English Language & Usage: Multi-Layered Discourse Room

Evening @Shog9.

@Cerberus looks like jasper was saying it to you

Shog9

Quick heads-up for those interested in such things... The review page has had some serious enhancement of late, worth taking a look if you're interested in keeping a pulse on the health of the site.

@z7sgѪ Yeah I only noticed he had left afterwards!

Hi Shog.

> Tennessee passes bill making Netflix password-sharing illegal

geek.com/articles/geek-pick/…

Pretty insane.

I wonder, does anyone know of any disadvantages of having a constitutional court that can rule on new (or old) laws?

More specifically, I mean a constitutional court that must approve of every proposed law for it to become official.

In Holland, we have the Raad van State (Council of State), but it only has the right to advise on new laws, and it doesn't check them for compatibility with the constitution.

user19161

@Cerberus Boo!

12:15 AM

Look who's there.

user19161

@z7sgѪ I thought he was leaving.

user19161

@Shog9 Hi soldier! I never visit the review page. Without thinking too much about it, I don't see the point in having it.

@Cerberus Well, figuring out how to work it into the US court structure might be a problem. For example, how would Congress appeal, and to whom (the Supreme Court or the appellate courts)? Plus, the US has a case or controversy philosophy that wouldn't work with this.

@waiwai933 For the former, there could be two chambers in the CC, or just no appeal. Congress just needs to revise the law and propose it to the CC again.

As to the latter, what is this "case or controversy philosophy"?

By the way, the first thing that would have to change is that the government should not appoint judges. Ever.

@Cerberus Anything that comes before a court has to result from a real conflict. You can't challenge a law just for the sake of challenging it; someone has to have been prosecuted, etc.

user19161

12:23 AM

@waiwai Do you know why my user page says 15 questions 157 answers at one place and 15 questions 158 answers at another?

What do you mean by the CC?

@waiwai933 Hmm, what's behind that principle? Could not an exception be made for new laws?

@JasperLoy Probably caching. It should catch up soon.

CC = Constitutional Court.

By the way, the SC and the CC could be two different courts.

user19161

@waiwai933 OK. I see you now have the greatest number of blog posts, together with Mr Shiny, namely 2!

12:25 AM

@Cerberus Presumably it was to prevent people from clogging up the court system with things that didn't matter, but even that's unsure since it was written into the Constitution at a very early stage.

@waiwai933 By the way, there is sure to be at least one congressman who voted against the new law. He could automatically provide the "controversy".

Shog9

@JasperLoy Have a look then! And... Think about it...

@waiwai933 Perhaps it is time to overhaul the Constitution anyway.

user19161

@Shog9 Oh that was a passionate post on meta!

@Cerberus Well, I'm not saying that a Constitutional Court wouldn't be better, but it just wouldn't be conforming to Madisonian theory, which is what a large part of the US political system. And this might also be a problem with the separation of powers doctrine and give too much power to the court system.

user19161

12:29 AM

Politics gives me headaches.

Although: do you really think that there's a legitimate need? Most bills pass without much controversy; it's just a few from time to time that actually get challenged, and those usually wind up in the SC anyway.

user19161

Politics=poly ticks, or multiple bugs.

@waiwai933 I don't know about this Madisonsian theory, but I'm sure this wouldn't be an easy thing to implement at the moment! I was rather thinking about theoretical objections. As to the separation of powers: the CC should be a separate institution, and it should only invalidate a law if it clearly conflicts with the constitution. Not like the SC, which often makes rather arbitrary decisions, if you don't mind my saying so, because the Constitution is vague on some things and silent on others.

In such cases, the law should just pass.

@waiwai933 1. It takes too long for them to end up in the SC: a basic test should be carried out before these laws are ever passed. 2. You need a new, modern, vigorous constitution for that.

The right to internet access should be in it, for starters.

A good constitution and CC would be needed for the Law to survives ages during which detrimental forces are dominant in politics.

user19161

Still at it?

Did you already cover the fact that state laws and federal laws are two different things?

12:38 AM

CC should rule on all.

Can't.

@Cerberus Isn't the right to Internet access covered implicitly under the right to free speech?

@Kitḫ Why not?

@Cerberus State and federal powers are separate and each state has its own constitution or other governing document.

@waiwai933 Don't be silly.

