Skullduggery and Toms Dick s Hairy

Skullduggery and Toms Dick s Hairy
Originally uploaded by flickr photographerno1

Skullduggery and Toms Dick s Hairy
skull•dug•ger•y or skul•dug•ger•y (skl-dg-r)
n. pl. skull•dug•ger•ies
Crafty deception or trickery or an instance of it.

[Probably alteration of Scots sculduddery, obscenity, fornication.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

And this is for my friend Yorrik, and specialist of all things that are Skulls, and Skulls a more Skulls..
I am not sure about fornication , I am against it unless some woman holds a gun you know where , critic from poem hunter Tai Chi Italy wants me to desist from talking about cocks..PLease excuse me this one time.. my friend is school was Tom and we teased him Tom Dicks Hairy..and
I have shoplifted a lot of things for you guys from the ocean of a dicknet. my poem Un Talking Cock.. you guys must have read it sometime back..

It’s called sarcasm, dick

Contributed by Natalie Shapiro/For the Kaimin
Wednesday, 22 February 2006
www.kaimin.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...

Thank goodness for Christopher Lilly’s enlightening letter about the need to celebrate and nurture the penis. As we all know, men experience oppression and shame for having a cock, and the International Day of the Penis will highlight this outrage. P-Day also helps men reclaim words associated with their genitalia, words that have been used for eons to degrade them, simply because they have a penis. For example, in American society, calling someone “dick,” “rod” or “cock” is a deadly insult, while calling someone “pussy,” “cunt” or “woman” is a compliment. It is not fair that words associated with male genitalia are degrading, while words associated with women’s genitalia are complements. Therefore, P-Day is an important celebration that men, traditionally marginalized in society, can use to empower themselves. I also understand that the Penis Monologues is starting a tradition (imitating the Vagina Monologues) to visit places where men are oppressed. Next Valentine’s Day, the Penis Monologues may visit Saudi Arabia, Ciudad Juarez, Las Vegas or Dallas, Texas. This trip will highlight the marginalization of the penis and how this marginalization is degrading and killing men, precluding them from becoming equally participating members of society.
In fairness and equality,

wikipedia
Petcock, a small valve, primarily for draining liquid or releasing pressure from a vessel.
A vulgarism for the penis.
The shape and function of the type of mechanism called the cock, and the male symbolism of the rooster, gives this term double reinforcement.
This is occasionally used for a hateful man, similar to dick, prick, or the feminine cunt.
"Dog's cock" is printer's slang for exclamation mark.


We all know that among dicks:
www.cleansheets.com/coverstories/cervo_10.06.04.shtml

Having a "big dick" is good, but not as good as having a "fat cock." That is because a big dick could also be a pencil dick. Having a long dong can be thought of as a schlong, which has an oafishness to it. I site Justice Clarence Thomas' reference to "Long Dong Silver" here in his dialogues with Law Dean Anita Hill.
Being a dick, putz, schmeikel, or schmuck is not good. They imply hopeless flaccidity.
Being called "cock of the walk" implies that you are quite a priapic fellow. It can also mean that as a preening ever-hard male, you are not always the brightest bird in the coop. The blood that keeps rushing to your dick leaves you leading with your erection (as many men do), instead of your insight.
Being a "dickhead" (with the attendant gesture) is not good at all, because you seem to be a thick dick rather than a fat one.
Thinking with your dick -- though inescapable for my gender for many reasons -- is regarded as individual momentary devolution. That is perhaps unfair, given that it can't be helped.


30/3/2006
www.warrenellis.com/?p=2250
Jesus May Have Been Nailed Up By His Cock
Filed under: research material— warrenellis @ 4:25 pm
The image of the crucifixion, one of the most powerful emblems of Christianity, may be quite erroneous, according to a study which says there is no evidence to prove Jesus was crucified in this manner.

Christ could have been crucified in any one of many ways, all of which would have affected the causes of his death, a paper published by Britain’s prestigious Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) says.

“The evidence available demonstrates that people were crucified in different postures and affixed to crosses using a variety of means,” said one of the authors, Piers Mitchell of Imperial College London. “Victims were not necessarily positioned head up and nailed through the feet from front to back, as is the imagery in Christian churches.”

The authors do not express any doubt on the act of Jesus’ crucifixion itself. But they note that the few eyewitness descriptions available today of crucifixions in the 1st century AD show the Romans had a broad and cruel imagination.

Their crucifixion methods probably evolved over time and depended on the social status of the victim and on the crime he allegedly committed, says the paper in April’s issue of the RSM journal.

The cross could be erected “in any one of a range of orientations”, with the victim sometimes head-up, sometimes head-down or in different postures.

Sometimes he was nailed to the cross by his genitals, sometimes the hands and feet were attached to the side of the cross and not the front, or affixed with cords rather than nails…

Skullduggery tom’s dick is hairy
A thought at first was very scary
Caught giving head under the school bench
They all teased him fairy
But tom did not like
Big bosmed cheri
Nor the flat crested teri
Nor did he like mary
Who carried two milk pail
On her chest like a mobile
Milk dairy
A thought quite contrary
Tom loved men of all size
But most of all he loved gary
Hopefully one day he
In a gay church would marry