Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, November 14, 2009
Drugs A Dangerous Drug Imperils Skiers and Snowboarders in Colorado
Posted by Dan Savage on Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM
On election day voters in the small Colorado ski town of Breckenridge decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Good for them. The NYT reports today that business owners are concerned about the town's image after voters approved the measure—71% voted in favor of it—and that "safety-minded resort managers" are very, very worried. Because no one wants people with impaired judgment hurtling down the slopes.
Right?
The business directory at the Breckenridge Chamber of Commerce website lists twenty-three bars and nightclubs, eight pubs, three wine bars, two liquor stores, and dozens and dozens of restaurants that serve beer, wine, and liquor. The Breckenridge Ski Resort—home of those safety-minded resort managers—lists seventy-six bars and restaurants and five liquor stores (three must not be members of the Breckenridge Chamber of Commerce.) If Breckenridge Ski Resort is like all other ski resorts, there are bars and pubs and restaurants serving alcohol steps from the lifts. Keep that in mind when you read the last few paragraphs of the NYT's story about the decriminalization of pot in Breckenridge:
Whether the new measure will lead to more accidents on the slopes is anyone’s guess.... James H. Chalat, a lawyer in Denver who specializes in personal injury and ski cases, said that of the hundreds of lawsuits stemming from skiing accidents handled by his firm, Chalat Hatten & Koupal, over 29 years, marijuana had been a factor in only one collision between two skiers.Alcohol, on the other hand, has often been an aggravating cause, with a drunken skier or snowboarder plowing into somebody else, causing injury.
I would've moved those paragraphs up if I had edited that story.
1
Well, you never would have edited a New York Times story because you are barely even qualified to write for a shitty paper like The Stranger. Forget about editing. Have you figured the difference between "your" and "you're", "to" and "too", yet Dan? Nothing a little gay persecution won't cure!
2
i just made scrambled eggs. i saute'd some onions and green peppers, then threw in 4 eggs loaded with cambodian pepper. near finish i threw on some shredded colby jack cheese. topped the eggs onto some light rye toast. made a nice fresh fruit smoothie to wash it all down with.
now i need some whiskey in order to get me through some furniture shopping in ballard
now i need some whiskey in order to get me through some furniture shopping in ballard
3
It was a factor in a collision only once because smoking dope cuts down on the actual activity of skiiers on the slopes.
The rest were too baked to do much more than watch.
The rest were too baked to do much more than watch.
5
@3: Yes, you're right: people who are stoned don't snowboard or ski. There are no stoned people on that mountain, or any mountain. Because you can't get high and snowboard. Ask any professional snowboarder.
@1: Yes, I am barely qualified to write for my own shitty little paper—someone needs to let the editors of the NYT know.
@1: Yes, I am barely qualified to write for my own shitty little paper—someone needs to let the editors of the NYT know.
7
Safety-minded resort managers = Litigation-minded resort managers
I applaud all of these efforts to legalize pot. It's about time. And, of course, legalizing it for personal use is not the same as legalizing it for use while driving.
However, I'll throw this out there for the sake of argument ... Alcohol impairment is easy to detect. If someone is drunk, a breathalyzer will quantify that. However, if someone is stoned, there is no way to tell. A pee test will only show if pot has been consumed in the last several days or weeks. There is no way to tell if someone is stoned at that moment, other than qualitative signs like droopy eyelids or excessive snacking.
I know from first-hand experience that alcohol impairs motor skills FAR more than pot does. So, I'm not freaked out at all by the idea of a mountain full of stoned snowboarders (or,even, a road full of stoned drivers). And, I agree with @4, this law will do nothing about usage. People who like to ski or snowboard stoned have been doing it already, and nobody has noticed.
I applaud all of these efforts to legalize pot. It's about time. And, of course, legalizing it for personal use is not the same as legalizing it for use while driving.
However, I'll throw this out there for the sake of argument ... Alcohol impairment is easy to detect. If someone is drunk, a breathalyzer will quantify that. However, if someone is stoned, there is no way to tell. A pee test will only show if pot has been consumed in the last several days or weeks. There is no way to tell if someone is stoned at that moment, other than qualitative signs like droopy eyelids or excessive snacking.
I know from first-hand experience that alcohol impairs motor skills FAR more than pot does. So, I'm not freaked out at all by the idea of a mountain full of stoned snowboarders (or,even, a road full of stoned drivers). And, I agree with @4, this law will do nothing about usage. People who like to ski or snowboard stoned have been doing it already, and nobody has noticed.
