Joe F. on Courthouse Square in Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 18th 2005.
Snow storm seen from the back porch at Chloe's apartment in Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 23rd 2005.
Yes, just a few days ago my pal Joe & I went for a springtime-like walk in downtown Scranton, all sunny & warm.
And today I was snowed in, a snow storm, snow piled up on everything, as if it were January... Watermelon Punch, the Blog - 22 Jan 2005 | Snowed In
The words of Garrison Keillor are haunting me... "March is NOT the beginning of Spring. It's a sort of transitional month, a kind of a halfway house. March is a month God designed to show people who don't drink what a hangover is like."
It's a good thing I'm not a drinker, or March would be a double whammy.
Sign reading "Warning Parking Violators will be Immobilized, Mercy Hospital Security Department" near Mercy Hospital in Scranton, Pennsylvania, March 18th 2005.
I saw this sign on the fence by a parking lot while taking a walk in downtown Scranton the other day.
Sort of conjures up visions of the men in the white coats coming to take motorists away from their cars, subduing them with an injection of Haldol, and taking them away in four point restraints to the hospital's psych ward.
If I saw this same sign on a parking lot near a restaurant in West Side Scranton, I would imagine people getting their legs broken by big men in hair pomade & black jackets.
I'm sure they mean they'll immobilize the cars in violation. But it sounded like the makings of quite a scene.
I, for one, will not be parking in that lot, that's for sure.
I've noticed there's been a lot of talk over the years, and on various blogs in recent times, about etiquette & 'netiquette', and the sociology of human interaction on the internet. Well, from what I see, it's no different than in person, (in "real life" if you will).
It's the same as it ever was...
I protect my 'pearls' and filter out the 'swine' in my personal playground, (my 'temple', if you will - within my 'boundaries', as they say). So why wouldn't you?
"It is scarcely necessary to say that one whose tactless remarks ride rough-shod over the feelings of others is not welcomed by many." -- Emily Post
On the internet, you can't break my bones with sticks & stones, so you can imagine how I feel about being called names. -- Chloe (me)
The following explains what I do have control over:
My blog is my personal playground. My temple, if you will. It's the same as my home. I pay the rent here, it's mine.
And as my mother used to say: When you're under my roof, you live by my rules!
I can delete comments here for any reason. And I don't owe anybody an explanation about it.
I don't have a problem with discussion, disagreement, or even argument. I reject comments here, (and in-person), not on what is communicated, but on the basis of how something is communicated.
Verbal abuse or logical fallacies are not legitimate, nor useful, means of communication. Indeed, most rational adults would not for a moment consider them to be so.
So why would I find them acceptable? And why should you?
And that's why I see no need for "Rules" or a "Netiquette" or a "ReadMe".
I can quote Emily Post's Blue Book of Social Etiquette until I'm blue in the face... The fact remains, I'm not anybody's parent or authority figure. And there will always be those humans who simply refuse to respect other people. People whose manners do not recommend their opinions.
And not everyone mixes, sometimes they need to stay in seperate bowls or feel the toxic consequences.
AIGA Voice Conference
March 23, 2002 - 10 Things I Have Learned
"It is not necessarily true that the same person will be toxic or nourishing in every relationship, but the combination of any two people in a relationship produces toxic or nourishing consequences."
So all I can do is either accept or reject, comments & behaviour from others...
On my blog, in my playground, in my home, & in my life.
This isn't about curtailing freedom, or stifling free speech. As I said, I'm no government authority & I'm nobody's parent. Anyone has free will to think or behave how they choose.
But not neccessarily without consequences, of course. On my blog, depending on the behaviour, the consequences might be having a comment deleted.
It's the equivalent of asking a belligerant disruptive guest to leave the premisis until such time they can behave appropriately. Someone who comes back, bangs on the door repeatedly, or makes threats... That's harrassment, and in some cases it might be necessary to get the police involved.
But that does not mean I'm "silencing" anyone. Since these days, almost anyone using the internet is free to have their own web site, their own blog, where they can carry on however they want, and express their opinions, whatever they may be, in whatever civil or crazy way they choose, so long as they're not breakin' the law. And there, they get to set their own limits (or 'boundaries', if you will).
And we're all free to never go there if we deem it unsuitable for our lives. Just as we're all free not to socialize with people who behave in ways unacceptable to us.
When in Rome, do as the Romans do... (Or don't go to Rome.)
Personally, I just like staying out of 'The Arena' myself. My gladiator days are long gone.
(Same with the sandbox; I removed it from my playground.)
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." -- Nietzsche
"Don't wallow in the mud with pigs, you'll get dirty and the pigs will like it." -- Lorrie Ardoin
And if someone feels they have a legitimate complaint, that I've wronged them in some way, deliberately or even unwittingly, they are of course free to state their feelings on the matter, in a civil manner; and if I'm good to my word at all, I would respond with civility. I can't tell anyone how to feel or what to think, I can't demand that anyone tell me how they feel or what they think...
But I can ask questions & make requests.
Because we're all free to communicate.
So I say, why don't we just "make tea not war"?
(Or some coffee from Sumatra will be served, if that's the mood I'm in & can afford it.)
This concludes today's blog coffehousing seminar on not throwing pearls to swine. Thank you, I'll be here all week.
If I were at a film premiere, where the crew & cast were present in the theatre for the viewing of the film, I would applaud. But otherwise, I just don't see the point at all.
