You don't love me like you think you love me.
Seriously? You hate my friends, you disdain my hobbies, you scoff at my dreams, you have no interest in WHO I AM. But you think you love me?
I'm sorry, but no. You love a figment of your imagination that you created, who happens to look like me.And on a completely different note, at raoin's house while she's carrying around babynose, getting stuff ready for con - maybe Origins. There's a funnel on the stove - a gadget that I think is supposed to make it easier to get things into the fryer - but I drop my vitamins into them, and they disappear into the stove's inner workings. I start disassembling the range. I wake up to hear my flatmates squabbling.Very interested in the guaranteed income concept. If I had $4000 more per month, I could experiment with the concept, giving $800/month to a stranger for no particular reason, and tracking the person's course of life; the only condition would be for said person to do the same if income hit >(X0,000; I'm thinking x should probably be greater than 4).Bother, bother, bother. While adding fiber to one's diet is admirable (unless you're already eating like a horse), I haven't been counting it against my sugar correctly - the buffering can only take place if it's in the stomach at the same time as the sugars to slow down absorption.
Moving forward, I only get to subtract it if I eat it just before or during the sugars, not anytime during the day.Holy snarking flit. http://www.fastcompany.com/3007534/creative-conversations/supreme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage-bud-light-hops-equality-mem
This is both insignificant and significant.
On the lesser side, Budweiser isn't taking an active stance, or putting out discussion, or campaigning any legal divisions. A bit cynical, perhaps, but I'm assuming it's a calculated risk with the assumption that the majority of the people who consume social media are on the "pro-" side of this argument.
On the greater side, the fact that they assume this, and are willing to risk market share despite their primary consumers being straight young men... even if it's a cynically calculated risk, it means they've also placed odds on the winners in this battle. (Not to mention the faint possibility that it's a statement of support and not just going along with the crowd to stay popular.)Spring was all aflutter today. Birds and flowers and squirrels everywhere. Grab your hankies.
I'm sorry, but no. You love a figment of your imagination that you created, who happens to look like me.And on a completely different note, at raoin's house while she's carrying around babynose, getting stuff ready for con - maybe Origins. There's a funnel on the stove - a gadget that I think is supposed to make it easier to get things into the fryer - but I drop my vitamins into them, and they disappear into the stove's inner workings. I start disassembling the range. I wake up to hear my flatmates squabbling.Very interested in the guaranteed income concept. If I had $4000 more per month, I could experiment with the concept, giving $800/month to a stranger for no particular reason, and tracking the person's course of life; the only condition would be for said person to do the same if income hit >(X0,000; I'm thinking x should probably be greater than 4).Bother, bother, bother. While adding fiber to one's diet is admirable (unless you're already eating like a horse), I haven't been counting it against my sugar correctly - the buffering can only take place if it's in the stomach at the same time as the sugars to slow down absorption.
Moving forward, I only get to subtract it if I eat it just before or during the sugars, not anytime during the day.Holy snarking flit. http://www.fastcompany.com/3007534/creative-conversations/supreme-court-considers-same-sex-marriage-bud-light-hops-equality-mem
This is both insignificant and significant.
On the lesser side, Budweiser isn't taking an active stance, or putting out discussion, or campaigning any legal divisions. A bit cynical, perhaps, but I'm assuming it's a calculated risk with the assumption that the majority of the people who consume social media are on the "pro-" side of this argument.
On the greater side, the fact that they assume this, and are willing to risk market share despite their primary consumers being straight young men... even if it's a cynically calculated risk, it means they've also placed odds on the winners in this battle. (Not to mention the faint possibility that it's a statement of support and not just going along with the crowd to stay popular.)Spring was all aflutter today. Birds and flowers and squirrels everywhere. Grab your hankies.