text:
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Comics 971 and 972: Alternatively Lame
Then I read the alt text. I don't think Randy has ever more explicitly spelled out what a comic is about, or why he is writing it, in the alt text before. That's a lot of text for an alt text. And then you go back through and read it and it becomes clear that this comic is just another boring, lazy strawman attack on proponents of homeopathy. I don't think this even counts as pandering, but that may just be because I can't bring myself to give a fuck about it.
972. Here's what's happening here. I had to get someone to explain to me why this comic exists, because originally I thought 'surely Randy can't think that being aware of your tongue is that annoying, can he? and even if it is, it's not worth a comic, surely?'
How wrong I was.
Anyway, what's happening here is Randy read this Peanuts comic and decided to copy the joke more or less in its entirety, then, as an Original Twist, he declared that November would be tongue awareness month. That way once you know that you'd spend the whole month being aware of your tongue, and then you'd forget about it as soon as December rolls around. Just like how during breast cancer awareness month, Randy's only thoughts were of breasts and the milky bounty they contain, during tongue awareness month, your only thoughts will be of tongues.
BAM! Month ruined! How d'you like that, you fuckers?
I don't think I need to explain how mind-numbingly stupid this whole 'if I tell you to be aware of your tongue for a whole month, you will be' thing is. It's dumb. It's very, very dumb. This joke is dumb. This meme is dumb. Even the forumites are calling this the worst one of all time. Why the fuck would you intentionally release this as a comic?
82 comments:
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 9:51 PM
Maybe he has an oral fixation.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 9:54 PM
Maybe Rob has a dick fixation.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 10:13 PM
I've got a floral dick station.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 11:14 PM
I've got a moral fixed Asian.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 11:28 PM
Usually I don't agree with much on here, but Randall's colossal raging anti-boner for homeopathy bores the snot out of me.ReplyDelete
I guess I can give him credit for at least posting the comic in response to something, instead of just randomly raging against it?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 2, 2011 at 11:48 PM
See, Randall's not only doing a homage to Peanuts. He's also playing with that "awareness month/week/year" thing that has become all the rage of the past decade or two, not to mention giving his readers another opportunity to brag about how obsessive compulsive they are. He's one-upping Mr. Schultz, working on multiple levels at once, thinking outside the box while working within it. This is what comics as they are supposed to be, bitches.ReplyDelete
i don't think you know what a strawman attack isReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 12:25 AM
Funnier than every single XKCD and this site combined.
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 12:39 AM
I am dipping my penis gingerly into a jar of brine.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 3:44 AM
Hey, I was going to drink that, 12:39.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 4:15 AM
Okay, the whole breast milk thing? It's so overdone at this point that its inclusion in a given review is more boring than any actual xkcd strip. The fact that this site continues to flog this decayed horse carcass of a joke says more about the contributors here than it does about Randall. It's predictable, it's tedious, and frankly, its overuse single-handedly undermines all your (otherwise legitimate) complaints about Randall's own overused memes and recycled jokes. Please let it go.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 4:45 AM
The previous poster's got it right (4:15). As much as xkcd does suck, this blog is only slightly more entertaining. Most criticisms that Rob goes out of his way to formulate on xkcd, can pretty much be equally accused of his own lame humour.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 4:49 AM
Enough with the Megan jokes!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 5:04 AM
Do rabbits have negroes? I know bees do, hence the whole Africanized honey bee shebang, and so do chickens for what it's worth.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 5:16 AM
Gotta congratulate Rob on his epic trolling here. His dedication would be admirable if it weren't so pointless.ReplyDelete
Nobody could be that dumb, to assume the intentions of the writer and get so offended by them. So I figured it was cognitive dissonance. But then I kept reading. Trolling is the only possible cause for this blog.
I think the last ten years of The Simpsons sucked, but I don't write a blog picking apart every little detail, assuming to know what the writers were thinking and projecting my feelings of superiority on them.
Kudos on the epic trolling.
anything that offends me is a trollReplyDelete
What's ironic is that your insistence that this is trolling is, to me, trolling.ReplyDelete
Also, I give you a 2.5/10. Nothing that you've said is new and it seems a rehash of old complaint comments. Try harder next time.
(The best complaint comment that I've ever seen was in fact in the previous thread. It had a balanced viewpoint and the author didn't delude themselves.)ReplyDelete
From '00 to '05 were, I think, the best Simpsons episodes, but if you made a blog about bashing the most recent few years' episodes, I would most certainly visit regularly.ReplyDelete
Do it, my good faggot.
God this post just randallized everything with its studip strawman. god damn. pos.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 11:51 AM
here's what's difficult about stupid things.ReplyDelete
say some people believe a stupid thing, like the earth is flat. then you make some commentary on how dumb it is. finally, several flat-earthers accuse you of strawmanning because you ridiculed a slightly different version of the flat-earth theory than the one they hold dear.
whatever any particular person believes about homeopathy, or god, does not change the fact that a very large number of people believe in "medication" with zero active components, or in a bearded man who literally created the world 6000 years ago.
calling "strawman" out on that is like a nazi calling out "strawman" on Schindler's List because he happens to hate asians more than jews.
goomhr i have a tongue tooReplyDelete
You're seriously a fucking idiot. God doesn't have a beard. He shaved off everything except for his mustache for "Movember". Fuck you're stupid.
On a different note, I've never been unnerved by the thought of my tongue because I am not a mentally retarded aspie.
this is offensive to people who don't have tonguesReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 12:50 PM
November 3, 2011 5:16 AM, I agree with you. He creates a whole character ("Randy") and then bludgeons him. Funnily enough, among other things, he accuses "Randy" of using strawman attacks. Go figure...ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 12:51 PM
you are now aware of your penisReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM
I wish I had one to be aware of :(ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM
goomh12:51 i have a penis i am aware of 2ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM
It's only a dumb joke if his tongue is missing ;)ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 2:32 PM
goomh anon, my tongue is missingReplyDelete
- SemicolonsNovember 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM
Who the fuck isn't aware that they have a tongue? Seriously, i want a list so i can never interact with these people again.ReplyDelete
I didn't think it was possible to lose more respect for randy, but i was wrong.
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 2:39 PM
sometimes i forget i have a whole body and freak out when i realise i have a hole dedicated for shit release.ReplyDelete
live and let live, semi colons.
capture, ducko.
Ducks aren't sentient, maybe they are not aware that they too, have assholes.
food for thought.
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 2:57 PM
cptnoremac, you either have unforgivably bad taste or are too young to know any better. The Simpsons peaked in 1996 and has gone consistently downhill since then. There hasn't been an episode that could even reasonably be called "good" since 1999.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 4:17 PM
Semicolons... if you think that, did you lose any respect for Charles Schulz after reading the comic in the link above?ReplyDelete
Just wondering.
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 4:28 PM
I DRINK GAY PISSReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 6:08 PM
HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKSReplyDelete
The joke of 972 is that Randall spent so much time online, that he has became unaware of his vital body parts. So he was unjustifiably annoyed when his roommate reminded him that he did indeed have a tongue.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 7:05 PM
i'm not gay but if i was gay i could sure go for a cock right about nowReplyDelete
- SemicolonsNovember 3, 2011 at 7:09 PM
yes and no. i didn't read the comic at first (just took rob's word for it). I see the peanuts comic more of just linus being the utter failure and fuck up that he is. the joke in the peanuts comic seems to be more of the fact that linus' failure is so complete that he infects lucy and she too becomes a failure (for the moment).
I don't see the peanuts comic as a reflection of shultz's view of tongues. i DO see randy's abortion (and/or aberration) as a reflection of his own views.
and i generally do lose respect overall for shultz because he even brought it up at all.
Um, no, the early episodes are horrible and unrefined. If you laugh at Homer choking Bart for the 50th time more than at Flanders asking permission to borrow his own chainsaw Homer stole, then I feel sorry for you.
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 9:23 PM
Morons, the Simpsons was only really good for the first three or so seasons. The episode where Homer is ashamed of his family, the episode where Bart ruins thanksgiving, the episode where Bart is wracked with guilt for receiving accolades when he cheated in an exam... this was the era of The Simpsons written for people with an attention span. This was when we really could consider The Simpsons an adult cartoon.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 9:26 PM
I should have known better than to click on a link in the comments of a site that would naturally attract trolls together.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 9:40 PM
873 is another "we are so old, x happened y years ago!!!" comic. I think this is the fifth one he has done?ReplyDelete
it's 973 you useless piece of shitReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 3, 2011 at 11:10 PM
Another tantalising hint as to who the White Hat Guy truly is. Apparently he's old enough to not possibly be considered part of the MTV generation, which Randall has handily calculated for us as something over 40 (if he was younger he would have figured Megan to be lumping him in with them), and his opinions are always wrong.ReplyDelete
White Hat man comics boil down to "the trouble with old folk today" rants.
- Jim PantsNovember 4, 2011 at 1:08 AM
-SAMEFAGS above this line-ReplyDelete
What? The Simpsons is better than ever. Didn't you guffaw when Homer was raped by a panda? I GOOMHGED so hard at that moment. Lousy SAMEFAGS.
The point of 973 is that words can change with time (?) and how stupid people other than me are (which is, a lot.)
It is not a good comic as for the first ten seconds I thought White Hat Guy was Black Hat Guy who is Perfect but it was not and White Hat Guy is not so good.
-SAMEFAGS below this line-
973 is a comic that starts off making a clever point, and then goes nowhere. The punchline is useless, and the alt text is terrible. It's just another way of saying 'Gee, can you believe how much time has passed since [X]? Doesn't that make you feel old?' and it's not even done well.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 2:48 AM
That comic came out over two years ago. Hey, doesn't that make you feel old?!ReplyDelete
HOLY SHIT! RANDALL JUST BLEW THIS MYTH WIDE OPEN!ReplyDelete
Also, could Tim B^Uckly drag out CAD anymore.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 6:22 AM
Playing a game or doing something on your phone that makes noises means that you have a low attention span?ReplyDelete
Who the fuck knew.
