http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/magazine/17foreclosure-t.html
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:54 (6 months ago) Permalink
not photoshop
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:55 (6 months ago) Permalink
Noticed that earlier today. My heart was not immediately bent.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 May 2009 22:55 (6 months ago) Permalink
is this thread sponsored by gawker
― s1ocki, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:01 (6 months ago) Permalink
The only problem was money. Having separated from my wife of 21 years, who had physical custody of our sons, I was handing over $4,000 a month in alimony and child-support payments. That left me with take-home pay of $2,777, barely enough to make ends meet in a one-bedroom rental apartment. Patty had yet to even look for a job.
Found it very hard to read past this paragraph for the reason of my head being filled with visions of these two idiots burning in an eternal lake of fire.
― naturally unfunny, though mechanically sound (Pancakes Hackman), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:01 (6 months ago) Permalink
the best part of that photo is the kid on dog in the background
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:04 (6 months ago) Permalink
little orphan annie back there
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:05 (6 months ago) Permalink
^yea srsly i didnt even notice that at first
― johnny crunch, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:05 (6 months ago) Permalink
guys do you realize what this means? the economic crisis is even affecting rich people! this means it is really newsworthy!! it's like when straight people started getting hiv!!!
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:35 (6 months ago) Permalink
what's a quiddity?
― Philip Nunez, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:36 (6 months ago) Permalink
think of the barefoot girls laying on dogs on the porches of brick homes in silver spring, md. x-post
― ultra-generic sub-noize persona (Matt P), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:36 (6 months ago) Permalink
“I feel as if I am finally at home,” she exclaimed as soon as we moved into the house. She could settle down and do the things she had always been best at: making a new home, nurturing her children and loving me.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:38 (6 months ago) Permalink
But eventually:
The frosted-crystal shade on a beloved Italian floor lamp was cracked. The dog had gnawed the leg on her Biedermeier chair.
― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:44 (6 months ago) Permalink
The Khaki Class
― man, i love collages (J0rdan S.), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:44 (6 months ago) Permalink
Thread of ;_;
― Dom P's Rusty Nuts (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:46 (6 months ago) Permalink
I can't really join in on any rich-people schadenfreude here, because it sounds to me like this guy is not of some far-distant social class, and the $4k alimony/child-support + take-home of $2.75k equation actually does sound pretty rough to me -- what's weird about it is to read the contention that this felt like a natural situation to wind up falling into; I suppose at that age and social situation it might, but of the many people I know who take home around that much money a month, I can surely tell you that not that many of them expect homes on it, and I'm not even just talking about the ones in New York.
― nabisco, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:52 (6 months ago) Permalink
I mean, judging by that equation we might estimate an income in the general neighborhood of $100k a year, which is certainly pleasant but not some sort of distant class of wealth and privilege whose travails I might comfortably laugh at.
― nabisco, Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:54 (6 months ago) Permalink
On one hand -- ugh, fuck this guy.
On the other hand, I have to give him credit for a little reality check. I just paid off the last of my credit card debt and I have a fixed rate mortgage, so I need to quit waking up at 4 a.m. and worrying about money.
On the 3rd hand, nice work of him to pull his story together and sell it to W.W. Norton.
― resistance is feudal (WmC), Thursday, 14 May 2009 23:56 (6 months ago) Permalink
you've got three hands? surely you can swing a book deal out of that.
― macaulay culkin's bukkake shocker (bug), Friday, 15 May 2009 00:04 (6 months ago) Permalink
it's true, nabisco - he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile. it's enough to make a casual reader think that the financial crisis really is a result of damn fools like him. in any case, this thread isn't for schadenfreude per se - but don't let that stop you - it's a record of what kinds of voices the new york times tends to lean on.
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 00:44 (6 months ago) Permalink
i'm struck by his weaselly evasion of responsibility - despite the mea culpa undertones, he makes his wonderful new lady friend sound like a spendthrift bitch and says that his total lack of financial awareness was a symptom of the "same infection" that brought low the titans of industry. fat chance, ed.
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 00:47 (6 months ago) Permalink
i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile
not enough OTM in the world for this
― butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
loooool @ tracer hand: voice of the underclass
― (Palm) springs sprungs (Lamp), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:26 (6 months ago) Permalink
I had assumed we would start by renting a house or an apartment, but it quickly became clear that it was almost easier to borrow a half-million dollars and buy something.
