Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Who's your favorite Peanuts character?
Snoopy 12%
Woodstock 37%
The cat next door 12%
Charlie Brown 0%
Lucy 0%
Linus 25%
Schroeder 0%
Sally 0%
Peppermint Patty 0%
Pig Pen 12%

Votes: 8

 Divination al? Peanuts

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 04, 2001
I might just be on to something here...

More diaries by chloedancer
State of mind
It delights yet dishevels me...
Your possible pasts
A troll worthy of muse status, believe it or not...
Hating the idiocy that is my job today...
Paradigm Shift
State of Mind Redux
Relational Dissonance
The universe is speaking to me...
Hard Truths
Got my escape route planned...
Impending Career Change
El Dia de Los Muertos
I am so completely enamored
Home for the holidays? No! Send my body home!
Harrison's Last Laugh
Dare ya, osm! Here's your chance to prove your devotion!
My little brother, Jem
A Beautiful Mind is a Terrible Thing to Waste
Reality Check
Why I enjoy being a girl
Me: Woodstock is the smallest of the Peanuts characters but has a big presence for a little bird. He's a little inept, his flying and logic are erratic, but he can type and take shorthand and usually is game for anything Snoopy wants to do. Although he's the butt of many of Snoopy's practical jokes, he's the beagle's closest friend and confidant -- and has made attempts at retaliation. Because of his size and the company he keeps, Woodstock is an accident waiting to happen. Being a bird and tiny, he gets a little insecure around Thanksgiving and big moving objects. He's the only baseball player who gets an automatic walk if the ball rolls over him. Woodstock talks birdspeak only, and finds an alphabet made up entirely of exclamation points quite adequate to express such emotions as ecstasy, distress, frustration and a real temper.

Shoeboy: Snoopy is an extroverted beagle with a Walter Mitty complex. He is a virtuoso at every endeavor -- at least in his daydreams atop his doghouse. He regards his master, Charlie Brown, as "that round-headed kid" who brings him his supper dish. He is fearless though prudently cautious about "the cat next door." He never speaks -- that would be one human trait too many -- but he manages to convey everything necessary in facial expressions and thought balloons. A one-man show with superior intelligence and vivid imagination, he has created such multiple personalities as: Joe Cool, World War I Flying Ace, Literary Ace, Flashbeagle, Vulture, Foreign Legionnaire, etc.

Despite the overt gender discrepancy re: Woodstock, I find the degree of accuracy to be more than a little disturbing. Or maybe I'm just "the cat next door"... Whatcha think?


My God... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 04:58:25 AM PST
Please never do that again. If you feel like you want an intellectual wanking, please visit "that other site". The inane mental masturbation exercises are stupid and boring.

Peace and much love...

I have a new editorial policy (none / 0) (#2)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 08:59:46 AM PST
Any posts that criticize you will be deleted.
Are you adequate?

Oh, that's rich! (none / 0) (#5)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:16:56 AM PST
And I need your protection, why? Being protected by you isn't necessary... Being protected from you could be of value, however...

Who says I'm protecting you? (none / 0) (#6)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:25:03 AM PST
Perhaps I'm protecting myself as it pains me to see your matchless perfection criticized.
Are you adequate?

"Matchless Perfection"? (none / 0) (#8)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:49:14 AM PST
Haven't you had enough caffeine yet today? You're clearly delusional. Knowing you, I'd say that matchless perfection is a phrase you'd only use to describe your VW bus or Perdida. Whatever you're selling, ma cher, I'm not buying it.

Thanks for the morning chuckle, nonetheless.

Perdida has big feet (none / 0) (#12)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 11:34:53 AM PST
No text
Are you adequate?

That's what does it for you? (none / 0) (#15)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:19:29 PM PST
So my employing my feminine wiles with a courtesan's skill and the intellectual sparring mean nothing to you? All that matters is that I'm small-footed? Pity. Guess that lets me off the hook as far as making any effort is concerned. C'est la vie.