8
@5 So because you wrote an Op-Ed you are somehow legit? Please, you're an illiterate jackass parading around as some kind of civil rights crusader. When the bitch of it is, you are totally uneducated and wholly unqualified to do anything representing journalism. One minute you're a medical expert, one minute you're a legal expert, and the next you're some kind of political genius type. Bitch please! You're ignorance about all things political, medical, and legal makes you a perennial embarrassment to the entire gay community. Is it because your "husband" is a shallow, younger trophy boy who doesn't want to talk politics? Now run along now, I'm sure there are some big words you need to look up, Mr. Editor. Go back to school, fucker.
10
@8:
At least Dan's not a little pissant coward. Go down to The Stranger, say that shit to his face, and leave the rest of us out of your personal bullshit.
At least Dan's not a little pissant coward. Go down to The Stranger, say that shit to his face, and leave the rest of us out of your personal bullshit.
11
Dan Savage knows as much about politics as Sean Hannity knows about the Constitution. You're not Josh Lyman, Dan. Shit, you're not even qualified to be Bill Kristol (the only person who is wrong more often than you).
Dan Savage is Glenn Beck. The only difference is the audience he panders to. Both of you take pride in your ignorance, are allergic to basic logic, have never even read the constitution, are paranoid beyond belief, and play to the lowest common denominator. Uniformed people eat it up because their simple minds (like Dan's) confuse conviction with correctness.
Dan Savage loves to play the persecuted part, but has absolutely no problem disparaging those who are overweight, straight, women, or who are black. As far as he is concerned the only people in the history of the world ever to be denied civil rights are gay people. Get a grip and read a book while you're at it, you ignorant, aging-not-so-gracefully little queer.
Remember your not-so-thinly veiled criticism of blacks during Prop 8, Dan? You better believe that ALL gay african americans remember it. At least have the balls to come out and call us niggers next time, you punk little bitch.
Dan Savage is Glenn Beck. The only difference is the audience he panders to. Both of you take pride in your ignorance, are allergic to basic logic, have never even read the constitution, are paranoid beyond belief, and play to the lowest common denominator. Uniformed people eat it up because their simple minds (like Dan's) confuse conviction with correctness.
Dan Savage loves to play the persecuted part, but has absolutely no problem disparaging those who are overweight, straight, women, or who are black. As far as he is concerned the only people in the history of the world ever to be denied civil rights are gay people. Get a grip and read a book while you're at it, you ignorant, aging-not-so-gracefully little queer.
Remember your not-so-thinly veiled criticism of blacks during Prop 8, Dan? You better believe that ALL gay african americans remember it. At least have the balls to come out and call us niggers next time, you punk little bitch.
12
@10 And who are you, Mr. Courageous man posting on the internet. A perfect shining example of the ignorant base that Dan panders to. Is your GED serving you well whilst you're giving handjobs for rent behind Taco Time?
13
There's certainly no shortage of hard-core boozers at Breck, and I speak from personal experience. This law will make little to no difference.
14
Almost everyone between 15 and 40 on the slopes is a little high, at least it seems that way. It never fails that I smell pot wafting past when I'm on the chairlift.
16
I know of no studies showing pot impairs response time or leads to more accidents. All drugs are not equal. If this were really about "response time" or whatever code-words for sobriety people are using, there's be an equivalent movement to ban cell phones anywhere accidents might occur.
The resort owners are worried that people will (accurately) believe their professional ski instructor staff to consist entirely of stoners. It's a perception problem, not a safety problem.
The resort owners are worried that people will (accurately) believe their professional ski instructor staff to consist entirely of stoners. It's a perception problem, not a safety problem.
17
Well, @11, I'm an overweight, straight female and I've never felt insulted by Dan. I guess we morons around here are just not as sensitive as your well-educated little self. Oh, and assuming you're the same enraged troll posting @8, I advise you to educated yourself on what a comma splice is before you so snottily critique the grammar of others.
18
@17 I was formerly the Harvard Law Review. I don't need your advice about punctuation. And I sure as shit don't need Dan's advice on the constitution. Go back to the bar and pretend to be educated, fool.
19
“They didn’t do enough work in the communities of color. On the other hand, communities of color demonstrated an awfully bigoted vote.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZVAlSqN…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcZVAlSqN…
20
So I lived in Breckenridge, and worked at Copper Mountain as a snowboard instructor. Breckenridge was well known for drug testing employees. So what Breckenridge got was all the drunks and the coke heads. Why? Because drug testing mostly catches the pot heads cause it stays in your system for a month. And while coke heads only have to stay off the coke for 3 days or so for it not to come out in their pee... most stoners can't go a whole month.
Anyway, the results were clear. Copper Mountain, with no mandatory drug testing got all the stoners. Everyone at Copper Mountain was high, most of the time.
