Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
samurai_sarah

Counting On- Part 10: Counting out in Central America!

Recommended Posts

EmCatlyn

@cathgrl1  I liked the idea of "Counting Down" instead of "Counting On". ;)

 

Re flip flops, fancy separated toe sandals, etc.

 @choralcrusader8613, sandals can be all sorts of designs with straps, backless, with or without the toe separation, etc.. So the term "thongs" for a particular design was more descriptive.

Edited by EmCatlyn
Add

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mischievous
Carol

Shouldn't this say, "Counting on" rather than "Couting on"? :giggle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Miggy

Very late to the thongs/flip flops discussion but I want to add that I once read that in the navy they are called Go Aheads (as in your can't walk backwards in them). My family thought this was hysterical and we all call them gogos now.

Edited by Miggy
Spelling and more spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SilverBeach
8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

@cathgrl1  I liked the idea of "Counting Down" instead of "Counting On". ;)

 

Re flip flops, fancy separated toe sandals, etc.

 @choralcrusader8613, sandals can be all sorts of designs with straps, backless, with or without the toe separation, etc.. So the term "thongs" for a particular design was more descriptive.

Yep, I call my dressy toe separated sandals thong sandals. Rubber shower shoes are flip flops ala Duggars. I also have "sport" thongs, more substantial than flip flops, but not dressy.

Yes, I love shoes, sandals, boots, all of them! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nst

I have flip flops and birkenstocks 

I like my birkenstocks better 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IrishCarrie

In Ireland, if I made a comment about my "thongs", you can be sure every man within earshot would look at my crotch....

Which would make me a defrauder, woo hoo!!!!! I always wanted to accidentally be one, rather than doing it deliberately in order to get De Sex!:bananna-demon:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theinvisiblegirl
12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

@cathgrl1  I liked the idea of "Counting Down" instead of "Counting On". ;)

 

<snip>

I'm counting down all right. Counting down the days until the TLC gravy train comes to a final halt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BabyBottlePop
4 hours ago, theinvisiblegirl said:

I'm counting down all right. Counting down the days until the TLC gravy train comes to a final halt.

So far the signs seem to point towards cancellation. TLC seems quiet on the Duggar front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theinvisiblegirl
9 minutes ago, BabyBottlePop said:

So far the signs seem to point towards cancellation. TLC seems quiet on the Duggar front.

Music to my ears. They never should have been brought back in a spin-off in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CoveredInBees
31 minutes ago, BabyBottlePop said:

So far the signs seem to point towards cancellation. TLC seems quiet on the Duggar front.

Sssssssshhhh.......... don't jinx it ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmCatlyn
4 hours ago, IrishCarrie said:

In Ireland, if I made a comment about my "thongs", you can be sure every man within earshot would look at my crotch....

Which would make me a defrauder, woo hoo!!!!! I always wanted to accidentally be one, rather than doing it deliberately in order to get De Sex!:bananna-demon:

Hey, if you "get De Sex" you wouldn't be defrauding!  It is only defrauding when you attract but don't put out.

The whole idea of defrauding is that if you excite sexual thoughts you are responsible for having excited them.  If you excite sexual thoughts that you cannot or will not act on, it is [in Gothard thinking] the equivalent of offering money or goods that the other person "pays" for (by getting excited) and then not delivering the goods.  But if you excite sexual thoughts and satisfy the desire, you are not defrauding, just leading into sin.  That, as you know, can be a lot of fun. ;) 

But I will admit that it is probably not a good idea nowadays to talk about footwear thongs without making it clear that you mean footwear (as in "thong-style-sandals").  The underwear has taken over the word "thong."  (Happens all the time.  In the nineteenth century and early twentieth too, "make love" used to mean to "court," not to have sex with. During the middle ages and renaissance, "mistress" was the woman a man was trying to please, sometimes with the intent of seduction, but sometimes with the intent of marriage and quite often with just the desire to charm and earn patronage.  And "pot" used to mean a cooking utensil. ;))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BabyBottlePop
21 minutes ago, theinvisiblegirl said:

Music to my ears. They never should have been brought back in a spin-off in the first place.

The whole thing perplexes me. Knowing how Counting On went and how it was anticlimactic, why did TLC even go back? Obviously, for money, but the way the sponsors ran and nothing happened on the show made Countjng On seem like a favor to the Duggars more than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorns
8 minutes ago, BabyBottlePop said:

The whole thing perplexes me. Knowing how Counting On went and how it was anticlimactic, why did TLC even go back? Obviously, for money, but the way the sponsors ran and nothing happened on the show made Countjng On seem like a favor to the Duggars more than anything else.

Hm, maybe it was an contractual obligation that they chose to fullfill in the most boring way possible? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theinvisiblegirl
7 minutes ago, BabyBottlePop said:

The whole thing perplexes me. Knowing how Counting On went and how it was anticlimactic, why did TLC even go back? Obviously, for money, but the way the sponsors ran and nothing happened on the show made Countjng On seem like a favor to the Duggars more than anything else.

It didn't make any sense. I'd like to think that the people at TLC can't be so dumb that they thought the public would continue watching the Duggars like nothing happened or that advertisers would want to be associated with those people. But I could maybe see why they felt it could withstand this storm (did that phrase sound overly Duggar?). The last few seasons with the two weddings and the birth of Izzy were pretty successful ratings-wise.

