skip to main |
skip to sidebar
hello, reeds, and welcome to "how to get a funnier, higher quality tiny damaged notions post!"
this easy 5-step program will guide you to obtaining higher quality TDN installments.
step 1
the first step is to examine your wallet. you may be a smart individual and have a tri-fold, or a caveman with a bi-fold, or even a lady with a larger, more elegantly designed wallet. there is no discrimination in tiny damaged notions. all wallets are created equal. just take it out, and give it a good stare.
step 2
the value of your wallet lies in the value of what's inside your wallet. look at all the legal US currency you have inside. once you do this, you're ready for the next step.
step 3
this step involves giving me all that money in your wallet. believe me, i'll be happy to receive it. just look how disheveled i look! yes, valuable US currency does help create a higher-quality TDN post. and why, you ask? well, look no further than step 4.
step 4
money = funny, and by quitting my job and living off the money i will be receiving from all of you, i will be able to post detailed, humorous, and worthwhile installments of tiny damaged notions every day! remember what life was like when i had more time to develop these daily tidbits of joy? well, now you can forget that memory and make it a constant event in the present by simply following steps 1 through 3.
but wait, there's more!
step 5
after giving me all your money, your wallet will probably look mighty empty.
well, that's where your income comes in handy! before you know it, you'll be back at step 2 again--with a wallet full of cash; and i will be, of course, patiently awaiting step 3.
see, reeds? that's it! that's the key to success! now, let's make that happen together, shall we?
have a wonderful day, everyone. and remember, with only 5 easy steps this could have been funnier!
(this post made possible by the learn-a-little saturday foundation for getting more money to tiny damaged notions)
happy saturday, reeds! we've made it to the pinnacle of the weekend. the day of days. the merit of the month. the yodeler of the year.
but even though today, this november 18th, rocks harder than a bon jovi cover band on a mountain of rock candy
it comes bearing some sad news.
according to our old prim-and-proper news friends the independent, up and coming website myspace.com is being sued by universal music, the world's largest music company, over claims that the website's users "are infringing copyright by posting pop songs and music videos on their web pages."
damn you, universal! always trying to take down small business.
the independent reports:
The suit, filed last night in a California court, demands that MySpace pay Universal up to $150,000 for every one of its copyrighted works used by the website's army of 125 million users...Universal, which is owned by the French media giant Vivendi and counts Elton John, 50 Cent and Gwen Stefani among its biggest acts, is emerging as one of the most aggressive defenders of the music industry's intellectual property in the digital age.
(the independent, "http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article1993664.ece")
::sigh::
i, for one, think it's awesome that "defend[ing]...the music industry" means suing everyone you possibly can.
especially when you're suing the biggest social network on the internet, which has the possibility of exposing artists to millions of new people every day.
i know each time that i hear a good song on a friend's myspace page, or check out a band i'd never heard of via their myspace page, i immediately become enraged that their record label is not getting paid for me listening to their music. the only way they can increase profit is by hoping that, with the millions of bands on myspace, i may be exposed to a few that i wouldn't have been otherwise, which would give me the desire to buy their CD!
that's too risky for the gentle giants of the music industry. wouldn't it be so much nicer if the only way we can hear music, either that we have before or that is entirely new to us, was to pay a record company? i know i'd sleep much sounder at night if i could only listen to a 30 second clip of "livin' on a prayer." but right now, the bastards at myspace allow me to listen to the whole song.
well, here's something that universal music can't charge you for: it's learn-a-little saturday!
today, i will discuss something that has been very dear to me ever since laura- and jackie-reed (laura's "friendly, spanish, brooklynite suitemate") suggested i use the topic for wiki-licious friday, but i didn't have the time to use two topics: shanklish!
shanklish is a type of cow's milk cheese that is made in syria and lebanon. wikipedia.com tells me--and i never doubt wikipedia--that it is usually formed into balls approximately 6 cm diameter, which are then covered in spices and dried. this whole process gives the cheese its unique appearance, which "somewhat resembl[es] a dirty tennis ball."
yum?
in the name of learning, i looked up a picture of this cheese:
now, laura and jackie, i'd probably willingly eat this because i do love cheese, and it's got to be better than what sarah-reed is making me eat. however, this seems rather obscure--or at least unusual to pick as a topic.