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 6:55 AM
973 was Megan's deliciously milky rebuttal to Randy when he asked her to grant him a pornstar daughter.ReplyDelete
scott, you're only complaining because you were beaten by a manchildReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM
I think this blog is the only place where homeopathy will be stood up for by scientists, and that is a doubly sad state of affairsReplyDelete
Beaten off*ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM
Wow, I know I'm late to the party and all, but the goatkcd for 969 is pretty amazing.ReplyDelete
Overdosing on homeopathic medicine gave James Randi cancer.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 10:05 AM
Surf the random goatkcd's for awhile. A lot of them are hilarious. The one panel comics become pictures of goatse with awesome captions. The multi-panel comics suddenly end on a punchline, a punchline that actually feels like it fits in the comic better than the intended one.ReplyDelete
It's absurd that jamming goatse into anything would improve it, but it's the best thing to ever happen to xkcd.
goatkcd is overrated. Someone should start a blog about how overrated it is.ReplyDelete
Goomh, Randall, I just saw the Breakfast Club Tuesday night!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 3:34 PM
You know, just for fucking once, I'd like to see an xkcd where a female is wrong about something and a male corrects her. Why the hell are women always the more intelligent ones in xkcd comics? Other than because Randall is desperate to portray himself as a feminist so he can get some pussy?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM
GOOMHR EARLIER TODAY I NOTICED THAT TIME PASSES LINEARLYReplyDelete
I have not heard anyone refer to the youth demographic with the term "MTV generation" in at least a decade.ReplyDelete
Okay, the whole "stop with the Megan jokes" thing? It's so overdone at this point that its inclusion in a given comment section is more boring than any actual xkcd review. The fact that this comment section continues to flog this decayed horse carcass of a complaint says more about the contributors here than it does about Rob. It's predictable, it's tedious, and frankly, its overuse single-handedly undermines all your (otherwise legitimate) complaints about Rob's own overused memes and recycled jokes. Please let it go.ReplyDelete
the part that confuses me is that people think my complaints are otherwise legitimateReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 7:55 PM
972 would have been better as just the first panel. Kinda like how Zach Weiner makes most of his comics, though obviously not as well.ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 8:11 PM
the best comic strip of all time
- AnonymousNovember 4, 2011 at 8:22 PM
^ lulzReplyDelete
Here's a caption one I liked:
Ian, that is b/c I presume you are a regular member of society who does not make his living off of T-Shirt sales.ReplyDelete
- Dicksmash McIroncockNovember 4, 2011 at 9:53 PM
While we're on the subject, I find this one to be hilarious: http://goatkcd.com/843/sfwReplyDelete
- Dicksmash McIroncockNovember 4, 2011 at 9:56 PM
So is this one. That would be an excellent way to troll JWs who knock on your door.ReplyDelete
- Dicksmash McIroncockNovember 4, 2011 at 10:02 PM
Sorry, one moreReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 at 12:50 AM
People need to stop telling people to stop complaining about Megan jokes. It's getting boring.ReplyDelete
- NoobyonNovember 5, 2011 at 3:54 AM
How is 971 a strawman?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 at 4:20 AM
Here's three of my favorites:ReplyDelete
http://goatkcd.com/876 (this is awesome, the brain is somehow trapped in the ass lolz)
@Anon 3:34ReplyDelete
945 comes close. It is also for once a comic that doesn't have a good goatkcd.
- Dicksmash McIroncockNovember 5, 2011 at 6:43 AM
I swear 857 was made specifically for goatkcd.ReplyDelete
If Randy only became aware within the past couple of days that he has a tongue, why ISN'T that fodder for more Megan humor?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousNovember 5, 2011 at 3:16 PM
because cunnilingus is not kosher because it has hooves, marion fagadoReplyDelete


text:
Posted on July 20, 2009
Time is getting short! If you haven't planned your shopping at the 25th Annual Newberry Library Book Fair (60 W. Walton Street in Chicago, July 23-26, indoors with air conditioning, admission is free: got all that down?), let me tempt you with some of our other treasures.
We have a metronome which works perfectly IF it is held at a 45 degree angle. Set it flat and it won't tick.
We have a wooden sculpture which came with the note that the donor picked this up on a Caribbean island but can't remember which one. (yeah, we understand about vacations like that.)
We have a rare set of the complete works of George Washington in umpteen volumes, worth a good $2,000 of anyone's money EXCEPT that the previous owner let one volume get really, really damp.
We have not one but three framed prints by the same artist. The donor brought them in, shrugged, and said "He's a relative."
We have a large collection of music from a professional musician. (You can tell he's professional because he's marked in his own chords on just about every song, and the covers of his most used fake books are missing.)
Unless I decide to sell it on eBay, we have a collection of deluxe 2-disc set movies from each one of which the donor removed the disc with the movie, leaving only the Special Features disc.
We have the first American edition of The Hound of the Baskervilles, with a signed inscription dated 1909 from A. Conan Doyle. Problem is that the person who wrote "A. Conan Doyle" was absolutely NOT the Arthur Conan Doyle who wrote the book. Yeah, sure: maybe it was signed by some OTHER A. Conan Doyle—there was at least one—or maybe the REAL author was for some reason disguising his handwriting and writing in a way he never did or maybe….
Not all treasures justify the security cameras over the Collectors' section.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Henry Kissinger at the Bilderberger Conference in
"The UFO investigator and lecturer Nono Hayakawa says this plan is called 'Project Panic' and that high technology equipment will be used to create an optical illusion of a UFO invasion. This will give governments and the United Nations the excuse to call a global state of emergency and all those emergency powers and executive orders will be implemented." -David Icke, "The Biggest Secret" (486)
Almost every movie or TV show you have ever seen about aliens or the Moon came from a Freemasonic director! All of these were made by Masons: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ET, Taken, Alien 1-4, Independence Day, 2001: Space Odyssey, Star Wars, Star Trek, Men In Black, From the Earth to the Moon, Apollo 13, War of the Worlds, and the X-Files.
Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek was a 33rd Degree Scottish-Rite Freemason. This is why we have "Scotty," Spock's Kabalistic/Masonic "V" hand gesture, pyramid-shaped communicators, and other Masonic symbols. The name Captain "Kirk" comes from "Circe" and means "church" in Scottish. So the church (Captain Kirk) is the head of the starship
George Lucas, the creator of
"Since the 1970's, Spielberg has directed or produced seven of the top twenty grossing films of all time. Throughout his career we see an obsession with the alien/UFO/space theme. From the 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind to ET in 1982, to Deep Impact in 1998. All depict an invasion from outer space. Even the movie Jaws is littered with shooting stars and strange lights in the sky. Spielberg was also executive producer for the July 2002 release Men in Black 2, a movie where a shadow government 'protects' the people of the world from an alien threat. In February 1997 a leading light in the British film industry leaked the story that Spielberg and executives of his company DreamWorks had secretly met with senior Pentagon officials in
Steven Spielberg is known to have attended Bilderberg in 1999 and perhaps in other years. There are also allegations that the infamous "Alien Autopsy" and "Alien Interview" footage were Spielberg productions. The Rockefellers funded/supported Erick Von Daniken (who was caught with fake "artifacts") and many other early "UFOlogists" and "ancient astronaut" theorists. Why do you suppose this is?Remember the poster for Steven Spielberg's ET that replaced the finger of God in Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel with the finger of an alien? This is the Psy-Op.
We're supposedly generation X. Aliens keep telling "contactees" that Annunaki Planet X is coming in 2012. The X-Files on Fox lends plausibility and builds the mystery of aliens. A supposed government insider with knowledge of Area 51, UFOs, and aliens calls himself "Mr. X." He always interviews in the dark or appears blurred with voice modification and supposedly blows the whistle on all these top-secret documents he has read. Is this just coincidence?
SETI, the government organization in a "Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence" is Masonically named after an Egyptian Pharaoh. CC like the "alien" Crop Circles and the CCs on the "Moon" encode Masonic 33. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: Space Odyssey came out 33 years prior in 1968. In 1947 the Area 51/Roswell UFO allegedly landed at 33.33 degrees north latitude (the Masonic number) and 104 degrees longitude. Interestingly, 104 is 33.33 multiplied by Pi (3.14159), and 33.33 degrees latitude is exactly 2012 miles from the equator. Thus 2012 and Masonic 33 have been numerically encoded into the alien hoax since the beginning. Also in 1947 the
Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati wrote, "Of all the means I know to lead men, the most effectual is a concealed mystery. The hankering of the mind is irresistible; and if once a man has taken it into his head that there is a mystery in a thing, it is impossible to get it out, either by argument or experience. And then, we can so change notions by merely changing a word. What more contemptible than fanaticism; but call it enthusiasm; then add the little word noble, and you may lead him over the world."
