinating in their way, of particular note to me is the fifth:
1 16.67% is pants wetting unethical
2 16.67% mickey's big mouths hate that dog
3 16.67% pants pooping
4 16.67% public pants pooping
5 16.67% spence gay pics
6 16.67% where did kyke originate
Permalink |
-------------------------
"Irresponsible"
Posted by Barry @ 2:30 PM
This word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means.
-unless it means loud and cantankerous.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Agreeance
Posted by Analogcabin @ 2:25 PM
So, Spence2K. It would seem that, since we've set our bickering aside for the sake of your weenie, now would be a good time to give us the new password to your Match account.
I will craft the response to SeeMeGoWild this weekend, and we'll arrange the "date" for next week.
I have no doubts, the evening will end in passionate, Committee-approved lovemaking.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 1:26 PM
i lost my phone last night. what can i say, when i drink i get irresponsible.
i am the spencer2000 <beep>
Permalink |
-------------------------
"I am," Said I.
Posted by Sue @ 11:49 AM
I believe I am the expert whom was referred to in the previous post. Thank you, scholars, for valuing my insight and opinion. As a man (don't let the name mislead you) who has recently walked down that turbulent road The Spencer2K is just now embarking upon, I can assure you that, if one plays his/her hand deliberately yet honestly, one may find bliss (be it eternal or fleeting) in a mate that one has made first contact with on the inter-net. Some would say that such technology hasn't a place in romance... That online dating is an oxymoron... That serendipity has not a home on the World Wide Web.
For those nay Sayers... Fie upon thee!
Of course, cupid is but a concept. Recent studies by scientists prove that "cupid" is but a corporation. A conglomerate, if you will, of a number of instrumental beings who use precision engineering and well-calibrated machines to thrust "his/its" arrow into the hearts of the unsuspecting. In other words, cupid is a committee.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Situation: Resolved
Posted by Analogcabin @ 8:41 AM
Last night, after a heated telephone conversation, The Spencer2K begged forgiveness and pledged to give himself over to The Committee completely. Therefore, all will be forgiven.
Also, he noticed that The Committee forgot to click "Publish Profile" in Match.com, explaining why the old profile was still up. These things happen, but because there was a minor hiccup in our procedure, we've invited an expert to provide oversight. He should make his first appearance here today.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Our Jurisdiction: All
Posted by Analogcabin @ 5:04 PM
Apparently something must be clarified: The Committee's jurisdiction is all-encompassing. There are no borders or control groups, nothing can be withheld. There is no negotiation. Love is not a result of negotation. It is a byproduct of hostage-taking, mind control, and full-on assault, metaphorically speaking.
That said, it's clear that The Spencer2K is using drugs. We've not changed any password, and we resent the accusation.
The fact remains -- the profile must be modified, or all will be for naught. The time is now.
And, Saffron, get off your ass and do something, why don't you? Mr. Big Shot, all of the sudden. Mr. I've Got a Job.
Also, The Committee's has lined up surveillance for the date with SeeMeGoWild.
Permalink |
-------------------------
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Barry @ 4:50 PM
I just loves me some rollercoasters!
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
Permalink |
-------------------------
Posted by the spencer2000 @ 4:39 PM
The spencer2000 COMPLETELY denies the accusation that the spencer2000 tampered with the committee's profile. Any alteration to the profile was performed by committee members, not, repeat, not by the spencer2000. What's more, the spencer2000 resents the attempt to change the spencer2000's password. The spencer2000 gave the committee and inch, and you took a mile. Unacceptable. As of immediately, all account access privileges have been revoked until an oversight committee is formed and investigates the matter. In the mean time all correspondence to the perspective matches will go through the spencer2000 and will be forwarded to recipients unedited. The committee will surely find this proposal reasonable.
As for PrincessJYC, the committee has no jurisdiction over matches who send unsolicited email to the spencer2000. Those will be considered a control group. The scientific method will be observed. Observe it!
The spencer2000 has been standing by patiently for the follow up email to seemegowild but has not heard anything from the Committee. The spencer2000 is not culpable for the slow pace of events.
i am the spencer2000 <beep>
Permalink |
-------------------------
Outrage
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:23 AM
Today, when logging into Spence2K's Match account, I noticed that the profile The Committee took so much time crafting is gone. Gone and replaced with a sub-par bit of dating amateurism.
