We'll be in our bunk.

Wash ,'War Stories'


Spike's Bitches 25 to Life  

[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risque (and frisque), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.


billytea - Jul 21, 2005 3:35:27 pm PDT #2075 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

Caterpillers of Death pretty much describes my day. But in a good way.

Brought you out of your shell, did they?


libkitty - Jul 21, 2005 3:37:57 pm PDT #2076 of 10001
Embrace the idea that we are the leaders we've been looking for. Grace Lee Boggs

Now I want Teucher and that mushed Spader/Sutherland guy.

There is a group at my church tonight to discuss God's Politics. I have been looking forward to this for weeks. But I just borrowed HP6 from a friend who was donating an extra copy to the library, and have to get it into the library this week, so all I want to do is go home and read. What to do! Ack!


Topic!Cindy - Jul 21, 2005 3:44:46 pm PDT #2077 of 10001
What is even happening?

libkitty, that looks like an interesting group. I like what I've read of Wallis (mostly interviews).

Back from Annabel's 15-month checkup. She's maintaining her growth trajectory, is apparently just fine on speech skills for her age, and she impressed the nurse and doctor with her coordination and inquisitiveness.

That's great, Susan. Were you satisfied with their reasons? No hand waving by them?


brenda m - Jul 21, 2005 3:49:17 pm PDT #2078 of 10001
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there

Teucher champagne truffles are sex in chocolate form. Amazing sex...

Ooh, Gus sent me some of those last summer. Fabulous.

Whoot!Annabel!


libkitty - Jul 21, 2005 3:55:50 pm PDT #2079 of 10001
Embrace the idea that we are the leaders we've been looking for. Grace Lee Boggs

that looks like an interesting group. I like what I've read of Wallis (mostly interviews).

I think so too, Cindy, hence the quandary. I have read the first 200 pages of Harry Potter. Of course, they're just organizing and discussing the intro today. I could just hop in next week, right?!

Perhaps I'll call the organizer to find out. That actually makes sense, I think.

eta: I thought that was going to get me out of it, but no such luck. I think it is going to be a late night tonight, with very little Harry Potter. I'll have to see if I can keep the book over the weekend.


billytea - Jul 21, 2005 4:23:06 pm PDT #2080 of 10001
You were a wrong baby who grew up wrong. The wrong kind of wrong. It's better you hear it from a friend.

She's maintaining her growth trajectory,

This reminds me of the Tick. "Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spin on that baby, or evil will make an interception!"


Susan W. - Jul 21, 2005 4:38:29 pm PDT #2081 of 10001
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights

That's great, Susan. Were you satisfied with their reasons? No hand waving by them?

I think so. We didn't go into great detail, and part of the reassurance comes from making a point of comparing notes with other parents over the past few weeks. But the doctor says the milestones charts tend to set unrealistic expectations for language acquisition--in her experience, as long as they have 4-10 words by 18 months, they're fine, and though Annabel isn't chatty, she already at 15 months uses at least 5-6 words in ways that strongly suggests she understands them and is using them deliberately.

It's weird, because it seems to me the charts are the opposite WRT mobility. The one they gave me today said talked about standing and starting to walk--Annabel has moved on to running, climbing, and throwing balls. But I've accepted it as a weirdness of the system, albeit one that seems expressly designed for my torment.

"Babies, chum: tiny, dimpled, fleshy mirrors of our us-ness, that we parents hurl into the future, like leathery footballs of hope. And you've got to get a good spin on that baby, or evil will make an interception!"

Hee.

Off to be sociable with the Bible study group (from our church, not a FAC of any sort) that DH and I are thinking of joying. Ugh. With the exception of the couple that's invited us, this means conversing with near-strangers. Ugh again. I'm best with near-strangers when they're writers. With just people, I can't guarantee a conversation from, "So, what are you working on?" or "Who's your favorite author?"


Trudy Booth - Jul 21, 2005 4:50:47 pm PDT #2082 of 10001
Greece's financial crisis threatens to take down all of Western civilization - a civilization they themselves founded. A rather tragic irony - which is something they also invented. - Jon Stewart

Ooh, Gus sent me some of those last summer. Fabulous.

OMG, Brenda had chocolate sex with Gus. sooooo jealous


Steph L. - Jul 21, 2005 5:01:04 pm PDT #2083 of 10001
I look more rad than Lutheranism

Back from having Graeter's ice cream with Liese S. and her not-imaginary DH!!! We talked all about their work, and the challenges it presents, and segued into talking about writing and politics and books and how good the ice cream was. A thoroughly enjoyable time. I wanted to keep them.

As always, pictures were had. (Liese has a cool new haircut, which I documented specifically for Hec, because I am just that kind of a friend.)

Me and Liese in Graeter's (note the neon ice-cream cone in the background).
Liese's cool new hair. It's a dramatically angled bob clipped close at the nape, with great swingy movement -- it's similar to Anne's swanky haircut, but shorter.
Yes, the DH is real, and not some actor hired to play the part.

I hope you are all properly jealous of me. Neener!


Steph L. - Jul 21, 2005 5:17:13 pm PDT #2084 of 10001
I look more rad than Lutheranism

Um, yeah, also -- not obsessing, or anything, but --

Potential Umfriend maybe-date called and left a message while I was out with Liese, saying that we'd talked about seeing Hitchhiker's Guide, and he was busy tonight but Friday or Saturday would work and I should call him.

So I called him, and the conversation was, roughly:

Me: "So....movie?"
Him: "Yeah, movie."
Me: "Tomorrow?"
Him: "Tomorrow's good."
Me: "Right on."
Him: "I'll call you tomorrow, then."

(I am perhaps paraphrasing a bit.) And I'm totally doing the Girl Thing of reading VOLUMES into that teeny tiny short conversation; nay, I'm reading volumes into the *fact* that it was a short conversation, never mind the content.

Remind me that guys are more straightforward than that, please? And that if he didn't want to go, he wouldn't have called? That no one makes plans with someone out of duty/pity? That sometimes, a phone call is just a phone call?

My insanity thanks you.