The whole idea is to create an insatiable occult mystery to make you think aliens must be real. In 1947, 33rd degree Mason and President Harry S. Truman formed Majestic-12 or MJ-12, a secret committee of scientists and government officials assigned to investigate
Richard Hoagland uses the Masonic "
"Dr. Steven Greer is the director of the Disclosure Project, a non-profit research project working to fully disclose the facts about UFOs, extraterrestrial intelligence, and classified advanced energy and propulsion systems. In a June 2002 article he warned of how a phony UFO invasion would be presented to the public so they would willingly sacrifice their liberty and rally round the government in opposition to the nefarious ET's. Greer describes the ultimate trump card – a hoaxed threat from space, Since 1992 I have seen this script unveiled to me by at least a dozen well-placed insiders. Of course, initially I laughed, thinking this just too absurd and far-fetched. Dr. Rosin gave her testimony to the Disclosure Project before 9/11. And yet others told me explicitly that things that looked like UFOs but that are built and under the control of deeply secretive 'black' projects, were being used to simulate - hoax - ET-appearing events, including some abductions and cattle mutilations, to sow the early seeds of cultural fear regarding life in outer space. Like the movie Independence Day, an attempt to unite the world through militarism would unfold using ET as the new cosmic scapegoat (think Jews during the Third Reich). Do not be deceived. By commingling fact with fiction, and by hoaxing UFO events that can look terrifying, the Plan is to eventually create a new, sustainable, off-planet enemy. And who will be the wiser?" -Paul Joseph Watson, "Order Out of Chaos" (167)
Buy The Atlantean Conspiracy Now


text:
By signing in, you agree to our Terms of Service.
Forgot your Intel
Do you work for Intel? Sign in here.
The browser version you are using is not recommended for this site.Please consider upgrading to the latest version of your browser by clicking one of the following links.
Download PDF
Accelerate your most compute-intensive workloads with Intel® Advanced Vector Extensions 512 (Intel® AVX-512).
Dynamically monitor power management at all data center levels, optimizing throughput, load balance.
Intel® Xeon® processors and Intel® technologies provide performance for personalized medicine.
See how Intel is addressing tomorrow's HPC needs for digital content, weather, financial services, and more.
Delivers flexibility, performance, and scalability for both compute- and data-intensive applications.
Intel's Rajeeb Hazra shares his perspective on Argonne National Laboratory's selection of Intel to design and deliver next generation supercomputers as well as the impact to HPC and technical...


text:
Dear Abby: Homophobic Couple Feels Excluded By Neighborhood...After Excluding Gay Couples
Hmm...so a homophobic couple is shocked (SHOCKED they say!) when the residents in their new neighorbood exclude them from social activities after the bigoted couple consciously excludes their gay neighbors from a gathering in their home.
What advice does Abby (Jeanne Phillips) have for the now lonely couple? Take a look!
DEAR ABBY: My husband and I relocated to Florida a little over a year ago and were quickly welcomed into our new neighbors' social whirl. Two couples in the neighborhood are gay — one male, one female. While they are nice enough, my husband and I did not include them when it was our turn to host because we do not approve of their lifestyle choices. Since then, we have been excluded from neighborhood gatherings, and someone even suggested that we are bigots!
Abby, we moved here from a conservative community where people were pretty much the same. If people were "different," they apparently kept it to themselves. While I understand the phrase "when in Rome," I don't feel we should have to compromise our values just to win the approval of our neighbors. But really, who is the true bigot here? Would you like to weigh in? — UNHAPPY IN TAMPA
DEAR UNHAPPY: I sure would. The first thing I'd like to say is that regardless of what you were told in your previous community, a person's sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle choice." Gay people don't choose to be gay; they are born that way. They can't change being gay any more than you can change being heterosexual.
I find it interesting that you are unwilling to reciprocate the hospitality of people who welcomed you and opened their homes to you, and yet you complain because you are receiving similar treatment.
From where I sit, you may have chosen the wrong place to live because it appears you would be happier in a less integrated neighborhood surrounded by people who think the way you do. But if you interact only with people like yourselves, you will have missed a chance for growth, which is what you have been offered here. Please don't blow it.
It looks like this couple was served their just desserts. Kudos to the neighborhood for not letting this people "mean girl" the gays on the block based on their "conservative" beliefs.
Sucks to feel excluded, right??
(H/T: The Gaily Grind)
I would like to understand how our lives the LGBT community are any different from straight couples in our day to day activities or how we do things. We do the exact same thing that all the rest of the straight community members do, we go to work, we come home have supper, wash the dishes, change clothes, go to bed, get up take a shower, and go back to work. I don't understand how our lives are any less civilized or any less human or should mean anything less in society than straight peoples lives already mean. Maybe our partners have the same physical anatomy as us but the love is the same, the day to day activities are the exact same, what we do during our lives are the exact same. We get married, we go shopping, we buy vehicles, we go to the bank, we raise our families. The only difference I can come up with is that we have to fight court battle after court battle day after day to get our relationships recognized by the individual states and we live under the same exact constitution that states every man is created equal. Equal UNDER LAW! Not separate and equal BUT EQUAL. Which means we should have every right and every privilege that straight people already get not civil unions but MARRIAGE, not separate bank accounts but the same as straight people, not separate health care plans but the same health care plans. Same Rights Same Benefits Nothing Less! We aren't asking for
"special rights" like Religious Right wing people keep claiming but the the Same Exact Rights that straight people already receive.
You invite people to your home not to absorb them, but to learn of them and determine if you can work together in the things that are important to you. Were whats being suggested appropriate, I would be expected/required to invite people to my home that I didnt share common norms in common with JUST to avoid offending anyone. Bologna. The gay couples, by their choice, invited unknowns to their home...whom they later decided were bigots - lol. Appears the evening itself was uneventful. Straight couple, by their choice, later invited others to their home, not including people they had differences with. I dont see any bashing here beyond media hype...of which Dear Abby is obviously very much a part of. So sad. NO ONE is ever accepted into every venue....sometimes "people combinations" just dont work. Thats okay. Grow up & get on with the freedoms in life we ALL have. Why would the gay people WANT to be invited to the home of people that arent comfortable around them? Get real! Media is just trying to form cultural opinion. They do it all the time. Its how they sensationalize to get sales/readership up - lol. (insert big yawn here)
Dylan, you call people "twat" & "asshole" AND call yourself a Christian??? I think you are just using your hatred of gay people to repress your own true gay desires. Either that, or you're just on here just trying to rile people up or you're just a psychotic, deranged psychopath....BUT, no matter your motivations to get on here and act like a lunatic, you are NOT a Christian. THAT is absolutely blatantly obvious.
Romans 1:26-28
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. amen. HOMOSEXUALS ARE A DISGRACE TO HHUMANITY. I HATE HOMOSEXUALS WITH A PASSION. GO TO HELL FAGGOTS
Me thinks she doth protest too much.
Clearly Dylan is a closet homosexual. This kind of hatred can only come from deep self loathing.
The thing is Dylan, you are gay & will always be gay, no matter how much you hate yourself & live in denial. You are gay whether you act on it, or not, but in your head & your heart you crave it. It's not your fault. You were born that way. That's how God made you. Accept it.
Matthew 7: 1-5 Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Omg true reasoning.....are u gay? Able to speak on behalf of those who were born this way as I am? Please consult w those who are before sticking your ignorant ( unknowing/uneducated) oppion of whos right or wrong. Many people have lost their lives hiding behind ignorant opinions of sexuality. Humanity should rule in this decision not what people are raises to believe. We are human all sucebtible to singing and making wrong judgements. Judgements are left to our creator not the human individual
I did not agree with and do not like Dear Abby's reasoning at all. Because these gay people didn't choose to be homosexual anymore than she chose to be heterosexual she should not discriminate. What if they did consciously choose to be gay or lesbian, according to Dear Abby's reasoning here, then it would be OK to shun them.
Is it just me or is it getting difficult to tell who is close-minded? There seems to be an unhealthy amount of judgment flying in all directions.
If the original letter to Dear Abby and her reply are taken at face value, a conservative couple moved into a comparatively liberal neighborhood. They were welcomed into the neighborhood until they decided to shun two same-sex couples in this new community. The new community responded by shunning them back.
Now the Bible is full of advice to shun people and put people to death if they do not follow the customs of the community. Shunning is dictated both in the book of Leviticus (for a man who has sex with his wife during her menstrual period, for example) and in the letters of Paul (including 1 Corinthians were he makes his famous list of sinners - which is believed by some - to include male prostitutes and effeminate men).
But the Bible is not consistent on this advice. In that same book, it says this (Leviticus 19:33)
When an outsider resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the outsider. The outsider who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you. You shall love the outsider as yourself, for you were outsiders in the land of Egypt; I AM The Lord your God.
Surely this conservative Christian couples are outsiders in this community. The community did welcome them openly, as Leviticus advises - but when they did not follow the values of that community they were shunned, which both Leviticus and Paul advise also.
Well, you don't need to go to the Bible to see where this leads. It's the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again. Both camps are will not budge on their position and they become locked in permanent war, a cycle of hatred and violence.
On this, Jesus himself was clear - according to the Gospel of Mark (6:32-36)
Do to others as you would have them do to you. If you love [only] those that love you what credit is that to you?...But love your enemies, do good to them and lend to them without expecting anything back. Then your reward will be great, then you will be children of the Most High, because He is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
Be merciful as your Father is merciful"
So if the couple is going to use Jesus as an example, they would do right to break bread with those they believe are sinners. And I also think the community would do right not to make their exclusion of the couple permanent. If the couple apologized and invited everyone to another party - and this time actually did invite everyone - the community might well be convinced to give them another chance.
And if that couple truly follow their faith, they will remember Matthew 7:1-2
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
Funny, doesn't that passage pretty much describe what happened in this little community as well as give a way out of permanent divide among its members?
That old snake told Adam and Eve that if they ate the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that they would become like God. In other words, they would be able to judge Good and Evil for themselves. We all know where that led them. The snake was lying, but he was clever about it - and his advice has plagued Christianity with two-thousand years of judgment, division and strife. Why? Because we all seem to believe we have the right to judge the heart of another.
If we could all stop judging and hating and start accepting and loving each other - we'd get back into that garden.
All of us.
