<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Skepticrats &#187; Miscellaneous</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.skepticrats.com/category/miscellaneous/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.skepticrats.com</link>
	<description>You expect us to believe that?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:21:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Yet another curious subject of Google respect</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/08/29/yet-another-curious-subject-of-google-respect/</link>
		<comments>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/08/29/yet-another-curious-subject-of-google-respect/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deuce Geary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pet Peeves]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Jackcon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticrats.com/?p=2322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Is it too much to ask that they honor someone who is, you know, honorable?


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it too much to ask that they honor someone who is, you know, <em>honorable?</em></p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.skepticrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Picture-3.png"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2323" title="Michael Jackson Google Logo" src="http://www.skepticrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Picture-3.png" alt="Michael Jackson Google Logo" width="541" height="241" /></a><br />
</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/08/29/yet-another-curious-subject-of-google-respect/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are they watching Fox News with beer goggles?  My outrage over &#8220;The 11 Hottest FOX News Reporters&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/04/17/are-they-watching-fox-news-with-beer-goggles-my-outrage-over-the-11-hottest-fox-news-reporters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/04/17/are-they-watching-fox-news-with-beer-goggles-my-outrage-over-the-11-hottest-fox-news-reporters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 16:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deuce Geary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Men and Women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticrats.com/?p=1329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Maybe I&#8217;m just picky — I know my dad would say I am — but nextround.net&#8217;s list of  &#8221;The 11 Hottest FOX News Reporters&#8221; strikes me as over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time.  Some of these gals aren&#8217;t that good looking at all. And there are at least two important omissions.
So, in one of my [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://nextround.net/2009/04/15/the-11-hottest-fox-news-reporters/" target="_blank">Maybe I&#8217;m just picky</a> — I know my dad would say I am — but nextround.net&#8217;s list of  &#8221;The 11 Hottest FOX News Reporters&#8221; strikes me as over-inclusive and under-inclusive at the same time.  Some of these gals aren&#8217;t that good looking at all. And there are at least two important omissions.</p>
<p>So, in one of my rare applications of <a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/how-to-get-million-hits-on-your-blog-in.html" target="_blank">Stacy McCain&#8217;s Rule 5</a>, I&#8217;ll chime in with my 2 cents on the topic. That way you can claim <a href="http://feeds2.feedburner.com/skepticrats" target="_blank">you subscribe to The Skepticrats</a> &#8220;for the articles,&#8221; just like Playboy subscribers.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll start with outrage — <em>outrage, </em>I say! — over two obvious omissions: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/patti-ann-browne/" target="_blank">Patti Ann Browne</a> and <a href="http://www.foxbusiness.com/our-team/personalities/jenna-lee/" target="_blank">Jenna Lee</a>.</p>
<p>Techincally, Jenna&#8217;s with Fox News Business instead of Fox News, but she should have made the list anyway, and I doubt I&#8217;m the only one that thinks so:</p>
<p><object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbgephMX1ag&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xbgephMX1ag&amp;color1=0xb1b1b1&amp;color2=0xcfcfcf&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p>And how can you leave Patti Ann Browne off the list? I always thought she was great looking as an anchor, but see her let her hair down on Redeye:</p>
<p><object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAI0fIQTUJQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nAI0fIQTUJQ&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p>When she sat behind the anchor desk, it was hard to tell she was so . . . <em><strong>healthy</strong></em>.</p>
<p>On to those who made the list.</p>
<p>Right wing darling <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/megyn-kelly/" target="_blank">Megyn Kelly</a> made the list.  I&#8217;m not big on blondes generally or her look in particular, but <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/13/green-glover-undercover-megyn-kelly-pregnant/" target="_blank">now the she&#8217;s pregnant</a>, she does seem to have that &#8220;pregnancy glow&#8221; about her.</p>
<p>The only one on the list I can truly, truly, agree belongs on the list is <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/julie-banderas/" target="_blank">Julie Banderas</a>.  Gorgeous, gorgeous hair, and the rest of her — at least what we can see on screen — ain&#8217;t bad either.  Hot enough to make you lose your head around her and say shocking things like this:</p>
<p><object width="425" height="344" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LquZqjAefY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-LquZqjAefY&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /></object></p>
<p>Did he really mean to say that?</p>
