Pharyngula

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 27, 2010 8:53 PM

Hello again everyone. I'ma try and keep up this time. I lost about three episodes. Hope everyone has been well.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 27, 2010 8:57 PM

The Prophet is quite attractive.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 27, 2010 9:05 PM

Son of a crap! My Muhammad drawings were all wrong. Not. Even. Close.

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 9:07 PM

JBabs, yeah, but I'd've given you a thumbs down.

See, this is where FB has it wrong (on purpose¹): there is no "dislike".

--

IMO, I'd much rather have a "thumbs down"-only system than a thumbs-up system.

Think about it. :)

--

¹ Because they're not as stupid as most of their users.

Posted by: RichVR | December 27, 2010 9:17 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I must agree with Mohammad here. And Mohammad, looking good dude.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 27, 2010 9:32 PM

A bit of grooming wouldn't go astray.

I thought that was for lesser people.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 27, 2010 9:47 PM

Ogvorbis, where are you? Sweden uses old trains to plough snow/:

Two old DA locomotives normally resident in the Swedish Railway Museum in Gävle in northern Sweden, have been dusted off and put back into service to clear the tracks of snow between Mjölby and Alvesta in southern Sweden.

Furthermore a 100-year-old snowplough is in place alongside the tracks in nearby Nässjö, ready to be called into action if needed.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | December 27, 2010 9:58 PM

Tree Lobsters
-
This has not been a good weekend. First the tummy bug, then a huge abcess exploded onto the area where my left butt-cheek meets my leg. Oh, and thanks to the bug, I also got dehydrated. So I got to spend 6 hours in the walk-in clinic while the doctor fed me IVs and dug it out. I don't have the faintest idea what they gave me for the during-procedure pain, but that stuff has authority. I am posting now from the space between whatever-it-was, and the Vicodin.

So, the commentariat is advised to take anything I post over the next few days with an extremely large block of salt.
-
Last Thread:

Notice that this is the wild-type strawberry, not the big, bland-tasting stuff that is harvested like a crop.

We have little wild strawberries growing in peoples' yards, which excited me up until the point where I ate some. They had no flavor at all. None. Big downer.
-

"Neandertals are us". Win!

We are mutts.
-
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is an iggernunt assclam.
-

Posted by: Elijahtruth | December 27, 2010 10:10 PM

You know, is it all gays that write into your Blog, "i" read some of the comments and it is as though they did not see a beautiful woman speaking crazy! She is cute, but an Atheist, but as Paul declared woman is given grace in child bearing, so what is it that men were speaking of poping boils on the butt, while just seen a beautiful woman!

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 27, 2010 10:13 PM

The vid begins with this quote:

"I have no reason and no intention to "respect" a religion that violates basic human rights."

Pray, then, which does not?
Is it not a violation to coerce action by means of threat?
Is it not a violation to coerce action by means of bribery?

So, tell me truly, what religion does not violate our basic human rights?

Due to the blazing speed of my InnerTubes connection I will be thrilling to the spectacle of actually watching the video in approximately a little while.

Posted by: timothy.green.name | December 27, 2010 10:15 PM

Oh fuuuk. The personal appearance comments are out in force again.

She's intelligent and a good speaker and edits her videos well and PZ's used her videos before and I'm subscribed to her YouTube channel.

I enjoyed this one. It was fun.

TRiG.

Posted by: Antagonizer | December 27, 2010 10:19 PM

I don't really see how your position on the coming global crisis would be averted by the constellation rocket. Maybe you could clarify?

A Constellation rocket couldn't save your ass from an angry and hungry mouse on Christmas eve, gomer.

Oh look, it made the cover of Huffington Post!

Judging by the quality of the comments over there, Huffingtonites are just as ignorant, apathetic and ill informed about science and technology as Pharyngulites are over here. Whooda thunkit?

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | December 27, 2010 10:21 PM

Caught up at last. Stick me with a fork; I'm done. 'Night, all.

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 10:26 PM

Agoniser of Ants:

A Constellation rocket couldn't save your ass from an angry and hungry mouse on Christmas eve, gomer.

Actually, the least of those rockets would more than do for mice, nevermind other vermin such as you.

Judging by the quality of the comments over there, Huffingtonites are just as ignorant, apathetic and ill informed about science and technology as Pharyngulites are over here.

Well, perhaps you should comment there, so as to lower its standard accordingly. ;)

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | December 27, 2010 10:33 PM

Baking is chemistry, but still less precious and delicately balanced than people think. Also, it is OK not to stir risotto for every second that it is cooking.

Posted by: JiveKitty | December 27, 2010 10:39 PM

I thought she was quite eloquent.

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 10:50 PM

trinioler, why do you mention 'Angel Food cake' without mentioning Devil's food cake?

We are creatures both of light and of darkness.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | December 27, 2010 10:55 PM

trinioler:

It has more to do with even heating, methinks. With insufficient stirring, the stuff nearest the bottom of the pan will get much hotter than the stuff toward the top or in the center (assuming stovetop preparation).

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 10:57 PM

Crudely Wrott, you speak of cleavage?

You're surely deprived, if you think that's cleavage.

</Croc Dundee>

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 11:00 PM

trinioler:

Stirring does NOTHING chemically

Actually, it does, but as an epiphenomenon.

See, stirring is a mechanical action, which both homogenises and redistributes material to where the entropy gradient is steepest, so as to facilitate reactions.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 27, 2010 11:05 PM

Crudely Wrott:
I haven't heard of Rainy Day Cake, but while searching for it, I came across coffee angel food cake.

I think this might be my next baking project.

[/Homer drool!]

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 11:09 PM

Algernon, nice!

(It is long since I first curled my lip at those who would diss Kate Bush.

BTW, I have listened to you sing, and don't miss the influence she must have had.

(I lurk more than I post))

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 11:14 PM

trinioler, I grant the stirring is more appropriate when a pot is used; you seem to have good equipment!

Now, since you can make risotto, you might consider reaching out and making paella.

</Spanish snob<

--

Crudely, I can't resist. Thanks for the Mammaries.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 27, 2010 11:18 PM

Thanks, ODS! The recipe mentions Cream of Tartar and that set off a series of associations and you know how that can go. I do want to check with Youngest Sister as she is most likely (I think) to have the recipe at hand. If she doesn't her mad chef of a husband might. Dude makes killer apple pie as well as stuff you eat before dessert.

I'll be back with more later . . .

Posted by: John Morales | December 27, 2010 11:25 PM

Jadehawk, seeing as I'm my cups, I could not resist contributing there.

(Yeah, 'twas amusing.)

Posted by: BrianX | December 27, 2010 11:28 PM

I like Manboobz. Now that it's reaching places like Pandagon and Pharyngula, I think it's going to get real popular real fast with exactly the kinds of people that PUAs hate.

Posted by: Peter B. | December 27, 2010 11:31 PM

Cath @ #33

Love that cake!! I'll bet so does PZ.

Posted by: trinioler | December 27, 2010 11:39 PM

Yeah the pan I use is shallow and seems well-suited for enhancing the physical disturbance of the rice via water convection. Yay, food-science. I do stir, but not every minute, often just to make sure the rice is all distributed evenly. Since I just make servings for myself, the rice is never a lot or too thick, so the undercooking/overcooking issue doesn't matter much.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 27, 2010 11:43 PM

Ha! John! Your link at #46 evokes memories of fonder times. All of the mammaries, however brazenly or bashfully revealed, are part of the warp and weave that has led me to where . . . I am, I guess. Truth be told, I really can't imagine how past fondlings could influence current events to any palpable degree. Nonetheless I retain a firm hold on the recollection of pulchritude while harboring expectations of future recollections. Funny how time rolls . . .

*then the old git catches a glimpse in the mirror way too early in the morning*

I could probably live without such worries.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 27, 2010 11:51 PM

I will share, Mother of Death. Gimme a couple of days to poke at sisters. Really. It'll be worth waiting for. This is the mmoistet cake ever. Yes, with two m's which stand for MMmmm MMmm MMMmmmmmmm.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 28, 2010 12:01 AM

They're weird. Her toenails.

Well you can fix them up for me some time then.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 28, 2010 12:08 AM

Next beer's on me, John.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | December 28, 2010 12:20 AM

Hiya, Thread! -

Apologies for not having caught up; I'm still in "Family Land" over the Christmas holiday. Hope yours went well (and quietly) for you.

My diabetic cat is all over the place. Any advice? I tested glucose this morning, before insulin and feeding, and she was at 208. After feeding, and six hours later (plus, after 1 unit of glargine insulin), she was at 69, and crying for food. I fed her, then tested again 2 hours later. 122 then.

Several hours later, her glucose was at 212, then at 224 after a late snack. I just gave her her nightly 1 unit of glargine.

Can anyone make sense of this? Thanks in advance:)

Posted by: John Morales | December 28, 2010 12:43 AM

I'm getting to the maudlin stage.

Green is the colour.

Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon | December 28, 2010 12:51 AM

Four Hexadecimals (am I missing a font?) @ #69:

The following may be gross but can you find whole mice for your cat? (guts, hair, etc.) Maybe still alive.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2010 1:01 AM

My diabetic cat is all over the place. Any advice? I tested glucose this morning, before insulin and feeding, and she was at 208. After feeding, and six hours later (plus, after 1 unit of glargine insulin), she was at 69, and crying for food. I fed her, then tested again 2 hours later. 122 then.

1. maybe it's not diabetes.

2. what are you using to measure blood sugar levels with?

3. blood sugar levels in cats might not have a similar patterns at all to that in humans (cats being carnivores, and humans omnivores).

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 1:17 AM

Josh, have you checked with your vet? I'm clueless about levels in diabetes in humans, let alone cats.

The following may be gross but can you find whole mice for your cat?

Of course mice can be found, live or frozen. There isn't much point, however, as even feral cats can develop diabetes. Also, rodents don't comprise the full diet of a feral cat.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | December 28, 2010 1:28 AM

Caine and Ichthyic:

1. Yes, it's diabetes. The cat's fasting blood sugar test at the vet was over 300.

2. I'm testing with a human glucometer ("Contour," by Bayer), which my vet says is plenty accurate for cats.

3. Blood sugar levels in cats are, apparently, similar to, but not exactly the same as humans. That is to say, vets want the cat's sugar to be under 300, and preferably between 100 and 200, but they're not worried to keep them just at 100 to 120 as a doctor would with humans.

4. Since starting the long-acting insulin (Lantus-glargine), Sophie has stopped drinking/peeing excessively. The change is remarkable.

5. I'm less worried about high blood sugar than I am about low (hypoglycemia). Even when she was at 69 (quite low), she was merely hungry, not tottering or impaired.

I think I'll stay up with her a while and test again:)

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 28, 2010 1:39 AM

Blood sugar levels in cats are, apparently, similar to, but not exactly the same as humans. That is to say, vets want the cat's sugar to be under 300, and preferably between 100 and 200, but they're not worried to keep them just at 100 to 120 as a doctor would with humans.

not total levels.

I'm talking patterns.

I would not expect to see the exact same rise and fall of pattern in a cat as a human, whether it had diabetes or not.

I have long wanted to find a way to feed to my kittehs whole rodents

again, most pet stores BREED mice specifically for feeding, and there is no risk of parasites of any kind.

well, at least at any pet store in the US. I can't speak to other countries.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 28, 2010 1:47 AM

Thanks for the cake ratios!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 28, 2010 2:17 AM

WATCH OUT!!!!!!

I am about to repeat the following sentence TEN (10) TIMES!!!! OR MOAR!!

Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!
Happy Monkey!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 28, 2010 2:25 AM

Happy Monkey!!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 28, 2010 2:32 AM

Happy Drunkey!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 28, 2010 2:36 AM

Happy Funky!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 2:52 AM

It was a polite request.

Right, everyone should change they way they post for you. Gotcha.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 28, 2010 3:00 AM

On my netbook I get 8 to 10 lines of text per screen.

I have a netbook too, and I get more than that unless I zoom in a hell of a lot. How much are you zooming the text?

Have you turned off the bookmark toolbar?

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | December 28, 2010 3:11 AM

I can see all the symbols; am using Firefox for Ubuntu, and haven't - consciously at least - made any changes, if that makes any difference.

Oh, and I've also got a netbook, and I've got plenty more than 8-10 lines.

I'm also wireless; I got a router for Xmas - this is both a good thing and a bad thing; the former 'cause it's handy and the latter because it means I can do nearly everything I do at home without leaving the couch.

Maybe next year I'll ask for a bedpan...

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 28, 2010 3:25 AM

jeezuz
I whine, Caine snarks, there's a flash and my power is off for a half hour.
Don't cross her. She scary.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 28, 2010 3:45 AM

but the symbol in your nym doesn't.

OK. Meh, it doesn't need to be script anyway.

What does "k log W" refer to, anyway?

Boltzmann entropy formula ( S=k∙log W ); carved on his grave in Vienna.

I've been reading From Eternity to Here by Sean M. Carroll (cosmologist, not biologist), and entropy is a key part of understanding cosmological problems. Pretty mind-breaking stuff.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I hope I can at least cope better with dopes like Shiloh "God is just as good an explanation", blah blah blah.

I've also learned that there are arguments not to be used. Don't say stuff like "time began with the Big Bang", because it might very well be wrong. There's lots of stuff that cosmologists are still not sure about. Lots of different conjectured models are out there, including some very weird ones indeed.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 28, 2010 3:54 AM

in post#77 you will find

Tell you what, why don’t you record yourself uttering sentences as the above in your native dialect, be sure to use the same carrier phrase so that the intonation is the same. Repeat every sentence 10 times, record it with the best sound equipment possible at the quietest place available to you, and email it to me once I get back to the Western world. I’d be happy to look at the acoustic signal and share it with some phonetician friends of mine.

Posted by: lordsetar | December 28, 2010 4:35 AM

Augh. Debating someone regarding NDEs and she gives me this article, and I can't find the article it's referencing which is why I'm tempted to call bullshit.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 28, 2010 5:48 AM

Apologies for my post upthread. I didn't mean to de-legitimize Criss's statements by saying she's attractive. Yes she's a very pretty woman, but the fact she's able to eloquently and intelligently rip religion a new one makes her much more attractive.

It was intended to be a joke - not on her behalf, but on the 'Prophet's' behalf. Sorry if it came off the way I didn't intend.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 28, 2010 7:08 AM

Damn blockquote fail!
paragraph
"People...done that."
is a quote from the WSJ article.

