Very bottom of the list. Blegh!

I'm afraid that I'm not terribly fond of Turkish Delight either, Calalily (in fact I hate it; although this is probably at least partially due to having been tricked into taking a bite out of a "Big Turk" bar when I was a kid; Eeergh!). I'm not a big fan of candy much all around actually, I much prefer savory/salty/sour things (although I do like those bizarre perfume/flower-y flavored chewing gums, which are, sadly, usually pretty hard to find; somewhat like chewing on a bar of soap, but I like them anyway ).

However if anyone gives me any marzipan or Turkish Delight this year you two are free to have it.

Oh Paden, of course not! You should well know that I'm using them to tile my floors instead.

Why is it that TSR always seems to forget that people here save screenshots like they're planning to paper their walls with them?

This is true. I do find your position highly insecure.

Opinions are fine; however, when you make a blanket statement relating to physical/testable/real world subjects you should expect to be called on it and to prove your position. If you aren't comfortable defending a position that you yourself brought into discussion then you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

Perhaps my opinion that providing an argument without any backing automatically equalling intellectual laziness is unfair, as I didn't give you time to formulate a proper response to my questions. On the other hand, you instead chose to defend your argument with a host of ad hominem attacks rather than finding backing for your earlier statements. Maybe you aren't used to conversations/arguments that run this way, I don't know; but for me I find talk like this engaging and interesting and I hope to get you to want to prove your statements in a definitive, evidence (non logical fallacy) based way. If it's something you feel passionate about and feel is important to your personal intellectual/belief system you should want to be challenged on it and be prepared to defend it ( and no, I don't consider "because I think so!" or "You're a jerk!" appropriate defenses).

Ah! Thanks. My memory isn't what it used to be (although I will note that it was milk powder that was contaminated by melamine, although the problem is much more widespread than only one source ).

Yep, I was just teasing too (and like Millie, there would be no question if I wasn't). Besides, isn't it sort of fun to be thought of as a shiv wielding escaped convict who also likes to help people, uh, "relax" in the off hours?


Yep, that too. I love the English language; I mean why use several different words when you can just use one to mean 1,000 unrelated things?


Where are you getting this information, Melissa? While this may (although it would be shockingly unlikely) be true, if you haven't got a good standard set up for judging the "evidence" to support it, you're just misinforming others (and yourself). I'd recommend that you give a strong look at the sources that are providing the information to you; do they have a goal they are trying to push? What sources are they citing? Are they citing the information (e.g. studies, essays, articles, etc.) correctly? Are the sources they are using unbiased? Are they unbiased? What methodology have they set up to test the idea/data? Have you read/viewed/listened to the studies/sources they use as the basis for their reports? Are they thorough? Careful? What criticisms have been levelled at the idea and "evidence"? How have they responded? Have the tests been repeated? Are the results the same as the first time the test was run? How willing are you to accept that you may be wrong, and may only be believing in something because it tweaks your own interest or suspicions? 

Frankly, I could add about a billion more questions to the list, and (at least for me) being unwilling to do the work to get to the bottom of the story and relying only on the info that appeals to you or that a biased source gives out reeks of intellectual laziness.

White Rabbit candies are probably one of the most common Halloween candies that are given out around here (and have been for years and years). I remember as a kid that when we all portioned out our candies in terms of "eatable-ness" they were generally near the middle bottom; for that point when you'd run out of caramels and toffees but not desperate enough to break into the candy corn, marzipan or flavored marshmallow stash . Weirdly enough, it wasn't that we didn't like them, but more that every year we would forget that we actually thought that they were tasty.


Yep, they had to be recalled recently due to a tainted milk issue (not the White Rabbit maker's fault; the powered, I think, milk came from a separate company with some dodgy quality standards).

Nope, oolongteadrinker saw that (unless she/he just edited his/her oversight really quickly ). Oooog, I'm too slow!


The "white graniness" is more than likely due to poorly painted alphas combined with using a white/beige background in the working file instead of one coloured to match the metal (and yes, alphas that look like this are a true mark of laziness in my opinion).

Heh, we use both those meanings as well for "shaft" (although the sexual meaning is certainly less common, as is the second meaning I gave for "shank"). "Shaft" has another slang meaning as well around these parts (well, okay, it has several) in relation to being forced to pick up or do some unpleasant activity that no one else wanted (e.g. Employee A: "Fred had to work the graveyard shift all weekend" Employee B: "Oh, too bad. He totally got shafted"). It's somewhat connected to the betrayal meaning, but can also be used when no one is at fault and the bad thing is merely due to a sequence of events.

Where I'm from it means to stab someone in the back with a crudely made blade (also called a "shank" and generally only in prison) or to betray someone in some dreadful fashion (as in "being stabbed in the back"). If nothing else, either definition certainly raises a host of intriguing and disturbing questions about Melissa .

I agree. Let's move away from the feelgoody-ness; this is starting to feel like an afterschool special.


That might have been the only part of that movie that I actually liked (I mean, come on, sharks turning on ovens?! I might have enjoyed it more if it had actually baked a cake or made a pie or something). 

And you are so, so wrong about s'mores, Feverish.

Well, I mean, who else am I going to blame?

As for the fake Australian voice ads, it reminds me of a weird trend on this end of the world (although we have poorly dubbed ads as well, generally ones that were filmed in French originally and then lamely dubbed into English, and I'm sure done only as a method to save cash). For some bizarre reason, I've noticed a rash of ads lately starring Australian actors; someone somewhere must have decided that the accent calms the viewer and puts them in the mood to lay out some cash .

It appears to be a more worldwide expression than I thought (I'm a 30 and I found it and my use of "borrow" listed on the Urban Dictionary; plus, SoggyFox, you are very far and a country away from me ). Unfortunately, they don't have any etymology there and I'd love to know how it originated (I don't think it's with PotC, being as I am not a huge fan of those films (and yes, I feel your horror, peoples), and it seems like I've been using them that way for a damned long time).

I do have the weird habit of using "borrow" and "steal" when I'm speaking casually as replacements for "take" and "borrow" (i.e. saying "Can I borrow a bit of that?" when someone has food or drinks they're giving out, which is weird in that I have no intention of returning it and that no one would want it back if I did ; and saying "Can I steal that?", when I just want to borrow something for a moment, e.g. a pen). I don't know if it's common slang because I don't notice if anyone else does it when speaking to me (plus, any time I say it around my family the general response is, "Well you're not stealing/borrowing anything..."). Maybe it's a west coast Canadianism? Does anyone else use it? (And we have three versions of "pissed" in common usage in Vancouver, we're so versatile )

Well, that's an age requirement set up by a private company/corporation, so it doesn't actually count as a law (by law, I meant specifically something set up by a government to control who may post on and join forums). Rules like that are more likely set up not because there are specific laws for age requirements, but more because the company/companies/forum owners worry that they will be held accountable/responsible for members that get in trouble (e.g. a child who gives out their home address and phone number on a forum to a pedophile, taking flack from parents/consumers about "inappropriate" content, etc.) or contravene other (actual) laws while on the site. There may be rules in some countries (although I don't know any, but I'm not an expert on all countries attempts to control the internet) that have strict guidelines on what their citizens may legally do on forums, but it certainly wouldn't apply worldwide.

(Plus, as Pescado says, 12s are annoying as hell  )