Comments by niceass (page 2)

>>>I enjoy laughs from this place. I enjoy the laughs, too. Thanks for all those you've provided. I'm just sorry they were at your expense, KingPin. Now, do you want to ever get around to answering that question that JimJazz and others have been putting to you for the last year? What club do you, or did you, own?

>>>not to worry, CRAP CENSORS ITSELF! Mouse, was that intended to be a commentary on Yoda's posts? ROTFLMFAOWSCTMN I've been an advocate of fees speech all my life, and have followed the issue carefully. So, perhaps I should ake this opportunity to thank you for your condescention on the subject in giving me a very sophomoric lecture. Free speech is not absolute. It does not protect assault, libel, slander, copyright infringement, or conspiracy to commit a crime. Falsely yelling, 'Fire!' in a crowded theather is the often cited reference written by the great libertarian Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes. To allow such an extreme disruption would actually be an obsticle to free speech, not an aid. RL is using her speech purely for a disruptive effect, to drive others away.

Oh and one more thing, Mouse, I didn't censor anyone. Rather, I countered their speech with some of my own. The only difference was that I wrote my reponse in Javascript. Calling me a fascist was grossly overstated as well as erroneous.

Brides frequently LIE and/or MANIPULATE grooms into paying ridiculously OVER-INFLATED prices for marriage, which should never cost moe than a REASONABLE PRICE of $6.00.

Not me.

Mouse, I thought you might enjoy this commentary. Everyone else can skip over it. A queer theory of free speech January 15, 2004 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Mike S. Adams, Ph.D. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last semester, while I was giving a lecture on the landmark First Amendment case of Gitlow v. New York (1925), something very strange happened. In fact, one might say that it was rather queer. Each semester, I use Gitlow to talk about the extent to which the First Amendment protects the advocacy of illegal conduct. I also use the case to explain how the First Amendment, once only binding on the federal government, was made binding on the States. I usually begin my lecture on this topic by simulating a heated argument between a group of communists and a group of anti-communists. I sometimes run out into the hall shouting statements like “I’d like to kill myself a liberal commie” (doing my best imitation of a redneck) or “our capitalist government must be overthrown, by murderous violence if necessary” (doing my best imitation of a sociologist). I then ask my students to tell me which statements are not protected by the First Amendment and why. Then, I typically outline the specific facts of Gitlow. The students here at UNC-Wilmington have responded very positively to my often-unorthodox style. In fact, students sometimes gather outside the classroom to listen to my lectures for fun while they are waiting on their next class. That’s one of the reasons I sometimes carry my lectures into the hallway. But last semester when I went into the hall, I noticed that a faculty member was standing just outside the door listening as I discussed Gitlow. After the class, I told her that she was welcomed to come into my class anytime she heard something interesting from the hallway. I told her she didn’t have to stand outside with her ear pressed to the door. It was a sincere invitation. I was trying to be inclusive. Unfortunately, my “colleague” was unable to conceal her irritation with my unorthodox teaching style. In fact, she said that she intended to send me an e-mail to discuss the limitations on “what we can and cannot say” inside the classroom. I kept waiting for the e-mail but it never came. I really wanted to hear a lecture on the First Amendment from this untenured sociology graduate student who teaches for us part-time. About a week after the incident, a student informed me that the aforementioned faculty member was “ragging on me” in the classroom. For those unfamiliar with this campus slang, it isn’t a good thing to be “ragged on” in the classroom by another professor. And, of course, it isn’t very professional. However, I have learned in my eleven years as a college professor to question student accounts of what transpires in the classroom. I usually assume that the student is lying or exaggerating until I hear the same story from several different students. Unfortunately, numerous other students enrolled in my “colleague’s” class corroborated the student I just mentioned. The accounts were the same: Adams is a right-wing professor using his classroom to indoctrinate students by making derogatory remarks about “commies.” Every single teenager taking my class heard me conclude the Gitlow case by decrying his conviction for sedition. But, unfortunately, my “colleague” missed the point entirely. Maybe she had her bad ear pressed against the door. Or maybe she just didn’t want to hear anything exculpatory. But since she raised the point, I have a few things to say about using the classroom to indoctrinate students. After all, it does happen. In fact, a couple of years ago as I was beginning a lecture, I noticed that the professor who had just finished giving a test in the same classroom had accidentally left a copy of his test behind. It was a true/false exam. It was loaded with questions like “True or false. The American criminal justice system is racist” and “True or false. The war on drugs is racist.” I thought the professor’s method was pretty direct. Just repeat my political views for points. Dissenters will repeat the course. I considered mentioning that true/false exam to my eavesdropping “colleague,” in order to see whether she would decry that kind of classroom indoctrination. But then I discovered something queer. Or should I say strange? This semester she’s teaching a course called “queer theory.” That’s right ladies and gentlemen; she’s taking a stand against classroom indoctrination and teaching a course in “queer theory,” all in the same year. What a bargain for the taxpayer! When I first heard about the course, I wondered what a person learns in a course called “queer theory.” I always thought that the “theory” was that “queerness” was genetically determined. I also thought that the term “queer” was offensive, but this semester it isn’t. I sure hope they tell us the next time it becomes offensive. The rest of us will just follow their lead. That seems fair, doesn’t it? Fortunately, I recently got to look at the course syllabus for “queer theory.” It seems to be pretty rigorous. There are lots of required texts including “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality.” That book goes for $14.00, so I told my department chair that I would provide the “queer theory” students with a real Bible, if they couldn’t afford all the required books. The Bible is less expensive and it also tells the reader what the Bible really says about homosexuality. But my colleagues tell me they support the separation of church and state, so I’d better come up with another plan. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of having a course in “queer theory.” I’m sure that the course isn’t just about promoting gay politics. I’m sure that the professor and the students spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. And I’m sure that it’s a must for people who actually want to become “queer theorists” after they graduate. Let’s face it; we really do have a shortage of “queer theorists.” In fact, I’ve never met one who didn’t teach at a university. Mike S. Adams ©2004 Mike S. Adams Visit The Mike Adams 2003 Archive -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Mike S. Adams is an associate professor at UNC-Wilmington. While he was jogging in 1998 he was nearly killed by a 90-pound woman who ran a stop sign in her 6000-pound SUV. She was talking on her cell phone and appeared to be running late. Dr. Adams still has nightmares about that woman. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veracious, why do you have to overstate your case like this? You shoot yourself in the foot when you do. The discussion turns from the subject to the ugly way it's presented.

