Cinco de Mayo Fun!

Oh good times in Bothell and Redmond! As if Cinco de Mayo wasn’t enough reason for having a party, Laurel was also in town! The weekend was lots of fun: I was able to hang out with people I haven’t seen in a long time, got to eat lots of tasty food, and play in the park! Who could ask for more?

For more Cinco de Mayo fun, check out my Flickr photo set! The various group shots are pretty good: #1 - #2 - #3 - #4 - #5 - #6 - #7. Oh, and of course, KC’s butt and Meghan being sultry.

Categories: Daily Life, Photoblog
  1. May 6th, 2007 at 23:26 | #1

    OK so now I’m jealous! Good food, friends and going to a park?? How can life get any better! Enjoy my fellow My Lotter!

  2. May 7th, 2007 at 18:53 | #2

    I agree! :)

  3. Becky
    May 9th, 2007 at 15:42 | #3

    FUN! Yay for fun people. I’m jealous too… but that’s because I haven’t seen Meghan, Chad, and Leann in a LONG time.

    Yay for moving back to Seattle! :)

  4. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 11:55 | #4

    Why would Sinkhole de Mayo be a reason for an American to have a party? Sinkhole de Mayo is a Mexican holiday celebrating a military victory. Do Mexicans in Mexico celebrate our Memorial or Independance day? No, so why do you celebrate a Mexican holiday? It’s just an excuse, not a reason to drink irresponsibly, and to be fooled into celebrate something you have no real reason to. You think you are so cool and so smart, but you are just another brainwashed fool.

  5. June 6th, 2007 at 12:15 | #5

    Wow, the wit from one of our favorite Truthers is quite astounding. Ask me how much we drank. I am so brainwashed that I actually believe spending time with my friends is fun! What am I thinking??

  6. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 12:57 | #6

    Whoopie! Cinco de Mayo, hurrah! Hey Matt, how are things over there in Tel Aviv?

  7. June 6th, 2007 at 12:59 | #7

    What’s it like living in your own reality?

  8. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 12:59 | #8

    Well Matt, you got me there. I am a truther. What does that make you? A liar?

  9. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 13:02 | #9

    Living in my own reality is great, as opposed to living in yours.

  10. June 6th, 2007 at 13:05 | #10

    Isn’t it frustrating when your reality doesn’t match up with actual reality?

  11. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 13:19 | #11

    You are so brilliant! Yes, I will let you dictate to me what actual reality is. Like the official, government approved, politically correct, kosher version of what happened on 9/11. Give me your best shot on how building 7 fell. If you need to, go refer to your popular mechanics magazine, or the official 9/11 commision report. Oops, I forgot. That report doesn’t even so much as mention that a third, 47 story WTC building fell that day, the same exact way David and Nelson fell, at free fall speed into it’s own footprint. The small fires in that building didn’t do that, now did they Matt? Oh, I know it’s hard to admit the truth. I mean, it’s embarrasing to tell the truth, isn’t it? Telling the truth is difficult, especially when you have to admit you’ve been fooled, or that you are a shill.

  12. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 13:22 | #12

    Am I typing fast enough for you?

  13. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 13:29 | #13

    You know something Matt? You tell on yourself. You pretend to be reasoned in YOUR version of reality, but you ignore so many irrefutable facts about what happened on 9/11 that all you can resort to is smearing, name calling and ridiculing. How very Jewish of you.

  14. June 6th, 2007 at 13:33 | #14

    Wow, you can’t let things go can you? You just need to hold on so tightly don’t you?

    The pressure from the fall of WTC 1 and 2 was quite extreme, enough to weaken internal structures of WTC7 (just like placing explosives would do). Professionally demolished buildings fall with free fall acceleration (NOT speed), professionally demolished buildings use explosives to take out and weaken internal support structures that cause it to fall. The fires and damage caused by WTC 1 and 2 functioned in exactly the same way. Why would you expect it to fall any differently?

  15. June 6th, 2007 at 13:34 | #15

    Yes, I am all about name calling.