And as far as I can remember, people didn't applaud at the cinema. Though I think I recall my mother saying when she was a kid the audience applauded - perhaps just for the projectionists even, because it was still a fairly new technology I suppose.
I remember when I was a kid, people used to applaud on airline flights when the plane landed. But not by the time I was an adult. Though I have been on a few flights in recent years where some people applauded. But by no means uproariously.
But the last few times I've been to the cinema, people have immediately started applauding when the credits started rolling.
I can't remember which movie it was the first time I noticed it. But I remember thinking it was a fluke... Could've been a 'fan-nish' movie. But then I went to see White Noise (because Michael Keaton was in it) last month, and applause at the end was uproarious with people clapping wildly for about a minute straight. Though I thought the film was fairly decent as horrors go, and I always like Keaton... the film by no means blew my socks off. And I heard a lot of people thought it was awful. And this was at the Cinemark Cinema in Moosic, Pennsylvania, so I hardly think it just so happened people involved with the film were at that viewing. So I don't think this is about the quality of the film, or the fan base.
Could it be a developing trend? Should I be expecting this the next time I go to the cinema? Is it just in my area... is this common elsewhere?
Is there a population shortage; Or is sex just not fun anymore?
('a mother drive-by' to 'a singleton')
Me & my favourite baby - my cousin, whose parents I greatly admire - as parents, and as people Happy 1½ Madison!
I want to give a special thanks to my mother for raising me to be independent, determined to be self-sufficient, knowing I have choices in life.
That I have the freedom to choose a romantic partner based on love, and know that if I want to be stay at home mother, or a career mother, I have that freedom of choice, that would be negotiated between me and an equal partner with whom I would have children. And that I better choose wisely, and be sure I'm ready for it, because a child is a big, big responsibility, and marriage is a always a risk.
At least that's how I was raised. And I think it was logical and sensible.
Because after all, anything can happen: divorce, single parenthood, becoming a widow.
And I'm confident that no matter what life throws at me, I can find a way to take care of myself, and hopefully, jointly, whatever offspring I bring into the world.
Because I was never raised to believe that another person or other people would be responsible for my life & survival, or the children I choose to produce, so long as I am physically capable of doing so myself.
In a discussion on another blog, I said that I think it's unreasonable, in this day & age, to raise girls to believe they'll never ever have to have a job outside their home, and that they can rely solely on a husband for support while being a stay at home mom, and for the rest of their lives...
Someone retorted to me that they believed, because I am childless, and therefore not contributing to "the pool of future citizens" at present, I should have to pay extra taxes that should go toward mothers whose goal in life is to be a stay at home mother.
This person also declared that my contributions in the scope of the community, are less important, because without children, unless I discovered the cure for cancer or saved the planet from an alien invasion, I am merely selfish in my pursuit to support myself financially.
I guess she told me, eh?
But if I were to be financially penalized, and made to feel "less than" for not being married, for being self-sufficient, and for not having children I can't afford... It would seem to be that I would be encouraged to have babies, marry a man and submit my life to him... And well, basically, it sounds like this person hopes to keep women barefoot & pregnant to prove their worth to society. Unless, of course, the woman is quite sure she will stop a war with extra-terrestrials or cure cancer, by choosing to have a career.
Is there really any evidence to suggest that most children raised by a stay at home parent turn out the picture of emotional and psychological health, very successful in life, and most importantly happy?
Is there really any evidence to suggest that most children raised by parents who both worked outside the home are emotionally & psychologically harmed, unsuccessful in life, and most importantly unhappy?
Should people be coerced, forced, or encouraged by others, or the government, on how they should raise their children or what they should do with their own lives while raising children?
Is our modern society based on a 2-income household good for our culture? Is a patriarchal society where women are subordinates any better?
Perhaps some people think my life is worthless, and that I contribute nothing of value to the world around me because I'm not currently makin' babies... and I'm (gasp) a singleton.
But I happen to think differently. My self-worth isn't based on my marital status or my entering motherhood. I hope that if I do get married and/or become a mother, it will add to my life greatly, but not subtract wildly from it... or be my sole value as a human being either!
And I believe marriage and especially parenthood, requires great sacrifices in life, but does not require sacraficing my whole life and my whole self. My mother would've done me no good if she sacrificed her own well being & personhood... I believe she has done well for me by being a great role model, in fact. Indeed, my mother's life continues to remind me that so much is possible, and gender or age need not limit one!
(Despite her mistakes, and her human fallibility, I'm my mother's biggest fan, can you tell?)
I bet a lot of married stay at home parents, as well as married career parents, would agree with me, that they should have the freedom of equality, the free choice, in their family, to arrange their child care as they see fit, without the government telling them that as married parents, they must both work, or that one of them must stay home.
And I think a lot of singletons, single parents, and childless parents, think their lives are worthwhile too.
And I hardly think we're in a crisis, and the human race is in danger of dying out.
Because the studies I've read seem to suggest the world is overpopulated.
And because dog gone it, sex feels so good, and people want it so bad, and anybody can have sex (it's not brain surgery, after all). And damn, it's a hell of a lot more effort to insert that VCF or don the Trojan, than it is to just go hog wild and let loose between the sheets engaging in unprotected sex.
No, I doubt the human race is in danger of extinction due to a lack of sexually active careerless kept women.
superficiality >>If the facade is what's important to you, all you wind up with is an illusion. Disillusionment is the gift of substance.
-- Chloe<<
(more)
