12 definitions by Alfred F.
To roam around a kitchen eating either ready-to-consume food such as potato chips and crackers or unprepared culinary components such as dry tortillas/bread/cereal/pasta, condiments that would normally be on top of something else, desserts, or cold leftovers. Food thus consumed is usually washed down with beverages straight from the container. Foraged food is exemplified by a lack of preparation and by its consumer standing or pacing while eating. Many a diet focuses on preventing or limiting foraging.
Foraged food generally requires less effort than bachelor chow or ramen to prepare for eating; anything more than a wrapper or a lid between countertop and mouth may disqualify the food as foraged grub.
Foraged food generally requires less effort than bachelor chow or ramen to prepare for eating; anything more than a wrapper or a lid between countertop and mouth may disqualify the food as foraged grub.
Mom: what happened to the bag of croûtons I left on the counter for salad tonight?
Kid: *hides empty bag behind back*...I dunno.
Mom: Didn't I tell you not to forage between meals? You're going to make yourself sick. You're not a goat; don't eat like one. You're going to put on weight and stunt your growth. Back when I was your age...
Kid: *hides empty bag behind back*...I dunno.
Mom: Didn't I tell you not to forage between meals? You're going to make yourself sick. You're not a goat; don't eat like one. You're going to put on weight and stunt your growth. Back when I was your age...
by Alfred F. June 28, 2007
Along with R2-D2, quite possibly the only character who was cool in both Episodes I-III and Episodes IV-VI. Thus, one of the only things George Lucas didn't fuck up in the second Star Wars trilogy.
A: Did you see Yoda go berserk in Episode III?
B: Yeah, but did you see what they did to Darth Vader? All the way from badass to emo loser...oh, my poor childhood...
B: Yeah, but did you see what they did to Darth Vader? All the way from badass to emo loser...oh, my poor childhood...
by Alfred F. April 24, 2007
Acronym for Global Thermonuclear War. A construct sometimes used in academic debate circles as a placeholder for an improbable (but not impossible) "worst case scenario." The term comes directly from the 1983 movie "Wargames," in which a young hacker went wardialing, tapped NORAD's central computer, and accidentally initiated a war simulation that almost started World War Three with the Soviet Union.
Suspending disbelief temporarily, the concept for debaters is this: no man-made event could be worse than several major world powers choosing to initiate a nuclear exchange. Theoretically, such an exchange could kill most of the life on the planet's surface. Given that, if you can show that there is a chance, however small, that a given plan of action increases the likelihood of nuclear war, then that plan cannot be enacted, regardless of its benefits. This basic logic can be tailored to suit a given topic by exchanging GTW for a more appropriate worst case scenario.
As a sidenote, while GTW may or may not really be a relevant consideration in some topics of debate, certain students relish finding inordinately convoluted paths by which, for example, domestic social policies could lead to the end of the world.
Magnet schools? They'll breed more right-wing hawks, therefore GTW!
National sales tax? They're regressive, will force folks to elect more neoconservative isolationists, therefore GTW!
Take the kids out for pizza? Children are the future; childhood obesity is rising; more sickly children equal more health costs; subsequent failure of the current state health program will lead the masses to request socialist-style health policies, snowballing socialist reforms throughout society; the western free market cannot persist under heavy socialist governance; the West suffers an unprecedented depression; global depression leads to an increase in nationalism, while the new power vacuum draws petty tyrants toward the dream of hegemony; a new fascist state arises, and decides to start ethnic cleansing with a nuclear broom, therefore GTW -- all because someone didn't make Willy eat his green beans.
The truly silly thing is that some number of academic debates get decided by the judge tallying how many GTW-style scenarios survived the round on each side, then handing it to the "lesser of two evils."
See debate.
Suspending disbelief temporarily, the concept for debaters is this: no man-made event could be worse than several major world powers choosing to initiate a nuclear exchange. Theoretically, such an exchange could kill most of the life on the planet's surface. Given that, if you can show that there is a chance, however small, that a given plan of action increases the likelihood of nuclear war, then that plan cannot be enacted, regardless of its benefits. This basic logic can be tailored to suit a given topic by exchanging GTW for a more appropriate worst case scenario.
As a sidenote, while GTW may or may not really be a relevant consideration in some topics of debate, certain students relish finding inordinately convoluted paths by which, for example, domestic social policies could lead to the end of the world.
Magnet schools? They'll breed more right-wing hawks, therefore GTW!
National sales tax? They're regressive, will force folks to elect more neoconservative isolationists, therefore GTW!
