Dear SubG Pipe Fashion Consultant

Correspondent:: "iDRMRSR"
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:48:43 -0400

--------
With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
southpaws themselves?

You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!

NEVER LET YOUR PIPE GET IN THE WRONG HAND!

That's always been MY rule at least.

[*]
-----

Correspondent:: IMBJR
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 12:10:51 +0100

--------
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:48:43 -0400, in reply to "iDRMRSR"
:

>With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
>smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
>southpaws themselves?
>
>You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
>figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
>decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!
>
>NEVER LET YOUR PIPE GET IN THE WRONG HAND!
>
>That's always been MY rule at least.
>
>[*]
>-----
>

This may be a little heretical, but I think the sinister way should be
considered kosher, but only in terms of it being acceptable and not a
stoning offense. Life would certainly be easier if you ppl would
accept that the Head (tm) could bring itself to toke from the left.

Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:28:33 GMT

--------
In article ,
IMBJR wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:48:43 -0400, in reply to "iDRMRSR"
> :
>
> >With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
> >smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
> >southpaws themselves?
> >You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
> >figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
> >decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!
> >NEVER LET YOUR PIPE GET IN THE WRONG HAND!

If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.

--

HellPope Huey
Welcome to "Dog Bitch-Ass Theatre."
Its 2 straight hours of dogs sniffing other dogs' butts.
Quick, call Fox. It can run right after "The Simple Life."

When I'm feeling down, I like to whistle.
It makes the neighbor's dog run to the end of his chain
and gag himself.
- Joe Cosby

Life is a series of dogs.
- George Carlin

Correspondent:: "ghost"
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:14:26 GMT

--------

"HellPope Huey" wrote:

> If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
> same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
> men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
> method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
> going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.

Right-handers should occasionally jack off with the left hand... it helps
you pretend it's another person.

Correspondent:: Cardinal Vertigo
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:34:23 GMT

--------
ghost wrote:
> "HellPope Huey" wrote:
>
>
>> If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
>> same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
>> men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
>> method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
>> going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.
>
> Right-handers should occasionally jack off with the left hand... it helps
> you pretend it's another person.

Or lie on your arm until it's completely numb. I've heard two
independent confirmations from former US Navy personnel that this is an
"old Navy trick."

Correspondent:: "Revi Shankar"
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:54:44 -0400

--------

> Or lie on your arm until it's completely numb. I've heard two
> independent confirmations from former US Navy personnel that this is an
> "old Navy trick."

You misheard. There's a guy down the street that IS an "old Navy trick."
Sexiest 83 y/o I ever met!

Correspondent:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:43:51 -0500

--------
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:34:23 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
wrote:

>ghost wrote:
>> "HellPope Huey" wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
>>> same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
>>> men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
>>> method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
>>> going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.
>>
>> Right-handers should occasionally jack off with the left hand... it helps
>> you pretend it's another person.
>
>Or lie on your arm until it's completely numb. I've heard two
>independent confirmations from former US Navy personnel that this is an
>"old Navy trick."

I heard the guys on the submarines have "pet socks" for girlfriends.

Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:51:46 GMT

Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 00:52:31 GMT

--------

"HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer" wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:34:23 GMT, Cardinal Vertigo
> wrote:
>
> >ghost wrote:
> >> "HellPope Huey" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
> >>> same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
> >>> men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
> >>> method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
> >>> going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.
> >>
> >> Right-handers should occasionally jack off with the left hand... it helps
> >> you pretend it's another person.
> >
> >Or lie on your arm until it's completely numb. I've heard two
> >independent confirmations from former US Navy personnel that this is an
> >"old Navy trick."
>
> I heard the guys on the submarines have "pet socks" for girlfriends.

U.S. Limits Chinese Sock Imports

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page E01

U.S. imports of socks from China will be strictly limited next year, the Bush
administration announced yesterday -- a decision that could herald similar
action against other types of Chinese-made clothing that have the potential to
dominate world markets.

An interagency committee found that Chinese sock imports should be capped
because they have caused "both disruption and a threat of disruption" in the
U.S. market, James J. Jochum, assistant secretary of commerce for import
administration, said in a conference call.

