Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "I poke badgers with spoons!"

Doors Valentine's Day (doorscupid) wrote in doors,
@ 2014-01-31 15:46:00

Entry tags:

iron man, plot: cupid

locked to tony stark.
Bad dreams?

(Post a new comment)

	Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-02 09:27 am UTC (link)
	I would claim something more along the lines of 'active REM.' (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-03 03:50 am UTC (link)
	Dreamcatchers have a specific purpose. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-03 04:24 am UTC (link)
	There's two. There's one about a cave and one about a lab. I could do without both. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-03 04:49 am UTC (link)
	I could get you a dreamcatcher, but I don't think that would make them stop. [...] How long? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-03 05:08 am UTC (link)
	Probably not. It was a whim. Hilarious. The cave is old. Few years. The lab is new. Get this, at one point there was a lab in the cave. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-03 05:22 am UTC (link)
	You meant it as a joke? But not the same one. [...] I don't know how to make dreams stop. I'm sorry. Is there something else you want? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-03 05:26 am UTC (link)
	There's no scientific basis in the effectiveness of dreamcatchers. So yes, a joke. Naw, Cupid, I'm good. I'm the luckiest man in the world. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-03 05:29 am UTC (link)
	I think it could be argued that scientific basis isn't always required for something to be effective. You're using sarcasm. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-03 05:58 am UTC (link)
	Not very well argued. A little bit. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-03 04:16 pm UTC (link)
	You've never experienced anything that defies science? Then there must be something else you do want. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-03 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	Defies known science. It must means science hasn't caught up to whatever the phenomenon might be. No, not really. Some answers. Some better science. Not really anything that comes in a box. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-04 05:58 pm UTC (link)
	Or it simply can't be explained. Answers to what? Better science depends on what you have now. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-06 06:18 am UTC (link)
	Everything has an explanation. Just because you can't come up with it yet doesn't mean anything. Answers? I need more information on how spiny projection neurons move to inhibit other neurons in basal ganglia outputs. Got anything for me? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-06 06:23 am UTC (link)
	Then the unexplainable is merely that which can be explained, but has not yet been. Unfortunately, no. Not presently. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine atomic26 2014-02-06 06:25 am UTC (link)
	Great. Wonderful. Thanks for nothing. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go change medical science as we know it. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	Re: Tony S./Valentine doorscupid 2014-02-06 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	Of course. (Reply to this) (Parent)