Good advice.

I think she should try out for a job at FOX news, they'd probably consider it a plus, besides I'd like to see Laurie Dhue in a wet-t contest.

>>>I do tend to pick some customers over others, from the expiriences I have encountered with some. I am very picky who I dance for. So you could say I have my own premonitions of certain types of people. I would really know why some of you HATE us so much? ToplessDancer, first of all welcome to the board. As far as the haters, I don't think it's a hatred for strippers per se. Rather, it's a disapproval of the entire concept of stripping in general based on their own religious, political, and philosophical ideas which they hold so earnstly that they have the burning need to force they're own values on others. Because of lack of intelligence, they can't understand that uniformity of opinion isn't attainable. C&S is a prime example of this sort of narrowminded thinking. He is a holy roller who posted, about ten times, some drivel which emphasised, "There can only be one dominant view [for al of society]." RomanticLover is very similar. I believe her to be an angry, militant feminist out to clense the world of heterosexual relationships. Both are so emotionally weak that they can't bear the thought that the world doesn't comform that they have choosen for it. Personally, I've always thought that there was enough room for both churchs and stripclubs and that "good fences make good neighbors." I have to give the point to FONDL on Homer Simpson who simply wants attention and gets it by stirring the pot like a developmentally arrested adolescent. He's really harmless. If you don't like sarcasm, just ignore him while I have fun sparing with him. As far as myself, because I've been lumped in with the haters on occaission, I'm a picky customer. So, while I wouldn't hate you, you on the other hand would most likely hate me. The stripper is in control of the show. The customer is in control of his wallet and makes all purchasing decisions. Doubtlessly, since you are picky and so am I, we wouldn't transact any business. I wouldn't hate you. I'd simply accept it and move on to the next club were they have strippers who understand that it's an exchange i.e. money for performance.