― languid samuel l. jackson (jim), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:28 (6 months ago) Permalink
n.e.way: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/garden/14aaron.html
ny times does seem to have a thing for pictures of the sprawled daughters of the leisure class in front of their itlianate mansions
― (Palm) springs sprungs (Lamp), Friday, 15 May 2009 01:29 (6 months ago) Permalink
sorry Lamp i missed the part where you had a point
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 09:16 (6 months ago) Permalink
my takeaway from this article is that our "elite" journos are often just as ignorant and greedy as the rest of us humps -- not to mention that i feel a bit smug seeing how shitty the media's coverage of the whole real estate/subprime mess was.
― Pull Slinky and Make Me Fart (Eisbaer), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:40 (6 months ago) Permalink
lol South
― "the whale saw her" (gabbneb), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:45 (6 months ago) Permalink
i don't know crap about this guy, nor do i care, BUT
when i was 22 i dated this very cute but not-very-smart guy. it was long distance, so we wrote a lot of letters (this was in the lol 90s). in one letter he told me that being with me made him feel "quidity". i smugly laughed a little because i figured that he meant "tranquility" and wow was this guy adorable for not being able to use a dictionary. then i looked up the word "quidity" and realized that it was real (although not what he meant, i am 100% sure)
this thread is the first time i have ever actually seen anyone use this word. the end.
― figgy pudding (La Lechera), Friday, 15 May 2009 14:46 (6 months ago) Permalink
maybe he was like "wow she thinks my made-up word means something.. what a dim-bulb"
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:08 (6 months ago) Permalink
what do you think he actually meant?
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 15:09 (6 months ago) Permalink
pretty sure he meant tranquility, like comfort (i remember this from context, but really this was a long time ago and i can't remember much about the situation aside from this strange misused word)
― figgy pudding (La Lechera), Friday, 15 May 2009 15:14 (6 months ago) Permalink
Megan McArdle on the piece. Judge for yourself.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:19 (6 months ago) Permalink
Actually I kind of like her points?
― But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:28 (6 months ago) Permalink
ya i mean... not really sure why this piece is as contempt-worthy as some are making it out to be. it's kind of brutally depressing.
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:29 (6 months ago) Permalink
It is in a 'there-but-for' sense for sure. Not that I was ever going to try and be an economics reporter for the NY Times, but as time has passed I'm beginning to think the soundest piece of advice I've ever received in regard to writing was something J. D. Considine told me years ago -- 1993 or so -- in response to a random e-mail or two I sent him. He pretty much said, "Freelancing and journalism is very hard work and you should only pursue it on a full-time basis if you are willing to stick to that level." I'm honestly glad I heeded that and I think what you see in both pieces, regardless of whatever else feeds into their respective situations, reflects that.
At the same time, I'm trying to put my finger on what still jars about McArdle's response and it seems to be this sense of keeping up with the Joneses as paramount driving factor/potential excuse. At what point is leisure travelling to Europe, for instance, a 'minimum necessity' -- and I speak as one who's been there a number of times now. Still, I realize it's a sliding scale, says the person who has participated in a CSA thing with a local farmer for some years now.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:37 (6 months ago) Permalink
Literal translation: quiddity = whatness
― anatol_merklich, Friday, 15 May 2009 16:43 (6 months ago) Permalink
Ned, I read her response as being more about the foolhardiness of ever thinking ANY of those things are necessities. She seems to be (gently) chiding that whole tendency?
― But not someone who should be dead anyway (Laurel), Friday, 15 May 2009 16:50 (6 months ago) Permalink
Yah... she's just sayin' that you hang with people for whom this is true, you wake up with fleas
― butt-rock miyagi (rogermexico.), Friday, 15 May 2009 17:17 (6 months ago) Permalink
I think maybe something to add to McArdle's response is that we have this general cultural tendency to view attention as somehow related to money, a connection that really falls apart when it comes to writers of all sorts -- it's very easy to withhold sympathy from people writing about their woes in public, as if they're coming from a position of privilege or just courting attention, but in plenty of cases they don't have much concrete privilege and writing about their experiences is just, you know, work.
he never really was that rich, especially by the standards of the new york times - but he sure lives and writes like he is. which is of course where the trouble started. getting a monthly keelhaul from the ex didn't help, either - i wonder if he writes about that in his book? - but i think this man's most basic problem was imagining that a take-home of $2500 monthly was enough to buy a half-mil pile.
Yeah, exactly -- although if I had to summarize a problem here it would basically be that a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary expected to continue living like a middle-aged family-man homeowner with a decent salary, even after a divorce that meant the bulk of his income was going to support a family home occupied by other people. This is an unrealistic and dumb expectation to seriously act on -- you'd think that $4k would be a good monthly reminder that situations done changed -- but I can totally have sympathy for the situation itself; that would suck. It would be painful to have to support the family home you used to live in and have to support yourself and your new family on a fraction of what you're earning.
