So old it took me a while to remember exactly who the hell we were talking about. Unfortunately, I did remember.

I don't remember. Maybe that's for the best.

(Folk newer than early 2001, this has got to be so confusing to you all.)

Yep, pretty much.

Seconded.

And I admit to a morbid cuirosity. I really want to know about SWSNBN.

I remember SWSNBN.

supresses a shudder

I would say maybe a pimp hat, except you already have one. Unless pimp hats are like tiaras, and one can never have too many?

I think they might be, if it weren't for the fact that my pimp hat is clearly the best one EVAH.

I'm thinkng I'm glad this was before my time, because even just lurking was a bit taumatic during a couple of things I'm not too board-young for, and this sounds worse. Or creepier, or something.

It's larger TT stuff, not Buffista stuff, FYI.

In nice nostalgia news, my iTunes has suffled to KateP's college a capella group singing the Indigo Girls Least Complicated.

or, you know SHUFFLED. Yes, I am a secratary secretary.

You know, if all of Gawker and most of the blogosphere were pointing and laughing at me, I'd cry. Is it a lack of self-awareness? bon? It's your birthday, help me psychoanalyze.

Well...she's one of those people, like Ann Coulter, who think they are blessed with the power to tell the unvarnished truth, like some kind of martyr against politeness and miseducation. When really she's just a martyr against responsible living.

And she holds the opinion that you can tell something about someone's character because of their weight, which is so stupid children can explain the problem to her. She's an objectivist, which can be considered an immoral philosophy, if not just misguidedly immature.

This is a very truncated version of the last thirty minutes of discussion I just had with Bob Bob about what is wrong with this ho? but I will give it more thought over dinner. I would really like to be able to sum her up.

I don't think I inhabited the same threads as SWSNBN, but I've heard about her from people all over TT.

More on the planet kerfuffle:

Astronomers continue to wrangle over a proposal to define the term “planet,” one they can at least agree to vote on Thursday at a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.

But the latest rendition, a third try that seems to be a melding of the first two and which would demote Pluto to dwarf status, was presented earlier today and “shot down in flames again,” a source tells me. “The IAU is now working on a [another] version that may be much more acceptable to the majority of astronomers,” the source said.

Just to illustrate how crazed the effort has become, the latest (and apparently defeated) proposal suggests various possible terms for defining a new class of dwarf planets, which would not be real planets and would include Pluto. The suggestions: plutons (suggested in the initial controversial proposal), plutoids, plutonids, plutonoids, plutinos (already used to describe known comet-like objects in the outer solar system), Tombaugh Objects (after Clyde, who discovered Pluto), Tombaugh Planets, plutians.

[link]