  16. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 14:00 | #16

    Matt, I know it’s hard for you, but tell the truth; aren’t you a truther too? Please say yes, or I will be left with no other choice but to call you a LIAR. The Orwellian doublespeak coming from you is remarkable! You call people truthers, but really are calling them liars. Just why would they be lying? What would their purpose or motive be? Are they all Arabs? Obviously not. Are they working for the Al Queda? No there too. Not hugged enough as a child? Come on! Perhaps at worst they are misguided and have not examined all the facts, or just not very bright. I would think the same for yourself, except that you resort to smear tacticts. That is why I can say you tell on yourself. You are not misguided, and you DO know the true facts. You obviously are very intelligent, and for that reason, it is just too obvious that you are a shill and have an agenda, and a motive. In fact, all of the dozens or hundreds of shill sites, like Screw Loose Change resort to the same tired, ineffective smear routine. They tell on themselves, just like you do. It leads to a single conclusion: A feeble attempt at Damage control. And why? Because the real perpetraters of the WTC attack are losing the information war. Guess what? Sorry to pop your balloon.

  17. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 14:06 | #17

    Just like explosives would do? Exactly! Bingo Bubba; explosives. Thermite and thermate. That’s what Professor Jones says. But he’s a whacko, idiot, moron, and not hugged enough as a child, right? All the people you listen to are intelligent, principled, reasoned, and agree with YOUR reality, right?

  18. June 6th, 2007 at 14:15 | #18

    Heh. You seem to not understand irony. Maybe your are being facetious, I cannot really tell, if you are being serious, let me spell out what the irony is: those that believe in the conspiracy theories claim that they know the truth of the situation. They believe it, or want to believe it so badly that it has become the absolute Truth. Now here is the ironic part: while they hold that belief, it is not the truth at all. This is while people like me use “Truther” as a proper noun, it is an ironic usage because it has become so strange and bizarre we might as well mock the lack of understanding.

    And let me get this straight: I am using smear tactics? So in your reality, using science is a smear tactic whereas calling me a “shill” and that I have an “agenda” and a “motive” is you being objective and rational? Interesting.

    Just like explosives would do? Exactly! Bingo Bubba; explosives.

    Wow, did you actually miss the point or are you intentionally ignoring it? The point is this: the damage caused by WTC1 and 2 on WTC7 functioned EXACTLY like a professional demolition: the damage weakened and removed support structures, just like explosives do in a demolition. Since that functioned in the same way, why would it look any different?

    Motive for the Truthers? They cannot accept the fact that a few militant terrorists could actually do the damage they did. They cannot accept the fact that we did not fathom such an attack could occur. They want to believe so badly that our government is out to get us that the reality of the situation can be ignored.

  19. Mike Adkison
    June 6th, 2007 at 18:07 | #19

    “The pressure from the fall of WTC 1 and 2 was quite extreme, enough to weaken internal structures of WTC7.” This reasoning is flawed. Take a look at this map of the WTC. Notice that building 7 has a barrier between itself and buildings 1 and 2, that barrier being buildings 5 and 6. By your reasoning of “extreme pressure” created by the fall of buildings 1 and 2, buildings 3, 4,6, and 5 should have incurred more damage. They didn’t burn, and of course, they didn’t fall. How do you explain that? The small fires in building 7, which were intentionally set, could not possibly have caused the failure of building 7. There have been several building fires, before and after the WTC fires which were raging infernos and burned for days. For example, the Madrid fire which were reduced to steel skeletons, and they didn’t fall. How can you explain that? In case you haven’t seen this, take a look at just how building 7 fell. Those small fires didn’t do this. Go ahead and try to refute this.

  20. June 7th, 2007 at 01:23 | #20

    Just because you think it is flawed, doesn’t mean it actually is. WTC 5 and 6 are significantly smaller than WTC 7 (and obviously smaller than 1 and 2). Your just don’t want to listen to the science.

    Please explain to me how WTC7 was professionally demolished. Why was there not det cord seen or found (before or after), why wasn’t the building prepped for demolition like others buildings would HAVE to be to be professionally demolished. Is your conspiracy so large that 1) all the people involved with prepping the building (that no one saw) have kept silenced for all these years and 2) and the people that worked in WTC7 didn’t notice anything? Nothing seemed out of the ordinary to them? Again, I’ll go with the science and the witnesses.

  21. Mike Adkison
    June 7th, 2007 at 11:02 | #21

    That building fell at free fall speed and I’ve sent you a link to a video of it, and you still can say that those small fires brought the building down? You are a phony. I will waste no more of my time with you.

  22. June 7th, 2007 at 11:20 | #22

    Once again: 1) Free fall ACCELERATION. 2) It wasn’t just small fires. 3) I have explained quite enough. 4) Regardless of what I, or science, or eye witness accounts say, you will never listen because you simply don’t want to.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

%d bloggers like this: