# Use of the term "intellectual masturbation"



## john dozier (Jun 28, 2010)

Apparently someone was disturbed by my use of this phrase concerning "blogging". I assumed (wrongly it appears) that intelligent adults would understand that this has nothing to do with sex. I will not make that assumption again.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Actually it is a direct reference to pseudo-sex since it is based on the obvious comparison.
Curiously, if you read enough of the blog to be able to place a label on it, then you became a participant and your label does not apply. 
Even more curious is why you would tell us about refraining from assumptions. The bloggers don't care about being labeled so why do we care about your cessation from one particular label? Your post became intellectual masturbation.. until I was too quick with the mouse and clicked on it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

A stupid term bandied about by people who don't like creative thinking people taking up space.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Umm... What is "intellectual masturbation"?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> Umm... What is "intellectual masturbation"?


Right??? I was wondering the same thing...

makes me think of somebody who gets "in touch" with their body while reading the New Yorker or something...lol...

and I'm certainly not trying to start anything...but doesnt it seem like that's the kind of pseudo intellectual, condescending (sp?), expression used by somebody who might participate in the afforementioned intellectual bishop flogging themself???


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Urban Dictionary: intellectual masturbation


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

So...If I consider Fact A and Fact B and decide that because of both of them, there must be a Fact C, and I'm pleased with myself for determining that, and furthermore have no actual proof of Fact C other than it just seems reasonable to me to assume it, then I've engaged in intellectual masturbation?


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

^ No not at all 'Intellectual masturbation.' is waffling on at a dinner party and boring you guests to death after the second bottle of wine on some obscure subject which no one at the table has the slightest interest. Basically the Australian and I think English English language term is 'Wanker'.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

But the first definition that ZG linked to is, "Fascinating intellectual breakthroughs regarding reality, language, existence, knowledge, perception, or human behavior which are completely unprovable and utterly without use, and therefore of no real consequence to anyone."


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> A stupid term bandied about by people who don't like creative thinking people taking up space.


Can I change my answer to reflect yours?


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

JJR512 said:


> But the first definition that ZG linked to is, "Fascinating intellectual breakthroughs regarding reality, language, existence, knowledge, perception, or human behavior which are completely unprovable and utterly without use, and therefore of no real consequence to anyone."


Actually there are many good ideas that might fall into this category but they are often simply beyond the capability of the casual reader. Thus the blogs are an attempt to reach out to those who might understand. They seek out the few, not the masses. Thus the theory that an idea is of no consequence to "anyone" is absurd. The person that missses the point of the creative person is simply not part of the target audience.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Country Irish said:


> Thus the theory that an idea is of no consequence to "anyone" is absurd. The person that missses the point of the creative person is simply not part of the target audience.


Yes...but what never ceases to amaze me is the persons outside the target audience will respond with comments like, "You're stupid," or, "That's stupid," etc. They don't get it, but they can't let the other people go on with their conversation in peace.

Anyway, I'm probably guilty of intellectual masturbation. Years ago, one of my uncles gave the nickname of "Cliffy", after Cliff Claven, the character on the TV show _Cheers_ played by John Ratzenberger. You see, just like Cliffy, I had (and still have) a pretty good ability to interject comments into a conversation that, while tangentially related to the conversation, were quite off-the-wall. In fact, I do believe that, ironically enough, I'm engaging in it right now...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Country Irish said:


> Can I change my answer to reflect yours?


Indeed you may sir.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Why invent a new term when you have "bore" and "wanker" to bandy about??


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Why invent a new term when you have "bore" and "wanker" to bandy about??


Still insults & still often used by people who don't like or understand what they're seeing or hearing from the alleged "bore". Like JJR and Country Irish have pointed out, people who use such terms are nearly always outisde the scope of the intended audience thus their repsonse is to insult that which they don't like or understand. Basic stuff really.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Urban Dictionary: intellectual masturbation


Could it also mean wacking off your mind?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> Could it also mean wacking off your mind?


Or how about the expression "that blows my mind??"


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Wow, so we've gone right from intellectual masturbation to intellectual fellatio. Interesting!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> Wow, so we've gone right from intellectual masturbation to intellectual fellatio. Interesting!


Reminds me of a phrase we used both in the military and the police "Keep your head down and your back covered" 
After Masturbation and fellatio, I'm worried about what's round the corner, like I said "keep your back covered!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That would be a verbal reaming!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> That would be a verbal reaming!!


