Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in Donovan Kross' LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Monday, July 6th, 2009
9:24 am	Covenant To change our habits in a big way (e.g. addiction cessation), it seems like we do best when the set of rules we live by is externalized, so we can't rationalize a change or exception to them in a moment of weakness. Ideally, they are still "our" rules, handpicked by us at a moment of our highest integrity, but then assigned to something outside ourselves and essentially unchangeable by us. The external rulekeeper could be (roughly in reverse order of reprehensability) a government, a god, a motivational speaker, a hypnotherapist, a Die, a parent, or for a pregnant mother, an unborn child. "I am not just eating for two; I am creating a world for two. Everything that goes into my body, and mind, matters. Even if I stopped caring about myself, I would have to live right for your sake. I am responsible for constructing a nurturing environment for you, and for maintaining my own health and state of mind well enough to continue to care for a child, long after you are born. As of now, or at least now more than ever, my existence is bigger than myself." For issues such as addiction cessation, hypnotherapy can work in the short run but requires booster shots of self-hypnosis or repeat sessions to maintain the effect. None of us can be our best self all the time, the self that sets priorities and principles in such a way as to get us what we want most (our secondary desires; what we want to want), instead of what we want right now. It takes reminders to retread the path back to that slightly higher (self-) consciousness. What if, when we are in moments of utmost presence and integrity with ourselves, we envisioned ourselves as our own god, capable of making commandments for ourselves? What if we are then the pregnant mother, making rules for two (or a gajillion) selves? And then the rest of the time, we are the unborn child, gestating, becoming what we need to be? We resign ourselves, give ourselves over to the "higher power" that knows what's best for us, and agree to obey our parent's rules, as long as we are under his/er roof (and in his/er womb) -- but that parent is not an actual parent or a god or a government; it is simply us in a more enlightened, less routine-distracted moment. The next time we are certain we are in a position to take the reins on our own lives, and are looking at our own Big Picture, we can play the role of the parent and tweak rules when necessary. But the rest of the time, they are out of our hands and no rationalization is allowed without such a deep checking-in that it would amount to intercessory prayer -- to asking god for permission. And then replying. Step 1 of creating a workable religion for myself was to find a rational way to tap into the placebo benefits of spirituality without betraying my own skeptical integrity. Step 2 was to synthesize communion (with other people, within a boundary/desire dichotomy), thusly tempering my fear of imposition upon the world, and giving the persistent existentialist in me a sense of purpose (and with it, direction, even if of the haphazard sort). This idea (or a more polished draft of it) -- a means to create a workable, pragmatic set of commandments for myself that, despite (because of?) coming from myself, are sacred -- may be Step 3. Current Mood: awake (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009
12:18 am	Ostensibly about films "Benjamin Button" struck me as silly. This despite the fact that I am a great fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald's short stories; the film stayed true to the message of the story, even if a fair amount of filler was necessary; there were some poignant themes that were pulled off with a fair amount of skill; and the acting was decent. Judging from the reviews, the world must have been in need of a lifelong epic, but I guess I was not. Most of the tropes and lessons I could have picked up from this one, I feel like I already garnered from "Forrest Gump." "The Lost Boys 2" was exactly as cheesy as expected, and very enjoyable once through. That's all I think I'll ever need. "How to Lose Friends and Alienate People" held few surprises -- essentially "Devil Wears Prada" for journalists -- but Simon Pegg is always fun to watch regardless. It's a good thing I have all these movies to distract me. I am oh so very sexually frustrated. My polyamorous tendencies aren't just about sex, but I am also polysexual, and more than a little novelty-sexual, and going slightly mad. Stir crazy -- no pun elocuted. Six months of concentrating on one relationship has not made it better for the extra focus. It beats celibacy, but it's also the longest I've been in such a situation since...well, almost since I've been in a relationship at all. This is not the sole source of my depression, but it sure ain't helping. Current Mood: aggravated (Comment on this)
Monday, June 15th, 2009