which brings me to my next area of learning: confusion!
sometimes, things in life do not match up to the preconceived notions you had about them. when this occurs, you experience a sense of distress over attempting to bring clarity to an issue, but being unable to do so.
you may scratch your head, or your chin, or perhaps become angered at your growing confusion.
an example of this comes from myself attempting to understand the question, "why shanklish?" i debate possible answers: perhaps because it sounds like a language, but is really a cheese.
like how dalmatian sounds like a dog, but is really an extinct language native to the geographical area near croatia
(don't believe me?).
and that's all i have to say about shanklish. i'm confused as to why, but i did my part in researching! and no matter how weird and obscure, i not only appreciate the topic, but demand you all post more topic ideas!
ok guys, that's sadly all i've got. there was really a big span of funny-lacking in today's post, i know. would it help if i tried to make up for that by posting the first picture that comes up when typing "smelly toad" into google's image search?
wow. did michael showalter get far older, go crazy, and start loving toads?
at least that's interesting right?
right?
(i'll try harder tomorrow)
good afternoon, reeds. it's saturday, november 11th--veterans day--and i don't know about you but i'm ready for another installment of tiny damaged notions.
shut up and jam!
yesterday, i went to see the new talkie stranger than fiction in the moving picture theater. in case you can't recall, here's the poster:
whether or not i enjoyed the film is irrelevant (alright, i'll tell you that i did enjoy the film, but only because all you reeds are so nice), the important part was the trailer i saw for the new will smith movie:
hmmm. "happyness," i thought, is misspelled.
well, i didn't so much think it as i angrily turned towards kristen-reed, proclaiming "what the hell?!? they misspelled happiness! what, did they not spellcheck their movie title?!?"
so, today i went on a little research binge, and found out via imdb.com that the misspelling was intentional. furthermore, i discovered that it was first an ol' fashioned bound memoir by chris gardner. npr.org was nice enough to give me the reason why:
The misspelled "Happyness" of the book's title comes from when Gardner was looking for daycare for his son so Gardner could pursue his career. He rejected one facility because it misspelled "Happiness" in its name, but gained insight into what happiness meant to him personally when he explained the literal meaning of the word to his curious son.
(npr.org, "http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5443651")
this turned my feelings of anger into feelings of joy. gardner rejected sending his son to a daycare center that misspelled "happiness."
amazing.
so kudos go to you, chris gardner. i know i'd do the same, and i hope all you reeds would too. let's break free from ignorance and demand nerdy satisfaction!
oh, what a wonderful segue into learn-a-little saturday! today's topic: fame.
being famous just means having a widespread reputation, or that a large percentage of the general public (or whatever demographic said person is famous in) knows the person exists. most of the time, this also means that the public acknowledges said famous person as performing or doing something that has given them notariety.
most commonly, people become famous for these actions which they have done, whether liked or disliked: mother theresa is well known for being a saint-like kind missionary; tom hanks is known as an american actor. when disliked, it is also called infamous: john wayne gacy, jr is infamous for being a serial killer.
there is a third case which also exists, which is perhaps the strangest one: people will become famous, and the general public doesn't even know why that person became famous. many times, this is due to being related to another famous person. think about why the hell anyone knows paris hilton. once she started doing anything that may have made her famous (television shows, merchandising, main-stream music), she had already been famous prior to that. it is just that enough people have spoken about said person, and they've infiltrated enough common media sources that the details of their rise to fame become blurred in their already-gaining notoriety.
with that said, one doesn't actually need to have done anything superb to get him or her into the spotlight--even if it is just for a short while, or for "15 minutes of fame."
15 minutes may be all i need to show reese witherspoon how awesome i am. so start getting my name out there! spread TDN love everywhere: discuss it by the water cooler at work, write rave-reviews for it to media sources, get TDN tattooed across your back, etc.
well, that's enough self-promotion and reese-infatuation disguised as learning for one day. let's move on, shall we?
