April 29, 2007
Did Google Change Its Formula?
My search traffic has been up for weeks, but now it's increasing even more. Along with a handful of other bloggers, I'm noticing an overall increase, and an increase in traffic from Google images as well.
Anyone know what gives?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
09:33 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I think someone in the Cotillion sweet talked them Google people!
Posted by: Greta (Hooah Wife) at April 30, 2007 03:20 AM (Xl4tG)
2
Maybe they think you're left wing, and so they're sending more traffic your way.
Posted by: John at April 30, 2007 01:37 PM (7C8kd)
3
I saw a similar spike in Google image searches recently. But I see this as mostly junk traffic, siphoning bandwidth while most of my actual content gets ignored.
I've deleted a couple images that were generating huge volumes of worthless traffic.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 30, 2007 09:00 PM (ogl5V)
4
I think one reason could be that there has been a change in the Yahoo searches. It used to be that they would have those links to the sites within a certain category, such as "LA Dodgers" or "San Francisco Steroids." Now, nada. It might be pushing people to use Google more.
Or, I could be full of what Harry Reid is.
Posted by: William Teach at May 01, 2007 01:36 PM (IRsCk)
5
I've noticed a lot of worthless zero-second visits from google image searches. Very annoying.
Posted by: Sissy Willis at May 01, 2007 03:58 PM (Q6JEL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Re-Reading David Linden's Book.
You
should, too.
Fortunately, he's gotten rid of the dreadful British/scientific style punctuation the manuscript sported. Or, rather, his copyeditor has.
I hadn't remembered quite so much science in the first chapter, but a bit of that is to be expected, and I know there's a lot of juicy stuff about sex later on. The volume could, however, use more dialogue. Or perhaps a dismembered corpse: you can never go wrong with dead bodies.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
April 25, 2007
I'm Writing Tonight.
I'm polishing chapter 2 of book 2 to present at writer's group tomorrow night. And I have to put some time in for a client tomorrow, so the work has to be done
now—which is really my least favorite word.
Go read Hackbarth's meditation on the difference between mental illness and evil as it relates to Seung Hui Cho.
Or check out Goldstein's thoughts on why Rosie O'Donnell makes Democrats nervous, at the same time they just can't take their eyes off of her.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:50 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.
April 24, 2007
Just in the Nick of Time!
***Your Email Address Have Won*** Inbox
Lotteria Lotto Management
Sir/Madam,
You have been selected as victorious via your email address. Click here to
see how much you have won:http://claiming.rules.i8.com/index.html or paste
it in your browser.This must be claimed not later than the 9th of May 2007 .
You must read the rules and understand them before responding.
We are required to disburse the award to the correct recipient, but we must
verify that you are the owner of the selected email address before we can
send this money to you.
Contact us with reference number: OBM/AERAL/2007.
Contact person: Enrico Mancini
claimmancini@libero.it
Lotteria Italia
Venezia.
It looks like my ship has finally come in.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:57 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.
1
What a coincidence! I won 2 million Pounds Sterling just a coupe of weeks ago! Who knew these email lotteries could be sooooo lucrative! I'll buy you a car after I receive my deposit. I'm sure you will do likewise??? Happy days are here again!
COVENTRY PROMOTIONS National Office, 157-197 Buckingham Palace Road, Victoria, London SW1W 9SPSerial Number: xxx-xxx Batch number AT-xxxxx.xx. TO WINNERS IN OUR PROGRAM We wish to congratulate you over your success in our computer balloting sweepstake held on 9th. April. 2007. This is a millennium scientific computer game in which email addresses were used. It is a promotional program aimed at encouraging internet users; therefore you do not need to buy ticket to enter for the game. However, your email address was attached to ticket number xxx xxxxx; with serial number xxx-xxx draw the lucky numbers 06-09-13-15-40-43-02, which eventually won the lottery in the first category of the draws. Therefore, you have won a lottery jackpot prize awards of £2,000,000.00 (Two million pounds Sterling Only) This is from total prize money of US$30,000,000.00 distributed to winners from 1st to 3rd categories. Note that this program was largely promoted and sponsored by a group of philanthropist, industrialists from the internet ware industry and some other big multinational firms who wish to be anonymous. You may wish to establish contact via e-mail with the particulars presented below citing the batch and reference numbers to this letter. Telephone lines are open between the hours of 8.00am - 7.30pm on Monday through FridayCustomer Service Unit,Tel/Fax No: +44-702 406 3701 +44-702 406 3971Email: process.claimsagent1@yahoo.co.ukContact person: MR. DANIEL WALLACEProviding him with the information stated below
Posted by: Darrell at April 24, 2007 08:14 PM (s1jT/)
2
Hey! Even I received the same email today!