Breckenridge therefore was in the lead for number of on slope ski and snowboard collisions that resulted in death or serious injury.
And what did Copper Mountain have to show for all the stoners? Every year, for years, they were voted "The Friendliest Mountain in Colorado" and I never remember anyone dying for running into one another.
Anyway, the results were clear. Copper Mountain, with no mandatory drug testing got all the stoners. Everyone at Copper Mountain was high, most of the time.
Breckenridge therefore was in the lead for number of on slope ski and snowboard collisions that resulted in death or serious injury.
And what did Copper Mountain have to show for all the stoners? Every year, for years, they were voted "The Friendliest Mountain in Colorado" and I never remember anyone dying for running into one another.
21
@11, 12: Right there with you on that. Cheers for saying it much better than I could.
Year after year for I don't know how long anymore (gotta be at least a decade or greater now), each and every dismissive comment made by Dan (in SL columns, in Slog stories, in daily life, etc.) at and toward trans people, writ large, isn't fucking forgotten. At best, they're souls for Dan to pity. At worst, use your imagination.
Dan, I know that I could never expect you to approach a trans person and ever look at them as an intellectual, cultural, political, or social equal where credit is due. It just isn't demonstrably in you to be all "people are people" about it. Of course, you probably do anyway now and again, for the very plain reason that you have no fucking clue when you're even talking to one (sometimes your 'dar fails, Dan-O). They know there's zero chance they'd ever get a paid job at the Strangler shack — unless, naturally, they put up, shut up, and never told a goddamned soul. Assuming, of course, they'd even want to work there anymore and with someone as "nice" as you.
Not that you'd know what that's really like to be on the short end of this stick. Go ask your elders who get short shrift at pride now because they're no longer "eye candy", and see what they say about being gay in the 1950s was really like. Back then, gay men didn't hold the bully pulpit. All these years later, instead of dismantling it when the old guard retreated, some gay men took over. OK, at least one. No, at least two: the guy who runs Lavender magazine in the Twin Cities is a chip off the old block. Dan, you'd love his style.
Just as the idea of the "gay man" is a model container for a wonderfully wide variety of men (some good, some not so good), so goes the idea of the "trans person" (some good, some not so good). In the wrong hands, the container becomes a nasty stereotype that fucks everyone over whose own lives sorta overlap into it. When that container is the "other", it becomes a tool for cowards to parry and thrust.
In your published work, Dan, you stick to model containers over what stands before you in reality — just as it suits you. As a trans person who knows there's a lot of chaff in the pile, it really should be up to other trans people to do any criticizing of internecine affairs — not some cockwithered, insecure, cissexual white gay editor who is just as tetchy about the trans model container the way you're tetchy about "blacks ruining it for Prop 8," paraphrased.
@10? I look forward to it. Of course, Dan won't see it coming. He'll have thought of me as an equal player by then and won't know how to deal should I out myself before him.
p.s., Speaking of which, Dan, that guy running Lavender magazine? He was a lot like you, except for one thing: he made his staff in the vision of what he thought the queer world should resemble, right down to hiring an old drag queen (who was wide open about getting the willy-chopping) to write the cheeky back page column every week. And this, my friend, was what he thought we — trans men, too — were all like. Fuck him and fuck you, too.
/me lights a spliff and hands it to Dan. Call it a "peace pipe".
More...
Year after year for I don't know how long anymore (gotta be at least a decade or greater now), each and every dismissive comment made by Dan (in SL columns, in Slog stories, in daily life, etc.) at and toward trans people, writ large, isn't fucking forgotten. At best, they're souls for Dan to pity. At worst, use your imagination.
Dan, I know that I could never expect you to approach a trans person and ever look at them as an intellectual, cultural, political, or social equal where credit is due. It just isn't demonstrably in you to be all "people are people" about it. Of course, you probably do anyway now and again, for the very plain reason that you have no fucking clue when you're even talking to one (sometimes your 'dar fails, Dan-O). They know there's zero chance they'd ever get a paid job at the Strangler shack — unless, naturally, they put up, shut up, and never told a goddamned soul. Assuming, of course, they'd even want to work there anymore and with someone as "nice" as you.
Not that you'd know what that's really like to be on the short end of this stick. Go ask your elders who get short shrift at pride now because they're no longer "eye candy", and see what they say about being gay in the 1950s was really like. Back then, gay men didn't hold the bully pulpit. All these years later, instead of dismantling it when the old guard retreated, some gay men took over. OK, at least one. No, at least two: the guy who runs Lavender magazine in the Twin Cities is a chip off the old block. Dan, you'd love his style.