The sock case is the first of a series of decisions the administration is facing
concerning how to deal with a momentous change looming in the global textile and
apparel industry. A system that has governed international trade in clothing and
fabric for three decades is set to expire Jan. 1, which will deprive scores of
developing countries of the quotas that have assured them a certain amount of
access to U.S. and European markets. Many industry experts predict that once
apparel companies are free to import from wherever they choose, China will
bulldoze producers in Latin America, Africa and other Asian countries because of
its low costs and high efficiency.

U.S. textile makers, who fear that their beleaguered industry will suffer
further losses, are asking Washington to take action that would effectively
extend the quotas for a while longer. They are requesting "safeguard" measures
designed to stop devastating surges of Chinese fabric and clothing by capping
the growth of Chinese imports at about 7.5 percent a year. Beijing agreed to the
safeguard system as part of the price of its entry to the World Trade
Organization, with the proviso that the safeguards can be used only until 2008.

The issue heated up last week when the industry and its main labor union filed
petitions with the Commerce Department seeking safeguard limits on many imported
textile products from China, including trousers, shirts and sheets. Those
petitions argued that even though surges of Chinese imports have not yet
materialized in those categories, the threat is clear enough to justify
safeguards because in markets where quotas have been eliminated, Chinese
producers have captured the lion's share of the business.

The government's ruling yesterday on the U.S. sock industry's petition, which
was filed in June, could have important implications for the other markets at
stake by indicating how officials will decide the other cases. The
administration last year imposed safeguard limits on imported Chinese
brassieres, dressing gowns and knit fabric -- all categories where quotas had
already been lifted -- but the socks case is the first in which the "threat of
disruption" is being used to bolster the argument for such an action.

In part, Jochum said, the decision was based on evidence showing that "imports
have surged dramatically." In 2001, Chinese sock imports totaled $8.8 million,
and in the most recent 12 months, they reached $170 million, making China the
leading source of imported socks. Chinese producers cut the prices of their
socks from $11.54 per dozen pairs in 2001 to $5.11 per dozen pairs in 2003.
Although China accounted for only about 7 percent of the U.S. market, that has
had a "significant impact on the U.S. industry," Jochum said, helping to drive
about one-quarter of all U.S. sock manufacturers out of business and reducing
the market share of the domestic industry from 83 percent in 2001 to 68 percent
last year.

But Julia K. Hughes, the chief trade lobbyist for the U.S. association
representing apparel importers, complained that the decision was reached by
lumping together socks made from wool and man-made fiber -- where quotas have
been lifted, and Chinese imports have risen sharply -- with cotton socks, where
only the threat of a surge exists.

"This sets a very negative precedent for future decisions on products of far
greater importance to American consumers -- the tops and the pants," Hughes
said. "Based on this, you'd have to conclude that no request [for safeguards]
will ever be rejected."

The industry shrewdly used political leverage by filing its petition in June so
that the administration would be required to issue its ruling shortly before the
Nov. 2 election, Hughes said. The sock industry is concentrated in Alabama and
Georgia, which are expected to go solidly for President Bush, but the White
House cares about congressional elections in those states, Hughes said.

Jochum said the decision was based on a "solid record of facts presented by the
industry," adding that it didn't necessarily establish a precedent. "We will
look at each individual petition based on the facts, on the merits," he said.

The administration has 90 days to negotiate caps with the Chinese, and if an
agreement can't be reached, next year's growth in imports can be limited to 7.5
percent for socks made of cotton and man-made fiber and 6 percent for wool
socks, Jochum said.

The decision isn't expected to have much of an impact on sock prices, according
to Hughes, because low-cost imports can be found in other countries.