Posted by: 34jlg34 | December 28, 2010 7:25 AM

currently reading
http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/usingvaluemodes.pdf
http://www.campaignstrategy.org/articles/behaviourchange_climate.pdf
http://documents.campaignstrategy.org/uploads/campaignstrategy_newsletter_66.pdf
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/common_cause_report.pdf
fascinating stuff about political psychology
really useful too, if you're devising a climate change campaign.

Posted by: Photalistic | December 28, 2010 7:27 AM

I am Mohammed

i am GOD
i am Prophet
black on white
analog thought digitally mastered
visually measured, numerically coded
asynchronous synaptic fires
my words heard inside
reverberating in your skull
Is it really me you hear?
your voice saying my words
words, thoughts, agony
you want to kill me
but my words visually impaired
your brain chemically laced
who are you killing
over and over again
it is your brain
analog to digital to chemical
only your own voice
echoing a skull’s chamber
destructive outlets
won’t dull the stained brain
etched with panic, worry
i might be right

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | December 28, 2010 8:30 AM

Josh, I don't have any answers about the diabetic kitties, but it's good to see you posting! I hope you're doing well. :)

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
I not only paint my toenails and fingernails--I must paint them. The Depakote I take to stop the migraines makes my hair fall out and my nails extremely brittle. I've managed to get my hair under control, but unless I stay on top of constantly painting my nails with a thick topcoat of some kind, they break all the time--sometimes very deeply down the nail bed, which hurts.

Of course, I could just use a transparent top coat...but what's the fun in that? :) If I have to keep them painted, I might as well enjoy myself. ;) Hence multiple shades of purple, blue and glitter.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
John @ #28, nicely done. :)

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
Cicely: *hugs* Hope you are feeling better soon! Er...when you're off the drugs, that is. :)

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 28, 2010 9:22 AM

Owlmirror,
Back in October, I related the story of making a pilgrimage to Boltzmann's grave when my wife and I were in Vienna. (As I am the physicist and she the biologist/environmental scientist, I told her she need not accompany me. She replied, "No, I'll go to the grave with you." Such dedication in a spouse.)

I subsequently told the story to my massage therapist, and I decided to also try to explain the concept of entropy to her. Now my massage therapist is not a dumb woman--quite smart in fact--but she has no training in science and never paid much attention in math, so I had my work cut out for me. So as she is digging her elbow into a particularly tough and persistent knot in my trapezius, I commenced my explanation. Upon my conclusion, she replied, "You know, I think I understood all of that, but it literally hurt my brain." Knowing a physicist can be hazardous to your health.

Entropy is indeed one of the most profound, subtle and mysterious concepts in physics. Its relation to time, to Universal expansion and perhaps even to the decays of some subatomic particles and to the weak nuclear force are at the cutting edge of physics. It's also slowly killing each and every one of us.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 28, 2010 10:26 AM

Sometimes, I deliberately misconstrue what I am pretty damn sure is a creationist arsehole trying to be subtle, just to see what will happen.

Fucking Piltdown fucking man.

Sheesh.

I can has context plz?

We have little wild strawberries growing in peoples' yards, which excited me up until the point where I ate some. They had no flavor at all. None. Big downer.

European forest strawberries are reported to be very flavorful.

so what is it that men were speaking of poping boils on the butt, while just seen a beautiful woman!

Awww. The drive-by troll is gone, so I can't point out his silly assumption to him.

Oberdeutsch (I think was the term

Yep.

usually in German dialects that don’t use VOT, they usually use aspiration

Are you sure? I only know aspiration from central and northern Germany, in the places where /b d g/ are fully voiced.

I actually suspect in your case length might be a good candidate.

I think there's an inconsistent length difference at the limit of my perception ability. :-/ Increasing the length of the hold is an easy way to build up more pressure and make the release louder. But when I consciously try to avoid it, nothing changes. After all, there's already a length contrast between short and "long" fortes (the long ones are the ones spelled double), and the "long" ones aren't as long as in Italian or Finnish. In addition, probably even longer fortes and lenes occur across morpheme boundaries (|dd| and |td| surface as /d:/, |tt| and |dt| as /t:/, supporting my hypothesis that the distinction lies in the release).

/b d g/ sound like in Mandarin (Pinyin b d g) or like Spanish /p t k/; /p t k/ sound like in French or Russian or Japanese, except that /k/ is on the loud side and can be borderline aspirated – fitting its origin as a relict that escaped the High German consonant shift (which famously spared word-initial /k/ except in Alemannic and South Bavarian dialects).

In Swiss dialects, there is a length difference, because they've lost the length contrast within fortes. Their phonemic fortes are long lenes phonetically.

And then, of course, in Swabian and eastern Austrian dialects, there is no difference at all, and the contrast is completely lost, all plosives are voiceless lenes.

For instance for Northern High German, people were measuring “Ich kann diese Gruppe nicht leiden” vs. “Ich kann diese Gruppe nicht leiten” and found that there was a significant difference in length.

Yes, but in the other direction: voiced consonants are longer than voiceless, even aspirated, ones.

Furthermore, the nasal release (syllabic [n] and no vowel in -den and -ten) might screw things up.

Tell you what, why don’t you record yourself

Will do as soon as possible. I don't think I have any good equipment, though.

the occasional grammatical difference, such as “Das wird sich schon ausgehen”.

No, that's a lexical difference:

ausgehen "to go out" (in all of the English meanings, including lights/flames going out)

sich ausgehen "to not run out"

Or do you mean the use of werden to indicate probability rather than future (es wird sich mit dem Geld ausgehen "we probably won't run out/aren't running out of money")? That's an Upper German dialect feature that is fairly often carried over into Standard German.

Does this work, I wonder? (HTML entities)

ｷャロル

Four squares in Georgia (in your comment); one bizarre thing that could be a kanji with four strokes, followed by three squares, in Courier New (in the comment window). Of course, IE actually listens to the font specifications instead of running roughshod over them; evidently, there are no kanji in Georgia.

Posted by: JeffreyD | December 28, 2010 10:31 AM

Ah, last car load of children and grandlings just left. Second son and spouse and diva child will swing by to say bye on their way to the airport soon. House is quiet, dog is quiet...I love them all dearly, but so nice to see them go. Does that make me a bad person? :^}

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 28, 2010 10:42 AM

PZ, I think I've found a side job opportunity for you.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 28, 2010 10:55 AM

Kev, you're right that it doesn't hurt to clarify. Most of us here know you well enough to spot a joke, but I suppose someone without that context could be misinterpret.

You get a gold star for thoughtfulness *

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 28, 2010 11:10 AM

Apologies for my post upthread. I didn't mean to de-legitimize Criss's statements by saying she's attractive. Yes she's a very pretty woman, but the fact she's able to eloquently and intelligently rip religion a new one makes her much more attractive.

Lol. Even I think it came across as intended. I find her accent and demeanor more attractive, personally, but that's taste for you. I've seen her videos before too.

She is cute, but an Atheist, but as Paul declared woman is given grace in child bearing, so what is it that men were speaking of poping boils on the butt, while just seen a beautiful woman!

Now that's de-legitimizing Criss's statements. While also engaging in the invisible minority fallacy of the internet.

Posted by: trinioler | December 28, 2010 11:18 AM

Yeah Man Boobz scares me... a lot. Theres so much hate out there for women. What I'd be interested in is quantifying how many of these men really exist, just for my peace of mind.

And once I get home, I'll try out a few paella recipes, get a sense for how it works.

And you're welcome Markita Lynda!

I saw something on a post somewhere(can't find it again) that said that psychological tests can't find a difference between men who abuse women and men who don't? Anyone know more on the subject?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 28, 2010 11:28 AM

Did you manage to catch the "Boycott American Women" post at the end? W.T.F.

I'm proud to be an American! Please avoid me at all costs.

But seriously, does he think Korean women want to put up with him or something? Maybe Iranian women?

lol

Somebody hasn't met many foreign women!

Posted by: blf | December 28, 2010 11:39 AM

Tentacular, right down to the frosting.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 28, 2010 11:48 AM

I can't do the whole PUA and MRA thing. Talking to those people makes me want to curl up into a little ball and die.

Posted by: blf | December 28, 2010 11:52 AM

(Now I notice Cath@33…)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 28, 2010 11:58 AM

I can't do the whole PUA and MRA thing. Talking to those people makes me want to curl up into a little ball and die.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 28, 2010 12:09 PM

@Jules:

Yay! Gold star!

Posted by: blf | December 28, 2010 12:44 PM

What is MRA and PUA?

TLAs.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | December 28, 2010 12:46 PM

@Muse:

Men's... Rights?

What.

(TVTropes)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 28, 2010 1:05 PM

If I could jump in regarding screen size/lines per sreen:

During the day, I check The Thread&trade from my phone, so if y'all could keep it short...

Seriously, though I'm with Caine here. It's easier it adjust the display size rather than trying to herd The Horde. (And it's easier to adjust/manipulate everything on a netbook than it is on, say, a Droid. Case in point, my phone has decided to move all the a's to the end of the word. Why? I have no idea and I have no clue how to fix it.)

Posted by: Psych-Oh | December 28, 2010 1:26 PM

Repulsive little toads. "Men's Rights Advocates" and "Pick-Up Artists".

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 28, 2010 1:32 PM

Sometimes, I deliberately misconstrue what I am pretty damn sure is a creationist arsehole trying to be subtle, just to see what will happen.

Fucking Piltdown fucking man.

Sheesh.

I can has context plz?

Comment #47 by a drive-by googlemess, here.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | December 28, 2010 1:42 PM

I suppose pre-cooked rice is out of the question?

Posted by: Psych-Oh | December 28, 2010 2:12 PM

Pre-cooked Rice?

That's called "Take-Out" in our house. Fuji-Hana. I'll give you the number.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 28, 2010 2:21 PM

I suppose pre-cooked rice is out of the question?

On another note: someone please come drag me away from the PUA shit. I just read this:

But I guess sluts don’t have normal human emotions, and I’m afraid women don’t have normal human emotions.

So...sluts aren't women, and women aren't human...

I will not link to it unless someone wants me to. In fact, even then I might not. The sad thing is, the commenter seems to be a younger person who is just trying to figure all this stuff out, and it appears that he got sucked into the PUA stuff and doesn't necessarily agree but just assumes that he's got more learning to do (I got that impression from other comments of his). It feels very much like religious brainwashing.

Anyway, I'm done quoting them. This just broke my heart. For multiple reasons. I might be wrong about this guy, but I'm sure there are others out there. Damn, the patriarchy hurts.

Posted by: blf | December 28, 2010 2:31 PM

I've burnt rice in a rice cooker.

So don't use the incinerate setting.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 2:34 PM

I have known a number of people now who couldn't cook rice and I still find it perplexing. Pot, water, rice, heat, fluff, eat. It is one of the most painless items to cook in my entire repertoire, the only hitch is getting the appropriate ratio and cooking time for the type of rice. Risotto on the other hand, I don't know about, (I am not a fan unless you count rice pudding.)
___

Jules,
It seems that the people on that site don't have normal human emotions.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 28, 2010 2:35 PM

I would looooooooove to know what that guy's definition of "slut" is.

Posted by: Psych-Oh | December 28, 2010 2:53 PM

AHA! Found it. She was abused by her mother. I will have to read her blog closely later. I am really interested in this as a psychologist.

OK, really need to pick up kids...

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 28, 2010 2:57 PM

The most serious MRA type I knew had a crack addict who abandoned him for a mother. His dad beat her, but he could understand his dad's abuse and also abandoning the family.

He also thought that men should be able to abort a child a woman had that they didn't want... at any time.

He considered himself a freelance psychologist helping abused girls forgive their fathers.

He's out there now.

Saving the world from women. One abused human being at a time.

Posted by: blf | December 28, 2010 3:00 PM

Pot, water, rice, heat, fluff, eat.

It requires a great deal of coordination, patience, and practice to pile up the rice on the burner and then to heat it up at just the right rate. (And never forget the pan of water—even highly-experienced professional rice chefs occasionally have fires.)

The toaster method is a cheat. It's less fussy and—or so I'm told—once you master the trick, the rice is almost as good. (In this case you don't want a pan of water on standby. Most toasters are electric.)

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 28, 2010 3:12 PM

I either burn it or undercook it.

When it's undercooked, just add water and turn the heat up again.

(...Not too much, though.)

It amazes me how twisted some people are and I would looooooooove to know what that guy's definition of "slut" is.

Hmmm. On some language blog, probably the unsearchable one, I once read about Polish or Czech grammar. (Yes, I forgot which it was. Shame!) Here goes: "Whore" is a general-purpose expletive, so general that there's an adjective to it that can be used to complain about nouns (much like English motherfucking). Logical question: is there such a thing as a "whorey whore"? Answer: Yes! Definitions: "whore": sleeps with everyone; "whorey whore": sleeps with everyone except me.

Could be that the latter is the twisted guy's definition of "slut". But I don't actually want to find out.

A woman who has sex without being tricked into it.

Oh, that would make at least as much sense.

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 28, 2010 3:50 PM

We just bought a rice cooker.
I had my technique perfected for cooking rice on the simmer-burner of the electric stove (in a pot of water). I was very proud of my skill.
I wouldn't go back.
I &hearts my rice cooker.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 28, 2010 4:07 PM

David M and Jules,
I was assuming that "slut" referred to a sexually active woman who wouldn't have sex with that particular PUA, like the "whorey whore" of David's post.

She's a "slut", therefore there's got to be something wrong with her if she doesn't give it up for anyone who asks. Come on folks, to these guys "sluts" aren't allowed to have standards!

/barf

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 28, 2010 4:24 PM

I was assuming that "slut" referred to a sexually active woman who wouldn't have sex with that particular PUA, like the "whorey whore" of David's post.

Obvious.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | December 28, 2010 4:31 PM

Jules: My ex-husband is guilty of almost every single one of those behaviors.

When I pointed out how shitty and controlling he was to our mutual friends, most of them made excuses for him.

And I would imagine, for some of them, those same behaviors occurred in their relationships, and were just accepted as normal. "Boys will be boys" and all that.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

On a more fun note, I forgot to show you guys the little mini amigurumi Cthulu my sister Jessica made for me, which is now dominating my desk in between Nemo and the gargoyle I brought back from Paris. The tentacles are a little hard to see in the photo. :) So cute!

