Hoff

My roommate just had the idea that I take a break from TSM, and kind of the internet as a whole. Good idea. See y'all in May!

People in Minnesota are weird, though. We just ask each other shit. Case in point, last week I was at the post office, getting out of my car when a lady rolled down her window and asked if I knew where the DMV was. See, right there, I could have NAILED her with the noise and she'd have had no idea.

You'd be SURPRISED, Spoon. Like maybe once a month. And it's not usually old people.

Like, should I just do it to people on the street? "Hey sonny, do you have the time?" Then I turn to this old man and hit him with the elephant noise? 'Cause that actually might hold some promise.

It's been a rough few weeks for the ol' Hoffster. Even *elephant noise* hasn't become the smash hit I was hoping for.

Oh hey, happy birthday to both ABOBO and Matt Young's cat. EDIT: And to Celtic Guardian, but I think he's an actual poster.

Meh. I've got it on TiVo and since it's apparently me vs. the world on this one, I'll give it another look...but I was not impressed. But hey, if everyone thought it rocked, good for 'em. Good TV matches are rare.

He quoted the pic he laughed at, used a to signify the laugh, and then commented on the MJ pic.

*elephant noise*

I'm in a bad mood tonight. TSM isn't helping, but I'm like an addict.

Wait, what? What the fuck kind of statement is that? "Hey guys, pepperoni is the only good pizza topping." Whatever, Marv.

On #1 you missed the point entirely, which is that a situation could in fact exist where the question cannot be clearly answered. The fact that you provided a counterpoint doesn't discredit my explanation. On #5 you missed my point, which is that response B can be as true as response C. There might be an answer that works better, but if two answers work, than the quiz is flawed. Don't step to me, son. I got my logic flowin' on high.

So...am I the only one who thought the main event wasn't very good? It was like Wrestlemania, only slower, with more of the "punch, chop, punch, chop, big move, near fall, big move, lay around, up, punch, chop, punch, chop" stuff. After the near-fall off of the F-U, they didn't seem to know exactly what to do. Not their fault as I'm sure Edge/Orton was pencilled in, but it seemed slow and uninteresting. They stole a lot of their own spots, too. I'd have liked to see more variance. Basically, for the first 15 minutes Cena and Michaels switched rolls from WM, with Cena in control, and then it was a whole lot of nothing. Finish was nice, but even that was a spot they pulled at WM. Thumbs down for me on this week's show, and I'd give the main *** at best.

Thinking about it, I'm not sold on #1 and #5, either. In #1, we're told that something normally occurs when something else happens. There doesn't NEED to be another qualifier. For instance, "Payday normally occurs when the week is over." No need for a qualifying phrase; in fact, often times such a qualifier will make a statement absolute. Take this statement: "Photosynthesis occurs in the summer, if the sun is out.' No need for "normally" before occurs there. In #5, we're to understand that "the sigla frequently overfesks the tresulum" because "the tresulum is usually tarious," implying that the tariousness of the tresulum makes it susceptible to the sigla. BUT, this could easily be because "Siglas are always votial." For instance, and forgive the nedriness, "the dragon frequently defeats the wizard" because "Dragons are always stronger." A dragon IS always stronger than a wizard, but it doesn't mean he'll always win; just because one condition is absolute, it does not guarantee an absolute outcome. QED, bitches.

I actually think that's really awesome, except that I don't get #4. But it shows you just how important it can be to read critically. But yeah, can someone explain #4 to me? EDIT: Okay, I get it; because it's the "primary purpose," it involves clussing. BUT, I could ask "What is the primary purpose of the human eye?" and the answer wouldn't be "To remove eye-liner." So I think that one's a little flawed. Otherwise it's spot-on, though.

that's kinda funny...my wife sometimes takes drives just so she CAN smoke. (she won't smoke around the kids) I used to do that as well. Almost never smoked around any of my non-smoking friends and family.

Oh yeah, no doubt it'll be easy as pie. Addiction is addiction, and six weeks is the figure I always hear thrown around as far as "how long does it take something to become habit." So, yeah, he's probs just as fucked as anyone who tries to quit (your superuncle notwithstanding -- it's very hard for most people). CBright, I myself quit cold turkey, so I won't be much help, BUT I've heard great things about that "QuitPlan" by one of the insurance companies (Blue Cross, maybe). So you should see if you can get on that. I *thought* I heard it was "available to anyone," but I'm not sure. http://quitplan.quitnet.com/p/quitplan/triage.jtml Good luck.

They better not, if they know what's good for 'em.

YES~

Hell, I'm not a flash cartoon and I'm trying to hook that up.

I hear ya.

I miss Legos. I'd give anything (anything!) to have a nice, unassembled Lego castle or spaceship in front of me, waiting for my skilled hands to turn it into something wonderful. *sigh*

Just the other day I saw Canadian Guitarist use the term in one of his posts! It's spreading, man. Like WILDFIRE! One word. I just had this image of CG being fiercely protective of his internet handle. It made me laugh. No disrespect; CG seems chill and I'll try not to repeat my mistake. It just made me laugh...I mean, picture somebody reading their username misspelled and just growing incensed. It's good times.

You could edit it, and then you'd be tagged as a vandal, and they'd revert it back to the original state. They have page histories on Wiki that work pretty well. Yes, it is unreliable at times, but it is also correct more often than the Encyclopedia Brittanica, as confirmed by an in-depth study, and unlike many other webpages, the bullshit gets fixed quickly. That's a cop out. So, you couldn't find one other source, then? In your own defense of Wikipedia you called it "unreliable at times." How are we to know this isn't one of those times? There's one way, and that's to FIND ANOTHER SOURCE. Instead, you chose to bitch. Nice work.