Could it maybe have been a situation where they were trying to honor their contract with the Duggars in a different way? Jim Bob could have threatened a lawsuit on behalf of the kiddults for scrapping the season of 19KAC they had already filmed, and they decided that they could break a contract with Michelle/Jim Bob/Josh for solid reasons, but contracts for the kiddults had to be honored so this was the idea? Just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cathgrl1
1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

But I will admit that it is probably not a good idea nowadays to talk about footwear thongs without making it clear that you mean footwear (as in "thong-style-sandals").  The underwear has taken over the word "thong."  (Happens all the time.  In the nineteenth century and early twentieth too, "make love" used to mean to "court," not to have sex with. During the middle ages and renaissance, "mistress" was the woman a man was trying to please, sometimes with the intent of seduction, but sometimes with the intent of marriage and quite often with just the desire to charm and earn patronage.  And "pot" used to mean a cooking utensil. ;))

There was a series of Blondie and Dagwood Bumstead movies in the early 1940s. In one of them, Blondie is supposed to pregnant and in an attempt to fool somebody, she asks Dagwood's boss, seated with her at a restaurante, to "make love" to her. Watching this on TV in my livingroom in 1979, that really messed with my junior high head. :562479351e8d1_wtf(2):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anotherone

You cant just fulfill them, it has to be " righteously" fulfilled. I guess that means married.

BTW I'm getting "thong" ads all over the website now. The footwear kind, not underwear, fortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nausicaa
1 hour ago, cathgrl1 said:

There was a series of Blondie and Dagwood Bumstead movies in the early 1940s. In one of them, Blondie is supposed to pregnant and in an attempt to fool somebody, she asks Dagwood's boss, seated with her at a restaurante, to "make love" to her. Watching this on TV in my livingroom in 1979, that really messed with my junior high head. :562479351e8d1_wtf(2):

Ha, yes! That totally scandalized me as a kid reading old books. I still read a lot of books from the 20s through 40s, so right on the cusp of when the term was changing, so I'm always trying to figure out what sense of the phrase is meant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDuggarnaut
4 hours ago, BabyBottlePop said:

So far the signs seem to point towards cancellation. TLC seems quiet on the Duggar front.

It seemed to me like they sprung Counting On on us. Maybe they're testing the waters thru People mag to see if public opinion towards Josh will improve. (No, no, it won't.  He will always be a pariah.) 

If they do finally admit defeat, it has to suck knowing they went out with such a crappy season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AlysonRR

I think the Duggar series will be cancelled, but that either TLC or Up! will do a yearly 1-2hr special on them, centering on some family event (wedding, births, reunion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
theinvisiblegirl

Even though the Bateses are, in ways, more toxic than the Duggars, PR wise, the Duggars are lethal. If anyone will do reunion specials, it'll be TLC. Up! will keep the Bateses so long as their forced squeaky clean image is there. I feel like a lot of people who enjoy(ed) both shows think they're more "real" than the Duggars, when the patriarch is being accused of covering up horrific crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheDuggarnaut

Is there really a need for an annual update special on them when everyone can keep up with their news on social media? We've seen them court, marry, give birth, and take endless trips now. I don't know what the fascination would be in seeing 200 grandkids and counting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EmCatlyn
1 hour ago, anotherone said:

You cant just fulfill them, it has to be " righteously" fulfilled. I guess that means married.

BTW I'm getting "thong" ads all over the website now. The footwear kind, not underwear, fortunately.

Oh, you can fulfill them. But if it is not within marriage, then you (and the guy) are going to hell   and it will all be your fault.  So to "righteously fulfill" the lust you stir up, you have to marry the guy. Otherwise your choices are defrauding and sin.  

Either way, once you are "broken" with guilt and self-disgust, Jesus will forgive you, and everyone else must also.  Except that doesn't really mean they will forget.  

If you happen to marry Jim Bob he will remind you frequently about having defrauded the neighbor, and he will go "hey, hey, hey" whenever he is stirred to lust by seeing your madly curling hair and incredibly sexy elbows, and you will have to be "cheerfully available" so as not to "defraud" your loving and horny headship.

(No thong ads here, of any kind, but ever since I googled Crown College, I keep getting ads for Christian, state and online educational institutions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EyeQueue
Quote

Thongs lead to the "hey hey hey".

Whenever I see this, I think of this:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nastyhobbitses
12 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Hey, if you "get De Sex" you wouldn't be defrauding!  It is only defrauding when you attract but don't put out.

The whole idea of defrauding is that if you excite sexual thoughts you are responsible for having excited them.  If you excite sexual thoughts that you cannot or will not act on, it is [in Gothard thinking] the equivalent of offering money or goods that the other person "pays" for (by getting excited) and then not delivering the goods.  But if you excite sexual thoughts and satisfy the desire, you are not defrauding, just leading into sin.  That, as you know, can be a lot of fun. ;) 

But I will admit that it is probably not a good idea nowadays to talk about footwear thongs without making it clear that you mean footwear (as in "thong-style-sandals").  The underwear has taken over the word "thong."  (Happens all the time.  In the nineteenth century and early twentieth too, "make love" used to mean to "court," not to have sex with. During the middle ages and renaissance, "mistress" was the woman a man was trying to please, sometimes with the intent of seduction, but sometimes with the intent of marriage and quite often with just the desire to charm and earn patronage.  And "pot" used to mean a cooking utensil. ;))

My grandmother used to volunteer at a local history museum and started calling hoes "cultivators" because one too many middle school groups disrupted her presentation with church giggles after she said stuff like "The early settlers worked the fields with hoes just like this one, and the local Native American tribes had hoes of their own..." or "This is the oldest hoe we have in our collection".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.