I seem to have made a mistake (none / 0) (#17)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:36:00 PM PST
Here I was thinking that you acted so entrancing because you were. Now that you've revealed it as some sort of machiavellian plot, I'm profoundly disgusted.

In retaliation, I'll stop trying radiating boyish charm and innocence now.
Are you adequate?

Laughing helplessly... (none / 0) (#23)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:05:15 PM PST
Uncle! You win! (Altho' I have to say that imagining you without your boyish charm and na´vety is what has me doubled over at the moment... let alone the fact that you were never innocent, ma cher...)

Back to work for me; have to do something to justify the next paycheck, after all. But it has been fun and I'm grateful.

Ahem... (none / 0) (#3)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 09:25:37 AM PST
Peanuts is completely intertwined with baseball. People who enjoy the game also enjoy Peanuts. They find the positions of the various characters to be rich with meaning. Charlie is the pitcher, that means that...(sorry, I usually fall asleep at this point)... similarly, Linus' position at second base illustrates his obsession with full, ripe breasts; this is also why he sucks his thumb. (I usually wake up at this point)

Anyway, I don't like baseball. I like basketball. Peanuts isn't associated with basketball at all. The cartoon franchise associated with basketball is Warner Brothers. I'm not snoopy. I'm a Warner Brothers character. Also, you're more Lucy than Woodstock.
Are you adequate?

Lucy? How so? (none / 0) (#4)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:14:23 AM PST
I'm pathologically cheerful and actively seek to declaw my manipulative tendencies on almost every occasion where they might actually prove to be useful. And you also better consider the implications of insinuating that my smiles aren't genuine if you know what's good for you, m'friend!

The "cat next door" it is, then. *Sigh*

Never thought of Lucy as "Manipulative" (none / 0) (#7)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:32:30 AM PST
Let me assign you another cartoon character: Henery Hawk. Small, feisty, direct, honest and unstoppable.
Are you adequate?

See Sontra's Diary (none / 0) (#9)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 10:51:47 AM PST
Now you'll know why I hissed at that suggestion.

bah (none / 0) (#10)
by westgeof on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 11:04:51 AM PST
I love Peanuts, especially honey-roasted, mmmmmmmmm....

I also like the comic strip, been reading it since I was a kid. It's a classic, almost in the same league as Calvin and Hobbes, my personal favorite.

However, I hate baseball. It's the most boring "sport" that I've even had the misfortune to watch. I don't care for professional sports of any kind (the level of greed involved in them just sickens me), but at least I can enjoy watching, or especially playing, some sports. If I was interested in spending countless hours watching a bunch of guys scratch themselves and spit, and ocasionally chase a ball, I'd buy a few dogs.

As a child I wanted to know everything. Now I miss my ignorance.

Baseball & boxing (none / 0) (#13)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:11:31 PM PST
I love baseball. You go to a game and the rest of the world ceases to exist. I prefer the semi-pro games to the major league stuff, however; the players are still green enough to make spectacular mistakes that add some pizzazz to the game. Outdoor games & sitting on the bleachers are the best; stadiums and astroturf blow chunks. I had the privilege of watching Randy Johnson pitch for years; his lack of follow-through qualifies as a Zen koan in my book. Glad you both hate it; I get to claim your share!

Boxing is also worthy of my attention, albeit not as a mere spectator. It's primal and immediate; it's teaching me to trust my instincts.

Favorite Fight (none / 0) (#21)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:56:15 PM PST
Michael Moorer vs. George Foreman for the IBF title - Nov. 5, 1994.

Not the best fight I've seen, not even the best heavyweight fight I've seen, but it certainly had the clearest moral: youth and vigor (not to mention hubris) are no match for age and treachery.

I knew Foreman was going to win when I saw him start fighting dirty.
Are you adequate?

