What? Oh, it's me again. And reporting from Minearverse again. And, uh, quoting myself again:

P-C:

I thought there was actually a flesh-eating dog named Jeffrey somewhere in fiction.

ita:

You're thinking of Clifford.

Breastfeeding issues in Bitches:

Ple: I may have to break Lily of her habit of regulating flow by pulling and twisting the nipple before she grows teeth.

Aimee: I've heard tell that slighty flicker her cheek will do the trick.

Ple: I'm torn. Right now, I'd rather have the pain than have her gag on an over-active letdown, as the physical pain is easier on me than seeing her startled look of betrayal when the boobie attacks.

Robin displaying her finely tuned sense of consistency in Natter:

I will sneak into a second movie in a multiplex with no problem, but I won't go over in a checkout line. It makes ethical sense IN MY HEAD.

In Natter:

ita:

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM.

Perkins:

That's Latin for "EAT IT, KRAV WOMAN", right?

shrift being shrifty, in Natter:

Huh. I just bopped down the street for some lunch, and two young women were handing out free flowers. Red roses, to be exact, no doubt to promote a flower shop.

I ended up with a rose on the way to the deli. I ordered my food. As he was packaging up my soup, register boy asked, "So, would you rather get free flowers on the street, or flowers from your boyfriend?"

I blinked at him in confusion for a couple of minutes in 'does not compute' mode. The question was problematic because the default assumption was that I a) cared, b) had a boyfriend, and c) liked flowers. For the sake of argument, let's pretend all of the above are true, but then, I'd still need more data. Are the flowers from said non-existent boyfriend for a happy occasion, or did he screw up? Did he get me my favorite flowers, or just generic flowers because that's what you do when you're in a relationship? I mean, I need to know these facts in order to evaluate the question properly!

And that's when I realized I was insane.

erika, in Natter:

I got the bathroom that was accessible only because kids made it too ugly for anyone but disabled folks to use in 7th and 8th. "Kathy Mahoney fucks farm animals," if you're wondering.

In Natter, because I can't help laughing at the endless riff on Green Lantern's weakness....

ita: What do you have against Green Lantern?

Jesse: Dude. Yellow.

ita: That's so no longer true.

Plei: Well, technically, the weakness is back, but if they all get into a homoerotic line dance position and THINK POSITIVE THOUGHTS, they can still fight bananas.

Jessica: I'm a little boggled at the thought of "You know what would make a good weakness? YELLOW!" being considered a workable idea twice.

Wolfram: Maybe if they limited it to a particular shade. Like mustard.

Plei: Now there's some deep spiritual meaning to it or some such crap.

The original Green Lantern, with powers of a different origin, also has a weakness. His? Wood.

I'm drawing up plans for the ulitimate bad guy lair right now. A little Douglas Fir, a little Dutch Boy, some Kryptonite doorknobs, and I'm set.

From Natter,

From this seed:

tommyrot: I'm eating carryout from KFC right now. When the guy put my container into a plastic bag, he carelessly allowed the container to tilt almost sideways. Now there's coleslaw juice in my mashed potatos.

Sprout entwined conversations

tommyrot: Killing people on a whim is so much fun....

Kathy A: It's a good way to sop up gravy and other foods with liquid.

Oddly enough, both those conversatons started from the same place.

Hm, so parallel isn't the right word. Editing time.