Saturday, March 13, 2004
Why we don't entertain
My husband and I virtually never have any other human beings in our home; it only happens a few times a year. You can count the # of times anyone has EATEN in our home, in all the years we've been married, on the fingers of one hand. In part, this is because the effort to make our house presentable is so gargantuan that it FAR outweighs the enjoyment of having anyone here, not that we have anything to do around here for a guest anyways-what are they supposed to do, look over our shoulders as we type emails, lol? We're geeks, and have mountains of computer stuff but virtually nothing else; almost no furniture, mostly bare walls, no games (we're not THAT sort of geek)... oh, and we don't cook, either, so if they HAVE to be here at dinner time and don't want to go out, they have to be satisfied with takeout. The REAL problem, though, is that my husband is a slob to a degree that would make Oscar Madison gasp in horror, and we don't have a Felix Unger here to clean up after him.
Although my husband PROMISED to not make our home a disaster area as part of our marriage agreement, it hasn't worked out that way, and the only times I can, with a LARGE amount of badgering, get him to do ANY cleaning are when someone is going to be coming over. Do the math; the house therefore only gets cleaned a few times a year.
I hasten to add here that all MY stuff is neatly put away, any mess *I* make is instantly cleaned up, and that MY "areas" of the house are immaculate; because he married me, as opposed to purchasing me at a slave auction, I flatly refuse to spend the hours it would take every day to eliminate HIS mess and filth, so... it just sits there (I've learned to deal with it, as the alternative is a padded cell).
If I told you how many person-hours it takes to prepare the house for a guest, you simply wouldn't believe it... and mind you, we keep all the bedroom doors closed, so we have less than half of the actual house to clean. Part of this endless parade of hours gets wasted by my husband constantly trying to argue his way out of individual tasks: "She isn't tall enough to see the top of the fridge, so there's no need to clean that" "She's as tall as I am, and *I* can see it, so clean it" "She won't be here long enough to use the bathroom, so there's no need to clean that" "She'll head for the bathroom the moment she gets in the door, so clean it" "He won't notice what the toilet bowl looks like" "ANYONE will notice a BLACK toilet bowl, so clean it" etc. Then, he always has to do it sloppily the first time around, leaving things NOT neat and clean, and so has to do it all again; no amount of pointing out that it's MUCH faster to just do it ONCE has had any effect as of yet. At all points in the cleanup, he has to be checked on to make sure he hasn't gotten "accidentally" distracted by the TV, a magazine, or floating dust motes and stopped making cleaning movements. {sigh}
Although I start fighting to get things cleaned up several days in advance, he's always sure that it will magically take far less time this time than all the other times, and far too much is left for the last day, leading to us staying up until 5AM cleaning, cursing and screaming at each other nonstop, so that the day of the visit finds us exhausted, stressed out and cranky as hell; is it any wonder we greet our guests with no joy in our hearts?
Having anyone here long enough to have to provide food for them adds a whole other level of aggravation; we have to go out and buy whatever drinks and snacks they like, since no one wants what we normally have, we have to make ice and find room for it in the freezer somehow (don't ask), and if they're going to have an actual meal we have to wash the dishes and silverware, rather than stashing it all in the (broken) dishwasher or oven, and make sure the microwave is cleaned out.
Because my husband refuses to wipe his feet before he comes in the house, and refuses to use the drip pans for the cars, our pale carpet is nearly BLACK in the main traffic areas; when he hauled away the piles of boxes and junk he'd had on every bit of carpet aside from the narrow paths through each room, the contrast in carpet color was so horrifying that we had to rent a Rug Doctor and make multiple passes with it to make the carpet presentable. (Note; my husband only agreed to this extra effort because our guests will be seeing our home for the first time, and they have a much nicer place than we do... and, because one of them is MALE, and he feels competitive with him.)
We still have a scary amount of stuff to do before they arrive tomorrow, including squaring away the mess on the patio and making the guest bathroom (which my husband uses) look less like something you'd find out behind a gas station and more like something decent people would be willing to enter without full hazmat gear. (No, *I* do NOT use that bathroom; MY bathroom is immaculate, but they'd have to go through the master bedroom to get to it, and that's out, so...)
Once they get here, guess what we'll all be doing? Sitting on the floor (we don't have a couch), holding junk food in our laps (no coffee table, either) watching movies THEY are bringing with them (because we don't buy movies). Makes you wonder what in the world they're thinking, wanting to get together HERE, doesn't it? It's just that they've never seen the place in all the time they've known us, so we sort of have to let them come in and look around... after which they'll be happy to just see us at THEIR house, or to meet us places, just like everyone else we know.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.........
