Archive for July, 2006|Monthly archive page

umm.. did you say Fast Sex Slow Car..??

In lisapicks on 07/31/2006 at 7:29 pm

When time is of the essence, as in the wild (and no we are not talking Crescent st. & Ste Catherine;) where predators roam and lifespan is short (ie., like the mayfly, that live but only ONE HOUR) there isn’t much room for niceties of courtship, and understandably more emphasis for the duration of their sexual encounters.
Of course much of the big hurry has nothing to do with pleasure and everything to do with ensuring survival of the species by making certain its genes are propagated so to speak. Now before we all start comparing our guyfriends and fuckbuddies to an unrealistic standard, try these hard facts on for size ;))
Beavers spend about 3 minutes copulating. Ducks takes 2 minutes for the whole thing.
Whales and Elephants take about 30 seconds. But lest you Human males begin to feel superior, it should be noted whales also hold the record for having the biggest.. yes, p e n i s. In large Rorqual whales the penis can be up to 10 feet long, with a diameter of up to one foot. It takes male chimpanzees 10-20 seconds to reach climax. For mice in the wild, the sexual encounter is over after a mere 5 seconds. Sex for mosquitoes lasts all the way up to whopping 3 seconds. Our guys must be feeling pretty good about themselves by now, aren’t they? WAIT… we speak too soon.
Cockroaches have been known to have coitus for up to an unbelievable 6 hours (thereby coming pretty close to matching stamina of a typical mcGill male’s coitus uninterruptus ;). Unfortunately, that admirable length of time is not completely voluntary on the part of some participants. It seems this duration is due, in part, to the fact that many insect penises (as well as the organs of some reptiles) lock within the female, making withdrawal difficult. Sometimes withdrawal isn’t possible at all, and the penis breaks off,(hmm.. we always did kinda wonder..) thus giving an entirely new meaning to the term “one night stand.” 😉

mouth faster than a speeding bullet…

In Uncategorized on 07/31/2006 at 6:09 pm

That’s Bitch With A Capital B

Along with pet peeve regarding using the wrong kind of to (also wrong usage of their, they’re, there), I have a general hatred of poor grammar. So the other day I am trying on some clothes in the Ross dressing room (yes, I shop at Ross now. That’s all we have here at the beach. You learn to live with it.), and I can’t help but overhear some women in the stall next to me babbling on an on and shrugs and slacks. Apparently one of the women was on a fashion roll, because her friend said, “You did good today.”
Without even taking a moment to correct myself, without stopping the thought on its short flight from my brain to my mouth, I said,
“You did WELL today.”
Note to self: add Ross to list of places I must not go.

thanks Caroline

and the winner is… :))

In Uncategorized on 07/30/2006 at 9:39 pm
there is a reason why we have such a big grin, that’s because we have a WINNER to the photo id contest below, and may we say, none more deserving than our fav brit all the way over in liverpool, tony(applause, standing ovation, kisskiss, tears, xxx etc…)
(whose very in-your-face ubercool blog is reasonably titled Sushi is Not Cool.)
hey tony, we know that even as we speak you are on your way to our cafe to collect your unlimited all-the-bwburgers-you-can-eat prize. so see ya at our amazing montreal airport say… tuesday?? :)) oh we almost forgot, for all of us still puzzled, here is the answer, of course only if you wish to satisfy your curiosity, otherwise.. keep guessing !

click here for the answer 😉

no it’s not Barry Manilow…

In Uncategorized on 07/29/2006 at 10:59 pm

Do You Know This Person..?.. and why he has our attention..?

Ok dear readers please send in your answers in confidence to, or what the hell simply post your burps right here if you can id the amazing matinee idol (at least to all of us here) pictured relaxing above. Prizes?? hmm.. we are tempted to offer $1 million dollars but in due deference to acknowledged astuteness of brainwashcafe readers alas we are only able to offer unlimited helpings of our justifiably infamous bw burgers. And please no cheating by scanning pic into the Google Face Recognition Search 🙂 good luck!
p.s., one thing we do promise, the answer will astonish, astound and amaze you (!).

money gene coming right up…

In bblonde, money gene on 07/28/2006 at 1:19 am

Prozac for money & sex coming soon to pharmacy near you…

The following sentence may sound like beginning of a Stephen King novel, but rest assured all true. Once upon a time late at night, in a basement laboratory at Stanford University, (sigh anyone who knows the state of basements at mcgill will understand why these discoveries are never made at mcgill, but we digress..) Brian Knutson made a startling discovery: Our brains lust after money, just like they crave sex.

This innocuous idea is currently sending shivers up spines of financiers and money brokers everywhere. For years economists and experts on Wall Street have propagated an unassailable idea that financial expertise is a learned behavior, much like say accounting, or law, or driving. The idea is enshrined in the economic theory of rational expectations, for which people have won Nobel Prizes for heaven’s sake (ie Robert Lucas in 1995).

For most of us it seems well.. logical that that when it comes to money, logic should prevail, that intellect matters in investing. Entire field of Economics, and lately Game Theory, is founded on the resolute principle that ‘experts’ in these disciplines possess invaluable experience that come primarily from knowledge learned and techniques applied along with ability to learn from past mistakes.

Well guess what. Welcome to the new world of neurofinance. (huh?)

The prefrontal cortex has a high number of interconnections both between the brainstem‘s Reticular Activating System (RAS) and the limbic system. As a result, the centers in the prefrontal cortex depend significantly on high levels of alertness, and emotional linkages with deeper brain structures related to control of pleasure, pain, anger, rage, panic, aggression (fight-flight-freeze responses), and basic sexual responses. Now we can add ‘financial risk responses’ to this list. The viceral pleasure of orgasm, the transient high from cocaine, the adrenaline rush of buying Google at $450 a share… the same neural pathways may in effect govern all three. What’s more, our primal pleasure circuits can, and often do, override our seat of reason, the brain’s frontal cortex. In other words, stocks, like sex, (and men) sometimes drive us crazy. And answers to questions like why some people win at ‘game’ of money and others perennially walk the loserslane may be found amidst the 96,000 km of neural wiring in our brainspace, rather than in books or colleges or Wall street brokerage houses.

Not to belabour the point, suffice it to simply quote Daniel Kahneman, who merely won the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics for his pioneering work in behavioral finance that fuses classical economic theory and studies of human psychology.

” The brain scientists are the wave of the future in the financial world… if you seek to maximize understanding, whether you’re in academia or in the investment community, you’d better pay very serious attention to them.”

” The brain scientists are the wave of the future in the financial world.”



best of ‘overheard from…’ #34

In Uncategorized on 07/27/2006 at 7:44 pm

#1, Only One Big Cat; #2, No Reptiles; #3…

Girl #1: Well, you know I like to get kinky.
Girl #2: Oh, I know.
Girl #1: I’ve never had a threesome, but I would do it. I have ground rules, of course, but I’d totally be down for a menagerie.

