Autism (and it's associated disorders) are very strange. I'm not sure about the ratio of non-autistic to autistic people in western society, so I can't make a claim like "we all know someone with autism." Personally, I do know someone with the condition, and it's quite surreal to see someone who, despite being surrounded by people who speak English and communicate in the same way most other people do, has created their own means of communicating and interacting with the world. It does make you appreciate the ability to communicate.
On Facebook, there is a thing going around called the Autism Spectrum Quotient Test, which basically tells you how strong the autistic traits in your personality are. 0 means you have absolutely none while 50 means you have nothing but, with the whole numbers in between giving you a mild indication of where you sit. The average for men is 17, while the average for women is 15. I scored 13, indicating I have less autistic traits than the average man or woman.
Autism is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as "abnormalities in social and communication development, in the presence of marked repetitive behaviour and limited imagination." These may be mild or extreme, but all people exhibit some traits of autism, even if they're specific to certain times or subjects. What was interesting to read was the article in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders on the test, published 17/05/01. According to said article, students of maths and science scored considerably higher than those of humanities and social sciences. Indeed, British Mathematical Olympiad winners scored 24 on average. Analyses of students scoring greater than or equal to 32 yielded that of the 11, 7 met the criteria for Aspergers Syndrome, a form of high-functioning autism.
Traditionally, when one is seen as talented at maths or science, they are called "smart". Especially in high school, if someone scores well in maths and science tests, they're a smart kid who's going to go far. Meanwhile, doing well at English, Drama, Art or Music doesn't earn you such accolades. And yet, consider how the subjects are taught. "Marked repetitive behaviour"? You mean like grinding out the same problem fifty times? All through high school, I persistently bitched to teachers about "why should we do all 50 of these questions? 30 of them are pretty much the same and the next 20 are pretty much the same but slightly harder." And yet, it was the kids who memorised the process without really understanding it who scored top marks. It might have just been me, but do you know who I thought the smartest kid was? The guy who listened to the theory behind the problem, has a quick read of the process and solved the hardest question first. Did he/she need to go back and do all the simple ones? Of course not, because they got it the first time.
Memorising facts doesn't make you smart. It makes you a computer. And yet we reward people with the ability to commit to memory processes of solving problems and grinding out the same ideas over and over again. You could almost be forgiven for thinking that public school brings the autism out. This is hyperbole, of course, but if you're worried about people not communicating well enough, socialising effectively or demonstrating enough creativity, maybe we need to look at the high school mince meat grinder (Pink Floyd imagery for the win).
Society needs people who are very good at maths and science as much as it needs writers, thinkers and communicators. It's indisputable. However, it would be nice to see some equal recognition for people from different schools. How about, instead of engineers being "smart" and imaginative people being "out there" or "a bit nutty," we do our best to acknowledge the differences between the minds of people and the different skills that contribute to our society. And yes, this is all because I used to get called smart when I studied Engineering and now I don't because I'm studying Journalism and Writing. I'm petty, get over it.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
...but no, just keep believing whatever the hell you want.
I read an interesting article on Wikipedia tonight, listing common misconceptions about about science, physiology, religion and various other subjects. Now, Wiki isn't the definitive source of, you know, stuff, but it wasn't too in depth and it was an interesting read. One consistent theme seemed to be that these misconceptions are propagated by people hearing them and assuming they're true. It seems that someone designated more intelligent claimed something, which was in turn taken to be true by other folks. How strange.
Following my claim that one shouldn't believe anything until they have a specific reason to, and not the other way around, in a tutorial at uni, I was greeted with stunned looks. "Man, your life must be pretty empty" was the quote from my tutor. First of all, ouch. That's a pretty harsh thing to say to someone you barely know. But I have no evidence to support my life is empty, what with my friends, hobbies and interests, so no harm done. Second of all, if I can turn that statement on its head, how empty must your life be if you accept stuff without reason to? How poor must your opinion of your own judgement be if you buy into anything anyone says?
