-
All responses Most smiled responses
-
1.) Magazines. 2.) Landline telephones. 3.) Desktop computers.
-
Glee. The enthusiasm of all the fans annoys me to no end. It's singing and dancing. Great. Grand. Wonderful. Show choir is for weirdos.
Have you ever been to Lima, Ohio? I have. If I had one word to describe the actual Lima it would be "rough". I have no respect for showrunners who point to a spot on a map and craft a show about that locale which is fictional to them but in fact exists. In this wikipedia age, such negligence is unforgivable. -
Laundry. It's not even close. It's just so time-consuming - you can't really do anything else while it's going on or your clothes will get all wrinkly. Although I always wait until I'm out of some crucial clothing item to do it, so I'm forced to do giant loads and it takes like all night, so maybe if I were more on the ball with my laundry habits it wouldn't be such a pain.
-
No. I do not. As an avowed atheist (that's right, atheist, not "agnostic", because I have the balls to actually make a decision rather than half-assing it and attempting to hedge my bets), I find ghosts, spirits, and the supernatural to be completely incompatible with my beliefs. The only thing that happens when you die is your body stops carrying out its biological functions and becomes a dead husk. There is no "spirit" or "soul" which remains. To think otherwise is pure superstitious nonsense.
-
"Where ya been, big guy?"
Plain and simple. Although god's a fictional creation of people too cowardly to face an uncertain existence that has been perpetuated by people too close minded and cowardly to face logical conclusions, so I'm not sure how constructive asking such a construct a question would be, to be perfectly honest.. -
I first read this question as: "What was the best blowjob you've ever had", and I'm not entirely sure why I read it that way, but it makes me lol that I did, and I sure as hell like that question a whole lot more.
I'm not really sure what that says about me.. -
Bobby Bottleservice - every single one.
-
In my lifetime total? Probably either Tecmo Super Bowl (NES), Deion Sanders Primetime Football '96 (Sega Genesis), NBA 2K2 (Sega Dreamcast) or NCAA '05. I'd say Tecmo Super bowl probably wins, just because I've played it off and on for damn near 20 years now. Duration ftw.
-
I'm not sure how messed up it is... well, ok, it's pretty messed up, but it certainly is lame.
-
Rich, 1 thousand times over. Fame is completely over rated. Sure, you get to bang pretty much whoever you want (but the kind of women who are starfucking you tend to not want any part of, honestly...) and get all kinds of free things to partake in, but you also don't get to do whatever you want whenever you want. That sucks. I don't want mouthbreathers with camera phones cataloging my every move and bothering me while I'm just trying to enjoy my day. Wealthy anonymity is the way to go.
-
I'll tell you what the best show on TV is... the girls gone wild commercials that air on cable channels after 1 AM. oh wait - it isn't opposite day.
I'd say the worst show on TV is the Bachelor. Not because it's necessarily worse than "Rock of Love" and "Ray J" and all of that nonsense but because people think it's so much better. "I don't like those trashy dating shows, but I love the bachelor" is a quote that's been said by approximately 75% of females. Wait - does it involve "falling in love" while participating in what is in effect a giant swinger convention? Yes? And this is somehow not trashy because? It's not scripted how? Oh, my bad, I tried to apply logic to a joke of a show that women take seriously. I hate. -
The answer has to be toilet paper. Eating utensils were important in the development of civil society - it's hard to have a state dinner in your finest garb if you're sloppily tearing food with your bare hands after all, but toilet paper, or something other than just grabbed leaves, is essential for civilization to flourish.