Although my husband PROMISED to not make our home a disaster area as part of our marriage agreement, it hasn't worked out that way, and the only times I can, with a LARGE amount of badgering, get him to do ANY cleaning are when someone is going to be coming over. Do the math; the house therefore only gets cleaned a few times a year.
I hasten to add here that all MY stuff is neatly put away, any mess *I* make is instantly cleaned up, and that MY "areas" of the house are immaculate; because he married me, as opposed to purchasing me at a slave auction, I flatly refuse to spend the hours it would take every day to eliminate HIS mess and filth, so... it just sits there (I've learned to deal with it, as the alternative is a padded cell).
If I told you how many person-hours it takes to prepare the house for a guest, you simply wouldn't believe it... and mind you, we keep all the bedroom doors closed, so we have less than half of the actual house to clean. Part of this endless parade of hours gets wasted by my husband constantly trying to argue his way out of individual tasks: "She isn't tall enough to see the top of the fridge, so there's no need to clean that" "She's as tall as I am, and *I* can see it, so clean it" "She won't be here long enough to use the bathroom, so there's no need to clean that" "She'll head for the bathroom the moment she gets in the door, so clean it" "He won't notice what the toilet bowl looks like" "ANYONE will notice a BLACK toilet bowl, so clean it" etc. Then, he always has to do it sloppily the first time around, leaving things NOT neat and clean, and so has to do it all again; no amount of pointing out that it's MUCH faster to just do it ONCE has had any effect as of yet. At all points in the cleanup, he has to be checked on to make sure he hasn't gotten "accidentally" distracted by the TV, a magazine, or floating dust motes and stopped making cleaning movements. {sigh}
Although I start fighting to get things cleaned up several days in advance, he's always sure that it will magically take far less time this time than all the other times, and far too much is left for the last day, leading to us staying up until 5AM cleaning, cursing and screaming at each other nonstop, so that the day of the visit finds us exhausted, stressed out and cranky as hell; is it any wonder we greet our guests with no joy in our hearts?
Having anyone here long enough to have to provide food for them adds a whole other level of aggravation; we have to go out and buy whatever drinks and snacks they like, since no one wants what we normally have, we have to make ice and find room for it in the freezer somehow (don't ask), and if they're going to have an actual meal we have to wash the dishes and silverware, rather than stashing it all in the (broken) dishwasher or oven, and make sure the microwave is cleaned out.
Because my husband refuses to wipe his feet before he comes in the house, and refuses to use the drip pans for the cars, our pale carpet is nearly BLACK in the main traffic areas; when he hauled away the piles of boxes and junk he'd had on every bit of carpet aside from the narrow paths through each room, the contrast in carpet color was so horrifying that we had to rent a Rug Doctor and make multiple passes with it to make the carpet presentable. (Note; my husband only agreed to this extra effort because our guests will be seeing our home for the first time, and they have a much nicer place than we do... and, because one of them is MALE, and he feels competitive with him.)
We still have a scary amount of stuff to do before they arrive tomorrow, including squaring away the mess on the patio and making the guest bathroom (which my husband uses) look less like something you'd find out behind a gas station and more like something decent people would be willing to enter without full hazmat gear. (No, *I* do NOT use that bathroom; MY bathroom is immaculate, but they'd have to go through the master bedroom to get to it, and that's out, so...)
Once they get here, guess what we'll all be doing? Sitting on the floor (we don't have a couch), holding junk food in our laps (no coffee table, either) watching movies THEY are bringing with them (because we don't buy movies). Makes you wonder what in the world they're thinking, wanting to get together HERE, doesn't it? It's just that they've never seen the place in all the time they've known us, so we sort of have to let them come in and look around... after which they'll be happy to just see us at THEIR house, or to meet us places, just like everyone else we know.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.........
Friday, March 12, 2004
My experiences with the spirit of a friend
A dear friend of mine died tragically a few years ago; we'll call her Sarah. I've had 2 interactions with her spirit:
1) She passed away on a Thursday night, and I found out on Friday. Friday evening, I went to delete her from my ICQ; I clicked on the control to bring up the "Delete" screen, and then tried to click on the "button" to do the actual delete... and the button wouldn't work-it wouldn't "press down" and it did NOT delete her. I tried and tried, and then tried to Cancel out of the screen.... and THAT wouldn't work either. Then, I tried to use my File menu to Quit out of ICQ, and it wouldn't even do THAT, which shouldn't have been POSSIBLE; none of those things had EVER happened to me in my 2 years of constantly using ICQ.