Andover Park West
Tukwila, Washington

Overheard by: Cat

size still matters…

In lisapicks on 07/26/2006 at 10:33 pm

one more reason to blame your parents…

In Uncategorized on 07/25/2006 at 9:48 pm

Sexual Identity Revealed According to First Name

Ok people, we wanted to take just a little peek at what’s going on at ‘redlight’ the McGill Sex Mag and smack! just like that we got our first hard look(oh please:) and a preview article from the first issue… happy umm..reading!!

According to studies, the first letter of your first name reveals your sexual identity … How close are you?



A– You are not particularly romantic, but you are interested in action. You mean business. With you, what you see is what you get. You have no patience for flirting and can’t be bothered with someone who is trying to be coy, cute, demure, and subtly enticing. You are an up front person. When it comes to sex, it’s action that counts not obscure hints. Your mate’s physical attractiveness is important to you. You find the chase and challenge of the “hunt” invigorating. You are passionate and sexual as well as being much more adventurous than you appear; however, you do not go around advertising these qualities. Your physical needs are your primary concern.

B– You give off vibes of lazy sensuality. You enjoy being romanced, wined, and dined. You are very happy to receive gifts as an expression of the affection of your lover. You want to be pampered and know how to pamper your mate. You are private in your expression of endearments and particularly when it comes to lovemaking. You will hold off until everything meets with your approval. You can control your appetite and abstain from sex if need be. You require new sensations and experiences. You are willing to experiment.

C – You are a very social individual, and it is important to you to have a relationship. You require closeness and togetherness. You must be able to talk to your sex partner before, during, and after. You want the object of your affection to be socially acceptable and good looking. You see your lover as a friend and companion. You are very sexual and sensual, needing someone to appreciate and almost worship you. When this cannot be achieved, you have the ability to go for long periods without sexual activity. You are an expert at controlling your desires and doing without.

D – Once you get it into your head that you want someone, you move full steam ahead in pursuit. You do not give up your quest easily. You are nurturing and caring. If someone has a problem, this turns you on. You are highly sexual, passionate, loyal, and intense in your involvement, sometimes possessive and jealous. Sex to you is a pleasure to be enjoyed. You are stimulated by the eccentric and unusual, being and having a free and open relationship.

E – Your greatest need is to talk. If your date is not a good listener, you have trouble relating. A person must be intellectually stimulating or you are not interested sexually. You need a friend for a lover and a companion for a bedmate. You hate disharmony and disruption, but you do enjoy a good argument once in a while it seems to stir things up. You flirt a lot, for the challenge is more important than the sexual act for you, but once you give your heart away, you are uncompromisingly loyal. When you don’t have a good lover to fall asleep with, you will fall asleep with a good book. (Sometimes, in fact, you prefer a good look.)

F – You are idealistic and romantic, putting your lover on a pedestal. You look for the very best mate you can find. You are a flirt, yet once committed, you are very loyal. You are sensuous, sexual, and privately passionate. Publicly, you can be showy, extravagant, and gallant. You are born romantic. Dramatic love scenes are your favorite fantasy pastime. You can be a very generous lover.

G – You are crap in bed

H – You seek a mate who can enhance your reputation and earning ability. You will be very generous to your lover once you have attained a commitment. Your gifts are actually an investment in your partner. Before the commitment, though, you tend to be frugal in your spending and dating habits and equally cautious in your sexual involvement. You are a sensual and patient lover.

I – You have a great need to be love, appreciated…Even worshipped. You enjoy luxury, sensuality, and pleasures of the flesh. You look for lovers who know what they are doing. You are not interested in an amateur, unless that amateur wants a tutor. You are fussy and exacting about having your desires satisfied. You are willing to experiment and try new modes of sexual expression. You bore easily and thus require sexual adventure and change. You are more sensual than sexual, but you are sometimes downright lustful.

J – You are totally fucking marvelous! ..(but you knew that already didn’t you)

K – You can be very romantic, attached to the glamour of love. Having a partner is of paramount importance to you. You are free in your expression of love and are willing to take chances, try new sexual experiences and partners, provided it’s all in good taste. Brains turn you on. You must feel that your partner is intellectually stimulating, otherwise you will find it difficult to sustain the relationship. You require loving, cuddling, wining, and dining to know that you’re being appreciated.

L – You are very romantic, idealistic, and somehow you believe that to love means to suffer. You wind up serving your mate or attracting people who have unusual troubles. You see yourself as your lover’s savior. You are sincere, passionate, lustful, and dreamy. You can’t help falling in love. You really enjoy stimulating yourself, though you are fairly new to it. You fantasize and get turned on by movies and magazines. You do not tell others of this secret life, nor of your sexual fantasies.

M – You are emotional and intense. When involved in a relationship, you throw your entire being into it. Nothing stops you; there are no holds barred. You are all consuming and crave someone who is equally passionate and intense. You are willing to try anything and everything. Your supply of sexual energy is inexhaustible. You are very social and sensual; you enjoy flirting and also enjoy mothering your mate.

N – You need constant stimulation because you bore quickly. You can handle more than one relationship at a time with ease. You believe in total sexual freedom. You are willing to try anything and everything. Your supply of sexual energy is inexhaustible. You are a flirt, yet once committed, you are very loyal. You are sensuous, sexual, and privately passionate. Publicly,you can be showy, extravagant, and gallant. You are born romantic. Dramatic love scenes are your favorite fantasy pastime. You can be a very generous lover.

O – You are very interested in sexual activities yet secretive and shy about your desires. You can re-channel much of your sexual energy into making money and/or seeking power. You can easily have extended periods of celibacy. You are a passionate, compassionate, sexual lover, requiring the same qualities from your mate. Sex is serious business; thus you demand intensity and diversity, and are willing to try anything or anyone. Sometimes your passions turn to possessiveness, which must be kept in check.

P – You are very conscious of social proprieties. You wouldn’t think of doing anything that might harm your image or reputation. Appearances count, therefore, you require a good-looking partner. You also require an intelligent partner. Oddly enough, you may view your partner as your enemy; A good fight stimulates those sex vibes. You are relatively free of sexual hang-ups. You are willing to experiment and try new ways of doing things. You are very social and sensual; you enjoy flirting and need a good deal of physical gratification.

Q – You require constant activity and stimulation. You have tremendous physical energy. It is not easy for a partner to keep up with you, sexually or otherwise. You are an enthusiastic lover and tend to be attracted to people of other ethnic groups. You need romance, hearts and flowers, and lots of conversation to turn you on and keep you going.

