From the same people who brought you the STFU in luSTFUlly, comes... the Pea**** King! I'm sure he's a glorious sight. O.o
It's troo! An icecream that doesn't melt! And in the case of maraş dondurması, a specialty of the Kahramanmaraş region, it's so tough and sticky that they eat it with a knife and fork! In fact, you can apparently play jump-rope with it. O.o
Lies you say? Nu! Nu lies! The resin from an orchid, which is a main ingredient, is responsible for the gooey taffy stickiness of doom!
Nice article on Salon.com with lots of details (but sadly no peektures), including - importantly! - how it tastes.
Interesting video about how it's made, but it's all in Turkish, without subtitles. :( Towards the end bit (10:00 and 13:00) you get to see the sticky gooey goodness in action though.
Someday I will be able to plan my hollydays far enuff in advance to go try this stuff...
via istockphoto.com
You know, I would so play a Nutria in a game, if there were such a game, that had such Nutrias.
via macupdate.com
"Contains over 200 real error codes"!
And it looks even better on my second (Dell) monitor. ^_^
via i2.2photo.ru
Some of them remind me of Michael Parkes' stuff, for some reason. But they're very beautiful in and of their own right.
That's what it says on the packaging.
Considering that's on a packet of sugar-encrusted peanuts though...
O.o
I suppose it's the same as those "0% fat" coffees we have running around here...
And no, the Interwebs does not appear to have a larger picture. =(
Another nice turn of phrase extracted from a CE217 assignment:Health bar replenishment objects replenish health
Now you say it, it seems so obvious...
Also see...
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2011/QBlog030111B.html
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2011/QBlog020111C.html
http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog311210B.html
^_^ I love it when Bartle marks papers.
However, tasty Innocent Bunnehs had a Freudian dark side! For behold, when turning to the other... uh... side, they became...
(Still tasty though. Omnomnom.)
I have one question, though. There is this one sentence that I am not sure how to read.
“The bottom line is, when women are treated differently simply because they are women–whether by treating them as inferior or putting them on a pedestal–it’s sexist.”Does this mean “when women are treated as inferiors, or put on a pedestal, simply because they are women, it’s sexist” or does this mean “when women are treated differently simply because they are women it’s sexist, two examples of differential treatment are treating them as inferior or putting them on a pedestal.”
I wonder because while I agree with the first, I disagree with the second. I think it is true that treating women as inferiors or putting us on a pedestal is sexist treatment. But sometimes, treating women differently is not sexist (even if it is because we are women). For example, allowing women maternity leave is treating women differently because they are women, but I don’t think it is sexist. (Of course, it is even better when countries have parental leave that is available to men and women, but given the paltry maternity leave in the USA that seems a lot to hope for.)
I think there are many other examples where differential treatment for women is not sexist. And there is a lot of debate in feminist theory about whether ‘sameness’ or ‘difference’ is the way to go, and each has advantages and disadvantages. More recently in feminist theory, feminists have begun to point out that one problem in both cases is that the male is still the standard no matter which way you go.
I wish more of the feminist writers I read on the Interwebs are capable of dicing semantics this finely, and this clearly.
Bakka makes a very important point/distinction, which is often missed, or willfully overlooked.