Because they become teenagers. And then they whine and cry at the ice cream stand because vanilla is just "GROSS!" and won't eat anything with vanilla in it. To the point of tears. And instead of just taking the ice cream and being grateful, they throw a temper tantrum, to the point of tears. And they have no consequence to the action of not knowing what was in the flavor of ice cream they chose.
Ok.
So we went to get ice cream after a very wonderful bike ride. Ahead of us stood super soccermom waiting in line (complete with the Abercrombie and Fitch capri's and the nike running tank) with her pre-teen devil-spawn with arms crossed in the stance of "I don't want ice cream". Super soccermom can't decide what type of ice cream she wants so devil spawn chooses something, and doesn't know what is in it.
The ice cream comes to the window, and SSM gives it to this girl who bursts into tears and REFUSES to try the ice cream because it's WHITE which automatically means it's VANILLA and VANILLA is just GROSS. So SSM says "It's ok, what do you want then?" and passes the ice cream off to Super SoccerUncle, who eats the ice cream on top of the ice cream he just finished. Now, don't get me wrong...I have been served the wrong flavor, but instead of throwing an all out hissy, tried it, and a couple of times, it was the best error ever made. However, "back in my day", My ass would have been blistered, and I would NOT have gotten any other ice cream. Not because I couldn't make a decision, but because I threw a hissy fit. The lesson learned would have been "Find out what's in the ice cream before you order, and be grateful to your parents for even taking you out for ice cream".
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Stupid people
Here's the latest installment of stupidity.
Someone I know recently found out they were pregnant. It's hard to feel congratulatory to someone who is married to a military man, but the spawn that will undoubtedly spring from between her legs is not that of her husband, but from the boyfriend that she has while her husband has been deployed. Not only that, her excuse for not using protection was "They don't make condoms big enough."
REALLY? Are you serious? Is he a horse? Because, if you really wanted to be careful, you would certainly find a way.
Someone I know recently found out they were pregnant. It's hard to feel congratulatory to someone who is married to a military man, but the spawn that will undoubtedly spring from between her legs is not that of her husband, but from the boyfriend that she has while her husband has been deployed. Not only that, her excuse for not using protection was "They don't make condoms big enough."
REALLY? Are you serious? Is he a horse? Because, if you really wanted to be careful, you would certainly find a way.
Friday, April 24, 2009
ranting
In our fair state, gay marriage has been brought to legislation. The local newspaper ran a story on it. There were many comments posted, and I happened to feel the need to blather on...
By the end of the day, there were over 120 posts, several of them mine.
Here's my stand.
I think this is where biology trumps theology. This is where our biochemistry is saying "The world is overpopulated and cannot sustain the people we have, so we need to stop breeding!" Or maybe it's God's cruel joke to all you Bible thumping hypocrites, and He is saying "I have too many children to take care of, so I will make a certain percentage of my children love each other, even though they may be of the same (M/M, F/F), so they don't make more, but to take care of the ones I have." I would much rather have two people who love and care about each other taking care of a child than two people who hate each other fighting over whose weekend it is to take care said offspring. Just because a "marriage" (the ceremony of commitment between two people who love and care for each other) is allowed to take place, doesn't mean that it degrades the marriage to my husband. That would be like saying "Anyone who has an online bachelor's degree is degrading to the bachelor's degree that I have". The piece of paper is the same, the amount of time, effort and work is the same, so why is the outcome different? It's not. So live and let live, and quit whining about how "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and that it's so we can procreate. If you can't take care of a dog (cat, any animal) why should you be breeding? How many kids out there are in foster care because their parents don't give a hoot where they are or what they're doing because they are too busy boinkin' their latest lust? How many kids are abused and not reported? How many go hungry because the parents can't take care of them? How many are sexually assaulted by family members because they're too scared to "come out of the closet" so they keep it in the family? The couples that I know who have conceived through invitro fertilization, who take the time to go to parenting classes, who spend time with their children have, love their children very much. Are you Bible-Thumpers going to say that because a man and a woman can't conceive naturally that they shouldn't have science help them out? Some will, I know, but some won't! So why are you going to sit there and complain when two women who love each other go to a sperm bank and do invitro? It's not like it's a "WHOOPS! The condom broke!" or "Honey...my pills failed"! They are consciously making a decision to take care of another life, unlike some people who breed like rabbits and pump kids out so they can get an extra paycheck. Many people have said to me "Oh, you'll understand when you have kids" And I have replied "The only kids I will ever have will have four legs and fur" and that drew chuckles and rolling of the eyes, but it seems like everyone EXPECTS couples to have kids, and when they don't, its "why not?" And my husband and I are happily married. And everyone thinks we're weird because we've made the decision not to have children. Where does it say in any written law that couples are expected (other than socially) and must raise 2.5 kids, and be constantly strapped for cash? Oh, RIIIGHT... NO WHERE! So stop complaining that working men and women want the same rights that working men and women have. It shouldn't even be an issue. It's discrimination, and an abomination to the freedom to choose who you spend the rest of your life with
No one seemed interested in responding, so I wrote to that effect
One responded with:
M: Perhaps people here didn't care to read an epic-length dissertation that covers a multitude of issues. Most posters address one point at a time and use the responses to adjust their positions. If other points are needed, those are addressed in subsequent posts. It keeps the discussions more direct.