R – You are a no-nonsense, action-oriented individual. You need someone who can keep pace with you and who is your intellectual equal the smarter the better. You are turned on more quickly by a great mind than by a great body. However, physical attractiveness is very important to you. You have to be proud of your partner. You are privately very sexy, but you do not brag, you are willing to serve as teacher. Sex is important; you can be a very demanding playmate.

<a onblur=”try {parent.deselecS – You are secretive, self-contained, and shy. You are very sexy, sensual, and passionate, but you do not let on to this. Only in intimate privacy will this part of your nature reveal itself. When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, you are an expert. You know all the little tricks of the trade, can play any role or any game, and take your love life very seriously. You don’t fool around. You have the patience to wait for the right person to come along.

T – You are very sensitive, private, and sexually passive; you like a partner who takes the lead. Music, soft lights and romantic thoughts turn you on. You fantasize, but do not tend to fall in and out of love easily. When in love, you are romantic, idealistic, mushy, and extremely intense. You enjoy having your senses and your feelings stimulated, titillated, and teased. You are a great flirt. You can make your relationships fit your dreams, oftentimes all in your own head.

U – You are enthusiastic and idealistic when in love. When not in love, you are in love with love, always looking for someone to adore. You see romance as a challenge. You are a roamer and need adventure, excitement, and freedom. You deal in potential relationships. You enjoy giving gifts and enjoy seeing your mate looking good. Your sex drive is strong and you desire instant ratification. You are willing to put your partner’s pleasures above your own.

V – You are individualistic, and you need freedom, space, and excitement. You wait until you know someone well before committing yourself. Knowing someone means psyching him out. You feel a need to get into his head to see what makes him tick. You are attracted to eccentric types. Often there is an age difference between you and your lover. You respond to danger, thrills, and suspense. The gay scene turns you on, even though you yourself may not be a participant.

W – You are very proud, determined, and you refuse to take no for an answer when pursuing love. Your ego is at stake. You are romantic, idealistic, and often in love with love itself, not seeing your partner as he or she really is. You feel deeply and throw all of yourself into your relationships. Nothing is too good for your lover. You enjoy playing love games.

X – You need constant stimulation because you bore quickly. You can handle more than one relationship at a time with ease. You can’t shut off your mind. You talk while you make love. You can have the greatest love affairs, all by yourself, in your own head.

Y – You are stubborn, and very independent. If you can’t have it your way, you will forgot the whole thing. You want to control your relationships, which doesn’t always work out too well. You respond to physical stimulation, enjoy necking and spending hours just touching, feeling and exploring. However, if you can spend your time making money, you will give up the pleasures of the flesh for the moment. You need to prove to yourself and your partner what a great lover you are. You want feedback on your performance. You can be an open, stimulating, romantic bedmate with time & practice.

Z – For you, it is business before pleasure. If you are in any way bothered by career, business, or money concerns, you find it very hard to relax and get into the mood. You can be romantically idealistic to a fault and are capable of much sensuality. But you never lose control of your emotions. You are very careful and cautious before you give your heart away and your body, for that matter. Once you make the commitment, though, you stick like glue.

(courtesy redlight McGill)

yes but would the Pope try this…?

In Uncategorized on 07/24/2006 at 7:57 pm

first, a mystery…
This will absolutely boggle your mind and fool your brain… and don’t keep trying to practice, it will just make it worse (not to mention look strange to people watching. You are doing this in public are you not ). 1. Sit down, lift your right foot off the floor and make clockwise circles. 2. Now, while doing this, draw the number “666” in the air with your right hand. Your foot will change direction.

and second, an explanation (we wouldn’t think of leaving you without one)… from a sexy professor at U. of Hull (not quite mcgill but hey close enough 🙂 merci Geoffrey…

” THIS effect is partly due to the normal difference in height between hand and foot. That difference, in conjunction with gravity and the earth’s rotation, is enough to affect the body’s highly sensitive limb rotation mechanisms.(huh?) If you eliminate this difference for instance, by lying down and holding your right leg and arm at about the same height, your right foot will be unaffected. However, if you reverse this height difference for instance, by positioning your right leg above your head and your right hand nearer the floor, the effect will be even more marked. This is probably because, with this posture, your head is in a silly position too.” (hey he said it not us but we bet you will not be able to resist trying this out at home right?;)

Geoff Lowe
University of Hull

nothing like progress… :)

In Uncategorized on 07/24/2006 at 6:29 am

be Afraid, BE VERY AFRAID…

In nessiepicks on 07/23/2006 at 2:03 am

BEWARE BLOGGER! Posted by Picasa

brainwashed 60sec. iQ test… #11

In lisapicks on 07/22/2006 at 4:02 pm

Task here is simple, just decipher what the ensuing 5 lines in blue are about. give yourself 200 points if you solve it in 30 seconds or less, 160 points if it takes full minute, and subtract 5 points for every minute over… 😉

F U N E M ?
S V F M .
F U N E X ?
S V F X .
O K . M N X .

iQ Scores & Ratings
What is a good iQ score? What is a high iQ score? What is a low iQ score? These are common questions we receive daily here at brainwashcafe, particularly after someone finds out their score from our infamous 60sec. iQ tests.
Genius iQ is generally considered to begin around 140 to 145, representing ~.25% of the population (that’s 1 in 400 for all of us math challenged). Here’s a rough guide:
115-124 – Above average (e.g., any university student or a typical McGill security guard)
125-134 – Gifted (e.g., post-graduate or a typical McGill student)
135-144 – Highly gifted (e.g., intellectuals or a typical McGill student)
145-154 – Genius (e.g., professors or a typical McGill student)
155-164 – Genius (e.g., Nobel Prize winners or a typical McGill student)
165-179 – High genius (e.g., a typical McGill student)
180-200 – Highest genius (e.g., a McGill student or brainwashcafe blog reader)
>200 – “Unmeasurable genius” (hmm… sounds like a zen koan, as in “invisible homework”)
More notes on High IQ and Genius IQ:
Einstein was considered to “only” have an IQ of about 160.
Mensa is a society for people with high IQ, in the top 2% (1 in 50).
In 1926, psychologist Catherine Morris Cox published a study “of the most eminent men and women” who had lived between 1450 and 1850 to estimate what their IQs might have been.
Go to Estimated IQs of the Greatest Geniuses.

answer to 60sec iQ test..#11

In Uncategorized on 07/21/2006 at 9:32 pm

Sick Anecdote #001: Why life takes turnS for the worse?

In Uncategorized on 07/21/2006 at 1:33 pm

So yesterday I called up my gyno for an appointment to renew my prescription.

“Hi, I’d Like a appointment with Dr K. please”

“She’s on maternity leave and won’t ever return!”

After whining for a few minutes about how she could possibly abandon me I hung up and called the hospital asking for docs that are taking new patients at this time.