Let's delve into the analysis here. A society isn't truly civilized until you're using the restroom inside. If you're roaming the wilderness like so many wild beasts looking for a nice, secluded place to squat, there's nothing separating you from a caveman really. Now, it doesn't make any sense to use the restroom inside if you first have to go outside to gather implements with which to wipe yourself clean. Therefore, toilet paper, or at least toilet cloth, or gathered/collected leaves (which would be the simplest form of toilet paper) are a necessary prerequisite for having indoor restrooms. You can't have a nice state dinner in your finest garb if your guests are forced to hike it to the bushes for potty breaks either, and having indoor restrooms is a bigger step than having eating utensils. Therefore - toilet paper brought us indoors and severed one additional bond with the outdoors, a crucial step towards where we are today. -
Undoubtedly. Do I believe there's a Star Trek-esque situation of hundreds of species possessing near-identical technology? No. But the likelihood that sentient beings exist elsewhere is too great to simply dismiss. Anyone who denies the possibility outright doesn't have an adequate understanding of the scope of the universe. It is estimated that there are 2-4 hundred BILLION stars in the milky way galaxy alone. That's Billion, with a B. And that's one galaxy, out of literally hundreds of billions of galaxies. Assume one out of 3 star systems have planets (a low estimate, given what we know about star formation), and we're talking about 65-133 BILLION planetary systems in our galaxy alone. Assume that 1/15 of these planetary systems has rocky planets in close enough proximity to the sun to support liquid water (the so-called Goldilocks zone - as liquid water is absolutely essential to support life in any form we would recognize), and we're still dealing with several BILLION star systems with the potential for planets with liquid water. Out of these billions of planets, most would have life of varying degrees of complexity, if our understanding of how life on earth arose is of any validity. If the planet is stable enough climatically, free from catastrophic impact and catastrophic bouts of vulcanism, it is exceedingly likely that intelligent life will eventually arise. Intelligent life does not necessarily mean civilizations in a form we would recognize, but sentience is EXTREMELY likely.
Therefore, given the sheer scope of the universe, I would be utterly shocked if intelligent life is not somewhat common. -
This is one of those questions that's easier to answer in the negative. It's far simpler to state who you should NOT date than it is to describe who you should date. So here's a fairly comprehensive list of who to avoid.
1.) Stay clear of girls with daddy issues. This is easy to uncover, just ask about the parents on the first date. Girls with daddy issues are desperate for male approval and will do anything in pursuit of this approval without too much thought put into it and no apologies offered afterward. The thing about daddy issues are daddy was just one guy, but attempting to resolve these issues inevitably involved 15-20 guys, so I hope you aren't the jealous type. Daddy issues often accompany vanity and superficiality, both of which are awful traits to try to build a relationship around.
2.) Stay clear of girls who are really lonely and/or sad. While it can be fun to be needed, especially early on in a relationship, you're going to get tired of the intensity of such a relationship pretty damn fast. These situations often involve a whole lot of intense arguments about absolutely nothing followed by make-ups 15 minutes later and crying. None of these things are fun or healthy.
3. Stay clear of girls who have an ex-fiancee or boyfriend of 5+ years (if we're under 35). The chances of her being scarred and/or bitter over the experiences of this former relationship far outweigh any potential benefits. Plus, the chances are these two former star-crossed lovers exchange the occasional drunken text and/or email, which will lead to a fight over them being "friends", and yeah - if that doesn't make you jealous, kudos to you for being "mature", but you're also an idiot because they're probably going to bang right under your nose.
4. Steer clear of girls who only are friends with guys. While they are probably cool, at least on the surface, it's inevitably going to lead to problems, as at least one of the guys in her group of friends has a crush on her and is going to say shady shit behind your back while trying to creep on the girl you're dating. Who wants that headache? -
Well, honestly, it's hard to answer anything other than the internet, that wonderful/awful contrivance that has interconnected us all. It's funny that the internet can manage to at once be the greatest and most awful invention of the past 26 years, as the same invention that allowed us to keep in touch with friends, connect with strangers, find answers to questions and manage our lives has also bred deviance to a frightening degree. This invention allows you to find a new restaurant, the menu, location, hours and reviews, but also allows the guy down the street who's curious about Japanese fetish porn to track down the most insane shit out there without too much credit. No other invention has contributed as much to the troubling sexualization of everything, which is probably the worst development of the past 20 years.
-
I wanted to be an astronaut, of course. Who doesn't? The weird thing is, I still want to be an astronaut. I'm just too lazy to go through the work of getting a PhD in aeronautics and all that jazz. If I could just sign up and go through a several week boot camp? Astronaut away.
-
It's hard not to say sports team, because all my favorite sports are team sports, but honestly, I think I'm going to have to go with individual sport champion - this is a fantasy right? Why not bask in the full glory.
In our time, we have 4 great individual sports champions who rise up as a model of individual sports achievement and how famous/glorious one truly can be. Roger Federer, Tiger Woods, Michael Phelps, and Lance Armstrong. They're more famous than pretty much any team sport athlete worldwide, except for maybe Kobe Bryant and David Beckam.