1:54 am	Things I learned tonight 1. Compared to the "other" recent vampires vs. werewolves film, "Rise of the Lycans" isn't half bad. (Given any larger frame of reference, however, and that's pretty much what it is.) 2. Egg is more than just an emulsifier in baked goods. I made what's essentially a chocolate merengue brownie: sugar, chocolate and egg whites were the only ingredients. Yet the resulting product tasted more or less like a cake or brownie. I always assumed that flour was the main ingredient in these things. Now I think I'll be able to better recognize the contribution that the eggs make to various confections. A trivial epiphany, I know, but I qualify it as a breakthrough of sorts. 3. I can never live in Nevada. I haven't found myself to be susceptible to many addictions, but when faced with a game of chance that can be manipulated somewhat with the application of skill, I have a hard time considering doing something else instead. 4. My circadian rhythms are officially fucked up. Current Mood: exanimate (Comment on this)
Sunday, June 14th, 2009
2:32 am	Gay zombies Tonight I went to see the midnight movie at the Tower, which was part of the "Damn These Heels GLBT Film Festival." The film: "Otto; or, Up With Dead People." It's Rated NC-17 for about every good reason in the book, and it's unabashedly low-budget. I enjoyed it a little more than my pre-walking-in expectations, and a whole lot more than my after-the-first-20-minutes expectations. This could be because, when faced with a postmodern narrative (and I use that last word loosely), I go into overdrive make meaning where there may or may not be any. I'm going with the charitable interpretation that this reaction was at least partially intended by the filmmaker (Bruce LaBruce). I'm a sucker for meta-texts, self-commentary, and unreliable narration. The cinematic technique used herein was interesting in multiple ways. Some of those, as far as I can tell, were to no particular end except to contribute to the collage of weirdness. Hella Bent, film-within-the-film director Medea's girlfriend, is a silent film star out of the 1920s complete with captioning, flickering black-and-white presentation and old music. If there was a point to this, I didn't catch it. But other techniques worked to decent effect. We start the film believing we are being placed in one universe -- where zombies have become relatively commonplace, but most of them have learned to behave themselves -- and later we learn we've been tricked: This is all part of a film called "Up With Dead People" staged by one of the characters. This makes for some fun double-takes when we realize, for example, that the old couple who picked up Otto  the hitchhiking zombie didn't actually think he was a zombie, just that he was a weird, bloodied kid who hadn't showered in some weeks. It also does something interesting for the way the shock value is handled. Throughout the first half, I was sickened by Otto's eating of roadkill, cats, and pigeons; but then it's as if the film flicks a switch, and we're placed in a "more real" fictitious world, inside the film but outside the film-within-a-film, and we are no longer inured to ordinary disgustingness. When Otto is beaten up, he's taken home where his reluctant roommate checks him for serious wounds; then they make out, while Otto's face and mouth are bloodied. I about wretched, even though I'd seen far, far worse within the past half-hour. This is like a trick straight out of a Bret Easton Ellis novel. Then there are the themes themselves. In what ways are gay people like zombies, or at least the pop-culture portrayal of gay people like the pop-culture portrayal of zombies? I ticked off a mental list as they were presented -- some heavyhanded, some so subtle as to be possibly unintentional. The zombies are feared by others as dangerous and diseased, and in need of quarantine so that they do not spread their condition or actively recruit into gangs of their own making. They literally see and hear the world differently. (I've seen quite a handful of zombie films, and this is the first that has tried to show the world through a zombie's perspective. Biz-arre.) We are given to believe that we can tell who is a zombie simply by the way they walk (or in the case of the film-audition poster, bare their limp-wristed claws).They are made fun of and attacked. And, they are exploited and caricatured by the very media that wishes to give them a voice. Maybe my favorite part was Medea condescendingly trying to get Otto to play the "part" of a zombie, tell him what he ought to be feeling and thinking in some contrived scenario. I half-expected her to tell him he wasn't doing it right. I was glad this was gotten across more subtly (it's about the only subtlety the film has). Other parallels that are more tentative, but nontheless interesting: A girl in a supermarket, her face covered in chocolate, is juxtaposed with Otto, who has blood and/or guts hanging out of his mouth for good portions of the film. I think this raises that part of his disheveled appearance from simply part of the decor to something representative. The juxtaposition is obviously intentional; what it's supposed to "mean" is not. Maybe nothing. But my best stab is this: Ravenous indulgence. Part of why zombies (and gays) are portrayed as untrustworthy, the Other, is because they have "unnatural" and, in some, unrestrained appetites for things others don't understand (the meat market is an extremely overused parallel in this film). Zombie-phobes hate zombies because they could be the next meal. Homophobes hate gays because, in part, they are afraid they will be the next target in some moment of confusion or coercion. That said, Otto is a restrained zombie -- he was a vegetarian ("or worse yet, a vegan") in his past life, and now feeds on nonhumans. What does that represent? The mythology/backstory at the beginning of the film suggests that zombies have evolved to be more sophisticated precisely because the vicious ones were killed off by the villagers, leaving only the ones willing to co-exist. If this is part of an extended allegory, it's not one I've completely put together. LaBruce walks a fine line in his quasi-commentary. Comparing gay people to zombies within this context is clearly satirical rather than bigoted; comparing gay people to schizophrenics is a little muddier. There you have it. Probably more dopamine expended than the film deserved; for all I know, the point was pure nihilistic shock value with a thin veneer of quasiprofundity. And I'm not sure it matters either way. Current Mood: thoughtful (5 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 9th, 2009