@waiwai933 That seems highly controversial. Any law, including constitutions, should be specific enough not to let there be much doubt about their interpretation.

12:40 AM

Also, what stops the CC from only passing the laws it likes?

user19161

I noticed a question got mysteriously deleted.

user19161

The one on fragility. What happened?????????

@JasperLoy Oh, wait, nevermind, I remember that one.

user19161

@waiwai933 none, since it's deleted and I am under 10k anyway

OP requested deletion for a number of reasons and as there were no great answers anyway.

12:42 AM

@waiwai933 Well, what stops the SC from doing whatever it likes? Nothing. They should be apolitical people. It is possible in Germany too. They should only do strict testing; if there is any doubt, they should pass the law.

user19161

@waiwai933 Huh? And he made 11 people crack their heads, WTF!

user19161

Now I am pissed with him...

@Cerberus I fear that those would have to be continuously revised, though. Ffity years from now, the Internet may have been entirely replaced.

@Kitḫ Well, then let each state have its own CC, which can be overruled by the federal CC?

And what is the purpose of this court again?

12:43 AM

@waiwai933 Of course. A constitution should not be a static thing.

@Kitḫ Stability in general, and a protection against low-quality laws in general.

I don't understand. How does it function?

@Cerberus Shouldn't it? If we make the Constitution too easy to change, wouldn't that make it more open to abuse?

user19161

@waiwai933 Fifty years from now, the world will live as one.

user19161

►

Whenever parliament votes for a proposed law, it gets passed to the CC before it becomes actual law. CC only looks at whether this new law clearly conflicts with the constitution or not; when in doubt, the law is passed.

12:45 AM

Nope. That wouldn't work here.

what is this "key thob" nonsense?

user19161

@z7sgѪ See I told you google is crap.

Again with the key thob.

@waiwai933 A 2/3 or 3/4 majority would make it fairly stable. That's how it works in most countries, I believe. What is required to change the Constitution in America?

sorry to interrupt the fascinating political debate ;P

12:46 AM

@Cerberus 3/4 of the states must agree by popular vote.

Ah OK.

user19161

@z7sgѪ I am only familiar with banana throbs.

@waiwai933 Well, that sounds good.

We've only had 27 amendments pass ever, including the Bill of Rights, which were ten in a package. It's not something easy to do.

I have lawyers in the family. I will ask them how it works.

12:47 AM

Although perhaps it shouldn't be a popular vote but just 3/4 majority in both houses.

@JasperLoy banana? teen heart throbs i've noticed that

but thob... no that is just a mistake

The constitution doesn't get changed a lot here either, but it happens.

user19161

@z7sgѪ I was referring to a particular organ...

@Cerberus Wouldn't work. Constitution is an agreement between 50 sovereign states who have agreed to delegate power to the federal government; the states are the only one who can agree to change it.

Oh FFS. Anyway, I am trying to say that there is a process here for challenging bills and whatnot.

Based on their perceived constitutionality.

A lot of times bills are rejected because they are considered likely to be struck down by the courts.

12:49 AM

Incidentally, international treaties function as parts of the constitution as well (they overrule national law), so they should be included in the constitution even before signing any treaty.

Sometimes bad laws get passed, but they are usually immediately challenged.

@waiwai933 Well, then let the states vote to delegate more power.

Oh Jesus.

@Kitḫ Rejected by whom?

Back to the Articles of Confederation all over again.

user19161

12:51 AM

No using God's name in vain.

@Cerberus Withdrawn by the legislators who sponsored them.

@Kitḫ OK, but that's different. Bad laws do get passed.

@Cerberus Not to that extent. You'd be taking away the sovereignty of the states entirely.

Well, in any case, I wasn't thinking of America. As I said, I was asking for theoretical objections to a constitutional court.

@Cerberus Very, very rarely. Even the IP law currently under debate isn't likely to pass. (It's the third in four years, and only this one has gained attention).

12:52 AM

@waiwai933 SOPA?

2 mins ago, by Kitḫ

Sometimes bad laws get passed, but they are usually immediately challenged.

@Cerberus Yes, there was one in the Senate last year and one in the Senate ~4 years ago

@Kitḫ Well, OK, but wouldn't it be better if they were nipped in the bud?

@Cerberus No.

@Cerberus Not if they'd nip a bunch of Constitutional laws in the bud as well. There'd be no way of checking the CC's power.