Don't think I didn't catch this... (none / 0) (#24)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:11:21 PM PST
I'm just not going to dignify it with a more specific response. Mark my words, though -- you'll pay handsomely when you least expect it.

Hate to burst your bubble (none / 0) (#25)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:18:41 PM PST
But not everything is about you, only most things.
Are you adequate?

I misread that... (none / 0) (#29)
by egg troll on Sun Oct 7th, 2001 at 10:22:50 PM PST
I thought you posted "Michael Moore vs George Foreman". I'd pay a lot of money to see that fightcard: The Korporate Krusher versus the Grillin' Gorilla!

Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

I want to (get paid to) profile w/Onion characters (none / 0) (#14)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:12:43 PM PST
For example, here's me: In the First House Ascendent I have this guy, in conjunction with one of these and the moon influenced by this character. There are other elements in my chart as well, but those are the major ones.

You seem to me be somewhere around here or perhaps something like this, although I'd need more information to sell you a full chart.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

You're a little off-base, I'm afraid. (none / 0) (#16)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:30:44 PM PST
This is closer to the truth (but my eyes are cornflower and the hair's a bit darker auburn because I live indoors these days): Schiele's Sitting Woman. Not a princess (more of a tomboy) and most certainly authentic.

Like the idea of charts based on Onion architypes, however -- it's original and allows for infinite variation!

uh hum (none / 0) (#18)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:39:13 PM PST
Like the idea of charts based on Onion architypes, however -- it's original...

This must be some exciting new definition of the term original that I wasn't previously aware of. I'll agree that you're no fairy princess though - that's my role.
Are you adequate?

You certainly are (none / 0) (#20)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:54:21 PM PST
high-maintenance enough to qualify. At least we agree about something.

In response to elenchos: Mea culpa. I'll review the content in order to gain a more fully-developed understanding and let you know if it fits.

You have to interpret them properly. (none / 0) (#19)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:42:39 PM PST
You're just looking at the photo and the main character of the article. The fairy princess story was about the demise of the fair princess. Here is what made me think of the chloedancer character -- one of those responsible for depleting the ranks of fairy princessess. And then the unconfirmed Canadian girlfriend -- obviously your existence is not fully proven at this point.

For just how people look, we should stick with absract expressionist paintings.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

If she doesn't exist (none / 0) (#22)
by Peter Johnson on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 12:59:09 PM PST
Then who is behind the account?

bc, cp, dmg, jsm?

Just curious.
Are you adequate?

You mean they're not all the same guy? (none / 0) (#28)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 03:03:39 PM PST
Hell, I don't know. No one tells me anything anyway.

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill

Point of curiosity (none / 0) (#26)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 01:33:11 PM PST
So is it that you think that my actual existence isn't fully proven at this point, or that you think I'm some editor's "alter ego" or some other nonsense?

I think the article itself is clear enough. (none / 0) (#27)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 02:51:08 PM PST
No one has a reason to say she doesn't exist. It is just that her existence remains unproven. That's all. To say your existence is unproven is a reasonable statement of fact. It doesn't obligate anyone to have to produce some alternative hypothesis. No assertion is being made; rather a healthy level of skepticism is being maintained, that's all.

Now, if you think I have been presented with proof that you exist, and have failed to acknowledge it, then by all means, call my attention to it. And anyway, remember that I was just giving a prelimiary analysis based on incomplete information. It isn't the full Psychic Friends Network Profile or anything. There can be errors in such quick and dirty assessment.

I'm not even mentioning that I have never even once seen you and perdida together in the same place at the same time, nor do I have any idea what either of you look like. That doesn't mean I think you are the same person. It just means that the idea hasn't been disproven, nothing more.

You could be, in fact most likely be, your own alter ego. Ever thought of that? And not just on this web log or just on the Internet. You could be acting out this alter ego of yourslef every day, to everyone, even your most intimate friends and family. Is there any evidence at all to convince anyone that you are not in fact some other completly different person than who you appear to be every day?

I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to