Of Physicians and Fat Women
kmd
are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
apologize to those whom I have offended.
--
Kristen
wicked brat of the west
<very quiet voice> thank you </very quiet voice>
Elizabeth
wicked brat of the west
> first place?
Oh my god, you can be SO fucking pompous sometimes. Didn't you ever
learn to just leave well enough alone?
Elizabeth
wicked brat of the west
> This is another issue Kristen and I disagree about, and it's a
> significant issue. From what she wrote when she was called out for
> going postal on Allison -- "truth is always a good thing . . . now she
> knows how I feel" -- she gives me the impression she believed that
> expression of her emotion is usually, if not always, a spiritual good.
> I tend to disagree with that, and believe there is a better way to
> transmute emotions, better because it is at less cost to those around
> us. The question I asked points in that direction.
When Kristen made a long post about why she responded to Allison the way
she did, you criticized her for it. Given that, why would you expect
anyone to feel comfortable discussing such things at length on this
forum? You don't get to have it both ways. If you want people to soul
search, then you have to make this a safe place for soul searching. You
(and this is a very specific you) have not done that.
Elizabeth
Penelope Periwinkle
<mig...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>From what she wrote when she was called out for
>going postal on Allison
Kirsten did not go postal on Allison.
There was a time you would have recognized that, but you've
become sensitive and squeamish from reading about yarn.
Penelope
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com>
wicked brat of the west
> content of the post?
I remember you as criticizing the content, but it's really immaterial.
Had I put that much of myself into a post, your kind of criticism would
not have made me likely to do it again.
Elizabeth
Allison Turner-
>
>In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 10:23:06 -0400, miguel
><mig...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>
>
>>From what she wrote when she was called out for
>>going postal on Allison
>
>Kirsten did not go postal on Allison.
FWIW, I agree that she did not. I disagreed
with the particular way she addressed me, and
refused to respond in a way that would support
it. But that's different than her going postal.
>There was a time you would have recognized that, but you've
>become sensitive and squeamish from reading about yarn.
I've been considering learning how to make
bobbin lace.
-Allison.
but the firefighter training comes first.
prairierabbit
> In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 10:23:06 -0400, miguel
> <mig...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>
>>From what she wrote when she was called out for
>>going postal on Allison
>
> Kirsten did not go postal on Allison.
>
> There was a time you would have recognized that, but you've
> become sensitive and squeamish from reading about yarn.
Reading about yarn doesn't inspire squemishness. Yarn is strong stuff...
JLC
>
> Penelope
prairierabbit
> I've been considering learning how to make
> bobbin lace.
>
> -Allison.
> but the firefighter training comes first.
Hmmm... Making bobbin lace would be a great way to kill time sitting
around the firehouse...
JLC, as well as creating fetching nightwear to ensnar^H^H^Hentice the
appropriate firefighters...
Sara Running
>first place?
>
Can't you just read and accept the apology and let it go? Why are you
trying to provoke kmd?
Sara, and I think she has the presence of mind to avoid the thread.
--
Sara Running
Not speaking for my employer
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it does rhyme
Allison Turner-
>
>In article <qiadc0pln1aofmi65...@4ax.com>, miguel says...
>>
>>kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>It has become obvious to me that my recent statements about physicians
>>>are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
>>>apologize to those whom I have offended.
>>
>>Good. Have you given any thought to how you got so worked up in the
>>first place?
>>
>
>Can't you just read and accept the apology and let it go? Why are you
>trying to provoke kmd?
Because that is miguel's only reason for being.
Without the poking and prodding and trying-very-
hard-to-annoy trolling (which he does *only* to
awaken self-awareness for the other person; he's
all about caring, doncha know), Mike would
collapse in a vacuum.
-Allison
Perhaps we should be concerned about other
folks living in the PNW? Wouldn't want them
to fall into the crater.
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
<mig...@newsguy.com>, to say:
>Sara Running wrote:
>>miguel says...
>>>kmd wrote:
>
>>>>It has become obvious to me that my recent statements about physicians
>>>>are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
>>>>apologize to those whom I have offended.
>
>>>Good. Have you given any thought to how you got so worked up in the
>>>first place?
>
>>Can't you just read and accept the apology and let it go? Why are you
>>trying to provoke kmd?
>
>>Sara, and I think she has the presence of mind to avoid the thread.
>
>What do you view as being unreasonably provocative? I don't view
>asking kristen to think about why she got so worked up in the first
>place to be provocative in a bad sense of that word, and I hope it
>provokes some thought. I can't help it if she easily flies off the
>handle.
>
>miguel
You write like a girl.
That is so G-A-Y.
ElissaAnn
"miguel" <mig...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:iflfc0tpda54q8jap...@4ax.com...
> Allison Turner wrote:
> >Sara Running stated:
> >>miguel says...
> >>>kmd wrote:
>
> >>>>It has become obvious to me that my recent statements about
physicians
> >>>>are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
> >>>>apologize to those whom I have offended.
>
> >>>Good. Have you given any thought to how you got so worked up in the
> >>>first place?
>
> >>Can't you just read and accept the apology and let it go? Why are you
> >>trying to provoke kmd?
>
> >Because that is miguel's only reason for being.
>
> >Without the poking and prodding and trying-very-
> >hard-to-annoy trolling (which he does *only* to
> >awaken self-awareness for the other person; he's
> >all about caring, doncha know), Mike would
> >collapse in a vacuum.
>
> >-Allison
> >Perhaps we should be concerned about other
> >folks living in the PNW? Wouldn't want them
> >to fall into the crater.
>
Have you given any thought to why you frequently refer to women have not
gone postal as "going postal"?
Elissa
Penelope Periwinkle
prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> proclaimed:
The way it is written about on this newsgroup it does.
>Yarn is strong stuff...
Yarn is boring stuff the way it is written about around here.
kmd
wrote:
>In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 17:13:09 -0400,
>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> proclaimed:
>>Yarn is strong stuff...
>Yarn is boring stuff the way it is written about around here.
Hey! I resemble that remark. I've learned a lot about yarn and
knitting and crochet from the discussions here, and that has added to
my enjoyment of it. It's 100% good ssm if you ask me.
What would be not-boring writing about yarn?
--
Kristen
Cheezits
> Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
[etc.]
>> There was a time you would have recognized that, but you've
>> become sensitive and squeamish from reading about yarn.
>
> Reading about yarn doesn't inspire squemishness. Yarn is strong stuff...
I know. I was trying to crochet once in front of Ogre's cat. I looked up
at one point, just in time to see a short piece of yarn disappearing into
his mouth. Later he barfed it up somewhere.
Now I'm getting squeamish...
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Penelope Periwinkle
<kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>On 10 Jun 2004 10:04:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 17:13:09 -0400,
>>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> proclaimed:
>
>>>Yarn is strong stuff...
>
>>Yarn is boring stuff the way it is written about around here.
>
>Hey! I resemble that remark. I've learned a lot about yarn and
>knitting and crochet from the discussions here, and that has added to
>my enjoyment of it. It's 100% good ssm if you ask me.
No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
still might be interested in good conversation.
>What would be not-boring writing about yarn?
At a guess, I would say not writing just for other knitters or
people who want to knit. There are very few subjects that I can't
find *something* of interest in, something to ask a question
about, or to relate to in some way. I mean, I'm seeing a man
obsessed with Linux, I *have* to be good at finding
conversational hooks in the minutia of a subject that I know
almost nothing about and don't really care to learn in much
depth. Thankfully he has a sense of humor about it.
As an example, there is a huge difference in my gardening posts
to this group and to my gardening groups. I expect the people on
my gardening lists to know things that I don't expect anyone but
a very few people here to know, and I expect the people on a
gardening list to be interested in details that I don't expect
the people here to be. I also expect the people on my gardening
lists to be more interested in multiple posts about my garden,
something I don't expect here, so I adjust my posting
accordingly. I don't think there's anyone here who realizes what
a tight lid I keep on my gardening obsession, or how I search to
find things that might be of more general interest to post about.
I really try hard not to drone on and on about gardening, even if
it is my current obsession.
I should point out before someone else jumps in to do it for me,
that no one here is required to format their posts so that I or
anyone else will be entertained. However, seeing as how there
are threads and sub threads about ssm culture and how to make it
more inclusive going on right now, it's something to consider.
Sara Running
>
>Sara Running wrote:
>>miguel says...
>
>>>>It has become obvious to me that my recent statements about physicians
>>>>are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
>>>>apologize to those whom I have offended.
>
>>>Good. Have you given any thought to how you got so worked up in the
>>>first place?
>
>>Can't you just read and accept the apology and let it go? Why are you
>>trying to provoke kmd?
>
>>Sara, and I think she has the presence of mind to avoid the thread.
>
>asking kristen to think about why she got so worked up in the first
>place to be provocative in a bad sense of that word, and I hope it
>provokes some thought. I can't help it if she easily flies off the
>handle.
>
Because it was apparent by her action of posting the apology that she is
reflecting on her actions. If you think she 'flies off the handle', why
do you think it is important to continually bring it up?
Sara
prairierabbit
> In our last fun filled episode, 10 Jun 2004 10:54:47 -0400, kmd
> <kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>>On 10 Jun 2004 10:04:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 17:13:09 -0400,
>>>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> proclaimed:
>>
>>>>Yarn is strong stuff...
>>
>>>Yarn is boring stuff the way it is written about around here.
>>
>>Hey! I resemble that remark. I've learned a lot about yarn and
>>knitting and crochet from the discussions here, and that has added to
>>my enjoyment of it. It's 100% good ssm if you ask me.
>
> No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
> audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
> still might be interested in good conversation.
I disagree. Many people here are quite able to reply to a subject and
take it off in a whole different direction via word play and do so
frequently. Others poke fun at it. I remember a similar discussion
about food posts, and now that's a running joke--IAAFWYP.
I've found that if I want to talk about something here, I post about it.
If some people are interested in entering that conversation with me,
they will. If not, they won't. Sort of like real life, IME.
For me, newsgroups are a conversation, and just as I'll walk away from a
NASCAR conversation IRL, I'll do so here. I don't feel any obligation
to participate in threads that don't interest me, or to initiate
discussions about subjects I have no interest in. There are too many
things I am interested in for that to be worth the time investment.
JLC, my time, she is precious...
Debbi
wrote:
>In our last fun filled episode, 10 Jun 2004 10:54:47 -0400, kmd
><kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>
>>On 10 Jun 2004 10:04:39 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>
>>wrote:
>>>In our last fun filled episode, 9 Jun 2004 17:13:09 -0400,
>>>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> proclaimed:
>>>>Yarn is strong stuff...
>>>Yarn is boring stuff the way it is written about around here.
>>
>>Hey! I resemble that remark. I've learned a lot about yarn and
>>knitting and crochet from the discussions here, and that has added to
>>my enjoyment of it. It's 100% good ssm if you ask me.
>
>No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>still might be interested in good conversation.
I find your perception interesting and curious. There are many posts
on this group that I do not find a hook to draw me into participating.
Boring to you, I can see, but exclusionary--as in deliberately
exclusionary? Are you saying you think this is deliberate? If not,
what would be a hook for you?
>>What would be not-boring writing about yarn?
>
>At a guess, I would say not writing just for other knitters or
>people who want to knit.
Either the posts were not written for me to read and I butted in, or
my not being one who wants to knit found them written in a way that I
learned more about knitting. From the posting here, I have a much
different view of knitting than before. No longer do I have
"grandma's knitting" as my perception (thank you!) after being
introduced to hand-dyed yarns and new patterns. I still don't want to
allocate my creative time to knitting. That's okay. At least those
who knit haven't come after me with needles pointed yet.
>There are very few subjects that I can't
>find *something* of interest in, something to ask a question
>about, or to relate to in some way. I mean, I'm seeing a man
>obsessed with Linux, I *have* to be good at finding
>conversational hooks in the minutia of a subject that I know
>almost nothing about and don't really care to learn in much
>depth. Thankfully he has a sense of humor about it.
*chuckle*
twue luv
does that
>As an example, there is a huge difference in my gardening posts
>to this group and to my gardening groups. I expect the people on
>my gardening lists to know things that I don't expect anyone but
>a very few people here to know, and I expect the people on a
>gardening list to be interested in details that I don't expect
>the people here to be. I also expect the people on my gardening
>lists to be more interested in multiple posts about my garden,
>something I don't expect here, so I adjust my posting
>accordingly. I don't think there's anyone here who realizes what
>a tight lid I keep on my gardening obsession, or how I search to
>find things that might be of more general interest to post about.
>I really try hard not to drone on and on about gardening, even if
>it is my current obsession.
I relate your gardening passion to my glass obsession, and the
disconnect most in this group have to glass doesn't bother me. It
sounds like you understand that not everyone is going to be as
interested in gardening. Why are you seeing knitting differently?
I can think of several topics that are pockets of interest within the
members of this group--beer, peppers, glass, yarn, sailboats... I
like it that there is diversity, even if I don't contribute to
discussion in every topic.
> I should point out before someone else jumps in to do it for me,
>that no one here is required to format their posts so that I or
>anyone else will be entertained. However, seeing as how there
>are threads and sub threads about ssm culture and how to make it
>more inclusive going on right now, it's something to consider.
I suspect that you could take any topic and write a post in such a
manner as to get responses. That is not my talent, as I am well
aware. How to make the group more inclusive might well mean we should
have more inviting posts. It also could be more the overall tone of
the posts--more accepting of the differences in others. My view is
that it is the nasty attitude toward others that drives more people
away than the boring discussion of subjects.
-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
wicked brat of the west
> No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
> audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
> still might be interested in good conversation.
The same could be said about all the posts about beer, but you don't see
anybody whinging about that.
Elizabeth
Warren Cheney
wrote:
>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> wrote:
>> Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>[etc.]
>>> There was a time you would have recognized that, but you've
>>> become sensitive and squeamish from reading about yarn.
>>
>> Reading about yarn doesn't inspire squemishness. Yarn is strong stuff...
>
>I know. I was trying to crochet once in front of Ogre's cat. I looked up
>at one point, just in time to see a short piece of yarn disappearing into
>his mouth. Later he barfed it up somewhere.
You mean you didn't experience it coming out the other end?
Dangling, even?
(Tinsel. Ew.)
>Now I'm getting squeamish...
I've seen Q-tips embedded in poop.
Out of respect for the learning abilities of cats, I must
admit I've only seen it once.
-----Warren (don't wanna imagine how it felt going through)
Penelope Periwinkle
>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
<yarn is boring>
>>No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>>audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>>still might be interested in good conversation.
>
>I find your perception interesting and curious.
That's a delicate way to put it.
> There are many posts
>on this group that I do not find a hook to draw me into participating.
>Boring to you, I can see, but exclusionary--as in deliberately
>exclusionary? Are you saying you think this is deliberate? If not,
>what would be a hook for you?
I would hope it's not deliberate. I suspect it's not, but I don't
really know. A quick look back makes me think it isn't
deliberate.
As to hooks, it doesn't take much. I can talk to just about
anybody about just about everything. Why, I've even been
known to fling myself into the midst of Nascar folks and
talk happily for hours, and I hate any kind of car racing.
>>>What would be not-boring writing about yarn?
>>
>>At a guess, I would say not writing just for other knitters or
>>people who want to knit.
>
>Either the posts were not written for me to read and I butted in, or
>my not being one who wants to knit found them written in a way that I
>learned more about knitting. From the posting here, I have a much
>different view of knitting than before.
Yeah, but you spent time with some of the knitters just before
the latest outbreak. You had real life crayons to color in the
written sketches. That real life contact is part* of what makes
it difficult to get a hook into some those posts, and part of
what makes it so exclusionary. It's almost impossible to color
between the lines of conversation because there are so many
references that only the knitters understand.
*Attention, all knee jerkers, please note the use of "part"
> No longer do I have
>"grandma's knitting" as my perception (thank you!) after being
>introduced to hand-dyed yarns and new patterns. I still don't want to
>allocate my creative time to knitting. That's okay. At least those
>who knit haven't come after me with needles pointed yet.
I've never had "grandma's knitting" as a perception. I know lots
of people who knit, sew, and/or embroidery. I've helped shear
sheep and learned how to card and spin the wool by hand. I did
cotton once, too, but there were more machines and less
for us to try by hand. One of my aunts knits constantly, and we
often chat about her current project. Last time I saw her she was
making "tit" hats for all her grand nieces and nephews.
>>As an example, there is a huge difference in my gardening posts
>>to this group and to my gardening groups.
<...>
<go up thread if you wanna read what was here>
>I relate your gardening passion to my glass obsession, and the
>disconnect most in this group have to glass doesn't bother me. It
>sounds like you understand that not everyone is going to be as
>interested in gardening. Why are you seeing knitting differently?
>I can think of several topics that are pockets of interest within the
>members of this group--beer, peppers, glass, yarn, sailboats... I
>like it that there is diversity, even if I don't contribute to
>discussion in every topic.
It's not an objection. I said, very clearly, at the bottom of my
post that I don't expect anyone to post just for my
entertainment. Yarn and knitting are the most egregious
examples of some of what has been discussed else thread,
though.
Most of the conversations about beer, peppers, glass, or
sailboats have people that aren't especially interested
or knowledgeable jump in because those conversations
are more open to the non-expert or non dabbler. Conversations
about yarn and knitting turn in on themselves very quickly.
Oh, any topic can descend to specialized geekery once in a while,
but those threads are generally short.
>> I should point out before someone else jumps in to do it for me,
>>that no one here is required to format their posts so that I or
>>anyone else will be entertained. However, seeing as how there
>>are threads and sub threads about ssm culture and how to make it
>>more inclusive going on right now, it's something to consider.
>
>I suspect that you could take any topic and write a post in such a
>manner as to get responses.
Heh, for some value of responses.
>That is not my talent, as I am well
>aware.
Most of the time when people speak of their passion, they're
interesting to me. Even though I don't know squat about
glass working, I generally enjoy your posts; and don't find them
to be closed, rather they're full of conversational openings.
I usually *like* talking to people who are very into their
subject.
> How to make the group more inclusive might well mean we should
>have more inviting posts.
How to make them more inviting is the question, isn't it?
> It also could be more the overall tone of
>the posts--more accepting of the differences in others.
Wait a minute! We don't want to go completely overboard with
this.
> My view is
>that it is the nasty attitude toward others that drives more people
>away than the boring discussion of subjects.
I think you underestimate the power of ennui.
>-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
Make you compose a thoughtful response instead of knee jerk?
Penelope Periwinkle
wrote:
>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
<yarn is boring>
>> No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>> audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>> still might be interested in good conversation.
>
>I disagree.
Quelle surprise.
Nice editing job, it certainly helps your case when you edit out
everything else I said. I won't waste your oh so precious time
by repeating myself.
kmd
>How to make the group more inclusive might well mean we should
>have more inviting posts.
For the record, I have noticed and do admire your skills and efforts
here, Miss Penelope.
>It also could be more the overall tone of
>the posts--more accepting of the differences in others. My view is
>that it is the nasty attitude toward others that drives more people
>away than the boring discussion of subjects.
Absofrigginlutely. That and the fact that conflict for conflict's sake
is about as boring as it comes. Well, except to junior high schoolers.
"Let's you and her fight!"
>-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Usenet?
--
Kristen
A mukluk wearing troll
Kris Hasson-Jones
<for.ar...@sympatico.ca> watched in amazement as electrons turned
into magical things called words:
Back now.
I hate gardening.
I like digging up the ground. I like stirring in amendments. I like
choosing plants. I like putting plants in the ground.
I hate maintenance. I hate the need for ongoing attention (other than
pure admiration of result, which I can manage...until the weeds grow).
I hate worrying about whether I ought to water.
I don't actually hate those things, because I don't actually *dooooo*
them. I hate realizing I didn't do them, I didn't even think about
doing them, I didn't even wonder if it was about time to do them. I
only noticed that I didn't do them when I went out to admire my
plants.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing
from it." - Jeff Cooper
Penelope Periwinkle
<gi...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>
>><yarn is boring>
>>
>>>>No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>>>>audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>>>>still might be interested in good conversation.
>>>
>>>I find your perception interesting and curious.
>>
>>That's a delicate way to put it.
>
I didn't think you did. When I got in last night I read all the
responses at once, and I chuckled a bit at your careful wording.
It was meant in a joking way.
<massive snippage>
>>As to hooks, it doesn't take much. I can talk to just about
>>anybody about just about everything. Why, I've even been
>>known to fling myself into the midst of Nascar folks and
>>talk happily for hours, and I hate any kind of car racing.
>
>That you can converse on so many subjects is good. It is okay though
>if there are subjects that you can't, and I wonder if you are saying
>you feel you should be able to talk about anything.
You're making this too personal. I will repeat, there has been
discussion on the inclusiveness of the culture on ssm. I use
myself as an example because I'm a brazen hussy who'll barge
into the middle of anything if I've a mind to. I'm good at
finding something interesting or some way to talk about things of
which I know nothing and in which I have no interest. If I can't
find a hook in those horrible yarn threads, there are plenty of
people who are less comfortable butting in who would feel even
more excluded. If they're teetering on the edge of joining or
staying subscribed to ssm, an exclusionary thread might convince
them to leave.
If, and only if, there is interest in making ssm more inclusive,
those yarn threads are an excellent example of what not to do.
<...>
>>Yeah, but you spent time with some of the knitters just before
>>the latest outbreak. You had real life crayons to color in the
>>written sketches. That real life contact is part* of what makes
>>it difficult to get a hook into some those posts, and part of
>>what makes it so exclusionary. It's almost impossible to color
>>between the lines of conversation because there are so many
>>references that only the knitters understand.
>
>Okay, so it's a disconnect you feel, is that what you are saying? Do
>you think you would be reacting differently now if you had the
>previous contact?
It's an example of why those threads are so closed, not about my
feelings.
<...>
> Wool
>is surprisingly oily.
I can't smell a hand lotion with lanolin in it without thinking
"sheep".
>>One of my aunts knits constantly, and we
>>often chat about her current project. Last time I saw her she was
>>making "tit" hats for all her grand nieces and nephews.
>
>*laugh* I don't think I have ever heard those hats being called that.
>I am assuming you mean those pointy-sock hat kind?
Yes, they look like tit cozys.
<...>
>>
>>It's not an objection. I said, very clearly, at the bottom of my
>>post that I don't expect anyone to post just for my
>>entertainment.
>
>Yes, you did, and I accept that.
>
>>Yarn and knitting are the most egregious
>>examples of some of what has been discussed else thread,
>>though.
>>
>>Most of the conversations about beer, peppers, glass, or
>>sailboats have people that aren't especially interested
>>or knowledgeable jump in because those conversations
>>are more open to the non-expert or non dabbler. Conversations
>>about yarn and knitting turn in on themselves very quickly.
>
>Why is that?
<shrug> Because there is very little interest in making them
accessible. They are, in effect, a private conversation being
held on Usenet.
>>Oh, any topic can descend to specialized geekery once in a while,
>>but those threads are generally short.
>
>So, is it that knitting has become an insider's joke thing that drew
>you out to comment on, or am I still missing why?
Yes, you are. Even deep in geekery, very few threads on ssm are
so closed.
<...>
>>Most of the time when people speak of their passion, they're
>>interesting to me. Even though I don't know squat about
>>glass working, I generally enjoy your posts; and don't find them
>>to be closed, rather they're full of conversational openings.
>
>My reaction to this is, *really*. Not that I question you. I am
>surprised. My impression is most on the group, and I would have
>included you in that, aren't interested in hearing about my glass. I
>don't expect everyone, or even the majority, to hold interest in it.
>It's neat to know you enjoy the posts. Thanks.
You're welcome. I really do enjoy listening to people speak of
their passions. I learn a lot about the subject and the person.
>>I usually *like* talking to people who are very into their
>>subject.