Take the kids out for pizza? Children are the future; childhood obesity is rising; more sickly children equal more health costs; subsequent failure of the current state health program will lead the masses to request socialist-style health policies, snowballing socialist reforms throughout society; the western free market cannot persist under heavy socialist governance; the West suffers an unprecedented depression; global depression leads to an increase in nationalism, while the new power vacuum draws petty tyrants toward the dream of hegemony; a new fascist state arises, and decides to start ethnic cleansing with a nuclear broom, therefore GTW -- all because someone didn't make Willy eat his green beans.
The truly silly thing is that some number of academic debates get decided by the judge tallying how many GTW-style scenarios survived the round on each side, then handing it to the "lesser of two evils."
See debate.
KEEP IN MIND that these are just samples to show how GTW-type disadvantages get abused in debate and even some real foreign policy circles).
More seriously, here's how it goes (sans "evidence" -- read: bullshit).
An (arguably) rational GTW usage I heard awhile back:
Proposed plan: America to assist China to construct modern nuclear reactors, offering deals on fissionable matter and technical know-how.
Response:
a) China's nuclear capacity is currently no match for that of the West, in either live weapons or raw materials.
b) Providing nuclear materials could allow China to more quickly upgrade its nuclear capacity.
c) US-China relations are possibly at a tipping point now.
d) Rapid Chinese armament makes a 21st-century arms race likely, threatening GTW.
THEREFORE, America cannot help China build reactors.
A stupid, stupid GTW usage I heard in debate recently:
Proposal: Decrease (American) federal agricultural subsidies.
Response:
a) Currently, American agriculture is just barely surviving thanks to increased government-sponsored interest in biofuels. So, cutting subsidies will ruin many farmers.
b) The act of decreasing ag subsidies will increase voter sympathy for neoconservative interest groups in the next election, pushing the country further to the political right.
c) America is standing at the top of a slippery slope leading to severe isolationism; it is just a few right-wing Congressional seats from imposing many xenophobic policies, from protective tariffs to literal wall-building.
d) An immediate and wholehearted embrace of multilateralism is the only way to halt jihad and stop a dangerous Sino-US Cold War.
THEREFORE, America cannot decrease agricultural subsidies.
For more examples of the above, I'd advise you to go volunteer to judge a high-school debate tournament in your community. Then, try to imagine a wad of college kids jabbering (literally) three times as quickly as the high-schoolers and armed with the latest round of bad metaphors and buzzwords they've picked up in a few years of undergrad political science and philosophy courses. Finally, consider that many of our current world leaders "did debate" in college. Scary.
More seriously, here's how it goes (sans "evidence" -- read: bullshit).
An (arguably) rational GTW usage I heard awhile back:
Proposed plan: America to assist China to construct modern nuclear reactors, offering deals on fissionable matter and technical know-how.
Response:
a) China's nuclear capacity is currently no match for that of the West, in either live weapons or raw materials.
b) Providing nuclear materials could allow China to more quickly upgrade its nuclear capacity.
c) US-China relations are possibly at a tipping point now.
d) Rapid Chinese armament makes a 21st-century arms race likely, threatening GTW.
THEREFORE, America cannot help China build reactors.
A stupid, stupid GTW usage I heard in debate recently:
Proposal: Decrease (American) federal agricultural subsidies.
Response:
a) Currently, American agriculture is just barely surviving thanks to increased government-sponsored interest in biofuels. So, cutting subsidies will ruin many farmers.
b) The act of decreasing ag subsidies will increase voter sympathy for neoconservative interest groups in the next election, pushing the country further to the political right.
c) America is standing at the top of a slippery slope leading to severe isolationism; it is just a few right-wing Congressional seats from imposing many xenophobic policies, from protective tariffs to literal wall-building.
d) An immediate and wholehearted embrace of multilateralism is the only way to halt jihad and stop a dangerous Sino-US Cold War.
THEREFORE, America cannot decrease agricultural subsidies.
For more examples of the above, I'd advise you to go volunteer to judge a high-school debate tournament in your community. Then, try to imagine a wad of college kids jabbering (literally) three times as quickly as the high-schoolers and armed with the latest round of bad metaphors and buzzwords they've picked up in a few years of undergrad political science and philosophy courses. Finally, consider that many of our current world leaders "did debate" in college. Scary.
by Alfred F. January 4, 2008
Furry: What is it to be a furry? It is not a simple term to define. One has to consider, naturally, the anthropomorphic quality inherent in most instances of the proclivity, but really, it is more of a philosophy, a basic way of seeing a different form for yourself. That vision can be expressed in various ways, from artistry and poetic invention to socialization with like-minded folks. Generally, tbey share an interest in literature and imagery containing antrhopomorphic creatures. Most furries are pretty normal people, but in some cases...
