Gadget / Texts
Order by: date ↑ - rating ↑
Why does it always need to be *OR*. Can't it be *AND*?
Spend a day being a Pirate *AND* a Ninja... a Pirate Ninja!
¿–œ¿'€ œ©Œ³¿ ¿–± ßµÞµß³ß ¿–µÞ¢ †Œ³ ®Œ³¥º ºŒ ¿Œ œ®®Œß-¥µ€– ¿–µ€ ¿œ€½.
Glad they swapped your throat! Did you keep your old one?
I agree... just as it was lulling me into that beautifully tranquil place, it ended. More, more, more!
How may times did you use the bathroom? Are you more respectful of public bathrooms given your job?
Needles? Ick! I can't deal with needles. You get my vote for doing something I'm too chicken to do.
Hmmm... perhaps people should have to clean a public restroom once before they are allowed to use public restrooms. Maybe they would have a little more respect for the restroom and for the people who clean them.
It reminds me of a spoken word poet named, "Techno Pagan Octopus Messiah" who has a great piece about having to get an eating license before eating certain foods... mainly meats... one should have to slaughter the animal with one's own (bare) hands or at least witness how they are killed before one is allowed to buy them from a store or restaurant. The commonality here is that knowing what's involved gives us a respect for things we often take for granted. I don't know what happened to this guy, but check out his book if you have the means.
Thanks for sharing!
I've had quite a few arguments with myself about the "legal channel" portion of this task submission. Here's my reasoning.
If you accept the common belief that defacing US currency is illegal, then my defacement of US currency was, in fact, illegal. On the other hand, a legal channel for defacing US currency is to do it in such a way that the bills are not rendered unusable. Given that the defacement is not readily visible to the naked eye and that I was able to spend the bills, I think it's safe to say that they have not been rendered unusable. As a result, one could conclude that the act of defacement was illegal yet it was performed through a legal channel. The problem is, if I go with this argument, then I start to question whether this defacement is really illegal at all. That's a slippery slope as I start to question if anything can be both illegal and legal at the same time.
My impression is that this task is really about finding creative ways to ride, and sometimes cross, the fine line between what's legal and what isn't. I feel that I accomplished that completely. None-the-less, I value your criticism, waterdragon, so keep it coming if you still disagree.