>> ^rottenseed:

what the heck is peta?


A type of bread that goes great w/souvlaki and some tzatziki sauce.

Found a replacement for it here.

Would've made a profile comment about it but the ole' browser is acting super wonky with the Sift and I can't afford to close/restart it at the moment.

Gah, looks like this is *dead

>> ^flechette:

Actually, 0 stars is faster, darkrowan.
Here's the youtube vid.


Those are both tool-assisted though, whereas this was done in one attempt on its (semi) native platform (Wii Virtual Console) by a human being without any computer aided performance-enhancement.

While impressive in their own right, they aren't really comparable.. I enjoy watching both types, but certainly respect one way more than the other.

I think it's relevant because it dispels the ubiquitous right-wing, Bible-loving, Real American™ narrative and prevalent bigoted opinion (here in the US at least) that those dang lesbos and gay people are inferior, amoral beings bent on destroying civilization as we know it. These aren't fringe opinions where I live, they're the norm.

The article isn't saying they did what they did BECAUSE of their sexual preference/identity, merely that "Hey, look! Those freedom-stealing dykes and queers CAN actually be capable of being good, moral people! Well gee willickers, whaddya know!" It's evidence in direct opposition to their ideology. Of course, the true believer's mind will spin it into a big conspiracy because information that conflicts my own confirmational bias can't possibly be legit, right gais? Just like Breivik "Can't possibly be a psychopathic right-winger!"

The fact that it bears mentioning is unfortunate and/or depressing but the state of things being what they are, I think necessary. These two are heroes who just happen to be gay and no amount of denial can change that.

Perhaps the little guy is in a state of shock/discombobulation; from a collision with the windshield perhaps?

I've heard many a small <THUD!> against my windows only to find a small bird lying near-paralyzed on the ground outside, motionless but breathing/watching me with its eyes. The reflex to grasp things with their claws is usually still present in this state, which is convenient for transporting the poor things to the branch of a nice, quiet bush to let them recover.

Dying is an artform and Sean Bean is a master.

This man douche is a victimizer, not a victim.

<steps in> <looks around>

Meh. Not worth it.

I think you MAY be thinking of the mayfly, Retro. Me so punny.

At first glance I was inclined to agree with xxovercastxx, considering the positioning of the wings (something to consider though, they do not always have the appearance of being near-perfectly parallel to the body, sometimes sticking out at acute angles away from the point of attachment/thorax, which sorta looks like the one in the vid and may be easy to confuse with the dragon fly's wing arrangement when viewed from certain angles), BUT there are a couple of very un-dragonfly-like features here as well.

Most species of dragon flies have their compound eyes touching/fused at the top of the head, looking like one cohesive structure, while mayflies' eyes are placed more on the sides of the head and protrude outwards more, with a noticeable gap of forehead space in between them. Also, the base of the bottom pair of wings seems too skinny to be a dragon fly, where usually the bottom wings remain much broader for much longer, compared to the top pair as you get closer to thorax before finally tapering down to the connection point, though there may be exceptions in morphology from species to species.

I'm no entomologist though, just someone who enjoys watching these buggers go about their business (they're surprisingly tolerant of people and seem quite intelligent for insects, I'd say jumping spiders, Phidippus Audax specifically, are the only creepy crawlies around here that appear to be any smarter, more charming, gregarious than dragon/damsel flies).

I'm too torn either way to definitively call it. I did enjoy speculating about it quite needlessly though. Yay insomnia and Videosift!!

>> ^Crosswords:

>> ^blankfist:
Would it've killed her to google him before showing up for a photo op in his home town?

It very well may have. I get the feeling facts are like kryptonite to this woman.


Luckily she has no use for them.

Wow, that wasn't even an accidental slip of the tongue, she literally didn't know what the fuck she was talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It wasn't immoral, it redeemed creation, his argument shows no understanding of divine providence. chris chooses to espouse this simplistic viewpoint based on a shallow understanding of His life and work...in no way was it immoral, not under any definition. Jesus said this, that the greatest love is that of someone willing to lay down their life for their friends. Jesus did that because He loves us all, to him we're all his friends. chris's argument is missing the point entirely. We can't get there on our own. There is no on righteous, not one;. Chris is a sinner, and he doesn't want to join God in paradise, he would rather be seperated from God forever..so when God gives him what he wanted you say its immoral. make up your mind
>> ^hpqp:
@shiny: So Jesus Christ is the only one to have allegedly died, nay, sacrificed himself, for others? Wow, that makes him soooo much better, and Christianity the pinnacle of morality!
/sarcasm
Watch and learn:




Jesus is just another avatar for God. How can an omnipotent, omniscient being who CREATED THE ENTIRE FRICKING UNIVERSE possibly be sacrificing ANYTHING or teaching some valuable lesson about living morally by killing a mere material manifestation of himself? It'd be like an adult person impressing an infant by doing the "Gotcher nose!" trick and then expecting, no, DEMANDING the child to be just as sycophantically impressed when he becomes an independent, free-thinking adult.

And why the FUCK would he decide to do this only after humanity has ALREADY had an incredibly harsh, scrounging, feral existence (while he sat on his ethereal ass, no less, watching his beloved creation unfold) composed of much abject suffering, hunger, and violence for the roughly 400,000 years of human development prior? Did an omnipotent god have a momentary (from his perspective, of course!) loss of control? What the fuck kind of interventionist God is he to chose THAT time specifically? Came down with a case of Mondays, maybe? Or did he just not care and decide to mix things up out of boredom? What a narcissistic, manipulative, cynical, uncaring, and abusive asshole your god is if your doctrine is to be believed.

You do not need a god, specifically the Christian god in your case, to be moral. Our continued existence and success as a social species has borne this out. We continue to progress in spite of the hamstringing influence of these unimaginative, sadomasochistic ideas, not because of them. Ideas of flawed and all-too-obviously human minds; superstition and utterly incomprehensible and self-contradictory religion. No divine being had ANY hand in that jumbled mess of a book you revere much. No self-respecting divine being would. Us humans, on the other hand...

I'm getting an H.R. Giger vibe from this thing. Not the type of object I'd want my penis anywhere near.

It also doubles as a generator AND keeps antlions away!

Cathartic. (Too subtle?)