Sir/Madam,
You have been selected as victorious via your email address. Click here to see how much you have won:http://lotteriaclaimrules.5u.com/index.html or paste it in your browser.This must be claimed not later than the 11th of May 2007 .
You must read the rules and understand them before responding.
We are required to disburse the award to the correct recipient, but we must verify that you are the owner of the selected email address before we can send this money to you.
Contact us with reference number: OBM/AERAL/2007.
Contact person: Enrico Mancini
claimmancini@libero.it
Lotteria Italia
Venezia.
Do you think these guys are for real? Did you reply back!
Posted by: Ankita at April 27, 2007 08:12 PM (0okU1)
3
Real? As real as fake can be! At worst, they will "need" your bank account info. so that they can "deposit" your "winnings". At best, they will say you need to pay a fee to their lawyers for the transfer. In between, they now have your email address. You'll have to beware any emails with attachments/viruses/spyware coming your way in the future. That way they will mine for your personal information themselves. Lucky you!
Posted by: Darrell at April 28, 2007 08:16 PM (ZQyAP)
4
yea i got it 2 funny when i googled the address it comes up as the depertament of aduiting in london so i mailed em and told em that there address was used in a scam Maybe ill get a pay out from them in stead well heres hoping
lol
i did replay and gave these details
name I C Wierer
address A real place unlike u
phone number 1-800-Kiss-my-ass
sort code 666666666
account number 99898738746234287364762354872164872364876328
i could go on
so if u read this its a scam u dont get something 4 nothing theres always a catch although i could of used the $$$$$$
Posted by: Dman at May 03, 2007 01:25 PM (eK7/V)
5
Haha.. I wish I would have been that creative and replied but I just didn't reply back
.. Well.. so much for becoming a millionare.. with a million spam mails!
Posted by: Ankita at May 09, 2007 08:26 PM (HMD8U)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 23, 2007
I Don't Know About This Quiz.
It kept asking me either/or questions. Some of them were obvious: after all, of
course geometry is better than algebra, and of
course it's better to navigate via intuition than to actually get out a map (cheater, cheater!).
But "do I have my best ideas sitting up, or lying down?" Well, which kinds of ideas, for crying out loud? I do editing and expository writing sitting up; I do better fiction writing when I'm lying down (preferably with my eyes closed, so I can't read what I write as I go along).
It was ultimately a rather stupid test: its designers wanted to conflate my intellect with my personality. They are, of course, different things.
You Are 40% Left Brained, 60% Right Brained
|
The left side of your brain controls verbal ability, attention to detail, and reasoning.
Left brained people are good at communication and persuading others.
If you're left brained, you are likely good at math and logic.
Your left brain prefers dogs, reading, and quiet.
The right side of your brain is all about creativity and flexibility.
Daring and intuitive, right brained people see the world in their unique way.
If you're right brained, you likely have a talent for creative writing and art.
Your right brain prefers day dreaming, philosophy, and sports.
|
Via Virginia Postrel, who is apparently way more logical than I.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:20 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.
April 17, 2007
Who Are You Calling Weird?
At least I don't sit around making up quizzes that compare people to one of the five digits on a human hand, Mr. Composer-of-Blogthings!
I just, um. I just print the results:
You Are a Pinky
|
You are fiercely independent, and possibly downright weird.
A great communicator, you can get along with almost anyone.
You are kind and sympathetic. You support all your friends - and love them for who they are.
You get along well with: The Ring Finger
Stay away from: The Thumb
|
Via Caltechgirl.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:16 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Here are my results...
You Are the Thumb
You're unique and flexible. And you defy any category. Mentally strong and agile, you do things your own way. And you do them well. You are a natural leader... but also truly a loner. You inspire many but connect with few.
You get along well with: The Middle Finger
Stay away from: The Pinky
Heh...I've always liked women who are bad for me...
