May 27, 2006
Goldstein
. . .
wants to know if we're having trouble with his site. I am. There are too many big words used over there.
He actually is the only human being on the planet against whom I've lodged this complaint, though I believe I brought a similar charge against Professor Purkinje when I suggested that the chemical compounds he uses in his lab have way too many syllables in their names.
If I ran the circus . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:25 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Are you familiar with the short-lived TV series "Wonderfalls?" I've been viewing my own personal marathon this weekend and I can't help thinking of you. Although I know very little about you except what I read. And no. I don't see you talking to inanimate objects, like Jaye does. I do, however, see you slipping medication in to all the little holes on your CPU. By the way, now is a good time to purchase all the seen and unseen episodes at Amazon. The complete set for less than $20!
Oh, your posting? I think some people use big words as weapons. I thought you are supposed to your audience. Technical jargon is another matter entirely: It saves a thousand words. Thanks for using the "f-word" a whole lot! You do understand us!
Posted by: Darrell at May 28, 2006 09:19 PM (j4Zun)
2
Somehow "tailor your writing to" was omitted from my comment..."I thought you were supposed to tailor your writing to your audience.". I could have sworn it was there yesterday!
And I see "ego boosting" as just another use of words as a weapon. Inflating one's own ego is always done at the expense of someone else's. Words are like paint to an artist. I never like to say the same thing the exact same way.
Posted by: Darrell at May 29, 2006 02:50 AM (xf2Z4)
3
Notice how prescient the system made me look! I anticipated k's comment! Christmas in May!
Posted by: Darrell at May 29, 2006 02:54 AM (xf2Z4)
4
Perfectly valid thoughts, though I assume everyone knows I was joking . . .?
Goldstein has an academic background, and has studied communication in a very clinical way. He's entitled to use the metalanguage appropriate to his discipline.
I disagree that when one builds up one's own ego, one is necessarily tearing another person's down. There are people out there whose egos do need to be built up to the correct level.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 29, 2006 05:43 AM (4IuF2)
5
Me, I gear my speech to my audience, and my writing too, though to a lesser extent. The entire purpose is communication. If people don't understand the words I'm using, I'm not communicating.
Of course, I'm also enamored with words and slang and the music of language in general. Plus, I figure I own this language, so I have a perfect right to mangle it as I choose.
Words as weapons? See it all the time. Also, very much, as ego boosters. Such bullshit, as to both counts.
People who think their big words will impress me are only impressing upon me how insecure they are - and how willing to build themselves up at the expense of others.
Bah!
Posted by: k at May 29, 2006 05:57 AM (Ffvoi)
6
We, of course, didn't read Goldstein's piece, or even seriously consider your point, if any. We just wanted to interact with you and see our names in print. Isn't that why people visit blogs? It beats getting a real life! Much less work! Sort like spending your life on the Holodeck...:-)
Posted by: Darrell at May 30, 2006 01:42 PM (KH0UR)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cool
. . .
Art Blog. Expecially if you're Korean, or Polish.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:01 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Or Corean. Don't you think it's cute how they sign every post "EMILHIRI"? Obviously, they are written by one or the other. They've got Kos figured out, though.
Posted by: Darrell at May 27, 2006 07:54 AM (0opNf)
2
I just think what they're doing is so interesting. And I can't even figure them out ideologically, either. It's terribly intriguing. And, yes: nice touch, not individuating the posts.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 27, 2006 09:18 AM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 24, 2006
Harrell's Done
. . . with the
GOP. He has a few points, of course. And, as usual, his writing is exquisite.
Ultimately he is wrong in his conclusions, and very right in a couple of his premises.
Via Feisty Republican Whore, who alerted the Cotillion via e-mail. Arguments ensued about: 1) the merits of Jeff's arguments; 2) the prevalence of his state of mind; and 3) which among us is entitled to call him "my Jeffypoo." (Several, it turns out. Men are such sluts.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:22 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Jeffypoo could start his own political party made up of himself and everyone who refers to him as "my Jeffypoo." Based on sheer numbers alone, it would be a viable 3rd party.
Posted by: Feisty at May 24, 2006 06:10 PM (J5+Si)
2
I hereby resign from any such party, effective immediately, now and in the future.