At that point, I realized what was causing the problems, and I sat back and talked to Sarah; I told her I loved her, and missed her, and hoped that she was OK, and that I would NEVER forget her or stop caring about her. After that, I called my husband in and told him what had happened, and he FREAKED, even though as a rule he does NOT believe in this sort of thing; once he'd recovered, he did some sort of command that got the Delete screen to go away, and then I was able to Quit out of ICQ, reload it and, regretfully, delete Sarah.
2) Sarah had been in an online club of mine, and I had left her on the member list even after her death. When I had to switch the club to a new site, I spent many hours copying and transferring posts without incident, UNTIL I tried to bring up the last post of Sarah's; the system refused to load the page, even after a dozen tries. I tried to bring up other posts that were linked to hers, so as to get to it indirectly; no dice, they all failed, and nothing like that had EVER happened in 2 years of using that system. So, as I did when I wasn't able to delete her from ICQ, I stopped and talked to her, and told her how much I loved and missed her. I closed the window, re-logged-in, and was able to proceed normally. I didn't think it was a coincidence the first time, and I sure as shootin' don't think it was the 2nd time, either.... it was SARAH.
Are you still with me, Sarah? If you are, know that you are still in my heart and thoughts, and that every time I read about someone who shows extraordinary courage under hideous circumstances, I remember the awe I felt watching you deal gracefully with more than one person should ever be asked to endure. I hope that wherever you are you have found as much joy as the human spirit can absorb. Much love, dear friend...
1) She passed away on a Thursday night, and I found out on Friday. Friday evening, I went to delete her from my ICQ; I clicked on the control to bring up the "Delete" screen, and then tried to click on the "button" to do the actual delete... and the button wouldn't work-it wouldn't "press down" and it did NOT delete her. I tried and tried, and then tried to Cancel out of the screen.... and THAT wouldn't work either. Then, I tried to use my File menu to Quit out of ICQ, and it wouldn't even do THAT, which shouldn't have been POSSIBLE; none of those things had EVER happened to me in my 2 years of constantly using ICQ.
At that point, I realized what was causing the problems, and I sat back and talked to Sarah; I told her I loved her, and missed her, and hoped that she was OK, and that I would NEVER forget her or stop caring about her. After that, I called my husband in and told him what had happened, and he FREAKED, even though as a rule he does NOT believe in this sort of thing; once he'd recovered, he did some sort of command that got the Delete screen to go away, and then I was able to Quit out of ICQ, reload it and, regretfully, delete Sarah.
2) Sarah had been in an online club of mine, and I had left her on the member list even after her death. When I had to switch the club to a new site, I spent many hours copying and transferring posts without incident, UNTIL I tried to bring up the last post of Sarah's; the system refused to load the page, even after a dozen tries. I tried to bring up other posts that were linked to hers, so as to get to it indirectly; no dice, they all failed, and nothing like that had EVER happened in 2 years of using that system. So, as I did when I wasn't able to delete her from ICQ, I stopped and talked to her, and told her how much I loved and missed her. I closed the window, re-logged-in, and was able to proceed normally. I didn't think it was a coincidence the first time, and I sure as shootin' don't think it was the 2nd time, either.... it was SARAH.
Are you still with me, Sarah? If you are, know that you are still in my heart and thoughts, and that every time I read about someone who shows extraordinary courage under hideous circumstances, I remember the awe I felt watching you deal gracefully with more than one person should ever be asked to endure. I hope that wherever you are you have found as much joy as the human spirit can absorb. Much love, dear friend...
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Vampires
If you've been watching "Mad Mad House" on the Scifi Channel, you've seen "Don the vampire"; if your tastes are as warped as mine, you've also seen that he's a BABE. In any case, he got me thinking about, er, things that I won't post in a public place, lol, and also about the origins of the vampire myth.
Don refers to the drinking of blood as a way to "feed" on people's life force; I don't know if it's POSSIBLE to do that, via blood or any other way, but it's an interesting, science-fictiony concept, this idea of one being being able to drain energy directly from another... if it's actually possible, let's hope Bill Gates never learns how to do it. In any case, Don ties all this up with exploring, reaching higher levels of consciousness and so forth, which could be all BS, or could be the whole point of it for him, and the gothic trappings just put it in a framework that makes it easier for his mind to open; we'll never know, that much I AM sure of.
