LeighA
SHARE THIS PAGE View Viral Dashboard ›
    • LeighA

      6. Hold on, I’ll just take a picture with my phone real quick! There were camera phones 10 years ago. By about 6 or 7 years ago, it was almost impossible to get a phone without a camera (I know someone who tried, though I never understood why). 14. Oh, and let me recharge my book. Does anyone actually say that? I would think most people would say “let me recharge my Kindle/Nook/whatever.” Also, the Sony Librie launched in 2004. 17. Shoot me a text. Texts became a thing in the 90s. I’m not sure if anyone used this exact phrase then, but I’m sure they did by 2004. 25. Make sure you delete your cookies. According to Wikipedia, “The general public learned about [cookies] after the Financial Times published an article about them on February 12, 1996.” 28. We’re 69% compatible. In elementary school, we used to play this game called “True Love” where you would right your name and your crushes name down and…well, we had two different versions. One, you’d count how many letters they had in common and use that to determine how compatible you were. For the other two, you’d count how many letters you each had that were in the words “true love” (for instance, Amber Brown has T=0, R=2, U=0, E=1, L=0, O=1, V=0, E=1, and Kyle Jones has E=2, O=1, E=2), then either add them all together and multiply by ten (100%) or put the total for each word together (true=5, love =5, 55%), usually whichever gives you the higher total. Whichever way you did it, if the total was 69, you would say you were 69% compatible. 37. IDK, my BFF Jill. As a catchprhase, you are correct. That ad is only 7 years old (I could’ve sworn it was older, but apparently not). But those acronyms were common in IM speak long before 2004, so it would’ve made for a perfectly intelligible sentence. Wikipedia again: “The term BFF as in Best friends forever has been used at least since 1987.” I have no idea when people started using “IDK,” but it was no later than 2001, because they taught us “internet slang” in school that year, including that one. Sadly, I have no idea how to find the textbook (reading anthology) that was in, because I’m sure it would be very amusing to look at now. I bet it explained the “world wide web” and everything.

    • LeighA

      I’m not sure how they do things in other countries, but in the US they usually give different foods every day. Some of the things they served at my school: Horrible pizza with ridiculous amounts of grease
      Soft tacos
      Stir fry
      Chicken patty sandwiches
      Grilled cheese and tomato soup
      Chicken nuggets
      Sloppy joes
      Turkey, mashed potatoes, and cranberry sauce (for holidays) With each one, you had to get some sort of fruit or vegetable. They had fresh apples, oranges, and sometimes pears, as well as little containers of fruit in syrup. The vegetables included things like broccoli, carrots, or cauliflower. I think you might also have been required to have a starch, as there were usually mashed potatoes, tater tots, fries (sometimes), or bread. There was also milk, of course. My high school had a salad bar, which you could get instead of hot lunch. About once a month, they’d give everyone a small piece of cake, and sometimes they’d give frozen fruit juice pops or some sort of cobbler or crumble.

    • LeighA

      I never knew that Canada didn’t have school lunch. I find that kind of odd. In the US, school lunches (and breakfasts) provide an opportunity for low income kids to eat even if their families can’t afford food*. I don’t think Canada has as much poverty as the US, but there must still be plenty of kids who don’t have enough food. What are they supposed to do? I would think Canada of all places would ensure they got at least one meal a day. *School food in the US isn’t generally free, but low income families can apply for free lunch. Most schools have a system in place where kids pay using student IDs or meal tickets, so it’s not apparent to other students who gets free lunch.

    • LeighA

      What if I decided to dye my hair tomorrow? Or cut it super short? I would like a lot more different from my ID photo then than this boy does wearing makeup vs not. If I felt like it, I could go from long brown hair, brown eyes, and minimal makeup (ID photo) to short red pixie cut, green contacts, and vamp makeup. And if I got pulled over, and the cop was having trouble with the extreme difference between how I look in the picture and how I look in real life, I could take out a contact and tell him I felt like changing my hair. Odds are, he’d be perfectly fine with it, though he may tell me I should get my photo retaken. There are a lot of ways people can change their appearance. This guy barely looks different with/without makeup on.

