the t-rex macarena

anotherdayforchaosfay:

charlieleelee:

froody:

a-daks:

a-daks:

froody:

When I was a kid, my dad hated when I hung up anything on my walls. My art, band posters, movie posters, anything. Not with taxks, not with tape (it “ripped the paint off”) not with anything. At one point in 5th or 6th grade he came in my room and found me hanging up a Diary of a Wimpy Kid poster with tacos and he was like “EVERY HOLE YOU PUT IN THE WALL TAKES $10 OFF THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE.” so when I was mad at him, I’d insert tacks into the wall in places he couldn’t easily see just out of spite. Whoever owns the house now is probably wondering about it.

bro didn’t even know you could just fill holes with toothpaste 💀

I know this is about an owned house (that you should be touching up and repainting the walls of before reselling anyway???) but for ppl who are paranoid about putting holes in rental walls: don’t be.
Put up posters. Shelving if you need it. Have hanging plants. Invest in a studfinder. Spackle kits are cheap and everywhere now, or you can use white toothpaste, glue, or even soft air-dry clay to fill holes.
Scuffs and rub marks are considered normal wear and tear and landlords can’t charge you for them. Most places will have you fill holes but will have to repaint between tenants anyway, so even if the spackle doesn’t match the walls, it’s not a big deal. Check your state laws about what is considered normal wear and tear. Most states have laws covering everything from paint to flooring. For instance, in my state, carpet that is 3+ years old is considered past its normal life cycle and therefore any damage to it cannot be charged for because the landlord/management is expected to put in new carpeting.

Before any move-out, check local laws considering paint, flooring, light fixtures, appliances, etc. Landlords and management companies make BANK on people not knowing that they’re paying for paint rubs that they’re painting over anyway and carpet that has been paid for 6 times over.

Reminder: they’re never ever ever ever going to give you your security deposit back no matter what you do. have fun with life.

Actually, if your landlord isn’t giving your security deposit back without good reason (in new york, they gave to give you a itemized receipt listing why they deducted from it) bring them to small claims court. Don’t let the bloodsuckers get away with your money.

Our last landlord tried keeping all the deposit and charging is for more. When we moved in, I took a whole lotta pictures. I took pics when we moved out and did my research regarding local laws and looked at how frequently tenants win in small claims court here. Over 80% of cases are in favor of tenants.

So I wrote a very professional letter to the landlord and property management company. I provided this information and sent a CD with copies of before and after pics of the place with notes, like the place hadn’t been cleaned before we moved in, there was a hole from the second bathroom to the outside, large enough to fit a fat raccoon, husky fur everywhere, nails, hooks, and tacks in the walls, footprints on the ceiling, human hair on the walls and ceilings of the main bathroom.

I informed them they had 60 days to return our deposit or we will take them to small claims court. Local laws state that if a tenant wins, we receive 3x the deposit, and the landlord pays all court costs and fees. 58 days after sending the letter, we received our deposit with an apology for “confusion.”

These people are dependent on ignorance. Be aware, be knowledgeable, and make them afraid.

(via sazandorable)

nightmaskart:

‘What once was’ Page 1

(via kissingagrumpygiant)

galahadwilder:

Some nerds on the internet: you can’t make your OC too awesome because then it’s a Mary Sue and nobody will like them

Guillermo Del Toro, a man with balls: his name is STACKER PENTECOST and he leads a LEGION OF GIANT ROBOTS that are piloted by HIS FAMILY and he funds by SELLING MONSTER PARTS ON THE BLACK MARKET and he’s played by IDRIS ELBA

(via spacemancharisma)

madtomedgar:

parotcardsroxy:

parotcardsroxy:

birds have truly mastered feathers like what do you Mean they can be shiny. how fucking cool is that

glossy ibis

european starling

greater blue eared starling

nicobar pigeon

purple martin

glowing puffleg

violet backed starling

+ special shoutout to rob garren and his purple poultry project. he is breeding his chickens to be very shiny and very purple

@leatherbookmark

(via zeldahime)

potato-gay:

(via transmechanicus)

knittingcelebs:

Rhymes With Orange by Hillary B. Price.

