Leilin

From those of us in the small range who now actually have something that fits us, for once, I say hopefully never. Bambino seems to be the only company remotely aware that people with a less than 32 inch waist exist.

Duos have been discontinued. Guess I'll use quadros now. I always found them to be too big for a medium diaper but I'll have to deal with it, pretty much.

I think there's a balance to be had, and that extremes on either end are unnecessary, and, in one case, very negative. On the first extreme is a forum with perfect grammar. Not only is this highly unlikely, but it's also very hard to enforce. There are probably less than a dozen people on this forum who are fully educated on "perfect" academic grammar and probably half that who know the exceptions to those rules. I don't see the purpose in holding a forum of wide-ranging professions and educational levels to rules that typically only a few who have a degree in the subject are even aware of. On the second extreme is the utter lack of grammar. When you compose a post which is completely lacking in grammar, it speaks of one of two conclusions: A) You don't care enough about what you are typing and who you are typing to to spend the time to type it correctly. In other words: You disrespect the people you are typing to. You aren't literate enough to type correctly. Whether or not this is true, it is what those of us who take the time to punctuate, capitalize, and make sure we follow at least the major rules of English writing see when we see a post that would make a Kindergartner balk at its complete lack of linguistic cohesion. So I have a simple matter of truce as a happy medium: If you posit that those of us shouldn't read your post or respond if we find it utterly lacking in grammar to the point of merited criticism (considering the well-worded nature of your post, and the minimal errors in it, I find that unlikely on my part), then you should take equal measure and not bother to post in threads which you find to be fully respectful of the rules of English. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a happy medium either, does it? How about this? Each of you who has trouble spelling and phrasing things correctly within a threshold that will make your posts unreadable spends just two minutes more making sure your post is something that won't make the eyes of your readers bleed. This will lessen criticism of your posts from all but the most pedantic of us (and even some of us who happen to be pedantic to the point of being literal professional grammar fascists, such as myself, though I am rather experienced in the matter and choose to keep it in check unless I'm getting paid not to) and will make the forum in general a more pleasant place to be. A few simple things you can ask yourself to avoid the dreaded "unreadable" stamp: 1) Does this post look like it was "typed with one hand"? 2) Does this post have a very high amount of words abbreviated without need to abbreviate them? 3) If the average person read this post, would they think it was written by a kindergartner who had just snorted six pounds of Adderall and typed it as they found their first porno magazine while shooting up heroin and sitting on a rollercoaster? 4) Does this post look like it was rushed through? If the answer to any of the previous is "yes," then you should probably spend some more time writing the post because the message you are conveying is that you don't care enough about what you're typing for it to receive respect from anybody who spends the time to read it.

Um. You realize that Obama also got support from companies that are pushing AGAINST SOPA, right? Your statements are not making sense. Also, you moved the goalposts, completely ignoring the fact that your FIRST statement was 100 percent incorrect. For those of you who are interested in logic, Kitten just used the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority," when something else is bad because someone else disagrees with it, good because someone else agrees with it, or the inverse of either, with a bit of "tu quoque" (he's wrong because his supporter is wrong) thrown in. Also, I'd love to see the facts behind your statements.The biggest SOPA donors stopped donating to Obama because he does not support SOPA (See link) http://www.deadline....piracy-stand%2F Furthermore, your beloved Ron Paul received 5 times as much in the way of donations from groups that support SOPA as he did from groups that oppose SOPA. By your silly logic, you'll have to pick a different candidate. "End of story," right? http://maplight.org/...l-contributions You basically have nothing to stand on with your statements, in other words. I'll wait for your next attempt to move the goalposts. I love that you pass up the fact that the rights of State Governments are completely unequal to individual rights by rationalizing that an appeal to the majority MAKES them your rights. You don't really get what a tyranny of the majority is, do you? This is approaching sophistry, so I'll stop bothering to respond unless you decide to provide some facts, Kitten. I'm honestly not sure if you're just trying to troll this thread.

Honestly, my personal disagreement with these programs is the fact that our people still go on them at all, not that those people are unattractive, etc. There is a simple fact of this situation, thus far: No matter what program portrays us, the producers of that program have ABSOLUTELY NO INTEREST in portraying us as people who might be adjusted to life and do the AB thing SOMETIMES to balance our day to day lives. Because, let's face it, putting freaks on TV sells. If you don't think so, feel free to ask that program if they can protect your anonymity. They will make excuses as to why that is "impossible" every time because attaching the face to the freak makes it EASIER to portray them as exhibitionistic and unable to cope with life. Now, I will say that Brett is an exception to that, but I've already gone into detail about my misgivings about him and his own posts have given ample weight to my reasoning, so I will not bog the thread down with that.

No. They really aren't. Don't believe me? Find one case in which the Supreme court has heard the states fighting AGAINST an infringement on individual rights. Paul's record may be "Golden" to you, and I won't fault you your political leanings, but facts are facts and only somebody keenly unaware of the meaning of the word and the facts of his voting record calls him a Libertarian. He is an anti-federalist, plain and simple. State's rights are not "our" rights any more than bills which pass in states to infringe the rights of a minority, such as Prop 8 in California, are bills which uphold "our" rights. A legislature should not be a vehicle for a tyranny of the majority and such is PRECISELY the reason why supreme courts were created. How do you figure Obama supports SOPA "in voting?" The president doesn't vote for bills and that one never reached his desk.