Love thy neighbor as thyself." Interesting, how so called 'Christians' ignore the teachings of their Lord and pull old chestnuts from ancient, poorly translated records about Hebrew culture, guidelines that have not been in effect for that culture for thousands of years, guidelines that were never in effect, for Christians, guidelines that were never, ever endorsed by Jesus Christ. I wish hateful people would stop cloaking their hatred in religion, and just be haters. It would be more honest. But I guess haters generally are not honest people. Racking my brain, it seems to me the only example of Christians killing other Christians for bad behavior would be the killings of Ananias and Sephirah, in the Pauline Church. They lied about money they were supposed to be donating to the Church. Hmmmm...wonder if any of these haters are behind on their tithes?
Ignorance is not bliss. It's sad. Notice that educated people are more understanding and tolerant of others differences. When looking objectively at any sexual act, it's disgusting and filthy. Straight people do have anal sex. Homosexuality is not about sex, Klebold, it's about attraction. Given the opportunity would you choose homosexuality? Of course not. Me neither. But you and I will never have that choice. It is not a choice. Ignorance is. Stay in school, my friend, and seek to understand. Ignorance is sad and embarrassing.
Your statements are incorrect, furthering evidence of your ignorance, Klebold. Evidence shows that HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was initially transferred to human beings from Polo and HB vaccinations in the 1950's. Simply be happenstance, the virus initially traveled in South Africa's populations and then later to New York in the homosexual population. HIV/AIDS is not in any way discriminatory. It just as well could have initially traveled through heterosexuals.
Now that I have educated you on this matter, Klebold, you do understand that HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation. Anyone can contract the deadly disease at anytime, including yourself. Homosexuality has nothing to do with "the gift of Aids". If you want to blame someone, blame the scientists of the 1950's.
Homosexuals, you should understand, are celebrated gifts of sex between a man and a women. Be mindful, my friend, as you have a 10% chance of making one yourself. Like I said, stay in school. You are clearly undereducated and you're embarrassing yourself and other anti-gay activists. Get a clue, dude, you're better than they are.
Dylan Klebold. Your name is stupid & you are a twat. Gays are mocking God? Take a look in the mirror asshole. Generally the people who are so adamant that gay people are not "born this way" are the people with latent homosexual tendencies, who have made the "choice" to deny what is natural to them. They then go on to live sad unfulfilled pitiful lives. They marry the opposite sex & bring their spouses with them into their misery.
Dylan you are a sad little man & I hope there is a god, because if there is, he will surely spit on you.
Reading many of these post by heterosexuals & homosexuals hurts. Please, if you take anything from my post, take this phrase I remember from 4th grade from Sister Mary Ann, "God don't make no junk!" Yes, I know it is not grammar perfect, but it is the way I remember the phrase. When I came out 20 years ago I asked my priest if I was going to hell. Sitting in front of him I remember that I was not crying, but scared. At that time I had not told my family I was gay. The town I live in is a rural farming community, and the only things I heard about gay people was BAD. There was a time I had tried to kill myself because I was taught being gay was wrong and I was going to hell; which committing suicide is wrong too. So, I figured, since I was gay and going to hell why not just do it, so my family would be happier without me. But, one day I went to talk to our Priest and confessed that I was gay. Looking him dead in the eyes I told him, I did not choose this and I am going to hell. He replied, "No, you are not going to hell". Was so relieved, he explained before, and while becoming a Priest he was a Counselor. We had a long talk, and knowing his past (he was engaed, but she passed away before they were married). It made me feel confident in myself. My point (sorry for long email) is that we should ALL (gay and straight) respect ALL people even if we do not like their LIFE. Many gays will hate me for sticking up for the straight people in the story and vice versa. The straight couple may NOT like the gay peoples LIVES, but respect them. The gay people should respect the straight. Yes, I know we are only hearing the story from the straight perspective, but, remember the golden rule.....be NICE. There is too much hate in the world. It is hard for some people to do that. But, TRY it! Just BE NICE. Try to get along..........please? You will surprise yourself. Never hurts to make a new friend. Thank you for allowing me to post.
I am shocked that this couple thought it was okay to invite everyone EXCEPT for the gay couples and people would still like them..I do not care where they came from...I am glad their precious little bubble got popped when they themselves were snubbed after snubbing. kudos to the Dear Abby writer because I am not sure my reply could have been so nice.
From a Pete Seeger (I think) song:
"You've got to be taught, before it's too late, to hate all the people your relatives hate,
before you are 6, or 7, or 8, you've got to be carefully taught"
these homophobic folks never grew up psychically. But then, maybe I'm just as bad, cause I have a hard time not hating them for being homophobic. from A non-gay, married woman, age 70, in Frederick, Maryland. Why should anybody else care what someone's sexual preference is?
And this is why l left Christianity. The individual interpretation of the bible to serve your needs, was too much. The fact that people believe word for word at the bible is just as bad as people believing gin Magic.
If Jesus ever came back and he started to do what he did before, he would be shunned and taken for a crazy guy. If he started to change water into wine, people would take it a magic trick. No one would believe him if he came back. Most of religions are molded for people to feel superior to others, to feel they are better because they follow God the way they should.
I call BS. I can follow God and live a good life because I feel him in my heart and it feels like love. I don't feel hate for people different from me, that is not what God is about. You should be ashamed to think that God would condone your bigotry. If you do, you have missed the whole point of "God's Love".
I read these posts and think back on all the hatred that was spewed when civil rights and interracial marriage was being debated. Its not a "choice" its not a "lifestyle" its who YOU ARE. Forty years ago you couldn't marry an African American if you were white... Now its not only excepted but "normal." I teach my children you fall in love with the person not the gender or color. It makes me angry to know that today the same ignorance of forty years ago is still around. When people started changing laws about interracial marriage there were the same ignorant people who spouted nonsense about God hating them. I cannot fathom any God would hate someone who is true to themselves and loves so deeply. I am not gay or a minority, I am a white, middle class, middle aged straight woman who hate injustice in any manner. Just reading the ignorance in these posts hurts my heart. Ignorance is not bliss it is a way to block the truth.
Persecuting and excluding either party in this dispute is unfounded. Christianity dictates heterosexuality and that is a fact. For these people to yield to peer pressure to deny them their faith is wrong. On the other side, our constitution dictates freedom from persecution for homosexuals and Religious believers. Excluding one for their beliefs, while accepting another for their beliefs is still prejudice. Deal with it!!!
Bullscat. The Bible does not "dictate heterosexuality." That is simply the way you interpret the six verses in the Bible. Lots of people do that as a shield to hide their bigotry. And, make no mistake, to think people who are homosexual are lesser in God's eye is bigotry, and you should stop.
Homosexuality is not a "belief." That is an absolutely absurd statement. Maybe you should pray for God to open your eyes so you can love everyone. And, please, don't give me the bullscat about having gay friends. It just doesn't pass the smell test when you've broadcast your disapproval.
Did Jesus not dine with sinners and forgive their sins? Pharisees, prostitutes, etc? I guess what Jesus meant was "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone [unless you're throwing stones at gay people, in which case, go right ahead]"
Some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but Christianity NEVER promotes excluding sinners.
There are always going to be clueless people. They can exclude anyone they like - black, gay, asian, disabled, catholic, jewish, non-christian, for whatever reasons they want. By the same token they should be perfectly fine with others excluding them, whatever the reasons. Clearly they either haven't ever thought very far about the issue, or this is a fake letter because it's difficult to imagine anyone being so unable to put two and two together. (Well, I'd like to think it is...but I've seen some pretty clueless people in my life.)
Sometimes people just need time to get used to ideas that are strange to them. I believe the community made a mistake by not continuing to include the couple. How else will they have their perceptions challenged than by interacting with the gays at other neighbors houses? Telling someone they are wrong and punishing them by ostraization is failure, Where now is the opportunity to really see a new way of thinking,
I always thought good manners was about making people feel welcome even when they make a faux pas and remembering no matter how rude someone is, the important thing is how you behave yourself.
Seems to me this is more about the gays not being strong enough suffer a little hurt feelings while the new couple gets used to new ideas.
How quick you all jump to indignation and outrage. I went to law school in Akron Ohio, mid 90's. A conservative small town-ish place. Now I could have shown up the first day of class, with my freedom rings on and rainbow flag, screaming, I'm here, I'm queer get used to it! But instead I chose to show up as myself and gave people the opportunity to meet me and discover that being gay was simply one aspect of who I was. At the end of the first semester, for those who hadn't guessed or been told, I made a general announcement to the class.
Many of my classmates had never come in contact with a gay person,( that they knew of). Now, I could have gotten outraged and indignant every time some straight boy told a fag joke or someone said, That's so gay! But I knew that their opinions were based in ignorance and If i wanted to overcome that ignorance there had to be a dialog and i was the one who was going to have to initiate it. I couldn't expect clueless straight people to initiate it. So I did, a dialog through personal inter action, me just being me and allowing people to be themselves, even if they made stupid comments. I cannot tell you how many times a classmate would confess to me, "David, I had all these sterotypes about gays but you've shown me it isn't really true."
If I was the gay in the neighborhood, I would insist that my fellow neighbors continue to invite the new couple to the parties and I would still extend the invitation to my parties even if they never came. How else would they get to know me and perhaps see the folly of their ignorance?
Americans needs to stop getting their underwear in a twist over every perceived slight, grow some skin, grow up and realize sometimes YOU have to the work... even if you're right.
People who shun other people simply because of who they are should be ostracized. There is no way I'd have guests in my home who deny the humanity of any group, and that's exactly what this couple is doing.
And your using "the gays" shows that you lack the civility that you urge on others. Hypocrite.
You can't "see a new way of thinking", when you refuse to acknowledge that there are any other ways of thinking other than your own... The difference between the gay couple and the new couple, is the gay couple would be willing to invite them into their home no matter their beliefs, the new couple refuses to let the gay couple into their home and wants nothing to do with them. This puts the people in the community, who actually value the gay couple, into an awkward place. And frankly, why should they cater to these new people who obviously do not value all the members of the established community? Bigoted people are in many cases, impossible to get through to. That is why they are "bigoted"... I think the advice given was spot on. If you can't get over the fact that a gay couple (or any couple for that matter) is part of the community you move into, then perhaps you should find a community that is more uniformed and to your liking.
