Um. I don't mean to get all fucked up and emotional over something so stupid, but I just received three pics of Sunnydale...

Demolished by a bulldozer.

When you see an unfamiliat number on ID (and no message was left) OR someone calls and immediately hangs up, what do you do?

I usually don't even call back familiar numbers. My rule is, if it's important enough to reach me, leave a message. I can't stand when people ask me why I never called them back just because their number was on the caller id.

Oh and since this all relates to the Nanny thing, let me deal with this:

> In fact during my 5 month employ at Ms. Olen's, I spent two and a half months celibate. Yep. Celibate.

Dear god, someone call the nuns, she should've been one! Yeesh.

But this was offered either as a complaint about not getting any or a claim of nun-hood, but a reply to a charge of engaging in "promiscuous behaviors" . (Note the plural.) She was described a transition from a monogomous relation with a previous boyfriend to a period of celibacy to seeing a new boyfriend (and having a one night stand with the old) to ending up in a monogamous relation with the new boy friend. Now that history seems a reasonable rebuttal to the image being presented of her. The NY Times editor claimed the one night stand justified the term promiscous. And the Nanny wanted to know, what about that history justified the use of the plural? And yeah of course fighting the battle on those grounds was dumb; if she had slept with a different man or men every night, writing and publishing the article in the NY times would have been a shitty thing do.

Incidentally, while it was foolish to give the URL of her blog to her employer - in all fairness, the employer had tried to persuade to see her as friend, to feel like one of the family rather than just an employee. Lot's of employers try this; some even sincerely believe they mean it; and naive young employees sometimes fall for it. No employee should ever be in a hurry to believe your boss is really a friend; it is not impossible, but it is also damned easy for both parties to delude themselves about it. (Note: I'm making a distinction here between mutual liking, and even enjoying one anothers company and friendship.)

It is at least possible that Nanny diarist is naive, from a priviledged and protected background rather than stupid.

Tea stick -- that's so cool. I want one.

It is at least possible that Nanny diarist is naive, from a priviledged and protected background rather than stupid.

Sometimes that's a distinction without a difference. I've seen some of the most intelligent people do the stupidest things.

Tea stick

That's gorgeous.

Scoop -- steep.

It's brilliant.

Of course, I'm a total whore for things that make tea.

That's nice. I have a ton of loose tea I never drink because it's a pain.

What bothered me is that the former employer decided to turn this incident into a piece for the New York Times. Whatever personal details the nanny may have disclosed on her website it likely had a very small circulation. The NYT, however, is read by millions. The former employer paints a far worse picture of herself than anything the nanny could have done.

Worse still, IMO, is the conduct of the NYT. The Times decision to publish the former employer’s piece seemed to say not only that not only was the former employer had the right to fire the nanny (and she did have that right), but that the former employer was somehow free to “talk trash” about the nanny in a paper read by millions.

The former employer acted like a school-yard bully in writing the piece. The NYT in publishing it acted like a principal who scheduled the bullying for an all-school assembly so everyone could watch.

Demolished by a bulldozer.

Ow ow ow.

I don't mean to get all fucked up and emotional over something so stupid

Not stupid at all.