bigsteff Posted April 29, 2003 #1 Share Posted April 29, 2003 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/page.cfm...OF%20BOY%2C%207 HOPE THIS LINK WORKS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceyKC Posted April 29, 2003 #2 Share Posted April 29, 2003 bigsteff, it worked just fine. But is it really true? It sounds just like something from the Enquirer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteff Posted April 29, 2003 Author #3 Share Posted April 29, 2003 well i would asume it's true don't know what the enquirer is...but if it's anything like the sport/sunday sport...which comes out with the stories such as ...ww2 bomber lands on the moon.... which is pants then the daily record is not like that ,it's a REAL NEWSPAPER dealing with real stories.....so unless it's printed on april fools day ,i would believe it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlorac Posted April 30, 2003 #4 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I've heard of something similar to this, except the foetus was called a "stone baby" and had remained in the belly of his mother for many years before he was discovered by surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Moose Posted April 30, 2003 #5 Share Posted April 30, 2003 ww2 bomber lands on the moon.... which is pants You have to help me out here.... I am from the other side of the pond and I have no idea what a moonlanding by a WWII bomber has to do with pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schadeaux Posted April 30, 2003 #6 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Bettie Lou Williams had a siamese twin growing out of her abdomen, with its head inside her body! She made $500,000 a WEEK as a young child, in the summers with large carnivals. By 1950, her income had doubled. As Betty grew, the twin parasite also grew at the same rate, giving her a HUGE appetite. She died in March, 1955. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizarro Posted April 30, 2003 #7 Share Posted April 30, 2003 haha, Spacemoose. i know ive had this same discussion many times now and i still dont get it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted April 30, 2003 #8 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Moose, It's slang for something not highly regarded, LB once thought the movie 'Signs' was "pants". MM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Moose Posted April 30, 2003 #9 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Ah. Thanks for clearing that up Magikman. If I had a great amount of disregard for a pair of slacks that I own, would it be correct if I said, "these slacks are pants."? Or is that an instance where such an expression might not work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted April 30, 2003 #10 Share Posted April 30, 2003 No, I think it would be perfectly acceptable, old bean, although I think the correct terminology is "trousers". Main Entry: [1]trou·ser Pronunciation: 'trau-z&r Function: noun Etymology: alteration of earlier trouse, from Scottish Gaelic triubhas Date: 1613 : [3]PANT 1 — usually used in plural The phrase would then be "these trousers are pants" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Moose Posted April 30, 2003 #11 Share Posted April 30, 2003 So, if I had parasitic twin and I was going to dress him up for a night on the town, I would dress him in trousers because slacks are not pants. And they wonder why the Scots wear kilts... gender identity issues is nothing compared to this. This topic is interesting though (the twin thing, not the pants/leggings/trousers/slacks/jeans/khakis/capris/ - jeez, I know a lot of different words to call material you wear on your legs) and am wondering where they draw the line between a parasitic twin and just being a siamese twin with many shared organs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted April 30, 2003 #12 Share Posted April 30, 2003 I like a man in a Kilt . Kilt's arn't pants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loonboy Posted April 30, 2003 #13 Share Posted April 30, 2003 'Signs' was indeed pants and I stand by my verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizarro Posted April 30, 2003 #14 Share Posted April 30, 2003 LOL@MM and SM. you guys should pair up, you are really quite funny together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted April 30, 2003 #15 Share Posted April 30, 2003 schadeaux, Thanks for the mention about Betty Lou, that was something I hadn't been aware of. I did a little bit more investigating and found a site that gives a short biography of her and quite a few more pictures. They also include a short article that Betty Lou wrote for a local paper that gives her own insight into her 'condition', one which is quite inspirational and moving. Click on the link below, be warned though, it may not work at times, it's a tripod site and they limit access based on activity. CLICK HERE Magikman * - the $500,000 is a great exageration of what she truely made, we're talking about the 1940's & 1950's, the biography mentions she earned about $250 per week, a lot of money back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albaqwerty Posted April 30, 2003 #16 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Interesting link MM. I asked google about the 7yearold boy in Kazakhstan and nadazip turned up! I reckon the Daily Record may have been suckered (and not for the first time either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigsteff Posted April 30, 2003 Author #17 Share Posted April 30, 2003 hey calm yourselves i'm from scotland....pants are underwear pants in england and the usa are not underwear but...trousers as for the phrase this is pants well if you were from here you would get it....lol hey kismit..you don't even wear pants under a kilt...if your a true scotsman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magikman Posted May 1, 2003 #18 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Getting back to the original subject of this thred, the story has been picked up by the BBC news now, and there are portions of the story that differ from the original, ie: the foetus had developed into a tumour but was found to have hair, nails and bones and while it was no longer a living substance it was feeding off the boy's blood supply. LINK TO STORY Magikman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kismit Posted May 1, 2003 #19 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Thanx Magik , I just wanted to add to the thread by saying .... I still like Kilts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now