I responded with:
All the questions posed go back to the same point. There is no logical reason for heterosexuals to stand back and point fingers at homosexual people for wanting EQUALITY, aside from fear. Fear stems from the unknown and perceived danger that homosexuals pose a threat to the heterosexual way of life.
People retorted with defining marriage by website "x" and saying it is against God's will for gays and lesbians to marry.
I responded with:
Were we to believe everything that dictionaries and encyclopaedias define *currently defined language* and willing to accept what they say is the unbendable, undeniable, unchallengable, then we would still believe that the world is flat (Fear of the unknown), that the Earth is the center of the Universe (Fear of the New), and women who float are, indeed, witches (Fear of that which we do not understand) who need to be stoned or tied to the largest boulder and rolled down the highest hill in town. THEREFORE: The definition that was submitted as gospel by Rusty according to some website states: 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage, can be extrapolated into defining that, yes, 2 men or 2 women can be married, but currently, without legal sanction. What is before the legislature is to change the "Without Legal Sanction".
People began attacking me with "Well, if you're ok with gays marrying, then you are ok with polygamists and poly amorists"
To which I responded with:
The definition is "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife" The point is that two people can LOVE each other, and it cannot be a bond between three people. If you truly love someone, they are your soulmate, your ONLY true love, the one who COMPLETES you, then you have nothing left to give to anyone else in the same manner. If you do, then you need to have a discussion with your partner, because they clearly are not meeting your needs, and if given ample opportunity, a person who is not adequately having their needs met will find some way. (And yes, I am female, and have met my soulmate, and I love him with all of my heart).
Which received the "Can we form a committee to change a word?"
A quick research on Merriam-Webster (A dictionary I hold with authority) excavated:
Per Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them. Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms—in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use. It is the definer's job to determine which existing entries can remain essentially unchanged, which entries need to be revised, which entries can be dropped, and which new entries should be added. In each case, the definer decides on the best course of action by reading through the citations and using the evidence in them to adjust entries or create new ones.
People then tried to argue that because a definition was lower on the list that it wasn't accurate.
I am just so fed up with so many people saying "it's a choice, it's not natural, it's sin." and that they shove their agenda down our throat. It's none of the above. Does anyone hear "EEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!" when seeing a man and woman kiss and hold hands in public? No? Then why should we not extend the same when seeing two men or two women kiss and hold hands! Put yourself in their shoes and think about the daily discrimination they face, and then when they stand up for themselves, they're "Shoving their agenda down our throats?"
By the end of the day, there were over 120 posts, several of them mine.
Here's my stand.