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 17:47 (6 months ago) Permalink
The other thing is that -- while he can't and doesn't come out and say this directly -- his one list of charges makes me suspect a bunch of money was getting borrowed to maintain a certain lifestyle for the kids
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:00 (6 months ago) Permalink
I thought he said that very directly just by listing all those expenses! (I note though that he does seem to say even more directly that his wife did that too.)
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:02 (6 months ago) Permalink
Haha yeah, I guess the unsayable "direct" thing I had in mind was like "these KIDS were bankrupting us (that's right, Alex, I'm talking about you)"
I was going to jump past boggling at the beach house rental and wonder about the $700 at J. Crew, but I guess if you needed, like, one good suit and some decent sweaters for Christmas presents ... the world really does hold you to your socio-economic status, doesn't it -- even beyond nobody wanting to be the guy who gets divorced and suddenly has to start showing up to work in cheap suits, it'd be tough to be the guy making $100k who's like "I got you a candy bar for Christmas!"
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
yeah the erm narrative here is anyways at least partly "but banking professionals who should be my Friends and Advisors assured us it would be alright!"?
However fishy such blanket blame is in general, I'm not sure it's entirely misplaced re how things rolled out this cycle. At one point around 2006, I momentarily had a crazy amount of money in my account due to family property reorg stuff, and was by phone promptly invited to an "advisement meeting" with a dude at my bank, who tried to convince me he had the correct %ages I should place my assets in (all mediated by said bank, obv). (I still was in net debt though!) I was all very cynical and noncommittal, which is not due to my deep insight or anything, just because my current boss worked in a bank in the early 00s and has spilled much shit on how those outfits operate(d?). (My fave morsel: the guys who construct the deals don't actually inform the salespeople abt all potential downsides and builtin fees, as this may hurt their sales!)
I don't think this guy deserves much point-and-laugh, btw, though it is obv somewhat funny he writes on economics.
― anatol_merklich, Friday, 15 May 2009 18:55 (6 months ago) Permalink
I don't know that that's a big surface narrative, given the "I wasn't duped" and the bit about how a banking professional's refinancing maneuvers actually worked to carve down some debt
― nabisco, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:00 (6 months ago) Permalink
it's about even someone who should have known better made some really dumb mistakes, which is always a story worth telling imo
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:11 (6 months ago) Permalink
A weird thing about "quiddity" is that the first definition, "essence", seems to be the opposite of the second definition, "a trifling point". So it can either refer to the essence of something or a minor, trifling detail? Confusing. I have a feeling that it's a word that's rarely used correctly.
― o. nate, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:13 (6 months ago) Permalink
my point is that there are hundreds of thousands of people with stories just like this who don't write for the new york times and have six-figure salaries who are perhaps just a leeetle more representative of the mortgage fallout going on right now - my pointing and laughing is at the editors, not this poor schmuck
― Tracer Hand, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:17 (6 months ago) Permalink
well, they wanted a personal, first-perosn story, so going with a new york times writer... kinda makes sense, no?
― s1ocki, Friday, 15 May 2009 19:19 (6 months ago) Permalink
he will die at some point
― cool app (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Friday, 15 May 2009 19:22 (6 months ago) Permalink
a story about dates involving Gray's Papaya = something I would read
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Friday, 30 October 2009 22:51 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
hot dog; hallway.
― ian, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
there should really be a hallway hot dog place
― sarahel, Friday, 30 October 2009 23:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
No results found for "halloway's hot dogs".
― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Friday, 30 October 2009 23:20 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Ugh, I would never survive in a relationship founded on the principle of buying one meal and cutely splitting it in half.
― This revisionist bible is delicious (reddening), Saturday, 31 October 2009 01:14 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
this one puzzled me...she was too poor to visit her parents for the holidays, was eating Saltines and Kraft cheese, yet she also has an art collection she's slowly selling off, is taking her time to consider writing a book, and moved to Greenwich?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25kolhatkar.html?_r=1&scp=31&sq=october+25+2009&st=nyt
― henry s, Saturday, 31 October 2009 02:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
It's not really suspicious that a former art gallery owner has an art collection, and it suggests she moved in with her boyfriend in Greenwich. Also there's a good chance she has debt from her failed business. Not that you should feel sorry for her, I just don't think there's anything puzzling there.
