Jess corrects: (referring to yesterday’s comments about our conversation) You think that conversation was spastic?? We’ve way out-spazzed that conversation before! Brad says: Well, to be fair, I did say “kind of spastic” which in itself implies a lower degree of spasticity — an almost überspasticity if you will, superceding the idea of spastic conversation by it’s very nature and context. I think that the general essence of most conversations could be derived within a purely spastic framework, and ultimately defined by their relative spastic quantity. An “sQ” perhaps? So if any conversation could be rated on a non-linear logarithmic spiral scale between two arbitrary points — say 1.37 and 9.10338 — a “kind of spastic” conversation would still rank as spastic — say taking an sQ value of approximately 4.921. Not a bad score, but certainly room for improvement. |
|
Tired of your anonymous pic? Put a face to your comment.
Comment avatars can be set up at en.gravatar.com.
It's free, fun, and secure. And then we'll all know who you really are!
the.trouble.with.tech >> the.trouble.with.tech I have good intentions really. The problem with technology -- such as blogger where all these nifty little words are filtered through to get onto my website and into your corneal light sensors -- is that sometimes the darn things just
Yesterday… >> Yesterday was dim: I didn't feel like perching the keyboard any more than was necessary. That, and I saw a mindclicker of a movie, Resident Evil, of which you will probably be able to read the review if they decide to
scrooge would be easier >> December 5 Even after taking a full day off to wander the city in search of that mythical perfect gift, I'm tired and annoyed by the holidays --- already -- and only marginally closer to finishing my shopping. I alleviated some stress
Dear USA. >> We love you guys. You're our neighbors and our friends. Occasionally we like to come on down and pay ya'll a visit. We enjoy that, and we'd like to keep it that way. And we hope you feel