“Well, do you prefer your doctor to be male or female.”

“Well, I prefer female and YOUNG actually.” And progressed to tell reception about all the crazy doctors I have seen. The list includes dudes who refuse to give me a sheet to cover myself, watch me undress before them, and the best of them all accuse me of lying! LYING about my reactions to the depo shot or my aches and pains. “You ladies… make such a story.” And they smile this evil Dr Phil smile. Finally I got a number of a young woman doctor and called her up.

“Hi, I was refered to Dr C. I am a new patient.”

“She is not taking any patients at this time. But if your fine with a gentleman I can give you Augs 30th with Dr Wiener.”

” Dr WHAT!”

Hanging up the phone, there must be some cruel gyno god looking down on me deciding I was in need of serious punishment. Lets just say I am not looking forward to Aug…

Your Anus…

In Uncategorized on 07/21/2006 at 12:48 am

Ehrm… I mean URanus has a rare blue ring. I swear, as old as I am, and the older I get, I never get tired of that joke. Beavis and Butthead must live in my brain.
My other favorite spacey image for the week is the bird’s eye view that the ISS astronauts had of the solar eclipse… talk about eerie.
(thanks Kirsten)

The Spears-Federline phenomena explained…

In bblonde, spears-federline phenomena on 07/20/2006 at 2:25 pm

While we are on the topic of bright iQ’s it should be remembered that more often than we think, smartest of brains are fooled by simplest of deceptions and betrayed by that which should be our most trusted agent, ourvery own eyes… no more elegant demonstration of this than the infamous table illusion revisted, (and properly renamed… 😉

It first gained notoriety because at a recent science symposium (that’s a gathering of brainiacs with egos to match elevated iQ for all youse innocents) severe tempers flared upon ‘presentation’ of this illusion by the moderator and an illustrious audience member had to be physically restrained because of his assertion on the impossibility of the two tables being identical, and his insistence on coming onstage to show umbrage at the ‘stupidity’ of the presenter.

The eye sees familiar 3d objects (tables) on a 2-dimensional medium (paper) but insists on trasmitting neurological signals that convinces the brain of the viability and certitude of the ‘target’ objects in question being 3-dimensional. Therefore brains ‘sees’ two very different
tables when in fact of course, they are exactly identical. Unique feature of this is that unlike many so called illusions which depend on angle of perspective viewed and our ignorance of it being an illusion, in this case our brain persists in telling us the tables are different even after the brain ‘understands’ that the tables are equal in every respect.

Simply put, psychological experiments demonstrate time and time again that a rational smart ‘brain’ still exhibit a taste for consistency. Our brains are inclined to interpret new evidence in ways that confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Brains also tend to influence our beliefs to enhance the desirability of our past actions. ie. We see what we believe.That may go a long way as to why and how to explain puzzlingly bad strategic decisions in political campaigns and investments, not to mention our choice of lifemates. (which of course would explain the Britney Spears Kevin Federline coupling 😉

"yea but i only drank LIGHT Beer…"

In Uncategorized on 07/20/2006 at 2:18 pm


Status: true

only for the brave,… the 60 sec. iQ test…

In Uncategorized on 07/18/2006 at 8:58 pm

Some rules …

first, take test without pen or paper, only in your head
second, don’t worry if you get them wrong, only 2/11 people on our amazing brillant brainwashcafe team got all of them right. (no we won’t tell who, but let’s just say we ain’t called kickasschicks for nothin’!;)
third, yes we provide answers, but be careful this may hurt your ego…
fourth, this is called 60sec test for a reason… TAKE 60 SECONDS ONLY!
fifth, bonus points if you know who the smart looking kid on the right is…

Ok, give yourself 40 iQ points for each correct response. Here’s your chance to join Marilyn vos Savant at 200 iQ ;)) No cheating, No pencil or paper! OK? Ready? … GO!!!

QUESTION #1: You are participating in a race. You overtake the second person. What position are you in?

QUESTION #2: If you overtake the last person, then you are…?

QUESTION #3 : Very tricky math! Note This must be done in your head only. Do NOT use paper and pencil or a calculator. Try it.

Take 1000 and add 40 to it.

Now add another 1000.

Now add 30.

Add another 1000.

Now add 20.

Now add another 1000.

Now add 10.

What is the total?

QUESTION #4 : Mary’s father has five daughters Nana, Nene, Nini, Nono. What is the name of the fifth daughter?

Bonus Question : who is the child genius in photo above

many thanks to Walt for posting test!!:)

maybe i can just buy her a drink…

In postmodern explained on 07/17/2006 at 9:26 am
Recently in one of our posts one of commenters was kind enough to respond to a request by presenting a phrase as being ‘non sequitur..’, and it brought to our attention an unfortunate malaise here at our own McGill University ‘ghetto’ where it seems one is constantly pressured to have to remember to speak gobbledygook, jargon, aka abracadabra, double talk, gibberish, jabberwocky, mumbo jumbo, incomprehensible or pompous jargon of Universitas/Academia in order to impress and flaunt the not-who-we-are-but-how-we-sound-saying-what-we-say to keep up with the joneses fearlessly flaunting letters after their name… bsmbaphdmacumlaude.. strung together and spoken fast it sounds disengagingly postmodern, relevant and vaguely insulting all at same time.

As keen observer of cutting edge sociocultural trends, it would be remiss of us if we at brainwashcafe did not in fact have a great interest in reporting to you that there seems to be a disturbing trend towards behavioral decontructive postmodernism in everydaylife around our cafe. Much like American Idol, posturing is now as important as talent when it comes to the fashionable cool intelligentsia crowd. This would not be so pertinent if it weren’t for the fact that some of this f.c.i. sect also are disconcertingly attractive and undeniably sexy. Sigh.
So, in the interest of contributing to all that we believe to be topical and insightful, here then is a quick guide to how to speak properly in order to not only survive the cocktail party circuit, but thrive and cruise that hotty at the SAME time.

First, you must remember that speaking plain talk is NOT the way go. Just repeat over and over the mantra words in your brainspace; obfuscate and obscure. For example, let us imagine you encounter a hot ‘target’ and intend on saying something like,”Umm, you know, I think we should all really try to listen to the views of other people outside of our society in order to learn about biases that influence us“. This may sound honest but is impossibly dull. More importantly, ineffective. You will not go far. Instead, replace “views” with “voices” or better, “vocalities”, or even better, “multivocalities”. Add an adjective like “intercontextual”, and now we are talking. “People outside” is also no go. Try “postcolonial extemporized”, and don’t forget to add the ‘s’ to make “peoples” not ‘people’. Everything counts. To speak postmodern buzzspeak properly you must nurture nuanced vocabulary of biases besides the familiar isms.. racism, sexism, catechism etc. For example, solifidianism (doctrine that faith alone will ensure salvation) will do just fine. Finally “influence us” sounds too plain vanilla. Remember, utilize words that obfuscate and obscure. For example,”mediate our insouciant identities” might do. So put the whole thing together and we have “Hmm..You know, we should really listen to the intercontextual, multivocalities of postcolonial extemporized peoples outside of society in order to learn about the solifidianistic biases that mediate our insouciant identities”. Now that sends shivers down my spine. You definitely had me at “intercontextual”.