The modern, New Age-y "vampires" bear little resemblance to the traditional ones, which is probably because the traditional ones are supposed to have powers that these folks lack. What most people don't realize is that the idea of the vampire is based on REAL human beings; they didn't have supernatural powers, they weren't undead, and it had nothing to do with having been bitten-they had a rare medical condition called porphyria.
Porphyria is a genetic disorder (technically, a group of disorders), in which the victims can't metabolize iron without an enzyme found in, you guessed it, BLOOD... and so of course they'd crave blood, which has the enzyme and alot of iron. The extreme cases that led to the vampire myth, that are thought to have appeared in an unusual # (since they are all rare disorders) for a while in the countries where the myth originated, would lead to the victims having a particularly hideous form of anemia, and intense photosensitivity in the skin due to how ultraviolet light interacts with the chemicals that build up in their blood.
The victims would be horribly burned by sunlight. They would be VERY white due to their total avoidance of the sun and their anemia. Their gums would recede, giving them the appearance of fangs, and the gums would bleed, making their mouths seem bloody even if they hadn't consumed blood. Their eyes would be sunken and bloodshot. Their skins would be super-sensitive to many chemicals, such as those found in, what else, garlic. Their urine would be dark red, leading to the belief that they excreted blood rather than normal bodily fluids. They would DRINK blood for the enzymes and the iron, although generally the blood of animals (which they'd have killed to eat), as they'd lack the strength to kill a healthy person for the most part. And, they would often become crazy, and behave accordingly.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the classic vampire, doesn't it?
How many other things that you've dismissed as pure fantasy have a basis in reality, do you suppose?
Don refers to the drinking of blood as a way to "feed" on people's life force; I don't know if it's POSSIBLE to do that, via blood or any other way, but it's an interesting, science-fictiony concept, this idea of one being being able to drain energy directly from another... if it's actually possible, let's hope Bill Gates never learns how to do it. In any case, Don ties all this up with exploring, reaching higher levels of consciousness and so forth, which could be all BS, or could be the whole point of it for him, and the gothic trappings just put it in a framework that makes it easier for his mind to open; we'll never know, that much I AM sure of.
The modern, New Age-y "vampires" bear little resemblance to the traditional ones, which is probably because the traditional ones are supposed to have powers that these folks lack. What most people don't realize is that the idea of the vampire is based on REAL human beings; they didn't have supernatural powers, they weren't undead, and it had nothing to do with having been bitten-they had a rare medical condition called porphyria.
Porphyria is a genetic disorder (technically, a group of disorders), in which the victims can't metabolize iron without an enzyme found in, you guessed it, BLOOD... and so of course they'd crave blood, which has the enzyme and alot of iron. The extreme cases that led to the vampire myth, that are thought to have appeared in an unusual # (since they are all rare disorders) for a while in the countries where the myth originated, would lead to the victims having a particularly hideous form of anemia, and intense photosensitivity in the skin due to how ultraviolet light interacts with the chemicals that build up in their blood.
The victims would be horribly burned by sunlight. They would be VERY white due to their total avoidance of the sun and their anemia. Their gums would recede, giving them the appearance of fangs, and the gums would bleed, making their mouths seem bloody even if they hadn't consumed blood. Their eyes would be sunken and bloodshot. Their skins would be super-sensitive to many chemicals, such as those found in, what else, garlic. Their urine would be dark red, leading to the belief that they excreted blood rather than normal bodily fluids. They would DRINK blood for the enzymes and the iron, although generally the blood of animals (which they'd have killed to eat), as they'd lack the strength to kill a healthy person for the most part. And, they would often become crazy, and behave accordingly.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the classic vampire, doesn't it?
How many other things that you've dismissed as pure fantasy have a basis in reality, do you suppose?
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
The karmic reward for making the right choice
I've seen over and over that, if I make the right choice about something, karma will send me a reward within 48 hours, and this reward will be something outside of my control, something unexpected, and usually something that has some sort of relation to the original issue.
I made the right decision a couple of days ago, to do what I could to make it harder for an eBay seller to screw over other customers, and in response, karma sent me something mind-boggling; I got an email from eBay in reference to a seller who had cheated us but in a way that eBay declines to get involved with, thus letting the criminal keep all the $ and keep selling on eBay... but, the rarest thing in the world had happened, and one of the customer service people had noticed something in my original message that pointed to the breaking of an eBay rule I hadn't even known about by this seller, and had actually forwarded my message to someone who could DO something about it!! When's the last time you saw ANYONE go out of their way to take a problem to another department, or even NOTICE any problem outside of what they're paid to handle?
