Elephants take over transport network, mandate sex parties
Getting drunk with horny elephants. What could go wrong?
Comments Researchers at San Diego State University have found that, contrary to the general rule that men get more heavily plastered at parties, women tend to booze more if the parties involve sexual themes and fancy dress. Why? They don't know, but you all agree that they must have had fun trying to find out:
Dr Clapp ? Investigating drunken chicks at sexually themed parties ? For real ?
The Other Steve
I'd love to see the expenses claim.
4 Bottles of Vodka
2 slabs of beer
8 Vicar costumes.
All from the university research grant!
We have geeks that want to get drunk and attend parties. That's good.
They have the social grace of a dyspeptic buzzard -sorry El Reg. That's bad.
They want to tipple a bit. That's good.
They can't afford it. That's bad.
They want to go to sex parties. That's good.
Sex parties are expensive. That's bad.
Why not get the department to fund attendance by geeks at sex parties?
Aren't geeks smart?
I've been invited to fancy dress parties. And I've been invited to sexually themed parties.
But I can honestly say, I've never heard of a fancy dress with a sexual theme party.
Black tie mandatory, crotchless optional?
It seems rather simple to me. They're taking averages here, meaning at the more tame parties you will have a mix of society with a few of the heavier drinkers (women drinkers I mean) that are a smaller minority and more of the conservatives who don't drink as much no matter what the occasion. At the sexually themed parties you tend to weed out the more conservative women who don't attend, with the remainder being the heavier drinkers.
It's a bit like they would claim puzzlement if attendees at a Kiss concert were more likely to have their faces painted and wear black leather. They just need to get out more and taste the life they're trying to sample out of context.
Mozilla was left with egg on their face after an offensive viral advertising campaign was leaked. The company quickly pulled the campaign, which featured a variety of comparative statistics, including the facts that Firefox users were less likely to have cancer or heart disease than Internet Explorer users. Oddly enough, these did not go down too well.
What worries me is were the hell they got the stats from the first place!
Hi do you mind answering a few questions
Do you have cancer?
Does anyone in your family have cancer?
Do you use Mozilla?
What a bunch of morons....
Cancer jokes are the best jokes ever. Take for instance this number;
What does the blind deaf and retarded kid get for christmas?
So... Being forced to use IE rather than Firefox at work means I can sue my employer for the added health risk?
Here's a thought:
Older people are on the whole more set in their ways and less likely to try something new (Say for example, install firefox when IE has been fine for them).
Older people are more likely to live with other old people (husband/wife, care home etc?)
Older people are more likely to have cancer.
When you think about it it's pretty damn obvious.
My question is what Marketing Guru thought to himself; "Cancer! Yeah, that's funny! And Heart Disease - they just crack me up!"
Next up from the same Marketing Maven: fake stats on how browsers affect a users use of racial slurs - with loud examples!
I'm sure it will be hilarious.