Posted by: cobalt blue at May 24, 2006 07:28 PM (ed1Pk)
3
Er, not that I ever joined such a party in the first place. . .
Jeff who?
Posted by: cobalt blue at May 24, 2006 07:45 PM (ed1Pk)
4
Oh boo hoo! Just think how many would leave if we had to make a sacrifice or two...Our fore-mothers and fathers are digging their graves deeper to get away from us. Why can't wars end before the next commercial break? Are we there yet? I'm bored! Pathetic!!!!!!!! 'Poo' is an apt descriptor.
Posted by: Darrell at May 24, 2006 07:54 PM (rWb6B)
5
Men are such sluts
And you're just figuring this out? you could have just
asked. Tho I'm sure that Attila the Hub was not.
*wink*wink* *nudge*nudge*
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 25, 2006 04:14 AM (1hM1d)
6
That was pretty much my reaction. Good premises (failure to involve regular citizens in the war effort, a pathetic bunch of Congresscritters), and utterly wrong conclusions. And fine writing, of course.
So Jeffypoo (well, you can call him Jeffypoo; I prefer "that hysterical weenie") is upset that a conflict that everyone agreed would last for decades still isn't resolved, nearly five years later? Quelle horreur. And terrorism is still with us. Of course it is, you dummy. Everyone knows that the enemy here is Islamofascism, which can't be said at this stage. Terrorism isn't an enemy, it's a tactic.
Posted by: utron at May 25, 2006 07:54 AM (CgIkY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 22, 2006
Reynolds on the Idiocy
. . . of managers who
restrict access to the web, making any quick research question a long, involved process that entails getting permission to enter ordinary URLs on your browser.
There's more to managing, he suggests, than simply making sure your employees look busy. Well. One would think. Of course, there are some extraordinarily poor managers out there.
I know my page views go up during the week, and simply assume that my posts go particularly well with a cup of coffee and a cheese Danish—or whatever people are having on their mid-morning breaks these days.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:08 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
You know where I work, AG, and our 'puter policy is so gawd-awful...most people don't even HAVE internet access and those that do have to watch their p's & q's because NO internet access is to be un-business related.
Sheesh, one attorney on his lunch hour was browsing eBay (not bidding) when he gets a phone call from the IT department...very nasty...telling him to get off that website RIGHT NOW...
Our IT nazis have blocked Yahoo and other sites... "too non-business"
Too many Peter principle managers who just are too cowardly and/or incompetent to manage.
Posted by: Darleen at May 23, 2006 05:48 PM (rvX7J)
2
My feeling is that if there's enough time to micro-manage what sites people are visiting (or set up systems to limit their access), the managers/IT guys themselves just don't have enough to do.
When I first started managing people I called up my brother, who'd been at it for quite some time at that point. "Manage by example," he told me.
It's some of the best advice I've ever received. I do that, and I treat people like human beings.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 23, 2006 10:21 PM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Insty and Dr. Helen
. . .
interview Mary Cheney about her new book,
Now It's My Turn.
Nice to see her abandon the low-profile approach I've always admired, yet been somewhat frustrated by. I've been so curious about her story.
Glenn:
Unlike some people, we actually spend most of our time talking about the non-gay parts! And, shockingly, that's actually most of the book. Who knew?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:00 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Tripling productivity with duplicate postings! Why didn't I think of that? You're a genius!
Posted by: Darrell at May 22, 2006 07:51 PM (Ua6ew)
2
What are you talking about
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 23, 2006 11:48 PM (4IuF2)
3
The TRUTH is out there!
Posted by: Darrell at May 24, 2006 07:09 AM (o/8QX)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 21, 2006
Thank you,
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. We owe you so much. Happy birthday.
(And thank you Google, for letting me know. But that doesn't mean I'm not still mad. "I hate myself for lovin' you.")
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:07 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I read Sir Doyle about 30+ years ago. Aside from the cannon, I've come to enjoy many of the modern writers who either write more Holmes stories (Laurie R. King and the Mary Russell novels - 'The Beekeeper's Apprentice', "A Monstrous Regiment of Women' to name the first two in the series), or write in the same vein (Caleb Carr, 'The Alienist' and 'Angel of Darkness').
Go. Read. Enjoy.