I think this is where biology trumps theology. This is where our biochemistry is saying "The world is overpopulated and cannot sustain the people we have, so we need to stop breeding!" Or maybe it's God's cruel joke to all you Bible thumping hypocrites, and He is saying "I have too many children to take care of, so I will make a certain percentage of my children love each other, even though they may be of the same (M/M, F/F), so they don't make more, but to take care of the ones I have." I would much rather have two people who love and care about each other taking care of a child than two people who hate each other fighting over whose weekend it is to take care said offspring. Just because a "marriage" (the ceremony of commitment between two people who love and care for each other) is allowed to take place, doesn't mean that it degrades the marriage to my husband. That would be like saying "Anyone who has an online bachelor's degree is degrading to the bachelor's degree that I have". The piece of paper is the same, the amount of time, effort and work is the same, so why is the outcome different? It's not. So live and let live, and quit whining about how "marriage" is between a man and a woman, and that it's so we can procreate. If you can't take care of a dog (cat, any animal) why should you be breeding? How many kids out there are in foster care because their parents don't give a hoot where they are or what they're doing because they are too busy boinkin' their latest lust? How many kids are abused and not reported? How many go hungry because the parents can't take care of them? How many are sexually assaulted by family members because they're too scared to "come out of the closet" so they keep it in the family? The couples that I know who have conceived through invitro fertilization, who take the time to go to parenting classes, who spend time with their children have, love their children very much. Are you Bible-Thumpers going to say that because a man and a woman can't conceive naturally that they shouldn't have science help them out? Some will, I know, but some won't! So why are you going to sit there and complain when two women who love each other go to a sperm bank and do invitro? It's not like it's a "WHOOPS! The condom broke!" or "Honey...my pills failed"! They are consciously making a decision to take care of another life, unlike some people who breed like rabbits and pump kids out so they can get an extra paycheck. Many people have said to me "Oh, you'll understand when you have kids" And I have replied "The only kids I will ever have will have four legs and fur" and that drew chuckles and rolling of the eyes, but it seems like everyone EXPECTS couples to have kids, and when they don't, its "why not?" And my husband and I are happily married. And everyone thinks we're weird because we've made the decision not to have children. Where does it say in any written law that couples are expected (other than socially) and must raise 2.5 kids, and be constantly strapped for cash? Oh, RIIIGHT... NO WHERE! So stop complaining that working men and women want the same rights that working men and women have. It shouldn't even be an issue. It's discrimination, and an abomination to the freedom to choose who you spend the rest of your life with
No one seemed interested in responding, so I wrote to that effect
One responded with:
M: Perhaps people here didn't care to read an epic-length dissertation that covers a multitude of issues. Most posters address one point at a time and use the responses to adjust their positions. If other points are needed, those are addressed in subsequent posts. It keeps the discussions more direct.
I responded with:
All the questions posed go back to the same point. There is no logical reason for heterosexuals to stand back and point fingers at homosexual people for wanting EQUALITY, aside from fear. Fear stems from the unknown and perceived danger that homosexuals pose a threat to the heterosexual way of life.
People retorted with defining marriage by website "x" and saying it is against God's will for gays and lesbians to marry.
I responded with:
Were we to believe everything that dictionaries and encyclopaedias define *currently defined language* and willing to accept what they say is the unbendable, undeniable, unchallengable, then we would still believe that the world is flat (Fear of the unknown), that the Earth is the center of the Universe (Fear of the New), and women who float are, indeed, witches (Fear of that which we do not understand) who need to be stoned or tied to the largest boulder and rolled down the highest hill in town. THEREFORE: The definition that was submitted as gospel by Rusty according to some website states: 4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage, can be extrapolated into defining that, yes, 2 men or 2 women can be married, but currently, without legal sanction. What is before the legislature is to change the "Without Legal Sanction".
People began attacking me with "Well, if you're ok with gays marrying, then you are ok with polygamists and poly amorists"
To which I responded with:
The definition is "a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other IN THE MANNER of a husband and wife" The point is that two people can LOVE each other, and it cannot be a bond between three people. If you truly love someone, they are your soulmate, your ONLY true love, the one who COMPLETES you, then you have nothing left to give to anyone else in the same manner. If you do, then you need to have a discussion with your partner, because they clearly are not meeting your needs, and if given ample opportunity, a person who is not adequately having their needs met will find some way. (And yes, I am female, and have met my soulmate, and I love him with all of my heart).
Which received the "Can we form a committee to change a word?"
A quick research on Merriam-Webster (A dictionary I hold with authority) excavated:
Per Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm To decide which words to include in the dictionary and to determine what they mean, Merriam-Webster editors study the language as it's used. They carefully monitor which words people use most often and how they use them. Each day most Merriam-Webster editors devote an hour or two to reading a cross section of published material, including books, newspapers, magazines, and electronic publications; in our office this activity is called "reading and marking." The editors scour the texts in search of new words, new usages of existing words, variant spellings, and inflected forms—in short, anything that might help in deciding if a word belongs in the dictionary, understanding what it means, and determining typical usage. Any word of interest is marked, along with surrounding context that offers insight into its form and use. It is the definer's job to determine which existing entries can remain essentially unchanged, which entries need to be revised, which entries can be dropped, and which new entries should be added. In each case, the definer decides on the best course of action by reading through the citations and using the evidence in them to adjust entries or create new ones.
People then tried to argue that because a definition was lower on the list that it wasn't accurate.