The rule in question is about not using feedback to try to force someone to take a certain action; eBay calls this sort of behavior "feedback EXTORTION," if you can believe THAT, and it turns out that they consider this a BIG crime (even though they don't think theft and fraud are worth worrying about), so much so that this infraction will probably cost the seller her eBay account. She had promised a partial, PARTIAL, refund for the damaged sweater, but only if I gave her a + feedback first; I'm guessing that she's going to be wishing she'd just handed over a full refund right off the bat like ANY decent seller would.
Karma is a wonderful thing, ahhhhhhhh....
I made the right decision a couple of days ago, to do what I could to make it harder for an eBay seller to screw over other customers, and in response, karma sent me something mind-boggling; I got an email from eBay in reference to a seller who had cheated us but in a way that eBay declines to get involved with, thus letting the criminal keep all the $ and keep selling on eBay... but, the rarest thing in the world had happened, and one of the customer service people had noticed something in my original message that pointed to the breaking of an eBay rule I hadn't even known about by this seller, and had actually forwarded my message to someone who could DO something about it!! When's the last time you saw ANYONE go out of their way to take a problem to another department, or even NOTICE any problem outside of what they're paid to handle?
The rule in question is about not using feedback to try to force someone to take a certain action; eBay calls this sort of behavior "feedback EXTORTION," if you can believe THAT, and it turns out that they consider this a BIG crime (even though they don't think theft and fraud are worth worrying about), so much so that this infraction will probably cost the seller her eBay account. She had promised a partial, PARTIAL, refund for the damaged sweater, but only if I gave her a + feedback first; I'm guessing that she's going to be wishing she'd just handed over a full refund right off the bat like ANY decent seller would.
Karma is a wonderful thing, ahhhhhhhh....
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
What's in a name?
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet... right?
I'm endlessly astounded by women who make a big issue about what last name they'll have after they get married, as if a last name were anything other than a way for us to keep track of who's related to who. Why on Earth would you WANT to marry someone that you're unwilling to share a last name with? What more basic thing is there to share with someone you're taking to be your closest relative than their last name?
Yes, I've heard the arguments from women about giving up "their name," and about how taking a man's name is supposed to be somehow bad, by symbolizing what used to be a switch in "ownership" of the woman from her father to her husband, but, remember, the last name that the woman starts out with is NOT "her name," it's her FATHER'S name, in other words a MAN'S name, so what will she accomplish if she hangs onto the name of the man who originally gave her one, which was traditionally as much of a symbol of her being "owned" and controlled by men as taking her husband's name would be?
If she takes her mother's maiden name, she's STILL getting the name from another person, so it's NOT "her name," and where did her mother get the name from? HER father, a MAN, so this just moves the male origin of the name back one generation, and STILL doesn't escape the whole concept of having a man's name.
The only way to have your OWN name is if you choose a name and legally adopt it. The only way to "inherit" a name that didn't come from a man, if you don't live in one of the cultures where the woman's name is passed to the children (some Hispanic cultures do this, for example), is if your mother or some other female relative legally chose a whole new name and passed it along a female-only line until it got to YOU. Given that, why get hysterical over whether your last name comes from the man who provided half of your DNA or the man you're married to?
As for the whole idea of hyphenating, I think George Carlin said it best; "Pick one name or the other, you pretentious bitch!!" This goes for couples where BOTH of them hyphenate, too; leave that for those so wealthy and powerful that their last names actually MEAN something to society... YOUR last name is NOT so important that it has to be preserved at the cost of making it overly complicated to refer to you. I remember my husband telling me he'd rather take MY last name than have any hyphenation, and I couldn't agree more; marriage is 2 becoming one, and that means ONE last name, whichever last name you choose... or, if you create a whole new one, that's even better, as it would belong uniquely to the 2 of you.
If you don't like the cultural expectation that the woman has to be the one to change names, grow up; our culture expects the man to risk his life to save yours if the situation calls for it, and to do all the difficult and icky tasks of life (yes, you're perfectly capable of taking out the garbage, changing the oil in your car, mowing the lawn and killing that rat that got caught in the trap, but every man accepts that he SHOULD do these tasks as part of his service to you), so it's not asking too much that YOU undergo the work of a name change if only one of you has to do it... quite aside from the fact that if HE changes HIS name he'll endure all sorts of teasing and carping, AND that, at least in many states, it's free for the woman to change her name but costs a big chunk of change for the man to change his.