5:18 pm	I submit the following with no comment. http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/but_if_we_started_dating_it Current Mood: contemplative (Comment on this)
Sunday, April 26th, 2009
6:27 pm	S(l)inging the placebo I've been reading about the placebo effect, for an article about -- something (which may soon be the subject of another entry, as all my thoughts can't possibly fit into the story). Not everyone experiences the placebo effect to the same degree. Some people are more suggestible about change-expectation than others, not just on a conscious, cognitive level but on a neurological, frontal-cortex (or wherever) level. All right, so that's relatively well-known. But consider some of the ramifications. For a drug to be approved by the FDA, it has to show statistically significant effects in at least two double-blind clinical trials. "Statistically significant" means not only beyond the margin of error, but also above and beyond the "control group," which will experience the placebo effect. Also remember that _both_ groups -- not just the control group -- experience the placebo effect. The control group experiences _only_ the placebo effect; the experiment group experiences both the placebo effect _and_ the effect of the drug or medical technique. With this in mind, it seems like what some drug companies may do is conduct experiment after experiment -- not only because a larger sample, later cherry-picked by them, might yield the results they are looking for, but also because they are hoping that eventually an experiment will come along with more skeptics in the placebo group and more believers in the experiment group. In other words, "success" is measured in an experiment by how great a difference there is between the results of the experiment group and those of the control group. That success could be increased not only by the effect of the drug itself, but also by a _decrease_ of the placebo effect in the control group. So, sometimes, what is demonstrated in “successful” studies is not enhanced healing in drug groups, but reduced healing in placebo groups. All that said, we should not come to the conclusion that drugs are bunk and we'd all be better off with placebos. I suspect so much of placebos' effectiveness is because the patient wants to please the doctor (by showing improvement, and by politely telling the doctor that his prescription was at least a little helpful) as much as the doctor wants to please the patient -- and this also makes it short-lived. Empiricism bears this out; placebos work only for a short term on chronic pain or illness. So, the placebo effect is rightly seen as a barrier to the discovery and understanding of more permanent cures, not a cure itself -- even though they are conceivably very useful in combating or alleviating short-term symptoms or pain, especially those that have at least a small psychosomatic component (and what doesn't?). The reasons that placebos shouldn't be considered a plausible alternative don't stop there. Analysis of them is confounded by such things as regression to the mean (if you're feeling bad, you're likely to eventually feel slightly better, and then look around for a cause even when it's just natural fluctuatioin). In other words, to really study the placebo effect, you'd have to have a control group on THAT group. I.e., give some people a pain pill and ask them whether they feel better an hour later; give others a sugar pill and ask whether they feel better in an hour; and give still others nothing at all and spontaneously ask them how they feel in the space of an hour. At least some of them will feel better (and worse) just by the passage of time. (This third group is, I discovered, included in some studies that are especially sensitive to the placebo effect -- but, it seems, not often enough.) Also, note that it's often (but not always) the subjective reports of a patient that get better with a placebo -- not objective factors such as blood pressure, cholesterol level or the like. This partially collaborates the theory of confirmation bias or politeness error. However, from the Skeptic's Dictionary (a favorite resource of late):  The psychological explanation seems to be the one most commonly believed. Perhaps this is why many people are dismayed when they are told that the effective drug they are taking is a placebo. This makes them think that their problem is "all in their mind" and that there is really nothing wrong with them. Yet, there are too many studies that have found objective improvements in health from placebos to support the notion that the placebo effect is entirely psychological.  