Oh those pet peeves

User avatar
Büge
Posts: 4652
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:56 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Büge » Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:51 am

Or the giant eye on a pole
Image

Niku
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Niku » Thu Oct 14, 2021 6:43 pm

I set up a staycation for the end of the month just to use up some vacation time before the end of the year.

I got a jury summons for a day right in the middle of it lol
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 18994
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Mongrel » Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:31 pm

You know what IS fucking genuinely annoying though?

Finding underwear that goddamn fits.

Clothing companies' idiotic obsession with lying about size isn't half so bad when you can actually TRY THE CLOTHES ON.

For years I bought dead boring, cheapass Fruit of the Loom/Hanes etc. always "medium" which IIRC is 32"-36" for most companies (or that's what it says on the label) But then two or three years ago they changed the sizing so that Medium was now too small. I have a Huge Caboose, so I figured maybe my ass is just fat now, no point in denying it just to buy uncomfortable undies... but I bought Large and they're way too large. There is no in-between.

So then I started buying much better quality stuff in smaller packs (which is a change I made with socks a decade ago, and that was absolutely 100% the right thing to do), but still the damn things don't fit no matter the size on the label saying they should.

Over the past couple years, I've found a SINGLE pair of underwear which properly fits fits, and that was in a remaindered sale at Winners (lol) so not only can I not simply go buy more of just that one pair, but also when I tried to buy the same brand, the sizes on the pair I bought and the newer stuff they had DIDN'T MATCH, so the new ones were (like too many other such purchases) unwearable.

Let me tell you, there are way more entertaining and way less irritating things to gamble on than your underwear purchases.
Image

User avatar
hngkong
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:29 am

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby hngkong » Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:29 pm

The simple solution is just stop wearing underwear.

User avatar
Silversong
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:00 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Silversong » Tue Dec 21, 2021 11:57 pm

I don't share this problem (VS size S) but have you tried https://www.meundies.com/? My partner had a subscription for a while and liked them, and they have a size chart...

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 18994
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Mongrel » Wed Dec 22, 2021 12:32 am

Now who doesn't want pixellated yeti underoos?
Image

User avatar
mharr
Posts: 1583
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 11:54 am
Location: UK

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby mharr » Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:36 am

hngkong wrote:The simple solution is just stop wearing underwear.

Pyjama pants are also a valid solution for at least half the northern temperate year.

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 11086
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Thad » Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:00 pm

Excessive collectible packaging is fine for those people who want it, but what if I don't? What if I would like the Bugs Bunny 80th Anniversary Collection without this fucking abomination
Image
or bilingual Speed Racer that isn't stored in a giant head?
Image

User avatar
Brentai
Woah Dangsaurus
Posts: 3569
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:40 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Brentai » Sat Feb 05, 2022 3:42 pm

That's why I don't have the Batman: TAS Blu-Rays.
Image

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 18994
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Mongrel » Sat Feb 05, 2022 6:24 pm

Thad wrote:Excessive collectible packaging is fine for those people who want it, but what if I don't? What if I would like the Bugs Bunny 80th Anniversary Collection without this fucking abomination
Image


Sharkeyteeth.jpg
Image

Niku
Posts: 1534
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:23 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Niku » Sun Feb 06, 2022 1:14 am

Thad wrote:Excessive collectible packaging is fine for those people who want it, but what if I don't?


then you politely yet firmly expose your address in plaintext via an official fox website
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 11086
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Thad » Sun Feb 06, 2022 3:54 pm

Brentai wrote:That's why I don't have the Batman: TAS Blu-Rays.

Then good news: those are available in plain packaging. They only sold the "deluxe" version for a few months.

That Bugs Bunny set, meanwhile, has been out for over a year. I assumed, based on the Batman set, that we'd have seen a "standard" set by now, but no such luck.

Niku wrote:
Thad wrote:Excessive collectible packaging is fine for those people who want it, but what if I don't?


then you politely yet firmly expose your address in plaintext via an official fox website

man I never did get my replacement packaging for Simpsons Season Six.

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 11086
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Thad » Fri Apr 08, 2022 12:08 am

Thad wrote:In the 2000 film X-Men, there is a scene where Wolverine comments on the characters' outfits. Cyclops responds, "What would you prefer, yellow spandex?"

It's funny because in the comics that the film is based on, the character of Wolverine wears yellow spandex.

It's a decent enough gag; it calls attention to how visual designs that work in comics don't always translate well on-screen. It also acknowledges the inherent silliness of the superhero genre and distances itself from it, which was necessary in drawing a distinction to 1997's Batman and Robin, a film which leaned hard into the silly stuff and did so poorly at the box office that it temporarily killed the franchise.