I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to ANYONE about ANYTHING. That's equally retarded. What I'm saying is that if someone posits an idea or a viewpoint and can only back it up with "I heard it somewhere" or "some guy said it," it's a little flawed. Equally, just because you WANT to believe something, doesn't make it true. Obviously, if someone with a qualification makes a statement about their field, and can back it up with clear reasoning or a citation of a recognised text, go nuts, believe it all you want. That's not an argument from authority, it's how one should approach all information.
Do I believe anything without proper reasoning? Sure. I believe country music sucks the big one. Like, aggressively. It's just a really bad form of music, in my opinion. But that's an opinion, not a truth or a worldview. You can argue that everyone is entitled to whatever worldview they want, but is that really fair? Are people really entitled to believe just anything without proper rationalisation or proof? Should we abide that kind of thing? It's a big, philosophical question that I cannot answer. However, I can say that it has been proven that people's worldviews can actively cause harm; see racism, homophobia, religious killings et al. Are you really doing the right thing by other people by NOT grounding all your views and opinions in reality and observations? It might offer you some comfort or help you make sense of your life, but really, you're just making stuff up to make yourself feel better.
I encourage everyone to be a cynic, a skeptic and basically a massive naysayer about EVERYTHING. If anyone makes any claim to you, ask them to prove it. Ask them to back it up. And bone up on logical fallacies, knowing about them is the greatest weapon against misinformation. I'm talking arguments from authority, arguments from popularity, all that stuff. They're great to know. The Wiki article is a pretty good start, and "The Art of Always Being Right" by Schopenhauer is also a good read, if a little florid and dense. The point is, be skeptical, doubt everything and search for reasoning in everything you do.
P.S. If I get any comments along the lines of "but you just believe in science as much as we do in [insert left field, unverified idea here], I will write a post probably even longer than this one about why that is incorrect.
Following my claim that one shouldn't believe anything until they have a specific reason to, and not the other way around, in a tutorial at uni, I was greeted with stunned looks. "Man, your life must be pretty empty" was the quote from my tutor. First of all, ouch. That's a pretty harsh thing to say to someone you barely know. But I have no evidence to support my life is empty, what with my friends, hobbies and interests, so no harm done. Second of all, if I can turn that statement on its head, how empty must your life be if you accept stuff without reason to? How poor must your opinion of your own judgement be if you buy into anything anyone says?
I'm not saying you shouldn't listen to ANYONE about ANYTHING. That's equally retarded. What I'm saying is that if someone posits an idea or a viewpoint and can only back it up with "I heard it somewhere" or "some guy said it," it's a little flawed. Equally, just because you WANT to believe something, doesn't make it true. Obviously, if someone with a qualification makes a statement about their field, and can back it up with clear reasoning or a citation of a recognised text, go nuts, believe it all you want. That's not an argument from authority, it's how one should approach all information.
Do I believe anything without proper reasoning? Sure. I believe country music sucks the big one. Like, aggressively. It's just a really bad form of music, in my opinion. But that's an opinion, not a truth or a worldview. You can argue that everyone is entitled to whatever worldview they want, but is that really fair? Are people really entitled to believe just anything without proper rationalisation or proof? Should we abide that kind of thing? It's a big, philosophical question that I cannot answer. However, I can say that it has been proven that people's worldviews can actively cause harm; see racism, homophobia, religious killings et al. Are you really doing the right thing by other people by NOT grounding all your views and opinions in reality and observations? It might offer you some comfort or help you make sense of your life, but really, you're just making stuff up to make yourself feel better.
I encourage everyone to be a cynic, a skeptic and basically a massive naysayer about EVERYTHING. If anyone makes any claim to you, ask them to prove it. Ask them to back it up. And bone up on logical fallacies, knowing about them is the greatest weapon against misinformation. I'm talking arguments from authority, arguments from popularity, all that stuff. They're great to know. The Wiki article is a pretty good start, and "The Art of Always Being Right" by Schopenhauer is also a good read, if a little florid and dense. The point is, be skeptical, doubt everything and search for reasoning in everything you do.
