March 31, 2004
Happy Birthday, Stranger!

Happy Birthday, Helen! It's not quite your birthday here but it is where you are so there you go!
Godspeed and safe travels on your vacation. Have fun (but not too much fun) and don't do anybody anything I wouldn't do.
Posted by: Jim at
08:49 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'm jealous...today (here) was MY birthday, and you didn't put a cake up for ME!!!! LOL
Posted by: mitzi at March 31, 2004 11:11 PM (C/xW6)
2
Well sure I did, Mitzi! I was just waiting 'til it got down to the wire. You know, to let the excitement build up.
Happy Birthday Mitzi!!
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 11:26 PM (saeHM)
3
Thanks, my dear Jim!
PS-enjoying Prague like mad!
Posted by: Helen at April 02, 2004 02:28 AM (u33fP)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
AM Calls
I got a call from Lovely Wife this morning. I usually do and my morning isn't really started until I get one. This particular call had one of those spooky beginings that sounded suspiciously like "Do you know what
your son did?" Those are the worst calls since you're effectively powerless. If whatever your son (not hers, at least at this particular moment) did makes you furious you're shit out of luck. You're at work buddy and by the time you get home it's ancient history. Of course since you're a grown up you've festered on it for the entire day and when you do get home you try to do the corrective counseling thing but by that time the kid doesn't even remember what it was that he did and your oh-so-carefully crafted and mentally rehearsed speech falters and dies on your lips when confronted by stupefyingly honest childhood ignorance.
If whatever the boy did doesn't happen to irritate you or (God forbid) you don't think it was such a bad thing anyway you are equally screwed. You are on the phone with a woman who is so pissed she has temporarily disowned her child. You. Must. Agree. With. Her. Not doing so, and doing so in colorful and excited terms I might add, will allow her to transfer that rage from the son to the father. That's you, remember. This is a bad thing. You always want to place children between yourself and your spouse's rage, never the other way around. Hey, that's the basic reason you had the little beggars in the first place.
more...
Posted by: Jim at
04:32 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 649 words, total size 4 kb.
Posted by: Jennifer at March 31, 2004 04:50 PM (DdBLw)
2
Coffee AND cigarettes? not likely... not even recommended.
Cute story though.
Posted by: MojoMark at March 31, 2004 05:20 PM (E+LQu)
3
This morning I could not get my son, three-and-a-half,out the door until he completed his fourth or fifth stirring rendition of the alphabet song.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at March 31, 2004 07:13 PM (CSxVi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I don't see the problem
Samizdata
reports on a correction in
The Australian. Personally, I think the retracted statement was just as correct as the replacement.
(Hat tip to Dopple-G)
Posted by: Jim at
08:16 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I'd say that was a freudian slip if I ever saw one. I agree though, I don't see any problem with the original either.
Posted by: Christine at March 31, 2004 09:58 AM (Q/NXM)
2
That was hilarious!!! (Unfortunately, I had to dig out the IE to read it, since in Mozilla the page had no text. Sigh...)
Posted by: Susie at March 31, 2004 03:43 PM (dD4I4)
3
See us Aussies can be darn funny when we try.
Posted by: Simon at April 01, 2004 01:55 AM (GWTmv)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"J" is for "Jokes" and "Jerking Around" and "Jackasses"
The
Letter of the Day is
"J".
"J" is for Jokes, like this one about drowning Democrats.
"J" is for Jackasses, which accurately describes several of the commenters of this post.
"J" is for Jerking Around, which is what happens to Jen in the comments of this post.
Posted by: Jim at
08:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Gah, she overreacted from the get-go. No one seriously wants to drown Democrats . . . just Hillary. Just give me the bronze Hillary!
Posted by: ilyka at March 31, 2004 08:39 AM (WpStl)
2
Maybe a little bit but it wasn't the joke that was the problem but rather the location of the joke. It's one thing for me to put that joke on my site, it's quite another for it to be on a site that's supposed to be about getting centrists and undecided dems to vote for a republican candidate.
Not that I'd put that particular joke on my site. It's just not funny. It wasn't funny when the punchline was about a bronze wop, a bronze spic, a bronze mick, a bronze frog or even a bronze Dolphins fan (although that last one is close). The last time it got a chuckle was when it was fresh and the punchline was about a bronze homo habilus.
I'm just saying it's a bit old is all.