Just as the idea of the "gay man" is a model container for a wonderfully wide variety of men (some good, some not so good), so goes the idea of the "trans person" (some good, some not so good). In the wrong hands, the container becomes a nasty stereotype that fucks everyone over whose own lives sorta overlap into it. When that container is the "other", it becomes a tool for cowards to parry and thrust.
In your published work, Dan, you stick to model containers over what stands before you in reality — just as it suits you. As a trans person who knows there's a lot of chaff in the pile, it really should be up to other trans people to do any criticizing of internecine affairs — not some cockwithered, insecure, cissexual white gay editor who is just as tetchy about the trans model container the way you're tetchy about "blacks ruining it for Prop 8," paraphrased.
@10? I look forward to it. Of course, Dan won't see it coming. He'll have thought of me as an equal player by then and won't know how to deal should I out myself before him.
p.s., Speaking of which, Dan, that guy running Lavender magazine? He was a lot like you, except for one thing: he made his staff in the vision of what he thought the queer world should resemble, right down to hiring an old drag queen (who was wide open about getting the willy-chopping) to write the cheeky back page column every week. And this, my friend, was what he thought we — trans men, too — were all like. Fuck him and fuck you, too.
/me lights a spliff and hands it to Dan. Call it a "peace pipe".
22
Hey @8: first you accuse Dan of not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're" and then you make that very mistake! ("You're ignorance ...").
Guess what? "Your" a giant douchebag.
Guess what? "Your" a giant douchebag.
23
@22 And YOUR tongue is still in Dan's ass. Simple people like you are the only reason why Dan can afford to it. You eat up his lies, propaganda, and incredibly moronic attempts at logic. Nice to know that the ad hominem is alive in well in the weaker species.
24
The first time I ever smoked pot was on a chairlift. And what do you think those bota bags are for? A little red wine, a piece of salami, and you're set.
25
@19 You're still a racist. The way you presented the Prop 8 vote was irresponsible and offensive. If you can't see that, then that's just another example of your lack of self-awareness. Man up and call me a nigger next time, you little bitch of man. The entire gay african american community is well aware of were you stand, you counterproductive douche.
26
It's time for everybody to just kick back and have a good laugh at Mr. "I'm a Lawyer"'s expense. If he really did to to Harvard (which I'm having a hard time believing due to his illiteracy), he's going to be paying off that six-figure tuition until he's old and gray. And given the current demand for lawyers right now, he'll probably be doing it by working a job where he's making less money than a bartender.
27
Now if they really wanted to save lives, they'd be checking the bars for dogs. Dogs have 1000 times more cooties than deaths by alcohol and pot combined.
28
@26 Try again. $160K a year to START while you're serving espresso. So go fuck yer mother.
On another note, here are Dan Savage's thoughts on rape survivors:
"I’m extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt you when you claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped then, by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) But if my reaction to your letter is a thought crime, I can only plead entrapment: I wouldn’t have had these illegal thoughts if you hadn’t sent me such a stupid letter in the first place... Finally, DRARS, I hereby withdraw my consent for you to read Savage Love. If you continue to read my column against my will, well, we all know what word to apply to your actions."
What a feminist!
On another note, here are Dan Savage's thoughts on rape survivors:
"I’m extremely sorry that you were raped, DRARS, although your baseless accusations of rape make me doubt you when you claim to be a survivor of rape. The feminist bloggers are going to accuse me of thought crimes: If a woman says she was raped then, by God, she was raped. (Tell it to the lacrosse team.) But if my reaction to your letter is a thought crime, I can only plead entrapment: I wouldn’t have had these illegal thoughts if you hadn’t sent me such a stupid letter in the first place... Finally, DRARS, I hereby withdraw my consent for you to read Savage Love. If you continue to read my column against my will, well, we all know what word to apply to your actions."
What a feminist!
30
@29 Thanks for proving to all of us that you are a broke as muthafucka. Don't fuck with Big Law, bitch.
31
Ooh, really, BIG LAW? Big LAW is in the house? Believe me when I say we are all REALLY, REALLY IMPRESSED, Mr. Harvard Law Review. Esquire.
33
@32 If you knew anything, you would know that the standard, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' ONLY applies to criminal cases. Try again, retard.
@31 Go back to fucking your fat wife whilst pretending to be an intellectual. We get it, you're an ave rat who has read a book. Big fucking deal. You are still unqualified to do ANYTHING but gain weight.
And here's another Snippet of Dan Savage wisdom:
"But wait! Iraq isn't in cahoots with al Qaeda, so why attack Iraq in the war on terrorism?
Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, not just an al Qaeda problem or an Afghanistan problem. To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology. To be completely honest, I would actually prefer that the United States go to war against the ridiculous royal family in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been using American money to export their intolerant and deadly strain of Islam all over the world (the kind of Islam that inspires people to blow up discos in Bali), and getting rid of the Saudi royal family and their fascist clerics makes more sense than getting rid of Saddam. But the Saudis are our "allies," so perhaps we can pressure them to reform, as Josh Feit suggests.
In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.
Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?"
How did that work out for you, Dan? SHUT YER FUCKING MOUTH!!!!!
More...
@31 Go back to fucking your fat wife whilst pretending to be an intellectual. We get it, you're an ave rat who has read a book. Big fucking deal. You are still unqualified to do ANYTHING but gain weight.
And here's another Snippet of Dan Savage wisdom:
"But wait! Iraq isn't in cahoots with al Qaeda, so why attack Iraq in the war on terrorism?
Because we're not just at war with al Qaeda, stupid. We're at war with a large and growing Islamo-fascist movement that draws its troops and funds from all over the Islamic world. Islamo-fascism is a regional problem, not just an al Qaeda problem or an Afghanistan problem. To stop Islamo-fascism, we're going to have to roll back all of the tyrannous and dictatorial regimes in the Middle East while simultaneously waging war against a militant, deadly religious ideology. To be completely honest, I would actually prefer that the United States go to war against the ridiculous royal family in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have been using American money to export their intolerant and deadly strain of Islam all over the world (the kind of Islam that inspires people to blow up discos in Bali), and getting rid of the Saudi royal family and their fascist clerics makes more sense than getting rid of Saddam. But the Saudis are our "allies," so perhaps we can pressure them to reform, as Josh Feit suggests.
In the meantime, invading and rebuilding Iraq will not only free the Iraqi people, it will also make the Saudis aware of the consequences they face if they continue to oppress their own people while exporting terrorism and terrorists. The War on Iraq will make it clear to our friends and enemies in the Middle East (and elsewhere) that we mean business: Free your people, reform your societies, liberalize, and democratize... or we're going to come over there, remove you from power, free your people, and reform your societies for ourselves.
Post-9/11, post-Bali, what other choice do we have?"
How did that work out for you, Dan? SHUT YER FUCKING MOUTH!!!!!
34
@ #33 - Oh sure. We only sacrificed our own nation's economy health, education and infrastructure to "re-decorate" the Middle East with, what did you call it, "democracy."
Money better spent on America and its people. You fail.
Money better spent on America and its people. You fail.
35
Wow, a lawyer who's a pissy little loser?
I'm going to be in Seattle for a visit in January, and plan on being at the Slog Happy if it's concurrent with my visit (not sure of the dates, but when they start posting about Slog Happy I'll say if I'm going or not). I'd LOVE to meet Mr. Big, Badass, Harvard-Review Esquire in the flesh. I'll laugh in his six-figure face and ask him why he's such a coward that he can't even register.
I'm going to be in Seattle for a visit in January, and plan on being at the Slog Happy if it's concurrent with my visit (not sure of the dates, but when they start posting about Slog Happy I'll say if I'm going or not). I'd LOVE to meet Mr. Big, Badass, Harvard-Review Esquire in the flesh. I'll laugh in his six-figure face and ask him why he's such a coward that he can't even register.
36
Dan, I think you need to stop forcing people to read your blog posts and newspaper columns at gunpoint. Clearly, it only angers them.
After you do that, the least you could do for our angry "lawyer" friend is put your name at the top of them, so that someone who dislikes you (or so strongly disagrees with you to the point that they'll resort to insulting others and embarrassing themselves) can skip over it, and read something else. Oh, you already do that? Awesome.
After you do that, the least you could do for our angry "lawyer" friend is put your name at the top of them, so that someone who dislikes you (or so strongly disagrees with you to the point that they'll resort to insulting others and embarrassing themselves) can skip over it, and read something else. Oh, you already do that? Awesome.
39
@33 You can't recognize sarcasm. You fail.
@36, 37 Obviously you can't criticize your dear and precious leader. An uneducated, illogical prick like Dan Savage leading a bunch of uneducated, illogical pricks on Slog. So fitting. Isn't the world wonderful when you only talk to people who agree with you? So much for tolerance.
@36, 37 Obviously you can't criticize your dear and precious leader. An uneducated, illogical prick like Dan Savage leading a bunch of uneducated, illogical pricks on Slog. So fitting. Isn't the world wonderful when you only talk to people who agree with you? So much for tolerance.
40
@38 Then you should know, Mr. Editor, that you don't put a period before the end of a quotation when you are referencing one word. And that word isn't a sentence. How many years did they hold you back from second grade? God, do you relish in your ignorance?