12:53 AM

♫ Down at the SOPA, SOPA cabana ♪

The review process is the way it is because it is the safest way.

Hmm. That was a bolder statement than I meant.

Consider France and its "3-strikes" law. Or Italy's statue of limitations that enabled Berlusconi to make his friends immune to the courts.

@waiwai933 A 3/4 majority in both houses would trump the CC in any case if it misbehaves.

@Kitḫ Safest?

@Cerberus That's how it currently works too. President can veto a bill, Congress can overrule the veto by 3/4

@waiwai933 And that's good, isn't it?

@Cerberus I think there are deeper problems in those countries that would need to be fixed.

@Cerberus Why would the CC be better than the President?

That is, I'd rather give such power to an apolitical CC than to a president.

12:56 AM

apolitical?

chortles

Oh sure. In that case...

Q: Domain name: something-for-A-year.com vs something-for-year.com?

Because the CC would only be allowed to veto a law when it clearly conflicts with the constitution. Again, the current American Constitution and the SC are not at all suitable for this system.

user19161

-1

I am trying to choose a better domain name for a site which will provide a year supply of some product. Let's say pencils. In this case service will be called "Pencils for a year". What would be a better sounding/looking domain for this service: pencils-for-a-year.com (pencilsforayear.com) or p...

word-choice

user19161

ot

Already closed.

I have a hunch that you are viewing this from a perspective of the current situation in America.

user19161

12:58 AM

@waiwai933 That was miraculously fast.

Imagine a court that is completely apolitical.

Impossible.

How could it be?

Well, OK.

But extremely apolitical, then.

Judges are not appointed by politicians in this CC of mine.

What?

@Cerberus Quite possibly. But then I'd suggest that other countries work more on adopting a system more like the US rather than adding a CC.

12:59 AM

How do they get their positions then?

@waiwai933 Huh?

@Cerberus Adopting a US-like constitution with a SC, is, in my opinion, better for countries than having a CC.

@Kitḫ Judges pick their new colleague in case of a vacancy.

@Cerberus So how do you get the first ones? What if one suddenly dies? Aren't you just perpetuating a line of same-thinking people then?

@waiwai933 Why? What is your main theoretical objection to a CC, like what they have in Germany (though I'm not entirely sure how it works there)?

1:02 AM

@Cerberus The US system has worked for 200 years. Germany doesn't have the same track record.

@Kitḫ You are doing just that, and it works quite well.

So it's more practical than theoretical, but we live in a practical world.

@Cerberus No we don't!

@waiwai933 That is not really a theoretical objection.

@waiwai933 How many years?

1:03 AM

@Kitḫ I mean "you" as you used it, to mean "one".

i would object to it because it is undemocratic

@Kitḫ I have no idea how I screwed that up. But it still stands.

@Cerberus Well, yes, but as I said, we live in a practical world.

@waiwai933 And how do you mean 400 years? The Constitution isn't even that old?

@Cerberus Now I'm confused! What do you mean!

harrumph harrumph

@z7sgѪ And is that a problem?

1:05 AM

@Cerberus Yes, it's fixed now. Germany still doesn't have that history, though.

@Kitḫ I mean, yes, that would be perpetuating a line of same-thinking people.

Q: Which choice is better for a domain name?

@Cerberus But that's naughty! How do you make progress doing that!

user19161

0

I wonder if I should use a word ending with s, in a domain name like this: www.artisthomepage.com www.artistshomepage.com English is not my native language, so I decided to ask here first. The main problem is second answer seems to be more "correct", while the first one is much easier to writ...

word-choice possessive

@waiwai933 Don't you rather mean 200ish years? When were the other American institutions fully established?

user19161

Also voting to close as the previous guy mentioned it.

1:06 AM

@Cerberus Stop nitpicking! I will keep yelling and harrumphing!

user19161

@waiwai You seem to read my mind.

@Cerberus that is a problem yeah

@Cerberus 224 and a few months, yes, to be precise. But Germany isn't that old.

@Kitḫ The idea is to stabilize things, to provide a buffer against populism. A 2/3 majority in both houses can still change the constitution if the general opinion wants it so.

harrumph harrumph

1:08 AM

@JasperLoy No, that one I saw you link in chat.

@z7sgѪ Why? All Western countries are hybrids of democracy and other forms.

I like populism! I want more french fries now!