>>
>>> How to make the group more inclusive might well mean we should
>>>have more inviting posts.
>>
>>How to make them more inviting is the question, isn't it?
>
>Yes, I think so. Also, should we? Are we here as a honey pot, or are
>we here to be who we are?
I don't think those are the only options.
But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
hopeless.
Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
using, and it has really stuck with me. I think the analogy is
sound, and it's one reason I spoke up now. I didn't expect it
would be a particularly popular opinion.
<...>
>>>-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
>>
>>Make you compose a thoughtful response instead of knee jerk?
>
>Hey, at $607 per shot,
Good Lord!
>they should be doing something! (Can you tell
>the bill just came in the mail?)
>
>-debbi"these cheeks are gold!"
In 1998, Matilda was hit by a car. It was really, really bad; and
getting her well was really, really expensive. She was in an
X-sling for several months after the accident, and my father
used to lift her back end up in the air a bit and say "Funny, it
doesn't feel like gold..."
I just tell people she has the best behind that money can buy.
Penelope, who's beginning to feel like her elbow's an antibiotic
black hole.
Sara Running
says...
>
>On 11 Jun 2004 11:36:56 -0400, A mukluk wearing troll
><for.ar...@sympatico.ca> watched in amazement as electrons turned
>into magical things called words:
>
>>On 10 Jun 2004 16:27:26 -0400, wicked brat of the west
>><epc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>>>> audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>>>> still might be interested in good conversation.
>>>
>>>The same could be said about all the posts about beer, but you don't see
>>>anybody whinging about that.
>>
>>Or gardening.
>
>Back now.
>
>I hate gardening.
>
>I like digging up the ground. I like stirring in amendments. I like
>choosing plants. I like putting plants in the ground.
>
That's part of gardening. ;D
>I hate maintenance. I hate the need for ongoing attention (other than
>pure admiration of result, which I can manage...until the weeds grow).
>I hate worrying about whether I ought to water.
>
>I don't actually hate those things, because I don't actually *dooooo*
>them. I hate realizing I didn't do them, I didn't even think about
>doing them, I didn't even wonder if it was about time to do them. I
>only noticed that I didn't do them when I went out to admire my
>plants.
It's too bad you don't live next door--literally.
I had this chat with my one of my neighbors. She has essentially given me
'permission' to perform some level of gardening. This is more out of me trying
to minimize problems from her yard floating into mine. She had some barkdust
delivered that was 'infected' (for lack of a better word) with morning glory.
The problem is that it has established itself in the side yard and is impinging
on my property. Last night, I went next door to rip it up and several vines had
grown up underneath her siding.
Sometimes I think I'm too nice for my own good. The kicker is that it took me
~20 minutes to pull most of it up. The roots are still there, but in ~month,
I'll spend another 20 minutes to rip it up. After that, it will be hot and dry
and I'll hit it with Finale (or maybe vinegar) to really weaken it.
I've decided that some people really shouldn't live in a place with a yard
(whether they rent or own, like this particular neighbor.) It's stuff like the
morning glory or ivy that can really cause a problem with your home (paths for
ants, termites, etc.) Either you make the commitment to do it yourself, pay
someone to do it for you, or a combination of the two.
A mukluk wearing troll
>Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <a85ic0h18j87clf8a...@4ax.com>,
>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
><spurf!>
>A bad part of female culture is women talk too much.
Whadaya expect? It's a bit hard to do visuals in this medium with out
dedicating a bit of my non-existent spare time to extranious web-page
composition!
Whadya want? What about them Mariners?
TB, who watched all seven of the Stanley Cup final games, a vertiable
miracle to the sports chick who prefers to do than watch.
A mukluk wearing troll
>A mukluk wearing troll wrote:
>
>>On 11 Jun 2004 12:03:58 -0400, miguel <mig...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <a85ic0h18j87clf8a...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>><spurf!>
>>
>>>A bad part of female culture is women talk too much.
>>
>>Whadaya expect? It's a bit hard to do visuals in this medium with out
>>dedicating a bit of my non-existent spare time to extranious web-page
>>composition!
>>
>>Whadya want? What about them Mariners?
>
>Best last place team in the history of baseball!
>
>>TB, who watched all seven of the Stanley Cup final games, a vertiable
>>miracle to the sports chick who prefers to do than watch.
>
>I heard there was a canadian team in the finals. Sorry they lost.
>*smirk*
>
>miguel
>
>ps hockey is not a real sport
Yah played it lately?
Seems to me I remember sweating, needing physical co-ordination, good
stamina, agility, and decent large motor hand-eye co-ordination.
And that was just the neighbourhood shinny rink.
TB
A mukluk wearing troll
>A mukluk wearing troll wrote:
>
>>On 11 Jun 2004 12:03:58 -0400, miguel <mig...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <a85ic0h18j87clf8a...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>><spurf!>
>>
>>>A bad part of female culture is women talk too much.
>>
>>Whadaya expect? It's a bit hard to do visuals in this medium with out
>>dedicating a bit of my non-existent spare time to extranious web-page
>>composition!
>>
>>Whadya want? What about them Mariners?
>
>Best last place team in the history of baseball!
>
>>TB, who watched all seven of the Stanley Cup final games, a vertiable
>>miracle to the sports chick who prefers to do than watch.
>
>I heard there was a canadian team in the finals. Sorry they lost.
>*smirk*
The street party on 17th Avenue SW in Calgary was supposed to have
been amazing.
I was watching the final game downtown at a friend's place in downtown
Toronto. The windows were open. What I best remember was hearing the
reverb of cheers from all around the neighbourhood each time Calgary
scored.
<sniff> It was a true East/West bonding moment.
Small greeting party at the airport too.
http://www.canada.com/sports/hockey/flamesstory.html?id=a527bdce-6540-4820-9ffd-96ab7929d648
TB
prairierabbit
> On 10 Jun 2004 13:03:15 -0400, prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu>
> wrote:
>>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>
> <yarn is boring>
>
>>>No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>>>audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>>>still might be interested in good conversation.
>>
>>I disagree.
>
> Quelle surprise.
>
> Nice editing job, it certainly helps your case when you edit out
> everything else I said.
Whoa! You are one of the people here who have been on me very regularly
about not snipping enough quoted text. In light of that, this seems
quite unfair. I left in the specific statements that I was replying to
and it was what you said, accurately quoted.
>I won't waste your oh so precious time
> by repeating myself.
You're a NASCAR fan, eh?
I can understand that you are bored by discussions of yarn, but I don't
accept that it is in any way exclusionary, any more than any other topic
discussed here is. In fact, it's less exclusionary than topics that
require significant training to learn the lingo.
One thing I do see is that is a topic where most of the posters who
participate are female. That is fine with me, just as the power
boat/sail boat wars or car posts that are primarily male are fine. I
also find it interesting that, in my experience, my knitting has led to
many strangers, both male and female, striking up conversations with me
at events like dances and music jams, as well as in airports and such.
Most were not knitters, but we had nice conversations that went on to
other subjects. They did not seem to feel excluded by my knitting; in
fact, I got to hear lots of interesting stories of their lives as a
result of it.
There are also topics here where most of the posters involved belong to
other subsets, including computer wizards and beer drinkers. The vast
majority of those posts are totally unintelligible to me, but that's
fine with me, because <drumroll> It Ain't All About Me. I don't think
those posters are trying to be exclusionary, and they aren't responsible
for my lack of background in those areas, or my lack of desire to
acquire background in those areas, or that I usually don't reply to
those threads.
What makes people come or go here varies, but I would suggest that
someone who might be pondering posting something here but is hesitant,
might well think twice after reading sweeping generalizations ("boring
and exclusionary") made about topics that others discuss. If they start
to worry that the topics that are interesting to them may not interest
all, or even most, of us, well, they'll be waiting a long time to post.
JLC, we all have our own lists...
Ocean Gypsy
>miguel wrote:
>> kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>It has become obvious to me that my recent statements about physicians
>>>are in fact insulting generalizations I had no right to make. I
>>>apologize to those whom I have offended.
Thank you. I appreciate it since I surely know first hand how very
distracting those wild hairs can get.
>> Good. Have you given any thought to how you got so worked up in the
>> first place?
Yo dude...chill out. Ain't nobody buying that altruistic "I just wanna
help" bidness and I'm truly askeered that there's a whole bunch
of wymn starting off from the east coast, picking up buds
along the way, heading for PNW to poke you all over with knitting
needles and shove ice cream up your nose if you don't cut the crap.
(N.B. - Honk a lot - the cicadas are still gruesomely loud)
>Oh my god, you can be SO fucking pompous sometimes. Didn't you ever
>learn to just leave well enough alone?
Hmm. I think it's the zealous righteousness of knowing the one true
way and a need to make the other see that, myself. That the need goes
beyond what is a reasonable discourse is where I usually exit stage
left.
Crys
Kris Hasson-Jones
watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
words:
>participate are female. That is fine with me, just as the power
>boat/sail boat wars or car posts that are primarily male are fine.
I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
><drumroll> It Ain't All About Me.
Oh, this is the theme of the week for me, probably the theme of the
year. I can't adequately express how free I feel of the oppression of
it being about me. It's not about me that my mother didn't act
lovingly toward me. Everytime I say that, a big smile comes over my
face and I can feel the weight lift from my shoulders.
>JLC, we all have our own lists...
I've got a little list, they hardly would be missed.
Victor Eijkhout
> I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
> 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
My car is getting on in age. Tell me your thoughts about reliability of
a minor brand like Hyundai. Cars not important enough for me ever to buy
a new one -- ok, maybe if I ever get rich -- so for reliability I've
always been getting used Japanese, Honda and Toyota, and pretty pleased
with that strategy.
What's the verdict on Hyundai?
V.
--
kmd
>In our last fun filled episode, 11 Jun 2004 11:44:49 -0400, Ginko
><gi...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>> How to make the group more inclusive might well mean we should
>>>>have more inviting posts.
>>>
>>>How to make them more inviting is the question, isn't it?
>>
>>Yes, I think so. Also, should we? Are we here as a honey pot, or are
>>we here to be who we are?
>
>I don't think those are the only options.
>
>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>hopeless.
>
>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>using, and it has really stuck with me.
Yeah, Anmar Mirza said something like that too, about ssm. That was
about ... what? Five years ago? Six?
Here's the thing, according to moi. (Alert -- buttload of gender
generalizations ahead. All based on my life, observation and
experience of white, middle-class, NorAm culture. Insert IMOpinion,
IMObservation and IMExperience here there and everywhere, please.)
ssm always has been a place where strong women thrive and where
traditionally male qualities of strength are not particularly
privileged. Part of that is the medium, I think -- women are
socialized to be talkers, and it's a gabby medium.
Part of it is the NiceGuy[tm] thing -- there aren't too many
communities in which that phenomenon has been so thoroughly debunked
that folks don't feel the slightest compulsion at just flat-out
laughing at men who complain that women (are bitches who always go for
jerks and therefore) just don't know how to appreciate a truly *nice*
guy. (i.e. Piglet's snark at Orlando) The fact that we skewer women
who make similar or equivalent complaints about men (Stephanie Ennor)
seems to escape some folks' notice, but the fact is that there are
just fewer women who waltz into ssm and make those kinds of
complaints. It's in the freakin' FAQ for cryin' out loud.
Again -- socialization. Women are socialized to suss out the social
rules before speaking or acting in a new environment. Men are
socialized to expect that the social environment will conform to them.
Cause, you know, it does a whole lot of the time. Courtesy of the
women in the environment. ssm don't play that. So the men who have
become regulars are not the ones who come in looking for some
sugartit, and the women who have become regulars have not done so on
the strength of their capacity and willingness to please men. Quite a
change from most social environments in mainstream NorAm culture,
IMO&E.
Me, I think we were better off before the ss/ssm split -- strong women
and strong men do well together, not so well apart. I know that the
gender culture split was definitely not intended, but to my eyes it
really has happened that way. Yeah, ssm could do with a cbianco or an
Andy Hare -- or ten. But we aren't going to manufacture them out of
thin air, and we sure as heck aren't going to attract them with
sugartit. Thank goodness.