Of course you cannot be going around memorizing long obscure lines out of context, so you must cultivate an extensive subset of wordtools and suffixes, prefixes.. and remind yourself at all times that saying the wrong thing is perfectly fine as long as you say it the right way.
You want to say something like, “This place is fascinating”. This is a good thought, but, of course, a non-starter. Rather than “place”, be creative. “The indelible post-glacier gleam of counter intuitive anti architectural contemporaneity” is promising. Try to be more postmodern and always when you can, introduce ambiguity with usage of linked phrases like, “ambivalent/seductivity”. Now namedrop a few iconic figures vague enough to ensure no one had the time or the inclination to read and therefore will sound important. Obscure (there again) Game Theorists are best when in doubt. Augustin Cournot is excellent since he has written a great deal of obsolete and difficult material about special case of duopoly concepts that is a restricted version of the Nash equilibrium. Now string all that together add hyphens and inject critical ‘anti-‘ and ‘post-‘ and we get “Does it seem to you also that this post-glacier gleam of counter intuitive and paradoxically anti-architectural contemporaneity is engaging us to compare an altogether disconcertingly familiar ambivalent seductivity, one exemplified in a neutered Cournotian discourse of ingrained impartiality?”. A conversation stopper. You can go for that pivotal kiss at this moment.

There is always a risk. You may run into someone bright enough to actually ask you what the hell are you talking about. This risk must be carefully confronted head on. Always give the querier the impression that they have missed the point, and nonchalantly say “You know, the inherent instability of your query leaves us with several contradictorily layered choices whose interconnectivity cannot express the logocentric coherency and help that you obviously require. I can only say that reality is more uneven and your misrepresentations more untrustworthy than we have resources here to explore”. Pass that bottle of Chateau Margaux please.

My apologies and thanks to the author of a brief essay on ‘Postmodernism’ read some time ago, whose name nor work can be traced at this time due to my feeble memory and passage of time, and on whose writing the thematic material of this article is ‘deconstructed’ 🙂 Lisa

What were they thinking?

In Uncategorized on 07/15/2006 at 1:57 am

K.A.C.S. (Kick Ass Chicks Society) profile #03

In kacs on 07/13/2006 at 7:38 pm

Just the fact that she has highest IQ in the world (198) male or female would qualify Marilyn for our KACS club, but to clinch the issue she kicked collective male establishment Ass dead center by manhandling(!) the by now infamous ‘Monty Hall Problem‘. Here’s how..and believe us, if you know the story already, it’s worth every second to relish it again!:))

Perhaps the most famous event involving Marilyn vos Savant began with the following question.
“Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you, “Do you want to pick door #2?” Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?” —Craig F. Whitaker, Columbia, Maryland

This question, named “the Monty Hall problem” due to its resemblance to situations on the game show Let’s Make a Deal, existed before Marilyn addressed it, but was brought to nationwide attention by her column. Marilyn’s answer, that you should switch because door #2 has a 2/3 chance of winning whereas door #1 has only a 1/3 chance, provoked thousands of letters in response, nearly all arguing that she was wrong and that the doors are equally likely to win. A follow-up column affirming her answer only intensified the debate, which soon spread through the media, even reaching the front page of The New York Times. Among the ranks of her opponents were hundreds of academics with Ph.D.s, some of them professional mathematicians scolding her for propagating innumeracy.
Despite the criticism, Marilyn’s answer was correct under the most common interpretation of the question; see Monty Hall problem for details. Following a second follow-up column in which she explained in more depth her reasoning and the conditions on which it was based, many readers, including academics who had previously argued against her, wrote to admit that she was right. Marilyn also called on school teachers across America to simulate the problem in their math classes. In a final column, she announced the results: out of more than a thousand schools which had performed the experiment, nearly 100% had found that it pays to switch. A majority of readers now agreed with her answer, and half of those whose letters had been published wrote to retract their arguments. After months of controversy, the furor finally subsided.
These events are recounted from the perspective of a boy with autism in Mark Haddon’s 2003 bestseller The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time. (a remarkable book in its own right, read review in our book section)

this is why i sent my son to university….?

In Uncategorized on 07/12/2006 at 11:34 am
As you can imagine, maintaining unparalleled standard of excellence (blush) bringing evidence of mankind’s best brains is no easy task. brainwashcafe is not impressed by facts for its sake. Facts must fulfill four stringent conditions 1. be Pertinent Useful 3. add Knowledge 4. be Enlightening (P.U.K.E). For example. we could reaffirm that cockroaches live for a month without its head(true), or that male roaches transfer sperm to females in a “giftwrapped” package called a spermatophore, a protein-rich wrapping that the female must eat to obtain sufficient nutrients in order to survive to raise her young (also true), but aside from arousing our empathy for plights of roach moms everywhere, it scores 0/4 on our PUKE scale and does not really help us in any way to deal with trials and tribulations facing us in the real world. Which is why we are printing, in its entirety, the following important paper for your edification.

Title: The Application of Sex Pheromones and Juvenile Hormone Analogs and Congruent Effects on Multicultural Species of Cockroaches.

The sex pheromone of cockroaches is the chemical which transmits the copulation signal between female and male roaches of the same species. It is produced by virgin females(!!) in most roaches, and the chemical structures have been identified for the American , German and Japanese cockroaches. Periplanone-B (PB) and periplanone-A (PA) have been synthesized in the laboratory and tested both in lab and field, showing good biological responses. The sex pheromones of the German cockroach are 3,11-dimethyl-2-nonacosanone,29-hydroxy-3,11-dimethyl-2nonacosanone and 29-oxo-3,11-dimethyl-2-nonacosanone, and because of their low volatile nature, they would not be used up in a short time. Periplanone-J (PJ) is produced by the Japanese cockroach. The juvenile hormone analogs (JHA) are chemicals which mimic the juvenile hormones (JH). They have the physiological actions of JH which are maintaining the larvae and nymphs in their immature stages or making the reproductive organs differentiate incompletely, and thereby interfering with their reproduction. The JHA which have been commercialized to control roaches are hydroprene, pyriproxyfen and fenoxycarb. The first two have been proved to reduce the roach population in field tests in the USA and Japan. For some reason, if the sex pheromone and the JHA are used together, the net effect will be more than if they are used alone. In the presence of the sex pheromone, the cockroaches’ movements increase, so the chance for a roach to contact the sprayed JHA is also increased. This might be the possible reason for the above observation. Jul ; 6:389 1

now who is the confused one..