 Or worse!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"In fact, I do believe that, ironically enough, I'm engaging in it right now... "

I must say you do a fine job of it. That's the fun of a forum like this with few rules and no set topic. Anything is acceptable.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

JJR512 said:


> Wow, so we've gone right from intellectual masturbation to intellectual fellatio. Interesting!


wow it's almost like saying "giving head".


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Howard said:


> wow it's almost like saying "giving head".


Yep, this is turning into just the sort of thread I feared. I think I will just jump over to the murder and mayhem thread and on the way I think I will wash my hands.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Howard said:


> wow it's almost like saying "giving head".


eeerrr...okaay! : O


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

john dozier said:


> Apparently someone was disturbed by my use of this phrase concerning "blogging". I assumed (wrongly it appears) that intelligent adults would understand that this has nothing to do with sex. I will not make that assumption again.


The phrase is pretty common and pretty innocuous. The fact that your post above was greeted so rudely (and your original post was greeted so stupidly) says more about the respondents than you.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Country Irish said:


> Yep, this is turning into just the sort of thread I feared. I think I will just jump over to the murder and mayhem thread and on the way I think I will wash my hands.


Sorry CI,my apologies,I turn every thread I see into sex.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> The phrase is pretty common and pretty innocuous. The fact that your post above was greeted so rudely (and your original post was greeted so stupidly) says more about the respondents than you.


I agree. It's a perfectly appropriate phrase and in some cases is by far the best way to characterize the rants, pontifications, self aggrandizing bs spouted out in some blogs, some TV network (possibly beginning with an F) talk shows, etc.

(Sometimes it's fun though).


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> I agree. It's a perfectly appropriate phrase...


I used to use phrases such as those to shock the grown ups.

Then I grew up!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

john dozier said:


> Apparently someone was disturbed by my use of this phrase concerning "blogging". I assumed (wrongly it appears) that intelligent adults would understand that this has nothing to do with sex. I will not make that assumption again.


LOL. Well, it is indeed good to hear that you have learned that lesson? :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Oh, "blogging!!"

That is dirty!!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I used to use phrases such as those to shock the grown ups.
> 
> Then I grew up!!


It might have shocked the "grown ups" when I was a teen (many years ago) but this term doesn't shock anyone any more. (Of course in those days there were no blogs. If there had been, we would have seen common usage of this term much earlier)

Language and what is shocking, outrageous, normal, old fashioned changes continuously. Thankfully.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I first thought about this back on July 20th, but didn't say anything then...Now that it's come up again, though, I finally will say that I never noticed any rudeness in this thread.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MichaelS said:


> It might have shocked the "grown ups" when I was a teen (many years ago) but this term doesn't shock anyone any more. (Of course in those days there were no blogs. If there had been, we would have seen common usage of this term much earlier)
> 
> Language and what is shocking, outrageous, normal, old fashioned changes continuously. Thankfully.


I never have and never will discuss or refer to the subject of masterbation either literally or figuratively in front of my Grandmother and would hope anyone would extend the same courtesy to theirs. 

There is nothing new or sophisticated about potty talk.

Now Blog off!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

jerking off your mind?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I never have and never will discuss or refer to the subject of masterbation either literally or figuratively in front of my Grandmother and would hope anyone would extend the same courtesy to theirs.
> 
> There is nothing new or sophisticated about potty talk.
> 
> Now Blog off!!


I agree, but think this is a poor example. The term refers to the engagement of an intellectual effort that is solely for one's own amusement and therefore without the possiblity of real fecundity. Accordingly, the phrase is apt.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I didn't suggest that the phrase was inaccurate, or that its' meaning is misunderstood, only that it is not appropriate to use under all circumstances and that doing so may be a sign of a lack of maturity on the part of the user.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I didn't suggest that the phrase was inaccurate, or that its' meaning is misunderstood, only that it is not appropriate to use under all circumstances and that doing so may be a sign of a lack of maturity on the part of the user.


Agreed completely. The phrase carries with it a sexual connotation that is not appropriate in all circumstances.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

I had a law professor who used this term. It means nothing else that an exercise in thought with absolutely no value other than the pleasure of talking or thinking about the subject. It's a provocative term to be sure because it takes the listener a moment to think through what's meant by it, but for an educated, intelligent person it really shouldn't bother anyone in an adult conversation (i.e. a conversation between adults). I wouldn't use it in front of kids, but I don't think it bothered anyone in the class at all.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

But what does "masturbation" have to do with thinking?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Howard said:


> But what does "masturbation" have to do with thinking?