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 09:55 AM (IOwam)
3
Oh, come on, Jim. It's
hilarious when it's a bronze troll. ;-)
Posted by: Venomous Kate at March 31, 2004 01:47 PM (YvEJI)
4
I don't know about hilarious.
Poignant maybe...
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 01:53 PM (IOwam)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 30, 2004
It was horrifical
I had my first memorable nightmare in quite some time on Saturday night. It was one of those genuinely distressing heartwrenching real-emotion emoting dreams.
Most of the dream was fuzzy and I don't remember it. The scene that so affected me was in a garage with a generic androgynous friend (does anybody else have generic androgynous people in generic roles in their dreams?). He/she was smoking and offered me a smoke when he/she realized I didn't have any. I said no but took a drag of his/hers.
Then it hit me. I had just had a damned cigarette in my mouth and I smoked on it. Immediately following that realization was crushing guilt and extreme anger at myself. Then I was pissed and basically said fuck it. If I had a puff I might as well have a whole cigarette so I took one from generic friend's pack (generic friend wasn't there anymore - can't blame him/her as I was quite irate and most likely not fun to be around).
I smoked that thing in an absolute rage. I was so unbelievably mad and feeling like crap because there are a whole bunch of people pulling for me to quit smoking successfully. There's also a $100 price tag on the first puff of nicotine and I was mad as hell that I screwed up that bet too.
The dream sort of faded out (at least out of memory) after that. I woke up angry, which is never good. When I realized that I had dreamed it and that I had actually not smoked a cigarette I felt blessed release and a great calming.
I'm going to make it, y'all, but this psychological warfare that my subconcious is playing on me is totally unfair. Damned id.
Been off the Welbutrin for over a week. Occasional cravings but otherwise doing quite well.
One month, three days, 5 hours and 6 minutes. 644 cigarettes not smoked, saving $101.47. Life saved: 2 days, 5 hours, 40 minutes.
Posted by: Jim at
04:39 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I had a dream like that a couple of weeks ago. I woke up sweating thinking about that $100.
Posted by: Tiffany at March 30, 2004 05:23 PM (rDyup)
2
Hey, this stress barrage that has hounded me for over a week now has been a tough road, but I am still suckin' mint juice and:
Two months, four weeks, one day, 17 hours, 39 minutes and 25 seconds has elapsed since I last took a puff off of a nasty cigarette and that now means 3140 cigarettes not smoked, allowin' me to save $628.15 in cash as well as possibly extendin' my life an additional 1 week, 3 days, 21 hours, 40 minutes.
I am really gonna savor that extra 40 minutes I get right at the end, ya know!
Posted by: Tiger at March 30, 2004 06:40 PM (G5PGV)
3
generic androgynous friend
That's a pretty good description. I just call 'em dreampeople, myself.
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 01:37 PM (L3qPK)
4
I hadn't thought of cigarette dreams but recovering alcoholics have drunk dreams, recovering addicts have drug dreams so why not? If it works the same way as drunk dreams you're just about right on schedule.
You'll be pleased to know that in a couple-three months those dreams will be very infrequent.
Drug and drunk dreams are a normal and predictable part of recovery, They're a little scarey but harmless. I would suspect that the cigarette dreams are the same.
Posted by: Peter at April 01, 2004 01:41 AM (rZmE1)
5
That's good news. So far it's only been the one. At least that I remember. Now that I think of it though, I do remember having smoking dreams during other times that I've quit.
Posted by: Jim at April 01, 2004 05:47 AM (saeHM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Little Bunny Foo Foo
hoppin' through the forest,
scoopin' up the field mice
and boppin' em on the head.
And down came the Blue Fairy, and she said:
Little Bunny FooFoo
I don't want to see you
scoopin' up the field mice
and boppin' em on the head.
And now I'll give you one chance, and if you keep it up, I'll take care of you for sure.
Little Bunny Foo Foo
kept hoppin' through the forest,
kept scoopin' up the field mice
and boppin' em on the head.
And down came the Blue Fairy, and she said:
You disobeyed me!
So she smacked him and his brother over the head with a shovel until they were dead
But it's okay, y'all. She's been cleared by the district who ruled that smackin' bunnies on the head is accepted veterinary practice. Some of her students thought it was a bit wierd and she's still facing two civil penalties for animal cruelty. She's vowed to fight them, though.