P.S. If I get any comments along the lines of "but you just believe in science as much as we do in [insert left field, unverified idea here], I will write a post probably even longer than this one about why that is incorrect.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Yes I'm Free. To Do What I Want. Any Old Time.
It boggles my fucking mind how people's definitions of stuff seems to stop at whether or not they like it or approve of it. That seems like a bit of a weird sentence, so let me clarify with an example.
So, I attend Edith Cowan University. Stop laughing. Anyway, the powers that be have decided that it is in the best interest of students to make the entire campus non-smoking. Now, my bullshit detector started going off when I heard that, there's no way that could be a thing, right? But no, it turns out it's true. The Vice-Chancellor is implementing such a plan. Well, needless to say, I flipped my shit and let everybody in a five kilometre radius know. Sidenote, I don't smoke, but I don't mind the smell and I'm not such a big pansy that someone smoking out in the open air makes me cry.
Imagine my surprise when the fascists that seem to surround me in my daily life were on board with this plan. "Yes!" they cried out in unison. "Let the powers that be stop smoking on campus! Huzzahs all round!" "But wait," I said, now a tad concerned. "Aren't you a bit concerned about the gradual removal of our freedoms?" I do hate using a slippery slope argument, what with it being a logical fallacy and all, but it does raise the question of what freedoms we're entitled to and which we aren't. Well, the ubiquitous reply seemed to be "but I don't like smoking."
Well excuse me! I didn't realise your personal tastes dictated the freedoms of everyone else! What about the people who like cigarettes? Are they somehow less entitled to voice their opinion? You know what? I think we had a pretty good system with the "smoking outside" rule. You know, out in the open air, smoke dissipating out so no-one(unless you're about a foot away from said cigarette) has to deal with it. If you walk past someone smoking a cigarette, then bitch that you can smell cigarettes and that you don't like it, there's something wrong with you. I can't stand the smell of red bull, we should totally ban the sale of it.
This is exactly the same as the "ban obscene art" or "death metal isn't music" arguments. Someone has a personal distaste, so rather than be mature and live and let live, it becomes a case of "BAN THE THING I DON'T LIKE, FOR I AM THE AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS GOOD AND MORAL!" You know what, it's an old chestnut, but I'm more offended by censorship than I am of the things they censor. Yeah, there exists some art that is pretty fuckin' crazy, there exists some music I don't like at all, there exists some habits people have that I quite despise. But you know what I do? I just ignore the things I dislike. It's remarkably easy. Oh, there's a painting I dislike? Guess I won't look. There's some music I don't care for? Best I don't listen. Someone drinking red bull? Guess I'll just move away. I'm not going to be a fucking fascist and demand that they change their behaviour because I disagree.
Freedom isn't limited to just stuff you like. Get the fuck over yourself. If you can't accept that people do things you don't necessarily agree with, maybe you're just intolerant. Which is your failing, not ours.
So, I attend Edith Cowan University. Stop laughing. Anyway, the powers that be have decided that it is in the best interest of students to make the entire campus non-smoking. Now, my bullshit detector started going off when I heard that, there's no way that could be a thing, right? But no, it turns out it's true. The Vice-Chancellor is implementing such a plan. Well, needless to say, I flipped my shit and let everybody in a five kilometre radius know. Sidenote, I don't smoke, but I don't mind the smell and I'm not such a big pansy that someone smoking out in the open air makes me cry.
Imagine my surprise when the fascists that seem to surround me in my daily life were on board with this plan. "Yes!" they cried out in unison. "Let the powers that be stop smoking on campus! Huzzahs all round!" "But wait," I said, now a tad concerned. "Aren't you a bit concerned about the gradual removal of our freedoms?" I do hate using a slippery slope argument, what with it being a logical fallacy and all, but it does raise the question of what freedoms we're entitled to and which we aren't. Well, the ubiquitous reply seemed to be "but I don't like smoking."