Umm...Let me see if I can explain it. Regular masturbation is an exercise in sex with absolutely no value other than the pleasure of having an orgasm. It does not serve the practical purpose for which the act of having sex exists, which is to procreate. (Unless you're donating sperm, that is.) Intellectual masturbation, as was explained in the post prior to yours, also serves no purpose; in this case the purpose not being served is whatever the purpose is of being intellectual.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> Umm...Let me see if I can explain it. Regular masturbation is an exercise in sex with absolutely no value other than the pleasure of having an orgasm. It does not serve the practical purpose for which the act of having sex exists, which is to procreate. (Unless you're donating sperm, that is.) Intellectual masturbation, as was explained in the post prior to yours, also serves no purpose; in this case the purpose not being served is whatever the purpose is of being intellectual.


All sex is masturbation, it's just that one certain form of it can produce offspring.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

FrankDC said:


> All sex is masturbation, it's just that one certain form of it can produce offspring.


No, all sex is _not_ masturbation. The primary definition of _masturbation_ is self-stimulation, especially for an orgasm. When you have sex with another person, you don't stimulate yourself, your partner stimulates you. Unless you would try to make the argument that the other person is just a replacement for your own hand, in which case I would feel sorry for your significant other (unless you have none, in which case I would feel sorry for you).


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

JJR512 said:


> No, all sex is _not_ masturbation. The primary definition of _masturbation_ is self-stimulation, especially for an orgasm. When you have sex with another person, you don't stimulate yourself, your partner stimulates you. Unless you would try to make the argument that the other person is just a replacement for your own hand, in which case I would feel sorry for your significant other (unless you have none, in which case I would feel sorry for you).


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> No, all sex is _not_ masturbation. The primary definition of _masturbation_ is self-stimulation, especially for an orgasm. When you have sex with another person, you don't stimulate yourself, your partner stimulates you. Unless you would try to make the argument that the other person is just a replacement for your own hand, in which case I would feel sorry for your significant other (unless you have none, in which case I would feel sorry for you).


No, the word means erotic stimulation of one's genitals. It's by no means limited to self-stimulation, although that's how the word is generally used. One person can masturbate another, and sex is two or more people masturbating each other. Cultures and religions brainwash us into believing copulation and masturbation are somehow two different activities.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Oh dear...It seems my statement of a word's meaning and usage is being challenged. I just love getting into these kids of debates.



> mas·tur·ba·tion
> -noun
> 1. the stimulation or manipulation of one's own genitals, esp. to orgasm; sexual self-gratification.
> 2. the stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of another's genitals, esp. to orgasm.


Source: https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/masturbation (Definition from the Random House Dictionary.)

Remember I said "primary definition"? Please don't make me quote a definition for "primary", too. But even looking at the secondary definition, we see that it explicitly excludes _coitus_. Would you like me to define that word, too? Previously, you stated that one form of masturbation can produce offspring. Well, coitus is that form, and it's explicitly excluded from the definition of masturbation.

I hope that decisively concludes the matter.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JJR, your reference lists several sets of definitions, the second set backs my claim not yours. And if you're claiming a hand job isn't masturbation as long as it's done by someone else I don't know what to tell you. Enjoy your fantasy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Frank, welcome back. Your equal, JJR512, has joined us while you were away. Justin, Frank's one of the better provocateurs here, and has been missed by me. But I see you two have already met. Continue please.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks for the welcome. I'm here just for a week or two to close out some old emails. The site looks wonderful!


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*From intellectual to sex...*

Geezzzz... you guys are masturbating your brains!!!:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

FrankDC said:


> JJR, your reference lists several sets of definitions, the second set backs my claim not yours. And if you're claiming a hand job isn't masturbation as long as it's done by someone else I don't know what to tell you. Enjoy your fantasy.


You say "second _set_", which I take to mean the definition under the heading of "World English Dictionary", yes? Yes, that does indeed say that masturbation is the stimulation of the genital organs of oneself _or another_ for the purpose of achieving sexual pleasure. But I never said that masturbation was only something one can do to oneself.

