![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
[cryptic]
I do _not_ have a harem!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
What is psinging anyways? 'tis a term I've been curious about. :)
A group of people who get together every other Friday to sing together, mostly folk songs, but also other stuff. 'Tis fun. :)
Heh. A friend/ex of mine used to refer to me that way... :)
Language is adaptive and evolves. Words mean one thing today and a different thing tommorow. Things shift and flow around you. And you do too have a harem :-}.
I wanna go!
And I want a harem, just so long as they only hang out with me on my own time.
And I want a harem, just so long as they only hang out with me on my own time.
I assert that Randy is right here, and I have an actual degree in linguistics. :P There is no way to wrest the definition of "harem" away from the way it is used in your social circle in a way that will let you escape.
Of course, as you noticed, it's less obvious when you don't have everyone in the same place. Among other things, your toes are also safer when you don't have everyone in the same place. :)
Hmmm... psounds like I have to drag my ass to psinging one of these days ;)
(not this week, I was seriously out of it today, some stomach bug that kept me home... of course now I'm awake and full of energy at 0330, go figure...)
(not this week, I was seriously out of it today, some stomach bug that kept me home... of course now I'm awake and full of energy at 0330, go figure...)
No, that's Joe. He's JoeKCupid after all. :)
It's a harem. If it looks like a duck. . .
The most amusing part? Even by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
australian_joe's definition (people I've at least kissed, with there being mutual interest in, if not actual action of, more than that), rather than randysmith's definition (people I'm comfortable with cuddling in public), they weren't all there. (that list, I can at least enumerate!)
Byrandysmith's definition, I'm not sure they would all fit in that space. ;) Not sure, because I'm not sure I can list who that would be!
australian_joe's definition (people I've at least kissed, with there being mutual interest in, if not actual action of, more than that), rather than randysmith's definition (people I'm comfortable with cuddling in public), they weren't all there. (that list, I can at least enumerate!)By
randysmith's definition, I'm not sure they would all fit in that space. ;) Not sure, because I'm not sure I can list who that would be!I wanna go!
Hee! Next time you are in Boston, if you are around for a Friday which includes it, I shall invite/bring you along. :)
And I want a harem, just so long as they only hang out with me on my own time.
*grin* Even if they aren't necessarily local to you?
Mostly, I think 'harem' in my head implies more than it was being used as (see my reply toratatosk for the two definitions used), and that was probably part of my problem. Well, that and it was making me blush furiously. :)
Hee! Next time you are in Boston, if you are around for a Friday which includes it, I shall invite/bring you along. :)
And I want a harem, just so long as they only hang out with me on my own time.
*grin* Even if they aren't necessarily local to you?
Mostly, I think 'harem' in my head implies more than it was being used as (see my reply to
ratatosk for the two definitions used), and that was probably part of my problem. Well, that and it was making me blush furiously. :)...
No?
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And that there is more defined relationship structure than there was inaustralian_joe's definition of such (see my reply to ratatosk for that). randysmith's definition is just funny. :)
By their definitions? Sure, I do. But by my interpretation of the word? No, I don't.
No?
Harem, in my head, implies things like there being a lack of equality. And that I'm supporting them. And that there is more defined relationship structure than there was in
australian_joe's definition of such (see my reply to ratatosk for that). randysmith's definition is just funny. :)By their definitions? Sure, I do. But by my interpretation of the word? No, I don't.
And, by my definition, I don't _want_ one.
*laugh* By my definition, I don't. By both yours and australian_joe's, I do. See my reply to jasra for why my definition makes it hard for me to agree. :)
australian_joe's, I do. See my reply to jasra for why my definition makes it hard for me to agree. :)But my socal circle fiddled with the definition just so that it _WOULD_ apply! How does _that_ make it even vaguely accurate? ;)
(also, my toes are safe enough, even with a bunch of y'all around.)
(also, my toes are safe enough, even with a bunch of y'all around.)
*snorting laughter* You realize that I have no idea when you arrived, so no idea if you have the context? :)
*grin* Well, it's definitately more entertaining, at least in terms of me being picked on, if australian_joe is around.
Oh! You should be at work on Monday for lunch; he'll be around for the morning, and for lunch.
australian_joe is around.Oh! You should be at work on Monday for lunch; he'll be around for the morning, and for lunch.
*laugh* Depends on whose definition is being used!
By mine, no. By eitheraustralian_joe or randysmith's, I already _have_ one, and enjoy it. :) (see above for the respective definitions)
By mine, no. By either
australian_joe or randysmith's, I already _have_ one, and enjoy it. :) (see above for the respective definitions)But they _don't_ quack! They mostly meow! ;)
Page 1 of 3