April 02, 2004

April Fools

So yes, yesterday's entry was a joke. A little bit too obvious of one for people who live up here and keep up to date with the current state of things for my taste, unfortunately (I forgot it was April 1 until the day of, so I didn't have time to set up properly and had to throw something up off the cuff), but for people who keep less up to date with my life, it was perhaps a bit more effective. It was for these people that I took down the comments that gave things away yesterday - apologies for the temporary censorship. Those comments have been restored.

Anyway, I found yesterday pretty lackluster as far as jokes are concerned, online and elsewhere, compared to years past. Hopefully everyone else found more amusing things to be entertained by than I did.

--Nick

Posted by Nick at April 2, 2004 06:26 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I knew yesterday's post couldn't be true because I knew you'd never marry a Mac user....

Posted by: Ryan at April 2, 2004 06:42 AM

Whatever reasons there may be for us not to be married, that's not among them. :)

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 2, 2004 01:03 PM

"... but for people who keep less up to date with my life, it was perhaps a bit more effective..."

I wonder who Nick could be referring to there? Hmm...

*cough*Ryan*cough*

Posted by: NickU at April 2, 2004 01:11 PM

I think yours was the only April Fool's joke I came across. And it was, while not terribly convincing, quite amusing. I'm almost disappointed it's not true, though--it would've been terribly entertaining reading all about your lives as newlyweds... :-)

Posted by: Laura at April 2, 2004 03:01 PM

Two things.

Thing one: Yesterday I ate an Oreo in which the filling had been replaced with a flour/sugar/food coloring mixture. F***in' gross. Actually, I didn't so much eat it as take one bite, make an awful face while spitting the mush into the sink, and throw the rest away. April fools didn't occur to me until someone explained it. Not so in tune with the frivolous holidays.

Thing two: I proposed to Nick since he said we couldn't have sex until we were married, but he turned me down and said to try again in 16 months. I would have liked our life as newlyweds too . . .

*sigh*

;) Kara

Posted by: Kara at April 2, 2004 04:11 PM

Someday someone will have to explain to me why taking a HUGE portion of being married and leaving it to chance makes sense.

Yeah that's smart.

Posted by: steve at April 4, 2004 10:58 AM

Which portion is that?

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 4, 2004 08:01 PM

Nick--is "Which portion is that?" supposed to be some kind of snide commentary on married life? :-P

Kara--that could explain why he presented "I'm dating a nymphomaniac" as a *problem*... :-)

Posted by: Laura at April 4, 2004 09:21 PM

Steve, I don't quite get it either. Which part is being left to chance? In case there was any question I was quite a bit kidding about my proposal . . .

- Confused Kara

Posted by: Kara at April 4, 2004 10:39 PM

Does Steve mean sex?

Posted by: Kara at April 5, 2004 09:34 AM

I assumed Steve was using the opportunity to go off on a tangent about how silly he thinks people who don't have sex before marriage are...

Posted by: Laura at April 5, 2004 10:55 AM

Well, let me just say that any dumbness involved clearly falls at my feet - Kara's certainly not culpable for anything. And I think I'll leave it at that for now. Better formulated thoughts will have to wait for a future post.

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 5, 2004 12:41 PM

Man, Nick has some gullible friends. No offense to those of you can be described by that adjective, of course. WARNING: About to spew more bs!

Steve, sex is really not a huge part of married life if you're Shaker, which I am. I was a nympho in a past life, but I have decided to give that up for chastity, seeing as how that sounds like a lot of fun and all. Aaron Copeland is also my personal friend . . . I'm having him compose something for the "Tofu, it's what's for dinner" commercials that I am producing for the American Soybean Association.

Posted by: Kara at April 5, 2004 05:45 PM

I think that *I'm* confused at this point.

Sorry Laura, I didn't know that tangents were verboten. But yes, I was talking about sex. No, I didn't think that Kara actually proposed, but, yes, I did believe that Nick was pure and chaste. Yes, this was due to both Nick's nympho comment and Kara's earlier comment (along with other stories about Nick).

I asked the question/made the comment because I didn't think Nick to be a very religious gent. As such, I was curious as to his decision. Without the influence of eternal damnation I just don't see the point.

Kara -- I didn't know you were a Vegetarian. Nick is a big meat eater. Is that tough?

Cheers,
Steve

Posted by: steve at April 6, 2004 07:14 AM

Steve - I'm a wannabe vegetarian. I was a pesco-veggie for just over a year but finally had to admit that I was not getting enough protein. I tried protein shakes but they made me insanely fat in a very short period of time. So now I have given into the poulty industry. I only abstain from red meat and pork at this point. Well, and all the game animals and baby animals and endangered animals and such. As for the critters I do eat, I don't like meeting them and I prefer if they don't really taste like animals so much as the sauces or goop on top of them. Not that anyone wanted to know this much . . .

So, to answer the question, it's not that hard. Giant pieces of smelly bloody steak are not what I would choose for my dinner companion, but what can you do. Americans like their cow.

:) Kara

Posted by: Kara at April 6, 2004 08:19 AM

Did I say tangents were verboten? I certainly didn't *mean* it...damn fingers; you never know what they'll type next.