    • LeighA

      “What if he decided one day to do something illegal and he will do it without makeup?” So if a woman wears makeup for her driver’s license photo, then commits a crime while not wearing makeup, it’ll make it impossible for her to be IDed? If that were the case, women wouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup for ID photos. Oh, but then what if someone who wasn’t wearing makeup for their ID photo decided to wear a lot of makeup to commit a crime? Maybe everyone should have two photos on their ID, one with makeup and one without! Sarcasm aside, the idea that wearing or not wearing makeup would make someone harder to ID is pretty ridiculous (probably least ridiculous in the case of going from no makeup to lots of makeup, to be honest).

    • LeighA

      Inverse here. I grew up in Pennsylvania and nobody ever had to remove their glasses for ID photos. Then I moved to Florida, and here they make you take your glasses off. The idea of them doing that had never even occurred to me (if you wear glasses everyday, why wouldn’t you wear them in your ID photo). It kind of makes sense, though. It’s easy to take glasses off to compare, but if you started wearing contacts and your ID photo included glasses, it would be slightly more difficult for the person looking at the ID to compare it to you. Makeup, on the other hand, should probably be worn as it is on a normal day, whether that is a little, a lot, or none.

    • LeighA

      There’s no evidence he ever claimed to not be male. “Gender non-conforming” means not conforming to gender norms. Our society expects men to not wear makeup, and this boy chooses to ignore that expectation and wear makeup anyway. If he did identify as female, he would be transgender (not “gender non-conforming”), and the article would say “she” instead of “he.” I’m unsurprised to see the ubiquitous “there’s no such thing as transgender” argument, but it’s funny how people see a guy in makeup and automatically assume he must identify as a woman, on the basis that no man would ever do such a thing. Oddly enough, that’s the exact expectation he’s being “non-conforming” about.

    • LeighA

      Gender nonconformity is not the same as transgender. Transgender: Identifying as a different gender than your biological sex, e.g. a biological male identifying as female
      Gender noncomfority: Ignoring the societal norms associated with your gender, e.g. a man wearing makeup As far as I can tell, this is a biological male who identifies as male and wears makeup. If he were trans (identified as female), the reporting would likely say “she” instead of “he,” particularly in the quote from the executive director of the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund The lawsuit is based on the idea that your ID photo is supposed to represent how you look on an everyday basis. Since he wears makeup on an everyday basis, they’re arguing he should be able to do so in his ID photo. It’s a valid argument. On the other hand, in my state, they make you remove glasses for ID photos even if you wear them all the time and are legally required to wear them while driving (not all states do this), so it’s a policy that applies to more than just this scenario.

    • LeighA

      “7. And then getting disconnected when your mom picked up the phone.” I see this a lot on lists like this, but this never happened to me. When we had dial-up, if someone picked up the phone while someone was on the internet, you just heard a staticky-sound instead of a dial tone. It didn’t affect the internet at all. So why did it apparently disconnect some people, but didn’t work that way for us?

    • LeighA

      1. Define “promiscuous.” Do you mean anyone who has sex with strangers, anyone who has sex outside of a relationship, anyone who has sex with more than a certain number of partners (and how many—20, 10, 5, 2, 1?), or anyone who has sex outside of marriage? Everyone seems to define it differently, so we need to know what we’re talking about here. 2. What are the consequences of promiscuity? I don’t mean possible pregnancy or STDs—those are largely preventable, and can happen even if you aren’t promiscuous. Why is being promiscuous (as you define it) “damaging…emotionally [and] physically, as well as..damaging to their friends, and family, future spouses, and eventually, future children”? I’m not the sort of person who can understand why someone would want to have sex with a stranger (I wouldn’t want a stranger to see me naked, period), but I can’t even begin to think of a way being promiscuous (again, whatever that means to you) would be damaging to your friends. It shouldn’t affect them at all. Who cares that much about their friends’ sex lives? It shouldn’t have much, if any, effect on your family or future kids, either (unless it causes your future kids, I guess).  It would only affect your future spouse inasmuch as they might care that you were promiscuous (and would be affected by any potential STDs, but you only have to have sex one time with one person to get an STD, so that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with promiscuity). But I think it’d be best if promiscuous people married people who were either promiscuous themselves, or are at the very least completely okay with it, the same way religious people should marry religious people or people who are okay with them being religious, and people who don’t want kids should marry other people who don’t want kids or don’t really care either way. It’s a compatibility issue, not a right vs wrong issue.

