taysteewonderbunny

I'm just pleased at punch that I finally got to get at you for something. Finally there's proof that you aren't totally Chuck Norris.

Yeah, what I said a full 10 minutes before you.

I'm sorry you are feeling ill. I hope you recover soon. But I have always thought that an odd turn of phrase. Seeing as we are generally earthbound and requiring its atmosphere for our survival, with the exception of orbital space ventures, we are all "under the weather" all the time.

No, love. It is not possible to dye synthetic hair. It has to be manufactured with the colorant because the end product is not porous.

How do you know they don't like you; they don't even know you! No, I know what you mean. But there are non-mainstream people everywhere, usually lurking in the shadows. I'm sure they'll turn up, even in Port Huron. In the meantime, welcome to DGN.

Spook and I will see you! We're going to the SS7 show at the Leland. Yay!

I'm bummed too.

I think American women are, overall, bad at flirting because Americans, despite the hype, tend to be more prudish, especially in their assessments of the moral character of aggressive women. It would help if we, as a whole, stopped identifying assertive behaviors in women as being a) emasculating of the male, b) dyke-like (as in an unequivocal display of lack of feminine characteristics in a biological female), c) slutty.

It looks like we won't have Tyger with us after all. But Spook and I are still attending. Btw, how much is the SS7 album? I want to know how much money to bring (very limited budget in our house atm).

It really shouldn't be this hard to buy a TV stand on Craigslist. Twelve inquiries and NO responses.

Embedding disabled, but click on THIS LINK to see a Lego model of New York City from 2008.

^ I think it is. Now that our Stone Soup Tuesdays are happening only every other Tuesday, I might finally be able to make it to one of these.

Yes. We can most definitely do this. Ms. Tyger, you have a ride and a place to crash.

I don't understand the mother's argument. Where is the harm? Is she implying that having to say "no" to her child regarding unhealthy lifestyle choices is harming the child? Or is she saying that saying "no" to her child is harming her? OR is she saying that McDonald's marketing is negating her ability to effectively say "no" to her child? It almost seems that this mother is alleging that in no other context would she ever have to tell her child that she or he cannot have a particular toy--but that's ludicrous. She'd have more of a case if she was attempting to establish any of the following: McDonald's produces food for children that is not fit for children's consumption; that is, that for most children, consuming an entire Happy Meal is detrimental to the child's health in a single instance OR the product or the product's marketing is designed to produce a real chemical or psychological dependency on the product and its regular consumption is harmful to the child's health. McDonald's does not appropriately label its products whereby parents can make better educated decisions regarding their child's consumption of the product. Even so, it doesn't seem she is alleging harm already sustained, so I don't know how she has any grounds for a suit. Especially because McDonald's has permitted the sale of the toy without the Happy Meal for years. The only thing this woman has done that doesn't seem harebrained to me is to pick McDonald's--they have the most revenue and, consequently, the largest possible payout.

I just love it when a man shows his brains on the field. But not when they're scattered all over the field. That looks like a sport where a helmet is less "head protection" than "containment device."

Only if it's impossible for the four of you to inhabit the same space at the same time.

Welcome!

Hello and welcome!

Spook and I will be there.

Best excuse EVER to spend all day at the movies and then room in a motel.

Contented.

Welcome! Nice of you to post. I hope it becomes habitual. *drum roll*

Now those are arthropods I can eat!

I don't really care whom he considers a brother or sister of whom he is not by blood a sibling. What I care about is whether this is a declaration that he will treat some people with prejudice and others deferentially based upon their religious beliefs. If the answer is yes, then he openly violates the U.S. Constitution which, given the First and Fourteenth Amendments together, prohibits an elected officer from making those distinctions. If he is merely making it known that, when not serving in an official governmental capacity, he hopes to persuade people to accept his beliefs, but otherwise, especially when officiating as Governor, does NOT make distinctions between his constituents based upon religion, then he should be safe. Even Evangelical Christians have the right to run and be elected to office. This is just a case of "wait and see."

^ Yes, as Cherny pointed out, it was flagged for removal. What was the deal with the dead dogs?