Santa Theory

[sammigurl61190]

Why doesn't the Trix rabbit ever get Trix?? I've always wondered what's so bad about him getting Trix? Even once! Grrr....

[kroner]

I've always felt sorry for him. His lifelong dream is to eat this cereal, but everytime he coms close, the kids greedily snatch it from his hands and then laugh and laugh at his anguish. I think eventually he'll just snap and kill them all with a spoon. Then he'll say, "Silly children, you're f***ing dead!"

Doesn't General Mills realize that their descrimination only alienates one of their best costumers? What are they thinking?

Then there is the pressing question: Why does the rabbit lust after this cereal so much if he's never tasted it before?

[sammigurl61190]

Well first of all, I think part of it is he likes the colors. That's part of it. Even though I'm pretty sure rabbits see in black and white. But he probably wants to try it so badly out of curiousity. But it keeps building up combined with being turned down so many times, that he starts lusting after it. I mean, if a human wanted to try dog food and was always turned down and tormented, wouldn't he start obsessing over it?

[Meh]

He could take a lesson from Barney Rubble. He always gets Fred Flinstone's fruity pebbles.

[rklenseth]

I can't believe we're having a conversation about this.

What's next?

[west]

I think there was one commercial where they felt sorry enough for the Rabbit to let him have a bite. But that only made the cravings worse...

[sammigurl61190]

To west: I don't think they've ever given him a bite, but I could be wrong with my 13 years of experience with cereal commercials.

To David: That's true...but they've tried the same things. I mean, they both are General Mills cereals.

To Richard: Yes, I couldn't believe we were having a philisophical conversation about the Trix rabbit...but it actually is very intellectually stimulating, I think.

[Ramsey]

OMG!!! I really didnt mean to bring up the Trix rabbit..hehe...but, now that we're on the subject *clears her throat*

The reason he wants the cereal so damn badly is for the same reason men and women do what they do...for instance....

Let's say you like someone super bad..bad enough to do anything for them....you would keep looking like an idiot while they just went about thier business, but, you would keep trying til you got in thier pants......and then when you finally got in thier pants it was a really shitty time?.........that's gotta suck.

OR.......you know like when someone in school would get a certain type of clothing? Ie: jacket, jeans etc.....then EVERYONE wanted it...just because other ppl said it was cool and they were wearing it......


I think they should have a commercial where he finally gets the damn trix and he looks all disappointed when he tastes it finally and comes out with "this crap sux".

none the less.....even with the fruity pebbles....at least barney gets to have a few bites before fred gets it. hehe.

[Ash]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but i picked up, about cereal then i heard about some 'Trix' and a rabbit, and then barney rubble..

[thingnumber2]

Maybe the Trix rabbit, used to be human, but was cursed by the Trix witch, and now must get the Trix from her evil minions (the kids) in order to get turned back.....

[kroner]

I have no idea what you are talking about, but i picked up, about cereal then i heard about some 'Trix' and a rabbit, and then barney rubble..

hmmm... does general mills make cereal in the uk? or post?
anyway, trix is a terrible "fruit flavored" breakfast cereal, and by that they mean highly sweatened and slightly odd tasting. the ads consist of a cartoon rabbit who thinks up rediculous schemes, usually involving a poor disguise, to get the cereal from a bunch of kids. he is foiled time and time again by his own exagerated lust for the cereal. afterwords the kids say, "silly rabbit, trix are for kids!" and laugh at him without a hint of remorse.
fruity pebbles is a similar cereal, but made by post. in its ads, barny rubble thinks up equally rediculous schemes to steal fred flintstones cereal. barny, unlike his rodent counterpart, is always successful. i hope that clears up any confusion.

[David]

LOL I can't believe you guys were in such an argument over Turkey in Europe v. Asia... Well I can actually... real scholars of the region find the question a hard one to answer. The whole argument is sort of specious. The social construct of the concept of "Europe" (not in name because there is the Europa Greco-Roman story... but regionally speaking irrespective of name) was probably at first just designated as the Great Beyond by proto-Greeks, and Barbarian land by the first Levantine Civilizations. Then with the advancement of Greece Europe in the western sense of the world was probably a sort of mystery, aside from the bottom of the boot of Italy, and some other southern European colonies they established, but probably still designated as wild barbarian country. Then the Romans came and saw a majority of Europe as "Barbarian land" until they conquered a sufficient amount of it.... whereas the Northern Europeans saw them as wierd alien abductor people, until their was enough contact... when Rome fell, the region took on a negative connotation in terms of the Muslim civilization designating it as barbarian land... so they wanted to seperate themselves.... With the rise of Imperialist Europe its "regional integrity" was enforced culturally to designate those that were the Imperial v. their colonial meals... and the German states... So we see this a fully social construct, Europe, either to be designated as not wanting to be a part of it (it being barbarian land) or Europe as the Superior.... all silly Empire distinctions that have little to do with why in the abstract a place might be designated seperate like North America v. South America, or Antartica v. Australia. Yes, it truly is one contintent: Eurasia. Now India wants to be part of the "subcontinent" seperating themselves from the Heathen Middle East and Communist China... all social constructs, regardless of Mountain Ranges... We don't call the continental divide between the west coast and the midwest in America a seperator in terms of continent designation. Or the Northeastern American states as a seperate continent for their mountain range opening up into the "Wild steppes and rolling hills" of the Southern states... silly.

You guys are arguing about Middle East, what about the Near east? You see these are all Eurocentric terms, in a society that is now trying to develop some sense of universalism. But lets say we keep these terms... Ok where is Lebanon? It could be said to be in the Near East or the Middle East. Ok... Historically speaking, barring some of the religious differences, where would a tradional Greek feel more at home? France and Britain, or Lebanon and Syria? If one truly knows anything about the cuisine and customs of Greece, Lebanon and Syria would be the choice...
What about "France d' Outreamer" that developed during the crusades? The French there became more Middle Eastern in Cultural habits than western. See, the thing is, these regional names are just informal designations used by scholars and laymen, as ways to speak about more important issues, they aren't to important in and of themselves, only to describe cultural dynamics and happenings... There isn't some region god that comes down from above and dictates where one begins and the other ends like in Cantr, these are just placeholders for scholarly and cultural discussion which are not set in stone.

REAL scholars of the region are not in total agreement as to where one begins and the other ends, and many acknowledge different interpretations as equally valid. It's like if you had to renowned mathmations fighting over whether in some generic equation over a variable being designated as x or y, both are equally valid, and as long as there is an agreement as to the number of variables it is easily translatable, when the statements before the proof are laid out. Let X be eggs, and Y be chickens. Let Y be eggs, and X be chickens. Both are fine. Similarly, when a scholar writes a book, generally they have geographic maps with labels to tell you exactly what they are talking about. Any specialist, or layman can tell the difference, one is not better than the other.

[rklenseth]

I thought that we resolved the Turkey argument being in Asia or Europe a while ago with the anology that Turkey is in both geographically and culturally.

[David]

Some scholars would say it is in both, some would say it is Europe, some would say it is in Asia, and some would say Europe as a continent doesn't exist. Many scholars just view such nomenclature as abstract placeholders for discussion of the interaction of people, none more relevant than the other.

Some of those views would contradict that positivist ascertian.

I am just presenting many streams of thought on the dozen or so books I have read on the middle east, by people who have been studying it for decades, and people from the region I have talked to personally, I don't claim to be one of those scholars

[Meh]

The improtant thing to remember no matter where Turkey is.

1) Great place to visit
2) Muslims can do democracy
3) They do not have a hidden 41% christian population