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 18, 2007 05:32 AM (1hM1d)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Ace on the Duke Prosecutorial Misconduct Case
He's especially
amused by the allegation that Magnum was in mid-air when she was assaulted; it's apparently among the many very different accounts she gave of the "rape":
Absent the discovery of a complex canteliever-and-pulley-sexual-flying-harness in the bathroom—a discovery I'm quite sure Mike Nifong would have revealed—we're to believe that Crystal Gail Mangum was raped while floating around like Baron Harkonnen hopped up on Bene Gesserit meth?
Maybe she just got confused. Maybe it wasn't the Duke lacrosse team at all, but the notoriously badly-behaved Duke Acrobatic Sexual Assault & Levitating Synchronized Sodomy squad.
I've had run-ins with those guys. And let me tell you, once they've psychokinetically raised you in the air, they go at you with their meat-bats as if you were a friggin' pinata.
Honestly, I don't know how the hell those guys still manage to collect $5000 a year in student fees. I don't care how many Meals On Wheels fundraisers they hold, I'm just tired of being gang-raped by sodomaniacal Sith masters of white skin privilege.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:42 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.
April 13, 2007
Hm. Job-Hunting Via One's Blog.
I don't know if I've really exploited
this angle—at least, not directly. Every once in a while I do remind the world that I am G-d's gift to All Matters Editorial, and no slouch in print/electronic production, either. And, yes: I spent years designing print ads, so I have a pretty good eye.
But I'm not sure my market as a freelance copyeditor is the same segment as those who follow my blog.
Although the "getting work via one's blog" tactic worked for Laurence and any number of others, I prefer to skip the middleman and demand money outright from my readers. This seems to work the best.
Of course, maybe there's someone out there looking for a new-media-savvy, whip-smart editor who happens to be a potty mouth on her personal blog. That'll work.
Via Sean.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:33 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.
April 11, 2007
Another Completely Fictional Piece of Dialogue
"I got a new phone."
"So I read; you didn't really get the one you linked, though—did you?"
"What's wrong with the one I linked?"
"Well, it has flowers on it."
"Those aren't flowers; they are cherry blossom tattoos. Different thing entirely. The fact that they're tattoos makes them tuff."
"Joy, it's pink."
"More like a magenta color, really. It matches my iPod."
"Why didn't you just get a Hello Kitty phone?"
"Because I'm holding out for a Hello Kitty car, you woman-hater."
Misogyny in the blogosphere rears its ugly head once more.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:37 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I thought you were dreaming of Helllo Kitty hollow point rounds to go in your Malibu Barbie Glock...
Posted by: Prof. Purkinje at April 11, 2007 06:11 AM (SogAP)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2007 08:23 AM (6C0F9)
3
Link broken because Joy cares!
Posted by: Darrell at April 11, 2007 08:57 AM (7QbXY)
4
Huh? I never called any women's basketball team "nappy-headed ho's."
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at April 11, 2007 03:48 PM (QJ5cf)
5
But you implied that people who carry pink phones aren't good at math. I mean, you didn't say it out
loud, but I could hear it between the lines. And the fact that it's true in my case is irrelevant.
Furthermore, I don't accept your apology. Ha!
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2007 10:57 PM (6C0F9)
6
When the Hello Kitty car comes out, you and EM and Cleaver's kid can all fight over it. :-)
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 13, 2007 05:06 PM (r0kgl)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 10, 2007
Yep. Chicks Do Rule.
Iowahawk has some cool
car porn up: very hard-core stuff.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:40 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.
1
link is busted, starts with "vhttp://"
Posted by: bob at April 11, 2007 05:35 AM (CP6tB)
2
I bet deleting the "v" would help--Tech Support.
Posted by: Darrell at April 11, 2007 08:49 AM (7QbXY)
3
I don't know what you guys are talking about--the link works just fine.
You probably couldn't use your mouses correctly. Perhaps you need to stop drinking and surfing . . .
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2007 10:55 PM (6C0F9)
4
Speaking of tech support, I ran across this (apparently old)
video clip that demonstrates the tech support problems
a few hundred years ago when the monasteries upgraded
from scrolls to hardbound books:
http://www.devilducky.com/media/57946
Enjoy!
-B
Posted by: Bob at April 12, 2007 07:56 PM (aTv/9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
And Yet More on the Proposed Code of Conduct:
Frank J
rolls his own.
Via Cal Tech Girl
(That was a Google-bomb, BTW: I don't like "CalTech Girl." I want it to be "Cal Tech Girl." Who cares how she actually wants it to appear?—she's a scientist, and she should leave these delicate issues to a competent editor. Like, um . . . me.