CBS4boston.com, the aptly titled website for boston's local CBS station, reported on this spicy piece of news:
(cbs4boston.com, "http://cbs4boston.com/local/local_story_314094750.html")
can you reeds believe that we're all alive for, and able to experience firsthand, the great burrito debate? we'll be telling our grandkids about this, that's for sure.
then there was a neat little poll which asks you, the reader, if you believe a burrito is a sandwich. i'll tell you in confidence that i voted amongst the many for "Of course not." the 29% who voted for "Yes, bread plus filling equals sandwich" are brave, but incorrect, i felt. i don't know about you, but i've never seen a burrito wrapped up in bread. it's called a "tortilla."
according to the story, panera bread got all huffy-puffy when a mexican restaurant opened itself in the same shopping center as a panera bread location, after the owners of the mall had given panera "sandwich exclusivity."
then, like burrito-filling, things got heated. they went to court, and this ridiculous story was born.
In his ruling, [Worcester Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A.] Locke cited Webster's definition of a sandwich and explained that the difference comes down to two slices of bread versus one tortilla: "A sandwich is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans," he wrote.
(cbs4boston.com, "http://cbs4boston.com/local/local_story_314094750.html")
you think judge locke was smiling when he gave out this ruling? i don't know how often in your career as a judge you'd be expecting to read aloud webster's definition of a sandwich.
"before coming to my verdict on this case of rock v. paper, i will first read the wikipedia article on 'rock, paper, scissors' to clarify this misunderstanding."
"choice filling of meat, rice, and beans" still makes me laugh. sounds like he's trying to advertise mexican food with that one. and who can blame him? that's one tasty area of eats.
that's all for this saturday's installment of tiny damaged notions. now all you reeds can finally get back to planning your saturday. it is saturday when you're reading this right? you didn't wait until you were bored later on in the week because you had "better things to do" did you?
DID YOU?!?
good, i thought not. enjoy your saturday everyone! and save a burrito for me.
late post!
it's 6:50pm and i'm just now starting this edition of
learn-a-little saturday!
am i honestly expecting people to be sitting home reading this on a saturday night?
no; but i already got several reeds telling me they looked for a new post today before i got a chance to. curses!
well, i have a good excuse: i was making a costume for a halloween party i'm going to tonight.
i know, i know: it's after the fact. but i got a kick-ass costume:
metal man! from mega man 2.
(pictures to be posted tomorrow).
now onward towards learning. today's lesson:
applebees!that's where me and a few good reeds are about to go eat. you know, a while ago i noticed the similarities between the name "applebees" and the fruit and insect whose names make up the restaurant chain.therefore, whenever i inquire friends if they would care to join me on a tasty excursion towards this bar n' grill, i always ask:"wanna get stung?!"what is this teaching you? well, about colloquialism, of course. and even more-so, a sub-genre of that: slang.slang terms have been around as long as conventional language. some terms stick around long enough to be considered a permanent part in a language; others fade away like disco music, or parachute pants.one permanent aspect of language is that it is always evolving. sometimes for ease of the speaker, sometimes due to foreign influence.or sometimes, because YOU GOTTA GET STUNG!BEES IT, BRO!catch you reeds tomorrow. have a great saturday.(sunday's will be better. i promise).
good morning, reeds, and welcome to another issue, episode, installment, or post (whatever suits your fancy) of tiny damaged notions.do you know what today is? it's "learn-a-little saturday"!today, i'm getting a haircut. in reality, that means i'm getting several hairs cut. however "haircut" is a noun which implies this in its meaning. therefore, when people say to you "no, you're getting your hairs cut!" as a joke, you can tell them to grab a dictionary and shut the hell up! "i'm" is a contraction expressing subject & the 1st person singular present indicative of "be." "to get" is the verb, "a" is a cute little indefinite article, and "haircut" is the noun to which the verb applies. it's a perfectly logical sentence. hooray for syntax & semantics working side-by-side! what a kick-ass duo.tonight i am also attending a halloween party. this means that me & several friends will be pretending we're people or things we're not while we ingest alcohol. i know what you're thinking, and no--i'm not just going to a club.the similarities are striking, but the differences lie in the fact that i'll actually be enjoying myself around this group of phonies.that's all for this educational post. this is your pilot of the reed-5000 wishing you all a swell saturday upon exiting.