I didn't realize, that now, we have to invite everyone, because that's what everyone else does! if I don't want to invite someone in my home, to my event, I shouldn't have to! No matter what the reason. We have turned our society into this place where everyone had to walk on glass to make sure no ones feelings get hurt! Get over it, move on, feelings are going to get hurt, but the lgbt whatever it is, has taken it to a whole new level. There's a saying, sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me. While I get that words can hurt, you control how bad to let them hurt you. You can dwell on it, or you can move on and learn fron it!! Everyone has the right to chose who they want to allow and not allow in their home!
Do you not realize how utterly hypocritical you sound? You do not have to invite anyone into your home, that you do not want, but don't be surprised if the choice of leaving people out because they are gay or black or whatever has consequences. Obviously, this community doesn't appreciate their established neighbors and friends being blatantly discriminated against by new neighbors, who act as though they are better than them. This isn't the 1950's anymore; people do not cherish uniformity, create a sheltered and unreal environment around them, and act as though diversity doesn't exist in society...
So, it is true, "everyone has the right to chose who they want to allow and not allow in their home", but people have the right to chose whether they want to enter or not enter someone's home as well... Why should these neighbors have to attend events at this couple's home? Because YOU deem their choice "moral"?
I find your comment very ironic as well. You complain about how the LGBT get their feelings hurt and how they need to get over it, when in reality, the LGBT have been "getting over it" for decades. We could care less what bigots have to say. We are citizens who live our lives just like everyone else. The only times you are going to see us upset and vocal, is when bigots are trying to pass laws against us to hinder our rights.... I think getting upset is justified in this circumstance... Maybe if laws were being passed against your sexual orientation, to hinder your rights, you would be more understanding of this...
So when you and people like the ones who wrote in act in such a way and the reaction is not the one you hoped for, you should heed your own advice and "get over it, move on, feelings are going to get hurt". Not everyone agrees with your bigoted views and they have the right to act as they wish in reaction to them.
No, you absolutely do not have to invite everyone to your home just because that's what everyone else does. BUT when you exclude 2 couples solely because they are gay then you are a bigot and others, like myself, can absolutely tell you to go shove it. The other neighbors decided that they prefer gays to bigots HA Me too! You have every right to make whatever decisions you like but others also have the right to react to those decisions.
I would never understand
The permanence being hated
I'd never come the simple conclusion
That I won't stand for being tolerated
We tolerate loud noises or misquote at night
not humans with the capacity to know wrong from right
I'd never know true isolation
You hold up that bible
But have you read all the pages?
You claim to know god and his love; that you trust him.
Yet you seek to destroy any man with a husband?
I watch as you devote time
to create picket signs
They say "God hates fags"
But not this God of mine
He loves me for me
He loves my Gay pride
And the man that I lay with
Also stands by my side
He loves and protects me
We both share one life
A Life without hate
A life
First of all this story has nothing to do with politics. It is about ignorance and homophobia. If you want to preserve antiquated standards then follow the old tried and true adage 'if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all.' In other words 'grin and bare it' I promise you you'll be happier and you might learn something
When my partner and I moved into our new neighborhood in a smaller Connecticut town 5 yrs ago obviously we were the subject of much speculation and curiosity.When spring arrived and we started various projects in the yard we made the first move in approaching and introducing ourselves.We have even hosted some get together's at our home and we have become friendly with one couple our age that lives next door.Largely we have been accepted with kindness and respect with the exception of one couple whom we get the direct feeling that although they wave they want nothing to do with us.We really could care less and they are entitled to their opinions.I applaud these neighbors in Tampa for their support of this gay couple,it sounds like a close knit place to live!
The first commandment is to love. Jesus loved the sinner, he just didn't love the sin. He went to be with the sinner to ask him to turn from his ways. We should be more like him. Light a candle on top of the hill top and when they are tired of being in the dark they will come to the light. Gods greatest gift is the gift of choice. Everyone had choices in life. They can do as they wish. So when the day comes when we die and stand before God we can not point the finger to anyone else but ourselves. Because he gave us the choice. So love one another, invite them into your home. Give them food and drink. If they chose to change their ways then Praise God. If not, it is their choice. Still love them and pray for them. Only if you see yourself being tempted to turn to their ways would find it necessary to part from them.
"Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a canard. It's a shield people like you hide behind so you don't have to acknowledge your self-righteousness. It's a sheild people like you use so you don't have to acknowledge your bigotry. And, why? Because you look at people of whom you disapprove not as people, but as "sin." It's disgusting.
You think homosexuality is a choice? Then you choose it. Right now. Choose to not be attracted to your husband emotionally and physically and to fall in love with another woman. Can't do it? Then why the hell do you think we can?
All of you who use this "hate the sin, love the sinner" bullscat are nothing but loathsome hypocrites.
Oh bless your poor little heart. If it's a choice, can you choose to love a woman as you love your spouse? No? I suspect the mere idea makes you ill.
The mere idea of a heterosexual relationship makes homosexuals just as ill, frankly.
It is not a choice. They are born that way. That means God made them that way. Ignorance and intolerance, however, is learned. I hope you unlearn your poor behaviors and learn to love as Jesus commands. Jesus would be appalled at the behaviour of may of His "followers".
Yes, they are. And so are you. It's not a "lifestyle." It's part of who we are as human beings. And if you think "lifestyle" means our intimate activity I will tell you to get your imagination out of our bedrooms. You have not been invited and you are not welcome there.
You have every right to believe and say what you want. You do not have a right to be free from criticism.
It's always interesting to me that people like you use "shoved down our throats" when talking about the struggle for recognition of our humanity and fight for equality we have endured for centuries. Do you not realize there is a subtle sexual innuendo there?
So what are your thoughts on interracial marriage?
Did you know that these exact arguments were used 60 years ago to keep interracial marriage illegal? The Bible -and- the "think about the children" arguments were just as popular then! Blacks marrying whites was considered as morally reprehensible back then as homosexuality is today!
Yet we look back and wonder what the [censored] they were smoking. Grow up, put your big girl panties on, and understand that you're just as bigoted as those who backed miscegenation laws 60 years ago if you back anti-gay laws today.
You're absolutely right - they have the right to believe whatever they want. They also, as we all do, have to deal with the repercussions of those beliefs. Sounds like they are.
And even if you don't agree with it, there's still the issue of basic human decency. It doesn't hurt you to be courteous, but it does hurt someone else to be vicious. Why make a hard life harder?
What is this "Lifestyle" that we are apparently living? What do you think we're doing? Our "Lifestyle" is not being "shoved down your throats". Our lack of human rights is an ongoing discussion & hot topic. Yes, this is America, where we are all supposed to be free & equal, but we're not. We only want equality, no more than that. We don't want you in our business, but we deserve equality & acceptance as Americans. Our "Lifestyles" are far closer to yours than you apparently think. Huge amounts of money are gathered & spent to try to prevent LGBT people from having the same opportunities as straight people. I WISH that this battle was over (we will win), so that people could focus their money & attention on causes that need it, like poverty, hunger, disease. The people in this article are bigots & it seems so are you. Because you see LGBT people as less than you & as undeserving of equal treatment. I can't stop being gay, but you can stop being a bigot. You need to reflect & think for yourself. My "Lifestyle" is just my LIFE.
Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but other people are not required to respect your opinion, especially if it is so obviously harmful. Believe what you want, but you are not allowed to treat people differently if their "lifestyle" (which is a stupid phrase to describe sexual preference anyway, considering it is literally biological and cannot be helped nor changed by anyone) doesn't fit your cookie cutter ideals. The belief itself that there is something wrong with being queer is highly problematic in itself, and we as a society need to work to overcome that ignorant thinking, but to take out your beliefs and resentment towards two loving couples is not only petty, childish, and passive aggressive, it demonstrates a fundamental lack of empathy and tolerance.
Also, don't you think LGBTQIA+ people are tired of being discriminated against and oppressed more than you are "so tired of this subject (YOU MEAN THE SUBJECT OF EQUAL TREATMENT?) and it being shoved down our (you mean non-oppressed, straight white folks, right?) throats!"
Please educate yourself and correct your problematic perspective so we can overcome this terrible stigma.
Whether I agree with her or not, Let her believe what she wants to believe! You don't have to respect it. Pretend this comment doesn't even exist. I can tell you're a bitter liberal that gets easily offended by a Republican Comment. That's the problem with America. You liberals can't respect one opinion about anything. You all act like 4 year old because you can't get everything your way. She doesn't need to educate herself. You do. Look up Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech is not just for Liberals you know.
This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. You demand respect for your opinions, whether they are hurtful or harmful, then you accuse the subjects of your venom of being intolerant.
Let me tell you something. Pointing out your intolerance does not make me intolerant. It makes me a victor who has risen above it.
Lmao I'm not easily offended by a "Republican Comment". I really don't care at all what her political views are and, quite frankly, they have nothing to do with this conversation. This conversation has to do with basic respect for another human being (not their opinions, but the person themself). The problem with America is that it still subscribes to many oppressive policies that are harmful to everyone who's not a well-off cis white male.
And, let me get this straight, you want me to respect the opinion of a person who flat out dismisses the long history of violence and oppression that the LGBTQIA+ community and whines because she is sick of hearing about these people's demands for equal treatment? That's a pretty shitty attitude. Like I said, I don't have to respect your opinion. I respect your right to have your own opinion, but an idea does not inherently demand my respect because it exists. Do you respect the opinions of the members of the KKK? I would hope not.