Doctors in one study successfully eliminated warts by painting them with a brightly colored, inert dye and promising patients the warts would be gone when the color wore off. In a study of asthmatics, researchers found that they could produce dilation of the airways by simply telling people they were inhaling a bronchodilator, even when they weren't. Patients suffering pain after wisdom-tooth extraction got just as much relief from a fake application of ultrasound as from a real one, so long as both patient and therapist thought the machine was on. Fifty-two percent of the colitis patients treated with placebo in 11 different trials reported feeling better -- and 50 percent of the inflamed intestines actually looked better when assessed with a sigmoidoscope ("The Placebo Prescription" by Margaret Talbot, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2000).* Yet another angle: One factor among the many lumped into the term "placebo effect" is conditioning. This one may be distinctive in that it doesn't require deception. If you give a patient acupuncture while also injecting a sedative, his body can be conditioned to equate the two and produce an opioid pain-killing response in the future when it faces acupuncture, even if no sedative accompanies the procedure. Theoretically (I haven't researched this claim thoroughly yet), this could happen even if the patient knows that the subsequent treatments are drugless (though it may work even better when he's not told, as the rest of the placebo effects would then kick in as well). A peripheral thought, from an editorial in the January 1952 British Medical Journal: "But it is a fallacy to suppose that an inactive medicine can do no harm. If prescribed in a perfunctory way for a patient needing explanation and reassurance it may increase faith in his disease rather than in the remedy, and a doctor who gives a placebo in the wrong spirit may harm the patient." For a very compelling (on both sides) interview conducted by Richard Dawkins, concerning among other things the plausible evolution of the placebo effect, visit http://richarddawkins.net/article,3484,n,n I feel like there are important further ramifications of each of these ideas, but the epiphany part of my brain has just exhausted its fuel. Feel free to pick up any of these mental threads where I left off. I could edit this to make it more articulate, but I have an actual article to write, so that will have to do for now. Current Mood: contemplative (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009
4:08 pm	Altered thoughts I was read a random passage from a random book last night. The gist of the amusing but anticlimactic passage was that the author, a feminist (the book is called "Bitch") found it hard to imagine that men, left to their own devices, would rape, kill and generally victimize all women, given a world where most men are too timid to even ask a girl for her phone number. Being the compulsive deconstructionist that I am, I like to pick apart descriptors when I sense that the English language doesn't quite do them justice and, in the process, wrongly emphasizes or misimplies connotations. An easy example is jealousy, which as I've discussed at one time or another with almost anyone who would read this, is not really the catch-all emotion that it denotes, nor is it simply the angry-someone-I-love-is-interested-in-someone-other-than-me emotion that it connotes. It's an overly vague adjective for a dozen different and barely related insecurities. (They are related, but only in that they all frequently occur in similar scenarios, which tends toward some overlapping.) So what's timidity? I think it's mostly fear of rejection, or fear that the answers to our actions will be not what we desired, or so unpredictable we won't know what to do next. But mostly fear of rejection. As the one reading the text to me aptly disclaimed, reason and even emotion only goes so far into characterizing this fear; it's quite visceral and difficult to shoo away with any amount of rationalizing. OK, so that's the obvious part. I've been playing a bit of poker lately. Here I am with an expensive piece of video-game machinery, and I use it to play cards. So I've been thinking of interactions the past few days in terms of stakes offered, accepted, trumped and/or rejected. It seems to me that the reason people, especially men, have such fear of rejection in some social situations is because of the implied rules of setting stakes. You ask for someone's phone number when you are interested in interacting with them at least one more time in the future and have no easy other means of doing so. When you ask, you set a stake: You tell that person why it is you would like to see them again. Is it because you enjoyed your conversation with them and would like another? Is it because you belong to a sardine-tasting club and they expressed an interest in such a hobby, so you feel compelled to link them with a common interest? Is it because you're attracted to them and want to get to know them better? Or is it because they turn you on and you'd really like to take them home? You may want several of these. You may not know which one(s) you want, only that you sense potential. But you're sort of obligated to set a stake -- to pick one. You could later decide you want more things on the list, and can up the ante. But you can't _down_ the ante. For instance, if you tell