I am just so fed up with so many people saying "it's a choice, it's not natural, it's sin." and that they shove their agenda down our throat. It's none of the above. Does anyone hear "EEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!" when seeing a man and woman kiss and hold hands in public? No? Then why should we not extend the same when seeing two men or two women kiss and hold hands! Put yourself in their shoes and think about the daily discrimination they face, and then when they stand up for themselves, they're "Shoving their agenda down our throats?"
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The latest addition to the family
What you ask?
The office slave and awesome hubby had a baby?
No...
We have adopted/purchased a puppy.
An 8 week old chocolate lab baby girl.
Named Tikka (TEE-kah)
The office slave and awesome hubby had a baby?
No...
We have adopted/purchased a puppy.
An 8 week old chocolate lab baby girl.
Named Tikka (TEE-kah)
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thanks...
To all you baahhsttahhds dreaming of a White Christmas.
We have it now.
You can stop dreaming. 'K? THANKS!
We have it now.
You can stop dreaming. 'K? THANKS!
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Response to the third request for my opinion on a survey
Look, if I wanted to leave feedback, I would have. I am adept enough in the use of computers to find your website, find the "CONTACT US" button and raise seven kinds of holy h-e-double hockey stick had I not received it, and you would have heard from me by now. If I thought the service was absolutely smokin'-hot-out-of-this-world, I would have written to your company to compliment you on a job well done.
Since I received my product through mediocre services(quite the delay, mind you), I didn't feel it was necessary to either compliment or ridicule you. Seeing as you are virtually DEMANDING a response with the second or third email requesting me to fill out a survey, I feel the need to contact you and ask you to STOP SENDING ME SURVEYS. Either that, I'm going to develop my own survey to send to you to ask you to rate me as a customer, and begin to ask you such questions as "Did my puchase of a 7.00 item improve your daily sales to the point that you would recommend me as a customer to other vendors?", "Was my credit card appropriate for your usage?", "Did you enjoy sending me my product via the slowest shipping rate possible?" and "Do you feel that Amazon.com is an appropriate location to start advertising the sale of groceries?" "How do you feel about global warming?"
If you feel these questions are utterly preposterous and time wasting, maybe you will begin to know how I really feel about receiving multiple requests for my opinion on a survey.
If you insist on sending me surveys and asking me for my opinion, beware, I may just give it to you, and it may not be the glowing praise that you are looking for. A satisfied customer will tell about 3 people they had a good shopping experience. A dissatisfied customer will tell 10. Not such a good ratio for your company.
It's not the purchase I'm dissatisfied with, it is the badgering for my opinion that is making me dissatisfied.
Thank you,
A Disgruntled Customer
Since I received my product through mediocre services(quite the delay, mind you), I didn't feel it was necessary to either compliment or ridicule you. Seeing as you are virtually DEMANDING a response with the second or third email requesting me to fill out a survey, I feel the need to contact you and ask you to STOP SENDING ME SURVEYS. Either that, I'm going to develop my own survey to send to you to ask you to rate me as a customer, and begin to ask you such questions as "Did my puchase of a 7.00 item improve your daily sales to the point that you would recommend me as a customer to other vendors?", "Was my credit card appropriate for your usage?", "Did you enjoy sending me my product via the slowest shipping rate possible?" and "Do you feel that Amazon.com is an appropriate location to start advertising the sale of groceries?" "How do you feel about global warming?"
If you feel these questions are utterly preposterous and time wasting, maybe you will begin to know how I really feel about receiving multiple requests for my opinion on a survey.
If you insist on sending me surveys and asking me for my opinion, beware, I may just give it to you, and it may not be the glowing praise that you are looking for. A satisfied customer will tell about 3 people they had a good shopping experience. A dissatisfied customer will tell 10. Not such a good ratio for your company.
It's not the purchase I'm dissatisfied with, it is the badgering for my opinion that is making me dissatisfied.
Thank you,
A Disgruntled Customer
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Scary....
While on a break this evening at a local call center that receives orders for a popular outdoor retail store (making scarcely 10/hr (that's dollars)), I heard the following comment after listening to a comment on the news about the auto "bailout"
"I think I'm a socialist at heart. I don't think that people who have earned a lot of money should be allowed to keep it. They should have to give it to people less fortunate."
And this statement was made after the individual said "I support Barack Obama"
"I think I'm a socialist at heart. I don't think that people who have earned a lot of money should be allowed to keep it. They should have to give it to people less fortunate."
And this statement was made after the individual said "I support Barack Obama"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