Back off the Blue Fairy, y'all. It's just part of farming. Besides, Bunny FooFoo was asking for it.
Posted by: Jim at
03:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
Here's why
A lot of people just don't quite understand what the big deal is. I mean, if you break the law you go to jail, right? Well, here's the best way I've found to explain it:
WEEEE-OOOOOOO WEEEEE-OOOOOO (that's a siren, y'all)
A State trooper with the lights on and siren blaring is in your rear view, letting you know that you're screwed now. You pull over to the side, heart a bit a-flutter and sharing confused and slightly frightened glances with your passenger. The trooper walks up to your window with one hand on his gun and the other holding his shoulder mike. He leans in menacingly, never taking his hand off of his weapon.
Trooper: Do you have any idea how fast you were going?
You: I'm sorry, officer. I thought I was going the speed limit.
Trooper: And just where did you get the idea of what the speed limit was?
You: Um, from the road signs?
Trooper: ARE YOU SURE?! I think that your passenger there told you what the speed limit was. I don't think you saw the sign at all!
You: Please, officer. I really saw the sign. It said "Speed" on top and then it had a big "55" in the middle and it said "Limit" on the bottom. I swear!
Trooper: You're under arrest.
You: For what? I wasn't speeding!
Trooper: Because you lied about seeing the speed limit sign.
You were cruising along, not breaking any laws. The cops stopped you without cause and started interrogating you as if you had broken a law. You really were told about the speed limit from your friend but you panicked or were intimidated or freaked by the situation or whatever and you said you saw the speed limit sign. Even though you didn't speed and there was no reason for you to be pulled over you are now going to prison for lying about where you got the information that you used while not breaking the law in the first place. The kicker is that you were allowed to get the information from the sign or your friend so there was no reason to get flustered over it in the first place.
That is why the whole Martha Stewart thing irks me. There was no crime until the feds germinated one.
Posted by: Jim at
10:49 AM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 391 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I totally agree, but I haven't even been able to get my diehard conservative mother to understand this 'cause she's too busy hating Martha for, you know, being Martha. It's frustrating.
Reason magazine "on dead tree" had a good article about eight months ago on this. I couldn't find that online, but I notice today they have
this one.
Posted by: ilyka at March 30, 2004 01:10 PM (Rkj9M)
2
Well I just dont like her. Thats my reason.
Posted by: pylorns at March 30, 2004 01:28 PM (FTYER)
3
Hell, I don't like her either. Doesn't make it any easier to swallow.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2004 01:46 PM (IOwam)
4
Well said, Jim. Too many people are blinded by the "joke factor" of Martha going to jail, without seeming to realize what a horrible precedent is being set.
Posted by: dave at March 30, 2004 02:04 PM (a16BY)
5
I love her. But I wholly understand why a lot of people don't. Seems like the anti-Martha sentiment more than anything is what was driving the prosecutor and jury.
Posted by: Venomous Kate at March 30, 2004 03:19 PM (YvEJI)
6
Quite right, Kate. Read that link that Ilyka posted. It's all about how the jury convicted based on how they felt about Martha.
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2004 03:24 PM (IOwam)
7
From what I've read on the matter, I agree. If you want to send her to jail for being Martha Stewart, then at least that's what it should say on the charge sheet.
Of course, then it would get kicked out on appeal, probably with damages awarded. Which is fine by me.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 31, 2004 03:46 AM (kOqZ6)
8
In full disclosure, I think Martha Stewart is the Anti-Christ.
Jim, keep in mind the serious charge against her (securities fraud, that is, insider trading) was dropped. She was convicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice and two counts of making false statements. The obstruction of justice stems from her modifying her call records--which was testified to by an eyewitness.
I suppose your next argument would be if she hadn't been arrested on (what you feel are) trumped-up charges, she wouldn't have had to obstruct justice. Of course, I'll just claim she must've had a guilty conscience about *something* otherwise...it'll turn into an endless loop, and I'll not touch on that. I'll talk about why the charges were brought, even tho I'm not a lawyer.
I confess insider trading, like art, is difficult to define, but you kinda know it when you see it. When your stockbroker is involved, though, it can get a little grey, but sometimes it can't. It gets grey because you pay him to advise you on when to buy and when to sell, and that's supposed to come from research you don't have time to do yourself. Fair enough.