<p>Speaking of what you can see on screen (and what you can&#8217;t), <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/courtney-friel/" target="_blank">Courtney Friel</a> fans are in for a treat at nextround.net.  Here&#8217;s just the headshot from one of two bikini pics:</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1331" title="picture-1" src="http://www.skepticrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/picture-1.png" alt="picture-1" width="243" height="138" /></p>
<p>By the way, this is a follow-up to nextround.net&#8217;s list of &#8220;<a href="http://nextround.net/2009/01/15/the-9-hottest-cnn-reporters/" target="_blank">The 9 Hottest CNN Reporters</a>.&#8221; Just remember, <a href="http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/03/22/i-dont-care-what-they-say-theres-no-such-thing-as-a-code-pink-cutie-and-why-conservative-women-are-inherently-more-attractive-than-liberal-women/" target="_blank">conservative babes are generally hotter</a>. Just imagine you had hot identical twins next to each other, each on the opposite ends of the political spectrum from the other.  Who would you find hotter?</p>
<p>Then again, I once had a very politically conservative friend who viewed the desireability of women this way: you want to <em>date</em> a liberal, but you want to <em>marry</em> a conservative. If you get my drift.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:</strong> Word Around the Net has <a href="http://networdblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/tea-cuties.html" target="_blank">&#8220;Tea Party Cuties.&#8221;</a> (H/T <a href="http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Stacy McCain</a>, who also links!)</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE #2:</strong> <a href="http://ace.mu.nu">Ace</a> links in the headlines! <strong><em>Ace.</em></strong> I&#8217;m going to take a screenshot, frame it, and put it over the fireplace. Even though he doesn&#8217;t mention the blog by name. <strong><em>I&#8217;ll</em></strong> know it&#8217;s me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/04/17/are-they-watching-fox-news-with-beer-goggles-my-outrage-over-the-11-hottest-fox-news-reporters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I know it would be gross, but . . .</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/01/29/i-know-it-would-be-gross-but/</link>
		<comments>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/01/29/i-know-it-would-be-gross-but/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deuce Geary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.skepticrats.com/?p=912</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Someone needs to create a photoshop (are you listening, Slublog?) of the nickname many conservative bloggers are using to refer to the Obama stimulus package: crap sandwich.  Heck, if you own a dog, you wouldn&#8217;t even need to photoshop it.  Just take some bread the next time you walk your pooch.
It would sure come in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone needs to create a photoshop (are you listening, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/slublog/" target="_blank">Slublog</a>?) of the nickname many conservative bloggers are using to refer to the Obama stimulus package: <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=stimulus+crap+sandwich&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" target="_blank"><strong><em>crap sandwich</em></strong></a>.  Heck, if you own a dog, you wouldn&#8217;t even need to photoshop it.  Just take some bread the next time you walk your pooch.</p>
<p>It would sure come in handy for stimulus posts.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;m not about to do it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.skepticrats.com/2009/01/29/i-know-it-would-be-gross-but/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Much Does All That Stuff in the Weekend Fry&#8217;s Circular Cost?</title>
		<link>http://www.skepticrats.com/2008/07/19/how-much-does-all-that-stuff-in-the-weekend-frys-circular-cost/</link>
		<comments>http://www.skepticrats.com/2008/07/19/how-much-does-all-that-stuff-in-the-weekend-frys-circular-cost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 19:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deuce Geary</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://deucegeary.wordpress.com/2008/07/19/how-much-does-all-that-stuff-in-the-weekend-frys-circular-cost/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ About $162,016.04 . . . give or take.  I actually went through the whole thing (8 full-sized newspaper pages) and added up every price.  It went faster around page 4, where prices tended to be in round numbers without the 99 cents tacked onto the end.  (Yes, I was that anal that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://bp2.blogger.com/_jJIzfCdivwQ/SG5OzbXVgoI/AAAAAAAAAR8/4OetdHTJDHk/s1600-h/Picture+9.png"><img style="float:right;cursor:pointer;margin:0 0 10px 10px;" src="http://bp2.blogger.com/_jJIzfCdivwQ/SG5OzbXVgoI/AAAAAAAAAR8/4OetdHTJDHk/s400/Picture+9.png" border="0" alt="" /></a> About $162,016.04 . . . give or take.  I actually went through the whole thing (8 full-sized newspaper pages) and added up <span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">every</span> price.  It went faster around page 4, where prices tended to be in round numbers without the 99 cents tacked onto the end.  (Yes, I was that anal that I added up all the cents, without rounding up.) One page came to almost a million bucks, before I caught my error.</p>
<p>These are the numbers from two weeks ago.  I haven&#8217;t repeated the exercise.  While it took a short enough time that I don&#8217;t regret doing it to satisfying my curiosity, it took long enough I don&#8217;t plan to do it again.</p>
<p>I have this recurring fantasy that one day, as I&#8217;m walking into Fry&#8217;s to buy some $4.99 item, some guy will grab my arm and offer me $20,000 cash as long as I spend it all in the next hour and all of it in Fry&#8217;s.  When I first added up all the prices in the circular, I thought maybe I&#8217;d have to increase the amount in my fantasy.</p>
<p>But $20,000 would be just fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.skepticrats.com/2008/07/19/how-much-does-all-that-stuff-in-the-weekend-frys-circular-cost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