Homer Simpson, thatwas the sickest joke I've ever heard.

<a href="http://kamrynstarr.com/Kamrn1.jpg" target="_blank" title="[OPENS IN A NEW WINDOW]">http://kamrynstarr.com/Kamrn1.jpg</a><p> <a href="http://www.glumbert.com/special/bosley/images/13.jpeg" target="_blank" title="[OPENS IN A NEW WINDOW]">http://www.glumbert.com/special/bosley/images/13.jpeg</a> The boobs on Bosley have got to be the worst pump job hat I've ever seen. Kamryn, you've got to let those melloms loose. Don't they get sore from being harnessed all the time? LoL

WiseGuy, Is kingPin and RL the same person?

I jut had the idea that this might be a way for club owners to get around zoning regulations. The mile high strip club.

<a href="http://www.glumbert.com/special/bosley.asp" target="_blank" title="[OPENS IN A NEW WINDOW]">http://www.glumbert.com/special/bosley.asp</a><br> <a href="http://www.slatner.com/catherinebosley/default.aspx" target="_blank" title="[OPENS IN A NEW WINDOW]">http://www.slatner.com/catherinebosley/default.aspx</a><p> <blockquote><b><i>I knew Yoda wasn't the choir boy he tries to portray here often. Jacking off from someone else's misery. </b></i></blockquote><p> KingPin, ROTFLMFAO, that was a good one. Yoda, Kamryn was correct on the other thread, KingPin is a she. Only a woman would have phrased it like that.

I think FONDL has quite alot of good things to say on this thread. Dancers don't respect customers because customers don't respect them. Sure it's a vicious cycle, one feeds the other. However, the owness to break the cycle is definately on the side of the dancer, not the customer. They're the professional being paid for their work. They have to show the patience and tolerance, just as a salesman in any other job would. In all the years I've been going to clubs, like FONDL, I've never witnessed a single case of assualt on a dancer. Though I have seen many social gaffs either because of drunkeness, naivete or simply lack of social skills. Being a dancer takes a certain amount of emotional thoughness and a great deal of self-confidence. Lately, I find those qualities missing and being substituted for dancers who have a sense of entitlement and fully expect to be treated like pampered princesses. For them, the slightest word out of place can bring about retaliation.

<blockquote><b><i>Let this be a lesson not to put much faith in what bouncers tell you!</i></b></blockquote> Never Pay a bouncer for CONVERSATION because bouncers frequently LIE and/or MANIPULATE customers into PAYING for CONVERSATION.

Homer, pray tell, why are you so glad I'm here?

Yoda, help me out on this one. Mensa stripper predates my participation on this board, but I keep seeing references to it. I know mensa is the classical latin word for table and is used by a high IQ organisation, but it obviously has some special significance here.

Ive never heard te name Candy. It must be a regional thing.

Why your growth as a human being has been stunted by a riigid, overbearing, and over-structured upbringing in a puritan household.

When did you start visiting SC? 1986 When did you start dancing? n/a What is your favorite club? Fuzzy Grape Saloon (Now closed) Who is your favorite dancer? I've admired many What would your dream dancer look like? looks aren't as important as dance ability, personality and professionalism, how I'd say that I much prefer natural beauty without enhancements of any kind i.e. fake boobs, overdone makeup or tattoos. Are you a club regular? used to be, not so much anymore Would you rather have good coversation or a kick ass lapdance? neither. I've always admired the showbiz aspect and tipped the dancers well for a good stage routine. I've always enjoyed genuine conversation but been cold to the fantasy card routine. Would you ever date a dancer? no, at least not one I met in the club. Do you drink? moderatly, when I go out. Do you smoke? yes, urgeon General's Warning: Complaining about Niceass's smoking can be hazzardous to your health. Do you do drugs? caffeine, nicotine, and refined sugar. Do you attend neighborhood clubs of big city clubs? neighborhood

On second thought, maybe Homer already has. Homer, where have you been for the last few months? Nowhere near New Zealand, I hope.