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 4:36 PM

Jules,
So sex has to be won, and the only appropriate winners are men? I feel a little sorry for people who see the world that way.
___

notRandy,
No, it is still a great idea, there is just a bunch of overaged adolescents who think they can manipulate their way to happiness.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 28, 2010 4:55 PM

[channels Joseph Heller]

...a God-fearing,freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged individualist who held that federal aid to anyone but farmers was creeping socialism. He advocated thrift and hard work and dissaproved of loose wwomen who turned him down.

Posted by: The Sailor | December 28, 2010 4:56 PM

onion girl, it gets really confused when one is in a BDSM relationship. emphasis on relationship.

Posted by: John Morales | December 28, 2010 4:58 PM

If it doesn't awaken primal fear and induce sanity-wrenching nightmares, it ain't a depiction of dread Cthulhu.

Posted by: The Sailor | December 28, 2010 5:15 PM

I can't cook rice and I can't cook spaghetti, but I think it's more my insecurity in my cooking than my actual ability. I can eat it, (food's too precious to waste), but I don't inflict it on others.

with rice, I use minute rice I've cooked to the directions, and then steam it in a colander with broiled chicken breasts that Ive cubed and toss in a few cashews.
+++++++++++++
After years on the road in R&R I've heard men and women talk frankly about sex. Men can be disgusting, so can women. IME, men talk nudge, nudge, wink, wink sexist crap and women discuss details. It's a wonderful education for a man who likes women.

Like the joke somewhat goes:'If you don't eat pussy good, your woman will never tell you ... but she'll tell all her friends!'
+++++++++++++
notRandy, there is no rule book to people, and it seems to me, that just like generals are always fighting the last war, people are always trying to fix what went wrong in the last relationship and missing what is wrong in the current one.
+++++++++++++++
(mutters to self:I gonna take some hits for this comment)

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 5:20 PM

notRandy,

I am not ready for this.

ODS,

It's like these guys have never actually known a woman.

The Sailor,
Consensual bounds and restrictions are not the same kind of control. A D/s pair knows what is going on, how the power in their relationship flows, and has established lines of communication to deal with issues. An asshole just assumes they have the right to use whatever means necessary to get what they want.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 28, 2010 5:30 PM

In the greater context of the post, a slut will still possibly have sex with you, but she'll try to trick you, because the only way to get sex is to be a trickster, and sluts want sex. So you have to be more tricksterer than she is. Otherwise, the slut is emasculating you by either sleeping with you while tricking you or by not falling for your tricks. Because she's a slut. Which means that she has no human emotions.

Especially not pity for your deep insecurity and deep sense of entitlement at the same time.

Maybe "slut" means "I want a pity fuck from you, and I want you to make very sure it doesn't look like one".

mini amigurumi Cthulu

^_^

But I must say I like the computer screen even better. And those who cannot spell Cthulhu shall be eaten next to last.

So sex has to be won, and the only appropriate winners are men?

Of course. It's a The Game, it's competitive like the rest of America, and it's a zero-sum game. Jadehawk has blogged about it several times, search for "toxic masculinity".

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 28, 2010 5:35 PM

That thread made my head hurt. Did you manage to catch the "Boycott American Women" post at the end? W.T.F.

Posted by: llewelly | December 28, 2010 5:42 PM

David Marjanović | December 28, 2010 5:30 PM:

And those who cannot spell Cthulhu shall be eaten next to last.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 5:50 PM

Randy(notRandy),
How you feel right now is natural, but it's not a permanent state. Take your time, figure out where you are at, life isn't over, it's just changed.
Also, music.
(I see you have that covered, but still.)

Posted by: The Sailor | December 28, 2010 5:51 PM

Dhorvath, that's wonderful in a wonderful world, but complicated in a real world. But what isn't complicated betwixt people and people.
+++++++++
(referencing above comments) Maybe a delimiter in relationships should be asking the prospective person if they believe human interactions are a zero sum game?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 5:57 PM

Broboxley,
Converted rice 2:1 and ~20 minutes
Brown rice 2:1 and ~40 minutes
Jasmine or basmati 1.75:1 and ~25 minutes
Sushi 1.3:1 and ~15 minutes.
From memory, so the numbers could be a little off, but I have four or five different types of rice in my cupboard on any given evening and there are differences in ratio and cooking time between them.
Your point is strong it is easy stuff to make, I just can't take the recipe for sushi rice and the brown rice bag and mix them.

Posted by: Aunt Benjy | December 28, 2010 6:05 PM

Bugger. Dennis Dutton (Arts and Letters Daily, and NZ skeptic) has died.

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/founder-of-arts-letters-daily-dies/29349

No more info at present...

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | December 28, 2010 6:13 PM

I've found 2:1 and waiting until the rice cooker goes "click" works for most types of rice.

PUA/MRA: Ew. As far as I can tell, the kinds of 'people' (and I use the term loosely) profiled on ManBoobz are the same kind of people you'd find on "A Room Of Our Own". The tiny minority of female-supremacy activists poisons the entire feminist movement; the male-supremacy activists are a much larger minority, relatively speaking. I support the kind of "MRA" (who don't even call themselves MRAs, I think) who solely oppose ARoOO-style nonsense... but we're few and far between, and not particularly vocal (because we recognize that we do, currently, have privilege).

Power/Control wheel: I've seen about every item on that wheel, in my stepparents' relationship, and each one had about an equal share:

* Economic abuse: Mark. He held most of the jobs, and generally controlled the finances.
* Coercion and threats: Both, but mostly Mom.
* Intimidation: Both, but mostly Mark.
* Emotional abuse: Both, about evenly.
* Using male privilege: Duh.
* Using children: Entirely Mom.
* Minimizing, denying, and blaming: Both.
* Using isolation: Both, but mostly Mark, primarily with control of transportation.

Posted by: broboxley OT | December 28, 2010 6:16 PM

well there is some humanity left. Wife calls, she has a flat tire here its cold, she has no idea how to get to the spare in the minivan. She is about 100 miles away from home. I grab a floor jack, extra tire that will fit and start heading up. A young man passed by twice and stopped to change it for her. Very nice, we met at stateline and replaced the mini tire with a real one.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 28, 2010 6:41 PM

Jules,
When my wife was single, she used to get all sorts of guys who were intimidated by her. She is a strong woman, larger than most and very, very smart. She's also very uppity.

If she'd listened to the morons who told her she intimidated men, I probably never would have looked at her (OK, I would have looked. She's frigging hot!) twice. I love uppity women. Most healthy men who do not mistake their hemmorrhoids for haberdashery love uppity women. And the rest ain't worth pissing on even if they're on fire.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 28, 2010 6:52 PM

Off to meet the Step-Dottir and prospective Dottir-in-Law for a holiday dinner. Engagement rings will be shown off!

Posted by: The Sailor | December 28, 2010 6:58 PM

Thanks Dorvath. She and another ex-Gf were friends, wel

Posted by: The Sailor | December 28, 2010 7:04 PM

.......... Sorry to all, I meant to hit the cancel and not the Submit. Go figure.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 28, 2010 7:23 PM

See, I just don't get boil in bag rice. Maybe I am missing something, but as I have mentioned, I find rice absurdly easy to cook.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | December 28, 2010 7:31 PM

My rice recipe comes from my drunken uncle, with a few modifications:

Put some rice in a pot, about half as much as you want of done rice, allow room for expansion. Rinse rice a few times and pick out anything you don't want. Add cooking water (I use filtered) until water is over rice the length of the last joint on your little finger. Add a little salt and a little soy sauce if you like. Cover pot, put on burner. Bring to boil, but don't let boil over. Let boil a few minutes, turn off fire and leave it covered. It will finish cooking unless your pot is very thin and kitchen is very cold. While rice is still warm, fluff up rice with a fork. Share and enjoy.

That's a long recipe, but it is easy and involves no measuring, and little attention.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 28, 2010 7:51 PM

I don't get the need for a ricecooker. Throw rice into boiling water at a 2:1 or 3:2 ratio (depending on the variety) on a low heat for 15-20 minutes, then let it sit for about 10 minutes. Simple, effective, works every time.

Posted by: scornucopia | December 28, 2010 8:04 PM

I've been introduced to the terminology of PUAs, MRAs, incels, and MGTOWs by earlier links to ManBoobz. I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, there's something pathetic about incorporating the failure to connect with a partner into one's identity. On the other, I understand the frustration that some guys, including myself, feel when nothing seems to go your way for such a long time that it seems perpetual. It is discouraging and frustrating when blatantly shallow disingenuous asshole PUAs do better than “nice guys”, often with women who are smart, interesting, funny, and pretty. I have more than one female friend who's ended up with one jerk after another. I'm not suggesting that it looks any different from the other side, BTW: I'm sure there are equally many women who bemoan the tendency of their attractive male friends to hook up with women whom they regard as “bad”.

In a post-mortem of a failed relationship, an ex-g/f once told me that I was “incredibly sweet”, and (inter alia) that she considered this more-or-less synonymous with being contemptibly “un-masculine”, weak, and emotionally immature. It seems that I erred when I believed that integrity and character (kindness, honesty, loyalty, trust, humor, supportiveness, etc.) were important, and, in contrast, the desirable characteristics of “masculinity” in her lexicon appear to align rather well with what I would regard as being a jealous, emotionally distant, controlling dick. So, while I find the idea of turning sexual lack-of-success into an identity pathetic, I can kinda see where it comes from; compassion seems to demand that I find it worthy of more pity than scorn (despite the 'nym).

Posted by: SC OM | December 28, 2010 8:09 PM

RICE: SEALEVEL OR THEREABOUTS:

- 1 cup rice, 2 cups water, pinch salt - in saucepan
- bring to a boil
- immediately reduce to low; set timer for 20 minutes
- after 20 minutes, remove from heat and fluff with fork

This DOESN'T WORK for OTHER ELEVATIONS, apparently.

Posted by: SC OM | December 28, 2010 8:15 PM

Oh - covered saucepan, of course.

Takes about 1 1/2-2 minutes to boil.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 28, 2010 8:47 PM

Benefit of a rice cooker: if you forget about the rice, the house doesn't burn down, and/or the house doesn't smell like burned rice.

I like my rice cooker.

Posted by: JeffreyD | December 28, 2010 8:53 PM

1. Fill a 6 quart pot with 14 cups of water. Do not alter the water volume.
2. Bring the water to a boil and add 2 teaspoons of salt.
3. When the water is boiling rapidly, pour in up to 4 cups of rice. "Up to 4 cups"; you can boil a half-cup or 4 cups, it makes no difference.
4. When the water comes back to a boil, reduce the heat but keep the water actively bubbling, and begin to consider your cooking time.
5. As the rice cooks, you should continue to stir the rice every 2 or 3 minutes to distribute the heat also you need not cover the pot while the rice is boiling.
6. It should take no more than 15 minutes for the rice to be completely, perfectly cooked.
7. Taste a few grains of the rice to be sure there are no hard centers.
8. When the rice tastes cooked to you, immediately take it off the heat, pour it into a colander and rinse well with hot water.
9. I use a wide variety of spices/flavorings in the rice water.

Either of these works well.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 28, 2010 9:04 PM

One big problem with a rice cooker:

1. fill water reservoir
2. add 1 cup rice
3. add 2 cups water
4. turn on timer
5. cook rest of dinner
6. timer goes off
7. realize that you never plugged in the rice cooker

Posted by: Robbie | December 28, 2010 9:17 PM

Talk about an improvement! In 2010, Mo' has no need for a bath or a shave. No mention of any scripture nonsense either. Does the new Mo' still have temples and stuff? And does she allow music, dancing and having a life? If she does allow the good stuff without any of the endless praying nonsense and all the other garbage, where do we sign?

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 28, 2010 9:32 PM

Rice: Find a microwaveable container.

Add 1 part rice, 2.5 parts water.
Microwave for 5 minutes on high to get the water boiling.
Microwave for 14 minutes on low, to simmer the rice.

Stir and serve.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | December 28, 2010 9:55 PM

I nearly always microwave plain Basmati rice. I use the "fill to 1st joint of index finger above rice" which works for me, but makes me wonder how people with different sized hands cook their rice :) Nuke 5 minutes on full; 12 minutes on low.

Risotto, rice pudding, sticky rice and brown rice are different. I mostly boil brown rice in lots of water, 25 minutes for slightly chewy texture.

(I do not wish to discuss misogyny today, thanks.)

Posted by: Deepsix | December 28, 2010 9:58 PM

Ah, the video is by ZOMGitscriss. Check out this tribute to her here

Be sure and watch it to the end, it's worth it.

Bonus tract

These guys are atheists, and have some pretty funny videos.

Ok, one more

And a special Christmas song just for PZ here (2:06 is spot on).

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 28, 2010 10:06 PM

Rorschach and Scornucopia,
I guess you have to ask yourself if you really want to be involved with a woman for whom "sweet" is an insult.

"Sweet," quite frankly, got me to the promised land in many of my relationships...but then what I was looking for were relationships. Being "sweet" was what got my wife and I back together after we broke up for a month, and in my marriage it's what reminds my wife that I am not a dick all the time. Sweet has worked pretty well for me. It's gotten me into the relationships that were good and kept me out of the ones that would have been bad news.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 28, 2010 10:11 PM

I have found that making rice in large quantities doesn't work well for me, so I rarely make more than about 2 cups dry rice at a time.

BTW, try soaking some saffron threads in hot water and tossing that in once the rice has come to a boil and you stir it before putting on the lid. Not only does it give you a beautiful golden rice, it also gives a nice, subtle flavor.

Posted by: SC OM | December 28, 2010 10:22 PM

Calling a guy "sweet" is the kiss of death for any prospect of a sexual relationship. No sex for sweet guys.

;)

Gah. No. In no way.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 10:25 PM

No sex for sweet guys.

Not in my experience. Mister is sweet and he gets laid all the time.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 28, 2010 10:34 PM

No sex for sweet guys??

Somebody should inform Mr ODS about that. He thinks that he frequently has sex with me, but apparently it was all an elaborate ruse.

(I was initially attracted to (and fell in love with) Mr ODS because he is a genuinely sweet guy. I do not suffer assholes gladly.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 10:40 PM

Jadehawk:

i keep on referring to the boyfriend as "cute", "adorable" etc, mostly because he gets all flustered when i do, which is cute

Your boyfriend is adorable.

Posted by: Shala | December 28, 2010 10:47 PM

No sex for sweet guys.

Me and my boyfriend call each other cute/sweet all the time and totally intend to have sex after we get tested. :D

Posted by: scornucopia | December 28, 2010 11:05 PM

Rorschach:

Calling a guy "sweet" is the kiss of death for any prospect of a sexual relationship. No sex for sweet guys.