a woman you'd really like to either sleep with her, play Scrabble with her or get to know her better -- that it's possible you might want more than one of these but you'd be happy with any one of them -- she will assume that the one at the acculturated top-o'-the-list -- sex -- is what you really want and the others are simply a means to that end. Even if she wanted that too, because she has been socialized to use a completely different set of staking rules, she will typically immediately put up her guard. All this despite the fact that you might have been really, genuinely happy with a simple game of Scrabble -- not in any way a consolation prize for something else you wanted "more" or "actually." I wish that there were a really simple way to use the English language to get across this full message -- "Am I trying to take you home tonight? Sure. You're gorgeous. But I'm equally trying to pencil in a lunch date for next week to talk more, and see if you like hiking because I  happen to already be doing that on Tuesday and would enjoy the extra company, and those inclinations are no less strong than wanting to take you home. So how 'bout it? Is there any one of those propositions you'd accept if you weren't on guard by the fact that the other propositions are present? This is just as much an offer as a request, and I have just as much to give as that which I would like to get out of the situation, and I am not asking for permission; only what you are interested in and how we might make each other slightly happier in some way." See, just doesn't roll off the tongue in a night club. No wonder guys are timid. Current Mood: contemplative (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009
2:56 am	Meh I have lost confidence in myself as a creator of safe spaces in which others can grow and express themselves. It feels like my house burned down and I had time to grab only a handful of things, and I don't know whether I made the right decisions. I have a long-lived fear of imposition. It was that confidence that got me past said fear and allowed me to believe I had the right to include others into my life. What now? Current Mood: ambivalent (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, October 25th, 2008
1:48 am	My weekend Woke up and drove to Josh and Jodie's to interview Jodie for a people-profile piece, and did a brief photo shoot in her house -- which felt strange because she has modeled for many a professional photographer, of which I am not one. But we got a few good shots. Drove around the corner to interview a guy who projects magic Halloween ghosts on the side of his house; drive home whilst checking on tickets for "Radio Hour: Franenstein" even tho' I had been told it was sold out; two tickets left, which I proptly snatch up. Find out Ahh Sushi's happy hour is 5-6. Get home in time to write the Halloween story and go out to sushi with my mother, meeting up with Rebecca there. Found out her upstairs aunts' puppy was hit by a car and killed. Drive back to my house with everyone for a rousing game of Blokus, which lasted just long enough to place in doubt the certainty of getting to the play on time. Rushed downtown and parked in a pay lot, but couldn't stuff the damn dollar bills into the tiny, tiny hole. Go tthere jst in time (or close enough; they were forgiving). Afterward, had chai and mazurkas at Sugar House Coffee. Then went home just long enough to play a few competitive rounds of Atari (Breakout, Fishing Derby and Frogger) with Ashley, and change clothes. Out again, to an Obama fundraiser party with an outdoor heated pool (and I without a swimsuit) and a mansion that puts Caesar's Palace to shame. Run into Laura's raver friends Mike and Melissa; and Jessica, from whom I got the shindig information; and Sarah, a columnist with whom I occasionally get to exchange weird vibes. Said hello to everyone but mostly avoided them or vice versa. Not sure why. Sometimes I am shy. Tho' I might be hard-pressed to get a single human corroboration on that. Spent most of the night in the room with the arcade games, playing Super Asteroids. That's right: I left Ashley alone with her Atari in order to go out to a pretty house with lots of pretty people -- and play Atari. Now home, I get to wake up tomorrow morning in time to drive Eric to South Valley to walk door to door for Jay Seegmiller, who is House Speaker Greg Curtis' opponent. I predict he won't win -- Curtis won by 20 votes last year, which will mean he will mobilize beyond the capacities of any Utah Democrat. But at least I get to exercise my newfound partisanship, now that I am not on the payroll of a newspaper. Sort of. Then there's the Raucous Caucus forums, complete with Naomi Wolf, which I'll probaby go to instead of the two sequential Burning Man Decompression parties. The Goo Goo Dolls concert that night, for which roommate Margi snagged me free tickets, precludes the Erotic Ball and Tribune poker night, but we might still be able to make it to a belly dancer's Halloween party afterward. Sunday I get to see my father's new house and apologive for missing his housewarming party tonight (Friday); visit Beka and bring her new fantasy books to read whilst she cares for her infant; go on a shopping spree; fix a scooter; and clean like mad. And I thought being un/self-employed would lead to an excess of free time. So very wrong was I. Current Mood: busy (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Wednesday, October 15th, 2008