(via carliscrazy)

ramenreptiles:

Hands too smol to hold

(via carliscrazy)

captainlordauditor:

thedupshadove:

paulgadzikowski:

thedupshadove:

Thinking once again about how different people approach the idea of which side of the Superman/Clark Kent divide is “real”. My two cents?

Personally, I don’t like it being as simple as “Superman is the tool Clark Kent uses to do good” or “Clark Kent is the mask Superman wears to blend in with the rest of society.” It might be easier to explain if we think in terms of there being three identities–Clark, Superman, and Kal-El. Kal-El is the identity that can be called “real” with the fewest caveats. It’s who he is around his parents, Lois after their relationship starts to be deeper than “Winking at her after saving her from a burning building”, Kara, Jimmy, and probably the other founding members of the Justice League (Rule of thumb: anyone who has been let in on the secret identity probably knows Kal-El). Kal-El is the most rounded identity, able to be sweet and earnest and a little awkward without having to be as meek and timid as Clark Kent has to be; able to be brave and sure and capable without having to be as flawless and (for lack of a better word) corny as Superman has to be. Kal-El, I think, is where the playfulness and sense of humor live, along with the fundamental drive to do good and the ability (not merely the desire but the ability) to form close relationships.

As for Clark and Superman, they are both, in their way, lies–or at any rate constructs–and yet because they are equally false, they are also equally true. Superman is Kal-El’s ideals, his willingness to step up and accept the “Great Power=Great Responsibility” principle, and his efforts toward staying connected to and honoring whatever he can salvage of his origin and heritage (I could go off on a whole ‘nother ramble about that) as much as he can. Clark Kent is Kal-El’s  humility, his belief in the importance and worthiness of those who don’t  have “Great Power”, and his efforts toward fitting into and making a home this world that took him in and loved him when his ancestral world could not. 

What makes this three-way identity tricky to spot is that he so rarely uses the name “Kal-El” even when he is very much in “Kal-El” mode. His parents, the people who can most unquestionably be said to know Kal-El, call him Clark, while Batman, the person with whom he is most likely to act as Kal-El when presenting as Superman, will still call him Superman as long as they’re in costume (and then Clark when they’re out, assuming we’re at a point where he and Bruce have swapped identity information).

This the way Christopher Reeve played the character, and he made each of them easy to spot.

#as an aside#people ask the same question about bruce wayne and batman#and i think the answer there is much the same

@pedanther *nodnodnod*. If we want three names for that one, we could think of The Bat-Man, stoically-terrifying creature of ambiguous humanity who strikes terror into all who nurse evil in their hears (and frankly a lot of people who don’t), Brucie Wayne, cheerfully-idiotic playboy who offsets his phenomenal privilege-blindness by handing out $500 tips and fully-funded hospital wings like it’s nothing, and a third aspect (who one would be equally justified in calling Bruce Wayne or Batman), a deeply compassionate yet emotionally-stunted loner with dozens of loved ones who buries his grief and survivor’s guilt in a wickedly deadpan sense of humor and a “hopeless” crusade that has meant the difference between life and death for hundreds of people.

I think Brucie Wayne is a little bit more of a fiction than Clark Kent is, but he’s a fiction that Bruce can wear like a second skin, and might very well enjoy doing so. Being rich is fun, after all, and sure you can’t embrace it uncomplicatedly when there’s justice (in all its forms) to pursue, but does that make champagne less sweet, satin less comfortable, or socialites less enchanting? Probably not all the time.

Meanwhile, a lot of the impression that The Bat-Man generates is carefully constructed to generate maximum fear, but all the snarling and rage still has to come from somewhere.

I maintain that Brucie Wayne is autistic masking, Batman is a work uniform, and the real person is Dad.

(Or perhaps Dat, Abi, Baba, B, or…)

(via carliscrazy)

wolfradsenpai:

(via seainthestars)