It is now 2017. Superhero movies and TV shows are everywhere, and they are extremely popular. Multiple superhero films have grossed over a billion dollars, with a "b".

And yet, their writers still feel the need to keep making that same fucking yellow spandex joke.

In Tuesday night's episode of Legends of Tomorrow (which was overall pretty good, and had George Lucas in it), Citizen Steel started referring to the bad guys as the Legion of Doom ("it's from a Hanna-Barbera cartoon from when I was a kid"). Everybody makes fun of him for it. Sara Lance, in particular, rolls her eyes and says "I'm not calling them that."

Yes, because you wouldn't want to refer to Malcolm Merlyn, Eobard Thawne, and Damien Darhk as the Legion of Doom. Because that name is silly.

There's nothing wrong with making fun of superhero tropes on a superhero show. (In fact, this week Arrow did a pretty good job of poking fun at superhero resurrection.) But if you're going to do it, give us something a little more insightful than "haha, stuff in superhero comics sure is embarrassing!"


"The Egyptian god of the moon? That's the stupidest thing I ever heard."

Yeah, what's next, the Norse god of thunder? Haha FUCK YOU.

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 11086
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Thad » Thu May 26, 2022 10:09 am

Another entry in the long list of Popular Desert Images in Pop Culture, Courtesy of People Who've Never Been to a Desert: burying bodies in the desert.

You ever try to dig a hole in the desert? Go on, drive out to the middle of some remote desert area with no people around, and try putting a shovel in the ground. See how far you get.

In fact, now that I say it I want to see that as a scene on Fargo or something. Idiot criminals trying to bury bodies in a desert because that's what they think criminals do because that's how it works in the movies; they get out to the desert and discover that they can't actually dig a hole out there and now they've just got these bodies -- or, better yet, still-living people who they took out there and told to dig their own graves -- and now they have to figure that out.

User avatar
Angry Beaver
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Angry Beaver » Thu May 26, 2022 12:34 pm

Could you clarify for a Floridian lifer who's never seen a desert?

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 18994
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Mongrel » Thu May 26, 2022 12:42 pm

Pretty sure it's all rock hard, unless it's actual sand dunes or something. Thad'll correct me on this if I'm wrong.
Image

User avatar
Thad
Posts: 11086
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:05 am
Location: 1611 Uranus Avenue
Contact:

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Thad » Thu May 26, 2022 12:47 pm

Angry Beaver wrote:Could you clarify for a Floridian lifer who's never seen a desert?

The ground is really, really hard. If you want to dig in it, you need to soften it up. Usually by intermittently soaking it over a course of days or weeks.

Even when you see major construction with heavy machinery, they spend at least a few days having trucks come through to soak the ground first.

User avatar
Yoji
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 4:12 pm
Location: Anger Island

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Yoji » Thu May 26, 2022 1:54 pm

Kind of a tangent, but burning a body isn't as easy as pop culture would have us believe, either.

I watched a video yesterday about the death of Gram Parsons. He told his friends he wanted to be burned and scattered at Joshua Tree, but when he overdosed and died his parents tried to have him brought home for a proper burial. So some buddies did what any of us would do for a dear departed friend: stole his casket, drove it out to the desert, doused it in five gallons of gasoline, and threw a match on the top.

Turns out they made those huge funeral pyres back in the day were like that because they needed to be. You need lots of heat over a long time to actually turn a body to ash, way more than a tank of gas and a couple dozen board feet of casket can provide. (spoiler for anyone who doesn't want the mental image of dead people) Otherwise, you just sort of scorch it like an overcooked chicken.
Image: Mention something from KPCC or Rachel Maddow
Image: Go on about Homeworld for X posts

User avatar
nosimpleway
Posts: 3700
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:31 pm

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby nosimpleway » Thu May 26, 2022 2:26 pm

Funny thing about corpses is that they're still mostly water and water is really hard to burn.

User avatar
Mongrel
Posts: 18994
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 6:28 pm
Location: There's winners and there's losers // And I'm south of that line

Re: Oh those pet peeves

Postby Mongrel » Thu May 26, 2022 2:29 pm

Even when dried out, bone and keratin aren't exactly known for their excellent flammability.

IIRC, just using gasoline to keep a fire going, the fire needs something like 24-48 hours to burn corpses to ash. Big pyres with lots of wood take less time though because they reach hotter temperatures. Crematorium temps are like, four figures (1500 degrees or so).
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests