Jump to content
IGNORED

The Botkinettes Tell Us How...


bea

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, CyborgKin said:

That looks like a really bad idea!

(can apply to both photos :P)

I have never taken a gun safety class, and yet I can opine that a gun jammed into one's jeans seems like an eminently bad idea.

Perhaps it's a statement about the wearer's manhood? OTOH, it seems to have a lot of potential to have a permanent effect on one's manhood, come to think of it.

ETA: I remember during the time I read the romance genre (it didn't last long; fantasy and sci-fi were much more interesting to me), that 'gun' was sometimes a euphemism for male anatomy. It even crept out into the vernacular, with an infertile man referred to as 'shooting blanks'. Just a thought. Perhaps the gun in the waistband is to supplement one that is lacking in the anatomy or psyche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2016 at 1:36 PM, Elegant Mess said:

Wow!  The gun-toting one sure looks mighty proud of himself, doesn't he?

Along with the man stance!  We can see his stuff!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with the man stance!  We can see his stuff!!!


To quote a Shania Twain song, "That Don't Impress Me Much".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony for people who want to go forth and multiply, carrying guns around like that may  thin the herd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2016 at 10:54 PM, Marian the Librarian said:

:pb_lol:

Check out Lil' Lucas' T.REX ARMS Instagram page, open for all to see. He's positively gun-mad, and pics include many examples of firearms perilously positioned vis-a-vis the family jewels (see example below). Uh, Geoff, about that 200-Year Plan...does it come with basic safety instruction???

https://www.instagram.com/trexarms/

ETA: Well, lookie here! Anna-Sofia's packin' a piece.

And it's tagged "brosisdate..."  Eew!

 

Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 7.50.16 PM.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 8.04.49 PM.png

I'm not going to snark on concealed carry in church, or even appendix carry (yes, it's a bit more dangerous if you haven't been properly trained, but so is driving with a hot coffee wedged between your legs), but Anna Sofia riding around with her gun outside of the holster is downright dangerous. I don't care if it's "unloaded"--the rule is that every gun is a loaded gun and this evidence of carelessness in both their thinking and handling of firearms terrifies me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep reading this as 'Trex Arms' which amuses me. Trex is a brand of vegetable shortening (vegetarian lard) here in the UK. Trex arms would be a bit slippery. Actually, that's fine. Perfectly appropriate. Carry on!

Another thought: T-Rex Arms. Aren't the arms on a T-Rex pretty pointless? Short and stubby and weak in comparison to the rest of its body. Does this name seem ill-considered to anyone else, or am I just totally missing the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jellybean said:

 

Another thought: T-Rex Arms. Aren't the arms on a T-Rex pretty pointless? Short and stubby and weak in comparison to the rest of its body. Does this name seem ill-considered to anyone else, or am I just totally missing the point?

The brilliant cartoon book T-Rex Trying is all about the uselessness of T-rex's little arms and the difficulties they would cause. Hilarious: https://www.amazon.com/T-Rex-Trying-Hugh-Murphy/dp/0452299020/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I googled a little bit on appendix carry, also called ACIW or appendix carry inside the waistband.  Apparently, the holster is more typically worn on the waistband approximately above the appendix, not in the middle like a substitute dick.  It's a big deal for concealed carry, uh, I mean CC, 'cause you gotta conceal. 

Yo, FJ, nothing like being a 30-second google expert on something! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have neither a dick nor an appendix, so either position would be fine for me - in each case I gain something! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2016 at 11:48 AM, FormerlyFundyLite said:

I'm not going to snark on concealed carry in church, or even appendix carry (yes, it's a bit more dangerous if you haven't been properly trained, but so is driving with a hot coffee wedged between your legs), but Anna Sofia riding around with her gun outside of the holster is downright dangerous. I don't care if it's "unloaded"--the rule is that every gun is a loaded gun and this evidence of carelessness in both their thinking and handling of firearms terrifies me. 

