I see my masculinity in terms of cheese.

Discuss.

What? There's lots of holes in it and it smells funny? Sheesh Karn, you need to get that checked out. Some of that stuff is deadly!

Real men appreciate the true value of good cheese.

Not when your dick looks like swiss cheese... XD XD XD

No no, Karn makes a point. Men will value a good cheese.

Not any men. Real men. Unfortunately, I am but a fake man.

No offense or anything, but does that mean you've had a sex-change operation? Because you're saying you're a fake guy, right? That means you're not completely male, yes?

Or, if that's wrong, completely scratch that.

Why cheese? What kind of cheese?

If men view masculinity as cheese, what do transvestite males consider their masculinity as, velveeta?

Isn't Velveeta Macaroni and Cheese? OK, it's a bad question, but I'm seriously asking.....

Thats incorrect. You thought about it a bit too deeply. I'll try to explain the terms. You see, a fake man is just one that simply doesnt really exist. A real man does. The fake men overpopulate the real men though, so instead of not existing, we exist, but not nearly on the level of true existance of that which is real men. In order to be a real man, we must fit certain criteria, as any living thing must fit certain criteria as well. If we do not have all of the same interests and traits as real men, we are nothing but mere fakes. BUT, fake men can become real men. They simply need to change a few things about themselves. Which life is more promising? Neither. Its just the fact that you have the title of real man, along with the fact that you actually exist. I'd go into more detail about this, but it might take more pages up than once thought, so I will end my typing at this.

I AM offended by the fact that you questioned me though. I absolutely demand an apology, or I will be slightly irritated and annoyed for a short period of time.

Then, by all means, I apologize. I didn't mean to doubt anything about you, especially since I don't know you. I am sorry.

Thank you so much for explaining that! I was really thinking I missed something! It makes sense to me now~!

Why, dont thank me, there is someone else much more deserving of your thanks. Also, no need to apologize to me either, there is someone else much more deserving of your apology.

I am glad I made that much more clear to you. To fully understand and comprehend my statement requires an intense amount of patience and dignity, along with respect and care-giving. Not many have all of these traits, but then again not all of them are necessarily traits. I suppose a better word would be constructs, but then again care-giving really doesnt fall into that category. But what would care-giving fall under? Only someone other than myself would know this faster than I.

Wouldn't fake men be unable to over-populate?

And why'd you ask for an apology, just to reject it, seems kinda mean to me

Well, thats one of the may great questions people have asked over the centuries.

I never quite rejected the apology, I just merely said there is someone more deserving of it.

Nah. I think I can decide for myself. Besides, it's not like I don't do it enough. If you ask me, everyone in the world should've been apologized to at least a million times by the time they turned three. Does that even make any sense?

It makes so much sense it's not even funny

O_O Well, as long as it makes sense, it's all good.

I believe Kipdog is the only one that has a near-full understanding of my manliness.

How can manliness be near full? Isn't it one of the all or nothing things?

No, dear. Some guys just aren't manly, while others are too much so. Most of them have a certain degree of it. Kinda in between, like how girly a female is. Some just aren't, some are completely, but most of us are only in certain situations. :P

Oh~! It makes sense now. Thankies, Sara-san!

...

I can't take your cuteness anymore. I'm gonna go shiver in a corner.

*creeps into a corner*

I understand that you cannot bear my cuteness, but Im afraid your going to have to anyways.

You're not even a girl! And I'm not interested in shota-characters!

Eh? I come back to post and read what comes before. Are you alright? You seem.... well.... kind of mentally scarred, actually.

Basically, Karn is a real man. Kipdog is a man .However due to his lack of value for cheese, he cannot be a real man as Karn is.

Therefore, those who do know value the cheese, do not understand what it is to be a true man. Nor will they understand Webcomics. I value the cheese, as I know only provaloan goes on a sub, while american only goes on a sandwich from home. Swiss is reserved for finger platters and finanically endowed individuals. Pistromi however, is a mystery that must be studied carefully. :mellow:

What is a shota-character? :huh:

Mmm.... cheese. Nothing like some good sharp cheddar... or some blue cheese... smells nasty, tastes gooooood.

Shota is more or less underage stuffs. A grown person interested in an underage person, or two underage teens.

Most of the time, it's got yaoi[guy-guy] and incest. That's usually for guys. I think the female equivalent is loli.