It seems to me that this definition is basically the same as the second one from the first definition set (what I posted earlier), except that it does not specify how the stimulation is performed, or that it excludes coitus. You could take the lack of that exclusion and use it as a basis for your argument that all sex is masturbation, and I must admit that going on just this one definition alone, one could come to that conclusion. However, there is not just this one definition alone. There is the first set that I quoted earlier. But wait, there's more! How about the third definition, under the heading of "Medical Dictionary"? I will emphasize the parts to which particular attention should be paid:


> erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and *achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse*, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies


This particular definition comes from Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. After that, there is yet another definition, the fourth one on the page, if I'm counting correctly. This final one comes from the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, with emphasis once again added by me:


> Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means *other than sexual intercourse*.


So...Just going by what's at Dictionary.com, we find a total of four definitions. One of them is simple and vague and includes no mention of how the stimulation is, or is not, achieved. The other three are all specifically exclusive of sexual intercourse. Do you really want to hold up the one vague definition and says it proves that all sex (i.e., sexual intercourse, aka coitus) is masturbation, when there are three other ones that say that's false? It's not me that's enjoying a fantasy here.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

JJR, we're on different wavelengths here. I said we've been brainwashed by culture and religion into believing copulation and masturbation are two different activities, and you keep responding with examples of this brainwashing. Coitus is the mutual masturbation of a man and woman's respective genitals. There's the added aspect of procreation and I understand the practical need to treat coitus differently in this one regard, but basically it's just friction.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

FrankDC said:


> JJR, we're on different wavelengths here. I said we've been brainwashed by culture and religion into believing copulation and masturbation are two different activities, and you keep responding with examples of this brainwashing. Coitus is simply the masturbation of male and female genitals together.


You originally said, "All sex is masturbation, it's just that one certain form of it can produce offspring." It's not a matter of brainwashing, or conspiracy theories, or any other BS that tells us they're different activities. It's the definitions of the terms that tell us they're different activities. I mean, I'm quoting definitions here, so tell me how I'm being brainwashed!

Now, yes, it's true that both activities involve genital stimulation for sexual pleasure. But all three of the specific definitions of masturbation say this stimulation is by _manual_ means (i.e., by the hand), or by means _other than_ sexual intercourse. And, to look at it from the opposite perspective, we see that the definitions for coitus, or sexual intercourse, indicate that the stimulation comes from genital-to-genital contact. The definitions of both acts exclude the other act. That's just plain and simple fact, and I don't know if you are incapable of comprehending that, or are just plain refusing to accept it, but there really isn't anything else to say. I've proven your original statement to be factually wrong, and if it amuses you to insist that I've been brainwashed, so be it. Just do me a favor: Next time you accuse me of being brainwashed, just please do so accurately by stating that I've been brainwashed by the dictionary companies, because culture and religion had nothing to do with it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

I did not accuse you of being brainwashed, just your references. Culture and religion have a lot to do with how some words are defined in dictionaries, especially ones like masturbation.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

You didn't accuse my references, you accused, to be precise, _us_: "I said *we've* been brainwashed by culture and religion."

Words are not things that have inherent definitions. Words are simply sounds produced in our mouths and voice boxes. Words are defined by how they're used. Lexicographers research multiple examples of how a particular word is used in a wide variety of sources and contexts before defining it, or changing its definition. These sources and contexts exist within the culture of the society to which the word belongs, therefore, _yes_, of course culture has a lot to do with how pretty much all words are defined. And if culture has evolved the way a particular word like "masturbation" is used, and lexicographers recognize that, then that is how they will define the word in the next edition of the dictionary. So, what we have here today continues to be the plain and simple fact that your statement ("All sex is masturbation, it's just that one certain form of it can produce offspring") is incorrect according to the way those words are defined today.

In your most recent reply, you originally asked a question that you've since edited out. That question, for the benefit of those who missed it, was: "As a parting shot I have to ask you, is an infertile couple capable of copulation? If so, why, and if not, why not?" The answer is yes, and the reason is because copulation is sexual intercourse, and that is not strictly defined as being for the sole purpose of procreation. I'll hold off on quoting definitions until you tell me I'm wrong, but don't worry, I've got them bookmarked because I know I'll be going there soon...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> No, the word means erotic stimulation of one's genitals. It's by no means limited to self-stimulation, although that's how the word is generally used. One person can masturbate another, and sex is two or more people masturbating each other. Cultures and religions brainwash us into believing copulation and masturbation are somehow two different activities.


