Alligator protects pot


I’m not sure which part of the story is more awesome, the fact that he uses a gator to guard his stash or why he got the gator in the first place, lol.

“Mr. Teeth’s owner, Assif Mayr, 32, got the alligator in 1996 “to commemorate the death of rapper Tupac Shakur,””

How exactly does a “guard alligator” work? The thing about dogs is that they behave differently with strangers. So, they attack people intruders but not their owners. It doesn’t seem like alligators would behave like this - I thought they just try to eat everyone.

Alligators, as opposed to crocodiles, are actually not all that aggressive unless they’re hungry. Most people, pot thieves included, probably don’t know that and will crap their pants when they see an alligator guarding the stash. A couple of guys with bats are probably not all the afraid of a dog, but put an alligator in front of them and I’m thinking they try to steal a different stash. I’m sure Mr. Mayr knew that as long as Mr. Teeth was well fed he wasn’t much of a threat unless he felt threatened himself.

^armed with that knowledge, would you be able to tell apart a gator from a crocodile easily or do you need a zoologist’s trained eye for this?

Gators have much wider jaws than crocs. It is actually very easy to tell them apart, but probably not when you turn the corner of some apartment you are trying to rob and expect to see a pitbull instead.

Its pretty easily to differentiate the two.

Alligator - wide snout

Croc - narrow snout

I thought Archer had something more to say on the difference between crocs and gaters… but since the shows such gold I’m going to post this anyway. Also, turns out youtube works at work now.


Crocs are generally larger and alltogether more terrifying as well. Google image salt water crocodile.

Plus there’s the narrow / wide snout thing. An alligator will generally leave humans alone and can be shy unless harrassed or hungry. A croc may actively hunt humans. Despite being relatively dumb reptiles, in a few cases crocs have displayed some freaking uncanny and altogether creepy instances of isolated occasional intelligence.

But bottom line, if you encountered a wild crocodile, odds are you would immediately know you were supposed to be terrified. Meet Lolong, Lolong is suspected of eating a farmer who went missing in the town of Bunawan, and also of consuming a 12-year-old girl whose head was discovered two years earlier. He is also the primary suspect in the disappearance of water buffaloes in the area:

That’s fuckin awesome!

There were dope growers in the interior of BC that fed/kept bears around their crops to keep thieves away but this is a notch above that, especially given the tupac reference.

Can someone explain the Tupac reference. Why is it so cool? I am a product of modern rap music so I only follow 50 cent and above

It’s because he was shot. People will makeup elaborate explanations about the his rhymes without giving any clear examples or analysis, but it’s really because he was shot and the influence he had at the time.

It’s one of the reasons Beatle Zealots drive me nuts. The Beatles were okay I guess (I don’t like them), but if you objectively break down their talent and song writing they’re average at best. They were just popular at the time.

^ Maybe I’m missing something. Tupac gets shot so someone buys an alligator?

Talking about Beatles Zealots. I experience this first hand everytime I drive to my cousin’s place near Abbey Road. On an average, It takes me over 7 mins to get past the famous Zebra crossing because of groups of tourists queuing up to pose for the camera in the middle of the road

How would you objectively break down their song writing ability? A lot of their songs are very complex (from a timing and chord structure perspective); definately not characteristic of the period. I’m not suggesting that complexity makes the song better, however it certainly makes the song more difficult to write.

I agree their talent as individual musicians may have been average (ie George was a good guitar player but not exceptional, Ringo wasn’t even the best drummer in the Beatles, etc.).

I will preface my remarks by disclosing that I am a fan of the Beatles, although far from a Zealot.

Music is obviously very subjective and people like what they like, but it is hard to argue against success. It is also hard to argue against the volume of songs the Beatles wrote and recorded (more than 300 recorded with more than 200 written by band members). I believe all of the songs they recorded that went #1 in the US (21 or 22 of them) were written by band members. The Beatles also own 40% of Rolling Stone Magazine’s list of the 10 greatest albums of all time, including the #1 spot.

It’s pretty easy to argue against success from a musicians standpoint. Britney Spears. Vanilla Ice. Spice Girls. Back Street Boys. I could go on. I mean, apparently, Miley Cirus is twice the musician Cobain ever was.

The music is subjective argument is typically used by listeners rather than people who have played / written. If you write, you see certain devices and techniques. In the same way, literature and art become much less subjective isn’t nearly as subjective as people become more familiar with techniques and the creation.

Which songs do you think fit this description?

EDIT: actually, I take it back. Lets just say I disagree strongly, and we’ll leave it at that. This discussion will devolve (I’ve had it repeatedly with my managers in their 50’s & 60’s and don’t want to get dragged into it again. My view boils down to this. The Beatles are one of the best pop acts of all time, and if most of your exposure to music comes through the radio, then they will likely be one of the best bands you’ll come across. But since I think most pop is pretty bad, that’s not really a major concession for me.

There are definitely some good Beatles songs. However, other Beatles songs are popular mainly because the Beatles wrote them. It’s like if I discover a Picasso sketch in my attic - that particular sketch might be a piece of crap and Picasso threw it out because of shame. However, people will still rave over it and come up with obscure reasons why it’s great.

Except those guys didn’t/don’t write their own music. There’s not a lot of disagreement that Lennon/McCartney are among the greatest songwriters of all time.

Rolling Stones readers picked them #2

Retro Junk has McCartney #2 and Lennon #5

Digital Dream Door has them #1

Those were the top three results Google gave me.

Also, the total publishing rights to their catalog is valued at about $1B. At the time of his death, the only reason Michael Jackson wasn’t bankrupt was because he owned half of it. They’ve sold over 2 Billion albums worldwide and continue to sell abut 1.5 million albums a year in the US alone. I don’t see the Backstreet Boys or even Britney doing that 60 years from now. iTunes can set a clock to the sales they generate from them.

Music is all about personal preference so it’s fine to dislike the Beatles’ music, but there’s not much debate they were outstanding musicians that forever changed the landscape of modern music.