Allow me to respond for you: "I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog."
Douche.
Allow me to respond for you: "I am a bad, bad man. Please don't read my blog."
Douche.
41
Possibilities:
1) Troll did, in fact, go to HLS. If so, it should seek professional psychiatric help, because some wires have come loose. Mental illness isn't funny.
2) Troll did not go to HLS, but should seek professional psychiatric help to overcome an obsessive fixation on the President. Mental illness isn't funny.
3) Troll did not go to HLS, is not actually mentally ill. Best troll EVER!
1) Troll did, in fact, go to HLS. If so, it should seek professional psychiatric help, because some wires have come loose. Mental illness isn't funny.
2) Troll did not go to HLS, but should seek professional psychiatric help to overcome an obsessive fixation on the President. Mental illness isn't funny.
3) Troll did not go to HLS, is not actually mentally ill. Best troll EVER!
43
@ 39, what does tolerance have to do with it? Or is that just a meme your hard right leaders have instructed you to say whenever someone disagrees with you?
44
what does tolerance have to do with it?
i can't even remember that Ike Turner video.
What did Paul Bunyan say when Babe escorted a a few MILFs to Paul's front cabindoor?
i can't even remember that Ike Turner video.
What did Paul Bunyan say when Babe escorted a a few MILFs to Paul's front cabindoor?
47
Clearly, I'm missing something terribly amusing - but, I'll wager it's not nearly amusing enough to compel me to turn the unregistered comments back "on".
50
Reading this comment thread is a bit like watching a ping-pong match whilst on psychedelics.
Hilarious, dizzying, and inadvisable to the faint of heart.
Hilarious, dizzying, and inadvisable to the faint of heart.
51
A: I have less and less tolerance with you. I said I wanted Taller Aunts! Ya know? A little "t&a", sans children.
52
"@32 If you knew anything, you would know that the standard, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' ONLY applies to criminal cases."
The chance of a Harvard Law Review student emitting the above sentence is nil.
"@38 Then you should know, Mr. Editor, that you don't put a period before the end of a quotation when you are referencing one word."
OK, the chance that this writer has finished HS, let alone HLS, is nil.
The chance of a Harvard Law Review student emitting the above sentence is nil.
"@38 Then you should know, Mr. Editor, that you don't put a period before the end of a quotation when you are referencing one word."
OK, the chance that this writer has finished HS, let alone HLS, is nil.
53
@52 The chance of Fnarf being an ignorant tool while masquerading as some sort of intellectual: 100 Percent. Is there some criminal standard of proof that you just invented? No? So shut the fuck up. Again Fnarf, less time trying to sound smart (when you clearly aren't), and more time spent losing weight and getting that bitch of yours into shape.
And Dan, witless as always. What do you expect from an uneducated, racist, sexist, self-persecuting dolt? I pity your child (who you only got to wear like an Armani armbag). That kid is gonna need to live in a mental ward. A whore of a father, a trophy bitch of a father. Jesus, I can't even imagine.
And Dan, witless as always. What do you expect from an uneducated, racist, sexist, self-persecuting dolt? I pity your child (who you only got to wear like an Armani armbag). That kid is gonna need to live in a mental ward. A whore of a father, a trophy bitch of a father. Jesus, I can't even imagine.
56
Who cares if this lawyer is for real or not. He's obviously miserable, if he's going to spend this much time pointlessly arguing on the internet. Stop feeding the troll.
57
@40:
"Then you should know, Mr. Editor, that you don't put a period before the end of a quotation when you are referencing one word."
Yes, in fact, you do. Punctuation ALWAYS goes inside a quote tag. ALWAYS.
"Then you should know, Mr. Editor, that you don't put a period before the end of a quotation when you are referencing one word."
Yes, in fact, you do. Punctuation ALWAYS goes inside a quote tag. ALWAYS.
58
Good god people! what the hell is wrong with you all?
Trolls: This post is not about trans issues or race or the war and regardless of your credentials you are acting like psychos and not only not changing anyone's mind but alienating supporters.
People: Why are you feeding the trolls so much trolly chow? don't you know that if you feed them too much they turn into loveschildren?
Can we all just get back to celebrating this victory for getting high and riding goofy crap down hills while dressed like idiots?
Wooooooo! We won one!
Trolls: This post is not about trans issues or race or the war and regardless of your credentials you are acting like psychos and not only not changing anyone's mind but alienating supporters.
People: Why are you feeding the trolls so much trolly chow? don't you know that if you feed them too much they turn into loveschildren?
Can we all just get back to celebrating this victory for getting high and riding goofy crap down hills while dressed like idiots?