I think this topic got a bit off,Don't you think?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Intermission. (Have a smoke. The monitors will flicker when it's time to restart)

Reading Frank's remark that all sex is masturbation, I nodded (I've always liked his stuff) figuring what was meant was meant broad and that this bunk about satisfying the other person is mostly just that; it's us we're really interested in. But then you, Justin, Monsieur Literál, grind it into the ground and force Frank to respond in kind (I'm surprised at you, Frank) when it's simply one of those things you say, off-hand, kinda real, maybe not, more truth than fiction, not 100% solid, but still well worth saying. But not, JJR512, something upon which to write a Googled treatise. Your response would be more in keeping if just prior to Franks's remark he had inserted _resolved:_


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Hmmmmm.... a topic of intellectual masturbation has resulted in actual talk of masturbation....nope, did not see that one coming.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Reading Frank's remark that all sex is masturbation, I nodded (I've always liked his stuff) figuring what was meant was meant broad and that this bunk about satisfying the other person is mostly just that; it's us we're really interested in. But then you, Justin, Monsieur Literál, grind it into the ground and force Frank to respond in kind (I'm surprised at you, Frank) when it's simply one of those things you say, off-hand, kinda real, maybe not, more truth than fiction, not 100% solid, but still well worth saying. But not, JJR512, something upon which to write a Googled treatise. Your response would be more in keeping if just prior to Franks's remark he had inserted _resolved:_


From my point of view, your take on the progression of the conversation is way off. You make it sound like some dude said something, to which I replied with a 20-thousand word essay with bullet points, quotes, references, citations, and a bibliography. That isn't the case. The guy said something, and I replied with a short and simple "wrong" written in my own words. And if it had ended there, it would have ended there. It _could_ have ended there, and _should_ have ended there. Admittedly, I checked up on the definitions before I posted anything at all - which, by the way, I didn't use Google, or any other search engine, at all. But when he says I'm wrong, then I, knowing full well that the definitions back me up, am not going to let it it go. And the more it gets pressed, the harder I press back. I _could_ have posted that hypothetical 20-thousand word essay in the first place, but I was trying to keep it light.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> You make it sound like some dude said something, to which I replied with a 20-thousand word essay with bullet points, quotes, references, citations, and a bibliography.


Yeah. That's sorta how it came across. Which is not to say I didn't enjoy it. I did. And Frank isn't just _some dude_. Nor are you, now that you've established yourself as one of the more worthy reads. Know too that you and I share attitude. Like with this:



> ...the more it gets pressed, the harder I press back. I _could_ have posted that hypothetical 20-thousand word essay in the first place, but I was trying to keep it light.


But maybe try harder on that last part?


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> But maybe try harder on that last part?


Are we talking about the same reply? My very first reply to FrankDC, the one to which to which ZachGranstrom replied with this very lovely smilie:







? I don't think I could have made that any lighter, unless I had simply replied with, "You're wrong," which also doesn't really come across as being very nice, either.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Howard said:


> I think this topic got a bit off,Don't you think?


 Yes. Sorry.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. Sorry.


No,it's quite alright,we're men,we always go off topic.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ZachGranstrom said:


> Hmmmmm.... a topic of intellectual masturbation has resulted in actual talk of masturbation....nope, did not see that one coming.


Me neither.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Intermission. (Have a smoke. The monitors will flicker when it's time to restart)
> 
> Reading Frank's remark that all sex is masturbation, I nodded (I've always liked his stuff) figuring what was meant was meant broad and that this bunk about satisfying the other person is mostly just that; it's us we're really interested in. But then you, Justin, Monsieur Literál, grind it into the ground and force Frank to respond in kind (I'm surprised at you, Frank) when it's simply one of those things you say, off-hand, kinda real, maybe not, more truth than fiction, not 100% solid, but still well worth saying. But not, JJR512, something upon which to write a Googled treatise. Your response would be more in keeping if just prior to Franks's remark he had inserted _resolved:_


Peak, I love that "stream of thought" reasoning you apply in the quote above and in other situations..."it's simply one of those things you say, off hand, kind of real, maybe not, more truth than fiction, not 100% solid, but still well worth saying." Classic turn of the word! Wish I could write like that. :thumbs-up:


----------