And hey, there's always the fact some folks need the motivation of
single, available MOTAS to stick around and make great conversation
together. As the years have gone by, and as regulars have developed
this rilly annoying habit of hooking up with one another, and as fresh
meet via fertilization from other groups by crossposting is not an
option, ssm has become less and less a place where a newbie is likely
to find single, available MOTAS hanging about.
This, plus the fact that there is no specific topic on which ssm hangs
its collective hat, makes it now basically a place where people come
to chat. Period. That's just not ever going to be as inherently
attractive to men as to women. More's the pity, but there you have it.
Like you, I don't think it's going to change. But since this group is
a part of me and I'm a part of it, and since I'm probably going to
post and read here until ssm dies or I die, I wouldn't call anything
about it hopeless. Just not likely to change, is all.
That doesn't mean that a nudge to be more inviting and hook-y in
general -- to all newbies, men and women -- is a bad idea.
>I think the analogy is
>sound, and it's one reason I spoke up now. I didn't expect it
>would be a particularly popular opinion.
<grin> You aren't the first and you probably won't be the last. Maybe
you'll be treated to a chorus line at BoN this year.
--
Kristen, let me entertain you ...
A mukluk wearing troll
wrote:
Speaking of a need to evangelize....
We're having a federal election north of the border. We go to the
polls June 28th.
It's going to be a tight race. There is a strong possibility that the
country will vote along regional lines - again.
A lot of people are some pissed off with the sponsorship scandal, and
I see an awful lot of Conservative lawn signs in my inner suburban
neighbourhood. Considering that the incumbent is a Liberal, and a
Liberam MPP was returned to the provincial legeslative assembly in the
last provincial election, it's looking like either mighty effective
campaigning or a sea change.
I was out in the western wealth belt for a little mountain biking
yesterday (for three times out, I'm getting serious respect from VB)
and when we took a rambling drive back through it and into deepest,
darkest Mississauga, I was seeing Green Pary signs in areas I would
never have expected to see them.
It was noteworthy for two reasons: 1. The Greens had raised enough
dough _for_ lawnsigns (our electoral laws were changed about eight
months ago - no, no, no corporate donations allowed at the federal
level anymore) and 2. They were popping up out in the 'burbs,
traditionally Tory country.
The CBC has apparently paid attention to the feedback they got from
listeners after the last federal election, and are doing a lot of
thoughtful, indepth coverage.
For instance, I heard an hour piece this monring on how voters are
viewing the issues in Quebec, words which traditionally don't make
it past the language barrier. (OK, it helps that I'm also listening to
Radio Canada, the french language service this time 'round)
I personally don't want to see our Made-In-Canada versions of the
Neo-Cons come into power... but I'm not sure how hard I'll have to
hold my nose to vote Liberal. I think Paul Martin could do what is
needed for the long term, and I think he derserves a change. I'm not
sure that he's going to get it. Our historical record is to toss
keepers of the keys out, not relect them.
I've been picking the brains of everyone I've been talking to at
parties of late.
Angie, 'dreas, what are you seeing where you live?
TB
Kris Hasson-Jones
watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
words:
>Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>> I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
>> 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
>
>My car is getting on in age. Tell me your thoughts about reliability of
>a minor brand like Hyundai.
Hyundai wasn't on my short list to begin with; I was looking at the
Ford Focus, the Honda Civic, the Scion, the Kia Rio and a Volkswagon.
The week after I started my research, I read in the New York Times the
most recent reliability study had Hyundai at the top.
So I added it to the list and continued my research. I spent a lot of
time looking at edmunds.com, but also checked other resources like
Consumer Reports.
I made up a list of cars to test drive: the same list as above except
for the Scion (no local dealers) and the Volkswagon (my husband hates
them), and I added the Elantra. I asked for quotes from the
internet/fleet offices of local dealers, made appointments and test
drove the cars.
The Ford and the Kia felt cheap, drove cheap, and just didn't impress
me. The Honda Civic was a workmanlike, sturdy, mundane choice-no
luxuries available on that model.
>What's the verdict on Hyundai?
Love it. The steering is great, it handles well, lots of torque, fast
on the highway, reasonably quiet, comfortable interior (leather
seats!), nice visibility with the hatchback, lots of trunk space. And
it was less expensive than the Honda Civic. Maybe in five years I'll
regret it, if there are mechanical problems. But for now, I'm very
happy with my purchase.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com //I'm a patriot. I love my
decadent, cosmopolitan, self-indulgent, racially mixed, godless,
intellectually dilettante, drug-abusing, promiscuous, queer-loving
country. And its flag is the Stars and Stripes-Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Penelope Periwinkle
<kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote:
>>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>>hopeless.
>>
>>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>>using, and it has really stuck with me.
>
>Yeah, Anmar Mirza said something like that too, about ssm. That was
>about ... what? Five years ago? Six?
And how many people were posting here five years ago? Six?
>Here's the thing, according to moi. (Alert -- buttload of gender
>generalizations ahead. All based on my life, observation and
>experience of white, middle-class, NorAm culture. Insert IMOpinion,
>IMObservation and IMExperience here there and everywhere, please.)
None of which has a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about
or said. I've stated pretty clearly that a predominately female
culture is not necessarily a bad thing, and that whole strong
woman business came from something Allison...I think..said to
miguel.
But, by all means, do keep preaching at me, because you know
how effective that is.
>>I think the analogy is
>>sound, and it's one reason I spoke up now. I didn't expect it
>>would be a particularly popular opinion.
>
><grin> You aren't the first and you probably won't be the last. Maybe
>you'll be treated to a chorus line at BoN this year.
Well, yeah, by those most guilty of creating the black hole, too.
Penelope, thinking it's time for those new shoes.
kmd
wrote:
>In our last fun filled episode, 12 Jun 2004 10:32:53 -0400, kmd
><kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>
>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote:
>
>>>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>>>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>>>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>>>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>>>hopeless.
>>>
>>>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>>>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>>>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>>>using, and it has really stuck with me.
>>
>>Yeah, Anmar Mirza said something like that too, about ssm. That was
>>about ... what? Five years ago? Six?
>
>And how many people were posting here five years ago? Six?
More than now.
My point is that the group survives. Yes, I liked it better six years
ago. I liked it better eight years ago. I liked it better before the
split. We can't turn back time. The most we could do to accomplish
that, IMO, would be to fold up shop in the moderated newsgroup and
head back over to the unmoderated group. Even that wouldn't turn back
time, but we'd certainly immediately lose the problem with content and
culture being dominated by women.
>>Here's the thing, according to moi. (Alert -- buttload of gender
>>generalizations ahead. All based on my life, observation and
>>experience of white, middle-class, NorAm culture. Insert IMOpinion,
>>IMObservation and IMExperience here there and everywhere, please.)
>
>None of which has a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about
>or said.
I think it does, else I wouldn't have said it in response to what
you're talking about.
>I've stated pretty clearly that a predominately female
>culture is not necessarily a bad thing, and that whole strong
>woman business came from something Allison...I think..said to
>miguel.
It's all part and parcel of the same question/issue. In my opinion.
>But, by all means, do keep preaching at me, because you know
>how effective that is.
Preaching at you? Where in the name of all that is Usenet did that
come from? There wasn't a single solitary suggestion for your
behaviour in that post. I dare you to find one. Go on. I double dog
dare you.
I agree with a lot of what you've written. I find myself very
frustrated, at times, by some of what others post and in particular
the patterns in some others' posts.
I also agree that ssm's group culture (to the extent that it can be
gender-labeled) is predominantly womanish. I don't agree that female
posters on ssm should do something(s) particular to make themselves,
their posts or this community more inviting to men. The whole idea of
that just smacks of Stepford SSM to me.
I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
newcomers (men and women.) A 100% wonderful, intelligent, kind,
generous human being of a poster came over to ssm from the
stop-smoking newsgroup a while back and two ssm posters decided to
treat him like shit, so he left. He didn't say anything about being a
nice guy or nothin'. He just had the wrong political opinion as far as
I could tell. The posters who ran him off were one male, one female. I
wish they could have cut him some newbie slack.
So yeah, I share a lot of your frustration.
[...]
>Penelope, thinking it's time for those new shoes.
If those are the shoes that would take you away from ssm, I sincerely
ardently beggingly hope not.
--
Kristen
Kris Hasson-Jones
amazement as electrons turned into magical things called words:
>posters on ssm should do something(s) particular to make themselves,
>their posts or this community more inviting to men. The whole idea of
>that just smacks of Stepford SSM to me.
>
>I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
>newcomers (men and women.)
Maybe you could.
I've spent some years here, neither the most nor the least of current
posters, and one of the things I like about it is that nobody expects
me to twist myself around into something I'm not in order to
participate.
>A 100% wonderful, intelligent, kind,
>generous human being of a poster came over to ssm from the
>stop-smoking newsgroup a while back and two ssm posters decided to
>treat him like shit, so he left. He didn't say anything about being a
>nice guy or nothin'. He just had the wrong political opinion as far as
>I could tell. The posters who ran him off were one male, one female. I
>wish they could have cut him some newbie slack.
So, he didn't enjoy the conversation here, and he decided to spend his
time somewhere else.
Not seeing a problem. At least, not a problem that I have any
responsibility for causing or solving. Hell, the people I wish would
leave don't. The people I wish would come back don't. The people I
wish would stay don't always. The people I wish would write more
don't.
Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.*
ElissaAnn
"Penelope Periwinkle" <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote in message
news:16urc097tseqc25lo...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> ><grin> You aren't the first and you probably won't be the last. Maybe
> >you'll be treated to a chorus line at BoN this year.
>
> Well, yeah, by those most guilty of creating the black hole, too.
Huh. I would have sworn that you said you can't sing. But I know you
really can!
Elissa, who finds meta exceedingly boring
kmd
wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2004 16:39:19 -0400, kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> watched in
>amazement as electrons turned into magical things called words:
>>I don't agree that female
>>posters on ssm should do something(s) particular to make themselves,
>>their posts or this community more inviting to men. The whole idea of
>>that just smacks of Stepford SSM to me.
>>
>>I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
>>newcomers (men and women.)
>
>Maybe you could.
Point taken.
>I've spent some years here, neither the most nor the least of current
>posters, and one of the things I like about it is that nobody expects
>me to twist myself around into something I'm not in order to
>participate.
Agree 1000%
>>A 100% wonderful, intelligent, kind,
>>generous human being of a poster came over to ssm from the
>>stop-smoking newsgroup a while back and two ssm posters decided to
>>treat him like shit, so he left. He didn't say anything about being a
>>nice guy or nothin'. He just had the wrong political opinion as far as
>>I could tell. The posters who ran him off were one male, one female. I
>>wish they could have cut him some newbie slack.
>
>So, he didn't enjoy the conversation here, and he decided to spend his
>time somewhere else.
Not really. He wanted to enjoy the conversation here, he gave the two
posters in question the benefit of the doubt that they weren't
specifically targetting him more than once, then he just got tired of
being beat up on and left.
>Not seeing a problem.
I am.
> At least, not a problem that I have any
>responsibility for causing or solving.
Agreed.
> Hell, the people I wish would
>leave don't. The people I wish would come back don't. The people I
>wish would stay don't always. The people I wish would write more
>don't.
Agreed^10. Well put. Exactly.
>Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.*
Mind if I quote you on that?
--
Kristen
Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.*
-- Kris Hasson Jones
Brock Hannibal
> Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>
> > No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
> > audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
> > still might be interested in good conversation.
>
> The same could be said about all the posts about beer, but you don't see
> anybody whinging about that.
>
> Elizabeth
That's because you'd have to be nuts not to like good beer so it's not
the same.
--
Brock
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
-John Sedgwick, Union Commander, U.S. Civil War
Kris Hasson-Jones
amazement as electrons turned into magical things called words:
>On 14 Jun 2004 17:20:16 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 14 Jun 2004 16:39:19 -0400, kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> watched in
>>amazement as electrons turned into magical things called words:
>
>>>I don't agree that female
>>>posters on ssm should do something(s) particular to make themselves,
>>>their posts or this community more inviting to men. The whole idea of
>>>that just smacks of Stepford SSM to me.