    • LeighA

      Purebreds are notorious for having serious health issues (like hip dysplasia, breathing problems, etc). Mixed breeds generally help make for healthier dogs. You do have to be careful, though. Mixing a tiny dog and a huge dog is not a great idea, for obvious reasons. Dogs range from about 3 pounds to well over 200 pounds, and breeding anything with that kind of size difference is just asking for trouble.

    • LeighA

      If you wear sunscreen like the experts suggest, it’s expensive no matter what kind you buy. An 8 oz. bottle of Banana Boat Sport is about $8, and they say you’re supposed to put on about 1 oz. every 2 hours (http://www.aad.org/media-resources/stats-and-facts/prevention-and-care/sunscreens). That means a single $8 bottle is only supposed to last 16 hours.  If you spend an average of an hour a day outside all summer, following sunscreen guidelines, you’ll spend about $50 per person on sunscreen. If you spend a lot of time outdoors, say an average of 16 hours a week, that’s about $100 per person. If you spend an extraordinarily high amount of time outside (most likely because you work outside, or don’t work and spend all your time at the beach), you’re talking around $300 per person. And that’s ignoring the recommendation to reapply every time you swim or sweat, because I don’t want to bother trying to calculate that.

    • LeighA

      They really aren’t the same, though. They both involve teens falling in love and cancer, but that’s really about it. (Note: I’ve read both books but only seen A Walk to Remember. I’ve read that book a couple times and seen the movie a bunch, but it’s been awhile.) In A Walk to Remember, Landon doesn’t know Jamie has cancer at first, whereas in The Fault in Our Stars, they both have cancer and meet at a support group. Jamie’s cancer is a big, heart-wrenching reveal that takes the story from “tough guy falls for quiet religious girl” to “oh god this is going to end in tears, isn’t it?”, whereas cancer is woven through Hazel and Gus’s lives from the very beginning.  Jamie and Landon fall for each other while rehearsing a play together, Hazel and Gus really bond over a book and a trip to Europe to meet the author (and their shared experience of having cancer). And it’s not like the play and Europe are just convenient things to move the plot along. Both directly affect how the characters interact and how they see things. AWtR is big on faith and optimism and the idea that God is still there and still important even while Jamie faces a high probability of dying young. TFiOS is about people who aren’t really sure what having cancer means for the idea of God, but certainly aren’t embracing it as being part of some big cosmic plan. The kids in TFiOS get mad about having cancer, while Jamie mostly just peacefully accepts it. And, well, the endings are a bit different. Keeping spoilers to a minimum, AWtR is about giving Jamie’s life a happy (if early) ending. That doesn’t really happen in TFiOS. They have happiness, but there’s an underlying idea that ultimately it doesn’t end happily, because it never does.

    • LeighA

      “When you used the landline before 6pm.” I take it that costs extra in the UK? In the US, it’s only cell phones where time of day matters (or mattered, I should say, since they’re going towards unlimited minutes now). I looked it up and apparently you have to choose between unlimited weekend, unlimited nights and weekends, and unlimited anytime to UK landlines with discounts for mobile? In the US, you get unlimited local calls and you can pay a bit extra for unlimited long distance, plus calls to cell phones are just like calls to landlines. It does seem like it’s cheaper there, though, even if it is more complicated.

Show More Responses