Yeah, she doesn't want to pull a Donnie Hendrix.  Not that she'll ever know who that is.

On 9/18/2016 at 4:00 PM, Jellybean said:

I keep reading this as 'Trex Arms' which amuses me. Trex is a brand of vegetable shortening (vegetarian lard) here in the UK. Trex arms would be a bit slippery. Actually, that's fine. Perfectly appropriate. Carry on!

Another thought: T-Rex Arms. Aren't the arms on a T-Rex pretty pointless? Short and stubby and weak in comparison to the rest of its body. Does this name seem ill-considered to anyone else, or am I just totally missing the point?

Well they sell stuff related to small arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Okay, so I find this whole thread rather fascinating for a number of reasons: 

1. I have yet to understand why people who hate the Botkins so much would follow them so closely and care so much about what they do. It's like a celebrity gossip page, but you hate the celebrities. If I hate a celebrity, I don't allow their lives to dominate mine by thinking about them to the extent that you do. 
2. In general, you ought to get your information correct before just spouting your ideas. Several people have made comments which are totally unsupportable. For instance, this, which I've numbered conveniently in order to discuss it:  

On 8/30/2016 at 3:54 PM, Palimpsest said:

1. The Botkinettes were well trained to shave Geoff Botkin and take his shoes off too.  It is a mystery why they haven't married yet.  I'd say it is a combination of not meeting a man who resembles Daddy sufficiently, Daddy turning the unworthy away (see Stevehovah), and perhaps rather enjoying their lives as the beautiful princesses of the movement.  

2. As far as their new oeuvre is concerned, dealing with manipulative men with evil in their hearts, well they were also exposed to DPIAT - a master of manipulation too smart to molest a Botkinette.  He targeted the vulnerable.

1. How do you know it isn't just because no decent, well-suited chap has come along yet? There are women 'in the world' who are also not married by 30, but we don't assume they haven't met a man who resembles their father, nor do we assume their fathers have turned all the good men away. In other words, this is a poor and unsupportable assumption.

2. How do you know that DP didn't target the Botkinettes? Maybe he did, and they successfully rebuffed him. Maybe that is how they have the authority to speak on the topic. Did you ever consider this? 

Or look at this comment.

On 8/30/2016 at 6:32 PM, CyborgKin said:

Any any man who is looking for someone who is intelligent and educated and not a broodmare workhorse is either too intimidated by Geoff, or not the right sort Geoff would approve of.  For all parties involved in a match to approve, the man would have to be very good at lying to Geoff.

Do you know that? If you can name me five guys you know of who have been rebuffed or intimidated by GB, I would be appreciative. For people who hate the Botkins' pontification, you do a lot of it yourselves. 

On 8/31/2016 at 6:06 PM, CloakNDagger said:

That's not how they come across in person. Some of them are very nice to be around.

Agreed. See, when someone actually has something to contribute, what they contribute is valuable. But pontificating at length about what the Botkins do to suitors or how they treat their children when you really have no idea is the most useless thing I can imagine.

That's my two cents.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all boils down to their dangerous, patriarchal, misogynistic, fundamentalist Christian beliefs. You come across as a fundie trying to set us straight. That won't happen no matter how hard you try. People like you show up all the time and leave defeated.

By the way, I'm not going to answer your questions because I know how this is going to end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What made you pick this thread?  If you don't understand this thread, I don't see you understanding any other fundie-snark thread on FJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/19/2016 at 11:09 PM, CyborgKin said:

What made you pick this thread?  If you don't understand this thread, I don't see you understanding any other fundie-snark thread on FJ.

Hey, I gotta start somewhere.

I don't know why I picked this one. It's the one I was currently reading, I suppose. And I understand legitimate complaints about people, like the Botkins. There are complaints which could be lodged. There are things which were said in the previous pages which I agree with. But just spouting off about stuff nobody actually knows seems like a waste of time. 

Besides I actually know something about the Botkins so I felt like I could say something. I don't follow any other fundies.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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