So please, ladies, quit making a stink about the perfectly logical expectation that a married couple will share a last name as well as everything else in their lives, quit making it hard to tell if you're actually married to a man or not, quit confusing your kids and their teachers, etc, as to who their parents are based on their last names, and quit glopping your names up with hyphenation; pick ONE last name to share as a married couple, and save your battles about stuff in the realm of "being a modern, independent woman" for things that actually MATTER.
I'm endlessly astounded by women who make a big issue about what last name they'll have after they get married, as if a last name were anything other than a way for us to keep track of who's related to who. Why on Earth would you WANT to marry someone that you're unwilling to share a last name with? What more basic thing is there to share with someone you're taking to be your closest relative than their last name?
Yes, I've heard the arguments from women about giving up "their name," and about how taking a man's name is supposed to be somehow bad, by symbolizing what used to be a switch in "ownership" of the woman from her father to her husband, but, remember, the last name that the woman starts out with is NOT "her name," it's her FATHER'S name, in other words a MAN'S name, so what will she accomplish if she hangs onto the name of the man who originally gave her one, which was traditionally as much of a symbol of her being "owned" and controlled by men as taking her husband's name would be?
If she takes her mother's maiden name, she's STILL getting the name from another person, so it's NOT "her name," and where did her mother get the name from? HER father, a MAN, so this just moves the male origin of the name back one generation, and STILL doesn't escape the whole concept of having a man's name.
The only way to have your OWN name is if you choose a name and legally adopt it. The only way to "inherit" a name that didn't come from a man, if you don't live in one of the cultures where the woman's name is passed to the children (some Hispanic cultures do this, for example), is if your mother or some other female relative legally chose a whole new name and passed it along a female-only line until it got to YOU. Given that, why get hysterical over whether your last name comes from the man who provided half of your DNA or the man you're married to?
As for the whole idea of hyphenating, I think George Carlin said it best; "Pick one name or the other, you pretentious bitch!!" This goes for couples where BOTH of them hyphenate, too; leave that for those so wealthy and powerful that their last names actually MEAN something to society... YOUR last name is NOT so important that it has to be preserved at the cost of making it overly complicated to refer to you. I remember my husband telling me he'd rather take MY last name than have any hyphenation, and I couldn't agree more; marriage is 2 becoming one, and that means ONE last name, whichever last name you choose... or, if you create a whole new one, that's even better, as it would belong uniquely to the 2 of you.
If you don't like the cultural expectation that the woman has to be the one to change names, grow up; our culture expects the man to risk his life to save yours if the situation calls for it, and to do all the difficult and icky tasks of life (yes, you're perfectly capable of taking out the garbage, changing the oil in your car, mowing the lawn and killing that rat that got caught in the trap, but every man accepts that he SHOULD do these tasks as part of his service to you), so it's not asking too much that YOU undergo the work of a name change if only one of you has to do it... quite aside from the fact that if HE changes HIS name he'll endure all sorts of teasing and carping, AND that, at least in many states, it's free for the woman to change her name but costs a big chunk of change for the man to change his.
So please, ladies, quit making a stink about the perfectly logical expectation that a married couple will share a last name as well as everything else in their lives, quit making it hard to tell if you're actually married to a man or not, quit confusing your kids and their teachers, etc, as to who their parents are based on their last names, and quit glopping your names up with hyphenation; pick ONE last name to share as a married couple, and save your battles about stuff in the realm of "being a modern, independent woman" for things that actually MATTER.
Trying to find the right karmic path
What comes around goes around (aka what goes around comes around); this is the most basic way to explain the standard view of karma-what you send out is what you get back.
What gets confusing is when negative action taken against one person benefits another person, or many people, especially if YOU aren't going to personally benefit; for example, if the guy who beat your friend up when they went out starts sniffing around some other friend, if you warn her that's negative to him, but will likely save HER from getting hit... so is telling bad or good, karmically speaking?
Sadly, there's no manual to guide us; we have to use common sense and instinct and try to do what seems most right... and it won't hurt that that very intention gets you positivity points. Don't kid yourself if you just want to be vengeful by trying to seem altruistic, but DO think about how that negativity could bounce right back to YOU.... like if the battering man has secret info on YOU that he could spill if you tell on HIM.