Cynic: Dude, you get off dry humping people while wearing a fuzzy mascot suit and looking at doodled pictures of cat people.
Furry: W...what?
Cynic: Jeez, don't worry about it; whatever turns you on. I kind of like fat chicks. Just show some courtesy and shut up about it, ok? I don't go around saying that I've had some sort of intellectual revelation after I've shagged a whale.
Furry: *sniffle* But I don't...I mean, I mostly just appreciate the art and...
Cynic: Pardon me while I go appreciate some art "depicting" a BBW eating pork rinds and Twinkies off her belly.
Furry: You're sick.
Cynic: BUT AT LEAST I'M HONEST!!!
Cynic: Dude, you get off dry humping people while wearing a fuzzy mascot suit and looking at doodled pictures of cat people.
Furry: W...what?
Cynic: Jeez, don't worry about it; whatever turns you on. I kind of like fat chicks. Just show some courtesy and shut up about it, ok? I don't go around saying that I've had some sort of intellectual revelation after I've shagged a whale.
Furry: *sniffle* But I don't...I mean, I mostly just appreciate the art and...
Cynic: Pardon me while I go appreciate some art "depicting" a BBW eating pork rinds and Twinkies off her belly.
Furry: You're sick.
Cynic: BUT AT LEAST I'M HONEST!!!
by Alfred F. June 28, 2007
A misspelling of Hennessy, a Cognac liquor somewhat recently popularized by Tupac Shakur and several other performers. As listed in urbanDictionary, evidence of the mentality of many consumers of said liquor.
"LOL **** this hennesy crunk I poured got me royally ****ed up over here!!!"
"It's Hennessy, and Red Bull and Cognac don't mix, dip****."
"what the f*** your problem man? it all good"
"Not if you're making it out of my fridge."
"It's Hennessy, and Red Bull and Cognac don't mix, dip****."
"what the f*** your problem man? it all good"
"Not if you're making it out of my fridge."
by Alfred F. September 12, 2006
Marker for a closing remark or afterthought placed at the end of a forum message.
An internet forum neologism with approximately the same function as a traditional postscript (ps). As with postscripts (pps), multiple fake edits can be and often are stacked after a post, although the conventions for doing so aren't really standardized.
The most pressing need for the postscript faded away with the advent of word processors, which added the ability to simply insert a later thought directly into its proper location in the body of a message. Still, the convention lingers on, though interpretation of whether a particular instance is the result of pure habit, of mild laziness, or of a desire to draw attention to a particular point will depend on its context.
An internet forum neologism with approximately the same function as a traditional postscript (ps). As with postscripts (pps), multiple fake edits can be and often are stacked after a post, although the conventions for doing so aren't really standardized.
The most pressing need for the postscript faded away with the advent of word processors, which added the ability to simply insert a later thought directly into its proper location in the body of a message. Still, the convention lingers on, though interpretation of whether a particular instance is the result of pure habit, of mild laziness, or of a desire to draw attention to a particular point will depend on its context.
Posted by: GibsonOnBass, Feb 25, 2009
We were in the 8th row at the concert, and I gotta say they put on one hell of a show. I wasn't a fan of theirs before, but now I'd definitely drive a couple hours to catch them again!
Fake edit: Thanks for the heads-up on the bargain tickets, Steffie!
We were in the 8th row at the concert, and I gotta say they put on one hell of a show. I wasn't a fan of theirs before, but now I'd definitely drive a couple hours to catch them again!
Fake edit: Thanks for the heads-up on the bargain tickets, Steffie!
by Alfred F. February 25, 2009
Aside from being a faddish 2000's pop culture exemplar of all things tough, monosyllabic, and righteously violent, Chuck Norris holds black belts in Tang Soo Do, Tae Kwon Do, Karate, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. His rise to Hollywood fame occurred when he starred as the villain opposite Bruce Lee in "Return of the Dragon." He played leads in a number of martial arts movies through the 80's, then was picked up for "Walker, Texas Ranger" in 1993, which aired for eight years on CBS. As of 2006, he continues to take on roles for various karate flicks, capitalizing intensely on his recent faddish popularity.
by Alfred F. September 12, 2006