In "Yes, you can has a cheeseburger"

The article says fat people who had heart attacks did better afterward because they were YOUNGER than thinner people who had heart attacks. They got this from a study that lasted three years.

In "On baby names."

"I am going to spell my child's name D-a-v-i-d and have it be pronounced 'Bob.'" Heh, now I think I'll change the spelling of my name to B-o-b.

I still get off on the sensible and rational Roman naming scheme, especially for girls. I suggest naming modern boys after elements, (I prefer metals), e.g. Copper, Bismuth, Antimony (though Cobalt would be unisex and Silicon might be better for a girl). Of course non-fans of ancient Rome might pick girls' names from the Periodic Table too, with suitable alteration where it's called for, e.g., Helia, Thalia, Fluorinella. And whatever you do, please don't name your kid Lakashawanda, especially if you must spell it LaxhaTia'Ouanda,unless you want to doom her to being a cashier at Wal-Mart forever (and having everyone ask her how it's pronounced while the 37 people in line behind groan). If you insist on doing so her last name better not be Jackson or Smith (not even Smythe).

In "Stinky 18th Century England."

"See honey? I'm not THAT bad a slob: I keep my dungheap indoors!"

In "Do we "coddle" the severely mentally ill?"

At least I can spell "pathological" correctly. And one good thing about going on and on is thst stupid people often understand eventually, while when one is terse one gets called "cryptic." To summarize: nyaah nyaah!

And what makes y'all think castration makes men peaceful? Testosterone in adults conrols libido, not aggression. I'd think you'd want it the other way around, as in "Make Love Not War." Me, I think I'd be MORE aggressive after somebody waylaid me and hacked my nuts off, not less; if you want to keep me docile and gooey make sure I get lots of blow jobs.

Look, the problem with path's relative is not that he's "severely mentally ill" but that he's DANGEROUS. Most "severely mentally ill" people that are really "weird" are NOT. The issue is really not "do we coddle the 'severely mentally ill'" but "what should we do with people who are DANGEROUS, whether they're 'severely mentally ill' or not." Would it surprise anyone to consider that most DANGEROUS people are NOT "mentally ill" and don't even strike most people as "a bit off"? This "OMG a PSYCHO!" bit is a red herring, as well as a convenient label the article writer uses to justify locking up people who are DIFFERENT. E.g., thinking I'm possessed by the spirit of Lana Turner therefore I have to ride the buses talking to myself in a faux femme way is just too damn bad for me, but knowing full well what Reality is and that it's illegal to rape and eat infants but doing it anyway just because it's fun is too damn bad for EVERYBODY. Of course, hey, the hysterias around newsworthy events like Columbine shootings and "9/11" have convinced most Americans that rights and freedoms are themselves dangerous and must be surrendered at the earliest opportunity, but they're too damn stupid to go get themselves locked up where it's safe and want to turn the whole society into a locked ward instead. And of course the Authorities are only to happy to "obey" as shown in this Metafilter post.

In "Stroll while you work..."

I want a computer I can use sitting down, but powered by pedalling (a la Gilligan's Island). Actually the more appliances I'd pedal to power the healthier I'd be.

In "Do we "coddle" the severely mentally ill?"

Clearly then everybody who seems "weird" should be taken out and shot. Society must be protected!

In "Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web"

This does NOT mean I approve of the content of the AutoAdmit posts in question.

I think Bitch Ph.D. (the "cry me a river" link) is aptly named, especially the first part; that one strikes me as parody of "feminazism" out to make "liberal" women look bad. As for the issue itself, lawyers and law students should know better than to selectively moderate their "hobby" site, as they then accept responsibility for the content that does stay there, but then too, well, fuck lawyers if they can't take a joke they make on themselves.

In "The new U.S. e-passport"

Oh shit, I forgot about the deadline, now I'll have to get one with a chip. Crap.

Oh shit, I forgot about the deadline, now I'll have to get one with a chip. Crap.

In "Protecting Splenda"

But they can't stop things without "splenda" in the site name like Splenda and Sucralose Toxicity Information Center and Sugar substitutes and the potential danger of Splenda, and they didn't preempt; people who want to websearch for "splenda" can still find bad stuff about it.

In "Mutts."

We think our "rescue mutt" might well be a Papillon + Pomeranian cross. We all him "a Joey."

In "'Lebensborn' sue Norway."

So what I want to know is, did the Nazi "positive eugenics" program have any positive results? (I mean besides making lots of blonds.) Did it "breed out" bad things, like "the Jews" are trying to do? Not everything about eugenics is evil or wrong just because the Nazis did it, y'know; of what great value is Huntington's disease? (I'm talking about voluntary "selective breeding", not "eliminating" people judged "unfit" nor even "curing" teh Ghey.)

Wow, two Nazi-related threads in one day! Is this a Monkeyfilter first?

In "The ugliest flame war of all time"

Those girls should be in puberty by now, right? Age of consent in several U.S. states. Heh heh heh.

In "Inside the Wal-Mart Presentation"

I'm a very analytical non-magazine-reading poor-as-shit cheapskate who doesn't often brag that he sometimes shops at Wal-Mart. Pigeonhole ME baby, pigeonhole me HARD.

In "Cyclical Non-uterine Dysmenorrhea"

I don't get cramps, I just get really bad PMS.

(limited to the most recent 20 comments)