I had a karmic quandary today, when time had run out to leave feedback for a seller on eBay who had screwed us BADLY; he had already left - feedback for US (UNdeservedly, of course, sigh), so there was nothing more he could do to us, and there's no reason to think he'd be any less quick to screw OTHER sellers, especially since what he wrecked OUR feedback rating for was a $2 item... BUT, his feedback rating was currently still low enough that a - feedback would have a significant impact, especially since he was at 100% positive.
My husband's take on ANY time he's shit on by anyone is to just let it slide, and often to kiss up to them in the bargain; since he has no real friends, and his few semi-friends all like ME better, obviously this is NOT the best way to handle people, either karmically or psychologically, and believe me I have taken note of that on both counts. In the past, we have held back from leaving - feedback because of the fear, or rather the near-certainty, of retaliatory - feedback, but this time it wasn't an issue, so I pointed out to my husband how grossly this seller had ignored the procedures eBay says to follow before leaving - feedback and stuck to it while he hemmed, hawed, and finally shrugged and said for me to do whatever I wanted to.
Which I did; I took GREAT pleasure in leaving - feedback for the twit who caused so much stress and upset, and lowering his feedback level from 100% to 98.6%, which is VERY low by eBay standards... I'm just sorry I can't see his FACE when he sees what the result of his actions has turned out to be. If this reduces the benefit I get from taking the correct action, that's OK; it's so rare to be able to personally be able to make sure that a wrongdoer gets his just desserts that it's worth it!! :-)
What gets confusing is when negative action taken against one person benefits another person, or many people, especially if YOU aren't going to personally benefit; for example, if the guy who beat your friend up when they went out starts sniffing around some other friend, if you warn her that's negative to him, but will likely save HER from getting hit... so is telling bad or good, karmically speaking?
Sadly, there's no manual to guide us; we have to use common sense and instinct and try to do what seems most right... and it won't hurt that that very intention gets you positivity points. Don't kid yourself if you just want to be vengeful by trying to seem altruistic, but DO think about how that negativity could bounce right back to YOU.... like if the battering man has secret info on YOU that he could spill if you tell on HIM.
I had a karmic quandary today, when time had run out to leave feedback for a seller on eBay who had screwed us BADLY; he had already left - feedback for US (UNdeservedly, of course, sigh), so there was nothing more he could do to us, and there's no reason to think he'd be any less quick to screw OTHER sellers, especially since what he wrecked OUR feedback rating for was a $2 item... BUT, his feedback rating was currently still low enough that a - feedback would have a significant impact, especially since he was at 100% positive.
My husband's take on ANY time he's shit on by anyone is to just let it slide, and often to kiss up to them in the bargain; since he has no real friends, and his few semi-friends all like ME better, obviously this is NOT the best way to handle people, either karmically or psychologically, and believe me I have taken note of that on both counts. In the past, we have held back from leaving - feedback because of the fear, or rather the near-certainty, of retaliatory - feedback, but this time it wasn't an issue, so I pointed out to my husband how grossly this seller had ignored the procedures eBay says to follow before leaving - feedback and stuck to it while he hemmed, hawed, and finally shrugged and said for me to do whatever I wanted to.
Which I did; I took GREAT pleasure in leaving - feedback for the twit who caused so much stress and upset, and lowering his feedback level from 100% to 98.6%, which is VERY low by eBay standards... I'm just sorry I can't see his FACE when he sees what the result of his actions has turned out to be. If this reduces the benefit I get from taking the correct action, that's OK; it's so rare to be able to personally be able to make sure that a wrongdoer gets his just desserts that it's worth it!! :-)
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Pet Peeves
Like everyone, I have quite a few-here are some of my current "favorites":
1) People who ring the doorbell and then instantly KNOCK; each of these things is intended to summon the occupants within to the door, and each does that perfectly well, so what bonus do you get from doing BOTH?
2) People who say "feel" when they mean "think," because they think that saying "feel" makes their comment more powerful and harder to argue with, never grasping that by using a word in a totally wrong way they sound like morons. Feelings are things like anger, sadness and fear; a line like "I feel that all people should receive free healthcare," does NOT describe a feeling, and to use the word "feel" like that is just plain WRONG, no matter how strongly you "feel" about the subject.
3) People who, upon hearing/reading you make an intelligent and factually-based point, jump in and say/post something so stupid that you can't believe they said it; a recent example of such a rebuttal was the claim that psych meds won't help unless the person taking them is also in therapy... as if the meds are magic, and won't affect the body unless they "know" that the person who took them is going to a therapist.