Posted by: leelu at May 22, 2006 11:47 AM (8RqnW)
2
He really did create a whole new genre; the Holmes stories were revolutionary.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 22, 2006 02:25 PM (4IuF2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
"My Life Is an Open Book."
What are the advantages? Disadvantages? Discuss.
There is a school of thought out there to the effect that bloggers disclose too much about their private lives. Yet because a lot of them have dealt with the demons in their closets, many of them seem extraordinarily well-adjusted to me.
I believe in privacy. As a matter of fact, I hold those who violate it in deep contempt. But the confessional style of writing has a huge fan base, and those who indulge in it online seem stronger to me than most, in a bunch of ways.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:29 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.
1
My choice is to avoid talking about personal information as much as possible. I'm a very private person in real life and I know that my blog is read by my family, my husbands family and my friends. As a matter of fact I know that my mother and mother-in-law read my blog just for drips and drabs of the personal information that I don't share in real life.
My sister-in-law writes a personal blog and it has caused eruptions in the family over opinions that she's posted. Maybe I just don't have the kind of family that's open to honest expression.
Except for the rare trivial personal anecdote I'll stick to politics and the media.
Posted by: Janette at May 21, 2006 11:56 AM (OcgcA)
2
My friends read this. And my husband. But my mother, father, and brother rarely check in.
I know when my father has taken a look, because he usually calls me to tell me that I'm just not as funny as I used to be, and I'm doing it wrong—too personal, not personal enough, whatever. (Naturally, I don't listen too closely: one learns when to tune one's parents out over the years.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 21, 2006 12:10 PM (4IuF2)
3
I think may husband may have read mine twice. Once to indulge me and once to see what the fuss was when some MSM types were sniffing about. I ask him every now and then to take a look at the style and design to get his opinion but he really shows no interest in my blog. I guess I can't be too offended because I do think I have the only blog he's ever read.
Posted by: Janette at May 21, 2006 01:30 PM (OcgcA)
4
My parents have been given my blog's address, but rarely read it.
But, like Janette, I'm a very private person - so I don't blog about personal stuff. I do blog about semi-personal stuff once in a while (like hurricanes coming through, or my adventures in attempting to chase a black racer out of my house...).
I don't really understand why people have an urge to tell their life story to total strangers... but whatever floats their boats...
Posted by: Kathy K at May 21, 2006 01:31 PM (Bm7x5)
5
Oh, Kathy. You're so left-brain.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 21, 2006 04:22 PM (4IuF2)
6
i guess it depends on what your blog is for. i post personal stuff, but then most of the people that read it are friends and family. that way i don't have to remember who i've told what already, and lord knows i never call anyone. ;D
Posted by: maggie katzen at May 21, 2006 07:17 PM (rVzXG)
7
Well! I, of course, shall assume I'm in that nicely well-adjusted bunch. Especially since I don't hold all that much back on my blog. Some. Not much.
I actually feel more comfortable when strangers are reading it than family members - maybe because I'm inblognito. My family rarely checks in, anyway. My *friends and family* blog is really more for others.
When I blog about my problems, I'm making lemonade from lemons. There are times when I know, absolutely, that putting it out there is helping someone else in a similar situation. That, by far, is my *A#1* favorite way to get lemonade.
I like thumbing my nose as the nasties that life can dish out.
And whether or not it helps anyone else, it's still therapeutic for me. If my privacy is truly respected, it's no one's business to judge whether it's *too much.* I disclose little or nothing that could ever hurt me, and I'm certainly startled when I see people putting their face, address, etc. in the net in what I KNOW is a naive way. But that's STILL their business, not mine.
I'm a lameass blogger. I'm inept about the 'sphere. I know so little about it that I had no idea *the confessional style of writing has a huge fan base,* or that blogging would fall into that category.
But I do understand some things about people. And I'm very fond of them, generally speaking, so if any of my thoughts or experiences can benefit or amuse them, great by me.
I have much the same feelings about privacy that you do. One thing that escapes some folks is this: Just because I choose to make some private info public, that DOESN'T mean it's okay for OTHERS to make my private info public. Or to access it for their own PRIVATE use - whether for pleasure, or for some potentially bogus government *need.*
Posted by: k at May 22, 2006 08:02 PM (wZLWV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 14, 2006
When You're Right, You're Right.