But there are rules on how you can conduct that research, and acting on information that is supposed to be privy to only a few (it doesn't matter how you got that information) is against the rules...and the law. I don't know what the rules are concerning the FDA releasing the info to Imclone, so I can't comment on the legality of that, but the CEO of Imclone certainly knew that information would cause his stock to drop. When he started calling up people (doesn't matter who) and letting them know the drug was not approved *before* the official announcement was when insider trading laws were broken. The broker should not have passed on that info (neither to Martha nor to anyone else) and he probably should have contacted the SEC, under the law.
I think had Martha not done the things she was convicted of doing (changing her story, changing her phone logs), she would have been home free, and I suspect a jury would have seen that--I certainly would have. The article ilkya linked tries to sway my opinion, and it fails. Martha's own actions only convince me further she did something wrong.
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 11:16 AM (L3qPK)
9
I think you missed my major point. Martha was not and could not have been guilty of selling her stock based on any information no matter how she got it so long as she herself did not break a law in order to get the information. This is why all of the serious crimes she was originally accused of were either not pursued or were thrown out. There simply was no wrongdoing on her part in selling the stock.
What that means is she was convicted of conspiracy to commit a lawful act, obstruction of justice in pursuit of a non-crime and two counts of making false statements about a legal act.
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 11:28 AM (IOwam)
10
Jim, I concede any charges about insider-trading migh have been difficult to prove. Maybe Martha knew, maybe she didn't--but her actions afterward certainly imply she knew something was fishy. Otherwise, why would she have done them?
Panic? Maybe. Stupidity? Certainly. But if she had not done anything other than confess her innocence (and I mean
only that) I think she would have been scott-free.
Obstruction of justice is obstruction of justice,
whether or not a crime was committed in the first place. Start acting in a suspicious manner during an investigation (like, change your story), and a prosecutor will be on that like a pit bull on a steak. Had she just played dumb from day one, I doubt the case would have gone to trial. Instead, she played stupid.
Talk to any cop or judge. More people convict themselves than any prosecutor.
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 12:04 PM (L3qPK)
11
Wrong word in there: But if she had not done anything other than
profess her innocence ...
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 01:31 PM (L3qPK)
12
Not
difficult to prove.
Impossible to prove. Impossible to have been commited. Martha did not occupy a position to which that offense can be attributed. The only way she could possibly have been guilty of improperly benefiting from insider information would have been if she herself went out and acquired the information illegally. It is not illegal for an investor to act on information that is given to them, no matter who gives it to them or what their relationship is.
But how many people know that? The "street definition" that everybody knows is that using information that isn't in the public sphere makes you an inside trader. I'd put dollars to donuts that Martha didn't have any better grasp on it than that. So when the SEC came in accusing her of insider trading she panicked, just like anybody else would have. It's the freaking SEC! They know what they're doing, right? They wouldn't be coming after somebody who hadn't committed any crime, right?
Well in this case they definitely knew what they were doing and they came after somebody
until she committed a crime.
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:07 PM (IOwam)
13
Jim, I can see we're not going to convince each other, so on your last word let's agree to disagree, eh?
: extends hand and offers to buy the next round :
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 02:15 PM (L3qPK)
14
I can always go for a beer. I'll even give you that all would have been pie and apple cider for Martha if she'd just kept her yap shut.
How's that for magnanimous? ;-)
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:34 PM (IOwam)
15
Thanks, Jim. That was basically my entire point.
That is
so magnanimous I feel I should give you my first-born male child in return. I am not worthy of your magnanimosity.
Posted by: Victor at March 31, 2004 02:42 PM (L3qPK)
16
I appreciate the offer but I'll have to decline. I just went over this with
Ryan yesterday...you see, the upkeep on firstborns is way higher than the sales literature leads you to believe. Even if I got one for free it would be cost prohibitive to maintain. Since I've already got one the novelty factor wouldn't be there to compensate for the excessive costs. But thanks for the offer!
Posted by: Jim at March 31, 2004 02:54 PM (IOwam)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
I'm only posting this so Paul will link to me
Just kidding. Heh. (Or am I?)
I've tried to write it before but I didn't get anywhere near as funny as Paul of Skirting the Perimeter Sanity's Edge. For experienced bloggers it's a hoot. For newbies it's ironically apt instruction (in a tongue-in-cheek fashion). For non-bloggers it's as close to Nirvana as you're likely to come (unless you get a chance to suck on Courtney Love's boobies outside your local Wendy's restaurant). See the Blogging 101 series starting here and including the 3 posts following.