>>>
>>>I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
>>>newcomers (men and women.)
>>
>>Maybe you could.
>
>Point taken.
Yeah. This is as nice as I get. I don't expect people to like me at
all, let alone everyone.
If you want to appoint yourself the newbie welcome wagon, feel free.
There is one group where I do that, but only because it is deeply
embedded in the group culture, and I only do it when none of the other
regulars does it within the first 24 hours after a newbie posts.
>>I've spent some years here, neither the most nor the least of current
>>posters, and one of the things I like about it is that nobody expects
>>me to twist myself around into something I'm not in order to
>>participate.
>
>Agree 1000%
Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. Didn't you just impliedly ask us to
change into "more inviting to all newcomers" kind of people? That's
how I read it, that's why I responded.
Old Usenet advice: If you don't like what's in the newsgroup, post the
way you do like. Complaining is just more of the same.
Or should I assume you like to read a newsgroup that's mostly about
how everyone hates the other people's posts? I didn't really think
that's what you meant (although that is what I am starting to assume
about miguel).
[newbie gets the shaft from two posters and leaves]
>>So, he didn't enjoy the conversation here, and he decided to spend his
>>time somewhere else.
>
>Not really. He wanted to enjoy the conversation here, he gave the two
>posters in question the benefit of the doubt that they weren't
>specifically targetting him more than once, then he just got tired of
>being beat up on and left.
So he let his entire experience of SSM be shaped by two people he
could have killfiled? Man, if I had done that I'd be long gone.
>>Not seeing a problem.
>
>I am.
I get that. I thought that was why you were posting about it.
>>Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.*
>
>Mind if I quote you on that?
Nope, please feel free, so long as it's attributed. The way your .sig
has it is fine.
kmd
>On 14 Jun 2004 17:49:48 -0400, kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> watched in
>amazement as electrons turned into magical things called words:
>
>>On 14 Jun 2004 17:20:16 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com>
>>wrote:
[...]
>>>I've spent some years here, neither the most nor the least of current
>>>posters, and one of the things I like about it is that nobody expects
>>>me to twist myself around into something I'm not in order to
>>>participate.
>>
>>Agree 1000%
>
>Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood. Didn't you just impliedly ask us to
>change into "more inviting to all newcomers" kind of people? That's
>how I read it, that's why I responded.
I guess you could read it that way. I don't see it as a character
shift, a shift to a different kind of person, to try to cut newbies a
break. I assume that most people are naturally inclined to not be mean
to new folks, and just forget (as I do) how hard it is to be a newbie.
Hence my endorsement of a nudge, a reminder.
>Old Usenet advice: If you don't like what's in the newsgroup, post the
>way you do like. Complaining is just more of the same.
Agreed.
>Or should I assume you like to read a newsgroup that's mostly about
>how everyone hates the other people's posts?
No! Good gravy, that's exactly what I'm *not* saying. Part of why I
chimed in was to say that there are plenty of factors other than what
regulars do that influence or determine what makes other people post
or stay or leave or lurk or become a 20-post-per-day regular.
[...]
>[newbie gets the shaft from two posters and leaves]
[...]
>So he let his entire experience of SSM be shaped by two people he
>could have killfiled? Man, if I had done that I'd be long gone.
Yeah, but you arrived in a markedly different era. ssm did have a
newbie mother hen back then who also happened to be the group's most
prolific and longest-running poster. And unless I missed something in
one of my hiati, you've never been attacked by two veteran regulars
determined to use every rhetorical trick in the book to make you look
stupid and score points off of you. I don't know of *any* ssm regular
who would have survived that in their first two weeks here. Well, ok,
maybe Sheba.
>>>Not seeing a problem.
>>
>>I am.
>
>I get that. I thought that was why you were posting about it.
Heh. I'm posting right now both because I see a problem and want to
speak up and acknowledge it, and because I perceive that the problem
is mostly systemic and not solvable by metadiscussion.
I share Pam's frustration and know how she feels. I wanted her to know
that. It's important to me not to leave people hanging out there to
dry when I agree with some unpopular thing they're saying. (As I said
the last time we went 'round the metadiscussion bush, the only
keyboard you control is your own, but don't ever underestimate the
power of a single voice of support.) But, unless I have misunderstood
her, I don't share Pam's opinion of the root cause of the frustration
or the solution.
>>>Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.*
>>
>>Mind if I quote you on that?
>
>Nope, please feel free, so long as it's attributed. The way your .sig
>has it is fine.
Kewl.
--
Kristen
"Ain't nothin' about ssm that goes my way except *me.* "
-- Kris Hasson Jones
Penelope Periwinkle
> Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>> kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> proclaimed:
>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>>>>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>>>>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>>>>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>>>>hopeless.
>>>>
>>>>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>>>>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>>>>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>>>>using, and it has really stuck with me.
>>>
>>>Yeah, Anmar Mirza said something like that too, about ssm. That was
>>>about ... what? Five years ago? Six?
>>
>>And how many people were posting here five years ago? Six?
>
>More than now.
>
>My point is that the group survives.
But slowly, it erodes. And what is left turns in on itself, hence
the black hole analogy.
>Yes, I liked it better six years
>ago. I liked it better eight years ago. I liked it better before the
>split. We can't turn back time.
I haven't suggested that we should.
> The most we could do to accomplish
>that, IMO, would be to fold up shop in the moderated newsgroup and
>head back over to the unmoderated group. Even that wouldn't turn back
>time, but we'd certainly immediately lose the problem with content and
>culture being dominated by women.
And once again, I haven't asserted that either content or culture
being, ahem, predominately female is the primary problem. While
female culture can be exclusionary, it is not necessarily so. I
do believe that the culture on ssm cuts men less slack, is less
forgiving of men; but I don't know if that can be laid solely at
the feet of woman's culture, or if it is a ssm variant.
>>>Here's the thing, according to moi. (Alert -- buttload of gender
>>>generalizations ahead. All based on my life, observation and
>>>experience of white, middle-class, NorAm culture. Insert IMOpinion,
>>>IMObservation and IMExperience here there and everywhere, please.)
>>
>>None of which has a damn thing to do with what I'm talking about
>>or said.
>
>I think it does, else I wouldn't have said it in response to what
>you're talking about.
You're wrong.
>>I've stated pretty clearly that a predominately female
>>culture is not necessarily a bad thing, and that whole strong
>>woman business came from something Allison...I think..said to
>>miguel.
>
>It's all part and parcel of the same question/issue. In my opinion.
No, it's not.
>>But, by all means, do keep preaching at me, because you know
>>how effective that is.
>
>Preaching at you? Where in the name of all that is Usenet did that
>come from? There wasn't a single solitary suggestion for your
>behaviour in that post. I dare you to find one. Go on. I double dog
>dare you.
Your entire post was a lecture, not a new one mind you; but a
nice, safe, familiar lecture that gets trotted out on ssm from
time to time. It's got fuck all to do with exclusionism, but it
is a well-walked rut.
>I agree with a lot of what you've written. I find myself very
>frustrated, at times, by some of what others post and in particular
>the patterns in some others' posts.
>
>I also agree that ssm's group culture (to the extent that it can be
>gender-labeled) is predominantly womanish. I don't agree that female
>posters on ssm should do something(s) particular to make themselves,
>their posts or this community more inviting to men. The whole idea of
>that just smacks of Stepford SSM to me.
Inviting was a poor word choice on my part. I should have found
something that has less submissive connotations. By inviting I
meant less closed, less needing a memo from the last cabal
meeting to decipher; making an effort to write more accessible
posts
>I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
>newcomers (men and women.)
And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
and I'm stopping here, because I have one of those floater things
in my eye, and it's right where I can't read what I'm typing
properly. And it's annoying, so I'm going to change the litter
box; something that doesn't require any fine hand.eye
co-ordination.
Penelope
Ginko
In article <fvhkc016n6ldni96k...@4ax.com>,
Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>In article <v9qjc09q4ve6v416m...@4ax.com>,
> Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote:
>
>>In our last fun filled episode, 11 Jun 2004 11:44:49 -0400, Ginko
>><gi...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>On 10 Jun 2004 13:53:27 -0400, Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>>>
>>>><yarn is boring>
>>>I didn't mean that in a southern "well, bless your little heart" way.
>>
>>I didn't think you did. When I got in last night I read all the
>>responses at once, and I chuckled a bit at your careful wording.
>>It was meant in a joking way.
>
>Just making sure.
>
>><massive snippage>
>
>>>That you can converse on so many subjects is good. It is okay though
>>>if there are subjects that you can't, and I wonder if you are saying
>>>you feel you should be able to talk about anything.
>>
>>You're making this too personal.
>
>Okay, I can take it back to another level.
>
>>I will repeat, there has been
>>discussion on the inclusiveness of the culture on ssm. I use
>>myself as an example because I'm a brazen hussy who'll barge
>>into the middle of anything if I've a mind to. I'm good at
>>finding something interesting or some way to talk about things of
>>which I know nothing and in which I have no interest. If I can't
>>find a hook in those horrible yarn threads, there are plenty of
>>people who are less comfortable butting in who would feel even
>>more excluded. If they're teetering on the edge of joining or
>>staying subscribed to ssm, an exclusionary thread might convince
>>them to leave.
>
>If yarn threads (to stay with the example) are the only topic
>discussed, then I can see where someone could decide not to stay if
>the interest was not there. However, at any given time there are many
>different topics in the group of varying interest levels. When I came
>into this group many years back, there were threads that indicated a
>closeness of people, and inside comments. Instead of driving me away,
>it showed me that this could be a place were friendships could be
>formed. Years later, many of these same people should not be expected
>to post as if they are not close. They have years of interaction,
>and while that could be intimidating, I hope that it isn't. It takes
>time to become part of any group that has been together for years.
>
>An example I immediately think of is gem and mineral clubs. Many of
>those clubs were formed in the 60s during the mineral craze, and most
>of the members are in their 70s and 80s today. Now *there* is a group
>that can intimidate someone. I found if I didn't try too hard to
>quickly be "in" that I was accepted. Yes, it took a while. I suppose
>what I am saying is there is a natural progression to groups, and I
>don't see this one any different. Except for the swiping for
>swiping's sake. I don't get that, at all. Fortunately, it is only
>being done by a small few.
>
>>If, and only if, there is interest in making ssm more inclusive,
>>those yarn threads are an excellent example of what not to do.
>
>If, those posts were intended to show superiority or exclusiveness,
>yes. The underlying humor in them would indicate otherwise.
>
>><...>
>>
>>>>Yeah, but you spent time with some of the knitters just before
>>>>the latest outbreak. You had real life crayons to color in the
>>>>written sketches. That real life contact is part* of what makes
>>>>it difficult to get a hook into some those posts, and part of
>>>>what makes it so exclusionary. It's almost impossible to color
>>>>between the lines of conversation because there are so many
>>>>references that only the knitters understand.
>>>
>>>Okay, so it's a disconnect you feel, is that what you are saying? Do
>>>you think you would be reacting differently now if you had the
>>>previous contact?
>>
>>It's an example of why those threads are so closed, not about my
>>feelings.
>
>Okay
>
>><...>
>>
>>> Wool
>>>is surprisingly oily.
>>
>>I can't smell a hand lotion with lanolin in it without thinking
>>"sheep".
>
>I bet.
>
>>>>One of my aunts knits constantly, and we
>>>>often chat about her current project. Last time I saw her she was
>>>>making "tit" hats for all her grand nieces and nephews.
>>>
>>>*laugh* I don't think I have ever heard those hats being called that.
>>>I am assuming you mean those pointy-sock hat kind?
>>
>>Yes, they look like tit cozys.
>
>There is a woman who frequents the local craft shows with her fleece
>hats. I will forever now think tit hat when I see her booth.