From now on, please link her as Cal Tech Girl. Cal Tech should be two words.)
UPDATE: I've been vetoed! Apparently, Pasadena houses the California Institute of technology. Who knew?
But someone ought to tell the CS Department, nicht?
I have been given special dispensation to use "Dudette from the Land of the Nerds," but it's small consolation, really.
Apparently, things are almost as bad at the website for the Massachusetts Institute of technology, since in display type they use "mit," and in plain text it's MIT. Of course, at no point is it styled "MIt," which would be the equivalent of "Caltech."
Not that I'm an embittered English major who never gets her way, and has never truly accepted that it's The New York Times, but Los Angeles Times (no article required). Or why I once worked (I kid you not) at Hunting Magazine. (Why the capital "M," if the word Magazine isn't part of the name?)
Goodnight; I'm off to consume huge quantities of gin.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:42 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Actually, NO. It's actually Caltechgirl.
Caltech is ONE WORD. Really. And the T is NEVER capitalized.
Check my blog. I NEVER capitalize the T.
If it was multiple words it would be Cal Inst Tech, since the full name is California Institute of Technology.
Just one of my pet peeves.
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 10, 2007 05:13 PM (r0kgl)
2
Hm. Okay. Let's think this through.
Normally, the way a phrase evolves goes like this: two words, hyphenated compound, and then run together. For instance, 15 years ago I was a copy editor, and now in publishing circles I call myself a copyeditor.
And I used to e-mail people, but now I generally email them.
So perhaps after years of Cal Tech, it became Caltech (though I could see an argument for CalTech; I'm hoping Cal-Tech was skipped, due to its being egregiously ugly--though it probably was used adjectivally). However, there's no rule that dictates that the nickname would have to be Cal Inst Tech. For one thing, there are many ways of abbreviating California. For another, nicknames are weird: how did Robert beome Bob? How did William become Bill? The idea that all shortening of names follows the same pattern is incorrect.
Of course, if you feel that strongly, I can certainly call you Caltechgirl. Except on those occasions when you decide to take the wrong side of an issue, when I would find myself "accidentally" breaking the name.
Are you sure about this, though? After all, Caltech (yeech) modifies "girl." I still think there should be at least one break in there: it's a bit of a mouthful this way. Also, it's a proper noun. You want more capital letters. They make a name look more namelike.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2007 08:16 PM (uSWaZ)
3
Well, Caltech is the preferred name that everyone on campus uses.... CalTech is right out. It is however, Tech if used with out the "Cal" Modifier.... Also previously referred to as the "Big T"....
I'll go for Caltech Girl. That's acceptable. Just not CalTech Girl. Or Cal Tech Girl Or Caltech Gal.
Interesting, the Firefox dictionary recognizes Caltech, but not CalTech...
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 10, 2007 08:22 PM (r0kgl)
4
CITeGirl
No thanks necessary. . .
Posted by: Darrell at April 10, 2007 08:26 PM (QEkk2)
5
How about "Tech Chick from Oldmoneyville"?
or "Biology Maven from Gambletown"?
or "The Microscope Mistress from The Land of the Roses"?
Whaaaaaat? Too wordy?
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 10, 2007 08:51 PM (uSWaZ)
6
...btw, it's "California Institute of (capital T) Technology."
8-O
Posted by: leelu at April 11, 2007 08:45 PM (KFuCy)
7
Leelu! You missed the joke. I'm surprised at you.
Let's not fall asleep at the switch again.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 11, 2007 10:59 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Nope.
The proposed
"Blogger's Code of Conduct" seems too restrictive to me.
I like some of my anonymous commenters.
I reserve the right to engage trolls if I feel like it.
I will, at my whim, delete any comments that don't seem to further discussion in some way.
In four years of blogging I've never really had a nice blog war, but I hear they are really good for traffic, and I reserve the right to engage in one should the spirit strike. I won't agree to contact people privately, or submit to mediation, though I've certainly done the former, and I may well accept the latter—should the situation warrant it.
In short, my policies boil down to this: I consider WWJD? (That is, What Would Joy Do?) Then I do it.
H/t: Wendy.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
11:20 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 135 words, total size 1 kb.
April 09, 2007
News Flash: People Get Nasty on the Blogosphere!