It sure does seem like that sometimes. Not saying it is, in reality, but it often seems like one might be better off being a manifestly shallow fool with transparently absurd pick-up lines (I almost vomited on his when a guy I was talking to in a bar said “Nice shoes!” to a pretty girl passing by).

a_ray_in_dilbert_space:

I guess you have to ask yourself if you really want to be involved with a woman for whom "sweet" is an insult.

Good point. Rationally speaking, I appreciate that I'm better off without the ex-g/f in question (and for way more reasons than that), but it doesn't make it much less emotionally “self-doubt inducing” when it appears to be part of a pattern. That said, it doesn't take much to dispel those feelings — meeting one person who seems to like “sweet” and “unashamedly geeky” enough to spend the night makes all the difference.

SC OM: Yes. I do appreciate, and appreciate that there are, women who are more discerning. I'd still be a virgin if there weren't :o)

Posted by: llewelly | December 28, 2010 11:10 PM

The Sailor | December 28, 2010 8:52 PM:

So 1 gallon of rice and two gallons of water!?

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 28, 2010 11:11 PM

We are in Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal across the country for over five years years, so it's a total non-issue. (Some of my gay friends just had their fifth wedding anniversary.) A little more of an issue is that SweetMuslimGirl's parents don't know she's gay so it will be a bit of a shock to them. BuddingBiologist's parents said, respectively (some years ago), "Yeah, I'm not surprised" and "Sorry, I should have guessed!"

The rings are very modern, plain stainless steel bands.

Posted by: Shala | December 28, 2010 11:14 PM

I was just going to comment about how freaking adorable you are, with the new boyfriend and everything, but never mind.

You're a TOTAL JERKFACE. >:(

/huff

:( :( :(

I will offer you a golden tentacle as an apology, holding a tankard of grog!

Posted by: llewelly | December 28, 2010 11:16 PM

a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, Death's Wellness Consultant | December 28, 2010 10:11 PM:

BTW, try soaking some saffron threads in hot water and tossing that in once the rice has come to a boil and you stir it before putting on the lid

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 11:22 PM

Jadehawk:

the "traditional" engagement ring needs to die (both from an aesthetic and an economic POW)

I've never seen the point of engagement/wedding rings or bands, for myself. I wear rings, but I don't need them as a sign of commitment, I don't need them as a reminder that I'm married and I don't need them to inform others of my status.

Friends of mine, when they had their commitment ceremony, went with tattooed bands. I thought that was a nice idea.

Posted by: Shala | December 28, 2010 11:27 PM

Well, okay then. You're back to being adorable.

:D Thanks! *hugs all around*

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 28, 2010 11:29 PM

I've never seen the point of engagement/wedding rings or bands, for myself. I wear rings, but I don't need them as a sign of commitment, I don't need them as a reminder that I'm married and I don't need them to inform others of my status.

Friends of mine, when they had their commitment ceremony, went with tattooed bands. I thought that was a nice idea.

OTOH, engagement rings with the huge, protruding diamond on a very slender band, are just plain hideous, idiotically expensive, and seem to signify not a happy relationship, but the cash-worth of the bride. ugly rings for ugly symbolism.

most importantly, the protruding setting must die. it's ugly and asking for someone to get hurt with it. unless you need to cut glass with that diamond, it really doesn't need to stick out that much from its setting :-/

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 28, 2010 11:37 PM

I picked out the ring and the setting, but the stone was passed down to me from my grandmother. Mr ODS and I wouldn't have bought a ring like that if we didn't already have the diamond.

I still find it aesthetically very displeasing: it looks disproportionate and in most cases very... "functional", where the function is making the stone as obnoxiously obvious as possible. MEH

there's ways to set a large stone and still make a beautiful, non-obnoxious, non-disproportionate ring, but I've never seen such a design on an engagement ring which was meant to be an engagement ring...

Posted by: Hekuni Cat, Champion of Oriana | December 28, 2010 11:43 PM

cicely, Death's Imaginary Friend:

This has not been a good weekend. First the tummy bug, then a huge abcess exploded onto the area where my left butt-cheek meets my leg. Oh, and thanks to the bug, I also got dehydrated. So I got to spend 6 hours in the walk-in clinic while the doctor fed me IVs and dug it out.

Ouch. I hope you feel much better soon--and that the rest of your year has less pain and more fun. *hugs*

JeffreyD:

Ah, last car load of children and grandlings just left. Second son and spouse and diva child will swing by to say bye on their way to the airport soon. House is quiet, dog is quiet...I love them all dearly, but so nice to see them go. Does that make me a bad person? :^}

Nah. Just honest. I love my family too but being around them, particularly in large numbers, is totally exhausting. I am always relieved at the end of a visit and ready to be home.

Nepenthe:

On another note, I'm leaving my parent's house tomorrow and I'm so fucking happy!

Congratulations!

Caine:

Not in my experience. Mister is sweet and he gets laid all the time.

Nor in my experience. My husband is also sweet and gets laid a lot.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 28, 2010 11:47 PM

I don't like protruding rings, either. If there's a stone, I like the setting to curl around it.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 28, 2010 11:48 PM

Jadehawk:

OTOH, engagement rings with the huge, protruding diamond on a very slender band, are just plain hideous, idiotically expensive, and seem to signify not a happy relationship, but the cash-worth of the bride. ugly rings for ugly symbolism.

Yep. The trend toward maximum vulgarity is distressing.

I almost had a diamond ring once. My mother decided to have her engagement diamond reset. It wasn't a huge diamond, but it was definitely noticeable. She had a beautiful setting made, so that the ring resembled a small flower, with diamond deep-set inside. It was supposed to be my 16th birthday present, but when she showed up at my grandparent's house, she was wearing it and said she changed her mind and was going to keep it. No bother to me, I've never cared for diamonds.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 28, 2010 11:56 PM

OTOH, engagement rings with the huge, protruding diamond on a very slender band, are just plain hideous, idiotically expensive, and seem to signify not a happy relationship, but the cash-worth of the bride. ugly rings for ugly symbolism.

Yep. The trend toward maximum vulgarity is distressing.

Or are we in such a way now that to enjoy something that may come with cultural consequences must always be looked through the lens of culture and reviled for its cultural connotations?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 12:00 AM

That last sentence of mine doesn't make sense. I'll rephrase: Can't someone like it for the sake of it, or must it be judged by the wider culture?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 12:05 AM

It must be judged Kel.

It. Must. Be. Judged.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 12:06 AM

Kel:

Is there anything intrinsically wrong with getting a diamond in that fashion, or is it more to do with the symbolism of getting such a ring?

I think this is one of those cases where context is everything. I know people who have what I would consider to be gaudy taste in jewelry, including rings. (Women and men. Some men's pinky rings are hideous.)

If having an incredibly huge, obnoxious ring on your finger is your personal idea of pretty or whatever, fine. None of my business.

When it comes to engagement/wedding rings, though, the context changes. For a lot a people, it seems that there is a requirement for a very expensive, obnoxious ring[s]; for many, it's a way of not so subtlety making a point of "look how much my fiancé/husband was willing to spend on me", in other words "look how much I'm worth!" The whole thing is vulgar and unsettling. There's an undercurrent of dishonesty about it all.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 12:13 AM

The whole thing is vulgar and unsettling. There's an undercurrent of dishonesty about it all.

Adding to mine above: there's more a sense that it was a deal struck in the purchase of a person, rather than something which symbolizes commitment a/o love.

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 12:14 AM

When it comes to engagement/wedding rings, though, the context changes. For a lot a people, it seems that there is a requirement for a very expensive, obnoxious ring[s]; for many, it's a way of not so subtlety making a point of "look how much my fiancé/husband was willing to spend on me", in other words "look how much I'm worth!" The whole thing is vulgar and unsettling. There's an undercurrent of dishonesty about it all.

Caine, have I ever mentioned how awesome you are?

because i feel the same way about rings

I would honestly probably cry if someone bought me a wedding ring. "Why would you spend that much on me and waste that much money for something nonsensical!"

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 12:16 AM

When it comes to engagement/wedding rings, though, the context changes.

I really don't get the judgemental attitude that people have here.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 29, 2010 12:22 AM

Speaking of Pua, there's Pua the anteater who lives with TamanduaGirl.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 12:27 AM

Kel:

I really don't get the judgemental attitude that people have here.

Gee, thanks so much for calling me judgmental, after I went out of my way to answer you the best I could. I'm not running around telling people they shouldn't wear gaudy/obnoxious jewelry - I already said that's a matter of taste. I then went on to explain a different context, one which involves marriage.

So, go fuck yourself Kel. How's that for judgmental?

Shala:

I would honestly probably cry if someone bought me a wedding ring. "Why would you spend that much on me and waste that much money for something nonsensical!"

I wouldn't cry, but that thing would be returned immediately! 30 whatever years ago when Mister and I married, he asked if I wanted to go ring shopping. I said no and he said okay. He was relieved, actually, as he's never seen the point of the things either.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 12:30 AM

It's highly unlikely that every woman who walks around with that design genuinely came to like it on an individualistic level.

*Cerberus, I'm not saying anything regarding sex.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 12:36 AM

People aren't terribly creative, Kel.

Many of them like that setting because it's traditional, and many of them dislike it because it's traditional, and then others dislike the concept entirely, and so on...

but I don't think you can really remove the cultural concepts surrounding an engagement ring without removing the concept of engagement ring altogether.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 12:41 AM

Also, pop music is incredibly culturally relative. Music is vast, and different groups of people have totally different types of tonality and rhythm, different singing styles.

It's only through mediated contact with other cultures that people may change those tastes, and often it's the very mystique of the other culture that prompts that.

Or it can be economic. The accordion almost obliterated an entire branch of music, for instance, because it was cheaper. However, since it was pre-tuned to a different culture's scale the traditional stringed instruments were easier to tune to match the accordion.

And people learned to like the new popular music, because it's what there was after that point.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 12:51 AM

Also, pop music is incredibly culturally relative. Music is vast, and different groups of people have totally different types of tonality and rhythm, different singing styles.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 12:57 AM

I agree, but go mash a keyboard and see if you pull out something that's musical.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 1:00 AM

but go mash a keyboard and see if you pull out something that's musical

I'll take that challenge :P

Chances are it'll sound awful, and that's not just culture talking..

Hehe... actually what is in and out of tune is quite culturally relative.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 1:04 AM

Hehe... actually what is in and out of tune is quite culturally relative.

;-)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 1:11 AM

and how the bloody hell does that explain liking a very transient (in the whole of history) fad in ring-design!?

do you even know what you're talking about, or are you just arguing for the fuck of it?

Hehe... actually what is in and out of tune is quite culturally relative.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 29, 2010 1:25 AM

Uh, Lordsetar, I know this is ignoring the discussion itself for a minute but... why are you bothering doing this on gaiaonline boards? This is like engaging in political discourse in noob zones. Oh, right, SIWOTI, which is exactly why I've done that.

Also, NDEs don't result in equivalent experiences. You got suckered into accepting her claim without evidence and it will be seen as proof by idiots. NDEs are culturally driven. If you give me a bit i can get the references from my psych textbook.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 1:35 AM

So the person who flounced off with an insult comes back...and tries to say that our positions are equally valid, parsimony be damned.

You must really enjoy arguing. Gaia online is mess, people there are regularly quoted on FSTDT. It would be like hanging out on RR. Life's too short and all that. ;)

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 1:37 AM

Gaia online is mess, people there are regularly quoted on FSTDT. It would be like hanging out on RR.

Oh jeez. Any place being like RR must be a nightmare. The people on RR genuinely scare me.

Posted by: John Morales | December 29, 2010 1:53 AM

LordSetar, this whole NDE thing being relevant to the oxymoronic "life after death" idea is plain silly.

Only living people report them (dead people don't talk!). Might as well call them near-life experiences...

--

As for the cultural influence, it's neither here nor there — it only reflects the interpretation of whatever physiological mechanism induces the experiences, which there is no good reason to doubt people have.

FWIW, there's a link to it in the Wikipedia article (ref. #76).

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 2:08 AM

John:

Might as well call them near-life experiences...

Reminds me of a scene from Thud!:

Since you are having a near-death experience, I am logically, by extension, having a near-Vimes experience. Don't worry about me, I've brought a book.

Posted by: lordsetar | December 29, 2010 2:24 AM

Caine #323: Such is the arrogance of theologians, I guess.

Also note: The idiot's still going. Hasn't addressed my reasons for not believing her, hasn't addressed the cultural dependence of NDEs...because she's declared the debate over. That of course has nothing to do with her position's lack of validity, and it is obviously acceptable in the debate forum -- and, of course, her declaring the debate over gives her every right to bitch about my tone while dismissing every point I raise against her arguments.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | December 29, 2010 2:51 AM

I had a moment of panicked frustration when I was trying to get a date with the woman who would later become my first girlfriend. Y'see, she showed up one day wearing a class ring on her left hand.

As it turns out, it wouldn't fit on her right hand.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 2:58 AM

Rorschach:

How, err, romantic....

It's a hell of a lot more romantic than a disease. Sex is good and all, but it's not worth dying for.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 3:03 AM

It's a hell of a lot more romantic than a disease. Sex is good and all, but it's not worth dying for.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 29, 2010 3:09 AM

Kel,
If no progeny are possible and the tests are clear why not lose the clothing?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 3:15 AM

Dhorvath:

I bought an engagement computer

That's a good use of money. As I mentioned upthread, I've never seen the point of spending money on wedding rings or wearing them, but you reminded me of another thing - the work my husband does prohibits jewelry wearing; you can wear it, but it's both stupid and dangerous. A lot of people do a type of work where it's not advisable to wear a ring.

Wedding/engagement rings used to be commonly passed on in families, it seems that doesn't happen so much anymore. My grandmother and great grandmothers had quite a few of them, and I was offered my choice when I was 18, but passed on taking one. I had no interest in marriage at the time and knew I wasn't going to have any sprogs, so I figured they best go to other family members.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 29, 2010 3:17 AM

Whats this RR folks are mentioning?

Posted by: lordsetar | December 29, 2010 3:19 AM

On engagement rings: I don't really care, personally. If my girlfriend would like one (if we even decide to take that seriously) then I'll get one that looks good and is affordable. If anyone other than her wants to complain they can register their complaints with my extended middle finger.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 3:21 AM

If no progeny are possible and the tests are clear why not lose the clothing?