I will be right back!

drinks some tea!

user19161

@waiwai933 I will nominate you for most efficient mod on SE.

grammar writing-style editing

@waiwai933 Well, OK. But it's still a practical concern. There are probably other countries with older CCs. Like Turkey.

user19161

-2

Q: Proof Reading Service

I was wondering if anyone knew of good online proof reading services that are affordable?

1:09 AM

Older than Germany, I mean.

user19161

ot

@JasperLoy EL&U!

user19161

@Cerberus No, only JL typo correction!

Still good.

@Cerberus Established in 1962 is what Wikipedia says. Which isn't bad, but then again, I've never heard of Turkey being mentioned as a political ideal (which I have heard about the US).

1:12 AM

"Jimmy, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?"

The US system is not considered ideal by many Europeans, but let's not get into that. Again, I didn't have America in mind: just theorizing.

user19161

The worst prison is the mind.

@Cerberus Well, no, I wouldn't say that it's ideal either—I've just heard other people mention it. But a lot of people, especially those who reside under repressive governments, consider the US to have the best system out of all that we have.

I didn't say Turkey was ideal. I just mentioned the first country I could think of that had a functioning CC system.

@Cerberus i don't think it is a healthy ieda to remove power further from the people because of a fear of populism

user19161

1:14 AM

@z7sgѪ idea, or did you mean aedia

@waiwai933 Well, which aspects of it do they find superior to other democratic systems?

i'd give aedia more power. she seems nice

3

I totally would too.

@z7sgѪ It is the eternal dilemma. But I believe a completely independent judicial system works very well in civilized countries.

People are mostly stupid, so I should be in charge.

user19161

1:16 AM

Etymology of aedia: Trimmed from encyclopaedia, or an idea spelled backwards without n. Source: EL&U chat 2011.

I'll pick the smart, nice people to rule with me.

Pick me! Pick me!

I'll decide who gets to breed.

Sure.

And with whom.

1:17 AM

No prob.

I'll do anything for p...I mean, I'm sure you know what's best.

And we'll skip and play and fingerpaint!

@Cerberus Not necessarily superior to other democratic systems, but it's just seen as the symbol of freedom, and by virtue of that, it's a damn good system.

user19161

@Kitḫ I choose not to breed.

OK.

user19161

@Cerberus What is p...

1:18 AM

Peacock?

@waiwai933 I don't know. Popular opinion here disagrees on several points.

user19161

Life is suffering. Buddha

@JasperLoy Power!

user19161

I think p..=banana

I like mine better.

1:19 AM

@Cerberus yes i agree with that but you are talking about the legislative part, not the judiciary

if i understand this from the end of the discussion correctly

I wish the US had a parliamentary system. It's so much nicer.

And P-Funk rocks!

@z7sgѪ I'm not exactly sure any more what I meant. Maybe I was just saying that an independent judiciary works very well even though it is totally undemocratic.

@Kitḫ What is a parliamentary system?

You have a parliament?

user19161

I am starting to think Bill the Lizard is a lunatic too for removing the question after 11 answers, one of which is mine.

@waiwai933 coming from a relatively free, established western country, i look at the us system and to me it appears deeply flawed

@Cerberus No, we don't. I wish we did. It's so much nicer.

user19161

1:22 AM

He even said to me "this is the right line of thinking".

@Kitḫ Then what do you have?

user19161

I shall not answer his questions anymore.

@Cerberus if you have a constitution it complicates that somewhat. i think there is an assumption that the constitution is the best guarantee of freedom

@Cerberus Representative democracy.

@z7sgѪ Same. But our respective systems probably have some flaws too.

user19161

1:23 AM

No system is perfect.

@z7sgѪ But that's because you live in a relatively free, established western country. The US is symbolic in nations which aren't relatively free, established western countries as one that works, which is my point. It's somewhat close to a perfect system, which is why I'm using it as an example.

user19161

The only way perfection can be achieved is to be free from cyclic existence.

Our system is closer to a republic.

@z7sgѪ Not of freedom, but of the whole system; it just protects the status quo against rapid change somewhat.

@Kitḫ What's the difference between those two?

@Cerberus we have debates about whether the monarchy should exist, in the sense that it is part of the legal system and people actually argue that it acts as some kind of "safety valve" or whatever and i think that's utterly mad

1:24 AM

@z7sgѪ Then I am your opponent in this!