Well excuse me! I didn't realise your personal tastes dictated the freedoms of everyone else! What about the people who like cigarettes? Are they somehow less entitled to voice their opinion? You know what? I think we had a pretty good system with the "smoking outside" rule. You know, out in the open air, smoke dissipating out so no-one(unless you're about a foot away from said cigarette) has to deal with it. If you walk past someone smoking a cigarette, then bitch that you can smell cigarettes and that you don't like it, there's something wrong with you. I can't stand the smell of red bull, we should totally ban the sale of it.
This is exactly the same as the "ban obscene art" or "death metal isn't music" arguments. Someone has a personal distaste, so rather than be mature and live and let live, it becomes a case of "BAN THE THING I DON'T LIKE, FOR I AM THE AUTHORITY ON ALL THINGS GOOD AND MORAL!" You know what, it's an old chestnut, but I'm more offended by censorship than I am of the things they censor. Yeah, there exists some art that is pretty fuckin' crazy, there exists some music I don't like at all, there exists some habits people have that I quite despise. But you know what I do? I just ignore the things I dislike. It's remarkably easy. Oh, there's a painting I dislike? Guess I won't look. There's some music I don't care for? Best I don't listen. Someone drinking red bull? Guess I'll just move away. I'm not going to be a fucking fascist and demand that they change their behaviour because I disagree.
Freedom isn't limited to just stuff you like. Get the fuck over yourself. If you can't accept that people do things you don't necessarily agree with, maybe you're just intolerant. Which is your failing, not ours.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Smells Like Middle Age Spirit
People! it's the rapture! It's the end of fucking times! Granted, there hasn't been any plagues of locusts or frogs, and the waters haven't run red as if they were blood, but there is one telltale sign. The dead have walked the earth again!
I find it a little odd when, in the past two years, I've watched Alice In Chains, Jane's Addiction, Faith No More and The Pixies, purchased the new Stone Temple Pilots album and am super psyched for the Soundgarden reunion. To give it some context, these are all bands that broke up when I was ten or younger. Bands I love, but bands that were from another place, another time... Also, there's a Suede reunion in the UK going on which is pretty fucking sweet, they rule.
Why the fucking reunion jamboree all of a sudden? It was kinda cool when AIC found a new singer, it was just like they took a 15 year break, but then The Pixies playing Doolittle cover to cover, then Jane's Addiction and Faith No More headlining Soundwave... then the rumours flying around about THIS 90's band or THAT 90's band or even THOSE guys from the 90's getting back on the wagon... I love these bands but it's getting a bit old. I'm not begrudging them the right to reform, and goddamn if we don't need Soundgarden now more than ever, but the cynic in me can't help but feel like it's all too close together, all really close to the US and Euro festival season, and then Australian festival season follows and I'm 300 bucks in the hole because all the lineups smell of fresh baked nostalgia cookies.
Am I the only person who really respects The Smiths for having a proper break up? Morrissey and Johnny Marr have pretty much said they aren't going to work together again, and they've stuck to their guns. They both went off, have had new careers all their own and got on with their lives. Like mature adults. But all these reunions now, it's like a page right out of high school. "OMG Soungarden can't get back together because Matt Cameron has been seeing Pearl Jam and Chris Cornell was all like 'no way, biatch!'". If you're going to break up the band, try not to cynically cash in 10 years down the track, OK? You're cheapening everything you stood for, back in the day when all you had was a handful of riffs and a fuck you attitude. I can see the wedding rings and grey hairs now, illusion shattered. But thanks anyway, thanks for selling cherished memories back to me at today's prices.
I'm still going to see all these bands when they come through, when am I going to get the chance to see Trippin' On A Hole In A Paper Heart (arguably one of the best songs ever) played live? It's still great music, these legends from yesteryear, but it does leave a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth to see 40 year old ex-rockers cashing in on their name to a generation of young music fans. If I had a time machine, I'd just go back to early 90's Seattle and do it the proper way, but lamentably it's on the fritz, so big money for old guys it is.