And sometimes
women are equated with their genitalia! (Men are, too, but somehow female genitalia is just . . . nastier than male genitalia. Because no one is supposed to talk about ours, for some reason. Because it is nasty: lather, rinse, repeat.)
Okay, sorry. But I'm starting to weary of the Cyber-Stalking/Online Sexism/Kathy Sierra "issue."
Let's lay it on the line, here:
1) Mary Katherine Ham is perfectly correct in the CNN segment: conservative women endure more verbal abuse than liberal women. And MK's performance here was a tour de force.
It's easy to see why center-right women get singled out for abuse: After all, a) sometimes conservatives are inhibited by religious convictions, so they do pull their punches sometimes; and b) there is a species of self-evidently unsexist person on the left [all women, plus men who go to pro-choice rallies] who because of her/his credentials has license to throw otherwise sexist language around as much as he/she wants.
2) As everyone with opposable thumbs/forefingers has noticed, anonymity tends to loosen people's inhibitions, and thereby fosters assholism of every variety.
However:
3) Complaining about verbal abuse of female bloggers is the online equivalent of bemoaning the fact that women are the victims of so many serial killings. Guess what? Some men really, really hate women. That's unlikely to change—at least, not in the next few weeks. Even if I hold my breath.
I feel sorry for the haters: they had mean mommies.
4) At the end of the day, I don't care.
If it's threatening, report it. If it isn't, ignore it or delete it. As RightGirl remarked, "as much as I sympathize with her, it seems to me that all Kathy Sierra has succeeded in doing is making us all out to be a bunch of weak wallflowers."
There is something to be said for that point of view. Sticks, stone, and .45 Government Models will break my bones, but calling me a whore is just uncreative. Frankly, it makes you look bad, Bro.
UPDATE: Hackbarth has a mini-roundup on the proposed "Blogospheric Code of Conduct."
I just can't see that we need such a thing, but if someone want to try to herd cats, it should be interesting to watch. Try opening a can of tuna.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 387 words, total size 3 kb.
April 05, 2007
Right-Wing Bloggers Are Well-Funded?
Um. Are they
talking about that time
The Washington Times gave me a beer voucher?
Or does it have to do with the fact that my readers send me socks and martini shakers?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
April 04, 2007
On Internet Stalkers
Oh, nice. I missed
TC Leather Penguin's remark on this
RightGirl post:
Feh. When I get death threats (and I've gotten a bunch of them), I reply with my home address at the top of the answer and tell the various mooks "Come on over. If you get past the dog then we'll see if you can handle me."
Because I'm too old and beat up to give a rat's ass about that brand of vermin.
Almost to a one, Internet "thugs" are fairies who wouldn't know what to do if you told them how to pull a trigger.
Not a bad point: I have a 30-round clip for my Glock (perfectly legal; I bought it pre-ban). And I spook easily, which acquaintances of mine will be quite happy to explain to the jury. You know how high-strung short girls can be.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:22 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Day By Day cartoon fit you and a friend of mine, I sent her a copy. You could send a copy to those that threaten you.
Posted by: Jack at April 04, 2007 08:21 PM (MhbtL)
2
The funny thing is that I posted that before I read the current DbD! I thought they harmonized very well.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 09:27 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fine As Far As It Goes . . .
but there truly are people who use obesity to commit slow suicide.
Yet I'm happy for Joy; she seems like a hell of a girl.
H/t: the Cotillion girls.
UPDATE: CTG on the "fat" issue.
Again, it's complicated for me. I theorize that my mother has made a point of being heavy in order to keep men away from her in her later years. (She is intrinsically a very attractive woman.) Mostly, her strong body is able to handle the consequences, and the liver problems, diabetes and high blood pressure are treatable with the right medications. She's 70 now, and will be around for a good long time.
My aunt, however, is significantly heavier, and more addicted to carbs. Not to mention the fact that she is extraordinarily inactive—and, until recently, she smoked. Her greater obesity has led to a greater level of diabetes. Despite her being four years my mother's junior, I know I will lose her before I lose my mother.
I had the following exchange with my mom a few years ago:
Me: "My friend Dean Esmay says that many obese people don't actually overeat."
My mom: "Oh. How interesting. But I do."
At which point she proceeded to take another bite of the huge salad she was eating. (Because my mother eats compulsively, she tries to only keep healthful foods in the house. This is the main reason she won't stay at my aunt's place any more: the aunt keeps too many sugary and carby treats around, and these trigger binging on icky food.)