>
>><...>
>
>><shrug> Because there is very little interest in making them
>>accessible. They are, in effect, a private conversation being
>>held on Usenet.
>>
>>>>Oh, any topic can descend to specialized geekery once in a while,
>>>>but those threads are generally short.
>>>
>>>So, is it that knitting has become an insider's joke thing that drew
>>>you out to comment on, or am I still missing why?
>>
>>Yes, you are. Even deep in geekery, very few threads on ssm are
>>so closed.
>
>I can see where you feel that way now that you have posted more.
>Perhaps many of the posts have lost a touch of the invitation over
>time due to familiarity. If that is what you were intending to
>explain with the yarn posts, then I can agree with you. I can't if it
>is exclusive to the yarn posts.
>
>><...>
>
>>You're welcome. I really do enjoy listening to people speak of
>>their passions. I learn a lot about the subject and the person.
>
>Yes, and over the years this group has brought many different things
>to my awareness that I very much appreciate. Living in middle-america
>has its insular tendencies, and I love the small things that others
>teach me through this group.
>
>>>Yes, I think so. Also, should we? Are we here as a honey pot, or are
>>>we here to be who we are?
>>
>>I don't think those are the only options.
>>
>>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>>hopeless.
>
>Miguel is doing a lot at the moment to insure he is right. Or haven't
>you noticed.
>
>>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>>using, and it has really stuck with me. I think the analogy is
>>sound, and it's one reason I spoke up now. I didn't expect it
>>would be a particularly popular opinion.
>
>I suppose time will tell. One thing is for certain, usenet is not the
>forefront of new ascii. We aren't a chat room, after all.
>
>><...>
>>>>>-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
>>>>
>>>>Make you compose a thoughtful response instead of knee jerk?
>>>
>>>Hey, at $607 per shot,
>>
>>Good Lord!
>
>No kidding. Think of all the nasty, disrespectful things I have said
>about this expensive, exclusive vial.
>
>>In 1998, Matilda was hit by a car. It was really, really bad; and
>>getting her well was really, really expensive. She was in an
>>X-sling for several months after the accident, and my father
>>used to lift her back end up in the air a bit and say "Funny, it
>>doesn't feel like gold..."
>
>Sometimes you just gotta do it.
>
>>I just tell people she has the best behind that money can buy.
>
>heh.
>
>>Penelope, who's beginning to feel like her elbow's an antibiotic
>>black hole.
>
>uh oh. still? Is it a resistant strain, or just a difficult area to
>clear up?
>
>-debbi
Penelope Periwinkle
On 11 Jun 2004 12:42:38 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones
<sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>Back now.
>
>I hate gardening.
>
>I like digging up the ground. I like stirring in amendments. I like
>choosing plants. I like putting plants in the ground.
>
>I hate maintenance. I hate the need for ongoing attention (other than
>pure admiration of result, which I can manage...until the weeds grow).
>I hate worrying about whether I ought to water.
So, would it be somewhat correct to say that gardening is a means
to an end?
>I don't actually hate those things, because I don't actually *dooooo*
>them. I hate realizing I didn't do them, I didn't even think about
>doing them, I didn't even wonder if it was about time to do them. I
>only noticed that I didn't do them when I went out to admire my
>plants.
I relish just about every part of the process, even the weeding.
I don't do all my weeding at once, so it's usually not a big,
all-at-once chore, except in the spring.
I putter.
This time of year I'm rarely in the house before 8:30 or 9:00
during the week. I squeeze every last minute of daylight for time
outside. I make the rounds of the flower beds and vegetable
garden when I first get home, pull a few weeds, stop to play with
the Puppies O'Thunder. Then back in the garden to inspect the
tomato plants for <spit!> thrip damage. Sometimes I chat with one
neighbor or the other. And back to the garden again.
Lather, rinse, repeat
I'm as excited as a small child at Christmas if I find a ladybug
on a plant that has aphids. I speak to the anoles lizards when
I see them, catch the toad that insists on hanging out by the
back door, and try once again to move him to a flower bed.
I'm with you on admiring the results, too. My purple coneflowers
are in full bloom right now. They're lovely.
Penelope Periwinkle
On 11 Jun 2004 18:23:37 -0400, prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu>
wrote:
>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>>prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>>Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>>
>> <yarn is boring>
>>
>>>>No, it's boring and exclusionary. It's written for a very small
>>>>audience with no openings or hooks for non-knitters who
>>>>still might be interested in good conversation.
>>>
>>>I disagree.
>>
>> Quelle surprise.
> >
>> Nice editing job, it certainly helps your case when you edit out
>> everything else I said.
>
>Whoa! You are one of the people here who have been on me very regularly
>about not snipping enough quoted text.
No, I haven't. Nice try, though.
> In light of that, this seems
>quite unfair. I left in the specific statements that I was replying to
>and it was what you said, accurately quoted.
However, by snipping the rest of what I said, particularly the
last paragraph, you changed the thrust of my post. You cut out
what would weaken your knee jerk
Like I said, nice editing job.
>>I won't waste your oh so precious time by repeating myself.
>You're a NASCAR fan, eh?
>I can understand that you are bored by discussions of yarn, but I don't
>accept that it is in any way exclusionary,
Like I said, quelle surprise.
I didn't expect you to accept anything I said. I expected exactly
this reaction from you, so I won't waste any more of your oh so
precious time.
Miguel should thank you.
Kris Hasson-Jones
<pperi...@mindspring.com> submitted the following for your
consideration:
>On 11 Jun 2004 12:42:38 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones
><sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>I hate gardening.
>So, would it be somewhat correct to say that gardening is a means
>to an end?
Yes. It's a chore; sometimes it's a chore worth doing, but usually I
think it's pretty low return on high investment (of time). Especially
right now--somebody stole another one of my plants this weekend, and
my first response was to just concrete it all over. (I didn't do it,
though.)
>I relish just about every part of the process, even the weeding.
>I don't do all my weeding at once, so it's usually not a big,
>all-at-once chore, except in the spring.
>
>I putter.
Does it rain much there? We've had rain every day for the last few
weeks, and I just don't get outside to get the weeds pulled normally.
My weeds are mostly grass, because the flower beds were full of grass
before I had them cleaned out so I could plant.
Plus, I go in the house to make dinner for the kid (and even let Mark
eat some of it) most nights after work.
This week it's supposed to be sunny and getting warmer. Over 75 F
tomorrow, and in the 90s by Friday.
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
But I *am* present as the truth of myself!
Ginko
Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 14 Jun 2004 16:39:19 -0400, kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>
>> Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>I *do* think that we could all (men and women) be more inviting to all
>>newcomers (men and women.)
I agree.
>And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
>suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
>being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
Have I? Not that I object to nice. If I led you to that impression,
what I really meant was "not mean". There is a lot of area in the
pendulum swing between mean and nice. I would gag if this group were
soppy nice all the time. However, being mean for the sake of being
mean does bother me. That I object to. Mindless, hurtful flings, for
no apparent reason (meant in general terms), are something I see as
detrimental to welcoming new comers.
>and I'm stopping here, because I have one of those floater things
>in my eye, and it's right where I can't read what I'm typing
>properly. And it's annoying, so I'm going to change the litter
>box; something that doesn't require any fine hand.eye
>co-ordination.
better? hope so!
-debbi"going to sleep now"
Allison Turner-
[oodles snipped]
>And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
>suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
>being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
*bing* *bing* *bing*
Thanks. I needed that.
-Allison.
Dr. Brat
[rechecks attributions] [looks again]
Hmmmm, I could have sworn that said "prairierabbit" and not "Dr. Brat."
Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>on 14 Jun 2004 21:46:02 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle stated:
Keen. But I still need it. What's the difference between being
inclusive and being nice? What is inclusive behavior in this context?
Steve Daniels, Seek of Spam
ohio...@volcanomail.com (Ocean Gypsy), to say:
>Yo dude...chill out. Ain't nobody buying that altruistic "I just wanna
>help" bidness and I'm truly askeered that there's a whole bunch
>of wymn starting off from the east coast, picking up buds
>along the way, heading for PNW to poke you all over with knitting
>needles and shove ice cream up your nose if you don't cut the crap.
They don't need to pick up any bud on the way, we grow the best
in the world right here.
Allison Turner-
>
>On 14 Jun 2004 23:19:50 -0400, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
>submitted the following for your consideration:
>
>>on 14 Jun 2004 21:46:02 -0400, Penelope Periwinkle stated:
>>
>>[oodles snipped]
>>>And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
>>>suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
>>>being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
>>
>>*bing* *bing* *bing*
>>
>>Thanks. I needed that.
>
>Keen. But I still need it. What's the difference between being
>inclusive and being nice? What is inclusive behavior in this context?
Well, what I'm getting from Pam's comments may not
be the entirety of what she's saying, but it's helpful to
me.
There are many different topics I might bring up, here.
I could just hang out and continue to yak about yarn (if
that were a particular interest of mine; as it happens it
isn't) but I could also talk about the problems of math
phobia, the local volunteer fire department, chainsaws,
gardening, HPLC columns and the cool *bright*! *pink*!
fraction I unexpectedly got yesterday, teaching,
alternative medicine, and a gazillion other things. For
some reason I haven't been posting much about other
things, lately, and I'm not sure why that is. Perhaps it's
because I'm putting in 12/7, and I'm not much up for
doing more than following up to something someone
else has posted.
So I see a broader range of topics as being beneficial,
and I suspect the range we've had here over the past
months or so hasn't been huge.
But that's just part of it. I also think I've gotten more
lazy about drawing other people out. I'm not the best
at that in any case, but I do like to find out how people
who think differently than I do view the world. I've
gained a lot of insight and learned a lot of fascinating
things here in ssm over the 8 (?!) years I've been here,
and I didn't learn those things by only posting about
and responding to things I know a lot about.
Which is not to say that I see anything wrong with the
knitting threads - they're fine. It'd be a dull place if
that's all that were were, is all.
That's 'being more inclusive' re: topic; drawing people
out is being more inclusive re: posters. Both are good
things. So I could (if he ever posted; hint hint) start
talking to Michael about calculus, though I'd want to
steer the conversation toward math phobia, since that's
one of the concerns I have where I teach. But, to get
to the point of not being "nice" - there's no reason to
make this place all mushy by not telling Michael that
he's being a pompous ass if, in fact, he's being a
pompous ass.
-Allison.
dreas
"Victor Eijkhout" <vic...@eijkhout.net> wrote in message
news:1gf9afr.17j9kuez70hiqN%vic...@eijkhout.net...
> Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> > I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
> > 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
>
> My car is getting on in age. Tell me your thoughts about reliability of
> a new one -- ok, maybe if I ever get rich -- so for reliability I've
> always been getting used Japanese, Honda and Toyota, and pretty pleased
> with that strategy.
My cars are both old. After a couple of decades they gain character...
> What's the verdict on Hyundai?
My sister had one for four years. She drove the snot out of it delivering
pizza and sold it for fifty bucks with something like 400 000 kilometers
on the clock. It broke a few times, it leaked vital fluids, used to go
through
brake pads like crazy [I was always replacing them], but it was still
ticking with the original engine and tranny after all that constant abuse.
That was one of the early ones. I think it was a '85 Pony...
Her next car was a Toyota Tercel. It went through the same abuse for
some four years or so. At some 280 000+ kilometers the timing belt
snapped and trashed the top end of the engine. It was repaired. Not
very long after that the bottom end started making funny noises. One
or more of the main bearings was shot. What do you expect if you
never change the oil?
-'dreas
dreas
"A mukluk wearing troll" <for.ar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:97bpc0hhase37c9j4...@4ax.com...
[Much deleted stuff .I think it's about politics...]
> I've been picking the brains of everyone I've been talking to at
> parties of late.
>
> Angie, 'dreas, what are you seeing where you live?
On TV I saw some guy with a really bad toupee claiming to
be conservative. I don't pay much attention. I have a lot of
trouble trusting conservatives even if they call themselves
new...
To be honest, I don't know what anyone stands for anymore
except that promises are unlikely to be kept whoever gets
elected in order to replace the ones being chucked out as is
traditional in Canadian politics...