Sounds like something Homer Simpson would do. Now, lets not get any ideas, Homer, this is serious.

Driver won't face charges if racy art stays off the street Prosecutor says he'll drop charges if vehicle with stripper mural stays off the streets. By Tom Spalding [email protected] January 17, 2004 Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said Friday that he will drop a felony charge against an Indianapolis woman if she cleans up the image that got her in trouble -- an airbrushed painting of a nude stripper on her car. Erica L. Meredith, a mother of three who drove the vintage 1976 Buick sedan so she could pick up her daughter from school, said she's OK with whatever allows her to keep her job. "I don't know if we'll sell (the car) or keep it," said Meredith, 25. "We'll do something about the trunk. I don't want to get in any more trouble." Brizzi said his intent in filing the charge was not to make this a First Amendment or obscenity case. He said he wanted to protect minors from viewing such harmful material. "What I was trying to balance is this: If I don't do anything, what message am I sending to the community? If I don't charge it, then I don't have any way of getting that car off the streets," Brizzi said. If Meredith fails to remove the mural and drives the car, Brizzi said he will reinstate the charge of disseminating material harmful to a minor, a Class D felony. Meredith, who had a suspended license, was stopped by an Indianapolis police officer Jan. 8 because of a broken taillight. An officer then noticed the 3-by-5-foot scene painted on the car's trunk. The painting shows a naked woman hanging on to a pole as two men, one smoking a cigar, watch from the audience. Her breasts and pubic area are visible. Meredith's boyfriend, Keyon Johnson, had the mural painted last spring. He said he takes the car to cultural events and car shows. Records show the car had been stopped three previous times by different IPD officers, none of whom raised an issue about the art. Meredith was charged with a felony for driving the car in the vicinity of a school. The officer wrote in a report that he was applying "contemporary community standards" to justify the arrest. Subsequent publicity over the arrest prompted local and nationwide media attention. Indiana law allows children to be exposed to nudity if it is used for appropriate artistic or educational purposes, such as at a library, museum or school. When the art is mobile, it falls under a less-protected form of expression, officials said. Henry Karlson, a professor of law at Indiana University, said Brizzi's desire to protect children was commendable and accurate. "I guess there is a lesson -- that what you put on your automobile has some limits," Karlson said. Stephen Schaf, president of the Indianapolis Museum of Contemporary Art, commended the airbrush artist, who has not been identified, for the bravery shown in creating the expression. He said it is a sad sign of the times that the illustration of a naked woman can be so valued in a private setting, but so "frowned on" when exposed to the public. But Schaf noted that in a museum, "It's a controlled environment, where people know what to expect. By the same token, when driving down the street, we don't expect a woman to be naked on a car." Jack Crawford, attorney for Meredith, said there are a lot worse images the public is exposed to that go undisputed, ranging from the images on semitrailer mudflaps to public statues around town. "It's real tough to allow the government to legislate good taste," Crawford said. But Brizzi noted that if the image was acceptable, why had The Indianapolis Star chosen not to run photos of the car? And why had other stations shown video of the car, but digitally altered it to avoid offending any viewers? Star Editor Dennis Ryerson said the newspaper weighs issues of taste all the time. "Our not publishing a photo of the car wasn't a legal issue, it was a matter of taste." Meredith and Johnson said they were surprised the artwork may have violated the law because the vehicle has been driven throughout Indianapolis since last summer, and in fact was even part of the unofficial "cruising" of sporty vehicles that took place Downtown last summer during Indiana Black Expo Summer Celebration and the Circle City Classic. The streets at those events were full of police officers directing traffic and controlling the crowds, Johnson said, and at least one officer complimented the artwork. "Nobody wants to trample on First Amendment rights," said Indianapolis Police Chief Jerry Barker. "But there needs to be a modicum of reasonableness built in." Call Star reporter Tom Spalding at 1-317-327-7939.