Monday, May 26, 2008

bloggers is dumb

beer drinkers is dumb. case in point: the coors' "cold activated bottle" where the mountains on the label turn blue when the beer is at "optimal coolness." is beer different from everything else we put in the fridge? look, just put whatever it is in the fridge for a couple of few and follow suit as you would with every other product in the world that is best served chilled, warm, lukewarm, piping or any other temperature goods are consumed at. see, beer isn't different; beer drinkers is. beer drinkers is dumb. do my lean cuisines need to glow red for me to know that they've been sufficiently microwaved? nooooo. does "sir issac lime" need to glow lime or "alexander the grape" need to glow grape for me to know that my otter pops are frozen? nooooo. how bored and desperate must the people at coors be to even have come up with such a lame and superfluous marketing ploy? beer drinkers is dumb. meanwhile, bloggers who know otter pop characters/flavours off the top of their head is genius.

people's "battles" with cancer are of great interest to me. especially since i'm attempting to chronicle wins and losses as to create "the definitive, comprehensive official cancer almanac." i'm just not sure how to score "winners" and "losers" sometimes. see, the title of "survivor" is just thrown about, willy nilly, to any old person who had cancer, doesn't have cancer anymore and is still alive. however, i'll contend that "survivor" does not necessarily equal "winner." i guess what i'm asking is how would i score a lady who lost a boobie but is still alive and what section of "the definitive, comprehensive official cancer almanac" would she fall under? clearly not "winners" but how can you have a legitimate sport without a clear delineation amongst "winners" and "losers?" we here at the home office of "ba dum BLOG!!!," by a vote of 1-0, have decided that these people are "losers." sexist? no, by virtue of the commutative and/or transitive property, dudes with one nut are "losers" too. my apologies to john kruk and tom green. what, not funny?

remember how in "dallas" when pat duffy wanted to leave the show to be a big movie star? well, they killed off his character (bob ewing) and ran a whole season of "dallas" sans bob ewing. however, no one wanted him to be in their movies so he came crawling back to "dallas," tail betwixt his legs. so, how did "dallas" explain a whole season of dead bob ewing? they just started off the new season with the last scene pat duffy was in before he died, two seasons prior, and said the previous season was just pam's (bob's wife) dream. well, i've decided my previous six or so months will be like this and while i'm not sure who bob is, who pam is, who "dallas" is and/or who the movie industry is but it's all gonna' be me. see, i don't want a rebirth and/or reinvention like the "madonna" or "the undertaker;" i want a mulligan like pat duffy. however, in lieu of "the madonna's" bindi, i will be sporting "the undertaker's" single black tear. ba dum BLOGger = tears of an ass clown (thank you, smokey robinson and chris jericho)... sad :(

ba dum BLOG!!!

1 comment:

mcdizzle said...

in american english, there's no 'u' in flovor.