In Uncategorized on 07/12/2006 at 11:24 am

best of conversations overheard #112

GIRL: “I met the cutest lesbian couple. They were like two really hot guys with boobs.”

overheard by mk.

you are what you taste…

In Uncategorized on 07/11/2006 at 2:09 pm

Never let it be said we only have frivolous issues at brainwash. A recent conversation over an overpriced dinner with a P.F (pretentious friend oh alright so she knows more than me, but only about food & men) somehow turned to subject of wine prices, expert sommeliers and their erstwhile merits. We proceeded to argue if my admittedly vague recollection of an event some time past where a gathered clan of French wine connoisseurs had their collective brains fried, so to speak and reputations tarnished did in fact take place. She said, with a disdainful glance “White wine mistaken for Red? By experts? Impossible.”

I ground my teeth. “Oh really? Are you calling me a liar?”
a pause.. “Don’t be silly.” She flicked an imaginary dust speck off my hair. I seethed.
“Bet?” She smiled. I wanted to smack her.
So, with a pricy next meal at stake (chateau margaux ’58 here i come), I ran back to my trusted brainwashcafe ‘research team’, got everyone on google machine and…
Revenge is sweet.

(BORDEAUX, FRANCE…January 2002) A French wine “academy” has awarded its top prize to a researcher whose study found wine experts can’t tell the difference between red wines and white wines. Frédéric Brochet evaluated the terminology used in wine evaluation guides such as the French “Guide Hachette” and Robert Parker’s “The Wine Advocate,” amongst others.He found certain terminology seemed to be reserved for white wines and other adjectives were more exclusive to reds. One of the themes of the study was to see how “cultural information” affected the descriptions attached to the wines by the tasting participants. To test and evaluate, Brochet coerced a number of participants (more than 50) to taste and describe wines. In one phase of the study, for example, he had the panelists evaluate white wines and describe them. A few days later he offered them the SAME WINES, but with a neutral coloring (so as not to affect the aromas or flavors). He found the panelists were more likely to use “red wine adjectives” when they were able to visually identify a wine as “red.” On the other hand, “white wine adjectives” were more common when they viewed the glasses as containing “vin blanc.”Common red wine adjectives:deep, intense, profound, raspberry, cherry, cassis, fruit, spiceCommon White Wine Adjectives:Gold, floral, fresh, pale, dry, apricot, citrus, straw, livelyMonsieur Brochet also set up the tasters by having them evaluate a wine which was presented as cheap “vin de table” and the other of the same wine (a Bordeaux Supérieur) which was presented as a prestigious bottling.Keep in mind: SAME WINE.Seventy-nine percent described the “prestigious” offering as “agreeable,” while only 21% found the same wine as a “Vin de Table” to be so.Seventy-seven percent described the prestigious wine as “good,” while 23% found the same wine, presented as a less prestigious offering to be “good.”Sixty-five percent described the supposedly more costly wine as “balanced,” while only 35% found the identical wine, passed off as a cheaper, everyday wine to be “balanced.” (

Wish you could be there when I quote intriguing snippets from the above ‘experiment’ in my PF’s face. Scene; me, casually taking a sip of Chateau Margaux Oh by the way, you did know that practices such as no fining or no filtration do not always have organoleptic repercussions, but it does seem that knowledge of these elements influences representation.?Indeed. 😉

By the way, speaking of visuals, interestingly enough the first photo above of sexy (yes admit it) come hither pic for a nationwide Bordeaux Ad campagne has been banned in france(!) for that very reason. (huh?) and a friendlier version below substituted instead. (why not just ban french kissing?)

damn it laugh..or i’ll shoot…!

In Uncategorized on 07/10/2006 at 6:42 pm

Richard Wiseman has discovered the world’s funniest joke—and God no, it’s not “The Aristocrats.” Wiseman, a professor at the University of Hertfordshire, (yes we know sadly it is not U of McGill but then again what prof at mcgill has time to do this??!) got 300,000 people (!!) from around the world to vote online for the funniest yarn, and the winning joke has been traced to comedian Spike Milligan. All right, kids, here it is:

Two hunters are out in the woods in New Jersey when one of them collapses. He doesn’t seem to be breathing and his eyes are glazed. The other guy whips out his phone and calls the emergency services. He gasps ‘My friend is dead! What can I do?’ The operator says: ‘Calm down, I can help. First, let’s make sure he’s dead.’ There is a silence, then a shot is heard. Back on the phone, the guy says ‘OK, now what?’

If you didn’t laugh, you don’t belong to this world.
(source: the Telegraph)

Welcome to Beirut

In Uncategorized on 07/09/2006 at 12:17 pm

It’s nearly four a.m. as I’m walking through the Beirut International airport toward the customs desk, which I’m told can be a very scary place. I notice a giant red poster that reads: “Ronald McDonald welcomes you to Beirut.” I laugh. If it were another day, I might have ranted on bitterly about the state of the world and the exportation of a global commercial culture. But after nearly 30 hours of travelling, a combined 3 hours of fragmented sleep, and an 18-hour stopover in Prague, nothing seems to matter that much.

An hour later, as we pull up to a giant 1km squared block of war-torn concrete called Bourj El Barajneh, the world suddenly becomes serious again.

Five of us stumble out of the run-down cab and struggle with our luggage through a dirt parking lot and into the Palestinian refugee camp that we will call home for the next two months. Our coordinator points out a few landmarks for us to remember our way, but they all look exactly the same. We walk through a labirynthe of tiny alleyways, where bullet holes line the building surfaces, trash floats freely, and electric wires hang and sizzle precariously overhead. My eyes scan my new surroundings incredulously. ‘Home’, I think.

Four flights of stairs up, my roomate is waiting for our arrival. I nibble on some bakhlava in our surprising large and luxurious apartment, as she recounts her experiences here in the past two days. As she speaks, I notice that she is neither excited nor upset, seeming to mirror my feelings of disorientation and uncertainty.

I fall into bed wondering what it will be like here, but I can’t even begin to imagine it. I laugh. Sometimes life can only be as serious as you want it to be.

(Meaghan is originally from Canada currently on a 2-month sabbatical in Lebanon. She is living and working in a Palestinian refugee camp just outside of Beirut. She will be a regular contributor to brainwashcafe.)

true confessions #34…

In Uncategorized on 07/09/2006 at 12:46 am

So there I was yesterday skipping my way to the salon before the big holiday weekend. My head was full of barbecue dreams, of splashing around in the ocean and the pool, me and my teeny weeny ginghamy bikini. I was going to look smart, sophisticated, summery, and fun.