― Bay-L.A. Bar Talk (Hurting 2), Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:11 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Becky, 43, is not one of the blonde wisps usually seen working at chic Manhattan art spaces — she has a big head of curly black hair and chunky eyeglasses.
she OWNED the gallery
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:16 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
lol everyone knows how rare it is to see people with chunky glasses at art galleries
― I DIED, Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:39 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
thinking thats prob new york times style manual for "fattay"
― ice cr?m, Saturday, 31 October 2009 06:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
big head
― banned, on the run (s1ocki), Saturday, 31 October 2009 07:16 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
I dunno...she claims to have nothing, yet she also has an art collection (which she has the opportunity to sell off slowly), has the luxury of time to contemplate a new career and the possibility of writing a book...she's in a bad place to be sure, but I'm thinking a lot of people blindsided by this economy would be really envious of her predicament...
― henry s, Saturday, 31 October 2009 12:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
LOL you try getting an ex-gallerist to do a fire sale on the secondary market. It's the last thing they'd do because the artists in question have to hold value and they also get very, very pissed off when their work is sold like this.
― fake plastic butts (suzy), Saturday, 31 October 2009 14:00 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
huh? she's not the worst-suffering person in America therefore she deserves no pity? she was a self-made woman who lost her business/savings/apartment/purpose.
there's nothing in that article that suggests she's a bad person other than that she's dating an ex-finance guy, so I'm not sure why you're so keen on attacking her. so yeah, not all recession stories are poor people becoming poorer, sometimes it's upper-middle class people becoming lower-middle class...
― iatee, Saturday, 31 October 2009 16:15 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
Ilxors rag nyt about it because basically all of the lifestyles pieces there regarding the recession are about upper-middle class or rich people "suffering" somehow. It's not newsy and it's not even interesting reading, unless you want to say, "OMG, this is stupid. Tom, look at this." Brick and mortar trolls.
― bamcquern, Saturday, 31 October 2009 17:25 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
This week's episode of Frontline reminded me of this thread when I was watching it:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/closetohome/view/
― Your heartbeat soun like sasquatch feet (polyphonic), Saturday, 31 October 2009 17:34 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
xp - i dunno, maybe i'm overthinking it, but i feel like it's a weird mix of aspirational fantasy and schadenfreude, that yes, is blunted by repetition.
― sarahel, Saturday, 31 October 2009 18:13 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
I think that's right.
Some of it is also "Oh how the mighty have fallen"
― Bay-L.A. Bar Talk (Hurting 2), Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:18 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
definitely - but the crux of these stories is - they haven't fallen all that far compared with "the rest of us."
― sarahel, Saturday, 31 October 2009 19:28 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
basically all of the lifestyles pieces there regarding the recession are about upper-middle class or rich people "suffering" somehow.
to be fair (not that that's the overarching purpose of this thread), the art-gallery owner was part of an op-ed page package that also included this, this and this. none of which are necessary revelatory or gripping, but they mostly don't involve upper-middle-class or rich people.
― STRATE IN2 DAKRNESS (tipsy mothra), Saturday, 31 October 2009 20:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
His apartment is not “big and lush and grandiose,” he said, “but sometimes you want to have a ridiculous 150 people and a world-class D.J. in your basement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/realestate/08cov.html
― I DIED, Saturday, 7 November 2009 03:07 (2 weeks ago) Permalink
But these days, to afford these sexy-factor places, Mr. Seawood said, bachelors make concessions, either by sacrificing location or by “tag teaming,” as he calls subdividing a space. In previous years, for a $3,500-a-month one-bedroom, “I would have had a few solo guys. Now it’s like, ‘Me and my buddy are going to be here,’ ” he said.
sounds like Mr. Seawood has a rich fantasy life
― dmr, Sunday, 8 November 2009 04:29 (1 week ago) Permalink
a two-bedroom condominium in a new building in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, for which he paid $3,300 a month.
sentences like this make my head spin.
― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 8 November 2009 13:28 (1 week ago) Permalink
the $500,000 apartment purchase "on a decrepit block in Bushwick" is even more o_0
― dmr, Sunday, 8 November 2009 16:53 (1 week ago) Permalink
Uneasy lies the head that strolls a baby
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 November 2009 18:47 (1 week ago) Permalink
Elsewhere:
Part of the appeal, in fact, is in how the clothes relate not to the runways or the estates of Europe, but to America’s heartland in ways that few fashions do. Country and city men alike have rediscovered old-school American brands like Filson, Orvis, L. L. Bean and Duluth Pack.
...wait, L. L. Bean 'rediscovered'?
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 12 November 2009 18:49 (1 week ago) Permalink
Three webpages worth.