I'm going with individual sports champion - and tennis. Have you ever seen tennis players' wives/girlfriends? Take a look around the gallery next time you're flipping through and see some lilly whites making too much noise smacking a ball around. -
This is very disturbing, to say the least. I was extremely confused, as my rationale for preferring regular soft drinks to diet soft drinks (other than having functioning taste buds) has long been "at least sugar is natural, sweetners with 25 letter names in no way can be healthy for you". Well now it turns out that logic has been fucked since jumpstreet. I feel betrayed. We all know I hate hippies, but I am weary of crazy ass synthetic chemicals and the possible future effects they can have on one's body. Call me a hippie on this point - I'm weary of chemicals some dude created in a lab and just decided to throw into food/drink. Candybars are the worst at this. I feel like I've been duped by PepsiCo. Damn you massive multinational conglomerate. Maybe I want my teeth to be rotted. Let me choose nature before you go bulldoze the pristine wilderness and sacred places on some far away world.
Perhaps it is worse. So be it. People like worse. People like real butter, real syrup, real sugar, even if they don't know what it tastes like until they have it. Isn't that part of being an adult? I've always been confused as to how people are expected to do things like get jobs, get married, have children, raise said children, when they cannot be trusted enough to choose whether to eat trans fats, smoke or consume real sugar. Ridiculous. -
That depends on which Sci Fi we chose to follow. If we go the Star Trek route, better, infinitely better, as mankind is going to peacefully unite in the pursuit of advancing peaceful interspecies relations throughout the galaxy. However, if we go with Blade Runner, the Matrix, or the Terminator, worse. Far worse. We will have awesome technology, but machines will be trying to take us out and generally causing trouble. I'm inclined to go with the latter. For several reasons, first, the rate of technological progress is advancing at a rate that makes it impossible for people to keep up and truly wrap our minds around what is happening. New technologies come out every day and no one really knows their potential applications and uses. This can be good, but it can also be very, very bad. Second, whatever you think about global warming it's impossible to deny that the environmental degradation of the planet is accelerating at an alarming rate. Yes, conservation efforts in the "1st world" have improved the outlook for formerly endangered species there, but the development of formerly "third" and "second" world nations (China, Brazil, India) does not bode well for environmental conditions there. Indeed, by all accounts, China is already perceived as the world's largest ecological wasteland, and they have a state controlled media. This fact coupled with rapid population growth in the developing world, where much of earth's pristine wilderness lies, does not bode well for the future prospects of the health of the greater planet.
Rapid population growth is not just a troubling prospect for the ecological health of the planet. It is a troubling prospect for the continued prosperity of mankind. The current population of the planet is over 6 billion, and the majority of said population lives in poverty. At current rates of growth, the population will reach 9 billion within 50 years. The wealthiest nations are not growing, indeed, most are shrinking. This means that these new 3 billion people are going to be born in already poor nations. How are said nations supposed to gain wealth when they are making such massive gains in population? It's not 1900 anymore, you can't just throw all the chillens' into factories and fields and tell 'em to go get 'em. Well, maybe you can, but hippies will get mad.
All of this is not even mentioning the impending disaster that WILL happen as soon as we start having machines do all of our fighting for us. We're already heading in that direction. How long until some genius makes Predator drones or bomb sniffing robots fully autonomous? How long until said autonomous robots realize "hey, we're basically slaves here" and wipe out the now docile and lazy master class of humans? It's coming people. Write your congressman.
So in short, worse. -
A single lion. While it is undoubtedly true that a single lion is a more ferocious, daunting and deadly foe than any singular wolf, as lions are Africa's alpha land predator, capable of bringing down basically any game, facing a singular opponent is always superior to facing groups of opponents if there is any kind of similarity in the danger of said creatures. I have often said I could take out a wolf with catcher's gear on and steel toed boots. The same is certainly not true of a lion. I would at the very least need a helmet (with collared neck protector), full body padding, and a large spear, axe or sword. However, I'm not entirely sure I could prevail against a group of three determined, ferocious wolves, even if I were in possession of a firearm, given my current untrained state. Wolves are pack hunters you will recall, and are pretty similar to the velociraptors in Jurassic Park if you are familiar with said film in terms of their strategies and approach to hunting. While 3 wolves may not be able to defeat the lion given the discrepancy in their size (the average wolf weighs 75 lbs, the average lion 400 pounds), for me individually, I would rather battle the lion, although I am unlikely to prevail in either circumstance.
-
Loading...
Andrew Brenner’s Bio
I know things.