Posted by: Laura at April 6, 2004 10:10 AM

Steve - You're right - I'm not a particularly religious gent. My reasons for that "decision", as it were, were different but don't bear repeating since I don't think I believe them anymore. At least, not fervently to defend them. Another one of those shades of gray things, where obviously I should be realizing that there's a happy medium between not having sex at all before marriage and screwing anything that moves and doesn't protest.

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 8, 2004 02:48 PM

If I had a quotefile, "There's a happy medium between not having sex at all before marriage and screwing anything that moves and doesn't protest" would need to be added to it. :-)

And seriously, Nick, if your thoughts on this topic (not-fervent though they may be) ever were to make it into a weblog entry, I for one would be quite interested in reading it. Not for the purpose of picking it apart, either--I just find it fascinating how different approaches to this stuff can fit (or not fit) different people...

Posted by: Laura at April 8, 2004 09:28 PM

Laura - I had the exact same response to Nick's comment. I was howling at work and got some really odd looks in an otherwise quiet location. I'm trying to get him to post this full theory too, but alas, he resists.

Posted by: Kara at April 8, 2004 10:16 PM

You could always post it for him... :-)

Hey Nick, any chance you could be persuaded to install Alexei's "recent comments" plugin? Since Kara started livening things up here, you're routinely sustaining active comment threads on entries way down the page. It'd be a lot easier to keep up if one didn't have to check every entry every time...

Posted by: Laura at April 9, 2004 12:09 PM

Nick's opinion of sex, as tranlated and abbreviated by Kara. I didn't ask permission to do this, so hopefully I will do his theory justice, albeit from a second party.

It is best/most meaningful shared between two people who care deeply for one another. He would like to only have sex with one person in his lifetime because he wants it to remain that special, but he is not put off by the fact that I did not come to him a virgin. If you like or love a person you (at least indirectly) respect the events that have made them who they are today.

Sex is not the end all and be all of any real relationship, so while it can be a wonderful bonding experience as well as a lot of fun it does not need to be viewed as the epitome of intimacy, nor does it necessarily need to be reserved for marriage. People should do what is right for them, and for Nick that involves limiting his partner(s) to someone he loves and can imagine himself being with for the rest of his life.

The End

Posted by: Nick's Girlfriend at April 9, 2004 01:09 PM

Is that the new theory or the old theory?

Posted by: steve at April 9, 2004 02:03 PM

The new theory, or at least as I understand it.

Posted by: Kara at April 9, 2004 02:05 PM

Laura - I see what you're referring to on Alexei's page, but don't see instructions on how one installs it (it's not linked to on his MT plugins page).

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 9, 2004 02:59 PM

Is there any chance that you could fix the darn CSS bug? Am I the only person who suffers from it?

Posted by: steve at April 9, 2004 03:31 PM

I would if I had any idea what causes it. It's one of the MT built in templates, I didn't write it myself.

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 9, 2004 03:36 PM

I ended up rewriting the darn templates to get rid of it. I'm not crazy, right. Another people suffer from it, right?

Posted by: steve at April 9, 2004 03:39 PM

Not just you ... hits me and lots of other people, too ... like I said, if you can come up with a solution (that doesn't involve rewriting the templates), let me know.

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 9, 2004 03:46 PM

LOL. Of all the times to make a typo....

Posted by: steve at April 9, 2004 03:58 PM

I love it. Best typo yet. :)

Posted by: Kara at April 9, 2004 04:06 PM

Re: CSS bug. According to this page (http://www.totalchoicehosting.com/help/id76.htm):

"Add the following code to your template for your index page, just before your closing </body> tag:


<div style="clear:both;"></div>"

It does involve templates, but I wouldn't really call it "rewriting." I think you can handle it. :)

Go Google!

Posted by: Sha Sha at April 11, 2004 11:01 PM

Updated - thanks for hunting that out (yes, I was lazy enough not to even stick it into Google). Hopefully it works ... Steve?

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 12, 2004 06:41 AM

You folks could just use a real Web browser that handles CSS correctly...

Nick, the recent comments thing isn't a plugin; using the MTComments tag outside of an entry context will iterate the comments on the whole weblog.

My sidebar recent comments thing is basicaly just this:

<MTComments lastn="5" sort_order="descend">
<$MTCommentAuthor$>
<MTCommentEntry>
(<a href="<$MTEntryPermalink$>"><$MTEntryTitle$></a>)
</MTCommentEntry>
<br />
</MTComments>

I have extra junk to handle linking directly to comments (that necesstates having anchor links on the archive pages, which aren't there in the default templates), and I use MTSimpleComments to mix in trackbacks, but that's the gist of it.

Posted by: Alexei Kosut at April 16, 2004 01:01 PM

Oh ... OK ... I knew that such things existed, just never bothered with them. I was hoping that maybe you had some kind of fancy-schmancy installer that would absolve me of the need to do any work. :P

I'll look into it when I have some free time (probably a few weeks ...)

--Nick

Posted by: Nick at April 16, 2004 02:19 PM

486883544 937515258 http://www.532916259.com

Posted by: LittleA at July 8, 2007 05:25 AM

486883544 [url=http://www.577795410.com]577795410[/url] http://www.532916259.com

Posted by: LittleB at July 8, 2007 05:26 AM