― bamcquern, Thursday, 12 November 2009 18:51 (1 week ago) Permalink
the best part about how quickly fashion trends change is that you can write the same article every 9-18 months and still have it be up-to-date
― max, Thursday, 12 November 2009 18:52 (1 week ago) Permalink
i always wonder what it must be like to write the least important articles for the newspaper of record. would i care more about writing the crappy content our would i still feel proud of where i did it?
the only luxurious aspect of my bachelor pad is that i don't have to pick up the laundry off the floor every day.
where do they find these people?
― Shh! It's NOT Me!, Thursday, 12 November 2009 18:58 (1 week ago) Permalink
guys wanna see the front page washington post style story today?
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:00 (1 week ago) Permalink
the writers at the SF Chronicle must have internal competitions for who can write the puffiest puff piece.
― provates: feminine plural of provato (sarahel), Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:02 (1 week ago) Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111127404.html?hpid=topnews
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:03 (1 week ago) Permalink
this was front page of the entire newspaper
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR2009111115683.html
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:04 (1 week ago) Permalink
The culprits could be anywhere -- a crowded train, an SUV on the Beltway
― max, Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:04 (1 week ago) Permalink
Naked things. Naked, noisy things, unfettered by the restraints of human anatomy!!!!
― provates: feminine plural of provato (sarahel), Thursday, 12 November 2009 19:06 (1 week ago) Permalink
Teenager Writes In Indecipherable Street Slang
― throwbookatface (skygreenleopard), Thursday, 12 November 2009 20:32 (1 week ago) Permalink
hippos are pretty fucking important imo.
― ian, Thursday, 12 November 2009 21:01 (1 week ago) Permalink
indecipherable
― nice email (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 12 November 2009 21:05 (1 week ago) Permalink
"where's my pancakes" is not that hard to understand? dude just wants some eats.
― ian, Thursday, 12 November 2009 21:07 (1 week ago) Permalink
Nu-Americana has been a big trend for a couple of years now. Hard to imagine it's not on its way out.
― smashing aspirant (milo z), Thursday, 12 November 2009 21:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
ilx needs more hippos posting
― jazzgasms (Mr. Que), Thursday, 12 November 2009 21:13 (1 week ago) Permalink
I enjoyed it, though, because my lumberjack beard and flannel made me look fashion-forward rather than unkempt.
The Post and the Times both covered this story, about a man accused of robbery whose alibi was a Facebook status update. Both papers though, censored the update itself, which was apparently "indecipherable". Except it wasn't.
The Times story, on The Local blog, opened with this:
Where's my pancakes, read Rodney Bradford's Facebook page, in a message typed on Saturday, Oct. 17, at 11:49 a.m., from a computer in his father's apartment in Harlem.
They admit they paraphrased because the update was written in "indecipherable street slang." The Post, meanwhile, actually ran some of the original update, in its distinctive all-caps:
Prosecutors dropped a robbery charge against Rodney Bradford, 19, after learning his Facebook account status had been updated with the inside joke "WHERE MY IHOP?
A look at the screenshot above however (it's at the bottom, you have to squint) reveals that the real status update was:
ON THE PHONE WITH THIS FAT CHICK… WHERER MY IHOP
I'm no street-slang deciphering expert, but it seems like he was saying he was on the phone to a fat chick and wanted some pancakes.
http://gawker.com/5403874/papers-find-facebook-status-too-risque-to-print
LOL indecipherable street slang
― ice cr?m, Friday, 13 November 2009 15:37 (1 week ago) Permalink
pancakes = crack cocaine in street slang
― harbl, Friday, 13 November 2009 15:39 (1 week ago) Permalink
rly?
― lots of jerks (gbx), Friday, 13 November 2009 16:19 (1 week ago) Permalink
want pancakes (no crack)
― ice cr?m, Friday, 13 November 2009 16:20 (1 week ago) Permalink
not rly, sorry
― harbl, Friday, 13 November 2009 16:21 (1 week ago) Permalink
3. pancakes 109 up, 75 down
A slang term for crack cocaine and flapjacks
This term started after the episode of Family Guy when Meg inadvertently tricks a social worker into thinking Stewie is addicted to crackSome guy: I gotta score some Pancakes manAnother guy: It's a little late for breakfast don't you think?
― ice cr?m, Friday, 13 November 2009 16:25 (1 week ago) Permalink
oh haha ˘\(o_º)/˘
― harbl, Friday, 13 November 2009 16:27 (1 week ago) Permalink
well its slang for crack on one episode of family guy
― ice cr?m, Friday, 13 November 2009 16:31 (1 week ago) Permalink