Apparently I was also going to look hairy. Because when I finally arrived at the salon, I learned that the woman who did my bikini line for the past three years had up and left the day before.

“What?! You’re kidding me. But what happened? She didn’t say anything about leaving.” What was I going to do now—shave? Ugh. I bristled at the thought. Nothing gives you a sweet red rash faster than a shave and haircut down there.

The salon owner cut the receptionist off and fast. “Solange would be happy to see you—”
“That’s okay.”
“She’s very good. Much better than Maria.”
“Hey. No one’s better than Maria.”

It was true. I’ve learned to think of the talented people who go into waxing as true artisans. I’m sure that sounds way overblown—until you have yourself a bad eyebrow experience. Before I found Maria, someone crafted mine into straight lines instead of arches. I spent a month looking like something dreamed up in Jim Henson’s muppet studio.

Maria was great with eyebrows, but even better with bikini lines. She was gentle, quick, had an expert line, and most of all, was funny and fun. I trusted her. No one but no one was going to make me switch to someone named Solange.

Afterwards, I dejectedly made my way to the back of the salon to use the bathroom. Once there I pulled up my dress, pushed down my panties, and took a good look at the situation. Maybe I could go wax free. I was a redhead after all. It wasn’t so dark and scary down there. I snapped my thong back in place. Then again, a good waxing really does a girl good.

As I exited the bathroom, the receptionist practically plowed her way into me. “Hey—” I started to say. Before I could get another word out though, she was putting something into my hand—none other than Maria’s business card. I mouthed a silent ‘thank you’ as she quickly closed the door behind her.

I was punching the numbers into my phone even before I left the salon. “Maria? Maria! It’s Alexa.”

“Hello sweetie.”
“Oh! It’s so nice to hear your voice! What happened?”
“The salon owner. He—he’s not so nice.”
“I know. He tried to pass me off to someone named ‘Solange’.”
“You know. She’s not so bad.”
“She’s not you!”
Maria laughed. “Thank you sweetie. So what do you need from me, hmmm?”
“Oh! Oh I’m so relieved I got you, you have no idea. A bikini.”
“I can do you around six today? That good?”
“Perfect. Where do I go?”
“Give me your address.”
That stopped me. “Wait. You’re—you’re doing house calls now? For bikini waxing?”
“Why not?”

Why not indeed.

So that evening Maria came over, her wax, her strips, her towels in tow. What she hadn’t had time to get though was a portable table. Which meant we were confined to the couch. In the living room. Where I have no blinds.

“Oh no. I didn’t think about that. We could try your bed?”
“The light sucks in there really. I’ll just—maybe if we—if I have my head facing towards the kitchen okay, and I could just—”
“And you could hold your dress up like a tent, you know?”
“Yeah. No one will really be able to see…” Except the people across the street on higher floors. And we’d probably look a bit suspect to the people on the same floor across the street for that matter. But hey, after all, it was New York. Hadn’t they seen me like a million times before when I forgot something in the living room after I had already gotten naked for a bath?

We laughed about it the whole way through. I told her about the people across the street who were forever watching porn movies on their plasma with the blinds up. Now they were getting one live and in person.

I mugged for all it was worth. Each time Maria put her hand under my dress to apply the wax, I licked my lips and closed my eyes. Each time she ripped the strips off I arched my back and pointed my toes. I spread my legs wider than she needed. I ran my fingers through my hair and down my front.

When we were done, I turned around on the couch just in time to see a man two floors up above hanging out of his window smoking a cigarette. His eyes seemed to be trained right on my window. I rolled over and ‘accidentally’ caught my dress on my arm, exposing the new neater and more geometric me. Maria started to laugh.
Well what can I say? I was only trying to show off some really fine work.

( Alexa is a twenty-something New York escort. She loves Prada, Seven jeans, and Jimmy Choos. She’s also totally addicted to Starbucks’ grande non-fat white mocha and working out. and drop dead gorgeous natural red head with a perfect bikini line. She will be a regular contributor to redlight, soon to be launched mcgill sex magazine.)

hmm… kinda like counting seconds during bad sex…?

In Uncategorized on 07/07/2006 at 1:43 pm

Ants Count Every Step. An internal neural mechanism helps ants solve a central navigation problem common to many animals

When we humans want to measure time we use watches. When we count our steps we have to use pedometers, but, according to new findings published in the June 29th issue of Science, ants need no such device. German scientists discovered that ants have an internal step-counting mechanism, which they use to gauge the distance they’ve traveled (wow no wonder they look so preoccupied).
Navigation is a universal problem for animals, said Harold Wolf, professor of neurobiology at the University of Ulm, Germany, and lead author of the study. “Whether you are an ant or you are a hamster, you have to measure direction and distance in some way,” he said.
Ants, bees and other insects are known to use the position of the sun and the pattern of polarized light as a “celestial compass” to guide their travels. Bees are also able to gauge distance by measuring how fast images move across their eye, but this mechanism does not work for land-bound creatures. In the past, behavioral scientists have proposed that ants might determine distance by measuring the energy required for locomotion, the time of their journey or the number of steps they take.
Along with Rüdiger Wehner, professor of zoology at the University of Zurich, Wolf’s team trained two groups of ants to locate a feeding site 10 m from their nest. After the ants had learned the way, the team removed them from the feeding site. They then clipped the legs of one group, and extended the legs of the other group with glued-on boar bristles, which served as stilts. ( all in the name of science of course)
“I remember people were really laughing when we proposed this,” said Wolf, “but the ants were very co-operative.”
The two groups were then released in another location from which they tried to make a run for home, stopping where they thought their nest should be. If the animals were using a step-counting mechanism, the change in stride-length for their return journey would throw off their calculations. Indeed, the stilt-leg ants overshot the distance, stopping after 15.3 m, while the amputees stopped after just 5.75 m.
However, when the ants began their search for food from home base, both groups had no trouble judging the correct return distance, despite their altered limbs.
The step-counting hypothesis was first proposed about a century ago, but it was never tested directly until Matthias Wittlinger, a graduate student in Wolf’s lab, had a somewhat macabre Eureka moment: One evening, he clipped off the lower leg segments of a few Sahara desert ants studied in the lab. In the wild, these segments often dry and break off, without interfering with the insects’ abilities to walk long distances. But Wittlinger noted that the procedure resulted in a shorter than normal stride.
“That gave us the idea that there might be a step-counter,” said Wolf. “Of course, ants don’t actually count.”
A more accurate description is a “stride integrator,” a neural mechanism that might keep a tally of motor excitation caused by each stride and then converts this activity to a measure of distance. “It’s a very nice experiment,” said Thomas Collett, a neurobiology professor at Sussex University.
In mammals, Collett notes, navigation is more complicated because it is linked to visual landmarks, but insects provide a simplified model. “With ants, you can do the sorts of experiments you can’t do with hamsters and birds,” said Wolf. What’s more, he added, understanding the ant walking mechanism may help researchers design better navigation systems for walking robots. (what about… better navigation system for lost men;)

Yes but what if it’s a tough choice, like with Bill Gates or his Money??