1:24 pm	The virtues and vacuousness of On Demand cable TV I now have cable television in my bedroom for the first time in recent memory. While I'm determined not to waste my time in front of it, it's been an interesting hour or two, in the midst of catching up on laundry (I have a washer and dryer now!), exploring what options modern cable television have to offer. Did you know Comcast has a local On Demand section? It offers 5-minute recordings of every valid candidate for office in Utah. I just finished watching Gov. Huntsman's. Slick, heavy on charm and light on policy; still, a noble service. It also offers clips of Utah singles looking for a date. As far as I can tell, there is no way to actually respond to these clips. And judging from the half-dozen I just forced myself to sit through out of idle, morbid curiosity, I declare that less of a shortcoming and more of a relief. Dear Goddess. Do I really live in a state with these people?  "I want a nice guy who knows how to treat a girl and is fun. Oh, and tall." "My worst date? I've had a lot of them. A few weeks ago, we went to dinner, and the guy didn't have anything else planned, so we just walked around the temple. We had nothing to talk about, so it was pretty awkward." "I'm looking for Mormon boys. Is that OK to say? Funny, funny boys. With cute abs." "I like guys who are dark. Um...well, blonds are OK, though. But I usually like 'em dark." (I do not think that means what she thinks it means.) Is this really a representative cross-sampling of Utah females? I sincerely hope there was some bias in the way they drew in candidates for the program. One day people will realize their boredom and their boringness directly correlate. Current Mood: bemused (11 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, October 29th, 2005
7:50 pm	I'm brilliant 6 oz. farfalle 1 lb. ground beef 1 8-oz. can of sliced jalapenos 1/2 medium red onion 24 oz. tomato sauce 2 tablespoons worcestershire sauce 4 cloves garlic, minced 1ish tablespoon ginger (powder or paste) 6-8 oz. shredded mozarella cheese Liberal doses of basil, cilantro, coriander; dash of pepper 1/4 cup syrah 1. Cook noodles. 2. Brown ground beef in large skillet. Drain if necessary. Add onion and jalapeno. Cook until onion sautees in remaining grease. 3. Stir in worcestershire sauce, garlic, ginger, and seasonings. Add tomato sauce. Bring to a boil, then reduce heat and let simmer. 4. Stir in cheese, noodles, and syrah. Mix everything together. 5. Serve with the rest of the bottle of syrah. Serves about 5. (11 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, September 17th, 2005
4:47 pm	Nevada Dreaming Dreams are easier to talk about than reality. Here's another one. ( Read more... ) (13 Comments |Comment on this)
12:26 pm	Oregon Dreaming ( Read more... ) (9 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, August 21st, 2005
10:58 am	"Odd Dreams," or, "Too Much Chocolate Before Bedtime?" ( Read more... ) Current Mood: awake (Comment on this)
Friday, August 19th, 2005
1:51 am	Waste of time. ( my answers ) (Comment on this)
Monday, August 15th, 2005
5:09 pm	Here is how it all goes: I don't have the new phone I've been planning on for the last two months. I don't know if I have a place to stay in Ashland after the 25th. I don't know if I have a job in Ashland after the 25th. I don't have transport to Burning Man. I won't be meeting Gretchen after all. I'm not going skydiving next Friday. We are not out of retrograde yet. Counting down to September 3. Current Mood: Oy (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Sunday, August 7th, 2005
11:28 pm	On My Mind Current Mood: artistic (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, August 6th, 2005
5:21 pm	I just got a glowy frisbee in the mail. Guess that means I'm ready for Burning Man. Well. Except for the minor detail of buying all supplies, food and equipment. (Comment on this)
Thursday, July 28th, 2005
7:15 pm	Do you know what is good in stir-fry? Cayenne. And cranberries. That is what. Current Mood: full (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, July 24th, 2005
4:12 pm	Surprise, surprise... Actually, the surprise is that I am less dark than most people of my age and gender, despite my results. Telling of a generation...or something. the Wit (52% dark, 26% spontaneous, 27% vulgar) your humor style: CLEAN | COMPLEX | DARK You like things edgy, subtle, and smart. I guess that means you're probably an intellectual, but don't take that to mean you're pretentious. You realize 'dumb' can be witty--after all isn't that 'the Simpsons' philosophy?--but rudeness for its own sake, 'gross-out' humor and most other things found in a fraternity leave you totally flat. I guess you just have a more cerebral approach than most. You have the perfect mindset for a joke writer or staff writer. Your sense of humor takes the most effort to appreciate, but it's also the best, in my opinion. Also, you probably loved the Office. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check it out here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/theoffice/. PEOPLE LIKE YOU: Jon Stewart - Woody Allen - Ricky Gervais My test tracked 3 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 42% on dark You scored higher than 30% on spontaneous You scored higher than 44% on vulgar Link: The 3 Variable Funny Test written by jason_bateman on Ok Cupid (Comment on this)