Of course, there's lots of straight shota, too. It just happens to be centered on homosexual and incestual relationships.

No, I don't know this off of the top of my head...

I found an approximation~!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotacon

It's really informative, but I didn't get a lot of the words there....

YES! Blue cheese is good.

One reason real men like cheese is because cheese involves stuff curdling, getting moldy, etc. Everyone knows real men aren't sanitary. Cheese was probably discovered when they put milk in animal skins and enzymes reacted and stuff. If that isn't a manly way to discover something, I don't know what is.

Hiyami has just displayed something I've long known about wikipedia - it's true value is not the quality of information, but rather that one can search its database without being scarred by explicit images when you're looking for terms like goatse. Thus, it's a good starting point if you don't know about something, because you can find out if you want to know more.

(WARNING-DO NOT GOOGLE IMAGE SEARCH GOATSE)

*Laughs as the populace of FEW, driven by an insatiable curiosity, does so, and is scarred like he was*

Kipdog, your posts on this thread have been incredible, and I will tolerate your cuteness with patience and understanding; nary a shiver will be seen, felt, or scented by the sharpest of Cerberus' three snouts (or perhaps 5 snouts(I do not intend to shamelessly advertise literature but the book simply came to mind as I thought of the dramatic variety of snout that are the three/five snouts of Cerberus (perhaps the 5 snouts represent the 5 different levels of manliness - after all, one would expect that fulfilling some but not all criteria of being real men would in turn yield some sort of real/fake state of being which most of us likely fall into, but then I am no expert, so I am likely mistaken (which makes me sad, and sadness is not manly, and showing such little control over my state of manliness in turn makes it unlikely that I am an expert(and thus as I refuse to shiver, I in turn circle in position and return to a state of nonmanliness, thus presenting the idea that perhaps one cannot go from fake man to real man for a permanent length of time, for the falseness shall remain rooted in the external world and surely seize hold again, as it once did)))).

EDIT-That was very, very nearly a Ciceronian period, thus displaying how close one comes to manliness but ultimately fails - Cicero, measure of all men in the view of many humanists during the advent of the Renaissance, is a man I can come close to imitating, but my own natural flaws created by a distaste for provolone cheese will forever hold me back.

EDIT2-It seems apparent that one is either fake or real, and ultimately we are truly one or the other, and can never really reach the peak of real manliness if fake, fake manliness if real - yet I have in the past applied Ciceronian rhetoric, and at other times failing to, thus leading to a paradox. And in stating the paradox, a Ciceronian period is written.

You can read a somewhat botched definition of a Ciceronian Period - botched because the article seems to be under the impression that the Ciceronian period defines all periods as the humanists were under the impression that Cicero defines all men - at wikipedia.

I could go on with this bullshit forever, and the worst part is it makes a grain of sense if you can read my intentionally annoying writing.

I haven't seen you for a while, but you are quite clearly still that man who was on the Hero poster with random faces pasted on.

"I suppose a better word would be constructs, but then again care-giving really doesnt fall into that category. But what would care-giving fall under? Only someone other than myself would know this faster than I." was the best part.

Anyway, by saying you're a fake man, are you saying you don't like cheese, or are there other criteria you haven't managed to meet?

I'm going to stop now because this is ridiculous.

Wait, hold on, didn't Karn say he was sexless earlier or something?
*Comprehension lost*

Time and time again, it's been proven that such statements are not true.

I decided to take the time to read your response, and I can grasp where you are coming from. But in order to be a real man, one must not only fulfill the requirement of getting masculinity from cheese, but also fill many other categories and such. You see, Over human time many analysts have come to understand what real men enjoy, what real men typically feel more out as an emotion, and what they maybe composed of. Other factors can be your level of attractiveness, the type of deodorant you use, and even if you prefer coke or pepsi. Out of these real men is the one truly real man, the one above all other real men. The one man that fits EVERY piece of criteria ever listed. But wait, if you dont fit one piece of the many ideas of a real man, then wouldnt you be a fake man? Not necessarily. Studies have shown that there is a direct correlation between a bee's ability to think and a man being a real man. What does this mean? Well, nothing. Bee's cant think. But men can! The ability to think in itself is theorized to be the real one thing a man needs to be a real man. Why? Because they can attempt to change their personalities to become a real man. Chances are it wont work though. They think it usually doesnt work because global warming happens to be a pressing issue that remains on many of the highest thinkers' minds. Instead of trying to become a real man, they feel they should be trying to solve world problems instead? Some critics may ask, whats the point? If your not a real man, whats the point of humanity existing anyways?

