The Casual Brilliance of Sandra
Posted January 4th, 2008 by Howard TaylerFrom a response to a comment today in her Live Journal:
The necessity of eating is annoying. I wish we could just choose not to eat except for special fun occasions when there are cookies.
–Sandra Tayler
I love this woman.
Explore posts in the same categories: Home & Family, Humor
January 4th, 2008 at 6:32 am
I have to completely disagree.
Eating is not annoying. Eating is fun. In my case, I’m a good cook. I enjoy cooking. Two of the primary sources for that enjoyment are (a) anticipation of eating the final product and (2) eating the final product.
Also, cookies are nice. I like a good cookie every so once in a while. But a diet consisting solely of cookies would be boring. Besides, there’s a lot of food that I prefer over cookies. If given a choice between a cookie and a steak, the cookie would remain on the plate.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Finally, someone who thinks about food like I do: as fuel. If I didn’t have to stop and eat, or think about eating, or take time to buy food to eat, etc., I could save so much time. The Jetsons promised me a future where I could just eat a pill for my entire meal and not have to waste time eating three times a day. Don’t get me wrong–there’s a lot of nice food out there, cookies especially. But if we can’t switch to 36 hour days, then I want my 1.65 hours a day back by not having to eat. Is that so much to ask?
January 4th, 2008 at 7:15 am
No, she’s not saying eating is annoying. She’s saying that the NECESSITY of eating is annoying. She agrees that eating is fun. Being required to do it regularly… THAT is bothersome.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:38 am
1,65?
that´s fast. i spend atleast 3 hours a day eating.
but then i entertain myself infront of a computer while eating.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:52 am
The necessity of eating is a good thing in my book. Eating requires you to take breaks, be it from your job or from other draining activities such as shipping several pallets of awesome books to customers.
More importantly, when asking a female out on a date she may not want to see a movie or feel up to going for a walk, but sooner or later she will need to eat.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
There was an episode of Mythbusters where in order to test a myth about fuel-efficiency they drove a vehicle non-stop for some insane amount of time. In order to avoid meal breaks, Jamie made up some sort of liquefied trail mix, and rigged up a gravity feed so the driver could suck on it at will. If you did something like that with one of those beer hat things, you’d save a fair bit of time, as long as you scheduled your meals for times when you didn’t have to (a) talk or (2) not look ridiculous.
Uh oh, a running gag…
*Reads latest article of Sandra’s LJ for context*
Heh. I like norroway’s userpic.
A.J.: Of course you realise that in order to survive on a long-term diet of three pills a day, you’d have to be nuclear-powered…
Hey… Have Dmitri and Alina from Dresden Codak ever been seen eating?
Howard: “Being required to do it regularly… THAT is bothersome.”
Technically, you’re *not* required to eat regularly. Unfortunately, the alternative is a crazy yo-yo diet.
January 5th, 2008 at 3:10 am
Ahhh…….If only my own woman had that kinda of attitude. It’d be nice instead of her trying to jump every time I tell her I’m not hungry or I grab a bag of fritos when I have the munchies.
January 5th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Who says I’m not nuclear powered?
January 5th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Agreed on the inconvenience. May I have a spider roll instead of cookies for special occasions though?