Posted by: Jim at
09:59 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
(Paul of Sanity's Edge)
Posted by: Jennifer at March 30, 2004 11:57 AM (DdBLw)
2
Skirting the Perimeter...Sanity's Edge...it's all good.
(Thanks Jen)
Posted by: Jim at March 30, 2004 12:18 PM (IOwam)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
She was robbed!
Here's proof that Christine got robbed in the
King of the Blogs competition. With the command of the English language that she's got you just know that the fix had to be in for somebody else to have won.
"Juxtasuppository". Oh, man I'm still giggling over that one.
Posted by: Jim at
09:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.
March 29, 2004
Shamming/Sharing (#10)
Update: Results are in the extended entry.
Want to know what it's about? See the Shamming/Sharing intro post.
My apologies for the time gap with the sham/shares. I got a little bit tipply last night whilst watching Matrix:Reloaded and Second Hand Lions. Both were good movies. I don't see what everybody was bitching about with Matrix2 there. It's an action movie, y'all. Don't be looking for a Tom Clancy plot in a Keenu vehicle. Anyway, I'm not tipply tonight but I am big time sleepy. I didn't want to put y'all off for another day but I was going to anyway until I thought of a great short anecdote and a great way to sham it. A short check with my pseudo-random number generator to find out which version to record for posterity and here it is for your guessing pleasure.
Is this anecdote a sham or a share?
In my crazy youth I worked at Wegman's grocery store. Just about all of the people I hung out with (and/or moved in with) also worked there. Thursday's were paydays so every Thursday we'd all go down to a local bar/restaurant to drink pitchers of beer and throw darts. And eat chicken wings - this was Buffalo, after all. This particular establishment was our place of choice because the Weggie's crew had established itself there and they didn't bother to card anybody in the group. I and my underage coworkers appreciated and exploited this trust.
Anyway, my step-mom had been on me for a while about drinking too much and basically challenged me to go a night with the crew without drinking anything. She did it in an obvious and pathetic reverse psychological way (You couldn't go out with those people a single time without drinking!) but I was ornery enough to want to prove her wrong anyway. I might have just needed to prove that to myself as well.
I had my teetotaler evening with my pitcher of Coke sticking out like a lone sentinel in a forest of amber beers. I was the first out when we broke for the evening since I didn't have to pony up for the tab (non-alcoholic beverages were free - designated driver program or some such). As I pulled out of the parking lot I noticed a car pull after me from a parking lot on the other side of the street. Yup, coppers. They followed me for about a quarter mile until I'd turned onto the Boulevard (the first big thoroughfare from the bar). They seemed a bit pissed when I told them I'd had only soda to drink and they quickly realized I wasn't bullshitting.
Fortunately for a couple of my friends it was only the one cruiser working that bar. The ones who might have had a problem with the police were spared due to my red herring.
Current Standings:
Four Correct
jim
Three Correct
MojoMark
Sue
Two Correct
Helen
Mike the Marine
mitzi
One Correct
Brian Jones
Jeremy
Lovely Wife
Mutinousdoug
Rob
Simon
Susie
Tiffani
Zero Correct
Everybody else
more...
Posted by: Jim at
03:40 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 590 words, total size 4 kb.
1
Well, my gut says its a fake, but a fat lot of good thats done so far, so Share it is.
Posted by: Tommy at March 21, 2004 10:27 AM (v0EoW)
2
Maybe you've got an anti-gut. You know, where every first impulse is exactly wrong. Once we find out how you did here we'll know for sure.
Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 10:45 AM (saeHM)
3
Isn't this the basis for an urban legend/joke?
I go with sham. Much like me, there is no way you would go into a bar and not have even ONE beer...
Posted by: Mike the Marine at March 21, 2004 03:34 PM (wMAr8)
4
I was going to say sham because Mike the Marine is right, but I'm going for share because it's way overdue, random generator or not.
Posted by: Simon at March 21, 2004 08:27 PM (GWTmv)
Posted by: mitzi at March 21, 2004 10:38 PM (LDjCQ)
6
So, you were the designated decoy. I'll go with share.
