http://laaker.disqus.com/enSat, 27 Sep 2008 00:42:58 -0000http://www.laaker.com/micah/blog/2008/in-defense-of-the-animal-cracker#comment-2654417Really great point there, Ricky, and very cogent. Also grt spllng; I can tell you're in a rush to get on to sharing your folksy wisdom on other blogs. Good day to you, as well.mlaakerSat, 27 Sep 2008 00:42:58 -0000http://www.laaker.com/micah/blog/2008/in-defense-of-the-animal-cracker#comment-2315138wow seriously...calling them animal crackers<br>and not animal cookies doesnt rly matter.<br>the name of the "cookie" is animal "cracker"<br>so its not rly that big a deal<br>and if u think so, get a life.<br>good day.rickyFri, 12 Sep 2008 21:38:13 -0000http://www.laaker.com/micah/blog/2008/in-defense-of-the-animal-cracker#comment-685692Good catch. I've updated accordingly. <br><br>Re: level of seriousness, you are correct... I take Big Biscuit's actions very seriously. Who knows what's next? Triscuits might soon be labeled a "hearty wheat cake," and next thing you know, BAM!, cakes as we know them disappear from the planet.mlaakerMon, 16 Jun 2008 15:02:05 -0000http://www.laaker.com/micah/blog/2008/in-defense-of-the-animal-cracker#comment-680810Good, I got you "crackers" and not "cookies". *shwew*nicoleSun, 15 Jun 2008 18:30:26 -0000http://www.laaker.com/micah/blog/2008/in-defense-of-the-animal-cracker#comment-678689You... may be taking this matter a little seriously. Also, your link to Stauffer's crackers goes to Keebler instead.seldoSun, 15 Jun 2008 04:20:21 -0000