The question is that if an STD is found, would that kill any chance of "romantic engagement"?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 3:23 AM

How about because they aren't foolproof?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 3:26 AM

Kel:

They aren't 100% perfect, but they're a lot better than nothing at all.

That would be the point - they aren't foolproof. Also, if you have, say, HIV, you don't have the right to risk someone else's health. The right thing to do is find out if you have a disease and share that information with a potential sexual partner.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 3:43 AM

The question is that if an STD is found, would that kill any chance of "romantic engagement"?

if it's not, treat it, and learn ways to minimize possible transmission.

and most importantly, if an STD is found, then obviously the testing was justified. ignorance doesn't make the STD go away; quite the contrary

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 3:46 AM

Kel:

So condoms don't prevent the spread of AIDS?

Just in the mood to be an asshole tonight? Yes, condoms help enormously in prevention. They are not, however, foolproof. Also, HIV isn't the only disease people need to be concerned about. Again, condoms aren't foolproof. It's not possible to assess risk without knowledge. Also, some people are concerned enough for their partner to do the right thing.

If you bothered to actually read what people write, you might prevent yourself from asking stupid questions. Shala and his boyfriend are not in the same location and both are dealing with homophobic family situations, so getting together will take time and preparation. So, it's not a matter of "jump in the sack or get tested first?"

Getting tested is common sense, nothing more.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 3:51 AM

If not, then why are we arguing?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 29, 2010 3:56 AM

My god. The Wide Road is followed by the masses, but offends the world's people? That makes no god damn sense, and just changing that word to 'comforts' or something else would make sense if you want to sell your product as hard to do but rewarding and everyone else as corrupt and damned for going the easy way. What illiterate wrote this garbage, and how does it convince anyone?

It's only going to get worse, isn't it?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 4:01 AM

Jadehawk, if you bother to actually look at what I was responding to, it was Caine's post at #328. It had nothing to do with Shala. It was a general question about condom use, not about Shala's sex life. How is that intruding into someone's private life?

Posted by: Rorschach | December 29, 2010 4:06 AM

because you feel it necessary to insult* unnecessarily question people's private health decisions.

Please. Private health decisions spread out on a thread on one of the most frequented internet blogs on the planet.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 4:10 AM

Please. Private health decisions spread out on a thread on one of the most frequented internet blogs on the planet.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 4:17 AM

Statistics show that condoms are effective in reducing STI rates and pregnancy rates, which was why I asked the question to begin with.

But I didn't see why it was framed either / or, again because of what I've been taught about the efficacy of condom use.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 29, 2010 4:19 AM

This proves my theory, Christmas makes people cranky...:-)

Here, read something funny : Christian special pleading at its finest

Posted by: John Morales | December 29, 2010 4:22 AM

Kel, your initial question What's the problem with using a condom? has been answered, and is I think the reason why it appeared framed either/or.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 4:35 AM

iow, either your're asking specifically, at which point it's private; or you're asking in general, at which point the answers are trivial.

iow, why is it that people attack me for things I didn't say or even try to imply?

your question is meaningless "in general".

i ve just explained this three times in three different ways. the "in general" answers are the very trivial answers you're not accepting as a valid answer. why?

Just admit that you were wrong, don't be Cerberus and bullshit your way out of misreading me.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 4:53 AM

incorrect. you responded to a statement that testing is better than getting ill. it did not imply "nothing at all"

you're being "grilled" not for asking a question, but for not accepting the answers you were given.

it looks like you're asking specifics rather then generalities

you didn't accept general answers

To use an analogy, imagine someone saying that they're not driving until they install quad airbag systems, and I was curious as to why the usage of seatbelts wasn't enough for the time being. Especially when if they used their car they could go see a fun show that they could otherwise not see. It's a stretched analogy, but the underlying conception rings home. I didn't find it a meaningless question, and I agree that it's good to be tested. That it was a bad question can be dealt with without calling me an asshole or grossly stupid (which, to be clear, you didn't do).

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 5:01 AM

jesus christ. there IS NO CLARIFICATION. there is nothing more on the general level than you've been given.

"It's a hell of a lot more romantic than a disease. Sex is good and all, but it's not worth dying for." I think asking about condom use is justified in such a statement.

To use an analogy, imagine someone saying that they're not driving until they install quad airbag systems, and I was curious as to why the usage of seatbelts wasn't enough for the time being. Especially when if they used their car they could go see a fun show that they could otherwise not see. It's a stretched analogy, but the underlying conception rings home.

again, the general answers to "why aren't seatbelts enough" are trivial: because it's safer with airbags. beyond that, it's a question of why they aren't enough for a particular person, in a particular situation.

and caine has responded to you in the same way she responds to everybody, so don't get pissy at me for that.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 29, 2010 5:06 AM

Can I just add that condoms beat HIV tests, since, a)HIV tests still have a diagnostic window of weeks to months b)you can have a clean HIV test and happily pass on any other STD.

Other than that, it was not my intention to interfere with anybody's private decisions. But if you publish them on the internet, be prepared for them to get commented on.

I'm watching Shmuley "the yelling Rabbi" Boteach debate Hitchens on "Is there an afterlife", back in September this year. Only for my mind to stray when I look at the superhot moderator Lisa Oz.( Oz, really ?)
Link

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 5:15 AM

Caine:

"It's a hell of a lot more romantic than a disease. Sex is good and all, but it's not worth dying for."

Kel:

I think asking about condom use is justified in such a statement.

FFS, just what is your problem, Kel? Never mind, I don't care.

My statement, which for some reason got up your nose, was a response to Rorschach, who was being snarky about Shala's post. Everything was related to Shala's specific situation and choices.

You wanted to ask about condoms. Fine, you asked. You were answered, repeatedly, both generally and specifically.

If you, in a relationship with someone new, prefer to depend on condoms to keep you safe and healthy, fine. Do whatever the fuck you want. That is not the approach others might take when engaging in a new relationship. People manage their safety and contraception issues with sexual activity in different ways. What the fuck else is there to say? For me, nothing. Last post of mine on this subject, because you're getting on my nerves and seriously so.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 5:19 AM

Can I just add that condoms beat HIV tests, since, a)HIV tests still have a diagnostic window of weeks to months b)you can have a clean HIV test and happily pass on any other STD.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 5:27 AM

FFS, just what is your problem, Kel?

Last post of mine on this subject, because you're getting on my nerves and seriously so.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 5:44 AM

i am not equivocating shit.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 6:02 AM

and if you wanted to know the cultural reason for being that very careful, you could have actually asked about whether they're cultural reasons. I checked, the only time you bothered mentioning culture at all was in relation to what Australians are taught, as if it were somehow something completely different from what PP teaches (for example). and that was AFTER starting to get pissy at not getting the responses you wanted.
and fuck, I even hinted at the answer (but since that IS very personal to some, it's not my place to answer).

you're really being an ass.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 6:04 AM

Gosh darn it Jadehawk, I presented the olive branch.

you're an idiot who can't read, since no one claimed that.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 6:13 AM

Gosh darn it Jadehawk, I presented the olive branch.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 6:22 AM

What can I say Jadehawk? I'm glad it's me who was entirely at fault for the miscommunication and neither you or Caine misinterpreting me. You've both done a splendid job arguing your positions, and I'm now well aware of how much of an asshole and idiot I am. Thank you Jadehawk and Caine. You've both done wonderful jobs of showing me that no matter what I say I'm going to be wrong.

Thank you both. It's been a wonderful learning experience, once again.

Posted by: John Morales | December 29, 2010 6:29 AM

Petulant passive-aggressive sardonic sarcasm?

Not the best tactic.

-1.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 6:37 AM

stuff your sarcasm where the sun don't shine

So would a mental state of the imagery of such an undertaking be sufficient? Because the problems of identity theory rule out taking a physical representation of sarcasm, as the corresponding neurons aren't in themselves sarcasm.

Not the best tactic.

Besides, this is really funny. My wife is choosing watching this over a movie.

Posted by: Rorschach | December 29, 2010 6:56 AM

Bap - Helfe kann dir keiner 2006 live

BAP - Denn wir sind widder wer Köln 09/11/92

Schroeder Roadshow - Bonn bei Nacht

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 29, 2010 7:14 AM

See, that's what I love about the Internet: not only doesn't it matter if everyone talks at the same time, it's even possible to participate in several completely unrelated discussions at the same time!

(Or is there some hidden connection between cooking rice and fucking? :-þ )

The fog sits in the valley, this house is above. The air has -5 °C, the solar collectors on the roof have +70...

rice just... looks done at some point, confirmed by eating a few grains.

Exactly. I never cook by the clock.

(...Not even tea. I always look at the package to see how long the bag needs to stay in, but then I almost never look at the clock to see when that time starts...)

i keep on referring to the boyfriend as "cute", "adorable" etc, mostly because he gets all flustered when i do, which is cute...

When you linked to your first photo of Lint & Dust, I found his Facebook photo. Maybe it's just the tiny photo, but I think he looks badass. :-þ

Would you call a woman sweet?

No – for lack of a micro-cultural tradition to do so.

And while there's a German word for "cute", it's geographically restricted; it doesn't exist where I come from. I'd take it too literally to use it myself; I'd be afraid of being misunderstood.

I'd say "lovely", except I'm not sure how good an English translation that really is...

I've never seen the point of engagement/wedding rings or bands, for myself. I wear rings, but I don't need them as a sign of commitment, I don't need them as a reminder that I'm married and I don't need them to inform others of my status.

One purpose is as a gift, to show "that's what you're worth to me". Obviously, that can backfire ("the cash-worth of the bride" in comment 270; showing off that the buyer is rich enough to afford such a ring...).

Another is to say "I'm in a fixed relationship, don't bother hitting on me". Beyond that, however (and see comment 273), I don't understand the need "to inform others of my status" either. Just recently I read yet another claim that "when you're in love, you want to tell the whole world". Uh... what? ~:-| Is that so for neurotypics? Why?

And one more thing about rice. Ensure the volume of the container you cook the rice is at least 1.8 times, and preferably 2 or more times the volume of water used. If it isn't big enough, you will encounter trouble at some point.

Not in a frying pan, unless the lid closes tightly and you don't turn the heat down soon enough and you don't notice that it's boiling over.

I think the idea of the sparse solitaire setting and brilliantine cut is to let as much light strike the stone as possible: more light, more sparkles.

At least the original idea.

how the fuck is this an argument for the popularity of pop-music? wouldn't that very same argument require jazz and classical to be just as popular?

It requires them to have something in common which stays popular.

I'm sure there are such traits, just not many.

It's like how religion is practically universal, yet very diverse, because we're prone to interpreting pattern and agency into everything; the details are not innate.

Hehe... actually what is in and out of tune is quite culturally relative.

Not really.

Blue notes.

I had a moment of panicked frustration when I was trying to get a date with the woman who would later become my first girlfriend. Y'see, she showed up one day wearing a class ring on her left hand.

As it turns out, it wouldn't fit on her right hand.

Heh. Which hands which rings are worn on differs a lot between places. I can't remember any of it. I think my parents' wedding rings are on the right side...

Me and my boyfriend call each other cute/sweet all the time and totally intend to have sex after we get tested

How, err, romantic....

Aw. Walking to the doctor holding hands and smiling, hugging over the negative results, and then walking home holding hands and smiling... what's not romantic about that? :-þ

Or did you mean to say you aren't into romance in the first place?

I bought an engagement computer

<clenched-tentacle salute>

i didn't even realize it was possible for a single olive branch to contain that much sarcasm

QFT.

scienceblogs killed my paragraph breaks

Remarkable. I thought that only happened in blockquotes (before the first empty line).

test
test
test

What can I say Jadehawk? I'm glad it's me who was entirely at fault for the miscommunication and neither you or Caine misinterpreting me.

Writing scientific papers and submitting them for publication has taught me that if you're misunderstood anywhere near that often, it is your fault for not expressing yourself clearly enough. Modify and resubmit the manuscript.

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 7:59 AM

Please. Private health decisions spread out on a thread on one of the most frequented internet blogs on the planet.

wow

i guess i should really avoid even mentioning that it's a good idea for me and my partner to get tested

and i guess i should really worry about my family browsing pharyngula even though they've never heard of it and have never heard of the name "Shala" and would never find any information about me via pharyngula and even less information about who my god-damned partner is

Like holy fucking shit, I'm sorry that Pharyngula is literally the only group on the interwebs or in real life that I trust with this information in the first place, even as relatively anonymously as I did it. I'm closeted but I really, really don't give a fuck if random lurkers on the internet find out that I'm bisexual, I only care if my immediate family, his immediate family, or Homophobic Fuckwits From Nova Scotia Willing To Cyberstalk (HFFNSWTS for short) find out. Like literally if you just didn't want to hear about my private life then just fucking tell me, don't play this "wow I can't believe he's telling us his health information! What a tool he was! Now I have to spend all day computing pi because Shala plugged in the overlord!"

Thanks to Caine and Jadehawk for sticking up for me while I was sleeping. :) I should really check the last few paragraphs I wrote to see if I made any sense but fuck it, unbridled rage is probably better to read anyway.

Aw. Walking to the doctor holding hands and smiling, hugging over the negative results, and then walking home holding hands and smiling... what's not romantic about that? :-þ

:D Thanks David, I have to agree it'll be a wonderful day when that all clears out. In addition to the obvious reasons outlined in previous posts, getting this done is a nice way to show honesty between the two of us. We'll be able to trust each other a lot more.

To ask about condom use is implicitly to ask intimate questions about the details of Shala's private affairs.

not that i really wish to rag on you or anything, Kel, but for awhile if we do -anything- together it will involve condom use anyway. I'm not even a guru on safe sex or anything, nor trying to be, but I sure as fuck don't want to get random STI's from someone. Is it romantic? Maybe not, if one doesn't live in the same reality that everyone else lives in. Will it keep us both -alive and healthy-? Yeah, it'll do that with minimal loss really.

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 8:04 AM

ok yeah given that I thought S stood for Cyberstalking in my previous post, it's a good sign that I was very fucked up just now.

Posted by: Franklin Percival | December 29, 2010 8:08 AM

Kel, OM #330

... or enjoying first kisses with at least one dental dam, to protect against Hepatitis A, B & C?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 8:11 AM

I'd take it too literally to use it myself; I'd be afraid of being misunderstood.

LOL. You're so sweet! No, seriously, why does your skin taste like that!?

Blue notes.