In Uncategorized on 07/05/2006 at 4:11 pm

British economists reckon having more sex can be as beneficial to lifelonghappiness as an extra $50,000 in the pocket. The study, done by no-sex-please-we’re-British economists and titled Money, Sex and Happiness: an Empirical Study, said that increasing the frequency of sex from once a month to once a week caused the same amountof happiness as getting a $50,000-a-year pay rise.

Researched by Dartmouth College economics professor David Blanchflower, (and why? we ask, never sexy profs from McGill?) along with Warwick University’s Andrew Oswald, the study took 1990s American data of about 16,000 people and generalised the results for males and females of all ages.”The most interesting thing this study shows is that money buys happiness,but not as much as you would think,” Blanchflower said in his summary.

It seems money is the sweeter temptress. An unscientific poll on The Press website last night showed that by a widemargin both men and women would choose the cash

And just for your edification, an extremely scientific poll here at brainwashcafe suggest strongly that most people, male or female, would choose sex with Angelina over money, and more tellingly, 100% people polled would rather take $100 cash over sex with either of the two Bills (Gates or Clinton). hmm…

Hate to say it but TOLD YOU SO…!

In Uncategorized on 07/04/2006 at 11:17 pm

All cause of Dolce and good ol’ pal Gab’
Congratulations to Italy! In the second half of over time Italy scored two winning goals. The first goal by Grosso #3 and second goal by Del Piero #7. Disapointed Germans but Italy played amazing and the win was well deserved! Posted by Picasa

your wife called…

In Uncategorized on 07/04/2006 at 4:13 pm

If all meetings were this productive…

Sorry gotta run, I’m on relapse from all those meetings. See you guys next week…

much ado about… will the real Zadie Smith please stand up?

In Uncategorized on 07/04/2006 at 1:27 pm

The news about Zadie Smith winning the Orange Prize reminded me of a mini-scandal from last fall, when publishing biz blogger Maud Newton ran this MSM gotcha item:
Late-breaking memorandum to paparazzi everywhere: the world actually may contain more than one attractive, mixed-race woman with a penchant for headscarves and cultural events.
The “author photo” above accompanies Vogue’s review of Zadie Smith’s On Beauty. But that is not Smith. Not unless she’s had radical plastic surgery.
Here’s a true recent photograph of the author.

Gawker picked up the story, which gave it wider play. (That’s where I first read about it.)
” Oh, those poor, pretty girls over at Vogue. We want to help them, really, because they need it. In the latest issue, they used the photo at right to accompany a review of Zadie Smith’s On Beauty — sadly, the woman in the picture is not Zadie Smith. We don’t mean to be cruel or condescending. It must be hard putting together a magazine, what with all the headscarf-wearing, mixed-ethnicity women out there.”
Both Newton and Gawker accuse Vogue not simply of editorial sloppiness but also of subtle “they all look alike” racism (huh?). Very embarrassing if true, but the item bugged me at the time. Is it glaringly obvious that these two photos don’t show the same person? Even without the “radical plastic surgery” proviso, it doesn’t seem all that obvious to me. Comparing a public paparazzi photo with a retouched studio portrait is tricky. Different types of photos with different facial expressions can make the same person look very different.
So today I decided to follow up. Did Vogue issue a correction or rebuttal? Neither, as far as I can tell.
A google image search found the same photo used by Vogue on another site, identified as Zadie Smith, with a “Getty Images” watermark. This image does not appear in the Zadie Smith gallery at
Some other recent photos of Zadie Smith in public settings and wearing a headscarf:

Same woman in the Vogue/Getty photo? Maybe, maybe not. But somebody owes somebody an apology.
(Technically no sex in this item. So sue me.) Daze.

conversations overheard #16

In Uncategorized on 07/03/2006 at 11:47 pm

“It’s a shiny red ball.”

Girl #1: Well he’s only ten years older than me!
Girl #2: That’s almost rape! Sweetie, he’s probably some sick pedophile.
Girl #1: It’s not so bad…When I was sixteen he was only 24, right?
Girl #2: Well at least you’re intellectual equivalents.
Girl #1: What’s that?

–L train

Only in TEXAS…

In Uncategorized on 07/03/2006 at 3:31 am

 Posted by Picasa

Preview: Shits&Giggles for Bookies…(no NOT that kind. For book lovers.. really)

In Uncategorized on 07/01/2006 at 1:40 am
No clues. No hints. Not even a whisper.
Here’s the promised preview of our upcoming Book Challenge

The Mission if you should choose to accept;

You read the quote, you match it with the book where quote is to be found. Prizes(!!) for the booklover who guesses most correct. (prize details coming soon…;)
Sounds easy enough…yes?
Yeah right! You will find it’s not that easy 🙂
1. A man is nothing without land.”

2. “All right. I will. After all that’s what this party business was all about, really: to give away lots of birthday presents, and somehow make it easier to give it away in the end, but it would be a pity to waste all my preparations. It would quite spoil the joke.”
3. Stay gold, PB. Stay gold.
4.It’s only a VISA bill. It’s a piece of paper; a few numbers. I mean, just how scary can a few numbers be?”
5.I am counting on you to be strong… for Phil. It’s gonna be hardest for him. You, after all, you’ll be the merry widower.”
I won’t be merry.”
You’ll be merry, goddammit. I want you to be merry. Okay?”
6.He awoke by the ruins of the campfire to find himself ten years older. His black hair had thinned at the temples & there had gone the gray of cobwebs at the end of autumn.”
7.Time prevents my preceeding further, but the gentle reader may expect some more.”
8. Wait! I will answer to his treats!…
Your… you have a nose… a nose… thats very big.”
9.Although we usually call reward and punishment the two hinges upon which all government turns, yet I could never obscure this maxim to be put in practice by any nation except L-“
10.You are young &bitter recollections have time to change themselves to tender remembraces.”
11.Love of money had gained the better of me and for it I sold to others the means of coming off the better in debate.”
12..Avada Kedavra
13.They are hurt & pollution, so keep away from them during their courses.”
14.Putting the SmartCar in reverse, she performed a composed 3-point turn & reversed her direction.”
Ok one hint then (I am too nice). None of them are Robert Jordan(just read my profile to comprehend why this is a big sacrifice for me). Promise!
Quicker the time, bigger the prize. Of course 14/14, whoever you are, you should come work for us.

..why England can never win the World Cup…

In Uncategorized on 07/01/2006 at 12:41 am