It comes down to this: Do you want a majority government?
Do you want a strong opposition to counteract that which
gets elected? Do you vote, but throw away your vote on a
cause that nobody else agrees with? Go Rhino! Yeah.
I used to think NDP was pretty good on a federal level when
I was a lot younger and much more idealistic than I am now.
As an opposition force, NDP is good, but in power it's a wild
spending beast that has no master. After seeing how 8 years
of Provincial NDP power can totally fuck up a place, I don't
want an NDP government, but I want an NDP opposition.
It adds some humanity to a liberal agenda without everything
going totally soft and socialist...
WRT posters, billboards, and temporary lawn ornaments,
we have Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Green, and not a lot
of anything else. Are those Reform goofs still around? I
wouldn't vote for them anyway whatever they may call them-
selves...
I'm sadly disappointed to see no Bloc Quebecois represen-
tation at this wrong end of the country. I mean, what about
equal representation and all that? It would be amusing [but
catastrophic] to see what a majority Bloc government would
do to the rest of the country. There would be no separatist
talk because Canada would be Quebec, only bigger. I'd
be in favor in a "La Belle Province" way, but not on any "Je
Me Souviens" terms. Imagine English signs being illegal all
the way from Goose Bay to Nanaimo! *chuckle*
Or should I say 'Feh?'
I still don't know what I'm going to do on the 28'th. I'll need
to watch TV and listen to debates because my customers are
not sufficiently informing me, and other cabbies are an unre-
liable information source...
-'dreas
prairierabbit
> words:
>
>>participate are female. That is fine with me, just as the power
>>boat/sail boat wars or car posts that are primarily male are fine.
> I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
> 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
Cool! I hope you like it as well as I like my Toyota Corolla. What
sold you on the Hyundai?
>><drumroll> It Ain't All About Me.
>
> Oh, this is the theme of the week for me, probably the theme of the
> year. I can't adequately express how free I feel of the oppression of
> it being about me. It's not about me that my mother didn't act
> lovingly toward me. Everytime I say that, a big smile comes over my
> face and I can feel the weight lift from my shoulders.
It's real nice, isn't it? It's so much easier when I just assume
responsibility for my own actions, instead of thinking that I'm supposed
to make everyone else happy, especially those I'm close to. It's not
within my power, and I am getting much better about releasing that sense
of "how can I fix it for <insert name here>".
>>JLC, we all have our own lists...
>
> I've got a little list, they hardly would be missed.
JLC, now I'll have that earworm!!!
Kris Hasson-Jones
watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
words:
>Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>> I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
>> 2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
>
>Cool! I hope you like it as well as I like my Toyota Corolla. What
>sold you on the Hyundai?
It was the spoiler on the hatchback. Seriously, it was.
Mainly that it was the sexier car. I wouldn't have looked at it at
all unless it was comparable to the Honda Civic in engine power,
handling, etc. It was over $2,000 less than the Civic, as well, and
has a longer warranty, and a roadside protection plan roughly
equivalent to having AAA--tows, flat tire changes, lost or
locked-in-the-car keys, etc.
After I finished the test driving I made up a little story about each
car.
When I was in the Ford Focus, I felt like the guy in the dead-end job
wearing a cheap suit from Wal-Mart and driving his wife and kids to
the mega-plex church on Sunday.
In the Kia Rio I was a 19-year-old with my first job and first car.
The Honda Civic was me as I am, or have been the last 10 years or
so--a sensible middle-aged middle-class mom with no life.
But the Elantra...ooooh, that's who I want to be. Still sensible and
reliable, but it's more fun to drive, and way more luxurious (leather
seats, nice stereo/CD player). Plus it looks sporty and young with
that spoiler and the black body trim on a silver car. (Silver cars
get hit the least often, according to the Insurance Institute.)
>>><drumroll> It Ain't All About Me.
>>
>> Oh, this is the theme of the week for me, probably the theme of the
>> year. I can't adequately express how free I feel of the oppression of
>> it being about me. It's not about me that my mother didn't act
>> lovingly toward me. Everytime I say that, a big smile comes over my
>> face and I can feel the weight lift from my shoulders.
>
>It's real nice, isn't it? It's so much easier when I just assume
>responsibility for my own actions, instead of thinking that I'm supposed
>to make everyone else happy, especially those I'm close to. It's not
>within my power, and I am getting much better about releasing that sense
>of "how can I fix it for <insert name here>".
Not there yet. Where I am is: it's not my fault, I'm okay the way I
am, I don't have to twist myself around into someone else in order to
deserve love and good treatment from my mom (or anyone else for that
matter, but it's my mom I've had a problem with). In fact there is
nothing I could have done that would have changed how she treated me;
any such change was up to her.
>>>JLC, we all have our own lists...
>>
>> I've got a little list, they hardly would be missed.
>
>JLC, now I'll have that earworm!!!
Well, it's not a *bad* song to earworm. I've been singing Donny and
Marie Osmond lately, but now that I'm at work I'll pop in a CD and
change *that*.
prairierabbit
> Penelope Periwinkle wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jun 2004 18:23:37 -0400, prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu>
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> I can understand that you are bored by discussions of yarn, but I
>>> don't accept that it is in any way exclusionary,
>>
>> Like I said, quelle surprise.
>>
>> I didn't expect you to accept anything I said. I expected exactly
>> this reaction from you, so I won't waste any more of your oh so
>> precious time.
>
> [rechecks attributions] [looks again]
>
> Hmmmm, I could have sworn that said "prairierabbit" and not "Dr. Brat."
All Knitters Look Alike.
JLC, but some are a bit shorter...
prairierabbit
> On 15 Jun 2004 11:31:07 -0400, prairierabbit <jlc...@ilstu.edu>
> watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
> words:
>>Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>
>>>I bought a new car last month! I really enjoy driving it. It's a
>>>2004 Hyundai Elantra GT five door (four door with hatchback).
>>
>>Cool! I hope you like it as well as I like my Toyota Corolla. What
>>sold you on the Hyundai?
>
> It was the spoiler on the hatchback. Seriously, it was.
I can totally identify. I looked at all the research and options two
plus years ago, and at that point it boiled down to Honda or Toyota.
Part of what sold me on the 2003 Toyota was the redesign--it just looked
better to me. (It also is a bit higher, which makes it easier for some
of my friends and my parents to get in and out of it. But the looks
were right up there.)
> Mainly that it was the sexier car. I wouldn't have looked at it at
> all unless it was comparable to the Honda Civic in engine power,
> handling, etc. It was over $2,000 less than the Civic, as well, and
> has a longer warranty, and a roadside protection plan roughly
> equivalent to having AAA--tows, flat tire changes, lost or
> locked-in-the-car keys, etc.
>
> After I finished the test driving I made up a little story about each
> car.
>
> When I was in the Ford Focus, I felt like the guy in the dead-end job
> wearing a cheap suit from Wal-Mart and driving his wife and kids to
> the mega-plex church on Sunday.
>
> In the Kia Rio I was a 19-year-old with my first job and first car.
>
> The Honda Civic was me as I am, or have been the last 10 years or
> so--a sensible middle-aged middle-class mom with no life.
Yes. That's how the Civic felt to me, also. Practical but not
particularly comfortable.
> But the Elantra...ooooh, that's who I want to be. Still sensible and
> reliable, but it's more fun to drive, and way more luxurious (leather
> seats, nice stereo/CD player). Plus it looks sporty and young with
> that spoiler and the black body trim on a silver car. (Silver cars
> get hit the least often, according to the Insurance Institute.)
Cool! Mine's a sort of pewtery/silver color, and that is what
ultimately sold me on *that* car. The dealer was afraid that I wanted
the only other one in stock, which was white. Nope. I like the
pewter--it really doesn't show dust if one is "galloping by" and given
the construction around where I park at work, dust is a given.
>>>><drumroll> It Ain't All About Me.
>>>
>>>Oh, this is the theme of the week for me, probably the theme of the
>>>year. I can't adequately express how free I feel of the oppression of
>>>it being about me. It's not about me that my mother didn't act
>>>lovingly toward me. Everytime I say that, a big smile comes over my
>>>face and I can feel the weight lift from my shoulders.
>>
>>It's real nice, isn't it? It's so much easier when I just assume
>>responsibility for my own actions, instead of thinking that I'm supposed
>>to make everyone else happy, especially those I'm close to. It's not
>>within my power, and I am getting much better about releasing that sense
>>of "how can I fix it for <insert name here>".
>
> Not there yet. Where I am is: it's not my fault, I'm okay the way I
> am, I don't have to twist myself around into someone else in order to
> deserve love and good treatment from my mom (or anyone else for that
> matter, but it's my mom I've had a problem with). In fact there is
> nothing I could have done that would have changed how she treated me;
> any such change was up to her.
That seems like a major achievement, to me, especially at the emotional
understanding level. I can intellectually understand hurtful things
much more readily; really letting go of them on an emotional level is
much more challenging for me. I'm getting better at accepting them as
other people's choices or just wrinkles in the life continuum and not a
reflection on me. Better being the key word.
>>>>JLC, we all have our own lists...
>>>
>>>I've got a little list, they hardly would be missed.
>>
>>JLC, now I'll have that earworm!!!
>
> Well, it's not a *bad* song to earworm. I've been singing Donny and
> Marie Osmond lately, but now that I'm at work I'll pop in a CD and
> change *that*.
Well, *now* it's been replaced by D/M. Thanks a bunch, not! <grin>
JLC, hmmm, time to play some JT...
Allison Turner-
[snip new car stuff; it sounds like a great car!]
>(Silver cars
>get hit the least often, according to the Insurance Institute.)
Really?
I once nearly hit a silver car during a rainstorm,
because I could hardly see it. After that, I swore
never to buy a silver car, even though I like the
way they look. Maybe I should reconsider?
Not that I'm in the market for a car. My '91
Tercel is still doing just fine. What I will need
is a small truck for 1. lugging stuff around, and
2. higher clearance through all the mud in the
spring.
It'd be good if it could deal with the hairier
back roads, too, since ya never know what fire
or other emergency I might get called out to.
Cowpath 40 is ok, and I think Broadway & 42 St
is as well (that's an intersection; we don't
actually have a road called Broadway, but we do
have the intersection). Some a them roads,
though ain't seen nothin' fancier'n a tractor
in many a day.
-Allison.
working on my lingo
Kris Hasson-Jones
watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
words:
>-Allison.
>working on my lingo
All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
Allison Turner-
>
>On 15 Jun 2004 13:31:54 -0400, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
>watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
>words:
>
>
>
>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
Uh, ok.
What does it mean?
-Allison.
I can think of any number of possibilities.
Kris Hasson-Jones
watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
words:
>on 15 Jun 2004 13:36:20 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones stated:
>>
>>On 15 Jun 2004 13:31:54 -0400, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
>>watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
>>words:
>>
>>
>>>working on my lingo
>>
>>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
>
>Uh, ok.
>What does it mean?
'Twas a joke. There's a commercial on TV where a man and woman are
driving home their new vehicle (truck? SUV?) with a baby in a carseat
in the back. The woman is pointing out all the safety features, and
the nice interior, and the stereo. The man demands to know why she's
corrupting their son. She retorts that she's merely acquainting him
with the features of the new vehicle.
Cut to an exterior; no woman, the man is holding the baby over the
engine with the hood open. He says firmly, "That's a hemi. That's
all you need to know son. Can you say 'hemi'?" And the baby says it.
It's a brand of engine, I think.
Chris Belway
> In article <A%Czc.762914$Ig.167742@pd7tw2no>, dreas <dr...@shaw.ca>
>
>> Are those Reform goofs still around? I wouldn't vote
>
> that's the "new" Conservatives...
>
> angela
>
Whereas the "old" conservatives are the social democrats known as the
Liberals.