Well, many human beings feel the need to be liked, looked up to, honored, enjoyed by others, envied by others, etc. This is a natural human need, just as water is to us. Now, sometimes real men may trick you. For you see, these real men are really fake men. They fit some of the criteria, but the rest might be faked. Its all part of the idealization they are trying to put across. But you will never know for sure. Unless you can read minds of course, but only 38% of the human population can even do that. So good luck. Oh yeah, I dont like alot of cheese, but I like things made by cheese. I also dont fit alot of the other criteria that I havent listed, but thats besides the point if you read this whole article of information. But then again, if you keep enough determination you might just be lucky enough to not be unlucky to be the rest of that 62% that cant read minds. Of course the percentages are merely a rough estimate made by the world's third highest professionals in social studies and gymnastics.

Alright, thats enough. No more detail, I promised I wouldnt go into more detail because you guys wouldnt understand half the vocabulary I was using. Hell, I dont even know if you guys would be able to understand alot of the terms I used in this statement of mine. I dont feel like taking the time to post the definitions of such terms as rough, gymnastics, professionals, and sociology though. But perhaps you can.

But then isn't that the same thing as insinuating there is no such thing as a fake man either? It'd mean there's a form of balance, no matter how distorted among real and fake within the body, both consuming and resurrecting.

Of course, it's also mostly from point of view, so no matter what anyone says, it disappears. Theoretically, if it is, it is not and if it is not, it is.

I think that kind of thing is called a "Catch-Twenty-Two" or something similar.

The humanists of the Reanaissance were very intelligent people. One of them is reported to have said, "Cheese is the measure of all things." Only a genius would say that.

Karn has several aspects. He is very masculine insofar as he appreciates the true value of cheese. He is also very feminine inasmuch as he is very gelatinous. His masculinity and femininity are but two aspects of one being. Therefore, he is sexless because he is both sexes.

Fucking Robot. Where is your off switch away? :huh:

He doesnt have an off switch? What idiot what put an off switch on Karn!?

Eh? A human has an off switch??? Really??? Where! That must be one of the more interesting things~! Are you able to turn off while in class? Do your eyes stay open?

XD . Very clever :) I would refer to that concept as "Cheeseism"

OMG PARADOX BOTH AT ONCE AWESOME!

Only fake men have off switches. Or perhaps only real men do. I'm not quite sure.

We do tend to halt operations in response to stimuli related to our nether regions; particularly, sharp kicks aimed at the meeting point of the two lower extensions from the torso/waist area tend to cause cause immediate response. But you were probably aware of that.

Fuck. I never get the good draws on psychic powers. All I can do is bend spoons.

At least I have a lot of luck with magical powers. I can make money appear from thin air, teleport, and transform into a 3-d capital Q.

(this is a serious response)
The most commonly known Catch-22 is kind of an infinite loop. An opportunity exists to move out of a particular situation, but in taking that opportunity you put yourself in a state where you are immediately put back into the original state.

Using meaningless symbols, you move from A to B because you are 1. However, if you are 1 you are also C (or sometimes, you are not B ) and therefore you are back at A.

This is an abstraction of Heller's original example, which is fictionalized but not extremely removed from reality. In the air force, (perhaps just the wing Yossarian is in, but I can't remember the number) you cannot fly if you are insane. If you are insane, you can file to be grounded, and thus not have to fly missions. Arguably, flying missions is insane. However, in order to prove that you are insane, you must file with the doctors to be grounded. Undertaking such an action proves that you are sane, because you fear for your life, and thus you can fly missions.

I can probably make it simpler if that's too dense, but I didn't want to have to think about it in more complex terms.

Really, Catch-22, a fictional law in the military, is simply that you can do whatever you want as long as you have enough power. The term Catch 22 is used to gain power, by being tossed about as an excuse for any action whatsoever ("why are you putting me in solitary?" "Catch-22"). But the above definition is the first in Joseph Heller's book (Catch-22) IIRC and is the theme by which many events and characters do stuff during his book.

EDIT-By the way, I think this thread has been pretty fun thus far. I'm giving everyone who's contributed to it a thumbs up.

Hehe.

Under what I assume is "Felice Navidad" it says illego o.

So.....cheese?