To clarify, I said "I think" because I'm not sure. If I was wrong, that's a very good thing. There was no age that I saw posted with the video and, in my experience, visual age is usually useless.

Honestly, I think that we can call it a safe bet that they aren't wishing for a particularly humiliating factor in their disabilities to be used as someone's wank material. And, in general, it's more polite to assume that somebody DOESN'T want you fetishizing something which is nonfetishistic to them, rather than to assume they DO. Furthermore, I think those were children. No. Just no.

Honestly, it does seem like a cost issue. That is EXPENSIVE, and I'm not just talking for the end-buyer.

As a short break to this thread, and because it's CUTE, I wanted to link this here: http://www.theatlant...al-lover/46576/ I disagree vehemently with Newt Gingrich's politics, but the guy is a HUGE animal lover and these are flat-out adorable pictures, so there's at least one thing we agree on.

Yup. Roughly the level of derp and the lack of concrete fact I expected from your response. As I said, I'm not holding my breath.

This just makes your apparent ignorance that much more hilarious. (Speaking of logical fallacies, RDB just perfectly demonstrated an appeal to authority which he then invalidated in a subordinate clause to that same sentence. Epic Derp) I'm sure that THIS TIME, instead of copy-pasting the same laughable statement, perhaps you can give us some concrete evidence as to HOW Obama is Marxist? I won't hold my breath. As usual, you are completely divorced from reality.

Then you are not an independent. As to your assumptions that the problems in California are due to liberalism, you are half correct, but those problems have nothing to do with Obama. California currently is in a situation where any appropriations bill can be passed with simple majority (by the people) and any revenue bill can only be passed by 2/3. This means that the state continues to be jilted by pet-projects of one demagogue or another and continually fails to have ways to pay for them. That is a bipartisan issue and only partisan hacks such as yourself really blame it on one or the other. Secondly, in all of your crowing about your "education," you seem to have misused the phrase "ad hominem," which refers to the logical fallacy of, oversimplified "You are my opponent, therefore you are wrong," rather than, doing precisely as I did and dissecting your completely factless drivel as what it was. You also misused "strawman," as I didn't address any arguments that you didn't actually make. Perhaps your flaunted "education" skipped courses in logic? It's doubly amusing that you refer to yourself as "an independent" who always votes Republican, when given the choice between the two major parties while simultaneously seemingly referring to Joe Lieberman, an "independent" who spoke at the Republican Convention in 2008, as a Democrat. Keep on spinnin', there. Remember, kids! Both parties are bad, so vote Republican.

You forgot to say that he was born in Kenya. You're slipping.

You are also not guilty of idiocy.

Most people with common sense do not count Lieberman as a Democrat, since he isn't (He's a democratic Independent), which makes 59 for the people who are having trouble, and not a Supermajority which is required to pass filibuster, which there wouldn't be need of without an ideologically bound second party trying to filibuster literally everything. Regardless of that, and I know this is hard for the hardline Republican to grasp, but ideological purity is a BAD THING. A "supermajority" only works when that supermajority is bound by the constraints of ideological purity and party-line voting. Without those two factors, the statement of that 60 seat majority is little more than a debunked and hackneyed talking point. Furthermore, you cannot simultaneously blame Obama for not passing good things and root for Republicans without being incredibly intellectually dishonest. Republicans have purposely and intently obstructed EVERYTHING he has done. Either disagree with him or say he hasn't gone far enough. Doing both just highlights you as somebody who watches too much Fox and not enough actual news, which can be cured by getting an 8th grade education and picking up something which wasn't dictated from Rush Limbaugh's drivel.

Cute diapers on the Male 1 pic O_O

I don't think that it has necessarily turned into a feminist discussion. It has, however, turned into one troll baiting responses from three other people, myself included. I'll refrain from further feeding it unless it decides to type something nontrolly. It just happens that a false appeal to authority from a notably bigoted false feminist site (and they are a false feminist site. Perhaps after the troll stops trolling, we can educate her on the agency that is a factor in real feminism) fits the easiest way for the troll to get a rise out of people.

Thumbs up on that, Alexandra. I know we don't always agree but we see 100 percent eye to eye on this.

Honestly, no. If you want to sound like something other than an illiterate, bigoted mouthbreather then it is probably a good idea to fully read posts before responding to them, as you have consistently failed to do in this thread. If you don't? Well the funny bigot will still be funny.

Diaperdragon: Thank you for solidifying the already obvious fact that you missed the point of what everybody was telling you. Try again?

*Thumbsup* Pretty much all that matters.

| <---------- The point. You ------------------------------------------------------> | Re-read my post, and tell me where you missed the point by that far. Until then, your repeated posts where you utterly ignore our statements are not worth responding to.

... and you're incorrect in that. The states have a RIGHT to issue ID how they see fit, but they have an OBLIGATION under the constitution to recognize the IDs of other states and federal government no matter how they are provided. Yes, this means that Riley could transition in one state, move to another state, and that other state would be required to observe the terms of that identification if it was changed. While she could not transition in the legal sense in the states you mentioned (other than in Texas, where it can be done by court order), each of those states is required by federal law to recognize the identification documents of each other state, including Birth Certificate and state-issued ID. Texas isn't going to require that Riley gets a genetic exam to achieve legal residence (and cannot, it happens, under discrimination laws) and is required to recognize the status quo on her already established ID. So you may believe that this is no the case, but you are incorrect in that belief.

Does this mean that FOX News is Socialist and Balanced? What a twist!