Posted by: Sue at March 21, 2004 11:54 PM (rZmE1)
7
share - the law of probability dictates that this can't be another fat ole lie
Posted by: Rob at March 22, 2004 05:23 AM (kXZI6)
8
Simon & Rob - Your humanity is showing. You know logically that previous results don't matter a whit to the pseudo-random number generator, right? I'm not using any smoothing algorithm so no matter what has come before, the current expected result is almost exactly an even chance for truth or false.
Posted by: Jim at March 22, 2004 05:42 AM (saeHM)
9
They also neglect the fact that that's what i chose. When in doubt vote against me, that way everyone else will be right or i get all the points, Mwahahahah...
Sorry.
Posted by: tommy at March 22, 2004 09:33 AM (v0EoW)
10
This Sham is proudly brought to you by Weigmans, "were an educated guesser is our best customer!"
Posted by: jim at March 22, 2004 09:40 AM (zE10C)
Posted by: MojoMark at March 22, 2004 11:54 AM (E+LQu)
12
Share. The story bears the ring of passionate truth and wistful reverie, just right for difficult times like these.
Posted by: Brian Jones at March 22, 2004 01:23 PM (E4NcZ)
13
I'm going with jim on this one. He's doing better than all of us. Sham
Posted by: Tiffani at March 22, 2004 02:07 PM (xpNFK)
14
I'm going to say share. I have no idea why, maybe I just have a crush on Simon and he said share, or maybe it was the term "pathetic reverse psychological way" that sold me.
Posted by: Helen at March 22, 2004 02:12 PM (VByzF)
15
Tommy got one right! Tommy got one right! Wooooop! Wooooop!
Posted by: Jim at March 29, 2004 03:45 PM (IOwam)
16
So the cheque cleared, did it? Alriiight.
Posted by: tommy at March 29, 2004 04:41 PM (v0EoW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
A jug of wine, a wedge of cheese and thou
Update: Results at the end of the extended entry.
Ah, yes. It is time once again for the Cheddar X
more...
Posted by: Jim at
02:37 PM
| Comments (16)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1100 words, total size 6 kb.
Posted by: Clancy at March 25, 2004 08:46 AM (EGVPL)
2
What could be dumber than somebody suing McDonalds because he's a fat bastard? I almost went with the guy who sued a library because their cat scared his dog but I just had to go with the Whopper here for the sheer audacity involved.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 09:09 AM (IOwam)
3
i dunno, so i say #1. Personally, i want mine to read "Don't pee here, I'm watching you."
Posted by: tommy at March 25, 2004 10:50 AM (v0EoW)
4
Or maybe
Look out! Behind you!
Heh
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 10:53 AM (IOwam)
5
I'm back to using logic. I'm sticking with #3.
I personally could come up with about 2,397,765,456 stupid lawsuits given enough time - say 5 minues?
Posted by: Clancy at March 25, 2004 12:04 PM (EGVPL)
Posted by: TIffani at March 25, 2004 02:02 PM (xpNFK)
7
#5? Really? I figured everybody would stay away from that like the plague.
Can somebody give me an example of a person who looks like their name?
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 02:05 PM (IOwam)
8
Hmmm... I'll say 6.
Ya gotta have a favorite unit of time. Me personally, I prefer fortnights, because they make up part of my favorite measure of velocity: FURLONGS PER FORTNIGHT.
Posted by: Mike the Marine at March 25, 2004 02:23 PM (68RUn)
9
I used to work with a guy whose name was Richard Weed. I'm not sure what that looks like, but the name was very appropriate...
Posted by: Clancy at March 25, 2004 02:58 PM (EGVPL)
10
I have a brother named Coco. I had a dog named Coco too (my dad side of the family)
My brother looked like the dog. Does that count?
Posted by: Tiffani at March 25, 2004 04:39 PM (xpNFK)
11
Clancy - Dickweed looks like a cross between pussy willows and cumquats.
Tiffani - Only if both of them were brown and bean shaped.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 04:45 PM (IOwam)
12
I'll go with 7 - you have way too much taste to be impressed by javascript swirly clocks ... and even if I'm not right maybe a point for the flattery? Damn ... did I just type that out loud?
Posted by: Rob at March 26, 2004 05:30 AM (kXZI6)
13
They both WERE brownish. Their brains were as small as a bean. Close enough in my book.
Posted by: Tiffani at March 26, 2004 09:52 AM (xpNFK)
14
Mike the Marine has a point. Furlongs per fortnight is about the best measurement out there. I once calculated the speed of light through whiskey in furlongs per fortnight. I still go with #1, though.