@Cerberus Our representatives are elected every two/four years. We don't have a vote of no confidence, or any of those nice things that parliaments have.

If only there had been a benevolent German Emperor to give a great public speak to denounce Hitler in 1933!

@Cerberus what you mean you support Royal Assent?

@z7sgѪ Yes, as long as it remains a formality in 99 % of cases.

As it is now.

@Kitḫ Huh? What is this vote of no confidence, then?

user19161

I think smart and kind people by default will not choose to enter politics, which is why most politicians are either stupid or evil.

1:26 AM

Constitutional republic. That's what I was looking for.

I really don't understand what you mean. In my book, your congress + senate are a parliament like anyone else's.

@JasperLoy Well, there were a lot of reasons that went into the deletion of that question. One of them was that it was based on incorrect assumptions, another was that a lot of people (not you) weren't reading the question, so their contributions weren't taken into consideration when I deleted it.

Motion of no confidence

A motion of no confidence (alternatively vote of no confidence, censure motion, no-confidence motion, or (unsuccessful) confidence motion) is a parliamentary motion whose passing would demonstrate to the head of state that the elected parliament no longer has confidence in the appointed government. Overview Typically, when a parliament passes a vote of no confidence in an existing government, the head of state must respond in one of two ways: *ask another individual, whom he or she believes will command the confidence of parliament, to try to form a government *dissolve the elected parli...

user19161

@waiwai933 Oh OK, I was just making some noise. But nonetheless you responded professionally. So I really must vote for you for mod award!

@Kitḫ Oh, you don't have that? Hmm I think that is part of a Presidential System, then. France probably doesn't have it either.

1:28 AM

@Cerberus Really not, and in part because we are largely a two-party system. But there are scads of parliamentary procedures that we don't have, that are really very helpful in promoting slow forward progress.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forms_of_government.svg

@Cerberus we should at least be able to choose such a person with the right principles and judgement, not have someone imposed on us purely by dint of birth.

Parliaments are a superior way of governance in my opinion.

@Kitḫ I've never though deep and hard enough to consider the advantages and disadvantages of putting primary power over government in the hands of an elected head of state v. of parliament.

@Cerberus egypt still counts as a military dictatorship then? :(

1:31 AM

Well, you've played Civilization. That ought to be enough.

@Kitḫ Is that really the definition of a parliament, that it has the right to dismiss government? I'm not so sure about that.

@Cerberus No, no! That's not what I meant!

I meant the way parliament operates provides much better and smoother growth than our republic.

@z7sgѪ Well, why not? Consider it a random seed that may provide a bit of stability in dire situations. If you elect her, then everybody's elected, and one and the same flaw can easily permeate the entire system, as it did in Germany.

It is slower progress, but it is steadier.

@z7sgѪ What if the Americans pick Palin for President and there is a Tea-Part majority in both houses? Who will stop them?

@z7sgѪ Well, doesn't it? Things are really bad there now.

1:34 AM

@Cerberus I don't think you can be serious? You think the Queen could have stopped Hitler?

@Cerberus Ha ha ha ha. Shut up.

Because she refused to sign a paper?

@Cerberus Yeah if only they were still in the Commonwealth... they would have a fighting chance then!

@Kitḫ I think it is what you meant, and Wiki agrees with you (I had no idea: we don't use this distinction with the Dutch word parlement):

> Legislatures called parliaments operate under a parliamentary system of government in which the executive is constitutionally answerable to the parliament. This can be contrasted with a presidential system, on the model of the United States' congressional system, which operate under a stricter separation of powers whereby the executive does not form part of, nor is appointed by, the parliamentary or legislative body.

@z7sgѪ She could have tried; and who knows what would have happened if she had exerted all her influence, made speeches, blocked laws?

At the right time, I mean; after 1933 it was obviously too late.

user19161

Oh there are some new posts on our blog!

@Cerberus Yes. Separation of powers.

1:38 AM

@z7sgѪ Yeah, long live the CW!

So parlement means parliament and congress?

user19161

I got the stats wrong. @waiwai is in the lead with 3 posts, while matt and shiny each has 2.

Sort of generically "legislature"?

@Kitḫ Yeah, the separation of legislative and executive power is obviously weaker in a parliamentary system. Judicial power, on the other hand...

@Cerberus No, it's the other way 'round.

