I'm never really compelled to use my phone until the low battery symbol comes up.
It's like having a week to live.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
6th Post.
People that decide to keep a bird as a pet are basicly signing up for a lifetime of head aches and beak shaped scars on the tips of their index fingers.
The only use for birds that I can think of is maybe giving the Wright Brothers a good idea.
Some people keep parrot-like birds as pets, just because they want to teach them to say outrageous things.
Why not just get a naive foreigner?
The only use for birds that I can think of is maybe giving the Wright Brothers a good idea.
Some people keep parrot-like birds as pets, just because they want to teach them to say outrageous things.
Why not just get a naive foreigner?
Thursday, April 23, 2009
5th Post
When people refer, "yesterday's newspaper," shouldn't they say "oldspaper" instead?
It's not new anymore.
It's not new anymore.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Fourth Post
Why all of a sudden did the word "midget" change to "little person"?
Doesnt "little person" seem a little less creative than "midget"?
Usually, when words change to their less popular synonyms, people tend to choose the more inventive ones.
For example, "automobile" changed to "car".
You look up "midget" in the thesaurus and you will find many clever substitues that are alot more interesting than "little person".
Doesn't it feel like we're moving backwards here?
Doesnt "little person" seem a little less creative than "midget"?
Usually, when words change to their less popular synonyms, people tend to choose the more inventive ones.
For example, "automobile" changed to "car".
You look up "midget" in the thesaurus and you will find many clever substitues that are alot more interesting than "little person".
Doesn't it feel like we're moving backwards here?
Monday, April 20, 2009
Second Post
You know those people that always dance with top hats and canes?
What do they need canes for for?
Clearly, both their legs are fine.
What do they need canes for for?
Clearly, both their legs are fine.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
First Post
Isn't it true that alcoholics are the only actually legitimate "aholics"?
It's not like Rageoholics are are addicted to rageohol.
It's not like Rageoholics are are addicted to rageohol.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