Posted by: Tommy at March 26, 2004 06:50 PM (v0EoW)
Posted by: Jeremy at March 27, 2004 07:53 AM (FTWUX)
16
well, i think of it as taking one for the team. When i answer, there is always one fewer choice for the correct answer, because the one i pick is always wrong. See, i'm helping out humanity, yeah, thats it.
Posted by: tommy at March 29, 2004 03:25 PM (v0EoW)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
That Ryan is such a fungi
Ryan Rhodes has left the nightmare that is Blog*Spot for the comfort and security of the woobie we call Munuviana. In other words, Rambling Rhodes is now a MuNu blog! Woo hoo!
Go ahead and visit my new neighbor. I did the template but the artwork is 100% Ryan.
Posted by: Jim at
01:09 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at March 29, 2004 01:44 PM (+S1Ft)
2
Hey, I heard he was a real ass!
Posted by: notGeorge at March 29, 2004 02:20 PM (JCxVY)
Posted by: LW at March 29, 2004 03:10 PM (saeHM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Bestofme Symphony, 17th Edition
The
17th Bestofme Symphony is up at Rocket Jones. Ted's a bit under the weather but he's still put together a kick-ass edition. Head on over and get your Monday started up right.
Hosting: Would you like to host the Symphony? Send me a note and I'll get you on the schedule.
Submit to the Symphony: Want to be a part of next week's edition? Check out this post for submission help. Entries should always be sent to bestofme@jpeacock.net regardless of who the Symphony host is.
Spread the word: Webloggers, please give Ted a hand by spreading the word. He's a guy so he doesn't have that "everybody links automatically 'cause a chick wrote it" thing going on.
Email Reminders: If you'd like to be sent a reminder about the Symphony, join the mailing list. There's one email sent on Thursday or Friday to remind you to submit for the next Symphony and one on Monday with the location of the newly posted Symphony.
Posted by: Jim at
05:53 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.
March 28, 2004
Bite Me
I am Chocolate Flavoured.
I am sweet and a little bit naughty. I am one of the few clinically proven aphrodisiacs. Sometimes I can seem a little hard, but show warmth and I soon melt. What Flavour Are You?
|
(Snagged from Dodgeblogium)
Posted by: Jim at
09:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 46 words, total size 1 kb.
1
melts in your mouth eh...
Posted by: pylorns at March 28, 2004 01:43 PM (FTYER)
2
Yeah, but I pretty much melt in the hand too.
Posted by: Jim at March 28, 2004 05:37 PM (saeHM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 27, 2004
Submissions Wanted
Send in your submissions for the
Bestofme Symphony and win a million dollars!
(Please note that sending in a submission does not make you elligible to win a million dollars.)
Send your submissions to bestofme@jpeacock.net and they'll be in Monday's edition at Rocket Jones.
The only requirements are that you think the post is good and that it be at least 2 months old. It doesn't even have to be from your own blog. Now that's accomodating!
The basics of the Bestofme Symphony.
Want to host a Symphony?
Get reminder emails.
Posted by: Jim at
09:12 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 95 words, total size 1 kb.
March 26, 2004
Playing hooky
Expect nuthin' today, y'all. The weather is gorgeous and I've got serious Spring Fever. I'm playing hooky and will be spending the bulk of the day in relaxation at various outdoor locations.
Ahhhhhh...Spring...
Posted by: Jim at
09:25 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Yeah, don't tell anyone but I'm cutting work as soon as possible too. Enjoy.
Posted by: Brian Jones at March 26, 2004 11:14 AM (E4NcZ)
2
Jim,
I'm mad at you...how could you leave me on a day where I had nada to do. PLUS you have points to give away! Don't you know I live for the points? I mean come onnnnnn I'm in third place - I know I know I have absolutley no life.
Posted by: Tiffani at March 26, 2004 07:31 PM (rZmE1)
3
Oh, but I had such a blast! Gorgeous weather, dogs and kids splashing in lakes, balls flying, car batteries dying...what a day!
Posted by: Jim at March 26, 2004 11:17 PM (saeHM)
4
Car batteries dying, huh?
That's karma getting you back for the hooky thing...
Posted by: Clancy at March 27, 2004 09:45 PM (X8MtX)
5
That wasn't karma, it was
carma.