HTH
========================================================================
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is,
"God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell
him is, "Probably because of something you did." - Jack Handey
========================================================================
prairierabbit
> On 15 Jun 2004 13:47:44 -0400, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
> watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
> words:
>>on 15 Jun 2004 13:36:20 -0400, Kris Hasson-Jones stated:
>>>On 15 Jun 2004 13:31:54 -0400, Allison Turner- <beto...@sover.net>
>>>watched in amazement as electrons turned into magical things called
>>>words:
>>>
>>>>working on my lingo
>>>
>>>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
>>
>>Uh, ok.
>>What does it mean?
>
> 'Twas a joke. There's a commercial on TV where a man and woman are
> driving home their new vehicle (truck? SUV?) with a baby in a carseat
> in the back. The woman is pointing out all the safety features, and
> the nice interior, and the stereo. The man demands to know why she's
> corrupting their son. She retorts that she's merely acquainting him
> with the features of the new vehicle.
>
> Cut to an exterior; no woman, the man is holding the baby over the
> engine with the hood open. He says firmly, "That's a hemi. That's
> all you need to know son. Can you say 'hemi'?" And the baby says it.
>
> It's a brand of engine, I think.
What I want to know is if it's really better or just currently a way to
entice men into that brand of car. Does anyone here know what the real
differences are between a hemi and other types of truck engines?
JLC
Brock Hannibal
> Cut to an exterior; no woman, the man is holding the baby over the
> engine with the hood open. He says firmly, "That's a hemi. That's
> all you need to know son. Can you say 'hemi'?" And the baby says it.
>
> It's a brand of engine, I think.
The name "Hemi" may indeed be copyrighted by Daimler/Chrysler but
originally it was short for hemispherical and referred to the design of
the engine's cylinder heads. Other companies used flat and angled
cylinder head designs back in the 50's and 60's. The hemispherical
design was supposed to give some efficiency and power benefits. The 426
cubic inch displacement V-8 produced by Chrysler won fame for the design.
Besides being one of the most powerful passenger car engines ever
produced for mass production autos, it was used as the basis for many
race engines. Hot rodders loved it. In a configuration with two 4-barrel
carburetors factory installed in mid-sized autos like the Dodge Coronets
and such it was a real rocket.
--
Brock
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist..."
-John Sedgwick, Union Commander, U.S. Civil War
Allison Turner-
>
>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>
>> It's a brand of engine, I think.
>
Thanks!
-Allison
what would be in a Diamond Rio fire engine, do
you know?
songbird
>Allison Turner- watched in amazement as electrons
> turned into magical things called words:
> >> Allison Turner- wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>working on my lingo
> >>
> >>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
> >
> >Uh, ok.
> >What does it mean?
>
> 'Twas a joke. There's a commercial on TV where a man and woman are
> driving home their new vehicle (truck? SUV?) with a baby in a carseat
> in the back. The woman is pointing out all the safety features, and
> the nice interior, and the stereo. The man demands to know why she's
> corrupting their son. She retorts that she's merely acquainting him
> with the features of the new vehicle.
>
> Cut to an exterior; no woman, the man is holding the baby over the
> engine with the hood open. He says firmly, "That's a hemi. That's
> all you need to know son. Can you say 'hemi'?" And the baby says it.
>
> It's a brand of engine, I think.
carburetor was what i used to know them as.
dunno now, maybe they've done gone into fuel injectors...
songbird *chirps*
Kris Hasson-Jones
submitted the following for your consideration:
>Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
[hemi]
>> It's a brand of engine, I think.
>
> carburetor was what i used to know them as.
Probably still what it is, then.
> dunno now, maybe they've done gone into fuel injectors...
Is one carburetor so much better than another, that the fact that some
brand of car uses them would be the focus of their ads?
Sara Running
I thought Diamond Rio was a CW band.
sara
--
Sara Running
Not speaking for my employer
History doesn't necessarily repeat, but it does rhyme
Sara Running
>
>
<snip>
>
>Her next car was a Toyota Tercel. It went through the same abuse for
>some four years or so. At some 280 000+ kilometers the timing belt
>snapped and trashed the top end of the engine. It was repaired. Not
>very long after that the bottom end started making funny noises. One
>or more of the main bearings was shot. What do you expect if you
>never change the oil?
Considering the timing belt should be changed at 60K m (96K km) and *never*
changing the oil (!?) I think she got a pretty good deal.
Sara, but think of how long it *would* have lasted had she maintained it!
Allison Turner-
>
>In article <cao2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Allison Turner- says...
>>
>>on 15 Jun 2004 17:37:49 -0400, Brock Hannibal stated:
>>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Jun 2004, Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>>>
[hemi]
>>>> It's a brand of engine, I think.
>>what would be in a Diamond Rio fire engine, do
>>you know?
>>
>
>I thought Diamond Rio was a CW band.
Named after a truck.
-Allison.
natch.
Penelope Periwinkle
> Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu> wrote:
>>> Ginko <gi...@newsguy.com> proclaimed:
>>>> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> Debbi <gi...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
<more massive snippage>
>>If yarn threads (to stay with the example) are the only topic
>>discussed, then I can see where someone could decide not to stay if
>>the interest was not there. However, at any given time there are many
>>different topics in the group of varying interest levels.
Not so much, anymore.
>> When I came
>>into this group many years back, there were threads that indicated a
>>closeness of people, and inside comments. Instead of driving me away,
>>it showed me that this could be a place were friendships could be
>>formed. Years later, many of these same people should not be expected
>>to post as if they are not close.
That's not what I'm suggesting they do. There's a difference in
expressing comfortable friendship and having long, closed
conversations.
>>>If, and only if, there is interest in making ssm more inclusive,
>>>those yarn threads are an excellent example of what not to do.
>>
>>If, those posts were intended to show superiority or exclusiveness,
>>yes. The underlying humor in them would indicate otherwise.
Major General Geoffrey Miller was given copies of the yarn
threads to use on the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Emitting
small, shrill shrieks, he huddled under his desk and moaned,
"That's too cruel!"
<...>
>>>>So, is it that knitting has become an insider's joke thing that drew
>>>>you out to comment on, or am I still missing why?
>>>
>>>Yes, you are. Even deep in geekery, very few threads on ssm are
>>>so closed.
>>
>>I can see where you feel that way now that you have posted more.
>>Perhaps many of the posts have lost a touch of the invitation over
>>time due to familiarity. If that is what you were intending to
>>explain with the yarn posts, then I can agree with you. I can't if it
>>is exclusive to the yarn posts.
I've already answered that, way back when we first started.
>>><...>
>>
>>>You're welcome. I really do enjoy listening to people speak of
>>>their passions. I learn a lot about the subject and the person.
>>
>>Yes, and over the years this group has brought many different things
>>to my awareness that I very much appreciate. Living in middle-america
>>has its insular tendencies, and I love the small things that others
>>teach me through this group.
Oh, the south isn't much better.
I did read about this in the paper today.
http://www.christianexodus.com/
Why South Carolina? We have Lou Holtz, isn't that punishment
enough?
>>>>Yes, I think so. Also, should we? Are we here as a honey pot, or are
>>>>we here to be who we are?
>>>
>>>I don't think those are the only options.
>>>
>>>But you're right. Should we bother to make ssm more inviting is a
>>>question each person will answer for themselves. Judging
>>>from the cattiness of some of the other responses, I think that,
>>>as much as it pains me to admit it, miguel is right. It's
>>>hopeless.
>>
>>Miguel is doing a lot at the moment to insure he is right. Or haven't
>>you noticed.
He doesn't have to do anything. Milk one of ssm's sacred cows if
you doubt me.
>>>Someone who use to post here told me after a recent drive-by that
>>>there was a black hole in the core of ssm, and that the group was
>>>slowly imploding. It's a much politer analogy than the one I was
>>>using, and it has really stuck with me. I think the analogy is
>>>sound, and it's one reason I spoke up now. I didn't expect it
>>>would be a particularly popular opinion.
>>
>>I suppose time will tell. One thing is for certain, usenet is not the
>>forefront of new ascii. We aren't a chat room, after all.
Thank the Divine Mistress of the Brewery for that!
>>><...>
>>>>>>-debbi"look what these shots have done to me!"
>>>Penelope, who's beginning to feel like her elbow's an antibiotic
>>>black hole.
>>
>>uh oh. still? Is it a resistant strain, or just a difficult area to
>>clear up?
Yes, it's a resistant strain of good ol' staphylococcus. I'm off
the antibiotics, the doctor says they've done as much as they
can. The infection is isolated in the bursa of the elbow now,
and we have to wait and see if it can clear itself up. If not,
I'll have to have surgery to remove the infected bursa.
Oh joy. Two surgeries to look forward to.
Penelope, the good news is that I'm enjoying some of my beers.
--
"Maybe you'd like to ask the Wizard for a heart."
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com>
Penelope Periwinkle
>>
>>>working on my lingo
>>
>>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
>
>Uh, ok.
>What does it mean?
"Beyond the palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard
The girls comb their hair in rearview mirrors
And the boys try to look so hard
The amusement park rises bold and stark
Kids are huddled on the beach in a mist
I wanna die with you wendy on the streets tonight
In an everlasting kiss"
Penelope, a great song to sing when leaving mystery messages
on answering machines after sucking helium from a balloon that
you don't know what to do with.
Penelope Periwinkle
> Penelope Periwinkle <pperi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Jun 2004 16:39:19 -0400, kmd <kriste...@yale.edu> wrote:
>>> Penelope Periwinkle <pr...@gwm.sc.edu>wrote:
>>>newcomers (men and women.)
>
>I agree.
>
>>And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
>>suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
>>being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
>
I took that from your honey pot comment.
> If I led you to that impression,
>what I really meant was "not mean".
Ok.
>>and I'm stopping here, because I have one of those floater things
>>in my eye,
>
>better? hope so!
Oh yeah. It's a watched pot sort of thing, if you quit straining
to see around it, it usually goes right away.
Penelope
Pam Rudd
Running <srun...@whitties.org> scribbled:
>In article <cao2p...@drn.newsguy.com>, Allison Turner- says...
>>-Allison
>>what would be in a Diamond Rio fire engine, do
>>you know?
>>
>I thought Diamond Rio was a CW band.
He's the three month old foal who was a delightful surprise for
a co-worker. She bought this mare for her grandchildren, and the
mare suddenly started getting fat.
Penelope, miguel wouldn't date her, but he might defend her right
to nurse Diamond Rio in public.
kmd
[gigantic snip]
>And I would never want to see ssm come to a point where it
>suffered fools lightly. You and Debbi both seem to be equating
>being inclusive with being nice. They're not the same thing.
I got from more inclusive to more nice via the "inviting" route. If
we're leaving that by the wayside, then you and I are a whole lot
closer to agreement.
>and I'm stopping here, because I have one of those floater things
>in my eye, and it's right where I can't read what I'm typing
>properly.
Glad it went away.
--
Kristen
Mike Given
>Allison Turner wrote:
>>working on my lingo
>All you need to know is, "That's a Hemi."
Aww, look - the girlies are talking about cars.
Mikey (..kinda cute, hacksherly.)
Mike Given
>"songbird" wrote:
>>Kris Hasson-Jones wrote:
>[hemi]
>>>It's a brand of engine, I think.
Argh.
>>carburetor was what i used to know them as.
Argh!
>Probably still what it is, then.
Argh.
>>dunno now, maybe they've done gone into fuel injectors...
Argh.
>Is one carburetor so much better than another, that the
>fact that some brand of car uses them would be the focus
>of their ads?
Car talk.
"Hemi", such as it is, (..and loosely put) is a type of engine
design that Chrysler came up with in the 1950s. It refers
specifically to the hemispherical shape of the combustion chambers and
peripherally to the design of the valves used in therein. Put *very*
simply, it's one methodology of improving fuel-air mix ratios and
various mechanical characteristics over a more conventional wedge
combustion chamber, but apparently the hemi design costs a significant
amount more money to produce.
In relation to carburator/fuel injector (which is the bit that mixes
the fuel with air), the "hemi" part is what the fuel-air passes into
to be ignited by the spark plug.
Mikey (Ahhhh. I feel *so* much more manly now.)