Wooooooo! We won one!
59
Yeah, considering some of the ski resorts have bars on TOP of the mountains or even partway down the slopes (seen both myself), I don't see any significant increase in danger even if this causes a whole lot more people to light up on the slopes (unlikely).
The only part of it that is a little worrying is that smoking anything at that altitude (on the mountain especially) can be pretty dangerous if you aren't acclimated to the lack of oxygen in the air. But that's more of an issue for people who burn through a couple packs of cigs in a day than for the stoners anyway.
The only part of it that is a little worrying is that smoking anything at that altitude (on the mountain especially) can be pretty dangerous if you aren't acclimated to the lack of oxygen in the air. But that's more of an issue for people who burn through a couple packs of cigs in a day than for the stoners anyway.
60
Hey Dan, just want to take a moment to express my appreciation for everything you and the rest of the staff at the Stranger do. Seattle is better place because of you, and we are very fortunate that you care enough about our community to try and make it better every day.
And Fnarf, I always enjoy your wit and insight here on Slog. You've been my favorite commenter since Slog's inception and I am always glad to hear what you have to say. Keep up the good work!
And Fnarf, I always enjoy your wit and insight here on Slog. You've been my favorite commenter since Slog's inception and I am always glad to hear what you have to say. Keep up the good work!
61
Feeding trolls is a time-honored SLOG tradition, and one of the greatest sources of entertainment here. Learn to enjoy it.
62
Wow....seriously, wow. Troll saturated comment threads like this remind me of the time my geriatric dog got a potato chip bag stuck on his head and kept bumping into the kitchen cupboards. So pathetic, sad and funny. I never wanted it to end.
64
Every time Dan responds to a troll (and I include Loveschild among them), that troll comes a little in his/her pants. Every time.
65
Looks like the infamous "Tard Supper" post got deleted from Most Commented. An innocent error, no doubt.
66
Used to live there, and this just takes a little pressure off, since just about everyone I knew there was a puffer. Makes it a little nicer to go back to visit.
68
Oh damn, I was totally going to mention the Canadian snowboarders that won gold while stoned. Dan beat me to it.
There is even a song about those guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JMECXMpa…
Anyway, I go skiing all the time at Cypress and Whistler stoned. It's not dangerous, much like driving while stoned has been shown not to be dangerous.
There is even a song about those guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JMECXMpa…
Anyway, I go skiing all the time at Cypress and Whistler stoned. It's not dangerous, much like driving while stoned has been shown not to be dangerous.
70
I am a rock. I am an island.
And for the record: posts move out of "most commented" after 72 hours of if other posts nudge them out by having more comments.
And for the record: posts move out of "most commented" after 72 hours of if other posts nudge them out by having more comments.
72
Wow! Fucking awesome thread! I agree that this is the best comment thread I have read on Slog.
I love that some ultra-weggied fuck-wit pops up first to hammer away at Dan and then feels compelled to cite not only having attended HLS but also that he's a cock sucker to embellish his standing...guess you have the whole cred sausage wrapped up there, SQUIRE. You must be the bottom bitch at your law firm, because from where I am sitting, you look about as sharp and useful as a marsipan dildo. Congratulations to both of your extra chromazone having parents.
On the skiing while high subject: I think that it should be used as a healthy addition to ones riding and learning process. Make sure that you ride sober a lot. Work on your skills, concentrate on your technique, and pay a lot of attention to correct practice. Good. Now that the ground work has been done, go out and ride baked, enjoy the hell out of letting your body take over and notice how much faster your body can operate when you're not over analyzing every little bump in the snow. Now go back and try to do the same thing sober. Once you feel you have the hang you should call in sick on a massive powder day (after the rocks are covered up), get stoned on every trip up the chair, and rip it all day long while enjoying the thoughtful skills you have trained your body.
Oh, and squire-douche: I think that my snowboard instructor quals trump your, "I wish I was a lawyer who made bank and had something better to do than sit around and talk about shit that I don't understand on a comment thread where every single person is laughing at me" credentials. I mean, were you on the Harvard Law Review Ski Club? What a fucking piece of work you are! Thanks for making my day! Seriously, you are the half-digested cherry on top of a Santorum Sunday...boy.
More...
I love that some ultra-weggied fuck-wit pops up first to hammer away at Dan and then feels compelled to cite not only having attended HLS but also that he's a cock sucker to embellish his standing...guess you have the whole cred sausage wrapped up there, SQUIRE. You must be the bottom bitch at your law firm, because from where I am sitting, you look about as sharp and useful as a marsipan dildo. Congratulations to both of your extra chromazone having parents.