1:40 AM

@Kitḫ Parlement means several different things; but when we speak of a modern parliament, we mean an elected legislative body. Nothing more specific that I can think of.

@Kitḫ Oops!

Hehe.

@Kitḫ Yes.

Mediaeval parliaments were often more like judicial courts or assemblies of the nobility.

@Cerberus You are asking an aristocratic monarch to become an effective politician in case of a dangerous populism. She wouldn't be up to the job. And there are of course many loyal monarchists, but in the case of the monarch going with the wrong side they would be a force for evil. I think that it is only vigorously protecting democracy that can stop Hitler types.

user19161

@Cerberus Ah you use the exotic spelling! It is British but Oxford prefers medieval and encyclopedia.

@z7sgѪ Or aediacracy.

1:43 AM

I prefer mediæval!

@JasperLoy Screw Oxford!

user19161

@Kitḫ No flirting in chat!

user19161

I only flirt with myself since person_in_room=myself as mentioned.

sips tea

user19161

@Kitḫ No copying me!

1:44 AM

@z7sgѪ Of course we should do the democracy thing too. And a benign, constitutional Wilhelm may very well have been too weak. But don't forget that there were many moments when Hitler was very weak too and might have been eliminated by a relatively soft push from the right side.

user19161

no more tea to sip

@Kitḫ We already have a unicorn on the royal coat of arms... could be prophetic?

@JasperLoy Parse error: Unable to parse person_in_room=myself; Variable myself is not declared.

@JasperLoy Hmm, well, I don't really think about it much, I am always in doubt!

@Cerberus Interesting factoid about Hitler...

user19161

1:46 AM

But those are the two exceptions. They still use archaeology and palaeontology for example.

Palaeogenesis?

user19161

Dunno what that is.

Me neither.

user19161

I think diarrhoea is very hard to spell.

user19161

And also onomatopoeia.

1:48 AM

I can only speak for Holland, but I seriously think Beatrix could accomplish a lot if she really wanted to. Her informal power is far greater than her formal power—that is, parliament could just have a coup d'état if it really wanted, which actually happened in Belgium not long ago; but it is her formal power that is partly responsible for keeping her informal power up.

If Beatrix she went on national television, telling people Wilders was really the bad guy, inviting the country's most influential people and have a talk with them, organize a strong opposition, etc. etc., while using her formal power to the utmost, half the country would be startled and stand behind her.

She is very popular, don't forget that.

I love the name Beatrix.

I would climb on the barricades if she did what I just mentioned, and a great many with me, of all classes.

I have a fake student that I named Beatrix.

She's the smartest.

I knew it!

Ours is smart too.

Aww, Prince Claus looks like he was a nice fella too.

1:51 AM

Very nice.

Very popular too, despite his being a German.

She looks like my girlfriend's mom!

I feel like she would clasp me to her bosom in an instant.

She might.

You should request an audience.

And do that hands-on-each-side-of-the-head thing that grammas do when they want to get a good look at you.

Or visit museums and the Royal Concertgebouw on Thursdays.

I can see why you would like her.

1:52 AM

@Kitḫ Well I'm not sure she would do that!

By the way, her father sucked.

Also a German.

Lots of extramarital children.

And when my friend once visited one of the princes at the palace, he was watching As the World Turns.

No joke.

user19161

Wah, the last four questions have been closed.

Did Prince Claus get to see his son's wedding?

Hmm I don't remember.

@Cerberus That's just mind boggling.

It's really stupid.

Bea smokes.

But never, ever, ever in public.

1:55 AM

Ha ha ha.

Obama smokes.

And my husband said I could totally bum a smoke off him if I were in that situation.

But no sexual relations.

@Kitḫ He was still alive, so he was probably there.

Right now of course she is above politics and up there it's not so hard to win the people's respect. Perhaps it would start really well but... once you get your hands dirty things change. She would have to be very good to stay ahead of the game.

@Kitḫ Aww why not?

@Cerberus Ah. OK. I only saw that those events happened in the same year.

@Kitḫ I'd allow a cigar for my wife (hypothetically, if I had one etc.)

1:58 AM

@Cerberus Well, there's a very short list of men with whom I could theoretically have sexual relations.

But that is it.

@z7sgѪ Hehe.

@Kitḫ Yeah you know what I mean of course. I have cigars. She doesn't smoke.