P.S. Special mention goes out to Scott Weiland, who has never changed. He looks the same and is still as stupid, destructive and wasteful as he was in the 90's. My hat goes off to you, Scott, you never stopped rocking. Champion.
I find it a little odd when, in the past two years, I've watched Alice In Chains, Jane's Addiction, Faith No More and The Pixies, purchased the new Stone Temple Pilots album and am super psyched for the Soundgarden reunion. To give it some context, these are all bands that broke up when I was ten or younger. Bands I love, but bands that were from another place, another time... Also, there's a Suede reunion in the UK going on which is pretty fucking sweet, they rule.
Why the fucking reunion jamboree all of a sudden? It was kinda cool when AIC found a new singer, it was just like they took a 15 year break, but then The Pixies playing Doolittle cover to cover, then Jane's Addiction and Faith No More headlining Soundwave... then the rumours flying around about THIS 90's band or THAT 90's band or even THOSE guys from the 90's getting back on the wagon... I love these bands but it's getting a bit old. I'm not begrudging them the right to reform, and goddamn if we don't need Soundgarden now more than ever, but the cynic in me can't help but feel like it's all too close together, all really close to the US and Euro festival season, and then Australian festival season follows and I'm 300 bucks in the hole because all the lineups smell of fresh baked nostalgia cookies.
Am I the only person who really respects The Smiths for having a proper break up? Morrissey and Johnny Marr have pretty much said they aren't going to work together again, and they've stuck to their guns. They both went off, have had new careers all their own and got on with their lives. Like mature adults. But all these reunions now, it's like a page right out of high school. "OMG Soungarden can't get back together because Matt Cameron has been seeing Pearl Jam and Chris Cornell was all like 'no way, biatch!'". If you're going to break up the band, try not to cynically cash in 10 years down the track, OK? You're cheapening everything you stood for, back in the day when all you had was a handful of riffs and a fuck you attitude. I can see the wedding rings and grey hairs now, illusion shattered. But thanks anyway, thanks for selling cherished memories back to me at today's prices.
I'm still going to see all these bands when they come through, when am I going to get the chance to see Trippin' On A Hole In A Paper Heart (arguably one of the best songs ever) played live? It's still great music, these legends from yesteryear, but it does leave a bit of a bitter taste in my mouth to see 40 year old ex-rockers cashing in on their name to a generation of young music fans. If I had a time machine, I'd just go back to early 90's Seattle and do it the proper way, but lamentably it's on the fritz, so big money for old guys it is.
P.S. Special mention goes out to Scott Weiland, who has never changed. He looks the same and is still as stupid, destructive and wasteful as he was in the 90's. My hat goes off to you, Scott, you never stopped rocking. Champion.
Monday, October 4, 2010
I Made a Score-Point!
It was a bit of a strange time in Australia if you don't care about sports. We had a grand final of some description, which ended as a draw. As such, we had to have another one because apparently the Australian Football League (not proper football, our own retarded variant) has no fucking idea what to do if a draw happens. I can imagine the boardroom after the result came in: A bunch of old, ex-players looking sheepishly at each other before one finally says "...so, I guess we have to play it again, then?" What a stupid game. Extra Time, penalty kicks, captain on captain knife-fighting... these are all viable alternatives. Hell, I'd pay money just to see the knife-fighting.
I don't really get sport that much. I played football (the proper kind) as a kid, and my family follows it, so I've always just kinda understood the game. I can watch a top-level match and enjoy it, especially if there are friends and liquor present. Yet, for whatever reason, in my adult life, I can't relate to any other sport that people seem to watch... it's literally just men running into other men to me.
