« Allergy | Main | Call me Clark »


"...and then she was arrested for having sex in the back of a truck behind a club..."

Heard that at lunch today. At Taco Bueno. Two tables over was a group of four woman, and they were just talking away about other women. (that never happens) They also mentioned the one that got up in the mornings, went and had sex with her neighbor, then went and laid back down at home with her husband. And the one that had sex at work by the microwave. There was more, but I wasn't actively listening, so I just caught snatches of 'fucking in the...' and 'didnt even apologize...', and 'now shes in jail...'

All in all, an entertaining lunch. It doesn't get a super-high lunch rating though, because when I got there, my boss and his wife were already inside eating. And then they left, but then while I was eating, the president of the company and his wife came in to eat. And me sitting there in an oversized Batman shirt and flip-flops eating a taco.

Oh, and this from Slate: "Parents protect attractive children more carefully than unattractive children, according to a study. At supermarkets, attractive kids were more than three times more likely to be strapped into the cart. Skeptics said socioeconomic status might account for the difference."

So, does that mean that once they've fallen out and busted their face all up, that they will probably not be buckled in next time, because you know, what good would it do now?

Mmm, reason to love the hottub: Played football yesterday. And when I got home, just soaked in that tub for half an hour. So so so niiiice. I think it saved me from a lot of soreness today. Im still sore, just not as bad as usual.

Comments (2)


Ok - that thing on slate - don't get me started. I'll have to blog. But it's one of the worst 'experiments' I've ever heard - it's based purely on observation, no controls, and it's just so full of holes, it's crap. They didn't account for attractivesness or socio-economic status of the parents. The 'attractiveness' of the child was based purely on the observers subjective opinion. "Hey, that little boy is HOTT, he gets a 9. That little chub of lard only gets a 2." Yeah I can see that. AAAAAAAArg, I can't belive this got published. I wouldn't have been able to get away with that as an undergrad even. CRAP CRAP CRAP!!!


Great, another "study" that does nothing but confirm the observers bias. What journal was it published in?


This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 6, 2005 1:24 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Allergy.

The next post in this blog is Call me Clark.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.34