TER General Board
loves to listen to the gal's tall tales of conquest. so the more varied their clientele the better
every provider that's been with me (hi sweeties! 
knows that i almost grill them on all the filthy gory details of their sickest queerest encounters. sometimes to tittilate ... but really mostly out of just plain curiosity
knowing that 95% of the guys out there are far more sicker than i am leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling deep down in my core. it's self-affirmation that there just may be hope for me someday
my current favourite and the source of endless second-hand entertainment is Mr. Needle-Dick, who likes to have his dick pounded flat with a mallet and pierced with 6-inch-nails and heels and to then recite a French soliloquy while she watches (no assists)
and you gals complain about us wanting just basic Greek!?#?
LMAO
surely *anonymity* can't hurt anyone, can it? what a provider chooses to reveal to me about her clientele is up to her. i don't press and i don't want any names. it's simply amusing and informative. plus, it gives me a sense of her "workload" and "training"
btw, in case it was misunderstood by anyone: "Mr. Needle-Dick' is a codename between me and a regular agency girl who *chooses* to see this character (easy money, and LOTS of it!)
any resemblance to anyone here on TER or elsewhere is purely accidental. as with nearly 98% of what i say here, this is all a work of "fiction" and posted for purely entertainment's sake
The typical, regular arrangement in an English verb, called the "weak" paradigm, is that a dental consonant (usually spelled "d" or "ed") indicates past tense. The three principal parts, in English -- infinitive/present, preterit, and past participle -- therefore usually go:
to X, Xed, (had) Xed
as in:
to pot, potted, (had) potted.
But some verbs are "irregular" or "strong." That is, the verb itself is more powerful than the paradigm, such that its own characteristics take over. Consequently, the dental consonant may not be used to indicate past, but something else entirely. For example:
to run, ran, (had) run
where a vowel change confuses the matter. Or:
to drink, drank, (had) drunk(en)
where both a vowel change and an optional suffix get all messed up in there. Then there's:
to think, thought, (had) thought
which really has no excuse.
As early as the Anglo-Saxon period, English often used paired verbs, one transitive (takes an object) and weak; one intransitive and strong. Hence the problematic:
to drink, drank, drank OR drunk(en)
One option has come to us Modern English from one earlier verb in the pair, one from the other. This dichotomy (intrans-strong versus trans-weak) is evident in the sit-versus-set and the lie-versus-lay conundra:
to lie, lay, had lain
to lay, laid, had laid
to sit, sat, had sat
to set, set, had set (here the dental is a "t")
The first verb listed takes no object (intransitive) and forms its past with a vowel change (strong). The second verb requires an object (transitive) but makes its past with a simple dental(weak). (The confusion comes from line one item two, "lay," which seems identical to line two item one, "to lay.")
You meant to say that he "did lie" or "had lain" there, and therefore "he just lay there." Or perhaps "he just laid himself there," but if he was capable of that, then he'd have no need for you, now would he?
Now perhaps we can all remember lie and lay, right? 
-- Modified on 7/20/2003 4:36:44 PM
The Latin plural of a second declension neuter noun ending in "-um" is "-a." As in, "somnium, somnia," English dream, dreams. The plural which ends in "-ae" is of the singular first declension nouns that end in "-a," nearly all feminine. As in, "alumna, alumnae," for female graduate, female graduates. (The masculine would be "-us" "-i," the familiar "alumnus, alumni.")
You know, of course, I'm just joshin' ya in these posts ... ... but the grammar IS true.