Rugby, basketball, AFL... it's all very homo-erotic, isn't it? I mean, that's the obvious gripe, I doubt I'm the first person to make the astute observation of "lots of men, wearing very little, getting all sweaty and rubbing up against each other is a little gay, at least in theory." If I don't like watching it at a gay bar, I'm probably not going to like it in a sports rink/court/pitch/whatever. There was an ad over here that was a testament to the stupidity of AFL fans in general, where camp icon Jerry Hall said "22 men running around in tiny shorts? I'd watch that." If that doesn't demonstrate the massive cock-thirst of the entire institution, I don't know what does.
But more than that, isn't all sport just a holdover from a much more boring time? I mean, I get it, in ancient times when all you had was a ball and an expanse, you had to make your own fun. Maybe there was a guy who was really good at whatever ball sport was concocted, so people watched it. And I get why people still play sport, exercise prevents obesity and death (yes, fatties, you could have dodged your wobbly bullet by kicking a football around) and playing a game with friends is more fun than going for a walk or gym for an hour. What I can't quite understand is how one man's talent at, oh I don't know, KICKING A PIECE OF PLASTIC AROUND FOR A BIT, elevates them unto ridiculous celebrity.
It's not the player's fault they get paid well. With all the money that gets poured into the institution, it would be unfair NOT to pay them well. Ideally they'd make a decent wage and the rest of the revenue would go to a charity of some description, but people are selfish and all it would take is one club not to do that and the whole thing would become unbalanced. It's really the fault of the rabid sports fans, turning ordinary men into "legends" (a word thrown around far too loosely these days). What is it, you have too much testosterone and a handful of broken dreams so you have to live vicariously through young men who made the grade? Is it any wonder you get guys like Ben Cousins going off the rails? They're early twenties, making ridiculous amounts of cash by getting angry and competitive while having everyone telling them they're great and somehow special. Show me anyone, anywhere, in that situation who wouldn't go off the rails in one way or another! And then society as a whole has the audacity to shake their finger at their fallen idol... You aren't helping your case with me, folks.
Me disliking sports as an entertainment is purely an opinion, it's just another thing people do to kill time. There's literally no difference between watching a game of football, watching a concert, playing a video game, getting a little high, going for a walk, playing drums, baking... all that crap. If you're mature about it. Where it becomes a problem is when the element of competitiveness takes over, when testosterone fuelled meathead behaviour turns something benign into a cancer on society, with young men built up to broken down and anger and rivalry is promoted, rather than condemned. Our modern approach to sport as an entertainment has no place in a civilized society, it is simply a stubborn habit that people refuse to break. And it's really kinda gay.
P.S. I have similar feelings about the music industry as a whole as well, so don't give me the "but musicians get the same crazy pay and star treatment" spiel.
I don't really get sport that much. I played football (the proper kind) as a kid, and my family follows it, so I've always just kinda understood the game. I can watch a top-level match and enjoy it, especially if there are friends and liquor present. Yet, for whatever reason, in my adult life, I can't relate to any other sport that people seem to watch... it's literally just men running into other men to me.
Rugby, basketball, AFL... it's all very homo-erotic, isn't it? I mean, that's the obvious gripe, I doubt I'm the first person to make the astute observation of "lots of men, wearing very little, getting all sweaty and rubbing up against each other is a little gay, at least in theory." If I don't like watching it at a gay bar, I'm probably not going to like it in a sports rink/court/pitch/whatever. There was an ad over here that was a testament to the stupidity of AFL fans in general, where camp icon Jerry Hall said "22 men running around in tiny shorts? I'd watch that." If that doesn't demonstrate the massive cock-thirst of the entire institution, I don't know what does.
But more than that, isn't all sport just a holdover from a much more boring time? I mean, I get it, in ancient times when all you had was a ball and an expanse, you had to make your own fun. Maybe there was a guy who was really good at whatever ball sport was concocted, so people watched it. And I get why people still play sport, exercise prevents obesity and death (yes, fatties, you could have dodged your wobbly bullet by kicking a football around) and playing a game with friends is more fun than going for a walk or gym for an hour. What I can't quite understand is how one man's talent at, oh I don't know, KICKING A PIECE OF PLASTIC AROUND FOR A BIT, elevates them unto ridiculous celebrity.
