I feel very very caffeinated, only I haven’t had any caffeine. Please hire me, job. Please?
Crumbs and Frosting
helloooo, my precious blueberries
waiting for the phone to ring for phone interview.
NERVOUS.
It’s like a first date, only worse, cause this first date might pay me if it goes really well. Wait, that made employment sound like prostitution which is…well, only kind of accurate.
operation SUPER COOL COFFEE TABLE MAKEOVER is complete.
And it is super cool.
I just made Mexican hot chocolate flavored oatmeal, and it was AWESOME.
- Guy on BART: baby, how do you do it? how are you so beautiful you make the sun shine?
- Me: um, science?
- Guy on BART: so you're blinding me with science?
Watson’s report here of a wounded shoulder contradicts his testimony—in The Sign of Four and elsewhere—of a wounded leg. … W. B. Hepburn, in ‘The Jezail Bullet,’ reaches the logical conclusion that Watson was wounded twice, but many other scholars ingeniously attempt to explain how two wounds could have been caused by one bullet only.
Note in The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes: The Novels, edited by Leslie S. Klinger
LOLSCHOLARS
(via novazembla)
I’d like to hear their reasoning. I can fanwank anything. How does one do it professionally.
(via turnabout)
This is how it continues:
“Alvin Rodin and Jack Key, in Medical Casebook of Doctor Arthur Conan Doyle, suggest that Watson may have been bent over a patient when shot, with the bullet passing through Watson’s shoulder and leg. Similarly, Peter Brain [!] proposes that Watson was shot from below while squatting over a cliff to answer a call of nature. Others hypothesise that a single bullet may have ricocheted off the bone, grazed the artery, left the body at an acute angle, and then entered the leg, while several physician-scholars point out that the bullet may have passed along the subclavian artery and lodged in a place remote from the entry wound. Julian Wolff, however, concludes that Watson deliberately misrepresented the site of the wound so as to avoid mentioning the actual, embarrassing site: his groin.”
HIS GROIN. (But how does that explain the shoulder?)
(via novazembla)
The last one is definitely the best wank, as the others defy the laws of physics. I don’t think bullets and guns from that period were so advanced that they could go through the body multiple times, and when they ricochet, they lose speed and momentum, making it harder to then reenter the body and do more damage. The last one works, because it explains why Watson would randomly lie about where he was injured.
Though now there’s an opening for hurt/comfort fic about how he can’t maintain an erection because his dick almost got shot off.
(via turnabout)
OH. MY. YES THERE IS.
My question is why the hell would you squat over a cliff to do your business? That just seems rude, and precarious. There could be a totally innocent buzzard hanging around below that cliff, and as much as we all love John Watson, there’s no textual indication that this buzzard is into scat. Rude.
(via novazembla)
“The last one is definitely the best wank, as the others defy the laws of physics. I don’t think bullets and guns from that period were so advanced that they could go through the body multiple times, and when they ricochet, they lose speed and momentum, making it harder to then reenter the body and do more damage.”
Although this is true, they don’t lose nearly as much speed as you might think. I’ve been watching Mythbusters like a madwoman lately, and I just saw an episode where their experiment involves a dude in the Civil War getting shot through the leg into the testicles, and the bullet continuing on into the uterus of a woman 150 feet behind him, impregnating her. While the myth itself turns out to be false, it’s false because the bullet was still too hot after leaving the testicles to carry living sperm, and shockingly, SHOCKINGLY, not because such a shot was impossible. They actually execute the shot with ballistic gel and bone models, and their expert sharpshooter gets it in on the first try with a period weapon, and the bullet goes through the tibia, through the, *ahem* sac, and about halfway through the far-off woman. Science is CRAZY.
one time warren buffet told michelle rhee he knew how to solve the crisis in public schools
(this was an anecdote related to us by michelle rhee in her speech at NYNP’s summer training retreat)
she asked him how, and he said: make private schools illegal, and set up kids to be sent to public schools by random draw. when you have upper east side kids potentially heading to school in the south bronx (a fairly reasonable commute for them by the way), probably suddenly schools will improve drastically in a shockingly timely fashion.
he is, i am pretty sure, more or less right, and it really bums me out that in the US giving families choice - not something i’m exactly against, mind you - is so AUTOMATICALLY, taken-for-grantedly considered a far superior method of combating the education crisis over FORCING it to become a TRULY COLLECTIVE problem, one in which the burden, and thus the responsibility and impetus to find a solution ASAP - falls on all of us equally because it’s all of our problem, which frankly, it SHOULD weigh on all of us equally, because JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, THESE ARE OUR CHILDREN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, how people can be so blase about how absolutely shittily we as a country deal with our most vulnerable and helpless population, one which AGAIN HOLY FUCK YOU’D THINK “TRYING TO DO OUR BEST BY MOTHERFUCKING CHILDREN” WOULD BE KIND OF A NO-BRAINER TO SIGN ON TO (and ACTUALLY sign on to, not sign on to “family values” style)… it just boggles my mind, breaks my heart, etc. etc. etc.
This is actually more or less the system in San Francisco, minus the whole “making private schools illegal” thing, which I don’t think you could ever make happen, realistically. It’s a disaster, because everyone with the resources to do so sends their kids out of the city to private school, and so all of the public schools suck equally.