The first amendment was put in place to allow for the free expression of opinions without the fear of imprisonment by the US government. It guarantees that you won't be hauled away by the Thought Police in the middle of the night with a sack over your head because you voiced a concern about Big Brother.
(and obviously it doesn't just apply to liberals, again, you don't see the KKK rallies being forcibly stopped, do you? Pretty sure they're not liberal) It doesn't give you a free pass to be a bigot. I respect those who respect others and don't use snarky passive aggressive comments to try to undermine legitimate issues with juvenile whining. So you can take your obnoxious condescending attitude and kindly fuck off.


text:
All Inclusive Car Rent Kuopio
Cheap car rent in Kuopio, Finland without surprises!
We offer the best deals from all car rental companies in Kuopio: you get exactly the same rental car but much cheaper, with no hidden costs & the best rental conditions! Submit the form below to get the cheapest rates for rental cars in Kuopio.
More rental cars: 1) Cars for Less Kuopio 2) Cheap Car Rental Kuopio
Also check our selected partners to find the car rental deal that best suits your needs!
Compare prices and rental cars in Kuopio
We are convinced that we offer the best all-inclusive deals from all car rental companies in Kuopio. Nevertheless, you may have different wishes and sometimes the cars we negotiated are sold out because of the large number of reservations we handle. To be sure to allways deliver a cheap rental car that suits your needs best we selected quality partners who offer different cars with (sometimes) different rental conditions and different discounts and special deals. Be sure you pay the lowest price for your rental car in Kuopio and also check the discounted rates of the day from our partners Cars for Less car rent Kuopio & Cheap Car Rental Reservations Kuopio
Available car rental locations are Kuopio city center and Kuopio airport locations at Y for renting mini, budget, economy, compact, intermediate, full size, premium, luxury, convertible, cabrio and sports cars. Or rent a mini van, SUV or 4WD.
All-Inclusive-Car-Rent.com is part of a worldwide online network of car hire brokers. Together with our partners we handle such a high volume of rent-a-car reservations that we are able to negotiate the lowest rental rates and the best rental conditions for our customers. The cars you rent through this site are from leading international car rental companies: it's the same rental car, but much cheaper!
There are no hidden costs. All Inclusive Car Rent Kuopio offers cheap rental cars in Kuopio without surprises: unlimited mileage / kilometers, third party insurance, CDW insurance, theft protection insurance, airport delivery charges and local taxes are already included in our low price for rental cars in Kuopio. It's the same rental car, with the best rental conditions!
Travel information FinlandOff The Beaten Track travel magazine offers independent travel information and travelogues about vacations in Finland:
Travelogue From Hanko to Karesuando - Blue water, white birches and lilac flowers
Travelogue Active Winter Vacation Ivalo, Finnish Lapland - By snowmobile and dog sled through white winter landscapes
All Inclusive Car Rent > rental cars Finland > Kuopio auto hire
Compare Car Rent - The same rental car, but much cheaper!


text:
Raf0926's Trophy Room
This is Raf0926's personal trophy room. Here you can view all the awards Raf0926 has won in our past monthly competitions, as well as a quick rundown of their lifetime playing statistics (to the right).
If you don't have any trophies yet, don't be discouraged, just keep playing! All registered members are automatically entered into each month's competitions, where the top 20 players ranked by point score, solving percentage and average solving time will receive trophies and prize ribbons that will then be displayed here.
View raf0926's Profile »
16th place
October 2018
46.6 seconds
16th place
September 2018
52.1 seconds
* Monthly competitions began in February 2007.


text:
Mary was born in 1931. She passed away in 2016. [1]
Have you taken a DNA test for genealogy? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
Mary is 35 degrees from Jelena Eckstädt, 22 degrees from Theodore Roosevelt and 23 degrees from Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on our single family tree. Login to find your connection.


text:
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Dusty Rutherford's Greatest Hits
As long as I've been tasting wine I've wondered what the hell "Rutherford dust" is. What makes it different from any other dust? And isn't dust mostly just dead human skin cells? Why do I want to smell that in my Cabernet? "Hmmm, smells like cassis, green olive and a nasty case of eczema--must be from Rutherford." I think it was Andre Tchelistcheff (I just call him "the Sheff") who first coined the expression, and even he didn't know what it meant. I, personally, think it was in response to the famous Oakville Litterbox character everyone was talking about, though it could have been the Stags Leap Greasy Fingerprints. No one knows what the Sheff was thinking.
I weaseled an invite to the "A Day in the Dust" tasting of, primarily, 2007 Cabernet Sauvignon from the Rutherford District held at Rubicon Estate last Wednesday. I attended under an alias. I went as "Dusty Rutherford." Only one person asked me if I sang "The Look of Love." I said Yes.
Industry tastings are more about social networking than they are about the wines being served. Since I relocated to Sonoma from Southern California I go to tastings and know only a few people, mostly winery owners and winemakers. In Los Angeles at a tasting like this, I would have spent 60% of my time shaking hands and catching up with other folks in my line of work. You taste the wines in between conversations. It's crowded, it's loud, and very difficult to judge wine at these things. But that's not what they're for. They're like FaceBook gone awry. Imagine having to actually talk to your FaceBook friends in person! Gawd, what a nightmare. You don't want to talk to them, you just want to have them! Like children. And now here they are with stuff all over their face demanding your drinking time. Not at all how you'd imagined it.
Since Dusty Rutherford knew so few people, I was able to focus a bit more effectively on the wines. It's still a crappy environment to judge wine. It's dark, it's dank, it's filled with sweaty people. It's like judging wine in John Wayne Gacy's basement. Which really makes me nervous now about those hors d'oeuvres. But I put on my serious evaluation face, took copious notes, tried really hard to pay attention and discovered what everyone has been saying all along is true--2007 is a great vintage for wine in Napa Valley (and other wine-growing regions in California as well). I tasted about 25 Cabernets at the Rutherford Dust tasting and the only one I wouldn't consider buying (were money no object, which it fucking is) was the Heitz 2005 "Bella Oaks" which I thought had far too much Brett, though it brought back childhood memories. Of petting zoos.
I'm not going to bore you with a bunch of tasting notes. No, I'm going to bore you the way I usually bore you, with poorly conceived humor. The wine blog world is overflowing with amateurishly written tasting notes, and, frankly, I'm not good at tasting notes. They all taste like paper to me. (See what I mean about poorly conceived?) I hate reading the tasting notes on blogs. They're awful. I read just one of the longwinded and pretentious tasting notes on "Bigger Than Your Head" and I am awestruck at the remarkable ability he has to wring every last bit of pleasure out of drinking wine. It's wine with a side order of anhedonia. But at least he doesn't match up wine with music. This is the realm of genuine idiots. Wine doesn't need music and music doesn't need wine. And they go together about as sensibly as literature and perfume. So I won't dull your senses with poorly written wine descriptions. But I will tell you which wines I thought were the best, and the not so best.
Let's start with the best. Much as I hate to agree with STEVE!, I think he's right that the real dazzler of the event was the Staglin 2007 Estate Cabernet Sauvignon. But Staglin has made brilliant Cab after brilliant Cab in recent years, so it's hardly surprising. The '07 may be legendary. Wow. If Rutherford is known for elegance, the '07 Staglin is damned Fred Astaire.
The first wine I tasted at the event completely surprised me. When the first wine you taste is sensational, it's always disconcerting. You start to think you're being too easy on it, that there has to be something you're missing, that it can't be that good. It's like losing your virginity, which, sadly, I've only done once. But I kept tasting it, and tasted it again later, and it's terrific. It's the 2007 from Round Pond, not normally a producer I would seek out. But this is seamlessly luscious and rich Cabernet from Rutherford. And then it was nice to see some of the legendary names of Napa Valley perform so well in 2007. The 2007 Rubicon is breathtaking, and the 2007 Beaulieu Georges de Latour returns to greatness after some time away. Finally, among this top five, I'd list the Meander 2007 Morisoli Vineyard Cabernet for it's sheer power and purity. For those of you who haven't been in the wine business for a long time, or ever, let me tell you, it is very unusual to go to an event and find five wines that are absolutely classic. You're usually lucky to find one or two. These five were topnotch, and a joy to taste.
Maybe just a notch below these five winners were a handful of other wines, all very worthy and memorable wines. The 2007 Long Meadow Ranch was very seductive, Rubicon Estate's 2007 CASK was almost hypnotic, Honig's 2007 Campbell Vineyard is by far the best wine I've ever tasted from them, the once famous Freemark Abbey Bosche Vineyard was the best it's been in years and I like very much the suppleness of 2007 Quintessa though I'm not normally a huge Quintessa fan.
And there were some disappointments as well. Flora Springs 2007 Hillside Reserve, Hewitt Vineyard, Martin Estate's Reserve, Provenance, Freemark Abbey's Sycamore Vineyard--all nice wines, but hardly in a league with the others.
Any of the top ten wines is worth considering for your cellar. The prices vary considerably, and some haven't been released yet, but I think all of them are worthy if your budget allows. You're welcome.
And now back to our regularly scheduled stupidity.
56 comments:
- Charlie Olken said...
Yack !! I hate it when you get serious about wine. Almost makes me want to read the Sunday funnies--which are about as funny as reading Ken Payton's blog--because as much as I like his serious take on things, it is a SERIOUS take on things--and besides, he does not know why the rest of us think you are funny.
Rutherford is the defining place in the Napa Valley, which, for years, has been the defining place in California. And the defining grape of that place is Cab. Sv. The annual Ru. Dust tasting is typically a must do, but this year, it somehow managed to coincide with the big Riesling event up Ste. Michelle way in WA. If you did not attend one of these two events, you no longer qualify as an "in person"--or maybe you never did.
I have not tasted the 2007 Staglin, but I did note Garen Staglin's comment about it and his 2006 over on STEVE!. I loved the 2006, and 2006 was a much more difficult vintage overall than 2007. These Staglins prove the point that the big, ripe wines can also be balanced, deep in fruit, have twenty and thirty year aging potentials, be well above 15% ABV, and thus in the final analysis, make the Dan Berger argument that wines of that size are fat slugs with nothing going for them but a couple of years of "in your face" drinking if you are also a fat slug.
So, thanks for the notes. And I am looking forward to the resumption of regular programming.
- July 17, 2010 at 9:18 AM
- Ron Washam, HMW said...
First off, no one knows why the rest of you find me funny much less Ken Payton.
Secondly, if STEVE! can write "comedy" posts once in a while, I can write "serious" tasting reports once in a while. I'm better at serious than he is at funny.
Thirdly, I put this stupid tasting report up on the weekend so as not to disrupt the stupidity I publish during the week. In my capacity as Nobody in the Wine Business, I don't go to very many organized tastings any more and it was fun to revisit the experience and write about it. I may just do it again. If I'm ever invited to a tasting again.
I agree with you regarding the 2006 Staglin. Is the 2007 better? I don't think it's better, it's certainly marked by what a different vintage it was, but it certainly seems as good. It ain't cheap. $175/btl I think, or thereabouts. That prices it out of my league, by about $172.
- July 17, 2010 at 9:38 AM
- Ron Washam, HMW said...
I forgot--do you think any of the Napa producers will come to HoseMaster to kiss my butt like they do over at STEVE!?
OOOOOOH, I hope so.
- July 17, 2010 at 9:40 AM
- "Little Jimmy" Suckling said...
Some one should re-post STEVE's rant on Helen Turley, that he apparently took off his blog (but is still circulating on his feed.)
Now that's FUNNY!
- July 17, 2010 at 9:59 AM
- Thomas said...
Just remember what happened to Woody Allen when he tried serious. What was it, something about interior walls?
Back in the 1990s, I "repped" Staglin in New York State for the distributorship that had it. The wine was fine, but too much money for the market here, and the winery hated selling to retailers, wanting us to focus mainly on restaurants--retailers get pissed when you do that to them and that hurts a sales rep's salary, but who am I to tell a high-priced wine producer how to market the product so that the sales team is behind it?
- July 17, 2010 at 10:02 AM
- Ron Washam, HMW said...
Little Jimmy,
I've never seen STEVE!'s rant on Helen Turley, but I'm guessing it's not pretty. Hey, according to your former employer Helen is "The Greatest Winemaker in The Universe!" Yup. And I'm "The Greatest Wine Blogger in the Universe!" And Marvin is "The Greatest Tub in the Universe!" And so on, ad infinitum.
If you've got it, send me the STEVE! rant via my personal email. I could use a chuckle.
I used to get an annual visit from Staglin when I was a sommelier. I felt sorry for the rep. He/she was under all this huge pressure to place Staglin in every damn restaurant in the city, at their ambitious prices. I did buy 6 bottles or so every vintage because the wines were terrific, but I made 'em sweat.
I'm no Woody Allen. I don't even have any foster children to marry. I did like Foster Brooks, however.
- July 17, 2010 at 10:52 AM
- abc said...
Sorry to miss you there. I would have been happy to "network" and waste your time. I spent quite a while chatting with Steve! I picked the Staglin as well.
- July 17, 2010 at 1:35 PM
- Ron Washam, HMW said...
You're much better off wasting STEVE!'s time than mine.
I was disappointed in the 2007 Awkward Silence Cabernet Sauvignon "Farting in Church" Cuvee. I think the 4% Beano may have ruined it.
A reader did forward me STEVE!'s Turley rant which he expunged from his site. It's very much to the point and I wonder why STEVE! decided to delete it. It's his blog, of course, and he's entitled to do whatever he likes, but it was provocative and inside and honest. Oh. OK, deleting it makes sense now.
- July 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
What is a sufficient amount of brett?
Should it be somehow inversely or directly proportionate to the price of the wine?
If you like brett, and if you think there are people who are willing to accept it in a bottle priced over $15 and not meant to last more than a year under cork then I think you have just given me an idea for a niche business: I'll collect all the tainted barrels (people will be happy to have me haul them away - unless that is all they have to rely on to get those nice numbers from a Maryland lawyer), I'll culture the stuff, extract it and sell it at an obscene profit - in bottles, on scratch-'n sniff sheets, in aerosols, etc
- July 17, 2010 at 5:42 PM
- Daniel Posner said...
Worst Hosemaster Post Ever!
If I want serious wine reviews, I look to STEVE!
- July 17, 2010 at 6:01 PM
- abc said...
Wasting Steve's time? You forget that he is one of my authors.
Speaking of, I sent you a book.
- July 17, 2010 at 6:17 PM
- Ron Washam said...
I don't like Brett. I like Bart Maverick.
I'm not overly sensitive to Brett, luckily, so if it bothers me, it must be over the top. It's a fault, no matter what or where. But it's like hubris--a very common fault.
About time you commented here. Sure, when I'm to your liking you keep your big mouth shut, but if I don't please you you're quick to criticize. What, are we fuckin' married?
Anyhow, thanks for all the kind things you've written about me in your chat room. I get bored, I love wine, I write a bit of nonsense about a tasting I went to, and everyone freaks out like I'm going to turn into 1WineDude. Don't worry, more pointless crap is on its way.
Meanwhile, being the worst HoseMaster ever is quite a hurdle to jump over, and I'm damned proud!
Amy Love,
I didn't forget STEVE! is one of your stable of authors. I'm not. That's why it's best you waste his time, assuming he remembers who you are, rather than mine.
Thank you in advance for whatever book you sent me. Is it Puff Daddy's?
- July 17, 2010 at 9:01 PM
- abc said...
Time with me is never a waste.
Or something like that.
Nah, his is not out yet.
I sent you Terry's.
- July 17, 2010 at 9:33 PM
- Thomas said...
If I may be serious for a minute, re, Brett.
It isn't only that a consumer either likes or tolerates the level of yeast infection, it's that a Brett infection is dangerous for cellaring, slowly changing each bottle from year to year.
At the least, Brett is a force for change in the wine--on the other hand, if it's so bad on the wine's release, it is almost guaranteed kill the wine over time, making it a "Band-Aid" that does not provide protection from further infection...
- July 18, 2010 at 5:24 AM
- Thomas said...
...in other words, some people like shit, but that doesn't automatically make it a good thing to keep in your closet.
- July 18, 2010 at 5:26 AM
- Samantha Dugan said...
Oh I don't Know....I think it's kinda sexy when you talk wine once in awhile. I've always been a fan of Long Meadow Ranch for it's saucy luscious fruit and soft tannins....been my go to Cab for a couple vintages now.
- July 18, 2010 at 7:00 AM
- Steve Heimoff said...
Hey HM, I love it when you get serious! [signed] STEVE! P.S. Sorry I missed you. I didn't recognize you with the Groucho face.
- July 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM
- Ron Washam said...
You bring up an interesting point, and I agree with you. I was thinking as I wrote about the Brett in the Heitz "Bella Oaks" how rarely I see Brett diagnosed in wine reviews. It seems to be unmentionable. Are those always the wines relegated to the "Do Not Review" list? Granted, I don't spend much time reading wine reviews, especially my own, but it seems to me, especially after judging in a large wine competition, that there is more Brett out there than the press lets on. And it is a time bomb in the bottle, as you suggest.
Nor do I accept that a "little" Brett adds complexity. But if I can't smell it, I can't condemn the wine for it because, obviously, I don't know it's there. And they don't tend to include that on the tasting notes on the back label.
My Gorgeous Vacationing Samantha,
Well, if you think it's sexy I'm going to do it more often.
I can hear everyone deleting me from their Bookmarks.
I adore you, and I miss you!
Well, I wasn't in tasting with the big shots like you and Amy, I was reserved a special place in the cattle call. Well, maybe more sardines than cattle, but so it goes.
Groucho face? Oh, you mean my Helen Turley mask! Yeah, pretty cool, huh?
- July 18, 2010 at 8:04 AM
- Thomas said...
"...how rarely I see Brett diagnosed in wine reviews."
I won't go there. Maybe Arthur will.
- July 18, 2010 at 8:39 AM
- Charlie Olken said...
It is not the place of wine reviewers to ascribe chemical properties to wine. I think you will find more reference to Brett if you look for adjectives like adhesive tape, wet dog and other analogies. At least, that is how we handle it, just as we do not say ethyl acetate ore acetic acid but will say sharp, sour, biting and even vinegary upon occasion.
We do debate Brett at our tastings all the time. There are tasters who will drop a wine to the bottom if it shows the least bit of Brett and others, me included, who have a higher tolerance for it.
It is important to understand all kinds of issues in wine, but the question of how to describe them is not limited to describing them by their chemical names.
And now you see what happens when you get serious. Before you know it, you will want to be called HMW!! .
- July 18, 2010 at 8:59 AM
- Ron Washam said...
Oh, damn! You mean I'm disqualified from the Wine Reviewers' Association for ascribing Brett to a wine? I've gone overboard? Gone too Brett Favre? Now you tell me. I need to study up on those wine reviewing guidelines. Sounds like a HoseMaster post...
And I didn't get THAT serious. Just posted lame tasting notes amid lousy jokes. I'm going for next year's Poodle for Best Wine Reviews! Of course, in order to win, I'll have to be asked to judge first.
- July 18, 2010 at 9:23 AM
- Charlie Olken said...
No, Ron, you are not disqualified. Not yet at least. But, when you show up at my house on Tuesday night to taste Pinot Noir, you won't get in the door unless you know the secret handshake and can say merde in at least four languages.
That serious? THAT SERIOUS??
