Wash ,'Our Mrs. Reynolds'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
Shir, your approach to Saturday is fab.
There's got to be something that could be done. Mafia friends, dark magic, using his place to shoot porn, something.
Yes! And we will organize all of this at Katerina's yard party.
Wake Up Without Hugh Laurie: [link]
ma~~~ for your sister Connie
I'm sorry, Connie. I hope your sister's chemo is effective. It has to be a plus that she is in good health otherwise.
Absurdly lazy this morning. I had a headache when I woke up at 6, so I just fed the animals and went back to bed with aspirin. Stayed there a few hours. I still haven't done anything more ambitious than make a pot of tea and catch up on the internet. Need to get going, and yet.
{{{Connie}}} Tons of ~ma for your sister.
I don't want to re-open a can of worms here, but remember the recent conversation about ableist language?
I know this is something I have to decide for myself, but as I read blogs by (mostly) women with disabilities, I'm increasingly thrown for a loop as word after word gets called out as an ableist word.
Such as "intelligence." Really??? I don't get that one. Even reading that whole entry, I don't get it. Or perhaps what I mean is that I don't agree with it. But then I don't know to what degree my lack of agreement is clinging to my privilege.
I just don't know.
I know this is something I have to decide for myself, but as I read blogs by (mostly) women with disabilities, I'm increasingly thrown for a loop as word after word gets called out as an ableist word.
As I worked through it in my discussion with smonster I think it's counterproductive to follow every logical parallel to an offensive phrase to its conclusion. I think that curbing the language use needs to be in response to specific instances of objection, and shouldn't be a broadly generalized principle.
Her specific gripe seems to be with the politics of intelligence testing.
If a person can't have a disability and be snobbish about her intellectual gifts, the terrorists have won, Teppy. But I confound nearly every educational theorist who's ever met me anyway.Because I'm both Gifted and LD.(maybe a lot of people are?) but testers are always flummoxed.
If a person can't have a disability and be snobbish about her intellectual gifts, the terrorists have won, Teppy. But I confound nearly every educational theorist who's ever met me anyway.Because I'm both Gifted and LD.(maybe a lot of people are?) but testers are always flummoxed.
Bwah! Yes, I would be more offended with the automatic assumption that one cannot be both disabled and intelligent. An assumption I have encountered more than once.
Yeah, I remember reading that post, and definitely disagreed with it. She's right about how intelligence testing has been used, but I don't think that's a reason to throw out the entire concept altogether.