methedevdas Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 A man and his wife were in a court for their divorce case. The Problem was who should get custody of the child. The wife screamed and jumped up and said: "Your Honor. I brought The child into the world with all the pain and labor. The child Should be in my custody. " The judge turned to the husband and said: "What do you have to Say in your defense?" The man sat for a while contemplating...then slowly rose. "Your Honor... If I put a dollar in a Pepsi Vending Machine and a Pepsi Comes out... Whose Pepsi is it... The machine's or mine?" :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenS Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 Very nice Kids in the backseat, cause accidents. Accidents in the backseat, cause kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomaswd Posted March 11, 2007 Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 hahaha...This sounds like a case of one and one and friction can equal to three or more...hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methedevdas Posted March 11, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2007 hahaha...This sounds like a case of one and one and friction can equal to three or more...hahaha like 1+1=11 ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afook06 Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 The opposite of a woman's......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danial_c Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 why do u want a child? I take a pepsi. and Dear, u can have a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'd give him the kid. He'll soon tire of it because it's no longer unobtainable. Then he'll realise he's bitten off more than he can chew and want to give the kid back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekka Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Thanks for acknowledging & paying a compliment to Men in General. That we do have logic. Although it does not mean that it is a sensible one. Ha ha Pleased to hear you had a great party the other night. Good for you & all your friends. enjoyed the pics as well. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_som_tam Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually the sweeping generalisation was in implying this was "men's" logic not a (one) man's logic. If we're going to nit-pick for effect then it could be argued that Princess in her use of "him" is indicating the original man from methedevdas', "A man and his wife" and therefore not men in general. Thus making your interrogative remark erroneous. She does infer a ratio of probability based upon inconclusive and dated opinion, in my opinion tho not being Princess I wouldn't know, I'm just sayin' like disorganized verbosity at it's finest :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually the sweeping generalisation was in implying this was "men's" logic not a (one) man's logic. If we're going to nit-pick for effect then it could be argued that Princess in her use of "him" is indicating the original man from methedevdas', "A man and his wife" and therefore not men in general. Thus making your interrogative remark erroneous. She does infer a ratio of probability based upon inconclusive and dated opinion, in my opinion tho not being Princess I wouldn't know, I'm just sayin' like disorganized verbosity at it's finest :shock: are you referring to admin's post, or did you just come up with the tagline for the ad campaign the TF Forums are about to launch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_love_som_tam Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually the sweeping generalisation was in implying this was "men's" logic not a (one) man's logic. If we're going to nit-pick for effect then it could be argued that Princess in her use of "him" is indicating the original man from methedevdas', "A man and his wife" and therefore not men in general. Thus making your interrogative remark erroneous. She does infer a ratio of probability based upon inconclusive and dated opinion, in my opinion tho not being Princess I wouldn't know, I'm just sayin' like disorganized verbosity at it's finest :shock: are you referring to admin's post, or did you just come up with the tagline for the ad campaign the TF Forums are about to launch? yessssssssssssssss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 I'd give him the kid. He'll soon tire of it because it's no longer unobtainable. Then he'll realise he's bitten off more than he can chew and want to give the kid back. Now if that isn't a sweeping generalisation????? Notice I said "him" which means I was referring to the man in the joke. Imagining for a second that the joke isn't a joke but a real-life situation, any man who compares the responsibility of having a child to a vending machine is very obviously a mental retard. (It pains me to have to go back to A,B,C...really). One might THEN argue that said man is only after the child because he cannot have it.Having said that, aforementioned mental retard will probably return the child once the thrill and novelty of having "won' is over. Clear now? I'm neither naiive nor stupid enough to believe that ALL men are incapable of taking care of children. Although, what prompted you to jump to that conclusion about my opnion from my statement is the really intriguing question here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeusbheld Posted March 12, 2007 Report Share Posted March 12, 2007 Actually the sweeping generalisation was in implying this was "men's" logic not a (one) man's logic. If we're going to nit-pick for effect then it could be argued that Princess in her use of "him" is indicating the original man from methedevdas', "A man and his wife" and therefore not men in general. Thus making your interrogative remark erroneous. She does infer a ratio of probability based upon inconclusive and dated opinion, in my opinion tho not being Princess I wouldn't know, I'm just sayin' like disorganized verbosity at it's finest :shock: dagnabbit, I was going for belaboured pomposity... :shock: pomposity is so much sweeter when it's effortless, and peppered with condescension. not that i'm advocating you adopt *my* approach... necessarily... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methedevdas Posted March 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 wooo wooo woo.. Hold on here i think ...~ this post getting longer and emmm... ~ what you think ? :roll: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekka Posted March 13, 2007 Report Share Posted March 13, 2007 Methedevdas wrote he man sat for a while contemplating...then slowly rose. "Your Honor... If I put a dollar in a Pepsi Vending Machine and a Pepsi Comes out... Whose Pepsi is it... The machine's or mine I like the Analogy it is very fitting.I think it is a valid argument in the Case of the Husbands plea for Custody. If you leave Cash Deposit in Bank you get a bonus.( Interest) So if man leave deposit in Woman is he not entitled to the interest.( Child in this case) Hands up all who agree . Hand up wins hands, down. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now