Posted by: Jim at March 28, 2004 11:32 AM (saeHM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
March 25, 2004
The Fashion of the Christ
Just like Mel's production, only less scourging and more color selection. Let's play
Jesus Dress-up!
Posted by: Jim at
04:36 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.
1
oohhh, Jim, that's bad....
Posted by: Tiffani at March 25, 2004 04:51 PM (xpNFK)
2
Yeah, I know.
I'm going to Hell, aren't I?
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 04:54 PM (IOwam)
3
I'm right there with ya..
Posted by: Tiffani at March 25, 2004 04:57 PM (xpNFK)
4
It can't be hell if you're properly accessorized.
Posted by: LeeAnn at March 25, 2004 09:13 PM (HxCeX)
5
How did we all manage to fit into one handbasket? And where are we going in such a rush?
Posted by: Mike the Marine at March 26, 2004 10:17 AM (68RUn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Price of Morality
District's stance against transgender policy threatens budget
The Westminster School District is taking a costly stand against the State of California. They have chosen not to comply with mandated changes in their anti-discrimination policy and this threatens their state and federal funding. As a consequence, Bank of America has rejected their application for a $16 million credit line that was to be used for upcoming facilities improvements.
Three of the five members of the school board twice voted against new language for the district's discrimination policy that would allow students to file complaints if they were discriminated against based on their gender or "perceived gender."
Preceived gender? What in the world is that? Apparently it is confusing PC-speech for transvestites and/or transexuals. So if a girl dresses up as a boy I'm guessing that this California law protects her rights to use the mens room and allows her recourse to cry discrimination if somebody treats her like a girl.
School board trustee Judy Ahrens said she and the other members who voted against the change are "standing up for morality."
In this case standing up for morality is going to cost funding amounting to half of their annual budget as well as the money needed for fixing and expanding their infrastructure. Personally I couldn't agree with them more.
(Cross posted from Zero Intelligence)
Posted by: Jim at
10:38 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 2 kb.
1
thats a bunch of crap. what is it trendy to not know your gender now?
Posted by: pylorns at March 25, 2004 11:44 AM (FTYER)
2
I think it's called people should respect other people's choices. On my view, the school board is making stand to allow bullying. They *should* lose their funding. No one is making anyone say anything (besides adopt the policy-- which is a weakness to my argument I see)--- but still, why can't there be room; live and let live? I mean let's live in the real world, on the *real* all too real playground where the bullies come after those who are different. Hell look at the senate and house going after them homosekshuals who, if given a chance will break up everyone's sacred marriage the moment they say I do. [sigh; pissing in the wind, I know]
Posted by: Mark at March 25, 2004 01:41 PM (S8Ay0)
3
That's a very common mistake, Mark. There already are policies against bullying and harrassment. The key thing here would be giving special protections to a certain demographic. My examples were a bit humorous with Transgender Girl wanting to use the mens room but the exact same scenario was described by the board as a reason they are refusing to comply with redefining the anti-harassment policy.
To put it plainly, the policy mandated by the state will make it impossible to keep any boy out of the girls locker room if he claims that he "feels like a woman" that day. It would be discrimination against his perceived sex to do so.
It is bullshit legislation and I applaud the school system for recognizing it and fighting against it.
Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2004 02:00 PM (IOwam)
4
I find it preposterous that they felt the need to enact legislation against discrimination in the first place. It is against federal law to discriminate against anyone as it is. Wasting taxpayers dollars thinking up new ways to restate what has already been said does nothing for those kids, the district or the state. I am all for decentralized government but when the states start making laws "just cuz", it ends up being used to blackmail individuals and organizations into a certain type of state or federally approved behavior.
Posted by: Christine at March 25, 2004 03:49 PM (Q/NXM)
5
In my opinion there is NO SUCH thing as "discrimination".All that word means to me is: "another excuse to get away with some shit ass aditude".There might be a thing as "exclution" but generally those who complain are the ones asking to be excluded and therefore discriminated.And there we are again....the perfect excuse for something I do not like....discrimination.I feel discriminated because you damn americans do not post anything in MY language (German,Dutch...take a pick) here!
Screw you,I am going home.Screw you----home.
Posted by: LW at March 25, 2004 04:36 PM (saeHM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
89kb generated in CPU 0.2102, elapsed 0.315 seconds.
102 queries taking 0.2815 seconds, 354 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.