An official at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not return phone calls
seeking comment.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Correspondent:: kdetal@aol.com (KD et al)
Date: 24 Oct 2004 02:09:46 GMT

--------
Some name I never heard of wrote:

>U.S. Limits Chinese Sock Imports
>
>By Paul Blustein
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Saturday, October 23, 2004; Page E01
>
>
>U.S. imports of socks from China will be strictly limited next year, the Bush
>administration announced yesterday -- a decision that could herald similar
>action against other types of Chinese-made clothing that have the potential
>to
>dominate world markets.
>
>An interagency committee found that Chinese sock imports should be capped
>because they have caused "both disruption and a threat of disruption" in the
>U.S. market, James J. Jochum, assistant secretary of commerce for import
>administration, said in a conference call.
>
>The sock case is the first of a series of decisions the administration is
>facing
>concerning how to deal with a momentous change looming in the global textile
>and
>apparel industry. A system that has governed international trade in clothing
>and
>fabric for three decades is set to expire Jan. 1, which will deprive scores
>of
>developing countries of the quotas that have assured them a certain amount of
>access to U.S. and European markets. Many industry experts predict that once
>apparel companies are free to import from wherever they choose, China will
>bulldoze producers in Latin America, Africa and other Asian countries because
>of
>its low costs and high efficiency.
>
>U.S. textile makers, who fear that their beleaguered industry will suffer
>further losses, are asking Washington to take action that would effectively
>extend the quotas for a while longer. They are requesting "safeguard"
>measures
>designed to stop devastating surges of Chinese fabric and clothing by capping
>the growth of Chinese imports at about 7.5 percent a year. Beijing agreed to
>the
>safeguard system as part of the price of its entry to the World Trade
>Organization, with the proviso that the safeguards can be used only until
>2008.
>
>The issue heated up last week when the industry and its main labor union
>filed
>petitions with the Commerce Department seeking safeguard limits on many
>imported
>textile products from China, including trousers, shirts and sheets. Those
>petitions argued that even though surges of Chinese imports have not yet
>materialized in those categories, the threat is clear enough to justify
>safeguards because in markets where quotas have been eliminated, Chinese
>producers have captured the lion's share of the business.
>
>The government's ruling yesterday on the U.S. sock industry's petition, which
>was filed in June, could have important implications for the other markets at
>stake by indicating how officials will decide the other cases. The
>administration last year imposed safeguard limits on imported Chinese
>brassieres, dressing gowns and knit fabric -- all categories where quotas had
>already been lifted -- but the socks case is the first in which the "threat
>of
>disruption" is being used to bolster the argument for such an action.
>
>In part, Jochum said, the decision was based on evidence showing that
>"imports
>have surged dramatically." In 2001, Chinese sock imports totaled $8.8
>million,
>and in the most recent 12 months, they reached $170 million, making China the
>leading source of imported socks. Chinese producers cut the prices of their
>socks from $11.54 per dozen pairs in 2001 to $5.11 per dozen pairs in 2003.
>Although China accounted for only about 7 percent of the U.S. market, that
>has
>had a "significant impact on the U.S. industry," Jochum said, helping to
>drive
>about one-quarter of all U.S. sock manufacturers out of business and reducing
>the market share of the domestic industry from 83 percent in 2001 to 68
>percent
>last year.
>
>But Julia K. Hughes, the chief trade lobbyist for the U.S. association
>representing apparel importers, complained that the decision was reached by
>lumping together socks made from wool and man-made fiber -- where quotas have
>been lifted, and Chinese imports have risen sharply -- with cotton socks,
>where
>only the threat of a surge exists.
>
>"This sets a very negative precedent for future decisions on products of far
>greater importance to American consumers -- the tops and the pants," Hughes
>said. "Based on this, you'd have to conclude that no request [for safeguards]
>will ever be rejected."
>
>The industry shrewdly used political leverage by filing its petition in June
>so
>that the administration would be required to issue its ruling shortly before
>the
>Nov. 2 election, Hughes said. The sock industry is concentrated in Alabama
>and
>Georgia, which are expected to go solidly for President Bush, but the White
>House cares about congressional elections in those states, Hughes said.
>
>Jochum said the decision was based on a "solid record of facts presented by
>the
>industry," adding that it didn't necessarily establish a precedent. "We will
>look at each individual petition based on the facts, on the merits," he said.
>
>The administration has 90 days to negotiate caps with the Chinese, and if an
>agreement can't be reached, next year's growth in imports can be limited to
>7.5
>percent for socks made of cotton and man-made fiber and 6 percent for wool
>socks, Jochum said.
>
>The decision isn't expected to have much of an impact on sock prices,
>according
>to Hughes, because low-cost imports can be found in other countries.
>
>An official at the Chinese Embassy in Washington did not return phone calls
>seeking comment.

>© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Interesting. And here I thought he was just praying to the great god of
collective unconscious betting by repeating a homonym for sox over and over.
--"Oh, hell, don't let them drink your tears and want more!..I'll be damned if
death wears MY sadness for glad rags. Don't feed them one damn thing..Breathe!
Blow!"
"Nothing.....funny..."
"SURE there is! Me! You!..All of us!..Look!" -Ray Bradbury

Correspondent:: mshotz@aol.commonkeypo (Rev. Richard Skull)
Date: 24 Oct 2004 17:37:50 GMT

--------
>Or lie on your arm until it's completely numb. I've heard two
>independent confirmations from former US Navy personnel that this is an
>"old Navy trick."
>

I worked with a guy who was in the Navy on Subs. His boat was a "boomer" which
did not normally visit foriegn ports.

So after his first cruise, they were heading into port. He got "amibushed" in
the torpedo room and was given a "hicky" by his shipmates.

So he comes into port to meet his wife with a huge hicky on his neck while
being at sea for 3 months without visiting any ports of call.

His wife did not believe him until some of the other sailors let her in on the
"tradition"

MSHOTZ: The Post Post Modern Man

"War hath no Fury like a non-combatants"

Charles E. Montague

Correspondent:: BabaNoodleRaman@snork.cx
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:46:23 -0600

--------
In , HellPope
Huey wrote:

>In article ,
> IMBJR wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 23:48:43 -0400, in reply to "iDRMRSR"
>> :
>>
>> >With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
>> >smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
>> >southpaws themselves?
>> >You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
>> >figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
>> >decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!
>> >NEVER LET YOUR PIPE GET IN THE WRONG HAND!
>
> If you are right-handed, you can't smoke and jack off properly at the
>same time unless you transfer the pipe to the left hand. Of course, REAL
>men can hold it clenched in their teeth and use the Dobbs Double Whap
>method of masturbation with BOTH hands. True DW masters get a rhythm
>going and gain a stroke every 5. See Philo for details.

Maybe I'm just more advanced in an evolutionary way, but whether
whacking off or hitting the pipe, I'm ambidextrous. Some things are
just too good to allow for chance and circumstance to interfere. Ie,
always carry a raincoat.)

Always be prepared!

Correspondent:: Soot Bull Jeep™
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:06:11 -0700

--------

iDRMRSR wrote:
> With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
> smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
> southpaws themselves?
>
> You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
> figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
> decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!

Jus Flip the frame, Wilson.

SBJ

--
...........'cuse me whyl I kiss tha sky...

Correspondent:: König Prüß, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 18:20:08 GMT

--------

Soot Bull Jeep™ wrote:

> iDRMRSR wrote:
> > With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
> > smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
> > southpaws themselves?
> >
> > You have NO IDEA how frustrating it is to see some old movie with a Bob like
> > figure...say Pierce Brosnan in Mars Attacks...from which you can't do a
> > decent frame grab because the PIPE IS IN THE WRONG HAND!
>
> Jus Flip the frame, Wilson.
>

I was gonna say that, but it seemed too obvious.
And flip it real fast: dual-pipes!

Correspondent:: Don Radford
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:39:02 GMT

--------
iDRMRSR wrote:

> With the rare exception of Bob, why is it that most guys in movies that
> smoke pipes, smoke 'em LEFT HANDED? I mean, even if they aren't actually
> southpaws themselves?

I've tended to favor using my dominant hand to operate the lighter.

--
Art and Fashion for the New Conspiracy

http://www.cafepress.com/luciddragon

the Mystical RevvedErrand Rockin' Don Radford
Certified God by the holy authority of
the White Lotus Fortune Cookie Company
June 23, 2004