Food and obesity are linked, and in many cases there is a behavioral component. The problem is that you don't know from looking at a person whether that's the case. And you don't know what someone's genetic predisposition is from that single, judgemental glance.
It can, indeed, be a moral problem: there are certainly fat gluttons. But the biochemistry is complex, and there are several conditions that make people look "fat." And even in the case of the true pedal-to-the-metal food addict, there are worse things they could be binging on. (Drinking and driving, anyone?)
So this is an individual problem, with many solutions. One of which is societal acceptance of the fact that some people are naturally heavy.
UPDATE 2: Dean Esmay posts the Joy Nash video, and comments:
It's a metabolic issue, not a character issue.
By the way, the majority of Americans are overweight, and a third are medically obese. I guess we're just all slobs with character flaws, eh?
We're taking over. Give us your pizza or we'll destroy you.
I remember a discussion at my writer's workshop one day, when a skinny woman wrote about the temptation to judge when she saw an overweight woman ordering a salad at a restaurant.
Several of us were curious about why she would be tempted to condemn the ordering of a salad, of all things. "Um, even if you accept the premise that it's someone else's business what someone else is eating . . . what's to judge about the salad?" I enquired.
"Well, the thought would be 'oh, who does she think she's fooling?'" she responded.
I sort of blinked, and realized that anti-fat bigotry is at astonishing levels in some circles. If we intend to judge the overweight for ordering a steak and a baked potato, and we intend to judge them for ordering a salad, is there any choice they could make that would not incur presumption from those at surrounding tables? Answer: hell, no.
Yeah. Plenty of Americans eat too much. But improve your own damn health regimen: not someone else's.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"The problem is that you don't know from looking at a person whether that's the case. And you don't know what someone's genetic predisposition is from that single, judgemental glance."
Exactly.
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 04, 2007 03:04 PM (r0kgl)
2
We do know, however, that if a person consumes more calories than they burn, they put on weight.
A person who is overweight has, for a lengthy period of time, done exactly this.
To reverse that situation requires both the knowledge of how to do it, and the willpower to do it. It invariably requires a permanent change to eating and exercise habits.
The fact that some people can do this with small adjustments to their lifestyle, while others can achieve gains only through rigorous effort for a long period of time, really does not justify those in the latter group when they give up.
Posted by: John at April 04, 2007 05:40 PM (EIOof)
3
There are people who, in order to maintain a "healthy weight," would have to live on fewer calories than required to get much nutrition at all--basically a starvation diet.
There are people whose metabolisms are simply
too efficient, and are otherwise quite healthy. And it's just possible that they are not waiting for "justification" from the rest of us in order to be happy. Ya know?
As a matter of fact, I doubt that my aunt and mother, who probably do a decent job of meeting your expectations when it comes to fat people, are interested in whether you and and I can "justify" their eating/exercise patterns.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 06:05 PM (6C0F9)
4
Hair clips and socks . . . Egad!
Posted by: Sissy Willis at April 05, 2007 05:09 AM (Q6JEL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2007
New Evidence Surfaces
That it isn't a good idea to
drink and P-Shop.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:01 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If you're going to play with software you're obviously incapable of handling responsibly at least be willing to ask someone to not make it destroy the look of your weblog.
And at least let us have some idea what you were trying to achieve. All I can tell is I have leprosy.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at April 01, 2007 08:28 PM (QJ5cf)
2
Oh! I thought it was bubonic plague. I was so upset by your deal falling through I barely knew
what I was doing.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 01, 2007 09:05 PM (1tv3E)
3
Actually, I believe the orthodox approach is to use red-eye-reduction features on the eye area. But if you really want drama, apply the same tool to the lips.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 01, 2007 10:03 PM (1tv3E)
4
I dunno--the picture needs something else: like a swastika on his forehead or something.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 01, 2007 10:05 PM (1tv3E)
5
I don't get it. What is P-shopping?
BTW: shallots.
Posted by: Hog Beatty at April 02, 2007 12:18 AM (2H6Aq)
6
"Photoshopping." Modifying a photo. But in this case, I may have improved the subject's appearance.
Yes, shallots (omelets). But also, scallions (salad).
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 02, 2007 01:49 AM (1tv3E)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
75kb generated in CPU 0.0355, elapsed 0.1461 seconds.
216 queries taking 0.1252 seconds, 527 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.