This is an unmitigated, complete, and utter fucking outrage.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Monday, July 07, 2003
Complete and Unyielding Coalescence
Posted by Analogcabin @ 3:10 PM
It's come to The Committee's attention that Spencer2K has been engaging in extra-Committee correspondence on Match. This is both an outrage and an affront to our efforts. Further, it begs the question, if you're not taking this seriously, why do we bother at all?
We, The Committee, do it for the love.
For that reason and that reason along, we're willing to overlook your communications with one PrincessJYC, so long as you make things right. Come clean, Spencer2K. We can help you unless you help us.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Live Free or Date
Posted by Analogcabin @ 11:26 AM
Now that we've all returned from our Independence Day vacations, I'd like to arrange the date with SeeMeGoWild. We need to write the email invitation, then arrange for someone to shadow the couple.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
The I. A. E Method
Posted by Analogcabin @ 9:55 AM
In order to properly employ the Identify and Exploit method of dating, one must determine first whether or not the target is a hooker. I remain somewhat skeptical this "seemegowild" is not a hooker, and so I suggest we immediately deploy.
I suggest that The Committee respond and suggest a date. For this lady, I think the best meeting place is Tiki Ti. If Spencer2K is in fact to see her go wild, the sheer volume of alcohol in one of their drinks is as likely a catalyst as anything.
We'll need someone with a camera phone or pinhole camera to follow the date in cognito, as well. Barry? Jimmy?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Posted by Barry @ 6:50 PM
Hey Jimmy... I'm just commenting on the "oh my god... it's about to happen" factor. Don't you be giving me no guff. Like a rollercoaster, this grand experiment that's been created has the ability to cause exhilaration, screams, or maybe just some violent puking.
Wanted to throw some two cents in there since I've not contributed lately.... I didn't want any of you to think that I wasn't keeping up with you.
I'm mulling over the possibility of turning over my affairs to the Committee but would like to get a testimonial from Spence2K in a couple of weeks time. Yes... you certainly cannot do worse than I've done with my lovelife... I'd just hate to have the whole thing fail for me and think about how much time was wasted in the effort and the possibility that in the interim, I might have missed out on meeting "the one".
even jealous of the cuckolds,
-Barry
Permalink |
-------------------------
Email Round 2: Sent
Posted by Analogcabin @ 4:02 PM
Lest you think this rollercoaster stops long in the station, the second wave of emails has been sent.
Like precision guided munitions dropped from The Committee's stealth bomber of love deep, so deep into the caves and complexes wherein the sleeper cells of romance lay waiting, even now the second sortie is speeding toward another three hard, so hard targets: heysmartypants, shellybug, and mk719.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Look Who's Come Around.
Posted by Jimmy Saffron @ 3:52 PM
Interesting shift in attitudes by my colleague Barry. Before we were a cyanide-in-the-Koolaid cult, now we're a "rollercoaster."
Sniping aside, I think The Committee-As-Rollercoaster metaphor is wholly appropriate. Because while a good rollercoaster delivers pulse-pounding thrills and breathless suspense, the outcome is always the same and never in question-- the car will return to the station, and you will exit unharmed. So it is with The Committee. We deliver a dating experience with all the subsequent suspense and breathlessness, but remove all possibility of disaster.
Your destination is certain. Your destination is love.
I share in our host's surprise. Which is to say, I share in nothing, since there is no surprise. The Committee has always delivered results, for time immemorial. Ask our customers. Better yet, ask our stockholders. Ask any one of the hundreds of satisfied couples that The Committee has forged together using its ironclad, time-tested (not to mention trademarked and copyrighted) techniques.
Go ahead, ask.
Speak up, I can't hear you.
No further questions? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Permalink |
-------------------------
Here goes...
Posted by Barry @ 12:09 PM
I have to admit... it IS like being on the apex of a roller coaster and not quite knowing what to expect. Will this girl be a "loop the loop", a "corkscrew", or just a dark tunnel for Spence2K?
Permalink |
-------------------------
Success
Posted by Analogcabin @ 10:50 AM
It is without surprise that I report that Spence2K already received a response from one of the three potential matches in the first wave. She expressed interest. The Committee is about results.
Now we need to consider our next move.
Permalink |
-------------------------