It's not the player's fault they get paid well. With all the money that gets poured into the institution, it would be unfair NOT to pay them well. Ideally they'd make a decent wage and the rest of the revenue would go to a charity of some description, but people are selfish and all it would take is one club not to do that and the whole thing would become unbalanced. It's really the fault of the rabid sports fans, turning ordinary men into "legends" (a word thrown around far too loosely these days). What is it, you have too much testosterone and a handful of broken dreams so you have to live vicariously through young men who made the grade? Is it any wonder you get guys like Ben Cousins going off the rails? They're early twenties, making ridiculous amounts of cash by getting angry and competitive while having everyone telling them they're great and somehow special. Show me anyone, anywhere, in that situation who wouldn't go off the rails in one way or another! And then society as a whole has the audacity to shake their finger at their fallen idol... You aren't helping your case with me, folks.
Me disliking sports as an entertainment is purely an opinion, it's just another thing people do to kill time. There's literally no difference between watching a game of football, watching a concert, playing a video game, getting a little high, going for a walk, playing drums, baking... all that crap. If you're mature about it. Where it becomes a problem is when the element of competitiveness takes over, when testosterone fuelled meathead behaviour turns something benign into a cancer on society, with young men built up to broken down and anger and rivalry is promoted, rather than condemned. Our modern approach to sport as an entertainment has no place in a civilized society, it is simply a stubborn habit that people refuse to break. And it's really kinda gay.
P.S. I have similar feelings about the music industry as a whole as well, so don't give me the "but musicians get the same crazy pay and star treatment" spiel.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
To Celebrate, I'm Going to Incinerate Some Brain Cells
Things learned on the belated celebration of the anniversary of my existence:
1) Quality > Quantity, especially with friends. Nothing beats the company of some close friends and a lot of liquor.
2) Making drinks is an incredible talent. Anne-Marie at Universal Bar gets the official Tuesday Night Wrist Seal of "I'm OK With Your Existence".
3) You aren't charming when you're drunk. More often than not, you sound like an idiot.
4) You could have known someone to say "hi" to for 6 years and not known they're a champ; strike up conversations with everyone, everywhere.
5) Chartreuse is fucked up, no one should drink that shit. Seriously, crazy french monk bastards, do you really have nothing better to do than make such vile poison?
6) It's REALLY funny when friends can't hold their liquor.
7) It's a really small world, especially here in Perth
8) Garlic sauce is infinitely better than Satay sauce in a doner kebab. Additionally, a double meat doner kebab, baklava, mountain dew and water will prevent hangover.
9) If you ingest the right combination of chemicals, in just the right balance, you might lucid-dream a premise for a fantasy novel.
Yeah, it was a good night.
1) Quality > Quantity, especially with friends. Nothing beats the company of some close friends and a lot of liquor.
2) Making drinks is an incredible talent. Anne-Marie at Universal Bar gets the official Tuesday Night Wrist Seal of "I'm OK With Your Existence".
3) You aren't charming when you're drunk. More often than not, you sound like an idiot.
4) You could have known someone to say "hi" to for 6 years and not known they're a champ; strike up conversations with everyone, everywhere.
5) Chartreuse is fucked up, no one should drink that shit. Seriously, crazy french monk bastards, do you really have nothing better to do than make such vile poison?
6) It's REALLY funny when friends can't hold their liquor.
7) It's a really small world, especially here in Perth
8) Garlic sauce is infinitely better than Satay sauce in a doner kebab. Additionally, a double meat doner kebab, baklava, mountain dew and water will prevent hangover.
9) If you ingest the right combination of chemicals, in just the right balance, you might lucid-dream a premise for a fantasy novel.
Yeah, it was a good night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)