You should all be ashamed of yourselves

j.

Can we settle for just being ashamed of each other instead?

When you ashamed, you make an 'ash' out of 'am' and 'ed'.

Uhhhhh.....yea.

Can I be 'ed'?

Of course.

Are you special?

]

Actually, I stepped in some in the back yard this afternoon...

Why do thet call it 'shampoo'?

poo from a killer whale?

Spreadable ham poo?

Nothin like a ham poo and jelly sandwich

What the hell is he on about? Dodo's? This isn't the time or place. Go post in the extinct section young man, right along with chung ling soo and houdini.

I sooo *heart* you matt! hahaha. Obviously, I got nothing to type. lol

Today's blog:

I have nothing to type, therefore, I will not type anything. However, whenever I can come up with something, I will be sure to note it in a forum. It would probably have to be a different forum, since this is the one for people that have nothing to type. And since I currently have nothing to type, then it shall go in this forum.

blif gnarf ploo chlorp sirvuiq phenoth.

Thank you,
Tom

I have a question, and I'm not sure if this is the place to post it. I've done a search, but nothing seems to match. I wasn't going to ask when I first started wondering about it, but recently I saw a TV show which got me wondering again. If anyone knows the answer I'd really like to hear any input. Thanks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVx_0KkJ0_s

Ironically enough, this exact same guy posted an incredibly useful utility/sleight on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNmu7Gv5c4g

Nothing... nothing....

Josh: nothing...
Matt: nothing...

the rest of you: ................

Another day with nothing to type at all, so I'll just site here and type again nothing to type at all. Have a great all!

I have noticed, in recent time, the lack of thoughtful introspection and fact finding among peers. Not that following the direction of relevant thought is without pitfalls. It's just that many seem to take the hardest way out of most endeavors without favor or forethought. Looking beyond alternative methods may be the path to simplicity and digression, but does that make it justifiably so? I have seen many work towards a means without justification. It's as if they relate more to "the truth" than they do natural progression. By limiting the amount of time devoted to perceiving, they increase the amount of perceptions that are only half realized. This simple limitation grows exponentially when you realize the facts of the matter at hand. Understanding is just the tip of the iceberg. Without the necessity of knowledge, one cannot disprove by means of neglect. Clearly each of us must make our responses to such criticisms as valid as possible. I suggest these three rules in doing so:

1. Don't make figurative responses that cannot be re-defined. Doing so is without justification and rationally lacking.

2. Overcome ambivalence without demonizing hope. It's more than just a mental condition, so shouldn't you treat it as such?

3. Perhaps most important: Lessen the value of preconceived viability. If suggestions are assumed, action will be based on limiting factors, reducing any hope for change.

Perhaps the above is over simplified, but I am convinced it holds true. I am not one for rules, but if anyone can show where my thinking is flawed, I'd love to hear about it.