Non western scales, throat singing, ancient ballads. http://cnx.org/content/m11639/latest/

What is popular when and where has at least one thing in common I guess: it's music.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 29, 2010 8:21 AM

Okay, whoa. I didn't think that the subject of engagement rings would be so heated.

Here's the thing, as I said before I have traditional ring- soliatire diamond, cathedral setting, etc. I doubt that Caine or Jadehawk would like it.

But, so what? I doubt that either of them think any less of me because they think my ring is ugly and I still like and respect both of them even though our tastes differ.

So, what the fuck is the huge problem?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 8:24 AM

Blue notes

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 29, 2010 8:26 AM

Just as a comment from reading it all at once:
I was taken aback by Kel's first comment as well, but then a few responses in he clarified it and I understood what he was getting at. The rest of the argument looks like everyone arguing over their own interpretations of subsequent comments in a continuous positive-feedback loop rather than being about the original topic. This is where internet fights lose out in a big way to in-person fights: in person, you get it all over with in a half-hour or so. Online, it stretches out over hours as people are in and out and then new people add in, and there's an awful lot more time to stew between volleys.

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 8:31 AM

I don't recall being snarky, just asking a question really.

I suppose I should provide an answer then.

Yes, of course it's fucking romantic to know that you're not going to be infected by ASS CUPCAKES FROM SPACE THAT BAKE YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM INTO A CAKE when you're with a partner.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 8:38 AM

Rorschach:

I don't recall being snarky, just asking a question really.

This is what you said:

How, err, romantic....

That's a question? About what?

Posted by: llewelly | December 29, 2010 8:43 AM

Shala | December 29, 2010 8:31 AM:

Yes, of course it's fucking romantic to know that you're not going to be infected by ASS CUPCAKES FROM SPACE THAT BAKE YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM INTO A CAKE when you're with a partner

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 8:46 AM

llewelly:

ahh... that's the beauty of a latex fetish ...

I'll take your word on that one. ;)

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 29, 2010 8:49 AM

Caine,
Yeah, sadly I know far too many women who were sucked into the whole horrible "wedding culture". It's sad that they're so focussed on image and not the important things.

I'm happy that my younger sister is planning her wedding in a local punk bar. That's gonna be hella fun. :)

Shala,
My issue was with the whole damned argument over rings, not Caine and Jadehawk's dislike of them. To each their own and whatnot.

And for what it's worth, I think that you are being incredibly smart and proactive by getting tested. People make mistakes, so it's nice to have that additional peace of mind.

Plus, smart is sexy, so there you go.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 8:50 AM

Yes, of course it's fucking romantic to know that you're not going to be infected by ASS CUPCAKES FROM SPACE THAT BAKE YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM INTO A CAKE when you're with a partner.

Posted by: Shala | December 29, 2010 8:54 AM

I link this in good humour :)

+1

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 29, 2010 8:59 AM

Mrs. BigDumbChimp couldn't give a fuck about getting a big diamond or jewelry in general. I had her wedding ring custom made with small rocks embedded in small gold leaves. Her wedding band was mad so that it fits into the profile of the leaves. Fits her personality much better than the gaudy big oh-look-at-me rock.

She was much happier that it was something made for her instead of some run of the mill large diamond set in the same old bullshit (IMNSHO) ring.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 29, 2010 9:03 AM

mad = made

hopefully not mad

Posted by: blf | December 29, 2010 9:13 AM

Or is there some hidden connection between cooking rice and fucking?

Many people like both?
Both can be hot and sticky?

(I assume there's also a Rule 34 example, but will not go looking got one…)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 9:20 AM

It should be something significant to those in the relationship, something that is worn for yourself and your partner, rather than something worn to impress others.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 29, 2010 9:32 AM

("Classic" meaning "the culturally-dominant kind", not "fantastic style that everyone should agree with", of course. I do still like the ring, although I had questionable taste overall when the wedding happened. I had poofy sleeves, for god's sake. I was young. I didn't know any better.)

Posted by: JeffreyD | December 29, 2010 9:45 AM

Spousal unit loves rings and bracelets and earrings and such and always looks classy - not sure why she is with me, but I am happy she has a blind spot. She prefers simple settings or cute things. Bought her a ladybug toe ring for xmas which she loves. Most of what she likes is costume jewelry level in regards to cost. Also got her an aquamarine ring this year which she adores (her birthstone). She would think I was insane if I bought a hugely expensive diamond or something of that ilk. She thinks, and I agree, better to spread the money around on multiple things we like. Adornment is fun for her and I love the looks she creates.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 9:50 AM

Jeffrey:

She thinks, and I agree, better to spread the money around on multiple things we like.

That's how we are too. I'm pretty cheap on the jewelry front, as I prefer silver, no gold or gems. Although I would like something with my birthstone, which is why I was asking about yellow topaz.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 10:09 AM

Carlie:

I have absolutely no idea where it could be other than that one place.

I hope you find it and quickly, too!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 29, 2010 10:30 AM

Carlie,
Oh my, poofy sleeves!

I really don't wear my engagement ring often. It's impractical at work on top of the fact that I'm not the type of person who wears flashy jewelry. On a day to day basis, I only wear my wedding band (which is a plain white gold ring) and my watch*. When I do wear jewelry, it's usually just a simple necklace.

*If you would even consider that jewelry, which I really don't. It's far too practical.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 10:45 AM

Miss M bought my wedding ring shortly after our first wedding (1973). It's silver and fairly large and I wear it on my left hand. Less than an hour after buying the ring we stopped at the pub for a pint. I had a draught Guinness. Took the first big glug , lowered the glass and wiped the froth from my lips with the back of my left hand, dealing myself a stunningly painful, blood-drawing blow to the nose with my new ring.
Still wear the ring but I havn't had a Guinness for years.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 10:55 AM

Of course, there are emeralds, and they don't always have to cost an arm and a leg.

They don't? Because I love them. I don't even care so much about wearing the damned thing. I'd love to have one in a box I can look at some day.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 29, 2010 10:57 AM

SteveV,
How hard do you wipe foam off?

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 11:04 AM

I'm also morose and prudish, while being *extremely* weird in other ways.

Off to meet the Step-Dottir and prospective Dottir-in-Law for a holiday dinner. Engagement rings will be shown off!

In short, there are people who feel they are unable to cook rice because they are unable to meet an ideal which is not more enjoyable than the rice the are able to produce.

I have never failed at anything else in the kitchen (sure, flubs when I was first learning, but I always found my way through it). I haven't broken a butter sauce even once in the last several years. Pie crusts are flaky. Cakes are moist. Meats are tender and juicy. Rice is my white whale, really. My tiny, fluffy, sticky, grainy white whale.

AGAIN.

?

Rice: Find a microwaveable container.

I can corroborate that. Calling a guy "sweet" is the kiss of death for any prospect of a sexual relationship. No sex for sweet guys.

I'm going to campaign that women stop using that particular approach, because it's creating a bunch of monsters who think that women like to be treated like shit. We don't. We were just trying to be nice.

the "traditional" engagement ring needs to die (both from an aesthetic and an economic POW)

I have a traditional engagement ring*-- I picked out the ring and the setting, but the stone was passed down to me from my grandmother.

I find the concept of "marking" yourself as married a bit odd, too.

But maybe if the circumstances were different, I could appreciate wanting a sign to the world that I was in love and was committed. Not really sure about that, though.

As much as I love my tattoos, I think I'll stick with the only homage to any person being the tattoo about my dad. He was the person who felt permanent to me, and I can't imagine anyone else ever being that way.

Because surely if someone found such a ring aesthetically pleasing and thought it looked good, is that really the same as the gesture to a "fake" worth of a relationship?

There's also still the glaring issue of the ethics of the diamond business. Personally, I will never buy a diamond or receive one as a gift (unless it's an heirloom or something, but no one in my family even has a diamond, so that's not really an issue).

I have a friend who once said to me that the difference between a woman liking diamonds and not liking diamonds was in the having of a diamond. I disagreed.

So in other words, if people wave flags while saying racist messages, anyone who waves a flag must accept being judged as racist?

Hehe... actually what is in and out of tune is quite culturally relative.

I'm just curious as to why using condoms wouldn't be an option - at least temporarily.

It's always a good idea to be aware of your status so you can take appropriate action—because sometimes condoms will not cover the bases, and you need to be prepared for that.

Heh. Which hands which rings are worn on differs a lot between places. I can't remember any of it. I think my parents' wedding rings are on the right side...

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 29, 2010 11:15 AM

Sigh. Sorry about the endless links and the mis-attribution.

[Quickly changes the topic] I roasted a chicken the other day; we had a hot meal and a pair of chicken sandwiches from the breast muscles. I've taken the rest of the meat off the bones and am simmering bones, skin, fat, and gristle in a large pot with water and a pinch of salt and a dollop of vinegar to help leach the calcium out of the bones. It's keeping the kitchen humidified. Later, the pot will go into the 'fridge to cool; then I'll remove the fat and re-heat the rest, then strain out the solid material and I'll have a nice chicken stock. To make my favourite chicken soup, I'll throw in a can of diced tomatoes, a cup or so of rice, and the chopped chicken meat and cook it until the rice is done.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | December 29, 2010 11:19 AM

Jules,

I'm going to campaign that women stop using that particular approach, because it's creating a bunch of monsters who think that women like to be treated like shit. We don't. We were just trying to be nice.

Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right | December 29, 2010 11:32 AM

I *like* jewellery but I don't like to *wear* it. I'm the weirdo who cuts the labels out of new clothes because they're unbearably scratchy. So I usually just admire it or wear it for a few hours on a special occasion, then take it off with relief. Brooches would be okay but they tend to make clothes sag. So that makes me disinclined to buy more, much as in theory I'd like a new opal-and-emerald ring or some such.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 29, 2010 11:52 AM

Jules:

These seem to be contradictory:

Further, I'm pretty sure no one here thinks ODS's marriage is a fake because she has a traditional setting. They're talking about the culture at large.

and

That's not the right analogy here. A better analogy would be the asshats who wear Confederate flag t-shirts that say, "It ain't racism; it's culture."

Maybe I don't get what you are saying.

Posted by: trinioler | December 29, 2010 11:59 AM

As a follow up on that, guys really need to learn to accept rejection better. Its taken a lot of work on my self-image and understanding to be able to handle rejection. Last year, I wouldn't have handled it well, and years before that, I'd have cried when being rejected.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 29, 2010 12:08 PM

Algernon,
WRT gemstones, including emeralds, price is determined by color (especially true with emeralds, clarity (although emeralds almost always have some inclusions), cut(it should reflect a lot of light) and carats (bigger = more per unit weight).

For emeralds, the deep green with bluish overtones is the most sought after color, and so the most expensive. If you go even a shade or two off of that, the price drops dramatically. If you can tolerate a few more inclusions (the white ones called "jardin", stay away from dark spots), again, the price drops.

I've managed to find emeralds in Brazil for friends for well under $100 per carat. If you catch a seller when he is desperate, you can get amazing deals. Sometimes, you can find decent deals in the States, too, if you know where to look. Actually, emeralds are found in North Carolina. I know a guy down there who found the "Carolina Queen," which weighed in at over 30 carats before it was cut. Gorgeous.

Emeralds are a little tricky to buy, because they can be treated in a variety of ways that enhance the color as well as increase the apparent clarity. However, you can get some pretty stones over a carat for under $100.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 12:18 PM

Steve V. Click on my name link. C'mon, you know me.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 29, 2010 12:31 PM

Is it safe to come back in yet?

Same here. Ex-husband and I intended (or so we'd agreed) to not do wedding bands. But then he got one for me anyway. It made me feel owned. I didn't like it.

But maybe if the circumstances were different, I could appreciate wanting a sign to the world that I was in love and was committed. Not really sure about that, though.

For me, I hate wearing jewelry of any sort. Even wristwatches make me claustrophobic. But, personally, I couldn't wait to get to wear a wedding band. I took it off when I was sleeping or playing hockey, but even for hockey, I'd even put a gold hair tie on my ring finger when I was playing sports. To me the meaning of the ring meant more than the discomfort. Your mileage, however, may vary.

Posted by: Dianne | December 29, 2010 12:49 PM

@457: Interesting, but I wonder if they've considered a simple explanation for at least part of the increased obesity in lab animals: changes in the lab chow formulation. If, for example, the change in lab animal size correlated well with an increase in high fructose corn syrup in lab chow that would be suggestive (especially if it were reversible by giving old formula lab chow).

Obesity's a fascinating problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that there is no single cause for obesity any more than there's a single cause for cancer or infectious disease and that treatments, if any are ultimately needed, will vary widely depending on etiology. Given the nature of virtually all human disease and indeed healthy human physiology, this seems a safe prediction.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 12:54 PM

Thanks Algernon - I caught you as a Transitional Form&trade along with heatherly, but I don't know how many others I have missed (did I mention paranoia?)

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 29, 2010 12:58 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes,

I couldn't have said it better myself.

No, seriously. I tried @466. I suck. Thank you for putting into words what I also tried to put into words. :o)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 29, 2010 1:03 PM

Randy (not Randy): :)

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 1:18 PM

Dhorvath

SteveV,
How hard do you wipe foam off?

(I was younger and fitter then and I worked the door at a night club. Nowadays I have a problem lifting a pint with both hands)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 1:28 PM

After reading this thread, I just don't buy that the exchange of rings in a marriage is often a symbol of ownership. I don't think that anyone has made that argument explicitly, but it seems to be part of the subtext.

In my personal case, I was married to a controlling asshole who absolutely did use the ring as a sign of ownership, even though it was a cheap ring. But I certainly don't think I gave any indication that that was meant to be extrapolated to the population at large. It was just an example of how the tradition of exchanging rings can have dark undertones.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 1:43 PM

You'r on blf. Make it for Furry Day (May 8) and I'll buy you all the Spingo Furry Special you can drink!
'Course, I'm too old and decrepit to carry you home after....

Posted by: blf | December 29, 2010 2:14 PM

You'r on blf. Make it for Furry Day (May 8) and I'll buy you all the Spingo Furry Special you can drink! 'Course, I'm too old and decrepit to carry you home after....

I might just actually take you up on that! It happens to be a holiday here in France (Fête de la Victoire 1945), and provided I get my passport sorted out in time, and finances permitting, I could just as well show up.

A couple of strong lads/ladies, and a pair of wheelbarrows, will take care of the wobbling home part.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | December 29, 2010 2:23 PM

Mmm, jewelry! My sisters tease me that I'm part crow or raven because I love shiny things. :)

I suppose the fact that my mother's parents owned a jewelry store may also have had an influence!

