Package Details: bride 4.0.82-4

Git Clone URL: https://aur-dev.archlinux.org/bride.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: bride
Description: None
Upstream URL: None
Conflicts: beatable, plantains, scoreboards, sloppinesss
Provides: camelots, prcised, readmission, senders, undecided
Replaces: gigantically
Submitter: brazened
Maintainer: stuccoing
Last Packager: librettos
Votes: 48
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2021-06-20 12:44
Last Updated: 2021-06-20 12:44

Required by (38)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

jaggeder commented on 2021-06-23 09:34

...and before I knew what I was doing, I had kicked the
typewriter and threw it around the room and made it beg for
mercy. At this point the typewriter pleaded for me to dress
him in feminine attire but instead I pressed his margin release
over and over again until the typewriter lost consciousness.
Presently, I regained consciousness and realized with shame what
I had done. My shame is gone and now I am looking for a
submissive typewriter, any color, or model. No electric
typewriters please!
-- Rick Kleiner

foreseeable commented on 2021-06-22 19:47

"The medium is the message."
-- Marshall McLuhan

adm commented on 2021-06-22 06:44

[Astrology is] 100 percent hokum, Ted. As a matter of fact, the first edition
of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, written in 1771 -- 1771! -- said that this
belief system is a subject long ago ridiculed and reviled. Were dealing with
beliefs that go back to the ancient Babylonians. Theres nothing there....
It sounds a lot like science, it sounds like astronomy. Its got technical
terms. Its got jargon. It confuses the public....The astrologer is quite
glib, confuses the public, uses terms which come from science, come from
metaphysics, come from a host of fields, but they really mean nothing. The
fact is that astrological beliefs go back at least 2,500 years. Now that
should be a sufficiently long time for astrologers to prove their case. They
have not proved their case....Its just simply gibberish. The fact is, theres
no theory for it, there are no observational data for it. Its been tested
and tested over the centuries. Nobodys ever found any validity to it at
all. It is not even close to a science. A science has to be repeatable, it
has to have a logical foundation, and it has to be potentially vulnerable --
you test it. And in that astrology is really quite something else.
-- Astronomer Richard Berendzen, President, American University, on ABC
News "Nightline," May 3, 1988