Take it all in
report this user
Aug 4, 2011 Take it all in commented on A Quick and Dirty Guide to Rejecting the Tunnel.
Ok, so here is what I want to know. The Stranger keeps OMG'ing over this study that says "minimal change to downtown traffic" because, like OMG it is all about Downtown Seattle and Downtown Seattle only, right?

So, here's what I don't get, why is that one part of the study God's friggin' word as to why you are like "so right" on this issue, but the rest of the study, which actually supports the bored tunnel option, is total BS not to be taken seriously? If the study is BS altogether, which it must be if it supports the bored tunnel and that is like totally the wrong option, right? Then you can't really use any part of it so support your argument. It's either an accurate study that accurately portrays what is best for the city, or it's not, right?
Oct 9, 2009 Take it all in commented on The Nobel Peace Prize.
How about you think fucking congratulations and move on.
Sep 18, 2009 Take it all in commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day.
@9 there totally is.

Getting my man off is hot ... and how much he gets turned on by what I do ... even hotter.

I think it has more to do with sexual inhibitions and stereotypical roles that woman are said to play. It's okay for her to "not be okay" with giving head because so many of her friends are the same way, so she doesn't even try. She could also be afraid of being bad at it. It is so easy to be bad at giving head, and if you never do it? Well ... and who knows maybe her past trauma was actually an ex telling her that she was bad it ...

If she really got into it though and noticed what it did to him ... I think that she could be converted.
Sep 4, 2009 Take it all in commented on Hate!.
overall extremes at either end are not good for you, we can all find studies that say so:

Sep 4, 2009 Take it all in commented on Hate!.

I laughed so hard coffee came out my nose.
Sep 3, 2009 Take it all in commented on Re: Whose Beard Is Better?.
@4 totally!
Sep 3, 2009 Take it all in commented on Hate!.

The back lash is not at the idea that obesity is bad for your health, we know that. And I am not an overweight or obese person. I enjoy Dan's posts for the most part and have even found some of the study posts interesting.

But this is getting to a point where he is no longer posting to inform, assist, help, advise, etc. it has gotten to the point where he is clearly going out of his way to make sure that overweight people know how much they disgust him. It's a total power trip.

And, as many have said, it's his blog, he can do whatever the fuck he wants, it's just kind of disappointing for him to act like this.

I don't hate Dan for it, I just thought it was beneath him to act so childish, I was wrong and am disappointed. But as Kim in Portland pointed out, the "hate" from others on this particular posting is not aimed at the studies themselves or even the fact that he is posting them, it is purely about his delivery.

Over-consumption of anything is gross, I agree, but the voice that is being used here isn't helping the problem. It isn't productive, if anything it is counterproductive. How about finding and posting some studies on how to improve your mental and physical health on the path to losing weight? I dunno ... but the tone of these posts is getting increasingly negative. Of course if America started being healthier, losing weight, looking better, etc. than how would we know who the "beautiful" people are right? Then how would you and Dan measure your superiority?
Sep 3, 2009 Take it all in commented on Hate!.
@7 I think it's more like digging your heals in. You know the whole "This is my world I can do whatever I want with it" mentality. I mean, if you think about it, Dan is kind of like God of the Stranger, and this is his way of rubbing our noses in it.

I agree that obesity is a big problem in the world, as far as health goes (note: I said obesity, not 'fat people.' Obesity is a big bad health problem), but really this is getting wee bit tired.

Dan, you speak so intelligently and amusingly about so many other things, this hateful desire to belittle people of a different physical nature than you is rather ... baffling ... and seems beneath you.

Obesity is bad for your health ... we get it. Move on already.
Sep 2, 2009 Take it all in commented on "Why Do You Hate Me?".

Some others have brought it to your attention already that this is not a marriage issue, however, perhaps you need answers to your questions:

#1 who changes their name?
    Umm, does it matter? I have known men to change their name to match their wives, or women who don't change their name @ all

#2 how would this union look on a family tree?
    Really? You're worried about how to represent this on a family tree? Because not all male to female marriages involve having children you know, so how does that look on a family tree? I imagine it would look much like that. Unless of course the couple decides to adopt or find a surrogate or sperm donor ... then it would look like any other family tree.

#3 since the church is unlikely to preform same sex marriages what would these unions look like on paper?
    Ummm, if the debate was all about just the religious side of marriage than their really wouldn't be a debate, as there are MANY churches that are willing to and already do perform religious ceremonies for same sex couples. But since the debate is obviously about the benefits bestowed to a couple upon entering into a legal contract with each other and the state (ie marriage) I imagine that contract (or that paper that you are referring to) would look just the same as it does now for opposite sex couples.

#4 would this be the same as regular marriage or something slightly different?
    What is this "regular" marriage that you speak of and where does it actually exist?

#5 if this were some sort of legal alternative to conventional marriage would it also be made available to heterosexuals?
    Probably. As heterosexuals get all the benefits. It is the homosexuals that get denied.