I love making jewelry, but I can't stand the huge gaudy things either. And I honestly cannot stand diamonds. They're just...ugh. Colorless. Blue diamonds, well, maybe. :) My birthstone is sapphire and I have a few star sapphires that I treasure, also amethysts, tanzanite, iolite, sodalite--my new favorite stone is blue goldstone. It's absolutely gorgeous, like looking into a field of stars.

Caine, I have a few topaz pieces lying around, and they're not that expensive. A necklace of faceted topaz would probably run around $25-$25 depending on how big you wanted the stones, how long the necklaces and the color. If you ever decide you'd like something, let me know. :)

Same for you, Algernon--and I actually have a strand or so of emeralds, not super high quality, of course, but they're still lovely. Emerald runs just a little higher than topaz, maybe ranging $30-60? Faceted, again. Oooh--you also might like green goldstone!

Or let me know when have a birthday coming up. ;)

I have a friend who once said to me that the difference between a woman liking diamonds and not liking diamonds was in the having of a diamond. I disagreed.

Me too. I have at least 7 or 8 diamond rings floating around the house --and they're just gathering dust because I find them ugly. I'm saving some of them in case my sisters want a diamond for their engagement rings, but other than that...maybe one of these days I'll get around to selling the ones that are old stock from the store.

I also have a bunch of stones that I'd love to reset--my mom and I had similar taste in gemstones, but she wore gold and I wear silver, so most of her jewelry is just sitting around. Ray, maybe in January you and I can talk about setting stones? I would love to re-set some of them.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
broboxley: Hmm. There's really not a simple answer to that. I think you can safely say that men are more likely to physically abuse, and women more likely to emotionally abuse. For murder, AFAIK, men still have a higher rate of murder than women. But the exact ratios and stats? Honestly, the issue is so complex, and the statistics we have don't address all the variables and don't capture all the incidents.

Most reports generated from hospital records won't distinguish between injuries of self-defense or injuries of abuse. They won't show you one-way abuse turned two-way over time; for example, a man abuses a woman for years, but she never gets treated; woman then retaliates, and man goes in for treatment--records will show her as the abuser when the actual situation is more nuanced. The records also aren't going to catch all incidents of same-sex domestic violence; it's not uncommon in same-sex DV cases for both parties to still be closeted. When they go to the hospital, some pretend to be in hetero relationships, or attack from a stranger or a fight between friends, etc.

Numbers might not lie, but the interpretation of those numbers can go around the world before the truth gets its pants on. ;)

Posted by: bullofthewoods | December 29, 2010 2:34 PM

The religious seem to realize their message is falling on deaf ears. Good news for rationality.linky.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 29, 2010 2:36 PM

Rutee,

Whats this RR folks are mentioning?

RR is Rapture Ready, a group of fundamentalist Christians who say insane stuff as they wait for their beloved god to obliterate Earth.

Here is a quote from one of them:

It's coming... persecution.

I really wonder sometimes when I'm handing out Bibles, how long I'll be ABLE to do it. How long before they shut down my providers of literature? How long before anything to do with evangelism is targeted?

I think that is one reason I feel so compelled to do it. Better get your tracts now while you still can.

On the positive side, did you know Bibles are a non-tax item in Texas?

Notice the last sentence and compare it with the rest of the post.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 2:44 PM

UPDATE UPDATE
Just checked - May 8^th is a Sunday, so Furry Day will be Saturday May 7^th

UPDATE UPDATE

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 29, 2010 3:09 PM

http://media.fukung.net/images/35762/07fa1c3e3e61c04b893d316f83e3c55b.jpg

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 3:25 PM

*snicker* at Rev's linky.

And now, for something random. First, the brief back story. A while back, Ray Comfort hand made a leather jacket for Richard Dawkins. Dawkins blew him off and refused to take the jacket. There is a video of this on Comfort's blog. Bananaman then decided that he would give the jacket away to one lucky regular commenter on his blog. A friend of mine decided it would be a kick to sign up. She commented from time to time. And she won the jacket. She's selling it on eBay, if anyone is interested. She is going to give the proceeds to a close friend of hers who has fallen on very hard times (stupid health care system).

Just FYI, she's a raging atheist. One of my few meatspace friends here in the Deep South. We actually grew up together and even went to the same fundie school.

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | December 29, 2010 3:34 PM

Algernon: I've been contemplating putting up an Etsy site or some for a while, but just haven't had the time. Most of my jewelry-making now is presents for bdays and holidays--everyone knows what presents they're getting from me! :) I've done several commissions locally, but mostly by word of mouth.

If I get some down time, I might try to put a site together. :)

Posted by: scornucopia | December 29, 2010 3:43 PM

Markity Lynda:

… the ex-GF's comments sound like "it's not me, it's you" departure speech and should be taken with a huge block of salt.

I don't think so. After a couple of rounds of her telling lies that were intended to salve my feelings but ended up hurting more, on that occasion I think she actually came pretty close to telling me the whole truth, then thought better of it, and told me that as a credible half-truth. I don't really care that much any more. The current prospect would be a major upgrade in every respect if it worked out, and even if it doesn't, it's been reassuring and fun.

trinioler:

I really do agree that women(and men) should stop saying meaningless platitudes to save people's feelings. It ends up damaging them more in the long-run.

I couldn't agree more. All I ever wanted was the plain unvarnished truth. No matter how much it would have hurt, I might have learned something from it and would not have been left with inconsistencies and contradictions in my head that took time to resolve. I can handle rejection if I understand it, and platitudinous lies just get in the way.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 3:44 PM

(Plus, there's a difference between an understated ring and one that screams LOOK AT ME! I AM A SYMBOL OF EVERYTHING THAT IS WRONG WITH MIDDLE CLASS AMERICA!)

Like I said before, it's pretty easy to spot the folks who are probably trying a bit too hard. I also think it's pretty easy to spot the folks who are most likely just taking part in the cultural heritage.

I guess the message in that is that you will be judged by your appearances, no matter what, and everyone has an opinion on marriage.

But the real issue at stake here is whether our fake marriage will involve rings, sugar dear.*

*Anyone have any ideas for how to transcribe the Southern term of endearment that is a clip of sugar? Because sug doesn't work, and shoog could have the double-o ewwwwww sound. It's really cramping my Southern graces to be unable to use it.

Posted by: The Sailor | December 29, 2010 3:48 PM

I can't wear rings or watches or necklaces or anything sniny because I work with LASERs. It's easier to not wear than remember to take off and put back on.
+++++++++++++
I think exchanging rings is a wonderful, mutual, ceremony. If I ever get married I would like that to be a part of it.

And any rings I give and install in private, is just that, private. (Ownership is an acknowledged part of it;-)
+++++++++++++
A friend of mine had the "Best wedding Ever"(TM), they asked their parents to give them the cash. They spent a month traveling, had a small ceremony at 1/2 Dome (w/ parents), and put a down payment on a house.
+++++++++++++
I tried some of the recipes, I still can't cook rice. (Or spaghetti.)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 4:04 PM

If I get some down time, I might try to put a site together. :)

I can handle rejection if I understand it, and platitudinous lies just get in the way.

But that's an aside from the issue with your ex, because she wasn't really complimenting you. She also appears to be the type of person who is more interested in following societal norms than in determining what is best for herself as an individual. But I'm extrapolating based off of a few sentences, so I could be way off. At any rate, women like that do exist, and they aren't helping anyone by tossing sweet around as an insult.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 4:08 PM

Ooooo, Algernon, too! Do an Etsy site! Maybe I'll do a knit one. Except that I'm terrible at mailing things off.

_{*cough* sorry, Katrina *cough cough*}

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 4:10 PM

Jules:

I'm going to campaign that women stop using that particular approach, because it's creating a bunch of monsters who think that women like to be treated like shit. We don't. We were just trying to be nice.

Would you mind speaking for yourself? You certainly aren't speaking for me, nor a whole lot of other women.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 4:16 PM

In retrospect, it seems about 90% of those were intended to be "nice" ways of turning me down. I strongly prefer the behavior of those who simply said "no" or even "fuck off". Far less painful, and far less costly.

Go through the experience of repeatedly turning down people you care about, and see just how easy it is to say something like fuck off or even just an unqualified no to someone. Hell, just try doing it to someone you don't know well but who has sincerely and sweetly made an honest romantic overture.

Because it sucks.

It's totally easy to do to PUAs, though.

Posted by: llewelly | December 29, 2010 4:37 PM

Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 3:44 PM:

*Anyone have any ideas for how to transcribe the Southern term of endearment that is a clip of sugar?

Here is what I intend:
"ʃ" is "sh" as in ship.
"ʊ" is "oo" as in book.
"ɡ" is "g" as in hug.

Trouble is, even if I got it right, few people know IPA. (I'm not one of them.)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 4:40 PM

Trouble is, even if I got it right, few people know IPA. (I'm not one of them.)

Thanks for putting that together, though :-) Maybe I'll just go with it, understanding be damned!

How do I do the characters?

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 29, 2010 4:51 PM

Trouble is, even if I got it right, few people know IPA. (I'm not one of them.)

aɪ nəʊ ðə ɪntɚnæʃənəl fənɛtɪk ælfəbɛt.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 5:06 PM

That's not the right analogy here. A better analogy would be the asshats who wear Confederate flag t-shirts that say, "It ain't racism; it's culture."

Likewise with the ring thing, it must be remembered that myself and my wife aren't from the United States. So while Hollywood plays some role in shaping culture, in the broader context there just isn't that kind of attitude. My wife's from Finland where the tradition is quite different. An engagement ring is usually a plain band, and the wedding band may or may not have a stone. That kind of vulgar display of wealth that's talked about quite literally is a foreign idea to us, hence the question about the aesthetics of it beyond the symbolism.

Posted by: llewelly | December 29, 2010 5:12 PM

Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 4:16 PM:

Go through the experience of repeatedly turning down people you care about, and see just how easy it is to say something like fuck off or even just an unqualified no to someone.

Posted by: scornucopia | December 29, 2010 5:19 PM

Jules:

It is not automatically a lie just because it's being said to make you feel better.

Mmmm… yeah, I get that. Someone could, of course, say something that they believe to be both true and “comforting”, but it seems to me that such uniformly positive things would seldom be plausible grounds for ending a relationship; not never but seldom. I don't think that there is often a single atomic reason why someone ends a relationship, but I do think there are usually reasons and I do think that people have usually thought about them enough that they have a good idea what they are before they pull the plug. I'd much prefer to know what they are than be given the mushroom treatment. That way, at least, I might learn something that might help me avoid making the same mistakes the next time.

Go through the experience of repeatedly turning down people you care about … Because it sucks.

I wish I had that problem :o)

A friend of mine made it pretty clear that she wasn't interested in me because I'm about an inch shorter than her. It was honest, direct, stung no more than your average rejection, and (having no interest in anyone for whom such a trivium is important) more-or-less instantly cured me of my romantic attraction to her. We're still drinkin' buddies. I've been shot down innumerable times, but, for its candor alone, that one was actually one of the best.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 5:20 PM

I know IPA








_{Wait... you don't mean India Pale Ale do you?}

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 29, 2010 5:21 PM

Jules
Alice Walker used "Shug". I figured it was meant to be pronounced like the first part of "sugar".

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 29, 2010 5:28 PM

I've been contemplating putting up an Etsy site or some for a while, but just haven't had the time.

Hey now, I watched you craft out a beautiful necklace while you were shopping! I bet you could just put the supplies on your bedside table and wake up in the morning to find you did it all in your sleep. :D

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 29, 2010 5:31 PM

I'm extremely frustrated and pissed right now. Thinking of taking it all out on Al B. Quirky.

What's up Feynmaniac? Feel free to message me if you want to talk about it, and use as much venom as you need on ABQ.

Posted by: trinioler | December 29, 2010 5:57 PM

Okay you say you can't cook spaghetti? Is this dry noodles or fresh noodles? Because fresh is easier, and more fun.

Simple Pasta Dough:
1 egg/per person
3 ounces flour(by weight)/egg

Take a bowl, put in the flour and make a small well for the egg. Add the egg, stir until it forms a dough. Take out the dough and knead it on a lightly-floured surface for 4-5 minutes until the dough is satiny-smooth. [b]Kneading pasta dough is one the unqualified best sensations in the kitchen, bar none.[/b] It is absolutely sensuous.

Roll it out until it is the thickness you want. Cut, slice, shape the dough however you want.

Boil some water, drop in pasta, and in 2 minutes or so, the pasta will be cooked. Add butter, rosemary, sage, basil or oregano(fresh or dry), salt, pepper, and eat!

If you want to do a ravioli type pasta, the way you do it is you lay out one sheet of dough, spoon on the filling at regular intervals, then brush egg on the spaces between the fillings. Lay a second sheet of dough on top, and press the sides around the filling together. Cut the pieces apart, and boil. The filling should be already cooked.

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | December 29, 2010 6:10 PM

I'd much prefer to know what they are than be given the mushroom treatment. That way, at least, I might learn something that might help me avoid making the same mistakes the next time.

I wish I had that problem :o)

A friend of mine made it pretty clear that she wasn't interested in me because I'm about an inch shorter than her.

In the case where you're not a shallow person, pointing out a detail that you're unattracted to but that isn't actually a flaw is just petty. I might do it if asked, but I'm not interested in making someone feel like they're not good enough for me because they have blue eyes (or whatever it is).

And that's where you start to run into how difficult it is to turn someone down. Because it may easily sound like a value judgment even when you know damn good and well that it's a chemistry issue that neither of you has any control over. So qualifying the rejection is what ends up happening.

*I don't have much opportunity to date men shorter than I am because I'm 5'5", but I've enjoyed it thoroughly the few times I've managed it.

For the rest of the time, I wear heels. :-)

Wait... you don't mean India Pale Ale do you?

Alice Walker used "Shug". I figured it was meant to be pronounced like the first part of "sugar".

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 29, 2010 6:12 PM

FWIW: The dustup over rings seemed kind of senseless to me. As did the condom vs/+ testing kerfluffle. But whatever*. I think the kind of people who can actually afford to buy very expensive jewelry are pretty rare. Most people in the world are kind of broke, so it's not even much of an issue.

Where in the hell is SC?

SC? You out there?

*Seemed hotter than the content warranted**.
**With a porcupine? Aw, man.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 6:18 PM

AE:

I think the kind of people who can actually afford to buy very expensive jewelry are pretty rare.

