Have you ever seen a politician with their hands in their own pockets?
(REMLR 235/MVCA 9) 80" -'49.(RUST), -'50 & '52. (53-parts) 88" -57 s1, -'63 -s2a -GS x 2-"Horrie"-112-769, "Vet"-112-429(-Vietnam-PRE 1ATF '65) ('66, s2a-as UN CIVPOL), Hans '73- s3 109" '56 s1 x2 77- s3 van (gone)& '12- 110
the human race is increasing at more than 3 births per second.
Irregular verbs outnumber regular verbs, so shouldn't the irregular be regular and the regular be irregular?
Ten percent of all power generated on the entire planet is used by computers and computer like devices.
If you don't like trucks, stop buying stuff.
Fair dinkum, Billy.
If you don't like trucks, stop buying stuff.
What about verbs that don't want to be labelled regular or irregular? Should they be discriminated against? I suggest we just refer to them as just verbs from now on, unless of course one of them would rather be identified as being a noun....
I overhead a conversation about this the other day....I will try and recollect it for you...
Judith: Any Anti-Verbist group like ours must *reflect* such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
Reg: Agreed. (General nodding.) Francis
Francis: I think Judith's point of view is valid here, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every Verb
Stan: Or noun
Francis: Or noun..to rid himself--
Stan: Or herself.
Reg: Or herself. Agreed. Thank you, brother.
Stan: Or sister.
Francis: Thank you, brother. Or sister. Where was I?
Reg: I thought you'd finished.
Francis: Oh, did I? Right.
Reg: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every verb ...
Stan: Or noun.
Reg: Why don't you shut up about nouns Stan, you're putting us off.
Stan: Nouns have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
Francis: Why are you always on about nouns, Stan?
Stan: (pause) I want to be one.
(pregnant pause)
Reg: What?
Stan: I want to be a noun, From now on I want you all to call me Nounetta.
Reg: What!?
Stan: It's my right as a verb.
Judith: Why do you want to be Nounetta, Stan?
Stan: I want to have babies.
Reg: You want to have babies?!?!?!
Stan: It's every verbs right to have babies if he wants them.
Reg: But you can't have babies.
Stan: Don't you oppress me.
Reg: I'm not oppressing you, Stan -- you haven't got a womb. Where's the fetus going to gestate? You going to keep it in a box?
(Stan starts crying.)
Judith: Here! I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister, sorry.
Reg: (****ed) What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality...
At least I think that's how I heard it went....
(REMLR 235/MVCA 9) 80" -'49.(RUST), -'50 & '52. (53-parts) 88" -57 s1, -'63 -s2a -GS x 2-"Horrie"-112-769, "Vet"-112-429(-Vietnam-PRE 1ATF '65) ('66, s2a-as UN CIVPOL), Hans '73- s3 109" '56 s1 x2 77- s3 van (gone)& '12- 110
Very funny, that. Thanks.
I suppose we could call them common or uncommon verbs, but that might cause some confusion with common and proper nouns. Mind you, what makes a proper noun proper anyway?
| Search AULRO.com ONLY! |
Search All the Web! |
|---|
|
|
|
Bookmarks