4) The tech support departments of virtually every company that provides an online service; they are apparently all given training to respond to EVERY bug report by telling you to delete all your cookies (and thus have to re-login to every site you visit), and/or to blame your computer, browser, etc, even if you include the fact that ONLY their site has this bug, and that it does it with all your browsers, and that you already deleted all your cookies... it's nearly impossible to get them to admit that their own site is nearly always the reason the user had a problem.
5) People who have no relationship, and often have NEVER had a successful long-term relationship, who advise everyone within range about THEIR relationships.
6) People who, upon hearing you say that you like or dislike something, instantly try to prompt you to say the opposite: "I hate beer" "But don't you think that beer tastes wonderful?" "I love dogs" "But don't you think that dogs are stupid?"... and somehow they think this is more polite than ridiculing you directly.
7) People who fail to grasp the difference between a fact and an opinion, especially when they feel free to argue any facts you give, but want their opinions to be treated as inarguable facts.
8) People who rarely initiate the contact between the 2 of you who, when you haven't bothered with them in a while, take a scolding tone with you about how long it's been since you called/wrote/IMed them, even if THEY haven't made the effort in months or YEARS.
9) People who think that their own personal experience counts for more than what has been scientifically and/or statistically proven for the vast majority of people; sorry, you're just NOT more important than the thousands of people who had a different experience.
10) People who believe every ridiculous email they get claiming that some kid dying of cancer needs them to forward the email, or that AOL will pay them to forward the email, or that signing an online petition will accomplish something, especially in another country.... and who then forward this garbage to ME.... and who are insulted and outraged when I point out that what they forwarded is a hoax, along with a URL to the article on http://www.snopes2.com/ which proves that it's a hoax.
Gosh, it feels good to vent!! :-)
1) People who ring the doorbell and then instantly KNOCK; each of these things is intended to summon the occupants within to the door, and each does that perfectly well, so what bonus do you get from doing BOTH?
2) People who say "feel" when they mean "think," because they think that saying "feel" makes their comment more powerful and harder to argue with, never grasping that by using a word in a totally wrong way they sound like morons. Feelings are things like anger, sadness and fear; a line like "I feel that all people should receive free healthcare," does NOT describe a feeling, and to use the word "feel" like that is just plain WRONG, no matter how strongly you "feel" about the subject.
3) People who, upon hearing/reading you make an intelligent and factually-based point, jump in and say/post something so stupid that you can't believe they said it; a recent example of such a rebuttal was the claim that psych meds won't help unless the person taking them is also in therapy... as if the meds are magic, and won't affect the body unless they "know" that the person who took them is going to a therapist.
4) The tech support departments of virtually every company that provides an online service; they are apparently all given training to respond to EVERY bug report by telling you to delete all your cookies (and thus have to re-login to every site you visit), and/or to blame your computer, browser, etc, even if you include the fact that ONLY their site has this bug, and that it does it with all your browsers, and that you already deleted all your cookies... it's nearly impossible to get them to admit that their own site is nearly always the reason the user had a problem.
5) People who have no relationship, and often have NEVER had a successful long-term relationship, who advise everyone within range about THEIR relationships.
6) People who, upon hearing you say that you like or dislike something, instantly try to prompt you to say the opposite: "I hate beer" "But don't you think that beer tastes wonderful?" "I love dogs" "But don't you think that dogs are stupid?"... and somehow they think this is more polite than ridiculing you directly.
7) People who fail to grasp the difference between a fact and an opinion, especially when they feel free to argue any facts you give, but want their opinions to be treated as inarguable facts.
8) People who rarely initiate the contact between the 2 of you who, when you haven't bothered with them in a while, take a scolding tone with you about how long it's been since you called/wrote/IMed them, even if THEY haven't made the effort in months or YEARS.
9) People who think that their own personal experience counts for more than what has been scientifically and/or statistically proven for the vast majority of people; sorry, you're just NOT more important than the thousands of people who had a different experience.
10) People who believe every ridiculous email they get claiming that some kid dying of cancer needs them to forward the email, or that AOL will pay them to forward the email, or that signing an online petition will accomplish something, especially in another country.... and who then forward this garbage to ME.... and who are insulted and outraged when I point out that what they forwarded is a hoax, along with a URL to the article on http://www.snopes2.com/ which proves that it's a hoax.
Gosh, it feels good to vent!! :-)