Remarks
Percifield:
If the cheap tramp is going to run around dressed like that, you can hardly blame the sea lion.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:39 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Especially if there were real goldfish in her platform sandals! If I were a lawyer, I'd take the case pro bono. Your Honor, my client was just acting in self defense, making it a fair competition. She was wearing fishnet stockings after all (showing intent and premeditation) and a sea lion has to eat!
Posted by: Darrell at May 14, 2006 08:02 PM (fTM2L)
2
I couldn't figure out if the fish were real. Certainly than make a point of saying that the water is real--but with the fish, it's less clear.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 14, 2006 09:54 PM (34TBU)
3
I'm pretty sure the fish they give you with the sandals at Ebay are fake. I also think you can change the water and use real fish, if you like. I believe that I saw exactly that on some TV show this season, CSI Miami perhaps. Given that a good rule of thumb is 1 gallon of water per fish for a safe and healthy environment, you can clearly see that the sea lion had cause for action. Herman Munster's platforms couldn't hold a gallon of water each. I rest my case.
Posted by: Darrell at May 15, 2006 07:50 AM (KrwF2)
4
I hadn't realized passions ran so high among sea lions on behalf of tiny little goldfishies.
It rather warms my heart.
I love those shoes. I can't imagine an occasion on which I could get by with wearing such things. But--especially given that the fishies aren't real--I love the fact that they exist.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 15, 2006 09:25 PM (34TBU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 12, 2006
May 10, 2006
Who Do You Know
. . . who's more
arrogant than I am?
Answer: nobody.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:18 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Of course, that should have been "whom."
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2006 09:52 PM (34TBU)
2
Whom's?? Whom is???? Ginbonics?
Posted by: Darrell at May 12, 2006 07:54 PM (5r+gQ)
3
I've been arguing for years with friends about what the best usage is when the same word is subject in one clause, but object in another.
We've never reached a satisfactory conclusion on it, either.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 13, 2006 04:23 AM (34TBU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 09, 2006
Glenn Reynolds
. . . on
Abstinence Education:
I think that it's OK to tell high school kids they shouldn't have sex yet. I think that saying that sex outside of marriage is bad is both wrong (sex outside of marriage isn't necessarily bad at all, in my opinion, and can be an excellent thing), and an inappropriate use of tax dollars.
"An excellent thing." That would, of course, depend upon whom one selects for same, and the talents he/she brings to the, um, table.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
10:14 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.
1
"I want to do it, and I don't like it when people tell me it's a bad idea."
Posted by: John at May 10, 2006 02:47 PM (UzAeO)
2
What is it with all this sex ed? When I was a kid the closest we got to sex ed was pistils and stamens and I turned out OK.
Posted by: mark at May 10, 2006 06:54 PM (FOIH8)
3
How to state this - yes, I've had sex without marriage. I also have a 12 year old daughter from it (who I am very close to and raised her)
My opinion -
I think a problem is that alot of people these days see sex as just an activity just something fun to do. To me it was always a sharing of one's self. A binding to the other person involved. It's supposed to be something special. I know I'm a sap.
Few people anymore take responibility for this action. I guess that's the problem I have with pro-choice people (When you talk about sex you have to talk about that). They state that's it's a woman's body so they can do what they want. Well, in 95% of the cases they made the choice to have sex. They just didn't want to live with the consequences.
TV and movies make it seem it's ok to do what you want and not have to take responibility for your actions. I was drunk. Or I just wanted to have fun. Or everyone does it - are just not acceptable answers.
So I have no problem with schools (Because a lot of parents are not activity in their child's life) saying the sex outside of marriage is bad. Or that they shouldn't have sex until their were mature.
My opinion of course. Yes, my moral compass is different than others apparently.
Posted by: Nicholas at May 11, 2006 09:19 AM (0DrzM)
4
I turned 18 in 1980, so my adolescence was stormy, and took place in a culture utterly steeped in human sexuality.
We all could have waited a bit longer in those days, and it wouldn't have hurt us a bit.
Posted by: Attila Girl at May 11, 2006 09:51 PM (34TBU)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
May 05, 2006
Send Jeffie G.
. . . some
money. Now. Lots of money.
Thanks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:51 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
57kb generated in CPU 0.0998, elapsed 0.201 seconds.
217 queries taking 0.1883 seconds, 517 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
