Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Fired00d]

Well if Fire Trucks carry ladders and Fire Engines carry hose, what do Fire men carry???

Big tools. You asked 

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[WFP]

As long as it is not one from your buddy's tool box...

Big tools. You asked 

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Fired00d]

As long as it is not one from your buddy's tool box...

LOL!!! NOT!!!!

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Twolanerider]

LOL!!! NOT!!!!

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

Where the hell are the moderators when you need one  !

[Fired00d]

Where the hell are the moderators when you need one  !

Heh, you know Bill and I are 's

 
Ride Safe,
Fired00d
 

[Midnight Rider]

Depends on which network carried the story; Fox, all alimony should stop at the date she decided to get the operation plus when completed and employed she/he should start paying alimony to the ex-husband. All the other networks, alimony payments should double on account of it cost more for a man to live plus the ex-husband should pay for the operation, therapy and any other cost they could pile on. (sorry, still trying to stop laughing about NPR & PBS being the only true fair and balanced news broadcasting programs on another thread here.)

Sorry, but in my reading of that subject, I don't recall anyone EVER saying anything about being the only truely fair and balanced news broadcast.  I think the statement was they attempt to bring forth both sides of the story without a foaming at the mouth moderator not allowing opposing views to those of the moderator.

In this particular situation, I guess it would have a lot to do with what happened in the previous 18 years of marriage.  How about a few facts to base a comment on instead of a gut reaction?  That might be a refreshing change.

[Twolanerider]

Sorry, but in my reading of that subject, I don't recall anyone EVER saying anything about being the only truely fair and balanced news broadcast.  I think the statement was they attempt to bring forth both sides of the story without a foaming at the mouth moderator not allowing opposing views to those of the moderator.

In this particular situation, I guess it would have a lot to do with what happened in the previous 18 years of marriage.  How about a few facts to base a comment on instead of a gut reaction?  That might be a refreshing change.

TC, it's easy to make light of a story like this.  It is a bit on the weird side.  More is that it is a bit on the weird side in a way that might make some involuntarily cross their legs.  Strip away the weirdness, however, and it seems simple enough.

Person A was married to Person B.  A and B divorced.  In so doing they mutually agreed to certain terms or had those terms imposed by the court.  Either way they are bound by them. 

Later one or the other of them had some surgery.  That fact doesn't alter any of the prior facts or change the prior agreements in place (unless those agreements had some stipulation proscribing such future surgery; and that doesn't seem likely).

[Ceej]

Yeah, but since gay marriage is not legal there, then how could one man be forced to pay another man alimony?

[Twolanerider]

Yeah, but since gay marriage is not legal there, then how could one man be forced to pay another man alimony?

It wasn't a "gay" marriage.  The surgery happened after the marriage ended.  The agreement or imposed settlement was between the divorced persons.  We don't even know how radical was the sex change operation (i.e, how much got changed).  Without regard to how radical was the surger, however, in most jurisdictions such surgeries don't bring with them a legal change of gender.  So nothing really changed.

[Chief]

It wasn't a "gay" marriage.  The surgery happened after the marriage ended.  The agreement or imposed settlement was between the divorced persons.  We don't even know how radical was the sex change operation (i.e, how much got changed).  Without regard to how radical was the surger, however, in most jurisdictions such surgeries don't bring with them a legal change of gender.  So nothing really changed.

Yeah, try to tell that to the next dame Julio Roberto Silverwolf convinces to shack for the night. Would that qualify as a lesbian encounter?

[icybay]

Yeah, try to tell that to the next dame Julio Roberto Silverwolf convinces to shack for the night. Would that qualify as a lesbian encounter?

Depends on it if the encounter was this guy or not...

There was a horrible mistake at the hospital. A man who was scheduled for a vasectomy was instead given a sex change
operation. The doctors gathered at his bed afterwards to tell him the bad news.

"Ohhhh no!!!" the patient wailed, "I'll never be able to experience an erection again!"

"Of course you'll still be able to experience erections," replied one surgeon, "only it will have to be someone else's."   

[Twolanerider]

Yeah, try to tell that to the next dame Julio Roberto Silverwolf convinces to shack for the night. Would that qualify as a lesbian encounter?

Chief, "nothing really changed" in the context of the agreement or the court order.  But you knew that already.... 

[jclark3603]

Such deep thoughts on this subject - Who would of thought it - It just funny!!!- lol