On the skiing while high subject: I think that it should be used as a healthy addition to ones riding and learning process. Make sure that you ride sober a lot. Work on your skills, concentrate on your technique, and pay a lot of attention to correct practice. Good. Now that the ground work has been done, go out and ride baked, enjoy the hell out of letting your body take over and notice how much faster your body can operate when you're not over analyzing every little bump in the snow. Now go back and try to do the same thing sober. Once you feel you have the hang you should call in sick on a massive powder day (after the rocks are covered up), get stoned on every trip up the chair, and rip it all day long while enjoying the thoughtful skills you have trained your body.
Oh, and squire-douche: I think that my snowboard instructor quals trump your, "I wish I was a lawyer who made bank and had something better to do than sit around and talk about shit that I don't understand on a comment thread where every single person is laughing at me" credentials. I mean, were you on the Harvard Law Review Ski Club? What a fucking piece of work you are! Thanks for making my day! Seriously, you are the half-digested cherry on top of a Santorum Sunday...boy.
73
"And for the record: posts move out of "most commented" after 72 hours of if other posts nudge them out by having more comments."
If that is true, why has this post, with 72 comments, "nudged out" the comments on "The Tard Supper", which has 98 comments? Dan?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
If that is true, why has this post, with 72 comments, "nudged out" the comments on "The Tard Supper", which has 98 comments? Dan?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
74
To the dumb coward @ 73, OLD POSTS DROP OFF when people stop commenting on them. Otherwise the "most commented" would remain years-old shit like the couple of Chris Crocker posts that got all his myspace followers on here, or the post about the KCSD busting a Critical Mass cyclist, or a few others that got over 300 comments.
Duh.
Duh.
75
Thanks for clarifying, #75. I see that I misread Dan's comment because there was a typo in it. I thought it said posts were nudged out after 72 hours IF other posts get more comments. I see that I missed the word OR. So it makes sense now. I assume you called me a coward because I didn't sign my name. You're right. My name is Susan Carson. I commented here because I am the mother of a child with Down syndrome and am offended by the title of Dan's "Tard Supper" post. If you want to know more about me or my son, visit my blog at http://pdxcarsons.blogspot.com/
76
@18- I don' t know what would be more pathetic, an anonymous internet troll who was pretending to have been involved with the Harvard Law Review or someone who was on the Harvard Law Review being an anonymous internet troll. Either way, it makes me feel sad for you that you spend your time ranting at some mid-level media figure like Dan Savage.
77
Heh, Susan joined in because this thread morphed from breckenridge to DANBASH '09. Thanks for your contribution Susan. Does our "lawyer" poster have you as a facebook friend or something?
78
My goodness, irate cranky-pants guy sure gets tedious quickly, doesn't he? I read the first couple of posts with my usual, "golly, if you hate this paper so much why do you bother reading it?" head-shaking. And then he just kept going, changing his alt, the details of his stunning credentials, and so forth. I wish I was a Harvard-educated multi-ethnic supremely queer and fabulously attractive (I'm just guessing that part) bloke so I could have so much time on my hands and be wise enough to use it for good (annoying people in online forums) rather than evil (reporting the news.)
79
I think smoking pot and skiing/snowboarding is a delightful, fulfilling experience. There's nothing like having several psychedelic-influenced revelations when swerving gracefully down a mountain. Whoosh!! When I've done it I've remained safety-conscious, no problem. Any time I've been high I always maintain the concern of taking it easy, when approaching anything.
I have done these sports with several beers in me too. You're FAR more likely to push yourself too far, out of bounds, accidentally plowing into a tree, person, boulder, snowbank
We need more places to decriminalize pot so we can look at them as case studies and this uptight, square-run country can start realizing that this "drug" is far less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes and the medicine cabinet in our own bathrooms.
I have done these sports with several beers in me too. You're FAR more likely to push yourself too far, out of bounds, accidentally plowing into a tree, person, boulder, snowbank
We need more places to decriminalize pot so we can look at them as case studies and this uptight, square-run country can start realizing that this "drug" is far less harmful than alcohol, cigarettes and the medicine cabinet in our own bathrooms.
80
@1 smoking weed does NOT make me a paranoid douche. It might make you paradoid. i think you already got the douche thing down.
and to your,you're,you are etc....just realize your better than everyone at spotting this horrible grammatical error and continue on living in your perfect world.
YAR.
and to your,you're,you are etc....just realize your better than everyone at spotting this horrible grammatical error and continue on living in your perfect world.
YAR.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Prospecting Science by Charles Mudede
-
Google Briefly Acknowledges the Existence of Gay Couples—and Princess/Frog Couples—on Valentine's Day by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (80) RSS