Hells bells, you had STEVE! coming by to see who was horning in on his territory. Now, that is SERIOUS. If Ken Payton comes by and wants to know if you are horning in on his territory, then that will be VERY SERIOUS.
- July 18, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Hey Mister,
I really enjoy reading your "serious wine writing," and now I'm saving all of my pennies (fewer pennies now, thanks to the dumb economy) for the latest Staglin. We had one at Christmas...it was outstanding.
(Sidenote - I love how folks try to trump your wit in the comments section, it's kind of silly.)
- July 18, 2010 at 10:36 AM
- Thomas said...
Trump his majesty's wit?
Not really--just playing along.
Isn't that the point of this blog?
It's ok, though, "you don't have to say you love us, just be..."
- July 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM
Not sure if Brett grows on agar plates of if you just need to do a wet mount with KOH.....
In either case, I am patenting a wine aerator which has a mesh at the bottom. The fibers of the mesh are infused with miconazole.
Snappy, eh?
Oh and:
"It is not the place of doctors to recognize symptoms as disease."
"It is not the place of judges to apply the law."
Kinda asinine, isn't it?
- July 18, 2010 at 12:02 PM
- Thomas said...
The best way to deal with Brett might be to apply toilet paper to the mesh fibers. Oh wait, that would be after the fact.
How about testing the wine BEFORE it goes to market? Oh wait, that would mean many of them can't be released.
How about watching pH so that the wine has a better chance at not being infected? Oh wait, that might mean picking the grapes when they hit maturity instead of when they hit raisin-ness and being extra careful during ML.
Geez, this is work!
- July 18, 2010 at 2:17 PM
- Tasting Note Daddy said...
You boys are having way too much fun. I love it when you take prescription drugs of the azole class and feed them to us all. No more yeast infections for anyone who drinks wine. Yippee.
Or do we all become resistant to azole drugs when we need them?
As for the comments about recognizing diseases, it one thing to recognize them for doctors or wine writers. It is another to write tasting notes that use technical terms rather than descriptors. Tasting notes are for ordinary punters, not lab rats.
- July 18, 2010 at 2:30 PM
"Tasting notes are for ordinary punters, not lab rats."
Whatever the terminology one uses, the point is to tell the consumer that the wine has brett. That has implications not only for personal preference but integrity of a product.
- July 18, 2010 at 2:49 PM
With all the organophosphates and neonicotinoids being sprayed on vines and strychnine leeching from dead gophers, what's a little azole in the wine?
- July 18, 2010 at 2:57 PM
- Tasting Note Daddy said...
One for you and one for me on your recent comments.
The point is NOT to use words like Brettanomyces which have no meaning to the readers but rather to describe the character of the wine, its structure and its aging potential in real world terms like soft or drying out or drink sooner than later.
As for your second point, I see what you mean. It is sort of like prophylactic winemaking. We are going to kill you but we are going to do it less slowly because we have used drugs that will kill our and your yeast infections. I get it. Got some drugs to cure my gout before it acts up? If so, start putting it in red wine.
- July 18, 2010 at 3:34 PM
- Charlie Olken aka Puff Daddy said...
Note to Erin--
Listen to Tom P. He knows that Ron loves it when we are inspired by him. Its like watching his children play in his backyard. Besides, it's all in fun. Give it a try. Nobody laughs at my corny imitations but me, but I do enjoy them and so far, Ron has not run me or anyone else out for our attempts at Hosemastering.
- July 18, 2010 at 3:39 PM
colchicine and lots of water
- July 18, 2010 at 3:48 PM
- Tasting Note Daddy said...
I'm there, believe me.
I read somewhere that gout becomes less of a problem as one ages. I find that to be true, but I cannot tell if the cause is age or my lowered alcohol consumption.
On the other hand, my tasting acuity just keeps getting better. I wonder what drugs I am taking for that. :-}
- July 18, 2010 at 4:16 PM
"my tasting acuity just keeps getting better"
colchicine should slow olfactory mucosa turnover - not sure if that improves acuity but it might diminish it as it slows down delivery of fresh receptors to the surface.
lower alcohol intake (which helps in gout) definitely helps: it lets the brain rest and while you detect with olfactory and gustatory detectors, you recognize and process with the brain. Case in point: you should have much higher acuity after a period of abstinence and much poorer acuity when you have a hangover.
- July 18, 2010 at 4:22 PM
- Puff Daddy said...
Hangover? Moi?
Like most tasters, I never drink when I am tasting. I saw that STEVE! complained that he notices a bit of alcohol intakes when he tastes. I never do, but then I weigh a bit more than his 130 pounds. He likes to taste at 10 AM, after he has exercised, so perhaps he needs a new tasting regimen.
I would advise that he take two glasses of milk and call me in the morning.
- July 18, 2010 at 4:36 PM
Never underestimate mucosal absorption.
- July 18, 2010 at 4:40 PM
- Thomas said...
"Never underestimate mucosal absorption."
I have a distinct feeling that I'll never remember that admonition.
Charlie, if you have gout then you must live a kingly existence.
I have the low class diseases that come from poverty--bow legged and quite a big stomach!
- July 18, 2010 at 5:32 PM
- Puff Daddy said...
"Never underestimate mucosal absorption."
You could not be more right, Arthur. I never turn my back on mucosal absorption lest it sneak up on me.
- July 18, 2010 at 5:51 PM
- Ron Washam said...
Hey Gang,
Man, I'm gone for a day and suddenly an episode of Dr. Oz breaks out. Cool discussion of mucosol absorption, though. Brought tears to my nose. I try to absorb everything mucosally (is that a word?), but find that air bags work more effectively. Even for gout.
How's my newlywed? So glad to see your gorgeous face here.
I absolutely encourage nonsense here in the comments section. I love it when someone "trumps" my wit. And I also love how only on HoseMaster can a throwaway comment about Brett turn into a discussion of wine writing ethics and gout, which, actually, have a lot in common. Most wine writers are seeking a cure for both.
- July 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM
What about Syphilis?
I hear that's moving up in the classes....
- July 18, 2010 at 6:25 PM
To your earlier points:
"Extended hang time is best reserved for convicts, not grapes."
- July 18, 2010 at 6:28 PM
- Thomas said...
It's impossible to contract syphilis when nobody loves you...
If ever I read a mucosal absorption candidate it's you, what with all that snickering and snorting.
Take six asparagus and DON'T call me in the morning after you are up all night!
- July 18, 2010 at 6:35 PM
"It's impossible to contract syphilis when nobody loves you..."
-now you bring love into this?
- July 18, 2010 at 6:42 PM
- Charlie Olken said...
Try having this conversation on some other blog.
Or better yet. Don't.
The secret word for this session is: zoarmid. Tom, take two for your syphyllis. Take four if you don't have it. Take Cialis is you are trying to get it.
- July 18, 2010 at 7:11 PM
- Ron Washam said...
I kind of feel sorry for anyone trying to read through all 45 comments. I know I haven't.
So I do a post everyone hates, "worst HoseMaster ever," and end up with 45 comments.
Yeah, try this over on STEVE! or Catatonic or Reign of Fools and see where it gets you. Same place it gets you here. Knee deep in VD. Or ED. Or MD. Or HowD DooD.
- July 18, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Personally, I like Rutherford for the Grill. I'm not as thrilled with Rutherford Cross Road as it isn't as straight and fast (except for that one curve) as Oakville Cross Road.
I do like dirt. Particularly when it is outside and especially when it is in New Mexico and red.
I don't mind brett as it is much better than the mold in my fridge. Neither has killed me yet. Too many Top 10 tasting notes could.
Yet, it is nice to know that truly good places to grow grapes are few and far between.
- July 19, 2010 at 1:45 AM
- Thomas said...
What scares me is that I've understood almost every one of the comments, despite the hard time understanding the original post beyond the reference to Ms. Springfield and something about wine--is this a wine blog?
- July 19, 2010 at 6:03 AM
- Ron Washam said...
You make some points.
Congrats, you've been promoted from AA to AAA.
No, Thomas, HoseMaster is not a wine blog. The subject matter is me. It's a me blog, like every other blog. Attention barking, remember?
And now STEVE! has gone ahead and published his Helen Turley rant. See what you did, Little Jimmy Suckling! Happy now?
- July 19, 2010 at 7:39 AM
- Thomas said...
"Congrats, you've been promoted from AA to AAA."
Lucky, Kathy: everyone else has to take 12 steps.
- July 19, 2010 at 9:25 AM
I always did like one for the road.
- July 19, 2010 at 11:49 AM
I'm new here, but I think Ron loves it when someone picks up on his referents(?), like Thomas did, and ignores the wine crap. As for me, I LOVE Dusty Springfield!
- July 19, 2010 at 4:05 PM
- Ron Washam said...
Mostly my motley crew won't let me talk about wine. They only care about jokes and how often and sarcastically I make fun of wine bloggers and the wine business. When I talk about wine they all bitch and moan and complain that if they want to read about wine they'll go to other blogs. Not that I care, I pretty much just write whatever the hell I want.
I hope you'll stick around and participate as the mood suits you. As you will see, many folks come and go here, but, all in all, HoseMaster has, by far, the best and brightest and funniest comments in the wine blog world. And with 90% less buttkissing than a regular blog.
- July 19, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Great post. You're so cool, You're so funny. You're so smart. I love your beard
- July 19, 2010 at 6:34 PM
Not to worry, Ron. I have absolutely nothing better to do (I sell wine for a living).
- July 19, 2010 at 10:56 PM
- Thomas said...
You sell wine for a living?
Welcome--I once was a whore, too, but now am found, or am I lost...
- July 20, 2010 at 5:45 AM
Thank you, Thomas. And call me what you will . . . I'm like Ron -- I barely wince.
- July 20, 2010 at 11:58 AM