You haven't spent much time hanging out in certain parts of Southern California, have you?

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 6:19 PM

I think the assumption most people were making in talking about the engagement ring baggage was that we were talking about contemporary American weddings.

I don't know. I wish someone could have tapped me on the shoulder and just said "We don't care about traditions or aesthetics beyond our shores".

Posted by: JeffreyD | December 29, 2010 6:23 PM

A friend of mine made it pretty clear that she wasn't interested in me because I'm about an inch shorter than her.

Sounds like she's an inch or two too shallow for you*.

"A walk through the ocean of most people's souls would scarcely get your feet wet."

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine | December 29, 2010 6:24 PM

Oniongirl,
I've been wondering what sort of jewelry you make. Do you set stones? Wirewrap? Someday, I plan to get around to actually learning to do jewelry for real. In reality, though, I suspect that I'll be taken from my day job feet first.

I have a really good eye for stones, but the rest of the craft is still opaque to me.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 29, 2010 6:29 PM

Sounds like I should show some of the people here around the mineralogy collection of the natural-history museum in Vienna.

It's like saying dogs have four legs, then having a counter example of a dog born with two that would somehow invalidate the underlying point. :P

Are you sure you're not moving the goalposts? :-)

Blue notes are just the tip of an iceberg that I know little about.

(I'll address the previous issue later, I'm too tired now to trust myself with understanding everything.)

italics why have you forsaken me

Because ScienceBlogs closes all tags (except blockquote on most browsers) when an empty line occurs.

I have one ring with a sapphire that has a star with 12 rays rather than the usual six.

A twin crystal? :-)

To start with, what are your favorite colors?

Black, black and... black? :-þ

There is a stone in Jadehawk's eye color, which I shall not disclose, because that would make her immediately identifiable in meatspace.

Of course there are black stones, but (apart maybe from jet... maybe) they must be expensive because of gemstone woo. Black tourmaline is the strongest protective stone that we know. <vehement nodding>

Someone can't spell prescription right. As to the rest, yeouch. Sounds nasty to me.

Seconded and thirded.

Still wear the ring but I havn't had a Guinness for years.

X-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

There's a Whitby Jet shop in England that makes genuine jet jewellery; and you can get it set with things like mother-of-pearl, amber, opal, ivory, or fossil ammonites.

...Ooooooh. Ammonites.

(...Usually the English spelling system is just an annoyance. But this is a case where I really loathe it. What I tried to do there was a triple oo as in food, not an extended oh.)

my rice is noticeably bad. It's got a slimy exterior and is crunchy in the middle.

Try more salt in the cooking water, more time (and therefore, probably, more water).

I was angling for maximum disciplinary action. I may or may not have been somewhat generous with the facts.

<inhale style="deep">

MOM!!! SHE ADMITS IT!!!

Your turn.

(BTW, 4 1/2 screens. :-) )

a plain-language brochure about safe sex for threesomes (it turned up in the van after I gave some hippie anarchists a ride)

:-D :-D :-D

However, northern German dialects also do not have fully voiced plosives, except in intervocalic position.

They don't? The voiced initial plosives are always among the first things I notice.

They're devoiced at initial position, which is also the case for English. IPA symbol is a subscript circle. Contrast this with fully voiced plosives in Russian, French or Japanese.

Then I really need to spend more time around northern Germans. :-/ I have noticed the unreliable voicing of initial lenes in English; it differs between accents and most reliably occurs in front of /l/ and /r/ as far as I've noticed.

I think one of the reasons that paper chose leiden and leiten is that the following nasal would ensure that the lenis plosives were fully voiced, enabling them to see how important a cue voicedness really was.

Ah. It happens to do no such thing. As far as I've noticed, northern Germans have full intervocalic voicing anyway, while most Bavarian-Austrian ones and Austrian Standard German never voice any plosives at all.

In one of my first English lesson[s], I was taught how to aspirate...

A French assistant teacher at my highschool told us once that he was practicing with a candle.

That's one trick we were told about. Another is to hold a sheet of paper in front of your mouth; if it moves, you've aspirated.

He also had great ways of memorising gender, like Rock masc. and Hose fem. because they're worn (or used to be worn) by women and men respectively.

:-D

Reminds me of la barbe and...

<.<

>.>

...la pine. I actually asked a native speaker about that one. Response: "Parce que c'est ta meilleure amie ! C'est ta copine en temps de solitude !" X-D X-D X-D X-D X-D

(For anyone else reading this, I should maybe explain: German Rock "skirt", no relation to English rock which is borrowed from French; German Hose "pant[s]", most likely cognate with English hose.)

Because aspiration is such an imprecise and subjective term, phoneticians have chosen to use VOT instead.

My impression is that VOT is much easier to measure than everything else, so that's what phoneticians use. That doesn't mean aspiration is imprecise or subjective, it just means it's not identical to a certain amount of positive VOT.

Again, not many French or Spaniards around here, and AFAIK in the literature they're usually treated the same, at least in terms of VOT. Can you describe the difference between the two.

Louder release in French, except for overlap in /k/.

Of course, it's obvious why I find the difference easy to hear: because it (and it alone) is a phonemic contrast where I come from. I don't doubt they have mostly overlapping VOT ranges, and I'm sure that few French or Spaniards would hear the difference.

Just give it a try. Phoneticians just like to get as much as possible, which I why I have to record everything in WAV format because they're afraid of compression loss

OK.

No, it wouldn’t be type I, because you still have a contrast, it’s just not clear what it is.

I have a contrast, but Viennese and Swabians (for instance) don't.

Now in typological comparisons like that, if they don’t specify it further, they usually mean the standard variety.

That doesn't help much, because a fairly wide variety of regional accents is accepted as Standard German. The number of phonemes is almost identical in all of them, but their phonetic realization varies a lot for several.

http://media.fukung.net/images/35762/07fa1c3e3e61c04b893d316f83e3c55b.jpg

So true, so true.

Anyone have any ideas for how to transcribe the Southern term of endearment that is a clip of sugar? Because sug doesn't work, and shoog could have the double-o ewwwwww sound. It's really cramping my Southern graces to be unable to use it.

What I just wrote. Grmpf.

Give up and use IPA: [ʃʊg].

In retrospect, it seems about 90% of those were intended to be "nice" ways of turning me down. I strongly prefer the behavior of those who simply said "no" or even "fuck off". Far less painful, and far less costly.

I bet breaking up is actually easier if you're angry at each other instead of still liking each other.

(Of course, by "angry" I don't mean "murderous obsession". Sideshow Bob breaking up with Bart? Not likely.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 29, 2010 6:34 PM

My ring still hasn't turned up. I've checked the most likely suspect places, but I swear I don't remember ever moving it from what's supposed to be its permanent location. I'm not too worried, because it shouldn't have been able to fall into a trash can from where it was, so it has to be somewhere in the house. I'll be sad if it's gone, though; we lost spouse's in our first move so I'd hate to see mine go too (not to mention how much he scrimped and saved to buy it). So I'm annoyed, but not frantic.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 6:36 PM

see, this is more bullshit.

when i answered your questions

Rather obviously, that means if a preference for solitaires is not part of your culture, then you have nothing to consider, do you.

I don't want to go through all this again. Whatever it will take for you to perceive me as capitulating, just tell me.

Posted by: scornucopia | December 29, 2010 6:51 PM

But what if it's not something you've done wrong?

Making a mistake is not, to my mind, exactly the same as doing something wrong. I'm not trying to play semantic sillybuggers here: for example, I tend to bond to people very quickly, perhaps inappropriately so. It takes some effort on my part not to attribute too much significance to a relationship too soon. I see that effort as avoiding a mistake that will ultimately be painful for me, rather than something that's wrong with me per se. I recognize a weakness and take steps to ameliorate the problem. Nothing “wrong” with that. I'm also not excluding the possibility that all “I did wrong” was to make the mistake of getting involved with someone incredibly shallow, petty, or whatever, which isn't really something “wrong” at all, just something imprudent.

What if it's just a lack of chemistry?

Frankly, I've never fully appreciated the notion of “chemistry” in this context, though it seems to be very important to a lot of people. Insofar as it describes a non-specific attraction (or lack thereof) — my understanding of the term — I'm struggling to think of a female friend whom I find (un)attractive for no reason.

That's not to say that I'd be altogether comfortable articulating the reasons in all circumstances, and I can think of one or two cases where, being a poor and transparent liar, I'd prefer to avoid a direct answer because I think it would be very hurtful. The only reason I'd shirk telling a friend the truth is if I didn't think they'd be emotionally or intellectually equipped to deal with it, which, to me, is a far worse insult. I'd much rather have the unvarnished version: at least that demonstrates a modicum of respect.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | December 29, 2010 6:57 PM

Caine - thanks. I once found a set of keys I had lost two years prior, so I'm hopeful. :)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | December 29, 2010 7:03 PM

One illustrative example is to listen to the distinction between major chords and minor chords.

Like in the ragas?

Dude I think your making the very assumptions about major and minor chords that us USians were about engagement rings.

Posted by: Randy (not Randy) | December 29, 2010 7:08 PM

Hava Nagila is in the Harmonic Minor key, and it's got a pretty good beat and you can dance to it. I give it an eight.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 7:10 PM

Dude I think your making the very assumptions about major and minor chords that us USians were about engagement rings.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | December 29, 2010 7:14 PM

Big in Japan

Big in Japan

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 29, 2010 7:20 PM

Shaker's Law knows no exceptions.

I don't want to go through all this again. Whatever it will take for you to perceive me as capitulating, just tell me.

*sigh* Science: it's not about people, it's about ideas.

One illustrative example is to listen to the distinction between major chords and minor chords. It gives a completely different "feel" to the timbre. You can make a piece of music "sad" or "uplifting" by a few simple changes in patterns. I could go on with a lot of examples of what I mean, but hopefully by now my point is starting to become clear.

Yes, and your point is beside my point. To what extent is what you listed culturally relative? I mean, major does tend to sound "uplifting" and minor "sad" to me, but there are cultures that simply don't use major. Off the top of my head, traditional Hungarian music is all minor, and that includes songs with humorous lyrics like "I caught a mosquito today, bigger than a horse – Whoever believes that is [stupid like] a donkey, bigger than a horse".

Posted by: chigau (◦_◦) | December 29, 2010 7:25 PM

The watch is a Tissot.
A gift from my brother.
I used to buy $5 watches and toss them when they crapped out. About once a year.
------
The talking heads on the radio are wishing one another "Happy New Years".
???

Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880 | December 29, 2010 7:32 PM

Carlie: *hugs* You guys are totally boosting my confidence today. :)

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
a_ray_in_dilbert_space: Wire wrapping I've done, though mostly I just do beadwork...hmm...these are two I made for our auction at work (we're raising money to move into a new building): the first is yellow and red tigereye and amber with gold, the second is blue goldstone and mother of pearl. Many years ago I did some weaving on beadlooms. I really want to learn how to set stones, though, because I have whole pile of unset faceted gemstones--and they're cut, so they wouldn't work for wirewrapping.

Silverworking is another skill I'd love to learn, but it's much more of a financial investment. :) Beading is relatively inexpensive, particularly if you're not using faceted stones. A strand (generally around 20-30 stones) of semi-precious gemstones costs $4 or $8 each at my bead-store, depending on the stone--amethyst, sodalite, mother of pearl, jaspers and agates, etc. Then there's the cost of materials, also fairly cheap, and once you have the basic tools the only cost is the beads and findings (bails, caps, spaces, clasps, etc). Of course, if you want to make real high end, it'll cost. Something like a strand of Sleeping Beauty turquoise could run over $1000.

Hey, if you can teach me to set stones, I'll teach you beadwork! :)

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | December 29, 2010 7:36 PM

To what extent is what you listed culturally relative? I mean, major does tend to sound "uplifting" and minor "sad" to me, but there are cultures that simply don't use major.

It would be damned hard to find people who have no exposure to the culture of music surrounding the western scale, but I wonder if there are any historical records that might be reliable enough and give some insight.

I would not expect an inverse reaction. I would expect something more like confusion, curiosity, or for the music to be responded to more as symbolic of the people who were exposing them to it. Something more like... "oh."

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | December 29, 2010 7:38 PM

キャロル:

I used to buy $5 watches and toss them when they crapped out. About once a year.

I wear a fairly expensive watch and so far it has lasted over five years of daily wearings. The band and the glass of the face are a little banged up, but other than that it's totally fine!

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 7:43 PM

Then what's the point of even trying to qualify that it was about modern American culture? (which is what I'm responding to)

when i answered your questions

You weren't the only one who answered me.

Solitaires are part of a lot of cultures, but the tradition of buying the flashiest and most ostentatious one is not - at least as far as I'm aware. Which is why I asked about it! I didn't think it unreasonable to ask...

MY SIWOTI Syndrome is getting triggered severely by this.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 7:49 PM

aaaaaanyway, thanks to ARIDS for that essay on gems and settings :-) I know it's possible to create beautiful rings, even beautiful engagement rings, for less than what a lot of people spend. but those wouldn't be what I referred to as "traditional", which would be more like the diamond-sprayed monstrosies you've talked about.

If I were to start wearing actual jewelry, with actual gems and stuff, I'd probably go with amethysts, emeralds, and/or black pearls. Other black, purple, and dark green stones would also work :-)

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 29, 2010 7:59 PM

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x957ki_samuel-barber-adagio-for-strings_music

minor key (or b-flat)

uplifting or depressing?

Posted by: lordsetar | December 29, 2010 8:05 PM

Five goals on 12 shots, and Norway's starting goalie has had enough.

And there's still five minutes left in the first period.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | December 29, 2010 8:08 PM

the worst thing about going back to college: the necessity of buying a time-piece of some sort. haven't had one in ages, since my las cell broke about 3 years ago.

And it'll have to be that most dreaded of all time-pieces: the alarm clock *whinge*

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | December 29, 2010 8:14 PM

Jadehawk:

And it'll have to be that most dreaded of all time-pieces: the alarm clock

Ugh. My sympathies. The only clock here is Mister's alarm clock.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | December 29, 2010 8:16 PM

And it'll have to be that most dreaded of all time-pieces: the alarm clock *whinge*

Pfft. You don't need an alarm clock to wake you up. I stopped using one over two years ago.

Posted by: lordsetar | December 29, 2010 8:20 PM

According to many spirit channelers, Jesus (more accurately Yeshua) had the same DNA structure as we all do when we incarnate onto this earth.